Great bit, that.

Book out on Monday. I've seen it, and there's some nice new stuff in there, but reading dozens of TVGH pages together is a bit like wading through thick, thick soup. Rich and hard to digest in one go.

And, assembled in one place, the repetitiveness of the swearing, urinating, defecating and ejaculating starts to grind you down a bit.

Still, nicely written as usual, and the Daily Mail letters page spoof is terrific.

Surprised no-one's mentioned this, from the tvgohome reminder email Brooker sends out...

"* Work on the E4 series continues apace. Location stuff is more or less completed: next week, into the studio.

* Further TV series details for fact fans:

* Starring, in alphabetical order: Colin Bennett, Jo Bobin, Kevin Hay, James Holmes, Alex Lowe, Sam Spiro and Catherine Tate. And some people in monster outfits.

* Producer: Paul Gilheany. Director: Tristram Shapeero.

* Nathan Barley will not be appearing."

No Barley, eh? The Popbitch message board will be *so* disappointed.

>* Starring, in alphabetical order: Colin Bennett

Mr Bennett off of Take Hart!

"Sam Spiro". Is that Samantha Spiro, who played Barbara Windsor in Cleo, Camping, Emmannuelle And Dick? And it's TV version Cor Blimey?

Charlie Brooker is a puppet made up of abortion material... TVGOHOME should do exactly that - GO home.. To wherever it came from - arses mainly...

Did you see his article in the guardian today?

Utter bollocks... If chris morris were my mate...

>Charlie Brooker is a puppet made up of abortion material... TVGOHOME should do exactly that - GO home.. To wherever it came from - arses mainly...

Yes yes, we all know how you feel about Charlie Brooker *yawn*

Can you just put all your amusing names for him in one thread, to save us the bandwidth of clicking on it? Cheers!

>>Charlie Brooker is a puppet made up of abortion material... TVGOHOME should do exactly that - GO home.. To wherever it came from - arses mainly...
>
>Yes yes, we all know how you feel about Charlie Brooker *yawn*
>
>Can you just put all your amusing names for him in one thread, to save us the bandwidth of clicking on it? Cheers!

I am working on it now, thanks for the support!

its funny that you hate him so much and yet you borrow his style of humour quite freely. did he reject all your tvgohome ideas?

>its funny that you hate him so much and yet you borrow his style of humour quite freely. did he reject all your tvgohome ideas?

Those who had their TVGoHome contributions rejected by Charlie may have another chance to have them rejected in the near future.

Stay tuned!

>>its funny that you hate him so much and yet you borrow his style of humour quite freely. did he reject all your tvgohome ideas?
>
>Those who had their TVGoHome contributions rejected by Charlie may have another chance to have them rejected in the near future.
>
>Stay tuned!

i never made an attempt to ge anything on Tvgohome.. never ever.. And as for nicking his style of humour? You've seen nothing.

you twunt.

It seems that to garner nought but abuse from this forum all you have to do is say that Charlie Brooker is a charlatan, that TVGOHOME, was, in my opinion, bollocks. This seems enough to set cages rattling and prams spinning dangerously out of kilter towards red faced freakery. What is it with you guys - did you all get one thing on Tv Go Home? are you all from Zeppocock?

Are you all gay?

Whoops. Sorry. I had nothing to say and I said it.

Conans - what I think people are objecting to is the lack of a proper argument behind your dislike of TVGH. What is it in particular you don't like? Don't find it funny? OK, nothing wrong with that. But why the bile?

>Whoops. Sorry. I had nothing to say and I said it.
>
>Conans - what I think people are objecting to is the lack of a proper argument behind your dislike of TVGH. What is it in particular you don't like? Don't find it funny? OK, nothing wrong with that. But why the bile?


Must be something I ate...

Enough people on this forum dislike TVGH/Brooker/Zeppotron/Mince, but they manage to pass off a coherent opinion without resorting to 'brooker is a cunt' (well, most of them. Tell you what, form an opinion, give some reasons, then maybe people will discuss. Saying TVGH is a load of old shitrings isn't the start of a debate. You clueless bastard.

The trouble with TVGH is it seems uncomfortable with being a traditional sitcom.

Where did anyone get the idea that anybody on this forum liked TVGH?

It's a legendary bugbear. For years, I was in a minority of about three trying to defend it in the slightest.

I don't know where Conan gets his ideas from, but they're all broken. I'd take them back.

Every single forum troll seems to appear, make their mind up about what "all the sad gits" on this forum think, and then spend ages crowing about how "you all think the same" and "you're all cunts."

If the stroppy gits would spend more than two seconds looking around, they'd realise that there's almost no consensus at all on anything. Particularly since The Corpses stopped policing the threads, and new contributors felt free to voice heresies, like "I'm Alan Partridge wasn't meant to be a fly on the wall documentary" or "A lot of the 45 minute Absolutelies were flabbily paced".

>Enough people on this forum dislike TVGH/Brooker/Zeppotron/Mince, but they manage to pass off a coherent opinion without resorting to 'brooker is a cunt' (well, most of them. Tell you what, form an opinion, give some reasons, then maybe people will discuss. Saying TVGH is a load of old shitrings isn't the start of a debate. You clueless bastard.

yes, and its also best not to berate something using the style of humour of the thing you berate, it makes you look like an arse

>If the stroppy gits would spend more than two seconds looking around, they'd realise that there's almost no consensus at all on anything.

:o) Such as:

> Particularly since The Corpses stopped policing the threads, and new contributors felt free to voice heresies, like "I'm Alan Partridge wasn't meant to be a fly on the wall documentary" or "A lot of the 45 minute Absolutelies were flabbily paced".

When did anyone ever 'police' threads? (And how exactly would one do that?) I don't understand this attitude at all - diverse opinions have always been welcome round here as long as they were properly expressed, IMO. In fact hazeley's original defense of IAP actually got added to the original article! And if you sincerely believe in your argument and can back it up, then what do you have to fear? (Apart from a bunch of 'anonymous' carpers calling you a cunt, I suppose.* That might put people off a bit.)


*I wonder what's going to happen now, readers...

hazeley was defending Jam, not IAP.

I find it incredible that anyone couldn't have noticed the hostility with which new or off-message posters were regularly greeted in the old days. There was more policing. There was.

Such as...? I don't think there's a single user of this forum who *hasn't* gone off topic at some point.... I think people (rightly) have complained in the past when threads were taken over by dozens of postings about completely unrelated chit-chat, so that the original topic was utterly abandoned before it had even got going. But I refute the notion that there are people (still unnamed??) who are waiting to pounce on any little aside, or unfamiliar name. It's a myth, it keeps getting repeated, but where are the examples? (Not on the old threads on 'sotcaa-bits'...)

And I still don't understand the term 'policing', or who was supposedly doing it, whatever it was.

>hazeley was defending Jam, not IAP.

Oh, and I knew that. It was a slip of the brain. Not really related to my point, though.

>It's a myth, it keeps getting repeated, but where are the examples? (Not on the old threads on 'sotcaa-bits'...)

What about the Brass Eye special threads, where three or four new contributors made some valid, well-argued points, and Joe SOTCAA responded with, "x, y, and z*? Who they?". Very welcoming.

*these being the names of the new contributors.

>'roob jones'

oops.

I must admit I haven't got examples to hand - this forum isn't something I memorise (the old SOTCAA threads are utterly different than I remember them, for a start...) but certainly around the time of that cackarsed Brass Eye "controversy" the tone of the self appointed protectors of the forum got so high-handed and dismissive that it certainly caused Ailie to storm off, and came close to driving me to do the same.

Care to name names Butler? I think you maybe right there. Although we might not be thinking of the same people...

RE: TV Go Home - having recently spoken to one of the writers working on the series, I have to say that I was actually quite impressed by the structural changes they have made to the basic 'format' in order to allow it to better adapt to the medium of television. Whether or not I will actually find the end product amusing or entertaining remains to be seen (although if that happened, it would definitely be a first for TVGH... sorry, but that's not sneering or whatever, it's just how it is), but it's reasurring to know that, for once, someone has actually sat down and thought about how they should adapt an idea, rather than just translating it directly and hoping for the best.

Good news. Glad to hear it. I've been worried about the TV transfer.

Has anyone else seen the book, then? Any reactions?

>What about the Brass Eye special threads, where three or four new contributors made some valid, well-argued points, and Joe SOTCAA responded with, "x, y, and z*? Who they?". Very welcoming.

"'Labia', 'Aaron R', 'CD Ron' - who hell they?"

I'd actually been off-line for a couple of months before that occured. So I genuinely didn't know who "x, y and z" were in that case.

Plus, after U. Butler later moaned on that thread, I added:

"Whenever there's a firey thread with sparks flying everywhere we do tend to get a sudden surge of anonymous or unfamiliar people who've seemingly never posted before - think of Charlie Brooker's mates turning up whenever there's a TVGoHome-bashing. My original posting did ponder that the positive messages about BES from people who don't normally post could be a means to 'get in there first' on a subject which they perhaps knew would get a negative response. I deleted the above observation from the posting as it seemed a tad self-important. I didn't think I was being particularly rude just to leave it at 'Who hell they?' - especially since I did it in my Vic Reeves voice!"

That was a damned good thread in retrospect though. Totally polarised response to the show and nobody feeling they couldn't post; nothing suppressed - it was a veritable opinion-orgasm after all the previous months' fucking. Dr H screaming at Steven, Steven screaming at Dr H, me and Neil trying to kill each other in public, people whining about what constitutes 'SOTCAA opinion'. I hadn't had so much fun in ages.

Butler - You and I both seem to get annoyed at anything which adds a false economy of opinion to a debate or precludes people from standing up and giving their viewpoint. I just wonder if - in your hunt for 'examples' to back up your argument - you aren't ignoring the bigger picture a tad. There are certainly examples which you've conveniently overlooked.

If by 'policing' you mean regularly reading the forum and adding our viewpoint, getting heated or generally misbehaving in the name of what we believe, then fine. But why did that make us different to anybody else who habitually posted here?

Oh, since we're in character and all, your next posting will be something about my "hit by a car" line, and mine will attempt to counter it by alluding to Moriarty's "let's stone the fucker to death" amusingness.

Let's keep those eyes twinkling, eh?

Re: TVGoHome book - I laughed at the proofs of 'Shit Film Liker'. Not seen the rest yet.

re: Hit by a car.

Never bothered by ludicrous abuse, only the motives behind it. Never flinched at "Break Charlie Brooker's legs", but was worried at the amount of spite in the rest of the piece directed at a man whose worst crime is to be a better writer than he is an editor.

Anyway...

I think the forum regulars and founders ought to be aware that the beseiged gang mentality (HAVE YOU READ THE SITE???????) at SOTCAA, while being its delightfully curmudgeonly unique selling point, can make it look to outsiders like there's a set of membership criteria. ("Take the Rutland Dirty Weekend Book in your right hand, and repeat after me...)

Why do you think outsider trolls pop up all the time saying "Think for yourselves, you sad gits!"? It's not the same people all the time, it's the first reaction of a huge number of visitors on seeing the site and the forum.

The less negative version of that reaction is the one I went through upon first finding SOTCAA - fear of posting in case I stepped on a particular old TV programme that had been deemed unclean in some thread eighteen months earlier.

"Policing" is an inflammatory word. I take it back, since it implies Joe and Mike (and Rob) spend their evenings checking every posting to ensure it's on message. Thank god that's a troll myth. Anyway, they don't need to. The defensiveness and insularity of hardcore forum contributors can (occasionally) act as some kind of Praetorian guard on The Corpses' behalf, protecting the sanctity of the SOTCAA ideals from outsider besmirching.

It's not done consciously, it just gives that impression to the casual visitor. Observe the two ways that new posters appear. They either flame and slowly calm down to become regular posters, or peep nervously out of their holes and say things like "This is my first posting. Don't shout me down."

Hardly implies a welcoming attitude to outsiders.

I just can't forget how nervous I was creeping round the forum before I realised it was a cool and friendly place.

I just think that some of that "keeper of the holy flame of SOTCAA" attitude has been diluted by the demotion of this site to a mere "Comedy Forum", and I can't help feeling that this will encourage more people to contribute. That's a good thing.

There, it's an entirely subjective point of view on my part, but I'm not the first person I've heard express it. It's not an accusation, or an attempt to insult anyone, just an observation that a close-knit community sometimes forgets what it looks like from the outside.

I just looked back at my original posting that I've been defending.

How bizarre. I was trying to be positive about the site ("there are no received opinions" etc), and yet I managed to insult and upset several regulars and the odd Corpse.

Yup, I'll definitely be more careful about using the word "police" in future...

My favourite joke of recent times:

"Was he really in The Police, Andrew?"

>"Was he really in The Police, Andrew?"

"Take the 'Lloyd Cole Knew My Father' script and repeat after me..."

i have to agree with butler on this. if someone posted their first message saying 'i like the 11 0'clock show, does anyone know when a new series is starting?' they would get so much grief that they would either start a massive flame war or run away.

>i have to agree with butler on this. if someone posted their first message saying 'i like the 11 0'clock show, does anyone know when a new series is starting?' they would get so much grief that they would either start a massive flame war or run away.

Provoked, in the main, by 11OCS writers under clever pseudonyms who came on and made erudite comments like "we work hard at this, anyone who doesn't like it is a cunt, get a fucking life pal". Not that it changes the thrust of your argument, but the wrong 'villains' shouldn't be fingered in this instance.

Anyway, as the site (which the forum was then attached to) was strongly anti-11OCS, is it really too much to expect the forum to follow suit with this opinion?

> if someone posted their first message saying 'i like the 11 0'clock show, does anyone know when a new series is starting?' they would get so much grief

There's a difference between some kind of "forum patrol" weeding out undesirable views, and managing to upset a whole bunch of people at once. You couldn't really expect a sympathetic reaction to such a post from a crowd of genuine comedy fans, surely?

(*Not* a lazy sideswipe, by the way, but a genuine rhetorical question...)

>Anyway, as the site (which the forum was then attached to) was strongly anti-11OCS, is it really too much to expect the forum to follow suit with this opinion?

Well, the site was the work of a small number of people, the forum isn't, so yes, it is too much to expect contributors to the latter to follow the party line of the former, which was rather the point of UB's posting, wasn't it?

o.k. - hands up everyone here who likes the 11ocs!!!!!

no, thought not.

It's coming back next year.





































Nah...

Steve, I didn't mean that the users of the forum should all follow the 'party line' of the site, and for once I accept that it was bad wording that made it come across that way.

What I meant was that it isn't too much to expect the general tone and mood to reflect that of the site, and that people who came along either making deliberately provocative comments (or even made comments without having read the site) perhaps shouldn't have been to surprised if their comments were 'leapt on'. I'm not saying that the perceived 'leaping on' was always right or justified, just that the reasons for the occurrence should be perfectly clear. There were always plenty of people who sided with unpopular views anyway, even if sometimes it *was* just Gee.

Anyway, back to TVGH. I seem to remember trying to respond to the basic original theme of this thread a couple of postings back, and being uncharacteristically positive about a Brooker project in the process. Has anyone got anything else to say about this, or are we all going to stand around arguing about what did or didn't happen on the forum donkeys years ago?

>Anyway, back to TVGH. I seem to remember trying to respond to the basic original theme of this thread a couple of postings back, and being uncharacteristically positive about a Brooker project in the process. Has anyone got anything else to say about this, or are we all going to stand around arguing about what did or didn't happen on the forum donkeys years ago?

I saw the pilot and didn't feel it was as good as the web page, but I understand that a lot of changes have been made since. There'll also be a e4.com iteration of it (supporting the TV series), which I'm working on at the moment, that's different again from the book/TV/current web page versions.

There's another thread further down discussing the book.

Cheerio

>I saw the pilot and didn't feel it was as good as the web page, but I understand that a lot of changes have been made since.

Oddly enough, while I never liked the web page (I do concede that there were sometimes a couple of very good ideas contained in it, but I always thought that it was completely the wrong format for expressing them), I have been quite intrigued about what I've learned about the TV Pilot so far. While that's obviously no guarantee that I will actually like it (or indeed dislike it), I do see it as a very good sign that I'm actually quite interested in seeing it rather than just completely indifferent.

>There'll also be a e4.com iteration of it (supporting the TV series), which I'm working on at the moment, that's different again from the book/TV/current web page versions.

Really? Flash animations for something?

But if that is, as it sounds, a genuine attempt to provide an extension of a television programme on the official tie-in website instead of just a couple of already widely-seen pictures, then well done to you all. At least you're thinking in the right direction, unlike just about everyone else involved with similar projects.

>There's another thread further down discussing the book.

I know. But I want to discuss the TV programme here.

You people are utterly terrifying.