The point of Simon Pegg is that he is a
funny, talented actor.
I would have thought that someone
who sets themself up a some sort of
comedy warrior would better spend their time slagging of people who deserve it.
Just a thought. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Thu Apr 20 21:28:57 BST 2000:

Oh Simon Pegg does deserve it, sorry to break it to you ... did you see 'We know where you live?'

Seriously though, I can't remember ever being impressed by anything he has done, but I have heard reports of him making snipy remarks about other comedians.

Tell us why we should like him and we'll listen - saying he's a funny and talented actor isn't much of an argument without examples and reasoning to back it up.

Comedy Warrior ?! Purlease! Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Simon H on Fri Apr 21 09:57:06 BST 2000:

I don't know who Simon Pegg is. Was he that bloke on the panel with Richard Herring in 99p Challenge, Rob, during the 'controversial' and 'difficult to edit out the c-words' episode? In that case, Simon Pegg is the least memorable comedian ever... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Fri Apr 21 18:26:48 BST 2000:

That was him...

I surprised at the lack of support for Simon Pegg so far... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Sat Apr 22 12:19:46 BST 2000:

As for the reports of Simon 'sniping' about other comedians- where have you heard this? He's never, to my knowledge, said anything less than complimentary about anyone. He seems to bloody *nice* to slag anyone off. Comedy, surely, is subjective- what makes you laugh doesn't necessarily make anyone else laugh. We Know Where You Live was made 5 years ago, and yes, it possibly wasn't the best sketch show in the world- but it features some of todays most talented people in comedy- everybody has to start somewhere. It practically started the careers of Sanjeev Bhaskar, Fiona Allen, Amanda Holden, Simon Pegg who've gone on to make some really good comedy. Smack the Pony, Goodness Gracious Me and Spaced being prime examples.
As for 'the point' of Simon Pegg, you haven't really come up with an argument about why there isn't 'a point' to him.... What's the point of this website?? To needlessly slag off people who don't deserve it? I doubt you've written and starred in a Bafta nominated 'sitcom', have you? So shut up and start talking about someone who really does deserve it.

Sian
x Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Walter Westinghouse on Sat Apr 22 13:16:16 BST 2000:

Simon Pegg is a gifted performer and one of the most gracious people in the comedy world.I dont think he should be held to ransom for WE know...ALL comedians/actors have little control over their careers and have to start some where (and eat).Spaced I thought was one of the more refreshing comedies to appear on TV,in recent times, which dare I say it, showed some warmth .A rare commodity in new British comedy these days. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sat Apr 22 13:53:50 BST 2000:

>As for 'the point' of Simon Pegg, you haven't really come up with an argument about why there isn't 'a point' to him....

Well as I already said, I've not seen him anything that has impressed me yet. Hippies was dire, Big Train was not the show it should of been, and - as Simon said - his performance at 99p Challenge was highly forgettable.

> What's the point of this website?? To needlessly slag off people who don't deserve it? I doubt you've written and starred in a Bafta nominated 'sitcom', have you? So shut up and start talking about someone who really does deserve it.

I hardly call asking people to give the point of Simon Pegg a slagging - mind you, I wouldn't call Spaced a sitcom either. ;)

You'll notice that when the SOTCAA praises something they tend to back up their arguement with examples, rather than just suggest the whole thing is subjective.

One of the points of the website (as far as I can tell, remember I'm not one of the authors) is too encourage people to form their own opinions about comedy and to express them properly - otherwise we end up with TV companies comissioning crap like dotcomedy and expecting us to accept it as the norm...

If you don't even attempt to back up your arguement you can't expect people to take you views seriously. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sat Apr 22 13:56:19 BST 2000:

>Simon Pegg is a gifted performer and one of the most gracious people in the comedy world.I dont think he should be held to ransom for WE know...ALL comedians/actors have little control over their careers and have to start some where (and eat).

I think you might be taking the 'We know where you live' comment a little too seriously, read the second paragraph more carefully...particularly the first bit. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Sat Apr 22 15:56:57 BST 2000:

Okay, Rob, fair enough- perhaps I did jump in there a bit too quick without really thinking it through ;o) Point taken!

I was just pointing out that while you said nothing you'd seen had impressed you, you'd neglected to mention Spaced..... Maybe this didn't impress you, but it has been nominated for a Bafta which shows that it has made an impression on people as a worthy comedy show. Perhaps this is more indicative of Mr P's talent, as he not only stars in it, but also co-wrote it; whereas the other shows you're talking about he was acting in and I think he made a pretty good job of it and cannot take full responsibility for the lacking elements of the scripts.
As for the poor write-ups 'Guest House Paradiso' got, Simon himself readily admits he didn't rate the finished product but did it because he didn't want to turn down working with Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson. At least Simon himself admits when something he has done is perhaps not award-winningly brilliant. But you cannot really criticise him for Spaced, I feel.
And, no- I wouldn't call Spaced a sitcom, either... which is why I put inverted commas round it!

Sian
x

Was that a bit better?!! Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Annoyed Spacedgirl on Sat Apr 22 16:40:56 BST 2000:

Rob, have you ever seen Simon in stand up? If you have I would have thought that you'd have realised that the point of his act was to make people laugh!
As far as We Know Where You Live is concerned if you'd have done any research or really knew anything at all about Simon Pegg you would know that he is not particularly proud of WKWYL and would sooner leave it in the past. WKWYL actually gave opportunities to young unknown gag writers, something that the beeb would never have done, and for this at least it must be praised. Anyway, it was on Channel 5 so surely it didn't hurt too many people.
So you wouldn't describe Spaced as a sitcom? I think perhaps you are getting the point then. Personally I think Spaced should have been nominated for the Innovation Bafta along with the League of Gentlemen but you can't have everything.
Sian's right, it's not Simon's fault if he hasn't been given the opportunity to utlise his real talent in the projects he's been doing. At the end of the day comedians have to make a choice between exposure (and not of the indecent kind unless we're talking about Ali G's so called 'show') and quality. Anyway, like it or not you will be seeing a lot more of Simon (no indecent exposure though as far as I am aware) this year, and you might be advised to reserve your judgement for now! Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The Editors on Sat Apr 22 18:03:35 BST 2000:

Simon Pegg appeared in Guest House Paradiso because he didn't want to turn down working with Rik and Ade? Yep, that's him all over.

The point of this website is to shake up comedy fans a little and get them thinking about where comedy is going. We've no problem with people thinking differently - if you *genuinely* love the comedy Simon Pegg, Al Murray, the Boosh, et al come up with, then fine. But we refuse to be carried on the flotsam and jetsam of a comedy industry that measures its prowess in BAFTA Awards, viewing figures and fawning, say-nothing reviews copied off press releases. As for having a go at 'people who deserve it'? What, people like Iain Lee and Rory Bremner? These people are self-evidently awful, and are slagged off all over the shop anyway. Pegg deserves criticism for more specific crimes - the standard defence proffered in retalliation being 'Yeah, but he's really nice', which won't win you any debating prizes. (And, in any case, being nice is simply common courtesy - it doesn't mean they have a right to make television programmes.)

And saying comedy is 'subjective' is the ultimate admission of defeat. *Everything* is subjective. That's the whole point of having an argument. Any argument. It's all part of the soup.

Received wisdom, for example, states that Spaced was the most ground-breaking and important sitcom of the past ten years. SOTCAA says it was lazy, shallow, full of knowing-wink references to what allegedly constitutes student/youth 'culture', and crammed with Simpsons-esque pull-back-and-reveal type jokes without any of the pacing that this device demands. Your move.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sat Apr 22 18:30:02 BST 2000:

Annoyed Spacegirl: Ok, I don't see why I should reserve my judgement when so many other people want me to believe Simon Pegg is so great... plus can I once again point out the WKWYL wasn't supposed to be taken that seriously.

Now I must confess that I haven't seen that much of Spaced, that's not to say I didn't give it a chance though. I thought it was an attempt at a surreal, slightly self-indulgent comedy aimed at a very mainstream audience.

That's not to say it was all bad, it just wasn't a work of genius either - it certainly wasn't ground breaking, and I'd be surprised if we're all talking about it still in five - ten years or so... not unless it has an exceptional second series.

A lot of you may not agree with me, or SOTCAA, but that's OK because people are allowed to have a difference of opinion. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Slightly calmer Spacedgirl on Sat Apr 22 20:57:01 BST 2000:

Rob, yes everyone is entitled to an opinion which is the whole point of a message board/forum type thing I presume. Also, I never once used the word 'great' in my defence of Simon Pegg.

I do think it lacks imagination on the part of the editors to start a debate with 'what is the point of (insert harmless entertaining comedians name...like um...Peter Kay - there you go something else to think about for next time.) I would be far more interested in the point of say, putting the sweets you get with Easter Eggs on the outside of the egg and therefore using more packaging when they could just put them in the middle of the egg (or indeed the point of sad individuals attempting to try out observational humour on messageboards and failing miserably).

>A lot of you may not agree with me, or SOTCAA, but that's OK because people are allowed to have a difference of opinion.

What kind of a debate was that then anyway? What a cop out!
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sat Apr 22 23:47:04 BST 2000:

>Rob, yes everyone is entitled to an opinion which is the whole point of a message board/forum type thing I presume.

Yes, my point was that we were getting personal abuse for having a difference of opinion.

> Also, I never once used the word 'great' in my defence of Simon Pegg.

Yes, but you're calling yourself Spacedgirl.

>I do think it lacks imagination on the part of the editors to start a debate with 'what is the point of (insert harmless entertaining comedians name...like um...Peter Kay - there you go something else to think about for next time.)

I don't think the kind of hype surrounding Pegg is justified. If I don't express my opinion then I wouldn't be contributing to any sort of balance, and no balance would be harmful to comedy...

> (or indeed the point of sad individuals attempting to try out observational humour on messageboards and failing miserably).

Not sure if that's a reference to us or not - if it is, you've misread our messages a lot.

>>A lot of you may not agree with me, or SOTCAA, but that's OK because people are allowed to have a difference of opinion.
>What kind of a debate was that then anyway? What a cop out!

Well, given that someone want to use me as a figure of hate in a computer game for expressing an opinion, I wouldn't say it was me who didn't want a debate.

Most of the fans of Pegg were not looking for a debate on the subject, they just wanted to defend 'their' Simon Pegg. To silence any desenting voices against him...

But, not one has yet justified their views other than with expressions like 'he good and talented'... explain to me why he's good - what was so great about Spaced? I'm listening...
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Spacedgirl on Sun Apr 23 11:08:26 BST 2000:

Aaargh I'm being drawn into a discussion here, I have better things to do like celebrate the resurrection of Christ our lord and saviour, ok what the hell...

>Yes, my point was that we were getting personal abuse for having a difference of opinion.

That wasn't from me though and I apologise if you took it that way.

>> Also, I never once used the word 'great' in my defence of Simon Pegg.
>
>Yes, but you're calling yourself Spacedgirl.

Yes because I like Spaced, I could like it for all kinds of reasons, I could be a huge fan of Mark Heap for all you know.

>I don't think the kind of hype surrounding Pegg is justified. If I don't express my opinion then I wouldn't be contributing to any sort of balance, and no balance would be harmful to comedy...

I have to admit that I haven't heard a lot of hype about Simon. I thought that hype was akin to advertising anyway, all exaggeration to get your interest. It's bad but it has to be there. I think the press has been pretty quiet about Simon himself considering he's been a big name on the stand up scene since the early 1990's and it's Spaced that seems to get the hype, rightly or wrongly.

>> (or indeed the point of sad individuals attempting to try out observational humour on messageboards and failing miserably).
>
>Not sure if that's a reference to us or not - if it is, you've misread our messages a lot.

*sigh* I think perhaps you have misread my last message then, it was actually a dig at myself.

>Well, given that someone want to use me as a figure of hate in a computer game for expressing an opinion, I wouldn't say it was me who didn't want a debate.

Yet again, nothing to do with me.

>But, not one has yet justified their views other than with expressions like 'he good and talented'... explain to me why he's good - what was so great about Spaced? I'm listening...

To answer the first part, because he's funny. He hasn't cancelled third world debt or found a cure for cancer if that's the kind of justification you're looking for. He makes me laugh, which is essentially all I really look for in a comedian. Perhaps he hasn't done anything grown breaking in your opinion, on tv yet. But if say, some famous writers who had written an extremely successful sitcom revolving around three Irish priests approached you and asked you to be in a sketch show they were thinking up and said that Chris Morris would be directing the pilot you wouldn't turn the opportunity down would you?
Ditto for Hippies, and like it or not there's going to be a new series of that this year.

I like Spaced because it's refreshing and yet familiar, not because it's the most unusual thing I've ever seen on tv. Although in this day and age and with the current state of comedy on the box it has to be described as innovative. If anyone else can come up with any other current comedy programme that is anything like innovative I'm all ears, and please don't say Jam because we all know that's not a comedy but a plea for a straight jacket. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Sun Apr 23 12:29:46 BST 2000:

I'm really sorry if this has turned into a slanging match, call it a brief loss of control, whatever.... A debate is always good, I just didn't like the wording of ''what's the point of...''
But I do agree with everything the Spacedgirl said in her last message. Surely the 'point' is to make people laugh- and if he doesn't make you laugh, then fine! I think he's more of an actor than a comedian (even though he was quite big on the standup scene in the early 90's)

Sian
x Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Simon Pegg on Sun Apr 23 13:04:21 BST 2000:

Thanks for discussing me on your site, I'm honoured to be worthy of such a slagging. I was a little concerned about the 'snippy' comment, it is completely unfounded.

Anyway, I'll leave the debate to rage on. I shan't be back, I doubt my ego could take it. The site looks great, keep up the good work.

Best wishes,

Simon Pegg Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun Apr 23 13:40:33 BST 2000:

>>Yes, my point was that we were getting personal abuse for having a difference of opinion.
>That wasn't from me though and I apologise if you took it that way.

No, I wasn't suggesting it was from you...

>>> Also, I never once used the word 'great' in my defence of Simon Pegg.
>>Yes, but you're calling yourself Spacedgirl.
>Yes because I like Spaced, I could like it for all kinds of reasons, I could be a huge fan of Mark Heap for all you know.

Yes, but it is mainly because of Simon isn't it? Be honest...

>>I don't think the kind of hype surrounding Pegg is justified. If I don't express my opinion then I wouldn't be contributing to any sort of balance, and no balance would be harmful to comedy...
>I have to admit that I haven't heard a lot of hype about Simon. I thought that hype was akin to advertising anyway, all exaggeration to get your interest.

Well considering a number of my friends, who are not into comedy to the same extent as me, know an awful lot about Pegg and what he's up to but don't know nearly as much about his (imho more talented) contemporaries suggest there is hype around wouldn't you say...?

> It's bad but it has to be there.

Not true... many successful acts generate hype after they've made it big, so what purpose does it serve?

> I think the press has been pretty quiet about Simon himself considering he's been a big name on the stand up scene since the early 1990's and it's Spaced that seems to get the hype, rightly or wrongly.

So you missed all the Hippies trailers then?

>>But, not one has yet justified their views other than with expressions like 'he good and talented'... explain to me why he's good - what was so great about Spaced? I'm listening...
>To answer the first part, because he's funny. He hasn't cancelled third world debt or found a cure for cancer if that's the kind of justification you're looking for.

Nope, have a read thru SOTCAA, you'll get more of an idea of what I mean...

> He makes me laugh, which is essentially all I really look for in a comedian.

Why does he make you laugh...? That is basically what The Editor was originally asking for...!

> Perhaps he hasn't done anything grown breaking in your opinion, on tv yet. But if say, some famous writers who had written an extremely successful sitcom revolving around three Irish priests approached you and asked you to be in a sketch show they were thinking up and said that Chris Morris would be directing the pilot you wouldn't turn the opportunity down would you?

I can't say - I'm not famous and never likely to be... thank gawd.

>Ditto for Hippies, and like it or not there's going to be a new series of that this year.

Not if you don't mind ;)

>I like Spaced because it's refreshing and yet familiar, not because it's the most unusual thing I've ever seen on tv.

Fair enough, nowt wrong with that.

> Although in this day and age and with the current state of comedy on the box it has to be described as innovative. If anyone else can come up with any other current comedy programme that is anything like innovative I'm all ears, and please don't say Jam because we all know that's not a comedy but a plea for a straight jacket.

Depends how you define innovative - I could suggest TMWRNJ as innovative for being a live modern comedy sketch show, yet there's nothing unusal about live programming...
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun Apr 23 13:42:31 BST 2000:

>Anyway, I'll leave the debate to rage on. I shan't be back, I doubt my ego could take it. The site looks great, keep up the good work.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Simon Pegg

Pah! Not another one... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Anonymous on Sun Apr 23 15:20:09 BST 2000:

Simon was genuinely hurt by the comments on here, that last post was from him.
If we're going to 'debate' this properly, let's leave out the personal abuse- makes it nicer for everyone.
As for your question- ''why does he make you laugh?'' that's a hard question to answer because it's one of those things you don't have to have a detailed answer for- literally it's ''just because....''.
I think the harsh reception you all got for bringing this up was due to Simon's incredibly loyal fanbase, who perhaps haven't ever had their views questioned in such a way before.....
As for the hype surrounding him, I haven't really noticed any in the public eye at the moment. Perhaps you only know what's going on is because of the L&H GB, but I haven't noticed anything around since Spaced came off the air. What kind of hype were you referring to?

Sian
x Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Spacedgirl on Sun Apr 23 16:56:46 BST 2000:

>> I think the press has been pretty quiet about Simon himself considering he's been a big name on the stand up scene since the early 1990's and it's Spaced that seems to get the hype, rightly or wrongly.
>
>So you missed all the Hippies trailers then?

I'm sorry I think you seemed to have confused 'hype' with 'advertising' there, and as SP has no control over the advertisements I don't understand how you can hold him responsible!

>Nope, have a read thru SOTCAA, you'll get more of an idea of what I mean...

It all seems to be incredibly biased towards Richard Herring and Stewart Lee, not that I'm complaining just commenting. I have seen SL and Simon Pegg in stand up and Simon Pegg made me laugh more so there you go. The point of Simon Pegg being that he made me laugh more than SL.

>>Ditto for Hippies, and like it or not there's going to be a new series of that this year.
>
>Not if you don't mind ;)

Then you'd better close your eyes when you see the new adverts as they may just send you over the edge :o)

>Depends how you define innovative - I could suggest TMWRNJ as innovative for being a live modern comedy sketch show, yet there's nothing unusal about live programming...

I wouldn't describe anything as innovative personally, not since the last episode of Big Night Out.

Perhaps the editors could have phrased it better, perhaps saying 'What's so great about Simon Pegg?' or something like that. Unless of course it was planted there to generate hilarious comic responses?

Sian's right, we are a loyal fanbase. Not because we are blinkered or stupid just because we are fans. The reason why your friends know about Simon Pegg could be because he is one of the most successful comedy actors at the moment? I don't know why they know so much about him, why not ask them?

What is the point of this discussion? there isn't one except that it and indeed you are helping to spread more hype about Simon Pegg, god bless you.


Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Nick Lee on Sun Apr 23 21:49:02 BST 2000:

The POINT of Simon Pegg is, as other people have said, is that he is a gifted actor and comedian and also one of the most widely-acclaimed. He is also a genuinely nice person. In these days of hotheaded stars and classes Simon still is generous, open and a credit to his line of work. I have often heard it said more people should be like him. SPACED I think is not measured on BAFTAs or viewing figures but on how funny it is and how intelligently it is written. Can you find a slackcom like it? I doubt it.

For those of you out there who are sceptics, at least it does not conform to the traditional and quite restrictive values of a traditional sitcom. I think Simon will do a lot more to prove you wrong.

You are obvioudly harking back to the days when Men Behaving Badly and Harry Enfield and Chums consisted of the best comedy on telly.

I can only apologise that someone has managed to come up with an original idea for once.

Regards,

Nick Lee
Webmaster, Spaced Out
http://www.spaced.org.uk
robotzruleuk@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By David Frost on Sun Apr 23 22:05:53 BST 2000:

I totally agree. Just leave simon alone. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun Apr 23 22:30:41 BST 2000:

Ok, let's go thru these one by one...

>Simon was genuinely hurt by the comments on here, that last post was from him.

Yes I realise that post was probably from him, I can't think of a reason why anyone would pretned to be him. I don't think he found the view expressed hurtful, I would be quite concerned (for a few reasons) if he did.

>If we're going to 'debate' this properly, let's leave out the personal abuse- makes it nicer for everyone.

Hmm, basically so far I have said why I don't like Simon's work - you have said why you like it. What isn't proper about that debate exactly?

>As for your question- ''why does he make you laugh?'' that's a hard question to answer because it's one of those things you don't have to have a detailed answer for- literally it's ''just because....''.

I'm sorry, that argument doesn't wash - you should always have a reason for liking something, even if it just something superficial... try thinking a bit harder - otherwise you're just following the crowd.

>I think the harsh reception you all got for bringing this up was due to Simon's incredibly loyal fanbase, who perhaps haven't ever had their views questioned in such a way before.....

Well it probably about time they were questioned then...

>As for the hype surrounding him, I haven't really noticed any in the public eye at the moment. Perhaps you only know what's going on is because of the L&H GB, but I haven't noticed anything around since Spaced came off the air. What kind of hype were you referring to?

Mostly the hype that surrounded Hippies and Spaced - which will probably resurface for the new series.... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun Apr 23 22:41:33 BST 2000:

>>So you missed all the Hippies trailers then?
>I'm sorry I think you seemed to have confused 'hype' with 'advertising' there, and as SP has no control over the advertisements I don't understand how you can hold him responsible!

Erm, hype is a form of advertising I'd of though... er.... and lack of control - you mean they held a gun against his head whilst filming them?! oh blimey...

I'm not just referring to hype as in adverts, but on all levels, such as people like yourself who take strong offense when someone cristices him.

>>Nope, have a read thru SOTCAA, you'll get more of an idea of what I mean...
>It all seems to be incredibly biased towards Richard Herring and Stewart Lee, not that I'm complaining just commenting.

The authors like L&H - but at least they justify it ... plus it's balanced criticism, as a quick look thru the comment section will reveal.

> I have seen SL and Simon Pegg in stand up and Simon Pegg made me laugh more so there you go. The point of Simon Pegg being that he made me laugh more than SL.

Yes and why would that be...?

>>>Ditto for Hippies, and like it or not there's going to be a new series of that this year.
>>Not if you don't mind ;)
>Then you'd better close your eyes when you see the new adverts as they may just send you over the edge :o)

Yes... I'll have the emergency services on stand by obviously.

>>Depends how you define innovative - I could suggest TMWRNJ as innovative for being a live modern comedy sketch show, yet there's nothing unusal about live programming...
>I wouldn't describe anything as innovative personally, not since the last episode of Big Night Out.

Ok and why was Big Night Out so much more innovative than anything since then?

>Perhaps the editors could have phrased it better, perhaps saying 'What's so great about Simon Pegg?' or something like that. Unless of course it was planted there to generate hilarious comic responses?

I doubt it... maybe they wanted to spark a debate like this one...?

>Sian's right, we are a loyal fanbase. Not because we are blinkered or stupid just because we are fans. The reason why your friends know about Simon Pegg could be because he is one of the most successful comedy actors at the moment? I don't know why they know so much about him, why not ask them?

I already have - it's because of the endless trails etc etc...

>What is the point of this discussion? there isn't one except that it and indeed you are helping to spread more hype about Simon Pegg, god bless you.

Well I'm still trying to work out why you like Simon Pegg so much ... it's a simple enough question really.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Andrea on Sun Apr 23 22:42:40 BST 2000:

>Simon Pegg appeared in Guest House Paradiso because he didn't want to turn down working with Rik and Ade? Yep, that's him all over.

So, you know him personally then, that you can make such a sweeping assumption about his actions?

Has it slipped your mind that Simon Pegg is a real human being, with feelings? Don't you think the wording of the thread is a little insensitive to say the least? By all means, challenge his talent, his ability or his writing, but to ask what the point is of *him* is downright nasty and unnecessary. I would say that the point of Simon Pegg is to have brought 29 years of joy and love to his family, friends and partner. Taken literally, his career has no bearing on the point of his existence.

If you meant 'how can he justify his career success', then why did you deliberately word the question so as to cause personal offence? I don't think anyone should *have* to justify themselves, especially not to someone who hasn't appeared in or written anything of a higher standard themselves. However, although not a major fan myself, I can appreciate that he has something that appeals to a good many people. For me, the funniest and most well-observed thing I've seen him in was as a foil to Steve Coogan on the 'Man Who Thinks He's It' tour. This was written, I believe, by Coogan & Armando Iannuchi, not Pegg himself. However, he conveyed the weaknesses of the characters, which is, in my opinion, his real strength. Yes, you could argue that these type of characters are mainly what he portrays, but he does them with professionalism and all credit to him for that.

The point of Simon Pegg's *career* is that, like every other actor/comedian/musician, he is able to bring a little enjoyment into someone's life. Even if he only brings that to one person, then that's justification enough in a climate that boasts such a wealth of 'stars', both good and bad.
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun Apr 23 22:56:40 BST 2000:

>The POINT of Simon Pegg is, as other people have said, is that he is a gifted actor and comedian and also one of the most widely-acclaimed.

Oh blimey... why is he gifted? Explain to me what promotes his work above other peoples?

> He is also a genuinely nice person. In these days of hotheaded stars and classes Simon still is generous, open and a credit to his line of work. I have often heard it said more people should be like him.

You could describe a number of people in comedy in exactly the same way.

> SPACED I think is not measured on BAFTAs or viewing figures but on how funny it is and how intelligently it is written. Can you find a slackcom like it? I doubt it.

A slackcom... ahh that's what it is... well it would explain the use of 'surreality' to disguise an essentially mediocre product.

Most sitcoms arround at the moment aren't up to much, that doesn't mean that Spaced is instantly a classic.

>For those of you out there who are sceptics, at least it does not conform to the traditional and quite restrictive values of a traditional sitcom. I think Simon will do a lot more to prove you wrong.

In what way does it not? I feel it used gimmicks to hide a very basic 'flatmates' type sitcom.

>You are obvioudly harking back to the days when Men Behaving Badly and Harry Enfield and Chums consisted of the best comedy on telly.

Yes, the early nineties, the golden age BBC1 mainstream comedy! Obvious really...

I have never considered either of those programmes to be the best comedy on telly.

> I can only apologise that someone has managed to come up with an original idea for once.

That's ok... but a lot of people share my opinion, so it's not that original.










Oh you didn't mean that - sorry!
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun Apr 23 22:58:15 BST 2000:

>I totally agree. Just leave simon alone.

Why is it not ok to express a negative opinion about a person in the public eye? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun Apr 23 23:14:07 BST 2000:

>>Simon Pegg appeared in Guest House Paradiso because he didn't want to turn down working with Rik and Ade? Yep, that's him all over.
>So, you know him personally then, that you can make such a sweeping assumption about his actions?

Well they've met him enough to see him 'out of character' if that's what you mean. It's not really a sweeping assumption, more a passing comment - an unsurprising move if you will.

>Has it slipped your mind that Simon Pegg is a real human being, with feelings? Don't you think the wording of the thread is a little insensitive to say the least? By all means, challenge his talent, his ability or his writing, but to ask what the point is of *him* is downright nasty and unnecessary.

Urm, given the amount of personal abuse I have received over this so far, I could say the same thing...! I'm sure Simon is grown up enough to handle this - it's not meant in a truely spiteful way.

> I would say that the point of Simon Pegg is to have brought 29 years of joy and love to his family, friends and partner. Taken literally, his career has no bearing on the point of his existence.

Fair enough...

>If you meant 'how can he justify his career success', then why did you deliberately word the question so as to cause personal offence? I don't think anyone should *have* to justify themselves, especially not to someone who hasn't appeared in or written anything of a higher standard themselves.

The Editors weren't asking Simon to justify himself, just asking others to explain why they like him so much. I can tell you why I like this, that, or the other, so why can't they?

> However, although not a major fan myself, I can appreciate that he has something that appeals to a good many people. For me, the funniest and most well-observed thing I've seen him in was as a foil to Steve Coogan on the 'Man Who Thinks He's It' tour. This was written, I believe, by Coogan & Armando Iannuchi, not Pegg himself. However, he conveyed the weaknesses of the characters, which is, in my opinion, his real strength.

Didn't see this - can't comment, but that probably the best argued point in his defense so far.

> Yes, you could argue that these type of characters are mainly what he portrays, but he does them with professionalism and all credit to him for that.

Again, fair enough, but I would argue that doesn't make him as talented as the fans would have you believe. It means he's either lazy or has a limited range.

>The point of Simon Pegg's *career* is that, like every other actor/comedian/musician, he is able to bring a little enjoyment into someone's life. Even if he only brings that to one person, then that's justification enough in a climate that boasts such a wealth of 'stars', both good and bad.

I would beg to differ on that point - you can't justify giving a job to person who brings enjoyment to a small group of people, when there are other more talented people around who would be better. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jo on Mon Apr 24 10:28:36 BST 2000:

Okay, Simon Pegg why does he make me laugh? I like his stand up, which you don't seem to even be aware of. I like his pregnant pauses, his dyed hair, his obsession with the simpsons, his observations, the way the humour just slowly creeps up on you, the fact that he skateboards. I like the characters he co-wrote for Spaced. I like the fact that in the Man Who Thinks He Is It, the audience were more impressed by his interludes than by Steve Coogan's performance. I find him an interesting comic to watch, I like his facial expressions. I don't know specifically what chemical reaction takes place in my brain that sends me the message enabling me to open my mouth and laugh out loud at Simon Pegg, it just happens. He makes me laugh, damn it!

Sure, this may all sound a bit shallow but I think Rob has pushed us to the point where it becomes neccessary to dissect everything about why we laugh at who/what we do, I don't think it makes the discussion interesting just very tedious and boring for anyone who can be arsed to trawl through it.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Tue Apr 25 20:07:41 BST 2000:

>Sure, this may all sound a bit shallow but I think Rob has pushed us to the point where it becomes neccessary to dissect everything about why we laugh at who/what we do, I don't think it makes the discussion interesting just very tedious and boring for anyone who can be arsed to trawl through it.

Well if you think that, you must find the rest of SOTCAA very boring...

My main point in this discussion is that whilst Pegg fans (and they are by no means the only groups of fans guilty of this) are very quick to be insulting, dismissive and abusive to someone who even considers thinking negatively about their hero, they can offer no real justification for their views, except on a very shallow level.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe Simon Pegg is the comedy genius he is being made out to be. Maybe if some of you broadened your comedy horizons you may understand our viewpoint more.

But I'm still willing to listen for real arguements ... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Tue Apr 25 21:10:40 BST 2000:

'Broadened our comedy horizons' Rob? While Simon has a very loyal fanbase, I doubt that we have a limited range of all things comedy that we laugh at.
I don't recall anyone saying 'comedy genius' ( I think very few people can claim to be one) about him, either.
I think you've had a harsh response due to the fact that you're also partially insulting our intelligence as well. I also don't recall anything specifically aimed at you that classifies as 'personal abuse' (but then, I don't read your personal email, so I could be wrong......).

So, basically, the question you're asking (which could have been phrased slightly more delicately) is what do we find funny about Simon, and why are we part of a loyal fanbase? I don't believe we're all in it for shallow reasons at all, I shall come back and answer this when I have more time.

I think Nick and Andrea make good points though.

Sian
x Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Damush on Tue Apr 25 23:53:48 BST 2000:

Having trawled through this entire discussion, there doesn't seem to be much point to the whole thing, other than to make each other feel slightly uncomfortable. Regardless of what anyone says, Rob seems to come back with the question "But why?", and this is just sending the entire discussion round the bend.

As an interesting exercise, read the Sally Phillips thread, but replace Sally's name with Simon Pegg, and then wonder at the similarity of the discussion there. And also how quickly Rob and The Editors sat on that one. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jon on Wed Apr 26 08:32:18 BST 2000:

The Sally Phillips one was different because there was a lot of accusations about her life, and little criticism of her work. Here there is criticism of Pegg's work, and nothing about his life, thank God. So there is no hypocrisy by The Editors. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Wed Apr 26 09:54:45 BST 2000:

>'Broadened our comedy horizons' Rob? While Simon has a very loyal fanbase, I doubt that we have a limited range of all things comedy that we laugh at.

Well why don't you tell us and then we'll be able judge ...?

>I don't recall anyone saying 'comedy genius' ( I think very few people can claim to be one) about him, either.

It's heavily implied in a lot of the arguements, but I have heard people call him that.

>I think you've had a harsh response due to the fact that you're also partially insulting our intelligence as well. I also don't recall anything specifically aimed at you that classifies as 'personal abuse' (but then, I don't read your personal email, so I could be wrong......).

You could well be ...

>So, basically, the question you're asking (which could have been phrased slightly more delicately) is what do we find funny about Simon, and why are we part of a loyal fanbase?

No, just the first bit. And remember you're answering the Editor's question.

> I don't believe we're all in it for shallow reasons at all, I shall come back and answer this when I have more time.

Can't wait ...

>I think Nick and Andrea make good points though.

Urm, which points are they? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Wed Apr 26 10:00:29 BST 2000:

>Having trawled through this entire discussion, there doesn't seem to be much point to the whole thing, other than to make each other feel slightly uncomfortable. Regardless of what anyone says, Rob seems to come back with the question "But why?", and this is just sending the entire discussion round the bend.

Yes, that's because no body has really answered the question.

Let me quote a paragraph from the Absolutely article in Archive Review, re: The Nice Family:

"...What was so exciting about this performance was that there was no heavy-handed intention to satirise such a character - instead, he was there simply to be as funny as possible, either with unconventional speech (generally pronouncing an ‘f’ as a ‘v’) or with a strange line in tautologies which his family seemed to adopt (‘Ah, breakfast - the most important breakfast of the day...’). However, this was no messy, anything-goes twaddle: it was, like all their sketches, impeccably script-edited and rehearsed. The essence of Absolutely seemed to be that there is no point in being anarchic and post-modern if you don't possess the talent to write a disciplined sketch to build upon in the first place"

Now compare it to the "Oh he's very funny and nice" arguements we've had defending Pegg so far... now I'm not suggesting you need to come up with something similar or as detailed, but just look and learn something from the vast difference between the two.

>As an interesting exercise, read the Sally Phillips thread, but replace Sally's name with Simon Pegg, and then wonder at the similarity of the discussion there. And also how quickly Rob and The Editors sat on that one.

I think Jon has already covered this one... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jon on Wed Apr 26 12:10:53 BST 2000:

I haven't seen WKWYL, 'Guest House Paradiso', the Steve Coogan tour, or his stand-up work. I thought he was very good in 'Big Train'. 'Hippies' couldn't have been better if the young John Cleese had done the role.

Faults of 'Spaced':
1. Hackneyed comic targets such as 'mad' modern artists, performance artists (does it still exist? Wasn't it a 70s thing? Read 'Buddha of Suburbia').
2. Characters living beyond obvious means of support- the eternal problem of sitcoms, which affects all "realistic" popular drama/fiction (cf. George Orwell's comments on women's magazine fiction, in his 'Boy's Weeklies' essay(1940)).
3. The SP character is inconsistent -if he is a comic books/sci-fi/internet nerd, why is he comparatively well-adjusted, and make sharp comments about e.g. 'the Rocky Horror Show' being undergrad tat?

Strength : the rest of it was very funny.

Conclusion: I think SP is alright, from what I've seen, and I haven't noticed him being 'hyped' in any way. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Damush on Wed Apr 26 13:49:44 BST 2000:

>>Having trawled through this entire discussion... Rob seems to come back with the question "But why?", and this is just sending the entire discussion round the bend.

>Yes, that's because no body has really answered the question.

Yes, and I would again state that I think that people have tried to answer it, in their own way, and more importantly in their own time, but you don't seem to want to read what they have said. Any reason put up on this site, any at all, has just gained the response "But why?" which isn't particularly constructive. Isn't "because he's funny" good enough? Why isn't it? To question and disect comedy is to kill it.

>Let me quote a paragraph from the Absolutely article in Archive Review, re: The Nice Family:

Let me applaud that paragraph. Beautifully well argued and written, as is most of this website. Which is written by two people with obvious writing skills and a deep and disturbing obsession with comedy. Not all of us have those kind of skills at our disposal, but I think the majority of people who have posted on this discussion have expressed themselves adequately.

>Now compare it to the "Oh he's very funny and nice" arguements we've had defending Pegg so far...

Written by people who haven't had anything up to two years to practice what they're going to say. These are gut reactions. Those reviews are not.

Some people think Simon is great. Some don't. Can't we just leave it at that? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Damush on Wed Apr 26 13:51:37 BST 2000:

>The Sally Phillips one was different because there was a lot of accusations about her life, and little criticism of her work. Here there is criticism of Pegg's work, and nothing about his life, thank God. So there is no hypocrisy by The Editors.

I would call this - the original posting - "Do you know the point of Simon Pegg? If you can think of one, please add your suggestion to the list."

a personal criticism of Pegg. Where is the detailed breakdown of his work?
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jon on Wed Apr 26 14:01:56 BST 2000:

Bugger...you caught me out there... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Wed Apr 26 15:07:42 BST 2000:

>I would call this - the original posting "Do you know the point of Simon Pegg? If you can think of one, please add your suggestion to the list." a personal criticism of Pegg. Where is the detailed breakdown of his work?

It's clearly a reference to his work, which I would suggest you have delib choosen to misinterpret to avoid coming up with any real answers... (note my 'fair enough' response to the comment that he brings joy to his family earlier on).

I'm not expecting anyone to come up with as detailed breakdown as the Absolutely article (which I did say in that posting), but I would expect better than "He's just funny" - particularly when the attitude of his fans is insulting when you disagree with them.

By the way, as to "Where is the detailed breakdown of his work?" - we're asking *you* (his fans) to give us the answers... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The Corpses on Wed Apr 26 15:15:22 BST 2000:

The broader point we're making (and we argue it ad nauseam in the Dot Dot Dot article in 'Comment') is that people seem to have an inbuilt mistrust of criticism, whether it be erudite or abusive. We just find this odd.

If we'd started a subject saying 'Isn't Simon Pegg brilliant?', nobody would have moaned. So why is fawning sycophancy acceptable but criticism out of order? Because it's 'nice'? Pegg is doing a job, and he's expecting us lot to pay him for the privilege. He's accountable.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Mike J on Wed Apr 26 16:00:45 BST 2000:

I'm not sure why you find the 'mistrust' of criticism in this context 'odd'. Of *course* folks get defensive when you dissect and lay bare the more prosaic elements of something they may have enjoyed, whether it's comedy, music or film - nobody likes to feel stupid, feeling that they've 'missed the point' or failed to 'see through the sham'. "You laughed at that? You think it's *funny*? Here's a list of reasons why you're *wrong*".

I presume this thread is a slightly disingenuous attempt to 'redress the balance'. A "We think Pegg's useless, demonstrate to us that he isn't" invitation to debate (as if anyone's mind is going to change). Well, fair enough...

I don't know that much of the guy's work, but I did see "Spaced". A richer, denser piece of comic entertainment than I've seen in a long time. I didn't video the series and so haven't watched it since, so whether its myriad stylistic conceits seem rather clunking on a second viewing and (as Rob S seems to suggest) "it won't last" I've no idea. At the time, taking on its own terms for 30 minutes every week, it was an intoxicating textural treat. My wife and I actually *looked forward* to the thing (it's a rare bird than can inspire that kind of devotion in our household). All the stuff dismissed earlier in this thread as 'gimmickry' I revelled in, taking it as part of the comedic whole, rather than schlock devices to spruce up a conventional flatshare scenario. This seems rather like denouncing some dizzying pop confection as 'not much of a song beneath all the production wizardry' - a perfectly valid line of attack, but not one that would concern me too much if the thing-as-a-whole knocked me sideways.

This business of 'received wisdom' and shooting it down irks me somewhat too. The 'received wisdom' on "Spaced", from the broadsheet reviews that I encountered last year, seemed to mirror the views of Rob S very closely - gimmicky, over-reliant on pop-culture references, insubstantial. The RW on the 11OCS is that it's derivative vacuous tripe - pretty much what is said in here. Or am I reading the wrong papers?

I'm not explaining myself very well here, so I'll just shut up. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Wed Apr 26 16:57:00 BST 2000:

>I'm not sure why you find the 'mistrust' of criticism in this context 'odd'. Of *course* folks get defensive when you dissect and lay bare the more prosaic elements of something they may have enjoyed, whether it's comedy, music or film - nobody likes to feel stupid, feeling that they've 'missed the point' or failed to 'see through the sham'. "You laughed at that? You think it's *funny*? Here's a list of reasons why you're *wrong*".

The reaction of spite and anger to critisism is slightly odd though, when given a right to reply. If someone has a different viewpoint to you, fair enough, but to attack someone because of it (esp when you cannot justify your opinion) is bizarre (for want to a better word) ...

>I presume this thread is a slightly disingenuous attempt to 'redress the balance'. A "We think Pegg's useless, demonstrate to us that he isn't" invitation to debate (as if anyone's mind is going to change). Well, fair enough...

Or maybe to try and get people to think independantly and therefore get decent views on comedy.

>I don't know that much of the guy's work, but I did see "Spaced". A richer, denser piece of comic entertainment than I've seen in a long time. I didn't video the series and so haven't watched it since, so whether its myriad stylistic conceits seem rather clunking on a second viewing and (as Rob S seems to suggest) "it won't last" I've no idea. At the time, taking on its own terms for 30 minutes every week, it was an intoxicating textural treat. My wife and I actually *looked forward* to the thing (it's a rare bird than can inspire that kind of devotion in our household). All the stuff dismissed earlier in this thread as 'gimmickry' I revelled in, taking it as part of the comedic whole, rather than schlock devices to spruce up a conventional flatshare scenario. This seems rather like denouncing some dizzying pop confection as 'not much of a song beneath all the production wizardry' - a perfectly valid line of attack, but not one that would concern me too much if the thing-as-a-whole knocked me sideways.

Fair enough, but I felt the show as a whole was to shallow to be termed a comedy classic worthy of a BAFTA - a once-a-week experience doesn't make for a great comedy show.

>This business of 'received wisdom' and shooting it down irks me somewhat too. The 'received wisdom' on "Spaced", from the broadsheet reviews that I encountered last year, seemed to mirror the views of Rob S very closely - gimmicky, over-reliant on pop-culture references, insubstantial.

Well I don't buy any newspapers, so I never saw these reviews - but from what you describe, I would agree with them.

> The RW on the 11OCS is that it's derivative vacuous tripe - pretty much what is said in here. Or am I reading the wrong papers?

If you want to cut an in-depth critic down to a sentance, you could arrive at that conclusion. You'd be doing the article a great injustice though.
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jo Atkins on Wed Apr 26 17:16:42 BST 2000:

>By the way, as to "Where is the detailed breakdown of his work?" - we're asking *you* (his fans) to give us the answers...

Why should we provide the breakdown of his work? Why don't you provide it? If you are so interested in the present state of comedy then why have you not done any research at all? Or better still could you provide a breakdown of the things that you don't like about his work, detail for detail? Every single little thing that in your opinion makes Simon Pegg pointless?

Pretty difficult isn't it? and you can't just say 'because I don't like him'. But then I would never suggest you do this as I credit you with enough intelligence to make your own choices about what you like and don't like and don't presume you to be stupid if you can't come up with a string of exact criticism or theories or observations that you've probably stolen from the stand up routine of Stewart Lee anyway.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Louise on Wed Apr 26 20:13:23 BST 2000:

>I feel it used gimmicks to hide a very >basic 'flatmates' type sitcom.

I think that's a flawed point made by a lot of people who didn't really warm to the series. I don't think any attempt was made to "hide" a very basic sitcom - in fact I believe it was written as a deliberate attempt to create a quality traditional British sitcom, the recent dearth of which you have yourself alluded to. It *is* traditional, yes, and comes across to me as very affectionate toward it's genre whilst avoiding repetition or tribute, a very fine line to tread and bravely done. The "gimmicks" as you put it were largely the creations of director Edgar Wright and his talented crew, who bought a loving attention to detail to the direction of a sitcom, something which could be seen as innovative in itself in a genre more accustomed to the point-three-cameras-and-retire-to-a-safe-distance production style, and one of the major attractions for me - I was very impressed by the way Spaced *looked*, I guess I'm just easily impressed by eye candy. As for Simon Pegg, I think he's just one of a new wave of comic actors (many of whom also appeared in Spaced, lest we forget - I don't think the hype was centred on just one of the cast, and let's not forget who won Best Female Cucumber here) who portray their characters with realism and empathy rather than resorting to overacting and gurning to point out the punchlines (cf. Paul Kaye). In this way the audience is credited as having some intelligence and I for one felt less patronised and more included watching Spaced. It's indicative of a new feeling that sitcoms or indeed TV comedy in general does not automatically have to mean low production standards and substandard acting.

Louise
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Wed Apr 26 21:15:40 BST 2000:

>>By the way, as to "Where is the detailed breakdown of his work?" - we're asking *you* (his fans) to give us the answers...
>Why should we provide the breakdown of his work? Why don't you provide it?

I'm not asking for a breakdown of his work, I'm asking for your reason for liking him.

> If you are so interested in the present state of comedy then why have you not done any research at all?

Urm, er... how much of this site have you read? No, really...

> Or better still could you provide a breakdown of the things that you don't like about his work, detail for detail? Every single little thing that in your opinion makes Simon Pegg pointless?

Yes, now everyone I want you to imagine the type of emails I receive....

> Pretty difficult isn't it?

No, it's just that we've already given many reasons for our dislike of Simon's work and we'd like to hear the other side of the arguement put in a reasonable and intelligent way.

> and you can't just say 'because I don't like him'.

Well I haven't be saying that... you've read how much of this so far?

> But then I would never suggest you do this as I credit you with enough intelligence to make your own choices about what you like and don't like and don't presume you to be stupid if you can't come up with a string of exact criticism or theories or observations that you've probably stolen from the stand up routine of Stewart Lee anyway.

Ooh, get her! Not heard Stew done a deconstruction of standup comedians before - I must of missed that one.

I don't presume anyone who likes Pegg to be stupid if they can't say exactly why they like him (there must be some reason, as otherwise they wouldn't be daft enough to keep watching)... but I do object to those who attack others for saying they don't like him. If you find him funny, fine - but it would be nice if someone could tell us why so we could discuss it. Subject: Message for Louise
Posted By Rob S on Wed Apr 26 21:32:30 BST 2000:

Could you turn up much earlier in the conversation next time please? Much, Much earlier.

Thank you.

Some good points there. I can understand why Louise enjoyed Spaced. Do you see?

I still question though whether the show would of survived without it's gimmicks (sorry, I don't know what else to call them). I'd far rather see a show where the effort has gone in strengthening the script - otherwise the show becomes mildly amusing rather than funny & Channel 4 get a rather shallow product which will struggle to develop. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Mike J on Thu Apr 27 09:51:12 BST 2000:

>Fair enough, but I felt the show as a whole was to shallow to be termed a comedy classic worthy of a BAFTA - a once-a-week experience doesn't make for a great comedy show.

Well, hang on a minute - isn't this precisely how many classics of the past were experienced? "Dad's Army", "Porridge", "Fawlty Towers" - all pre-date the VCR age, all hark back to that 'shared cultural experience' malarkey that so many commentators blather on about thesedays (i.e. the fact that it's gone forever, diluted and dispersed through a hundred channels of choice). Is your point that "Spaced" does not/will not stand up to repeated viewing? That to measure the true worth of a 7x30' sitcom, we should remove it from its 'natural' once-a-week habitat and examine it in some other way? That it's simply not enough to be very funny for half-an-hour every Wednesday night (or whenever it was on)?

On the subject of BAFTAs, I've no idea how the nominations are arrived at, so I really can't comment. I'm sure there's plenty of industry politics going on, with which I'm quite unfamiliar. I don't think a nomination confers or implies 'classic' status; surely this is earned over time by enduring popularity (the 70s series named above), or the collective zeal of a handful of hardcore devotees ("Absolutely", perhaps?).

>> The RW on the 11OCS is that it's derivative vacuous tripe - pretty much what is said in here. Or am I reading the wrong papers?
>
>If you want to cut an in-depth critic down to a sentance, you could arrive at that conclusion. You'd be doing the article a great injustice though.

Oh, I didn't mean to do that. The 11OCS pieces in here are excellent - meticulous and devastating. I was just pointing out that the general consensus in the 'quality' press seems to coincide with the views expressed in SOTCAA; there's no sense in which these articles are iconoclastic. Perhaps they're not intending to portray themselves as such (that may just be my own projection), but I do get a sense of deliberate myth-exploding in some of the writing in here ("I'm Alan Partridge", f'instance. A thought-provoking piece with which I disagree strongly - but I'll save that for another day...).

Maybe what's got my back up here is the general attitude re: "Spaced" - 'take away the gimmicks and what are you left with?'. Well, *don't* take away the gimmicks then. They're an integral part of the show - they're what made it so rich (or irritating, depending on yr POV). Maybe I'm (unfairly or incorrectly) equating the 'better scriptwriting' mantra with the sort of 'quality musicianship' spiel that used to infuriate me in some parts of the 'mature' rock press. It's the end product that I'm interested in - whether it derives its impact from finely-honed dialogue, deceptively throwaway sight gags, sound design, whatever... I'm not terribly concerned.

Of course, you may well be right... without that bedrock of tighter scripting a second series of "Spaced" may be just so much visual fluff. We'll see.
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Thu Apr 27 10:11:13 BST 2000:

>Well, hang on a minute - isn't this precisely how many classics of the past were experienced? "Dad's Army", "Porridge", "Fawlty Towers" - all pre-date the VCR age, all hark back to that 'shared cultural experience' malarkey that so many commentators blather on about thesedays (i.e. the fact that it's gone forever, diluted and dispersed through a hundred channels of choice). Is your point that "Spaced" does not/will not stand up to repeated viewing?

No, the point I'm trying to make (and I admit it might not be too clear!) is that I don't believe Spaced will be as memorable as those sitcoms you mentioned - at least series one won't be. Your examples are memorable inspite of the original audience only being able to view it once (or though this can work in a programmes favour obviously). Spaced has the technology in its favour, but I don't believe we'll still be watching it in 20 years time (unless it's on UK Gold 526) ...

> That to measure the true worth of a 7x30' sitcom, we should remove it from its 'natural' once-a-week habitat and examine it in some other way? That it's simply not enough to be very funny for half-an-hour every Wednesday night (or whenever it was on)?

Not if it's to be grouped with classic sitcoms. I'm not saying Spaced was bad, I'm just saying it's not great, I don't believe it's the savour of the sitcom...

>On the subject of BAFTAs, I've no idea how the nominations are arrived at, so I really can't comment. I'm sure there's plenty of industry politics going on, with which I'm quite unfamiliar. I don't think a nomination confers or implies 'classic' status; surely this is earned over time by enduring popularity (the 70s series named above), or the collective zeal of a handful of hardcore devotees ("Absolutely", perhaps?).

If we talking about 'classic' as a label applied by the general public as a whole, it does have to be earned over a period of time. Personally, I don't think Spaced will ever earn it, but of course the whole nature of television is changing, which may effect things... I doubt we'll have a BBC1 in twenty years time, so comedies from different time periods will never be fairly compared.

>Oh, I didn't mean to do that. The 11OCS pieces in here are excellent - meticulous and devastating. I was just pointing out that the general consensus in the 'quality' press seems to coincide with the views expressed in SOTCAA; there's no sense in which these articles are iconoclastic. Perhaps they're not intending to portray themselves as such (that may just be my own projection), but I do get a sense of deliberate myth-exploding in some of the writing in here ("I'm Alan Partridge", f'instance. A thought-provoking piece with which I disagree strongly - but I'll save that for another day...).

I'll leave the authors to reply to this one

>Maybe what's got my back up here is the general attitude re: "Spaced" - 'take away the gimmicks and what are you left with?'. Well, *don't* take away the gimmicks then. They're an integral part of the show - they're what made it so rich (or irritating, depending on yr POV). Maybe I'm (unfairly or incorrectly) equating the 'better scriptwriting' mantra with the sort of 'quality musicianship' spiel that used to infuriate me in some parts of the 'mature' rock press. It's the end product that I'm interested in - whether it derives its impact from finely-honed dialogue, deceptively throwaway sight gags, sound design, whatever... I'm not terribly concerned.

Fair enough, don't let me take that away from you. You like it for the same reason I find it all a bit shallow, nothing wrong with that.

>Of course, you may well be right... without that bedrock of tighter scripting a second series of "Spaced" may be just so much visual fluff. We'll see.

Spaced isn't the only guilty party of course, Small Potatoes suffered from large amounts of pointless crash-zooms, etc and spoilt the show for me... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By dude on Thu Apr 27 17:29:45 BST 2000:

I like the bit in SPACED when Pegg blows away the zombies!cool. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By dude on Thu Apr 27 17:29:45 BST 2000:

I like the bit in SPACED when Pegg blows away the zombies!cool. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The Nix on Thu Apr 27 17:48:32 BST 2000:

>I like the bit in SPACED when Pegg blows away the zombies!cool.

Well, this was a valid argument in favour of Spaced wasn't it? ;)
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Bored on Fri Apr 28 00:10:08 BST 2000:

Rob, you really have too much time on your hands... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Fri Apr 28 21:22:27 BST 2000:

What the hell is this all about?

You've got a group of supposedly intelligent people, and for some unknown reason, they turn onto one of the better people in the comedy medium at the moment.
Maybe i don't have the 'experience' of seeing loads of different comics, probably nowhere near as many as the self pronounced gurus on here, but i fail to see how anyone here has the right to critcise someone who is doing what they obviously love doing, and doing it well.

i've only really skimmed through this quagmire of mudslinging, but i mean, come on, which one of you (apart from the 'snipy' one) has actually got off your arse and done something?

precisely.

all you've done is sat at home, slagging off people for no good reason... i can understand the 11 O Clock Show, they are fair game, and for me, i have my own personal score to settle with them anyway, but spaced?

its a clever, well thought out piece of tv, and lets face it, someone must've liked it...

i wonder how many people down the line will be saying 'do you remember surfing onto sotcaa' in relation to those saying do you remember 'spaced'....

makes you think...

Simon Pegg, what is the point?
Well, to be frank, he has more to offer than most of you lot. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Tue May 2 13:42:43 BST 2000:

>Simon Pegg appeared in Guest House Paradiso because he didn't want to turn down working with Rik and Ade? Yep, that's him all over.

I don't really understand the point you're making here.....


>The point of this website is to shake up comedy fans a little and get them thinking about where comedy is going. We've no problem with people thinking differently - if you *genuinely* love the comedy Simon Pegg, Al Murray, the Boosh, et al come up with, then fine. But we refuse to be carried on the flotsam and jetsam of a comedy industry that measures its prowess in BAFTA Awards, viewing figures and fawning, say-nothing reviews copied off press releases. Pegg deserves criticism for more specific crimes - the standard defence proffered in retalliation being 'Yeah, but he's really nice', which won't win you any debating prizes. (And, in any case, being nice is simply common courtesy - it doesn't mean they have a right to make television programmes.)

Good point, but you can't bring in the ''we've heard reports that he slags people off'' argument without us bringing in some kind of defence.... That point won't win you any debating prizes either.


>And saying comedy is 'subjective' is the ultimate admission of defeat.

Of course it isn't. Without subjectiveness there would be no argument. You don't like the work of Simon Pegg- fine, that's your opinion and nobody has a problem with that. But may I ask why you don't like it? All you've really said so far is that a) he snipes at people and b) you're ''not impressed'' by anything he's done.
I think we've all had a fairly good try at explaining why we like SP and Spaced....
No it's your turn.


>Received wisdom, for example, states that Spaced was the most ground-breaking and important sitcom of the past ten years. SOTCAA says it was lazy, shallow, full of knowing-wink references to what allegedly constitutes student/youth 'culture', and crammed with Simpsons-esque pull-back-and-reveal type jokes without any of the pacing that this device demands. Your move.

Well, we say the ''knowing-wink references'' were an integral part of the programme- it was a show made for a certain generation. Why not include them? The League of Gentlemen has the same sort of film references that Spaced does. And that hasn't been criticised for it.
What about it was lazy and shallow, may I ask?

Sian

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The Corpses on Tue May 2 15:22:37 BST 2000:

Re: Guest House Paradiso. The point we were making is that Pegg cares more about basking in the glory of talented people/big names than he does about the comedy itself. He knew the film would be rubbish, but he couldn't resist the chance to include Rik and Ade's names on his CV. We despise that attitude.

Of course, *most* comedians are career-climbing, glory-hunting opportunists in this way. But some hide it better than others. With Pegg, it all seems so blatant.

No problem with film references - it's just the idea of deconstructing the sitcom when you've got nothing to deconstruct in the first place. It's the idea of being *embarrassed* by conventional comedy that irks us. The whole idea of 'We're not just doing a comedy show - we're doing something slightly more interesting...' NO YOU'RE NOT.

And the film references in The League Of Gentlemen? Well, that was the least of its problems...

How many people are genuinely interested in the specifics of Pegg's sniping, by the way? SOTCAA is being updated next week, so let us know.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Reservoir Lady on Tue May 2 16:02:31 BST 2000:

Shouldn't he gain more credit for being so open about his exploits? Isn't he in effect laughing at himself? This can only be a good thing.

Having said that I read in an article once where Pegg said about Steve Coogan that 'every single character is a fragment of Steve himself.' He seems to have emulated this technique but possibly forgetting that such a method requires you to have a personality to feed off.

Also in regards to him doing so much in recent times -the man is in EVERYTHING- he basked 'I have been spoilt lately. I don't want to dash around in cabs anymore.' No, it seems he likes to take evryone else for a ride instead. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Tue May 2 17:50:24 BST 2000:

>Re: Guest House Paradiso. The point we were making is that Pegg cares more about basking in the glory of talented people/big names than he does about the comedy itself. He knew the film would be rubbish, but he couldn't resist the chance to include Rik and Ade's names on his CV. We despise that attitude.


I don't think it was like that at all- wouldn't you like to have the chance to work with someone you'd always liked and admired? For instance, if Joe was asked by Rich and Stu to do a slot for them , you wouldn't go, ''no, cos I expect it would be a rubbish programme'', would you?? I think you've slightly misinterpreted his actions there.

>Of course, *most* comedians are career-climbing, glory-hunting opportunists in this way. But some hide it better than others. With Pegg, it all seems so blatant.

Surely everyone wants to progress in their chosen career? In what way is Simon a ''glory-hunting opportunist''? So he wanted to work with Rik & Ade, who he really admired. I don't see a problem with that, and I haven't seen anything that would class him as a glory hunting opportunist.

>No problem with film references - it's just the idea of deconstructing the sitcom when you've got nothing to deconstruct in the first place.

Why isn't there? And why do you need to deconstruct it at all? Surely you have to take the show as a whole, as it was intended to be seen?

>How many people are genuinely interested in the specifics of Pegg's sniping, by the way? SOTCAA is being updated next week, so let us know.


Not really, but what evidence have you got that he has?

Sian

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Tue May 2 17:53:41 BST 2000:

>He seems to have emulated this technique >but possibly forgetting that such a method >requires you to have a personality to feed >off.

How can you make that kind of comment? That's a personal remark, and a very unfair one at that. Do you know him personally?

>Also in regards to him doing so much in recent times -the man is in EVERYTHING- he basked 'I have been spoilt lately. I don't want to dash around in cabs anymore.' No, it seems he likes to take evryone else for a ride instead.

Again, an unfair comment unless you back it up with an example- how has he taken everyone for a ride, exactly? He's been cast in lots of things because he's a good actor, not for all the other reasons you seem to imply.

Sian Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Reservoir Lady on Tue May 2 19:32:27 BST 2000:

That is true. It was unfair. What I was illiterately trying to say was that he seems to play the same sort of character with every part and all of them are a bit bland. Perhaps it is the writing.

The character in 'Hippie's had an uncanny resemblance to the one in 'Spaced'/Big Train/Channel 5's proudest moment.

Goodness he must have a long resumé. And I apologise, the quantity of mediocre shows he has been in must have some correlative connection with his quality. He must just like to spread it out rather than be good in one thing. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By DanL on Tue May 2 21:27:26 BST 2000:

If your initial question, 'what is the point of simon pegg' is justified, and you consider the answer is 'not a lot' then 'what is the point of asking what is the point of simon pegg?' when you have already decided? why don't you just post up a sign saying 'simon pegg: there's no point'? surely that would save you time and the obvious 'effort' to come up with such a gorundbreaking technique of journalism. just because you have used the net doesn't mean you can get away with sloppy methods. i take that this is a means for you to cast your critique over comedy, which is your specialist subject?? i also would assume that this is performed with the latent desire of achieving a goal in publishing etc.
if you used the same methods you have used here, in a magazine, you wouldn't last five minutes. yourentire argument is hinged on personal bias which has clouded any response.

i am a little disappointed as i had written quite a bit and then lost it due to a crash, but all i can summarise is, if you don't like something, you have two clear choices:

turn the channel over

or write something yourself.

As none of us are in the priveliged position of Simon, i don't see how any of us can judge what is a 'good' or 'bad' decision for him, at that time, be it artistically or career - wise.

it is a shame that a good forum like this can fall prey to such sub standard ideals... surely your point is not to rip up people you do'nt like, but to celebrate those you do, and if someone really annoys you, you open a debate, not a closed argument to which you have already decided the outcome.



Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jon The Peacemaker on Wed May 3 07:35:31 BST 2000:

Why don't you all just give it a rest? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The Corpses on Wed May 3 10:18:56 BST 2000:

You should only take part in a comedy show if you (a) feel you have something valuable to contribute, and (b) you are excited in making the end product as good as possible.

Whether or not you are 'thrilled to be involved with it' or feel 'it's a real honour to work with so and so' seems at best irrelevant and at worst destructive to the creative process.

This attitude affects a lot of shows, and Pegg is by no means the only culprit. 'Jam', for example, was one big 'we were thrilled to be involved with it' party. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Wed May 3 12:16:38 BST 2000:

What the hell drug are you all on?
Jam was an absolutely amazing piece of work... who do you think on it was 'thrilled' to be on it? all of those people involved with it had already done the sketches before to exceptionally high critical acclaim (see Sony Awards today) and so why would they be 'just thrilled to be there' at reshooting them for TV?
your arguments seem at best shallow and worst a slanted dig at people to instigate uproar. Like i said before, lowest common denominator tabloid mentality.
if you have some sort of dislike for someone, that is fair enough, but to open a debate purely to push home your own hatred seems just a little to similar to the Garry Bushell mentality.
To critcise something, or someone, constructively is not a bad thing, it is a neccesary feedback for writer and / or performers but this isn't constructive, its been, for the most part, pretty pathetic. Your entire argument revolves around one or two decidedly unstable points:
1. that someone heard someone else in a private conversation having a go at someone else.
Is that illegal then? you've never had a go at someone? ever?
2. that someone has sold out because they do a lot of work which, sometimes, in your opinion, falls short of your expectations.
well, i am sure you all work for a living (or are students working towards a career) and, if you are motivated you will take on things that later you regret... that is called 'life'. this is coupled with the fact they can only fall short of expectations if you already have high standards for that person, which means something they have done, you have enjoyed.
and 3. you continually say that valid points raised are not 'valid', but surely that isn't a 'valid' method of discussion, it is merely deflecting attention back away from the flimsy nature of *your* stance?

I just don't get what you set out to achieve here... you are creating an elitism in comedy, a haves and haves nots system. the bottom line is, if it makes you laugh, its funny. you don't need 'gary from work' or 'a bunch of people huddled around computers' to tell you that.
If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword, and i am afraid, from your own front page argument, "the corspes" are justifiably monikered.
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The Corpses on Wed May 3 13:58:05 BST 2000:

The comedy world needs more elitism, not less. There are LOADS of sycophantic, celebratory fan-sites out there which cater for the 'hey guys, all comedians have something to offer' mentality. We offer our own opinions.

In any case, this is all out of proportion. Asking for the 'point' of Simon Pegg was only supposed to be a throwaway joke. Have a look at the rest of the site - it's full of proper arguments and stuff. We don't abuse anyone without saying why. And we never attack others for thinking differently either - all we ask is that people accept that a debate exists. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By SIMON PEGG on Wed May 3 14:31:59 BST 2000:

I HAVE A POINT OH WATCH ME AS I ACT ON TV


CAN YOU SEE? THAT FACE I PULLED JUST THERE WAS DISPLAYING INDIGNANCY.



I CAN DO A FUNNY WALK SEE SEE SEE IT'S MY OWN TWIST ON JOHN CLEESE'S WALK BUT WITH A RADA FEEL TO IT. WEEEEEEEEEE I JUST FELL OVER AREN'T I FUNNY? I'M THE THESPIAN VERSION OF MR.BEAN. IT WAS MY IDEA TO GRATE MY FACE ON SANDPAPER IN 'HIPPIES' AND WASN'T I A LOVEABLE ROGUE IN 'SPACED' MANY MEN COME UP TO ME IN THE STREET AND DISPLAY THE LOVE THEY FEEL TOWARDS THE SHOW. OH I AM NICE.

















HANG ON JUST CHECKING MY DIARY FOR ALL THE CELEBRITY PARTIES I HAVE BEEN INVITED TO SINCE EXPANDING MY CIRCLE OF FRIENDS....'FRIENDS' I'D LOVE A CAMEO ROLE IN THAT I COULD PLAY A STEREOTYPICAL BRITISH MAN WHO GETS ANGRY WHEN THEY MAKE FUN OF ME! I'M FLEXIBLE YOU KNOW.










GOODBYE MUST GO. MIND NOT TO TRIP OVER ALL THE VIDEOS YOU HAVE WITH ME ON THEM IT MUST BE A MOUNTIAN.









HANG ON MUST TAKE A BREAK Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Wed May 3 18:15:29 BST 2000:

The Corpses Say: - “The comedy world needs more elitism, not less. There are LOADS of sycophantic, celebratory fan-sites out there which cater for the 'hey guys, all comedians have something to offer' mentality. We offer our own opinions.”

The comedy world doesn’t need more elitism. By making a genre more elitist you are likely to put people off from taking up the profession entirely. As a personal opinion, I don’t give two stuffs if some Joe Bloggs gives his thumbs up or down to a program… if I like it, I watch it. Surely that is what comedy is all about, not turning it into some sort of stifled stream of programmes based on the ones Mr and Ms X enjoy?
As to ‘all comedians having something to offer’ statement of ridicule, well, they must do, otherwise they wouldn’t be earning would they? Just because I don’t like Les Dennis’ style of show, doesn’t mean I write him off out of hand. He is a main stream comedy act who appeals to a specific market. The market he aims at is not the same as that aimed by tLoG or say, Harry Hill. The taste of the populace varies, no one likes everything the same, that'd be boring. And the ‘we offer opinions’ shield is not an answer to the problem. You don’t offer an opinion. You offer a statement you know that will generate angst. Come on; at least admit that, even people like
Max Clifford do! You are stirring up a debate to save you writing for a couple of weeks!

The Corpses Say: - “In any case, this is all out of proportion. Asking for the 'point' of Simon Pegg was only supposed to be a throwaway joke. Have a look at the rest of the site - it's full of proper arguments and stuff. We don't abuse anyone without saying why. And we never attack others for thinking differently either - all we ask is that people accept that a debate exists.”

There is a fine line between ‘not attacking someone for thinking differently’ and just throwing away their points out of hand for using ‘invalid arguments’. And as for a throwaway joke… come on lads, use a bit of common. If you didn’t know that such a sweeping statement was going to cause, if not offence, then a bit of friction, I don’t think you should be allowed too near anything with an electrical current. If I asked you of the point of this site what it would be? To be honest, if you narrow your field of view down enough, nothing has much point really does it? All this, comedy, the Internet etc is just frills isn’t it? You don’t have to live with them. If you don’t like something, don’t do it, don’t watch it. If you really feel strongly about something, make a stand, do something about it. What you shouldn’t do, is hide behind a keyboard, poking out sly, lazy comments about anyone, famous or not. If you were in a position to judge, it would be different. No one here is truly qualified to answer what is the point of Simon Pegg other than Mister Pegg himself.

Like I said in the previous message, if you place yourself on a pedestal, you have to be prepared to be toppled, and I am afraid you have fallen foul of your own ideals. What a waste.

P.S. As for the message, that is probably still above this, that is the kind of childish and ignorant behaviour normally associated with people bereft of opposable thumbs. Oohh… veiled insults by assuming identities, your mum must be very proud. Like I say, if you can’t fight your corner properly, just walk away…
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By piglet on Wed May 3 20:37:49 BST 2000:

you are a very angry man.



Perhaps you would enjoy these so called 'favourites' of yours a lot more if you could relax a little. Try it I am quite sure Pegg would be grateful for your battling but I'll bet sometimes he asks himself what is his point. Don't we all suffer from meaninglessness at times?



Pegg seems like a very likeable man. I have met him and he is very curtious. He would probably laugh at this thread after all the man does have a sense of humour. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By piglet on Wed May 3 20:40:35 BST 2000:

you are a very angry man.



Perhaps you would enjoy these so called 'favourites' of yours a lot more if you could relax a little. Try it I am quite sure Pegg would be grateful for your battling but I'll bet sometimes he asks himself what is his point. Don't we all suffer from meaninglessness at times?



Pegg seems like a very likeable man. I have met him and he is very curtious. He would probably laugh at this thread after all the man does have a sense of humour. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Kipster on Sat May 6 20:56:12 BST 2000:

>For instance, if Joe was asked by Rich and Stu to do a slot for them , you wouldn't go, ''no, cos I expect it would be a rubbish programme'', would you??

why then, in that case, did Joe refuse to be credited for his work on the 1998 L&H tour programme?
hardly, it would seem, the actions of someone desperate to be associated with a particular act at any cost.
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By plusnone@btinternet.com on Sun May 7 01:54:01 BST 2000:

This is a bunch of bullshit... Rob S was clearly trying toprovoke a response fromsome particularlyfanatic followersof Pegg.

As far as I am concerned:

WKWYL: Pretty shitty

Big Train: quite likes especially peggs monkey ,the wanking sketch and the stare outs

Hippies :mostly shite.

Spaced: Strangely adored...particularly 'Mike'

Plussy
please kill this thread....
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Spider on Sun May 7 02:42:47 BST 2000:

As a non-fan of Mr Pegg's TV work I have to say he played 'Late and Live', the toughest stand up gig in the world and was funny and survived his twenty minute spot admirably.

Saying that, bunging him on telly might be stretching it a bit. He is indicitive of the one major flaw the greats like Lineham & Mathews, Chris Morris and Steve Coogan have of thinking there's only three actors in the world (Pegg, Phillips and Eldon, none of whom can exactly be described as the next Cleese or Hancock). Only Paul Putner should be overused, a true star in the making.

One thing missing of your Pegg CV was a show he did a few years back about an astronaut being bored stuck on his own in a space ship. That feeling was transferred to the audience.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Sun May 7 08:58:26 BST 2000:

"He is indicitive of the one major flaw the greats like Lineham & Mathews, Chris Morris and Steve Coogan have of thinking there's only three actors in the world (Pegg, Phillips and Eldon, none of whom can exactly be described as the next Cleese or Hancock."

Surely, that is a bit unfair. You are comparing people who have worked in comedy for years with those still breaking in.

Not really like for like is it?

And the reason for Morris, Coogan et al using the same people again and again... maybe they like what they do for the roles presented? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By piglet on Sun May 7 16:31:34 BST 2000:

Kevin Eldon is a brilliant actor. Pegg is less adaptable. When you think of Pegg you are comfronted by a similar typecast personality regardless of what show he was in.

He is more of a comedy performer who takes on a role as he wants it to be presented. This is good to a point but I'm sure we'd see some very different work from Pegg if he was given less control. You're bound to run out of ideas after a while of flogging yourself.

Perhaps people are just too keen to get someone talented on board rather than than seeing how they could be used to the best of their ability. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Mon May 8 20:31:48 BST 2000:

>>For instance, if Joe was asked by Rich and Stu to do a slot for them , you wouldn't go, ''no, cos I expect it would be a rubbish programme'', would you??
>
>why then, in that case, did Joe refuse to be credited for his work on the 1998 L&H tour programme?
>hardly, it would seem, the actions of someone desperate to be associated with a particular act at any cost.


Well from what I heard it wasn't about L&H, but his lack of confidence in the quality of his own work (but I could be wrong). Anyway, that isn't relevant and it was a badly thought out way of expressing my argument.

I thank you.

Sian

Can we just agree to disagree now?! I don't like this getting too personal.. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Kipster on Mon May 8 20:49:33 BST 2000:

>>>For instance, if Joe was asked by Rich and Stu to do a slot for them , you wouldn't go, ''no, cos I expect it would be a rubbish programme'', would you??
>>why then, in that case, did Joe refuse to be credited for his work on the 1998 L&H tour programme?
>Well from what I heard it wasn't about L&H, but his lack of confidence in the quality of his own work (but I could be wrong).

which, i believe, is the point people are making about Pegg's work on GHP - hence the
"hardly, it would seem, the actions of someone desperate to be associated with a particular act at any cost" comment - sacrificing the quality of his own work in order to be seen to work with Rik and Ade.
havent seen the film myself, so im purely going on what people have said..)

>Can we just agree to disagree now?! I don't like this getting too personal..

i think it already has done, really, hasnt it? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The real Simon Pegg on Tue May 9 07:20:58 BST 2000:

I'm the Real Simon Pegg! And the point is I want my JELLY!!! Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By mortin on Tue May 9 10:27:02 BST 2000:

Simon Pegg rips off Steve Coogan in Spaced. I'm not sure if it was his tour stint that led him to take on the mannerisms of Coogan or his diligent study of The Day Today - apparently he can quote sections of it.

Watch Spaced and it's a bit too close for comfort how you can imagine Pegg is in fact Coogan - the laugh he does with the sigh at the end, the fascination with the formation of his own words, the leaning back and raised arm position which is corrected when it doesn't appear 'casual.'

Am I not the only one seeing a reincarnation of the Coogan method acting skills. Or on the tour bus did Coogan make astral suggestions into the ear of a sleeping Pegg?

Come on Simon find your own style. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By fizz on Tue May 9 14:13:20 BST 2000:

I liked his monkey impression. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By The Corpses on Tue May 9 14:31:06 BST 2000:

That monkey impression spoilt the otherwise very funny 'Titz' sketch (possibly the only funny sketch in the series). There's nothing worse than a non-sequitur ending which looks like it's been planned for months. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By S KILNER on Tue May 9 15:57:27 BST 2000:

Referring to Simon Pegg being influenced by Coogan,I wonder if anyone can spot other actors `borrowing` other actors mannerisms and the question is, whodunnit first?
ie:-Sid James apes Tony Hancocks stacatto delivery in his performance.
Geena Daviess acting style is identical to her ex and tutor,Jeff Goldblum.
Christian Slater IS a young Jack Nicholson.
The actor who plays the dishy Asian shopkeeper in Coronation St sounds like a pissed Jack Dee.Oh yeah ,and Chris Morris mercilessly rips off Iain Lee of 11 O,clock show. Calm down ,Im only joshing.
I personally dont notice the Pegg/Coogan connection other than they both make me laugh,and for me, THAT is the point of Simon Pegg(and Coogan I suppose).Sorry no time for a 6000 word thesis on the minutaie of his comic timing ,suspected plaguerism and his desire to make an honest living as an actor. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Tue May 9 17:28:08 BST 2000:

i apologise for the delaym in me posting this message, but i have had to wait all day to write this due to bad funding of uni peecees....

Mortin, you've hit the nail right on the head...

You have a go at the Pegg - Coogan scheme, but you seem to forget the brilliance such activity has brought in the past...

David Jason learnt his trade from the Great Ronnie Barker and, in his timing and mannerisms, you can see what he picked up...

Does that make DJ a charlatan? no, 'course not, he's still probably the finest comic (and serious) actor we have produced in this country...

If you were learning to paint under Jackson Pollock, are you saying you wouldn't pick up any of his technique or feeling?

You would obviously mimic, whether consciously or unconsciously, the style you have learnt...

This is what is missing, from todays comedy. There isn't any nurturing of talent, only the swift launch, and often swifter demise of cheap tv stuff (see 11ocs for example).

We shouldn't be having a go at Coogan or Pegg for adopting this sort of tutelage, it should be encouraged so as to gain the best of our young talent.

Pegg is still a growing talent, and as he develops further, his style will change time and time again, but with the basis laid down by a 'mentor' he will retain the primary skills he has already acquired.


Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Tue May 9 17:34:55 BST 2000:

"That monkey impression spoilt the otherwise very funny 'Titz' sketch (possibly the only funny sketch in the series). There's nothing worse than a non-sequitur ending which looks like it's been planned for months."

There is... i am not even going to bother posting what it is, you should, just about, be able to figure it out...

anyway, i thought that was the whole point of Big Train, like most Chris Morris vehicles (for that is what, at grass roots at least, was) is not meant to have any particular beginning or end, the beauty is in its non linear attitude....

or have i not 'got' the joke? surely that is what it was / is?

it's not a 'standard' joke / laugh situation... it's a 'hmm, think' sort of comedy... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By fizz on Tue May 9 23:56:43 BST 2000:

To be honest, I always thought the 'monkey impression' bit was an alternative ending they filmed because they were (rightly) uncertain about the weak Perry/Croft-style punchline "the biggest Titz in the world". I remember reading an article (in Select, I think) before Big Train came out, by a journalist who'd been out on location with them, and it was pretty clear that a lot of stuff was done on the hoof, with the cast pitching in with changes and suggestions as much as the writers.

Anyway, I wasn't talking pros and cons of the position of the monkey impression within the structure of the sketch. I just think it's a good monkey impression. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Fri May 12 11:43:27 BST 2000:

I really like the pic on the index page.....would I be able to get a copy of that anywhere?!

And the thing about my name- gosh, that's never been done before. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Fri May 12 14:44:53 BST 2000:

>I really like the pic on the index page.....would I be able to get a copy of that anywhere?!

If that's a real request, we can send you a copy of the drawing (without the logo and crosshair overlay). Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Fri May 12 14:50:50 BST 2000:

It is a real request! I think it's great!
Sian
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Fri May 12 15:01:32 BST 2000:

Email me at the usual address and we'll send you a copy. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Louise on Fri May 12 17:22:17 BST 2000:

>I really like the pic on the index page.....would I be able to get a copy of that anywhere?!

Personally, I think it's a bit gimmicky...

Louise
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By fRED w E St on Fri May 12 18:33:21 BST 2000:

yOU aRE a l l SAD f U c K eR s!!!!

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By bingo on Sat May 13 01:03:31 BST 2000:

How long did it take you to type that? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Lucy Glover on Sat May 13 08:47:16 BST 2000:

I would just like to say that I think Simon Pegg is a fantastic comedian and that it is very rude and unfair to continue talking about him on the site.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By PeteK on Sat May 13 11:52:06 BST 2000:

>I would just like to say that I think Simon Pegg is a fantastic comedian and that it is very rude and unfair to continue talking about him on the site.

Why would it be unfair? If they were praising him you'd have no problem, but because their views are different to yours, you seem to think it's rude. It's only an opinion - it doesn't make it fact! Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Sat May 13 17:28:36 BST 2000:

"Why would it be unfair? If they were praising him you'd have no problem, but because their views are different to yours, you seem to think it's rude. It's only an opinion - it doesn't make it fact!"

I can't say what Lucy meant, but i have a similar opinion, and my reasoning is because the argument descended from 'mediocre and one sided' to just 'offensive'... if you have something to say, make sure it's worthwhile, otherwise you just end up looking stupid. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By DL on Sat May 13 17:33:00 BST 2000:

Sorry, hadn't finished.
I can only speak for myself, but, casting aside my personal preferences of comedy, the problem with this 'discussion' is not the subject, but how it was handled.


By merely slagging off one person and praising another does not make you anarchic, it makes you a monotone, trying desperately to be in the 'in-crowd'.
I know you are comedy buffs, so i will point you to Rick Mayall in 'the young ones'. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun May 14 17:16:56 BST 2000:

>By merely slagging off one person and praising another does not make you anarchic, it makes you a monotone, trying desperately to be in the 'in-crowd'.
>I know you are comedy buffs, so i will point you to Rick Mayall in 'the young ones'.

I'm sorry... I'd really like to let this thread die is long overdue death, but I'm afraid I can't let that one go.

Are you now saying that the corpses are now trying to be in some kind of in crowd?! Of all the arguments (on both sides) in this discussion that is one I certainly didn't expect to hear! The very suggestion is utterly rediculous... but, go on, please do try to explain it - which in crowd are you referring to? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Sun May 14 18:10:03 BST 2000:

The 'crowd' is that displayed by many people in that they try to show differences form the 'society' in which they live to try and instill the opinion that they don't 'run with the crowd'...

it's the old punk / mod thing... you're different, but the same as everyone else who is different...

by 'appearing anarchic', and i mean as a general point here, not just on this thread, you as a collective don't come over as people appreciative of comedy, but more over as people who just want attention.

from this *particular* thread, it is apparent at what you're aim is:
you opened a closed argument. you criticise, with no real 'argument', the responses. you also descend to personal slants at both the subject and those who are responding.

i just don't see what your purpose is, you're own ideals are not capable of sustaining what you are doing.

you're arguing that you are right and that others are wrong but then saying 'don't be forced to do what other's tell you'.

it's a case of 'do as i say, not as i do'...

the idea is good, but you've blotted your copy book with the use of closed arguments and an inability to listen to rationally to others points.

Now, to me, it doesn't matter who this is about, it's just a shame that the whole idea of the site is seemingly pulled apart by personal grievances.

if you remedy that, this would be a truly AMAZING site... it's a good way there wrt content, it's just the 'opinion' comes over way too strong... maybe that isn't the best way of saying it... i think the feeling is expressed in the wrong way.

you're way to negative, and indeed hard on many good bits and bobs of the comedy 'scene'. i can understand it for some cases, there is an awful lot of dirge out there, but you can't just write things off out of hand... it's like the 'jam' comments of 'people thrilled to be there' which smacked of, if not jealousy, then some sort of 'issue' involved.

it's not critique when presented like that, it's having a go for having a go's sake...


or, at least, that is how it is presented.
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun May 14 19:21:57 BST 2000:

>it's the old punk / mod thing... you're different, but the same as everyone else who is different...

As other people have pointed out, this site is unique - there is nothing else like it on the net - comedy, as whole, doesn't get critised in the same way any other art form does. So who are we the same as...?

>by 'appearing anarchic', and i mean as a general point here, not just on this thread, you as a collective don't come over as people appreciative of comedy, but more over as people who just want attention.

I would like to suggest that you feel that because our view point appears to be so different from yours, particularly on certain current comedy acts. And as for 'appreciative of comedy' - go away and read the rest of the site... properly. If you balanced up the whole site you'd have a different viewpoint.

>from this *particular* thread, it is apparent at what you're aim is:
>you opened a closed argument. you criticise, with no real 'argument', the responses.

Most of the point were weak to begin with - when they weren't I accepted them. You can't accept "he's talented and funny" as a reason points without anything to back it up.

> you also descend to personal slants at both the subject and those who are responding.

Not true, when good points were made they were accepted.

>i just don't see what your purpose is, you're own ideals are not capable of sustaining what you are doing.
>you're arguing that you are right and that others are wrong but then saying 'don't be forced to do what other's tell you'.

Go and read the message in this thread 'Message for Lousie' - I accepted Lousie's points. I then stated that my *opinion* was different. Opinion != Fact.
Difference of opinion != Argument.

>the idea is good, but you've blotted your copy book with the use of closed arguments and an inability to listen to rationally to others points.

No - I'd listen, but most of your points were poor and covered much earlier in the thread.

>Now, to me, it doesn't matter who this is about, it's just a shame that the whole idea of the site is seemingly pulled apart by personal grievances.

You might be interested to know this site is thriving... this discussion makes up a very small part of the site.

>if you remedy that, this would be a truly AMAZING site... it's a good way there wrt content, it's just the 'opinion' comes over way too strong... maybe that isn't the best way of saying it... i think the feeling is expressed in the wrong way.

Well that's your opinion, but I get the feeling that if you shared the corpses viewpoint there'd be no problem.

>you're way to negative, and indeed hard on many good bits and bobs of the comedy 'scene'.

As the guy who had to put together the HTML for this site (and therefore forced to read every page) I can tell you the postive far out weighs the negative. Again, I think this might be a case of the authors not liking what you like.

> i can understand it for some cases, there is an awful lot of dirge out there, but you can't just write things off out of hand... it's like the 'jam' comments of 'people thrilled to be there' which smacked of, if not jealousy, then some sort of 'issue' involved.

How can they be jealous when they're not involved in the industry? They're fans disappointed with a show...

>it's not critique when presented like that, it's having a go for having a go's sake...
>
>or, at least, that is how it is presented.

Or how you have interpreted it....
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Sun May 14 20:51:36 BST 2000:

"it's the old punk / mod thing... you're different, but the same as everyone else who is different...

As other people have pointed out, this site is unique - there is nothing else like it on the net - comedy, as whole, doesn't get critised in the same way any other art form does. So who are we the same as...?"

the site itself is superb, you can't fault it at all... but!
you are the same as every other critic of this breed. it's a garry bushell technique, surely you are above that?
and it's not the actual content i meant that is the 'same' as anyone... it's the whole feeling, the whole 'ooh look, aren't i subversive' thing...


"by 'appearing anarchic', and i mean as a general point here, not just on this thread, you as a collective don't come over as people appreciative of comedy, but more over as people who just want attention.

I would like to suggest that you feel that because our view point appears to be so different from yours, particularly on certain current comedy acts. And as for 'appreciative of comedy' - go away and read the rest of the site... properly. If you balanced up the whole site you'd have a different viewpoint."

well, i would disagree. with a couple of exceptions wrt plagarism, there are no comics deserve the sort of 'critique' on here... it is low denominator stuff designed to cause maximum effect by ruffling feathers
i have 'gone away and read this properly' (nice non patronising way of putting it). but like i say, well put together, nice spin on things, way too much angst... it's like five gone mad with a copy of the young ones and a the latest issue of a teenage 'underground' mag...


"from this *particular* thread, it is apparent at what you're aim is:
you opened a closed argument. you criticise, with no real 'argument', the responses.

Most of the point were weak to begin with - when they weren't I accepted them. You can't accept "he's talented and funny" as a reason points without anything to back it up."

most of the points were weak to start off with? how weak is a thread beginning 'what is the point of 'x''?
notice you didn't disagree with the closed argument allegation.... or that of you not disproving, or attempting to disprove others arguments...

i agree some arguments were weak, but there were a lot of other arguments that were not, and the argument 'oh, we heard him having a go i.e. being snipy' was retailated with he's a nice bloke, not an argument? hmm....


" you also descend to personal slants at both the subject and those who are responding.

Not true, when good points were made they were accepted."

but what constitutes a good point to some obviously doesn't to others...
and you don't descend into slants? i tihnk there is pretty daming evidence there....
and it's the worse kind 'i heard x say this about y' who the fuck cares?!
surely, that's their OPINION?
i also fail to see the maturity in resorting to name calling... i suggest maybe you *RE-read* the site...


"i just don't see what your purpose is, you're own ideals are not capable of sustaining what you are doing.
>you're arguing that you are right and that others are wrong but then saying 'don't be forced to do what other's tell you'.

Go and read the message in this thread 'Message for Lousie' - I accepted Louise's points. I then stated that my *opinion* was different. Opinion != Fact.
Difference of opinion != Argument."

indeed, but you're foisting your opinions onto people, much like door to door religion salesman...
you still can't argue out of that one either... the double standard is your achilles heal, by simply existing, this site is in contradiction of itself..

"the idea is good, but you've blotted your copy book with the use of closed arguments and an inability to listen to rationally to others points.

No - I'd listen, but most of your points were poor and covered much earlier in the thread."

uh, yeah, that's why the corpses had such a task dodging the flak? my personal points?
another personal slant?

"Now, to me, it doesn't matter who this is about, it's just a shame that the whole idea of the site is seemingly pulled apart by personal grievances.

You might be interested to know this site is thriving... this discussion makes up a very small part of the site."

the sun sells god knows how many copies a day? ever heard of quantity vs. quality?
maybe that is unfair, because at least yours doesn't have the danger of making or breaking someone...

"if you remedy that, this would be a truly AMAZING site... it's a good way there wrt content, it's just the 'opinion' comes over way too strong... maybe that isn't the best way of saying it... i think the feeling is expressed in the wrong way.

Well that's your opinion, but I get the feeling that if you shared the corpses viewpoint there'd be no problem."

indeed, my opinion.. but surely, that is what you are promoting? the right to state your own without fear of recrimination?
and, to be honest, i wouldn't not be causing a 'problem' if we shared an opinion, it's not the opinion that 'offends' me, it's Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By DL on Sun May 14 20:55:52 BST 2000:

the methods used to generate 'hits'


"you're way to negative, and indeed hard on many good bits and bobs of the comedy 'scene'.

As the guy who had to put together the HTML for this site (and therefore forced to read every page) I can tell you the postive far out weighs the negative. Again, I think this might be a case of the authors not liking what you like."

not so, i agree with a lot of points around the site, like i say, it's not what but how in a lot of cases....


what spoils it all is a feeling that just comes across as mediocre journalism with a hint of 'bad blood'


" i can understand it for some cases, there is an awful lot of dirge out there, but you can't just write things off out of hand... it's like the 'jam' comments of 'people thrilled to be there' which smacked of, if not jealousy, then some sort of 'issue' involved.

How can they be jealous when they're not involved in the industry? They're fans disappointed with a show..."

but they are surely? what's this site, chopped liver? they're involved with comedy... you don't go to the fringe? you don't hang out with people? hmm.. i find this very hard to believe..

"it's not critique when presented like that, it's having a go for having a go's sake...
>
>or, at least, that is how it is presented.

Or how you have interpreted it...."

interpretation is a beautiful thing, if used as a scapegoat...

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By DL on Sun May 14 20:55:53 BST 2000:

the methods used to generate 'hits'


"you're way to negative, and indeed hard on many good bits and bobs of the comedy 'scene'.

As the guy who had to put together the HTML for this site (and therefore forced to read every page) I can tell you the postive far out weighs the negative. Again, I think this might be a case of the authors not liking what you like."

not so, i agree with a lot of points around the site, like i say, it's not what but how in a lot of cases....


what spoils it all is a feeling that just comes across as mediocre journalism with a hint of 'bad blood'


" i can understand it for some cases, there is an awful lot of dirge out there, but you can't just write things off out of hand... it's like the 'jam' comments of 'people thrilled to be there' which smacked of, if not jealousy, then some sort of 'issue' involved.

How can they be jealous when they're not involved in the industry? They're fans disappointed with a show..."

but they are surely? what's this site, chopped liver? they're involved with comedy... you don't go to the fringe? you don't hang out with people? hmm.. i find this very hard to believe..

"it's not critique when presented like that, it's having a go for having a go's sake...
>
>or, at least, that is how it is presented.

Or how you have interpreted it...."

interpretation is a beautiful thing, if used as a scapegoat...

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun May 14 22:07:58 BST 2000:

>the site itself is superb, you can't fault it at all... but!
>you are the same as every other critic of this breed. it's a garry bushell technique, surely you are above that?
>and it's not the actual content i meant that is the 'same' as anyone... it's the whole feeling, the whole 'ooh look, aren't i subversive' thing...

If it was a case of being subversive, the corpses guys would write great long articles going into great detail on comedy they like/dislike. I would once again suggest you may feel the way you do because our opinion is different to yours.

This Pegg thread wasn't started to generate interest in the site - forums don't tend to generate traffic.

>well, i would disagree. with a couple of exceptions wrt plagarism, there are no comics deserve the sort of 'critique' on here... it is low denominator stuff designed to cause maximum effect by ruffling feathers

I know a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one. I'm sure you give examples of these, but I suspect you would pick out the most flippant remarks on the site, whilst ignoring the most well reasoned ones...

>i have 'gone away and read this properly' (nice non patronising way of putting it). but like i say, well put together, nice spin on things, way too much angst... it's like five gone mad with a copy of the young ones and a the latest issue of a teenage 'underground' mag...

Well, you're entitled to your opinion - the feedback which has been emailed to us so far says differently.

>most of the points were weak to start off with? how weak is a thread beginning 'what is the point of 'x''?

The question may have been phrased flippantly, but it was a genuine question.

>notice you didn't disagree with the closed argument allegation.... or that of you not disproving, or attempting to disprove others arguments...

It wasn't a closed argument, it wasn't even an attempt at an argument - it only turned into one when the response was 'leave him alone, we hate you' (and I'm not just refering to the forum here)...

>i agree some arguments were weak, but there were a lot of other arguments that were not, and the argument 'oh, we heard him having a go i.e. being snipy' was retailated with he's a nice bloke, not an argument? hmm....

The retailation was more along the lines of "that's not true" when our experience said otherwise.

>but what constitutes a good point to some obviously doesn't to others...

yes, obviously - if I disagree with something I read, I have the right to reply - that's what this forum is for.

>and you don't descend into slants? i tihnk there is pretty daming evidence there....
>and it's the worse kind 'i heard x say this about y' who the fuck cares?!
>surely, that's their OPINION?

Yes - and that's what this site is about. Opinions. Blimey, you do catch on quick don't you?!

>i also fail to see the maturity in resorting to name calling... i suggest maybe you *RE-read* the site...

I have done, several times. No body said it was mature.

>indeed, but you're foisting your opinions onto people, much like door to door religion salesman...

Sorry, your now suggesting we're forcing you to read the site?

>you still can't argue out of that one either... the double standard is your achilles heal, by simply existing, this site is in contradiction of itself..

Maybe it'll cause a parallax and we'll disappear eh?

>uh, yeah, that's why the corpses had such a task dodging the flak? my personal points?

No, the editors have limited access to the net - one has no access at all. Even though it was mostly myself answering the responses posted by the Pegg fans, there was never a problem as you are suggesting.

>another personal slant?

Yes if you like... I didn't think your points were very good at all. You probably don't think much of mine...

>the sun sells god knows how many copies a day? ever heard of quantity vs. quality?
>maybe that is unfair, because at least yours doesn't have the danger of making or breaking someone...

No, the point I was making there was that this website doesn't need this discussion in order to survive - most of our visitors aren't even interested in it... it's certainly isn't being 'pulled apart by personal grievances'

>indeed, my opinion.. but surely, that is what you are promoting? the right to state your own without fear of recrimination?

Yes, absolutely... but who the fuck cares right?

>and, to be honest, i wouldn't not be causing a 'problem' if we shared an opinion, it's not the opinion that 'offends' me, it's

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Sun May 14 22:17:21 BST 2000:

>the methods used to generate 'hits'

Well, as I said before, we don't "need" this discussion at all...

>not so, i agree with a lot of points around the site, like i say, it's not what but how in a lot of cases....
>what spoils it all is a feeling that just comes across as mediocre journalism with a hint of 'bad blood'

Your opinions there, but I disagree - I don't see how there can be 'bad blood' as they're not comedians and I feel the articles are extremely well researched and written. I might not agree with everything that's said, but that doesn't make the articles mediocre.

> but they are surely? what's this site, chopped liver? they're involved with comedy... you don't go to the fringe? you don't hang out with people? hmm.. i find this very hard to believe..

Yes, but they're still fans. They have no commerical vested interest. Apart from wanting to see good comedy, why should they care? You're suggesting that they're writing SOTCAA because they haven't acheived comedy success themselves.

>>or, at least, that is how it is presented.
>Or how you have interpreted it....
>interpretation is a beautiful thing, if used as a scapegoat...

It's not a scapegoat, I'm just suggesting that's how you've intertpreted it - not everybody sees it the same way you do. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jon on Mon May 15 11:39:14 BST 2000:

I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one unsuccessful stand-up/sitcom writer amongst The Corpses... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Mon May 15 12:15:31 BST 2000:

Urm, you'd better be surprised then ;) Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Jon on Mon May 15 12:37:57 BST 2000:

Perhaps they haven't admitted it to you yet, Rob? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Mon May 15 13:32:41 BST 2000:

No, I can tell you that neither of the corpses writers have ever attempted to write standup/sitcom etc.

But, hey, if it helps you sleep safer... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Mon May 15 13:34:07 BST 2000:

"If it was a case of being subversive, the corpses guys would write great long articles going into great detail on comedy they like/dislike. I would once again suggest you may feel the way you do because our opinion is different to yours."

No, I disagree. I don't think to be 'subversive' you need to write great long trailing pieces... you need to be critical of things in a certain way, something the site aims at but is very 'scattergun' at succeeding with.
The entire 'I think it's your opinion clouding your judgement' claim is also wearing a little tired as an argument, no? I mean, using it once, maybe. I applaud you for sticking to your guns, but do you think I would do this over some bloke? Like *I* keep saying, it's not the subject, it's the lazy way in which the debate was raised... and subsequently argued with monochromatic responses.

"This Pegg thread wasn't started to generate interest in the site - forums don't tend to generate traffic."

Hmm, I don't know anything about web-sites and the traffic through them, but surely, if you look at the 'last post' sections of each thread and see when and how they are updated... that is minimal traffic??
Christ, I wish the sites I write for had that sort of minimal traffic…

"I know a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one. I'm sure you give examples of these, but I suspect you would pick out the most flippant remarks on the site, whilst ignoring the most well reasoned ones..."

Not at all. you seem to have a very low opinion of your demographic, or is that aimed at me personally, or, indeed the corpses? I am only 'picking' out the most relevant things to my argument... I am not likely to use evidence against my own argument am I? and I have said that I think some of the content is good...

"Well, you're entitled to your opinion - the feedback which has been emailed to us so far says differently."

and that wouldn’t surprise me. like I have said, it's a good site. but only to a certain depth, and then it for some reason, appears to descend into boil in the bag anarchy for comedic citizen smiths
however, having said that… having read through the whole thread, yet again, sixth time or thereabouts..
you say you’re having negative feedback… oh well… bit of both then?

"The question may have been phrased flippantly, but it was a genuine question."

does not stop it from being weak though, surely?
It’s a lazy question, there is no argument out of that..

"It wasn't a closed argument, it wasn't even an attempt at an argument - it only turned into one when the response was 'leave him alone, we hate you' (and I'm not just referring to the forum here)..."

it wasn't a closed argument? um... I would direct you to your front page, then to the VERY FIRST message of this thread... you learn about 'fair and unfair' questions in GCSE maths....

"The retaliation was more along the lines of "that's not true" when our experience said otherwise."

but that's the thing as well... it's like 'we know more than you, so sit down, be a good girl / boy and listen'. Maybe it’s me, but you don’t come across as people with opinions worth listening to, you come across as bullish people trying to imprint people

"yes, obviously - if I disagree with something I read, I have the right to reply - that's what this forum is for."

thanks for the explanation, I must admit, I did wonder…

“Yes - and that's what this site is about. Opinions. Blimey, you do catch on quick don't you?!”

nice comment.

"I have done (re read the work), several times. No body said it was mature."

and most likely, nobody will. it's what I am trying to point out to you, it's your weak point… solve the immaturity, which comes across as a series of childish grudges, you get good site… simple.

"Sorry, you’re now suggesting we're forcing you to read the site?"

no, not at all, but you 'call people up' to answer this critique (message 3 or 4 I think ... “I would've thought more people liked Pegg” or some such), and then won't listen to rational argument...

"Maybe it'll cause a parallax and we'll disappear eh?"

This isn't star trek, nor TMWRNJ.
you can't deflect away valid points with flippant answers... you must see that you are always going to be in contravention of your own premise...

"No, the editors have limited access to the net - one has no access at all. Even though it was mostly myself answering the responses posted by the Pegg fans, there was never a problem as you are suggesting."

no, not at all... of course not... sometimes, if you tell yourself something often enough, even you begin to believe it...
come off it, there was no come back at all my 'old and tired' points seemed somehow very hard for them to answer, despite them ‘supposedly’ seeing them before... they answered some but not all of my points, and not all of them had been repeated...

"Yes if you like... I didn't think your points were very good at all. You probably don't think much of mine..."

nope, I thought yours were ok, but, again, bordering on the fanatically aggressive...

"No, t Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By DL on Mon May 15 13:36:38 BST 2000:

Cont...
"No, the point I was making there was that this web - site doesn't need this discussion in order to survive - most of our visitors aren't even interested in it... it's certainly isn't being 'pulled apart by personal grievances'"

of course it doesn't, but you can't alienate people either...
well, maybe 'pulled apart' was an inappropriate choice of words... the opinions presented appear clouded by personal agendas....

"Yes, absolutely... but who the fuck cares right?"

people without the vote normally... but, what your saying is you don't care about your reader’s opinions? or that anyone who states an opinion is open to personal attack?

“Well, as I said before, we don't "need" this discussion at all...”

well, my advice, try something else in its place then… something to encourage new comics rather slate anyone out of hand with inadequate reasoning.

“Your opinions there, but I disagree - I don't see how there can be 'bad blood' as they're not comedians and I feel the articles are extremely well researched and written. I might not agree with everything that's said, but that doesn't make the articles mediocre.”

They’re amazingly well researched and well written, but they are also biased to extreme levels. That is what makes the articles ‘ordinary’ they don’t offer choice, they trumpet that opinion as right…

“Yes, but they're still fans. They have no commercial vested interest. Apart from wanting to see good comedy, why should they care? You're suggesting that they're writing SOTCAA because they haven't achieved comedy success themselves.”

Yep, basically, and I am saying that from experience…
Name me one critic who hasn’t performed in his/her medium of choice, and I will give you a biscuit… chocolate too…

“It's not a scapegoat, I'm just suggesting that's how you've interpreted it - not everybody sees it the same way you do.”

No, but, by the same coincidence not everyone thinks the way you do, and not everyone has no emotion, so maybe it’s wise to lay off of the personal stuff, whether you consider the subject people can ‘handle’ it or not…


On a light hearted, banter - y note, I thought it would be extremely diligent of me to re read the article, as suggested by Robert S…
Here are my findings…


1.
“Yes I realise that post was probably from him, I can't think of a reason why anyone would pretend to be him.”

Nice comment, completely impersonal… nice to see that the hatred of someone in no way will cloud your judgement.

2.
“Hmm, basically so far I have said why I don't like Simon's work - you have said why you like it. What isn't proper about that debate exactly?”

Now, reading it on it’s own, you make think.. ‘hmm’ but, by reading the following, that may change…

“I have heard reports of him making snipy remarks about other comedians.”

Hearsay, dismissable. Even if true, not really a hanging offence, name me one person who hasn’t had a go at someone they either learn or work with…

“Now I must confess that I haven't seen that much of Spaced, that's not to say I didn't give it a chance though. I thought it was an attempt at a surreal, slightly self-indulgent comedy aimed at a very mainstream audience.”

Hmm, surely a self-indulgent piece can never be aimed at the populace? By it’s own nature its’ something you do for yourself?
Even taking that away, how can you comment on something you admit you ‘haven’t seen that much of’?

“That's not to say it was all bad, it just wasn't a work of genius either - it certainly wasn't ground breaking, and I'd be surprised if we're all talking about it still in five - ten years or so... not unless it has an exceptional second series.”

“I don't think the kind of hype surrounding Pegg is justified. If I don't express my opinion then I wouldn't be contributing to any sort of balance, and no balance would be harmful to comedy”

if you personally don’t comment? Hmm…
it’s not lack of balance that is harmful to comedy, it’s failure to correctly nurture young talent…

“Yes I realise that post was probably from him, I can't think of a reason why anyone would pretend to be him”

sorry, couldn’t resist, such a damning statement needs to be savoured…

“Hmm, basically so far I have said why I don't like Simon's work - you have said why you like it.”

Hmm.. yeah… well thought out argument… if you look at your most insightful comment it reads, and I am paraphrasing….
‘big train wasn’t as good as it could’ve been, hippies was dire’ well, I tell you what, with debating like that, I can see what you mean after all….

“Spaced isn't the only guilty party of course, Small Potatoes suffered from large amounts of pointless crash-zooms, etc and spoilt the show for me...”

hmm.. I think you’ve failed to grasp the point of them, in space at least, every single crash zoom is part of the whole ‘referencing’ thing… considering you are a member of the spaced mailing list, I would’ve thought you would’ve seen that…
Actually, that is a valid point… why the joining of a group you don’t like?

“I'm sorry, I just don't believe Simo Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Mon May 15 13:39:09 BST 2000:

Cont...
“I'm sorry, I just don't believe Simon Pegg is the comedy genius he is being made out to be. Maybe if some of you broadened your comedy horizons you may understand our viewpoint more.”

I am sorry, but could you possibly be more patronising? Even if it’s not intentional, you are basically coming across as a comedy prig, with such stifled, blinkered views to be instantly ignored…

“Or maybe to try and get people to think independently and therefore get decent views on comedy”

Now, this is more like it… this is the good stuff… this is what it’s all about… the crux of the whole point of anything… but you can’t FORCE decent views on people, and that is where they’re slipping up…

“ And you can't just say 'because I don't like him'.

Well I haven't be saying that... you've read how much of this so far?”

No… you haven’t… to be honest, you haven’t really said anything (I’ve read quite a bit thank - you!)

There isn’t ONE SINGLE REASON of any worth given in this entire thread against monsieur Pegg, the only arguments ever used by the ‘anti Simon’ league, if you will, are:
That’s not an argument
That comment wasn’t meant seriously
That’s not what we said, please re read it … properly.
Quality d*bate I am sure you will agree…


i apologise for the sprawling nature of this posting, but, i am sure you can see that i've tried to keep it's content as tight as possible.

i look forward to your response/s

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Mon May 15 13:39:11 BST 2000:

Cont...
“I'm sorry, I just don't believe Simon Pegg is the comedy genius he is being made out to be. Maybe if some of you broadened your comedy horizons you may understand our viewpoint more.”

I am sorry, but could you possibly be more patronising? Even if it’s not intentional, you are basically coming across as a comedy prig, with such stifled, blinkered views to be instantly ignored…

“Or maybe to try and get people to think independently and therefore get decent views on comedy”

Now, this is more like it… this is the good stuff… this is what it’s all about… the crux of the whole point of anything… but you can’t FORCE decent views on people, and that is where they’re slipping up…

“ And you can't just say 'because I don't like him'.

Well I haven't be saying that... you've read how much of this so far?”

No… you haven’t… to be honest, you haven’t really said anything (I’ve read quite a bit thank - you!)

There isn’t ONE SINGLE REASON of any worth given in this entire thread against monsieur Pegg, the only arguments ever used by the ‘anti Simon’ league, if you will, are:
That’s not an argument
That comment wasn’t meant seriously
That’s not what we said, please re read it … properly.
Quality d*bate I am sure you will agree…


i apologise for the sprawling nature of this posting, but, i am sure you can see that i've tried to keep it's content as tight as possible.

i look forward to your response/s

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Mon May 15 15:47:59 BST 2000:

>No, I disagree. I don't think to be 'subversive' you need to write great long trailing pieces... you need to be critical of things in a certain way, something the site aims at but is very 'scattergun' at succeeding with.

Again, that's your opinion - something we've established is different from mine.

>The entire 'I think it's your opinion clouding your judgement' claim is also wearing a little tired as an argument, no? I mean, using it once, maybe. I applaud you for sticking to your guns, but do you think I would do this over some bloke? Like *I* keep saying, it's not the subject, it's the lazy way in which the debate was raised... and subsequently argued with monochromatic responses.

It might be the same argument, but you've done little to convince me otherwise, so it's still valid.

>Hmm, I don't know anything about web-sites and the traffic through them, but surely, if you look at the 'last post' sections of each thread and see when and how they are updated... that is minimal traffic??
>Christ, I wish the sites I write for had that sort of minimal traffic…

It is minimal for this site.

>Not at all. you seem to have a very low opinion of your demographic

We have a very wide demographic... if you're suggesting we think the same of all our site readers, you are clearly wrong.

> or is that aimed at me personally, or, indeed the corpses? I am only 'picking' out the most relevant things to my argument... I am not likely to use evidence against my own argument am I? and I have said that I think some of the content is good...

For example, you complained that some of the points on this site were not very mature. Most/All of these point were probably put in as an attempt at humour which, I suspect, you found offensive. It's very easy to argue against flippant remarks, but to argue against the more well reasoned ones is a lot more challenging.

>and that wouldn’t surprise me. like I have said, it's a good site. but only to a certain depth, and then it for some reason, appears to descend into boil in the bag anarchy for comedic citizen smiths

Again, your opinion which many people disagree with.

>however, having said that… having read through the whole thread, yet again, sixth time or thereabouts..
>you say you’re having negative feedback… oh well… bit of both then?

There's nothing wrong with constructive negative feedback, but, we've certainly had a *lot* more positive feedback...

>"The question may have been phrased flippantly, but it was a genuine question."
>does not stop it from being weak though, surely?
>It’s a lazy question, there is no argument out of that..

I'll leave this one for the corpses...

>it wasn't a closed argument? um... I would direct you to your front page, then to the VERY FIRST message of this thread... you learn about 'fair and unfair' questions in GCSE maths....

Glad you mentioned the cover picture there...

>but that's the thing as well... it's like 'we know more than you, so sit down, be a good girl / boy and listen'.

But only if that's how you choose to view it...

> Maybe it’s me, but you don’t come across as people with opinions worth listening to, you come across as bullish people trying to imprint people

See above.

>“Yes - and that's what this site is about. Opinions. Blimey, you do catch on quick don't you?!”
>nice comment.

I thought so.

>"I have done (re read the work), several times. No body said it was mature."
>and most likely, nobody will. it's what I am trying to point out to you, it's your weak point… solve the immaturity, which comes across as a series of childish grudges, you get good site… simple.

Your opinion - many people don't agree with you.

>"Sorry, you’re now suggesting we're forcing you to read the site?"
>no, not at all, but you 'call people up' to answer this critique (message 3 or 4 I think ... “I would've thought more people liked Pegg” or some such), and then won't listen to rational argument...

But we did listen to the rational arguments... it just that what you consider to be a rational argument is different to what I would consider it to be.

>"Maybe it'll cause a parallax and we'll disappear eh?"
>This isn't star trek, nor TMWRNJ.
>you can't deflect away valid points with flippant answers... you must see that you are always going to be in contravention of your own premise...

No, but I can see in your eyes we always will be.

Speaking of flippant...

>no, not at all... of course not... sometimes, if you tell yourself something often enough, even you begin to believe it...
>come off it, there was no come back at all my 'old and tired' points seemed somehow very hard for them to answer, despite them ‘supposedly’ seeing them before... they answered some but not all of my points, and not all of them had been repeated...

Trying as hard as I can to understand that paragraph, I didn't answer your points as I had grown tired of this thread and someone had already made some good valid points in favour of Pegg. I was hoping this thread would die off... like many others I suspect. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Mon May 15 15:49:49 BST 2000:

>Cont...
>“I'm sorry, I just don't believe Simon Pegg is the comedy genius he is being made out to be. Maybe if some of you broadened your comedy horizons you may understand our viewpoint more.”
>I am sorry, but could you possibly be more patronising? Even if it’s not intentional, you are basically coming across as a comedy prig, with such stifled, blinkered views to be instantly ignored…

Nope, that was intentional. Please do ignore my views...

>“Or maybe to try and get people to think independently and therefore get decent views on comedy”
>Now, this is more like it… this is the good stuff… this is what it’s all about… the crux of the whole point of anything… but you can’t FORCE decent views on people, and that is where they’re slipping up…

Again, I wouldn't suggest they're forcing anyone, but still...

>“ And you can't just say 'because I don't like him'.
>Well I haven't be saying that... you've read how much of this so far?”>
>No… you haven’t… to be honest, you haven’t really said anything (I’ve read quite a bit thank - you!)

Yes, I know I haven't been expressing too much of an opinion - I know what mine is...

>There isn’t ONE SINGLE REASON of any worth

(again, your opinion here)

> given in this entire thread against monsieur Pegg, the only arguments ever used
by the ‘anti Simon’ league, if you will, are:
>That’s not an argument
>That comment wasn’t meant seriously
>That’s not what we said, please re read it … properly.
>Quality d*bate I am sure you will agree…

This thread is about finding out about why people like Simon Pegg and not the other way round.

>i apologise for the sprawling nature of this posting, but, i am sure you can see that i've tried to keep it's content as tight as possible.
>i look forward to your response/s

And hopefully here this thread will end - it's a bit daft to continue arguing over issues on which we'll never agree....
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Mon May 15 16:12:29 BST 2000:

it's not argument when backed up with fact, it then becomes oh, so very real...

your inability to find fault in yours / your colleagues work is admirable but perhaps misguided and immature.

worse still your apparent conceited nature at being 'clever' by saying 'it's opinion so nyah' basically only fuels my problem with the methods here further...

you've let yourself down my failing to arguee in a rational manner, you've come out with the same tired and lame excuses time and time again, and, to top it all, you've descended to snipes at people...

i.e. 'i tried working out what you meant by this' ... if you really REALLY look hard at the words, you may find that is makes absoulte sense when placed in context...

i agree, this subject Re: SP should rest, but you can't rest the main point of my 'thread' which is that lazy and jaded argument is not a substitute for journalism.

i think you've let yourself down with your own content, and that is a great shame.

thanks for your time.

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Mon May 15 16:30:40 BST 2000:

>it's not argument when backed up with fact, it then becomes oh, so very real...

Your arguments are based on your opinions and interpretations.

> your inability to find fault in yours / your colleagues work is admirable but perhaps misguided and immature.

No, I can find faults, I just don't agree with yours.

>worse still your apparent conceited nature at being 'clever' by saying 'it's opinion so nyah' basically only fuels my problem with the methods here further...

I'm just pointing out we have a difference of opinion. There's no 'ner' about it - you don't agree with me so agree to differ.

>you've let yourself down my failing to arguee in a rational manner, you've come out with the same tired and lame excuses time and time again, and, to top it all, you've descended to snipes at people...
>i.e. 'i tried working out what you meant by this' ... if you really REALLY look hard at the words, you may find that is makes absoulte sense when placed in context...
>i agree, this subject Re: SP should rest, but you can't rest the main point of my 'thread' which is that lazy and jaded argument is not a substitute for journalism.

I not saying it is, I just don't agree with your point that the corpses work is lazy in this way.

>i think you've let yourself down with your own content, and that is a great shame.
>thanks for your time.

Well, I hasten to add my opinions are my own and I am not one of the writers on SOTCAA, so you shouldn't reguard my arguements as theirs. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By An Observer on Mon May 15 17:10:05 BST 2000:

Dan, you 'lost' this argument long ago - you even fail to notice when your own points are quoted back at you. If anyone has let themself down, it is you... Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Kipster on Mon May 15 17:13:18 BST 2000:

>>it wasn't a closed argument? um... I would direct you to your front page, then to the VERY FIRST message of this thread... you learn about 'fair and unfair' questions in GCSE maths....
>Glad you mentioned the cover picture there...

just as an aside, does anybody else feel that there is a subtext to that front graphic, besides the interpretation above?
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian W-B on Mon May 15 17:22:26 BST 2000:

Whoa- this has got way too far out of hand! The question was flippant, and that has been admitted and it's also what sparked off unnecessary comments from both sides.
I think I have tried to put forward why I like SP (perhaps unsuccessfully, but then, I'm no journalist, etc....).
There is a lot I like about this site, and I don't think it is lazy (it is well researched for the most part, you cannot argue with that). But then, there are some things (in my own opinion....) that I don't like.
Please can we let this thread die a well-earned death now please?!

Sian Woolly-bully :o) (I actually quite like that!)
x Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Sian on Mon May 15 17:25:28 BST 2000:

>>Glad you mentioned the cover picture there...
>
>just as an aside, does anybody else feel that there is a subtext to that front graphic, besides the interpretation above?


Ummm, I don't know. What kind of subtext? I've never been brilliant at subtexts....
Sian

Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By anonymous person, oh no, i have balls... DL on Mon May 15 17:48:03 BST 2000:

"Dan, you 'lost' this argument long ago - you even fail to notice when your own points are quoted back at you. If anyone has let themself down, it is you..."

nice anonymous comment... point me to where i 'lost' the argument and i may be preapred to listen (read?). as far as i can see, the only people to 'lose' anything are those who take what critics say as gospel.

If you want to achieve what you set out to do, make sure you do'nt fall foul of your own ideals... that is all i need to say. Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Mon May 15 20:29:24 BST 2000:

>Please can we let this thread die a well-earned death now please?!

Ahem to that
Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Dan L on Mon May 15 20:51:37 BST 2000:

we agree on something... i think a new thread is in order....
:O) Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By An Observer on Mon May 15 21:05:13 BST 2000:

sorry to post here, this'll be the last time...

>nice anonymous comment... point me to where i 'lost' the argument and i may be preapred to listen (read?).

You lost the argument when you complained about rob using the same points and dismissed them as lazy, when you then went on to do the same thing with your own points. You lost the argument when you complained about patronising, personal slants and then made equally (and usually worse) sweeping remarks. You lost the argument when you mistook your opinion for everybody elses. You lost the argument when one moment you said "it's the worse kind 'i heard x say this about y' who the fuck cares?! surely, that's their OPINION?" and later said IN THE SAME MESSAGE "indeed, my opinion.. but surely, that is what you are promoting? the right to state your own without fear of recrimination?" - and then you complain about the corpses being aggressive! I could go on. Incidentally, what difference does it make if I'm anonymous or not? If I put my real name you still wouldn't know I am. Pete Wall, if you're that interested.

> as far as i can see, the only people to 'lose' anything are those who take what critics say as gospel.

Another large assumption there on your part - you're assuming I'm siding with the corpses on the Pegg debate. Wrong - I actually like Simon Pegg and disagree strongly with them. But what I do find is your expression of opinion to be smug, self-righteous, patronising and much more offensive than anything written elsewhere on this site... quite frankly you're an embarrassment.

>If you want to achieve what you set out to do, make sure you do'nt fall foul of your own ideals... that is all i need to say.

and as long as you're the last person to say it eh? Subject: Re: The point of Simon Pegg
Posted By Rob S on Mon May 15 21:07:36 BST 2000:

Arggh, right that's enough on this subject, I'm changing the permissions on this file. Please continue the discussion elsewhere.