Cunts
Someone else deconstruct this for me please. I really can't be fucking bothered.
Comments
"comedian"
Discuss.
Posted by si at May 16, 2004 06:11 PM
It could be picked apart word by word, but it's really not worth it, is it?
All that needs to be said is that it's insulting, patronising, ill-researched toss. The idea that Craig Charles is somehow "better" than Chris Barrie because he refuses to attend a "crummy convention" just about says it all.
Chris Barrie is a charming, talented and funny man who acknowledges that he wouldn't be famous were it not for a certain television programme, and with a certain amount of amused bewilderment attends conventions filled with people who adore a large body of his work
Craig Charles, meanwhile, acts pretty well in a sci-fi comedy, presents crap late-night TV programmes that no-one watches, thinks he's the funniest man on earth, and is a twat.
Posted by Seb at May 16, 2004 06:12 PM
Well said Seb!
Posted by Drzymala at May 16, 2004 06:26 PM
I think my earlier comment said pretty much the same thing, but in a slightly more humourous way.
Either way, CC still comes out as a twat.
And that afro is the worst thing since The Almanac.
Posted by si at May 16, 2004 06:40 PM
No amount of Charles' fuckwittery can quite match up to sheer ignorance and ashtonishing stuck-up-ness of that fucking bitch, Helen Stewert.
Posted by Cappsy at May 16, 2004 06:57 PM
That Chris Barrie, eh? Attending a convention simply so he can meet and entertain his fans. What a tosser!
Craig Charles, on the other hand, hates the people who made him rich and famous. Never mind all those people who buy his piss-poor videos, watch his awful TV shows and wrote to him in prison; they're SAD. He managed to turn his back on them. What a hero!
Posted by Ian Symes at May 16, 2004 07:40 PM
I think I've discovered a new way to write articles...
Posted by John Hoare at May 16, 2004 08:10 PM
"Craig Charles, on the other hand, hates the people who made him rich and famous. Never mind all those people who buy his piss-poor videos, watch his awful TV shows and wrote to him in prison; they're SAD. He managed to turn his back on them. What a hero!"
An utter cunt summed up, there.
Posted by Cappsy at May 16, 2004 08:19 PM
I'd like to think that he reads this, and takes note.
Whoops, this site is run by us idiot obsessed fans, isn't it!
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 16, 2004 09:08 PM
I don't think he's grasped the basic skills to use the internet yet. I've always got the impression he's a bit of a technophobe.
Posted by Cappsy at May 16, 2004 09:32 PM
Thats cos he uses the dildonics joke more times than I use the shrivelled old cock looking like Craig joke :D
Posted by Drzymala at May 16, 2004 09:34 PM
So Craig Charles will be at the Dimension Jump on this show?
If so, that's poor stuff.
Posted by Rad at May 16, 2004 10:45 PM
"All that needs to be said is that it's insulting, patronising, ill-researched toss. The idea that Craig Charles is somehow "better" than Chris Barrie because he refuses to attend a "crummy convention" just about says it all."
I thought that the point was Craig Charles *was* at the convention, but looking scarred and disfigured, with Chris Barrie deliberately pretending it wasn't his co-star attending. So Craig Charles was strangely absent from the convention, while a "weird fan" lingered about.
Anyway, I agree with the article. Celebrities Disfigured sounds like a shameful programme to me, with both Caprice and Craig Charles so desperate for attention they'll dress up like victims of some kind of incident so that people will look at them and wince or something (or what? Can somebody put me right if I'm missing something please?). The writer of that article was underlining the shallow, unpleasantness of such television, and because of its vague relationship to Red Dwarf you've decided they're speaking no sense whatsoever!
Posted by Edward at May 16, 2004 11:57 PM
No.
We're having a go at her snide jibes at the fans, which is all we can expect from the media becasue we're all geeks and wear TEH ANORCAKS!!!!
I do agree that this program looks utterly awful, though.
Posted by Cappsy at May 17, 2004 12:05 AM
No, nobody at Dimension Jump knew that Charles was there.
I think it was very mean-spirited and nasty - there were some people still disappointed that he wasn't there (though no sane people, hopefully), only for Charles to ponce around taking the piss out of everybody for the purpose of a cheap C4 exploitamentary.
Posted by Darrell Jones at May 17, 2004 12:13 AM
I wonder if it's definitely DJ? It just says "a Red Dwarf convention", but it could just as easily be another convention with a couple of RD people in it, such is the awfulness of the article's research.
Posted by John Hoare at May 17, 2004 12:20 AM
The Scotsman article says Craig was the only cast member not to be there. Has to be DJ.
Posted by Ian Symes at May 17, 2004 12:22 AM
I find it difficult to believe this has been in the can since last year, though. Something about this feels odd; I'd be surprised if it is DJ.
I'm probably completely wrong, though. Whatever - we'll find out soon enough.
Posted by John Hoare at May 17, 2004 12:32 AM
Wow - the fans' tolerance for Craig Charles has finally snapped!
For the first time I can remember we're calling him 'Charles' instead of 'Craig'. A sad day. But what a twat he is.
Posted by Chris the Dolochimp at May 17, 2004 12:38 AM
I'm hoping against hope that the article is just painting him badly because it's a stupid journalist, and that Craig himself in the programme will come off OK...
Posted by John Hoare at May 17, 2004 12:41 AM
According to Rory (fan club man), it was the London Film and Comic Festival.
Posted by Ian Symes at May 17, 2004 01:18 AM
I WIN I WIN I WIN I WIN I WIN
Posted by John Hoare at May 17, 2004 01:20 AM
Or as this would have it: I GAIN MYSELF GAINS MYSELF GAINS ME GAINS ME GAINS
Cunts also translates to She-cats, for some reason that I'm not even sure I want to contemplate.
Posted by John Hoare at May 17, 2004 03:07 AM
I didn't think it'd be DJ, I don't remember any disfigured there, except for Snip
Posted by Drzymala at May 17, 2004 07:11 AM
No. And from the way the article read it wasn't DJ either. It says about Chris looking over remenants of his career. That doesn't happen at DJ, especially with Chris Barrie as he usually isn't there at a time that could happen. (Chris usually arrives about Lunchtime and leaves at Tea Time)
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 17, 2004 08:01 AM
I love the fact that that english-french-english thing always replaces fans with ventilators :)
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 17, 2004 08:02 AM
I think the thing about Barrie looking over remnants of his career was phrased: "raking over the ashes of his career" - in other words his career is dead, and attending the convention is his attempt to stir things up again and get more heat out of it.
Anyway, why are you guys so defensive about being called geeks? Perhaps your reaction to this perspective makes it impossible to see articles like this in a rational light?
Posted by James at May 17, 2004 09:26 AM
> Anyway, why are you guys so defensive about being called geeks? Perhaps your reaction to this perspective makes it impossible to see articles like this in a rational light?
I am a geek, and I freely admit that. However, I don't have greasy hair, spots or glasses and I've never worn an anorak. It's the suggestion that anyone who takes in an interest in anything is a pathetic individual who has no friends and can't talk to members of the opposite sex that's annoying. *That's* irrational, not our reaction.
Posted by Ian Symes at May 17, 2004 11:27 AM
I have glasses and I don't even like Red Dwarf anymore!
Posted by David Mellarboard at May 17, 2004 11:58 AM
I'm in a newsagents right now, there's a picture of Mr Charles in TV Quick/Chat/Times etc all disfigured, he looks pretty effective. Caprice is better though.
Posted by Joey at May 17, 2004 02:46 PM
Wow, hopefully the public will feel sorry for him and stuff. All in a good cause though, isn't it, because once people realise they've been duped they won't assist *real* victims of incidents with whatever it is they can't cope with.
Posted by Venison at May 17, 2004 03:16 PM
> > Anyway, why are you guys so defensive about being called geeks? Perhaps your reaction to this perspective makes it impossible to see articles like this in a rational light?
> I am a geek, and I freely admit that. However, I don't have greasy hair, spots or glasses and I've never worn an anorak. It's the suggestion that anyone who takes in an interest in anything is a pathetic individual who has no friends and can't talk to members of the opposite sex that's annoying. *That's* irrational, not our reaction.
And of course, if someone *does* fit some of the negative stereotypes of being a geek, that's hardly a reason to be unpleasant about someone. It's more a reason to empathise and want to help them. (Of course, there are some stereotypical geeks who are happy with how they are; the main point is that people should be happy, and if they aren't, you should want to help them. Not make fun of them.)
I'm somewhere in the middle, incidentally. A fairly stereotypical geek, but a happy one.
Posted by John Hoare at May 17, 2004 04:33 PM
I'd rather be a geek than a cunt.
Posted by Seb at May 17, 2004 06:12 PM
>I'd rather be a geek than a cunt.
Amen!
Posted by Cappsy at May 17, 2004 09:15 PM
For gods dake, they said Red Dwarf Convention on the programme - all the cast were there answering questions, but it wasn't a bloody Red Dwarf convention!
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 17, 2004 09:48 PM
Those comments in that review were correct up to a point : Craig seemed to have some incessant desire to prompt reactions from the general public.
I'll ignore most people on the street asking questions -regardless of what they look like - for the simple reason that it's a nuisance if you have somewhere else to be.
And the convention scene was all very daft. Craig acted like a cock, so Chris treated him like a cock. Once again, the fact that he was facially disfigured was irrelevant.
All in all, it's difficult to see what this programme hoped to achieve. This was perhaps because of the celebrities chosen (although Caprice fared slightly better since she was more laid back in getting reactions and was, dare I say it, far better at staying in character). All it really proved was that people react differently to different people. And if you needed proof of that, well...get out more.
Posted by Pete Martin at May 17, 2004 10:08 PM
Oh, and can't convention-going fans think of better questions than "What was your favourite episode?"
Posted by Pete Martin at May 17, 2004 10:12 PM
I have a good one for Chloe at DJXI, but apparently she isn't going to be there :(
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 17, 2004 10:16 PM
I'm not really sure what the show aimed to prove either. I really felt sorry for the young lad with the dog bite scars who seemed to be looking up to Craig until he was told it wasn't real. Was it just me or did he seem a little gutted? It just seemed a way of playing with people's emotions.
Likewise at the convention he acted like a slightly scary twat. The thick glases, greasy hair, flasher mac and stupid questions wouldn't endear him to anyone, regardless of what the face looked like!
Posted by Daisy at May 17, 2004 10:18 PM
No. And Chris Barrie's attitude was exactly the same as it is at Dimension Jump, he tries to let everyone have one question only. He sections it off saying "A few from this side now" or something similar. He always does it, and I can't see the facial disfigurement (which can't have been that obvious from such a long way away) being a factor in Chris's treatment of Charles.
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 17, 2004 10:27 PM
I missed this - is it repeated? Could someone describe it in a bit more detail?
I was busy watching something I'd co-written be plagiarised by Dead Ringers, see.
Posted by Darrell Jones at May 17, 2004 11:25 PM
Check back tomorrow. *wiggles hand* Maybe Wednesday.
Posted by Ian Symes at May 17, 2004 11:39 PM
"I'm not really sure what the show aimed to prove either. I really felt sorry for the young lad with the dog bite scars who seemed to be looking up to Craig until he was told it wasn't real. Was it just me or did he seem a little gutted? It just seemed a way of playing with people's emotions."
That's fucking disgraceful. I didn't watch this programme because I don't have a tv at the moment, but this is exactly what I dreaded it would be like. How dismissive is it to just cheerfully dispense of your scars like that and crack on with your normal everyday life - "Wow, I'm glad I don't have to wear those any longer!" - as somebody else, *actually* scarred for life, returns to theirs, unchanged? Imagine that in any circumstance! A programme called "Made for each other?" where members of the public are duped into believing they're finding *real* close friends, people they'll be close to forever, perhaps eternal partners, intellectual peers, whatever, only to find after one month that it's been an eloborate C4 ratings-puller, employing people who are really good at reading body signals "Derren Brown style" to see what sort of person you would *like* to meet. Imagine your soul crushing as you hear your former dream partner saying: "Well that was really great to have met you, what a fascinating experiment, don't you think? Fancy a drink?"
Posted by jesley carrion at May 18, 2004 01:11 AM
What was it that Dead Ringers plagirised?
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 18, 2004 07:47 AM
"I was busy watching something I'd co-written be plagiarised by Dead Ringers, see."
Interesting. Do elabourate.
Posted by Cappsy at May 18, 2004 09:03 AM
Didn't you pen The Weakest Link and Doctor Who, Darrell?
Posted by jesley carrion at May 18, 2004 09:24 AM
Oh, my. It is only a TV show. We all love it. None of us know Craig. Is it really worth slagging anyone off? Just watch the y show.
Posted by Thomas at May 18, 2004 12:22 PM
Their Time Team sketch used all the same jokes as the silliness we added to the last Mario Kingdom letters page, written the best part of a year ago.
http://www.thehusks.com/warpzone/SuperMarioKingdom/Letters/Home.htm
Posted by Darrell Jones at May 18, 2004 01:11 PM
"Oh, my. It is only a TV show. We all love it. None of us know Craig. Is it really worth slagging anyone off? Just watch the y show."
Somebody with no brain, there.
Posted by Ranger at May 18, 2004 01:58 PM
Of course it could have been from:
http://www.planetbods.org/tv/timeteam.live
Which was written at least 4 years ago.
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 18, 2004 02:20 PM
That doesn't have the Rowan Atkinson bitterness, the single pebble leading to a complete CGI reconstruction, or the joke about the place being dug up without permission. Ours is much closer.
Given my big run-in with Fountain on NotBBC in November, it somehow seems more feasible. And they nick so much material from elsewhere anyway it'd hardly be a surprise.
It's as likely not to have been nicked, but it's still far too close to ours for comfort.
Posted by Darrell Jones at May 18, 2004 02:33 PM
>None of us know Craig. Is it really worth slagging anyone off?
Actually, my mum and dad went to the same college as him (a couple of years above), and my dad says he was a tosser even then.
Posted by Seb at May 18, 2004 03:36 PM
Dead Ringers is shite.
Not particularly controversial, but true.
Posted by Pete Martin at May 18, 2004 03:53 PM
There's the guy on ATVRD who claims to know him really well, and watch all the programmes with him etc.
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 18, 2004 05:58 PM
Oh, so you do know him personally. I stand corrected.
Posted by Thomas at May 20, 2004 12:12 PM
I don't think anyone HERE actually does.
Posted by Mr Flibble at May 20, 2004 06:23 PM
Just to grab onto the departing bandwagon's back:
"I am a geek, and I freely admit that. However, I don't have greasy hair, spots or glasses and I've never worn an anorak."
And I'm a geek who DOES have glasses and an annoying case of psoriasis, and it's fragging annoying having fuckers in the media act like I should be ashamed of this or if this = friendless gimp. I can't really do much about me genetics, now can I?
Never seen a geek with an anorak though. Has there ever been one or is it a stereotype that appeared from the ether?
Posted by Charles RB at May 21, 2004 11:37 PM
I think trainspotters probably wear them a lot. Which is hardly surprising, since people who stand at the end of railway platforms all day are in need of practical and affordable protection from the elements.
Nowt wrong with that. Can't say I find anoraks a particularly appealing item of clothing myself, but then I can't say I find those sodding foam trucker caps appealing either, and every bloody one's wearing them, so there's no accounting for taste.
Posted by Seb at May 22, 2004 02:17 AM
I'm afraid I'm a closet geek, most of my mates are aware of my nerdish tendencies but not to the true extent. Okay, so I've never been to a Convention (and am not likely to, either) and I'd set the video if it was a case of watching new Red Dwarf or going clubbing, but I know how to kill a despair squid...and I've watched "Only the Good" almost three times.
God, this is like Geeks Anonymous.
Posted by Pete Martin at May 22, 2004 06:39 PM
Post a comment
<trackback>
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://admin.ofla.info/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/418
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Cunts' from Ganymede and Titan.