Think it was a general parody of vloggers seemingly needing to make a comment/'wacky' video on any topic that is of interest, believing their opinion is of vital importance. Despite this they often get lost in topics above their head and their 'serious' vlogs are juxtaposed with ones about inane things like, in this case, new kit kats and doctor who
I thought it was good
Oh OK, it's just I thought it might possibly be a piss-take of charlieissocoollike
I reckon 2015 could be the breakout year for Cunck. I hear she's pitching a number of shows to broadcasters:
Cunck on Funk: BBC Four musical theme night, including Cunck in session with George Clinton and Nile Rogers.
Cunck's Hunks: ITV3's answer to Britain's Next Top Model. Philomena's on the hunt to find a macho male.
Cunck with Monks: BBC Two. In conversation with Trapist monks. She may not have thought this one through.
Cunck on Munch: Sky Arts 2. At look at the days of art before Snapchat with a profile of the man who also worked on the Scream movie franchise.
Cunck with a trunk: National Geographic. Philomena's explores genetic hybrids by volunteering for a controversial breeding experiment to boost the endangered elephant population.
She's also pitching a show to Channel 5 about bodily fluids, but is struggling to think of a title...
Wouldn't usually bother commenting on typos or spelling etc. but if you're going to goto that much effort then you may as well get the name right.
He has asked for the comments section in The Gaurdian to be closed.
His colum in The Gaurdian, when he said he had a child of his own was that the only way anyone could feel true love, was one of the most offensive things I've read.
Anyone who has a mum, dad, friend who was fostered or adopted by a family can feel love.
Also anyone who loves people
He has asked for the comments section in The Gaurdian to be closed.
His colum in The Gaurdian, when he said he had a child of his own was that the only way anyone could feel true love, was one of the most offensive things I've read.
Anyone who has a mum, dad, friend who was fostered or adopted by a family can feel love.
Also anyone who loves people
This has nothing do to with the content of the program, why mention it? It isn't relevant. Your personal issue with someone else's emotional sensitivity compared to yours has nothing to do with this show.
For someone banging on about love, you might want to forgive and forget on this one, your views are not a state mandate we must all abide by. His column, his opinion to proffer.
Great start to the series. "Government Sontaran Eric Pickles...." Love Cunk. And the idea of Charlie trying desperately not to show the cartoon was very well done. Not bad acting there, Charlton. Good timing when he knocked the phone off the desk.
The Cunk "interview" was embarrassing. 2nd rate Ali G. The interviewee knew the questions were deliberately idiotic and wasn't playing along. Just embarrassing and a total fail.
The Cunk "interview" was embarrassing. 2nd rate Ali G. The interviewee knew the questions were deliberately idiotic and wasn't playing along. Just embarrassing and a total fail.
This is going to be her third series playing the character, I'd say she's been successful with it compared to Limmy's short run on the show.
The Cunk "interview" was embarrassing. 2nd rate Ali G. The interviewee knew the questions were deliberately idiotic and wasn't playing along. Just embarrassing and a total fail.
I don't find the spoof interview very funny, feels like mocking the afflicted most of the time, I've found Morgan's wide eyed act on this, thin since the beginning.
This sort of thing can still be amusing when the 'victim' cottons on and plays along, you can usually 'see' the cogs turning as they come up with a suitable response as happened this week.
Dead ringers and it's spoof phone calls, for example can get a huge response audience when the 'victims' play along, Tom Baker getting a spoof phone call from Jon Culshaw/Sylvester McCoy as the Doctor and playing along is very amusing.
This has nothing do to with the content of the program, why mention it? It isn't relevant. Your personal issue with someone else's emotional sensitivity compared to yours has nothing to do with this show.
For someone banging on about love, you might want to forgive and forget on this one, your views are not a state mandate we must all abide by. His column, his opinion to proffer.[/QUOTE/]
I'm "not banging on" about anything. My reasons, why I'm disappointed in the show, is Charlie has said himself that he is now part of the media set which he slated in the past. If you read his Column you will realise this. He's lauging at you. Not with you
This has nothing do to with the content of the program, why mention it? It isn't relevant. Your personal issue with someone else's emotional sensitivity compared to yours has nothing to do with this show.
For someone banging on about love, you might want to forgive and forget on this one, your views are not a state mandate we must all abide by. His column, his opinion to proffer.
I'm "not banging on" about anything. My reasons, why I'm disappointed in the show, is Charlie has said himself that he is now part of the media set which he slated in the past. If you read his Column you will realise this. He's lauging at you. Not with you
Yes, I'm sure you're disappointed, watch something else and don't bother posting about this if it's that much of a disappointment.
Edit: not that your first post was buggerall to do with the program.
I think you're just trying to justify posting on this thread at all.
OFFS this again, he stopped doing Screenburn in the Guardian about 5 years ago, this is OLD NEWS, give it a rest.
If you had half a sodding clue, you'd know that Charlie likes a broad spectrum of TV, he enjoys his fair share of relatively pointless entertainment, just like the rest of us.
It's the Charlie messiah, Charlie the great sage 'mob' who don't seem to get it.
Along with those who think anyone who watches him thinks he's a great sage and we all hang on his every word as if it's a matter of great pith and moment.
Yes, I'm sure you're disappointed, watch something else and don't bother posting about this if it's that much of a disappointment.
Edit: not that your first post was buggerall to do with the program.
I think you're just trying to justify posting on this thread at all.
OFFS this again, he stopped doing Screenburn in the Guardian about 5 years ago, this is OLD NEWS, give it a rest.
If you had half a sodding clue, you'd know that Charlie likes a broad spectrum of TV, he enjoys his fair share of relatively pointless entertainment, just like the rest of us.
It's the Charlie messiah, Charlie the great sage 'mob' who don't seem to get it.
Along with those who think anyone who watches him thinks he's a great sage and we all hang on his every word as if it's a matter of great pith and moment.
Why are you posting though, you have no coherent clever response, but a pointless argument defending nothing.
OFFS this again, he stopped doing Screenburn in the Guardian about 5 years ago, this is OLD NEWS, give it a rest.
Booker has a regular column in the Guardian NOW.
He's definitely part of the "media set". He's married and has two children. Hardly "edgy" or radical or even "angry". Just a middle-class, middle-aged company director / writer living a nice, comfortable suburban life.
As for Cunck and the Youtube sketch - they were definitely mocking the audience (both TV and Youtube), not satirising the situation. Maybe some people need a special DOG in the corner of the screen to show when they're having the mick' taken? Subtlety doesn't seem to work.
Why should he? It's a scurrilous left-wing rag that does its best to be offensive to everyone and everything, and shouldn't be accorded sainthood just because of the dreadful shootings.
Booker has a regular column in the Guardian NOW.
He's definitely part of the "media set". He's married and has two children. Hardly "edgy" or radical or even "angry". Just a middle-class, middle-aged company director / writer living a nice, comfortable suburban life.
<snip>
The comment was in reference to him no longer writing Screenburn, that is why it's in my post.
Hey ho, seems like every Charlie Brooker related thread has to go over this ground again and again.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/jan/28/philomena-clunk-favourite-tv
Personally i want a spin-off You Tube account, for the vlogger.
Oh OK, it's just I thought it might possibly be a piss-take of charlieissocoollike
Yes the BBC will, and has done, saw this covered a week or two back on BBC Newswatch.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/09/bbc-revises-muhammad-ban-bbc1-news-bulletin-features-charlie-hebdo-cover
Some how the honking great gag wearing size 12's went unnoticed by some people.
Unless it's part of the joke?
Obiligitory comedy is subjective note.
He has asked for the comments section in The Gaurdian to be closed.
His colum in The Gaurdian, when he said he had a child of his own was that the only way anyone could feel true love, was one of the most offensive things I've read.
Anyone who has a mum, dad, friend who was fostered or adopted by a family can feel love.
Also anyone who loves people
This has nothing do to with the content of the program, why mention it? It isn't relevant. Your personal issue with someone else's emotional sensitivity compared to yours has nothing to do with this show.
For someone banging on about love, you might want to forgive and forget on this one, your views are not a state mandate we must all abide by. His column, his opinion to proffer.
I don't find the spoof interview very funny, feels like mocking the afflicted most of the time, I've found Morgan's wide eyed act on this, thin since the beginning.
This sort of thing can still be amusing when the 'victim' cottons on and plays along, you can usually 'see' the cogs turning as they come up with a suitable response as happened this week.
Dead ringers and it's spoof phone calls, for example can get a huge response audience when the 'victims' play along, Tom Baker getting a spoof phone call from Jon Culshaw/Sylvester McCoy as the Doctor and playing along is very amusing.
Yes, I'm sure you're disappointed, watch something else and don't bother posting about this if it's that much of a disappointment.
Edit: not that your first post was buggerall to do with the program.
I think you're just trying to justify posting on this thread at all.
OFFS this again, he stopped doing Screenburn in the Guardian about 5 years ago, this is OLD NEWS, give it a rest.
If you had half a sodding clue, you'd know that Charlie likes a broad spectrum of TV, he enjoys his fair share of relatively pointless entertainment, just like the rest of us.
It's the Charlie messiah, Charlie the great sage 'mob' who don't seem to get it.
Along with those who think anyone who watches him thinks he's a great sage and we all hang on his every word as if it's a matter of great pith and moment.
Why are you posting though, you have no coherent clever response, but a pointless argument defending nothing.
He's definitely part of the "media set". He's married and has two children. Hardly "edgy" or radical
As for Cunck and the Youtube sketch - they were definitely mocking the audience (both TV and Youtube), not satirising the situation. Maybe some people need a special DOG in the corner of the screen to show when they're having the mick' taken? Subtlety doesn't seem to work.
The comment was in reference to him no longer writing Screenburn, that is why it's in my post.
Hey ho, seems like every Charlie Brooker related thread has to go over this ground again and again.