A Simple Fact of life

[Andrew]

One link that simultaneously proves why Edgar Wright rules AND why Rickey Gervais sucks:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=144582906&blogID=433970465&Mytoken=6EAA0923-F370-4BE3-855FB7E8F478977625152016

One could make the obvious points – Night At the Museum versus Shaun of the Dead; you don’t improve a system by vacating it – but I think Wright’s tip-of-the-iceberg list says plenty.

Topic

[pfm]

Edgar Wright who’s done nothing good since Spaced, and even that’s debatable – it was all Pegg and Stevenson as far as I can see. Making the viewers feel ill sometimes with the camera isn’t mark of a decent director.

Gervais is totally wrong though, of course, such a stupidly flippant comment. OK, we’ll probably never see another truly classic British film, but no decent ones since the ’50s?? I’d take every great British film after the ’50s before anything before the ’50s any day. Just thinking about Don’t Look Now makes me want to put it on right now. I know it’s not for everyone but, come on, it’s a fucking CLASSIC no mistake.

Bet that comment about Edgar Wright wound you up, you mugs. You’ve probably already commented on how wrong I am. I fucking love Hot Fuzz and Shaun and can’t wait for them to get around to doing the third one in that ‘trilogy’. Wright and Pegg go together like peg and hole, cock and cunt (so to speak). His use of Blues Explosion in Hot Fuzz is quality.

[Pete Part Three]

I like both of them a lot (and, um, let’s not forget that Gervais was in Spaced).

Personally, I haven’t seen a lot of the films on that list (and, presumably, neither has Gervais). It’s perhaps an ignorant comment to make, but you’d have a harder time listing classic US films and narrowing it down to just one a year. Yeah, the US release a ton more films a year but they’re generally wider seen, and wider-seen for a reason. If I was that bothered, I’d look at the IMdb and check how many of the “best films” are UK-made.

Incidentally, I’m pretty indifferent to Hot Fuzz… The pacing makes it feel like it’s three hours long, there’s significantly less hilarious buts than SotD and there’s far too many characters.

And Ricky Gervais sucks. In a distopian world run by Badgers.

[ChrisM]

I found it curious he included 28 Days later. Don’t get me wrong, I like it myself and I’ve got the DVD and the (not quite as good but only comparatively so) sequel.

Reason I find it curious was mostly the commentary in Shaun of the Dead mocking the film, and a newsflash in the film itself. “New that this epidemic was caused by monkeys is a load of boll-” or words to that effect.

To be fair it’s mainly the cause of the epidemic in 28 Days they’re mocking, so I guess it doesn’t mean they dislike the film itself. Or maybe he’s listing films he knew did well rather than just works he favours.

[James]

Rickey Gervais and comedy, that is the biggest joke. I detest the man. I’ve seen more talent in a 4×2.

[Danny Stephenson]

I?ve seen more talent in a 4×2.

I dunno, I’ve seen them struggle with even the smoothest of terrains.

[pfm]

You simply cannot say Gervais has no talent. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, of course, but I still think The Office is one of the greatest pieces of British TV ever to have existed ever, and Extras was a fine follow-up (though there’s too much lazy self-indulgence in the second series, the first and the Christmas special are IMO brilliance). Hopefully a third in a trilogy of sitcoms will come our way at some point, once no-one in America gives a shit about him anymore (like they do anyway…)

[Andrew]

Thing is, I like The Office just fine. More than fine, it’s very, very good. The first series especially.

But these sweeping statements about the quality of British film are just simplistic, not to mention hypocritical. You want British films to be better? Go make a good one, don’t bitch about them while you take another stupidly inflated pay cheque for a crappy Hollywood cameo. Don’t complain about the problem when you’re part of it.

That said, he’s creatively close to finished, as far as I’m concerned. I thought Extras 1 was okay, but the second series was tortuously self-indulgent, and his subsequent work…? He’s become the Tarantino of British comedy: started well, but became more interested in celebrity and ego than in staying creatively interesting.

> It?s perhaps an ignorant comment to make, but you?d have a harder time listing classic US films and narrowing it down to just one a year.

It’s a fairly ODD comment, if you’re suggesting Wright could ONLY find those films, or that he only had to knock a few off to get there. Any list can be narrowed down to one a year – that’s how the Oscar’s end up with a single Best Picture!

> Yeah, the US release a ton more films a year but they?re generally wider seen, and wider-seen for a reason.

One reason being that the rest of the world was involved in war while Hollywood shored up its financial advantage, setting up a system that allowed it a near-monopoly while everyone else’s film industry struggled…

Still, we’re talking about quality – America also arguably churns out more crap than any other film culture. Plus ‘Hollywood’ isn’t ‘America’ – it’s a business and creative construct born out of the amalgamated talents of innumerable global contributors. It’s not like Hollywood films are exclusively authored by Americans.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s idiotically simplistic to decry the UK film industry’s last half-century.

> If I was that bothered, I?d look at the IMdb and check how many of the ?best films? are UK-made.

Ignoring the idea that the IMDb is a repository for the definitive list of creative success – it blatantly isn’t – you’d need to take that number and factor in percentages. Say the UK has 7 of the best 100 movies, that’s pretty good when you compare how much product is being churned out. Say ten have foreign writers/producers/directors – Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson. Then take a look at how ridiculously disadvantaged foreign language movies are in those lists…

Nobody’s saying ‘Hollywood sucks’. But one Brit sell-out is saying the Uk industry does – and while flawed, I think that’s a crazy thing to vomit up.

[Pete Part Three]

>It?s a fairly ODD comment, if you?re suggesting Wright could ONLY find those films, or that he only had to knock a few off to get there. Any list can be narrowed down to one a year – that?s how the Oscar?s end up with a single Best Picture!

Not what I meant. I’m not saying Wright didn’t have to knock off a few British films from that list, I’m just saying that he’d have a much harder time doing one for the US, because there’s more great films released each year.And that shows in the Best Picture Oscar too.

>Ignoring the idea that the IMDb is a repository for the definitive list of creative success – it blatantly isn?t – you?d need to take that number and factor in percentages.

IMdb was chosen purely to focus on general popularity. It’s by far the busiest movie poll site on the web. No, it doesn’t focus on creative success but, that sadly, is not what’s seemingly important.

The percentage of great films released by the UK is probably the same as the US, it’s just that the US produce a lot more because they produce a lot more film period. Conversely, the really bad UK films (Fat Slags, anyone?) stick out a mile when they’re a big part of the country’s film output for a year.

>Nobody?s saying ?Hollywood sucks?.

No, just “Ricky Gervais sucks”

[Andrew]

> I?m just saying that he?d have a much harder time doing one for the US, because there?s more great films released each year.

But what does that prove? Nobody’s claiming the US doesn’t make more films, or makes bad films.

> IMdb was chosen purely to focus on general popularity.

But when the debate’s about quality – as per the original point – how is that the best place to go?

> No, just ?Ricky Gervais sucks?

And with moronic statements like the ones he’s making – not to mention a succession of self-promoting sell-out tat in his output – I’m not sure that’s wholly unreasonable.

[Pete Part Three]

>But what does that prove? Nobody?s claiming the US doesn?t make more films, or makes bad films.

Only that, because a very small percentage of films each year are UK, it becomes harder for the average film-goer (i.e Gervais) to bother seeking them out when only a small number are any good. Hence my “ignorant” comment.

>how is that the best place to go?

Fair enough. Rotten Tomatoes? Or is that still too populist and not credible enough?

>self-promoting sell-out tat

Do tell. The Office? Extras? The Podcasts? What tat is he peddling that has got your goat?

Edgar Wright is a self-confessed film geek, Ricky Gervais is not and has probably seen significantly less UK movies. That’s what this boils down to. Gervais made a sweeping statement, but it’s only been blown out of context (by Wright, you and others) because it’s him that’s making it.

I haven’t seen about half of the films on that list and am similarly dismissive of the UK film industry. Why? Because I’ve paid money to watch British films (and critically acclaimed films at that) and been significantly unimpressed. As a result of this, it becomes a habit to play it safe with the US and then be surprised when something truly brilliant and homegrown comes along (like, say, Shaun of the Dead). Of the films on that list I HAVE seen, I own none of them on DVD (in a 200+ collection) aside from 28 Days Later, A Cock and Bull Story and Wallace and Gromit.

I’m really not keen on the films of Stanley Kubrick. I’ve only seen half of his output but that’s enough to put me off watching any more. You know what; I’m going to throw out the comment; “There’s an odd exception, but when it comes to making movies Kubrick doesn’t really cut the mustard. Not since Dr Strangelove”.

Whoops.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

I do love The Office, the Extras and the podcasts very very much indeed.

Always thought his standup was weak and despite thinking that he could probably be a bit of a cunt in real life, I do like him.

[Andrew]

> it becomes harder for the average film-goer (i.e Gervais) to bother seeking them out

But he’s not the average film-goer, that’s the whole point. He a working producer and film fan – he HAS seen a lot of stuff – who knows enough to know better. It’s not been blown out of context at all (it’s not even the first time he’s said such things). It’s jus been taken as it is – sweeping and hypocritical.

Just because you haven’t seen them, doesn’t mean ‘people’ haven’t, or that they think as you do. (And yeah, the Kurbrick comment pretty much seals that in concrete and sinks it.)

> What tat is he peddling that has got your goat?

Extras series two and the specials, obviously. Much beyond the first few podcasts (oh, yeah, full of integrity those). Flannimals. The mediocre stand-up. Smugging his way through For Your Consideration and Stardust (it’s called acting, Rick; give it a go). Bragging about the cash he got for the inexorable Night at the Juseum.

But the worst offence for me – given that he’s only done the same amount of rubbish as anyone else – is the attitude. His performances on Comic Relief have been downright bloody criminal. Promoting for your own profit is the same thing whether it’s done ironically or not. It was an old joke when he started doing it…and even older by the time he’d done it for the fifth time. “Ooh, is that a DVD of the awards winning series The Office?”

Also: you don’t get to do the “name a funny black man joke”. The implication that there are none, and thus he’s funnier than every black person in the country, makes me want to regurgitate.

But okay, I get it, he’s a misunderstood, misquoted genius and British movies are rubbish. Yep.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Black people are funny. Chinese people are even funnier, but not intentionally.

Is that offensive? I think I mean it ironically. Or maybe I’m making a comment on such ironic humour. I don’t even know any more.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

“But okay, I get it, he?s a misunderstood, misquoted genius and British movies are rubbish. Yep.”

YAY! So everyone agrees. Let’s have tea and cakes!

*butters a scone*

Andrew, this is for you.

Pete, I have no more scones. Would you care for a pikelet or a penny chew?

[Pete Part Three]

>He a working producer and film fan – he HAS seen a lot of stuff – who knows enough to know better.

Well, if you think he’s seen a lot of stuff, then you’re saying that this isn’t an ignorant opinion, it’s just an “informed wrong” one. Nice. Red Dwarf VIII sucks by the way. Another “wrong” opinion for you.

>Just because you haven?t seen them, doesn?t mean ?people? haven?t, or that they think as you do. (And yeah, the Kurbrick comment pretty much seals that in concrete and sinks it.)

Thanks, that was the intention. It’s a matter of, *sigh*, OPINION.

>Extras series two and the specials, obviously.

Don’t have much problem with either, myself. Ah well.

>Much beyond the first few podcasts (oh, yeah, full of integrity those).

Well, here’s the thing. They cost money to buy, they take time to listen to. If you’ve heard the later ones, then you actually bothered to take time and pay money. They can’t be that bad then. They’re also extremely popular. And the main beneficiary is Karl Pilkington who, for what it’s worth (not much), I find extremely amusing.

>The mediocre stand-up.

Considerably less mediocre than, say, Craig Charles. He obviously enjoys doing it, so he does it. His fame means that it’s hyped to a degree it doesn’t deserve, but that’s not really his fault.

>Flannimals.

It’s a children’s book and a pretty harmless one, by all accounts.

>His performances on Comic Relief have been downright bloody criminal.

Sorry, does anyone actually watch Comic Relief and expect decent comedy?

>Also: you don?t get to do the ?name a funny black man joke?. The implication that there are none, and thus he?s funnier than every black person in the country, makes me want to regurgitate.

The obvious reply would be; name a black man who’s funnier than Ricky Gervais. But you probably will, and it’s doubtful I’d have heard of him.

>But okay, I get it, he?s a misunderstood,

No, he just stated an opinion and you don’t agree.

> misquoted

No, he just stated an opinion and you don’t agree.

> genius

A bit strong.

> and British movies are rubbish.

His opinion. Not mine. Apart from that; bang on.

[Turk Thrust]

I would have to agree that the reaction to this sort of comment is way over the top. If Gervais thinks that few good British films are made then it’s a valid opinion. People are entitled to them even if others don’t agree.

Also, lots of people clearly dislike him as a person but it still can’t be denied that the vast majority of projects that he has worked on, including the new film which he is now promoting, have been immensely popular with both fans and critics. Those people’s opinions are again valid.

I also do wonder why some people who claim to hate him so much seem to intentionally seek out every piece of work he does. Bizarre.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

The Office, Extras, all of the podcasts / XFM shows and all 3 standup shows (though not first rate) are leagues ahead of Series 7 and 8. Just saying is all.

[Andrew]

> Another ?wrong? opinion for you.

I thought I used the word ‘hypocritical’. Complex stuff, obviously.

> Sorry, does anyone actually watch Comic Relief and expect decent comedy?

Did I say unfunny (I will now)? Or did I have a problem with the content?

> No, he just stated an opinion and you don?t agree.

Which I, too, have stated. Your problem being that he should state what he likes while I shouldn’t?

[Phil]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: a Ricky Gervais Kryten.

[Pete Part Three]

>Did I say unfunny

Not yet

>(I will now)?

There we go!

>Or did I have a problem with the content?

Fair enough. I think I’d rather listen to Ricky Gervais doing his egotistical shtick than listen to Ruby Wax doing Fame Academy or whatever passes for “comic relief” these days. Of course, the best Comic Relief special wasn’t actually anything to do with Comic Relief; it was The Office Series 2, Episode 5.

>Which I, too, have stated. Your problem being that he should state what he likes while I shouldn?t?

No, but lets get this straight: you said he sucks, I attempted to justify his comment by saying it was ignorant and ill-informed. But you’ve disagreed with this and I now realise that your actual bone of contention is that Gervais was perfectly informed and was just giving an educated opinion (I disagree with this by the way) albeit in a dismissive fashion.

Fine, glad we’ve cleared that up now that I know the reasoning of your opinion. You can go on hating the sight of him, I’ll go and listen to some podcasts.

[Andrew]

> I think I?d rather listen to Ricky Gervais doing his egotistical shtick than listen to Ruby Wax doing Fame Academy

The two compare directly, of course, and thus you win.

> Fine, glad we?ve cleared that up now that I know the reasoning of your opinion.

I especially like that you think it’s fine if he’s attacking out of ignorance; that that makes it ‘okay’. It’s only if he knows what he’s talking about that he’s also ‘right’. (We’ll ignore how experience is graduated, and not actually binary.)

Bias much?

[Phil]

Wow. These fights are a lot less stressful when I’m not involved. I think I’ve just learned a valuable lesson.

[Pete Part Three]

>The two compare directly, of course, and thus you win.

Sorry, you’ll have to forgive me on account of the fact that I always find something better to do when Comic Relief is on. I guess if I said it hadn’t been good since the 1990’s that wouldn’t cut it.

>I especially like that you think it?s fine if he?s attacking out of ignorance; that that makes it ?okay?

Er, no. I said it was an ignorant comment to make and offered a justification as to why this was (that maybe he hadn’t seen many UK movies because he may have been “burned in the past”).

You didn’t accept that and said he wasn’t ignorant and he HAS seen a lot of stuff. I disagree with that because he’s never come across to me as a film buff; certainly on the level of Edgar Wright. Either way, his opinion that WITH THE ODD EXCEPTION, UK movies haven’t been good since the 1950’s is right, because [yawn] it’s his opinion. Ignorant or informed makes no difference. You can disagree with it or you can justify it. Your choice.

[Andrew]

> you?ll have to forgive me on account of the fact that I always find something better to do when Comic Relief is on

Triumph! Your superiority humbles me.

> I disagree with that because he?s never come across to me as a film buff; certainly on the level of Edgar Wright.

Which, I said, isn’t binary. But even if ignorance was an excuse – “Hey, Sarah Palin’s right, dinosaurs didn’t exist” – for making a sweeping statement, it was…

You know what? Anyone who decries 2001 isn’t worth the typing. (Yet apparently can’t resist the last word.)

> You can disagree with it or you can justify it.

I disagree. As I made clear from the get-go. Is that a problem?

[ChrisM]

movies haven?t been good since the 1950?s is right, because [yawn] it?s his opinion. Ignorant or informed makes no difference. You can disagree with it or you can justify it. Your choice.

I have something to say about films before the 1950s.

Not really. (Not opening that old can of worms again….snigger….)

I just watched a bit of Gervais’s stand up (just finished a few minutes ago.)

I quite liked it, although I found myself wincing at some of the humor. Not because it was *bad* more… risky.

I can see why some don’t like him though. There’s certainly an air of pomposity about him although how much is real and how much is just ‘character’ I’m not sure.

I do find him funny though. I didn’t appreciate some of the stuff he does on comic relief though. I like twisted ironic humor but there were moments I felt he went too far.

[Pete Part Three]

>Triumph! Your superiority humbles me.

I’m humbled by your honesty.

>But even if ignorance was an excuse – ?Hey, Sarah Palin?s right, dinosaurs didn?t exist? – for making a sweeping statement, it was?

Yeah, because religious beliefs are identical to saying you’ve seen some UK movies and, as a result, don’t have much time for British movies. The two compare directly, of course, and thus you win.

>Anyone who decries 2001 isn?t worth the typing.

I guess, and anyone who likes Red Dwarf VIII isn’t worth bothering with. Or maybe that’s a lousy attitude.

>(Yet apparently can?t resist the last word.)

I’ll tell you what, I’ll go to bed now. You can say your piece and unless it’s completely moronic, I won’t reply.

>I disagree. As I made clear from the get-go. Is that a problem?

Only if you expect to create a thread, make a statement such as “Ricky Gervais sucks”, knowing full well there are fans of his on here, and then don’t expect to create controversy. Maybe I just should have said “Yeah, you’re right Andrew. Ho hum.” but I thought what he said was worth justifying. I guess THAT was the problem.

[ChrisM]

You guys are funny.

I’m off to make a pot of tea.

[Andrew]

> but I thought what he said was worth justifying.

If only he had some way to speak to the press on his own…

[Dave]

deleted

[pfm]

> but became more interested in celebrity and ego than in staying creatively interesting.

That’s why he’s co-writing, directing and starring in his own film, This Side Of The Truth and also the Flanimals series, both different projects instead of him just doing another sitcom or more cheap appearances.

> Also: you don?t get to do the ?name a funny black man joke?. The implication that there are none, and thus he?s funnier than every black person in the country, makes me want to regurgitate.

I reckon the main thrust of that gag was that 99% of people can only name Lenny Henry, and he’s about as funny as a rotting vag. Stephen K Amos is a great black British comedian.

[John Hoare]

Lenny might have lost it these days, but he used to be very funny. And he puts in an extremely good performance in Chef! It’s easy to forget that now when he’s not done much over the last few years, but he used to be great.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

> But okay, I get it, he?s a misunderstood, misquoted genius and British movies are rubbish. Yep.

> The two compare directly, of course, and thus you win.

> Triumph! Your superiority humbles me.

Andrew, I think somebody else is typing bits of your posts, or you’re getting confused. These comments seem to contradict the rest of your argument!

[Phil]

Chef sucked crumbs off mydick.

[ChrisM]

… and a disturbing South-Park related image pops into my head…

Yuck.

[peas_and_corn]

“Hello children, I want to put my salty balls in your asshole”

[Andrew]

The first series of Chef was excellent, and Henry was great in it. So ner. :-p

[pfm]

> And he puts in an extremely good performance in Chef!

I totally agree with that. This is the kind of thing he should have carried on doing. I remember he did a one-off episode, possibly a pilot, of a comedy drama a couple of years ago *checks imdb* Berry’s Way, there should have been a series of that.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Those Travel Inn adverts were pretty classy.

[John Hoare]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080930/ten-simon-pegg-calls-gervais-an-idiot-5f8abb3.html

[genericnerdyusername]

> Edgar Wright who?s done nothing good since Spaced, and even that?s debatable – it was all Pegg and Stevenson as far as I can see. Making the viewers feel ill sometimes with the camera isn?t mark of a decent director.

I love Edgar Wright’s camera work :-(. It’s the only reason I get up in the morning. That and my irresistable* urge to procreate.

*That’s another word for doomed, right?

[Pete Part Three]

>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080930/ten-simon-pegg-calls-gervais-…

“Simon is not only one of my favourite British comic actors but he is also quite astute, as according to my last medical, I am approximately 22lb over my ideal weight.” – Ricky Gervais.

[genericnerdyusername]

22lb over his ideal weight? Since when did lb stand for stone? (I may speak like this as I am a tubby shit.)

[Danny Stephenson]

In that case, I weigh 16lb.

[Phil]

>16lb.

And what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.

[Pete Part Three]

?Ricky’s comments about the British film industry were definitely a little unfair, but whatever I said on Heart FM was intended in the spirit of mutual teasing that myself and Ricky have always indulged in. I am not in a position to genuinely accuse anybody of being fat, or for that matter of being an idiot.

Whatever public feud is subsequently encouraged/fueled/blown out of proportion as a result of this, it is entirely the doing of those gleefully stood around clapping their hands and shouting “fight”. It is true however that we used to be lovers. PS. Ricky and I have laughed about this, although his initial response was “It’s glandular, you c**t”. – The Peggster

[genericnerdyusername]

Glad that’s sorted out then.

[pfm]

One question – is it good or bad that Pegg in Abrams’ Star Trek is the only casting I have any faith in? I obviously wasn’t the only one to go ‘???’ after hearing that he was playing Montgomery Scott but thinking about it now he seems so correct for it.

[TheLeen]

Uh-oh, I have no opinion on that whatsoever until I’ve seen it for myself…

[ChrisM]

>Uh-oh, I have no opinion on that whatsoever until I?ve seen it for myself?

I agree. I’m not too keen on yet another time-travel story in Star Trek, but I’m looking forward to this. As for Pegg as Scott, I have to admit I find that hard to visualize, at least not without a comic tone, but i’ll wait and see.

As for the other actors, I think the actor who plays Spock… (hang on I’ll check his name…)Zachary Quinto… could pull it off. He’s certainly got the look and he can do unemotional and laconic.

[pfm]

> and he can do unemotional and laconic

i.e. he’s a dodgy actor, as seen in Heroes everytime he’s onscreen.

[Author]

Replies