The Magic Box of Phosphers

Because I don't like it

Broadhead wrote:Because I don't like it

Nodule I think we have established that you are a minority of one in most things

I can feel T-Ballz's bad mood from all the way down here.

T.B wrote:Nodule I think we have established that you are a minority of one in most things

I can feel T-Ballz's bad mood from all the way down here.

Sherrers wrote:have you watched his work?

not his 'presenting'. his screenplays?

I will retract my comment then and adjust my stance.

I have only seen his 'presenting', and the shit he calls 'commentary' in the press.

I don't think he's ever considered himself a commentator. He is a humourist.

I have to say I've never met or heard of anyone that doesn't like Charlie Brooker.

But then, I am a terrible Grauniad reading liberal meeja whore.

It's a first. Every day is a surprise on here.

My WIMMINZ INTUITION tells me Mark is not in a good mood day.

Also he said he wasn't.

I'm magic that way.

Only one thing worse than a Tory.

Grumpy Tory.

Sherrers wrote:Only one thing worse than a Tory.

Grumpy Tory.

Grumpy Tory.

I am in a bad mood today. I've already sworn twice at work (I very rarely swear in front of my staff).

I could stomach screenwipe but after reading his inane rantings in the press and on twitter I have quickly gone off him.

oooh mr grumpy trousers

See, this place can still make me raise a smile.

RvZ wrote:I have to say I've never met or heard of anyone that doesn't like Charlie Brooker.

TV Go Home was fun, but his Guardian columns aren't great. He is sometimes funny, which is more than Tim Downling or John Crace can say, but it's sub-sub-sub-Hunter S Thompson stuff, and Brooker doesn't have the same level of material (ie Clinton, Bush, Nixon) to work with...

bigdaddy wrote:

RvZ wrote:I have to say I've never met or heard of anyone that doesn't like Charlie Brooker.

TV Go Home was fun, but his Guardian columns aren't great. He is sometimes funny, which is more than Tim Downling or John Crace can say, but it's sub-sub-sub-Hunter S Thompson stuff, and Brooker doesn't have the same level of material (ie Clinton, Bush, Nixon) to work with...

You put it so much better than me.

Still better than no humour at all.

Which is in precious short supply in The Grauniad.

I am positive Brooker would be mortified if accused of avoiding large topics. He just does funny telly stuff. It's a bit overblown to say he's 'failed' to be Hunter S Thompson.

He's a really funny TV critic and I am certain that's all he tries or wants to be.

Funniest thing in The Guardian.

Which is more than most can say although not exactly difficult.

Insider info alert. Adam Curtis was pretty much washed up until Brooker went to the wall to get him commissioned to work on Screenwipe.

bigdaddy wrote:

RvZ wrote:I have to say I've never met or heard of anyone that doesn't like Charlie Brooker.

TV Go Home was fun, but his Guardian columns aren't great. He is sometimes funny, which is more than Tim Downling or John Crace can say, but it's sub-sub-sub-Hunter S Thompson stuff, and Brooker doesn't have the same level of material (ie Clinton, Bush, Nixon) to work with...

I don't think he or anyone else is asking to.

Is it his face?

I can understand that and I think he would too

You've not read his twitter feed.

He comes across as an arrogant know it all nobhead of the highest order. I've already got one of those in my office, I don't need another

Hang on a minute, this is turning into a serious debate, I better get back on the balearic crufts thread and increase my stupidity quotient.

Lord I think you'd have to be a miserablist of the highest water to object to Charlie Brooker.

jon carter wrote:Lord I think you'd have to be a miserablist of the highest water to object to Charlie Brooker.

Jody, is that you?

Granted I have never seen twitter. But as a long time fan I would imagine it's entirely satirical.

He is surely way too savvy to be so smart in one media but clumsy in another?

Fandango Widewheels wrote:

jon carter wrote:Lord I think you'd have to be a miserablist of the highest water to object to Charlie Brooker.

Jody, is that you?

er

YES

Maybe his satire was lost on me but he just seemed to come across as really arrogant. I even remarked to the CMD that I was surprised at the difference between his 'on'screen' persona.

Fandango Widewheels wrote:You've not read his twitter feed.

He comes across as an arrogant know it all nobhead of the highest order. I've already got one of those in my office, I don't need another

I follow it and find it to be 100% piss take.

jon carter wrote:

Fandango Widewheels wrote:

jon carter wrote:Lord I think you'd have to be a miserablist of the highest water to object to Charlie Brooker.

Jody, is that you?

er

YES

My wife thinks I'm a miserablist of the highest order, I thought she'd infiltrated the forum disguised as you.

RvZ wrote:

Fandango Widewheels wrote:You've not read his twitter feed.

He comes across as an arrogant know it all nobhead of the highest order. I've already got one of those in my office, I don't need another

I follow it and find it to be 100% piss take.

Conclusion, Ballz is not clever enough to follow Charlie Brooker. I'll stick to Kim 'power buttocks' Kardashian

Fandango Widewheels wrote:Maybe his satire was lost on me but he just seemed to come across as really arrogant. I even remarked to the CMD that I was surprised at the difference between his 'on'screen' persona.

Mate there are several haters and at least 2 full on stalkers who hate every fibre of my being because they think my internet 'persona' is a loathsome confection.

Little do they know I am a full time nobhead. And was also totally taking the piss online.

I can't judge. I've never seen any twitting or twattery from tweet. No idea.

I am with RvZ. I cannot believe he is not taking the piss. As everything he does is a piss take.

You should watch Dead Set. You'll be impressed.

Booker's Gran columns are gonzo life rants these days, not TV spoofs - but he hasn't got the writing chops to do gonzo. He's good on imaginative ways to have his enemies killed, but he doesn't have HST's gift for the really memorable image or the storytelling. That said, I still read him every week, and I've not seen the TV pieces because - let's just get this out of the way now - I think all TV is shit. All of it. No exceptions. It comes out a little tiny box, and none of it is directed by Almodovar. How good can it be?