Jump to content

Talk:Brass Eye

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.131.175.197 (talk) at 21:38, 22 October 2017 (→None of the guest celebrities understood that they were being lampooned until the show was aired: Confirmation from the director). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Television needs production section Template:Television needs response section Template:Television needs episode list Template:Television needs synopsis

Here it is. I'm still having no luck with it - I get redirected to [1], which looks like, but isn't, a standard Microsoft web server error page.

I think the misterharold web server's set up to hobble direct-linking to images stored on it, because I can get the image if I search for it on the main page of the website.

Could a few people please check and verify this? (Make sure you're not getting a cached image when checking this out.)

I'm going to remove the link again in the meantime.

Gypsum Fantastic 00:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Gypsum Fantastic.
Thanks for ye olde heads-up.
I assume the site doesn't like the cut of your IP address' jib (or does like the cut of mine). Or something.
I'll see if I can find another scan.
chocolateboy 07:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No worries Chocolateboy. Thanks for your help
Gypsum Fantastic 08:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Blunkett point

David Blunkett is unlikely to ever see the programme in question. Zik-Zak 17:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm guessing that was intentional humour by the writer. I laughed anyway!
I kind of see that as splitting hairs a bit. Any other comments? Gypsum Fantastic 00:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Only a few days ago, Blunkett was shown on TV saying "Nice to see you all again" to a bunch of reporters. There was more than a hint of irony, but it was in the "nice" not the "see". I suspect that blind people are a lot less sensitive about the whole "to see" verb thing than sighted people think they are. -- Avaragado 09:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Home Secretary David Blunkett said that he was "dismayed" but had also not seen the episode, because he was on holiday in Majorca at the time and is blind." made me chuckle. Amazing writing whoever you are, well done. -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 13:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grade is a cunt

  • I believe the actual text is simply "Grade is a cunt" Chris 05:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And more specifically, in terms of location, it's overlayed on the bit where Morris is pulling the guts out of a sick Britain. If I remember correctly. Which I may not be. --bodnotbod 10:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's only seen in the original CUT broadcast version. Not on the DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderPeel2001 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, it's only viewable on the original broadcast version, and even then it's very hard to see even if you know where to look. It's usually referred to as a "flash-frame", but in fact it's a "flash-field" that is only visible on screen for 1/50 of a second, half the duration of a frame. Because it was placed on a shot change and only lasts for half a frame, it's effectively invisible unless you can freeze on exactly the right field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.175.197 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nonce in "Nonce Sense"

  • Isn't nonce also a word for head?
    • I've never heard it used for peadophile before (though that is neither here nor there), though it does make sense with that definition.

(<-)Bonce is a rather old-fashioned slang word for head. None of the others are! 94.195.129.125 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that the lists of celebs merely mentioned is overly enthusiastic, However, I know some people like such things. But I wondered if anyone had the nous to put all that info in a table of some sort. It would look a lot better if it used the width of the page a bit more. Perhaps the 6 episodes in a 3 column by 2 row grid (or four rows if you have a divide between featured and mentioned)? Anyone know how to do it? --bodnotbod 10:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs removing (the lists, altogether) and each episode perhaps having its own article. This would reduce the huge list on this page and be able to focus the article more on 'Brass Eye' than the episodes individually. I haven't seen any other tv show which has this format on Wikipedia so think it would be best to change it and make it more like other shows.-Localzuk (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with localzuk. The bit about mentioned celebrities is silly and they should all have a seperate article. Of course I won't do this myself but it would be greatly apreciated if someone did. User:Kevin Granther

Good job

Well-done article, congratulations to the editors. Made me laugh, too. Herostratus 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophile episode query

I recall watching the programme and distinctly remember one element was a shot of a group of children with a man approaching them wearing a 'building' costume, accompanied by the voice of Chris Morris saying "Paedophiles have also been known to disguise themselves as actual schools in order to attract innocent children". Can anyone confirm this and possibly provide a screen-grab, as I believe it give a pertinent summary to the programme and its satirical aims. Bigpinkthing - Feb 14 2006

Yep, this was one of the funniest moments (IMO) in the show. Providing a screen grab would not really serve much purpose as it would be a fair use image and we already have 2. -Localzuk (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can watch this clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TedtkqWzCTE. I found it on a blog dedicated almost entirely to clips of Chris Morris programmes called Chicken Liver: Bits of Comedy, which actually includes the entire 2001 Brass Eye special. -Bungopolis 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...In 2001, the series was repeated, along with a new and entirely original extra show, which tackled the tricky subject of paedophilia and the associated moral panic prevalent in the media at the time..."
At the time? It's probably worse now, if anything.-195.93.21.39 21:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth putting anything in about Channel 4's cynical decision to screen the Pedophile episode late at night then again the very next day after the (inevitable) tabloid hysteria when all the disgusted's of Tunbridge Wells would be sure to tune in to view the "sick filth" themselves (having completely missed the original screening).--ElvisThePrince 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the guest celebrities understood that they were being lampooned until the show was aired

Is there anything to back this up? It seems pretty absurd to me.

I've always suspected Tania Bryer ("but who's to say there's going to be a strong wind?") was used as a paid performer in the Science episode. More substantially, there was some suspicion at the time of the peadophile special that Gary Lineker was in on the joke. To the best of my knowledge, he never complained about the episode, unlike everyone else who took part. Also at the time he was a regular on another Talkback show (They Think it's All Over) and would surely have realised what was going on. And finally, if you watch the "Baltimora" bit about the text messages, you can momentarily but quite clearly see Lineker's straight face slip at the very end. --80.0.124.95 11:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you watch closely I'm pretty sure Bernard Manning realises he's being lampooned midway through the speech about cake being a Made-up drug. To me it seems that "Sick Bastards" is aimed at the show's producers not the mythical drug manufacturers. 81.178.249.72 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding these couple, the vast majority are unwitting - most respond very angrily after the event, the notable exception being Clare Rayner who saw the funny side of having Morris repeatedly ask 'would you beat them off?' (i.e. masturbate them) in a discussion ostensibly about fighting off an attacker. Gavin Bl 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. I can't believe any of them didn't realise what was going on. It's more a reflection of the public's credulity IMO. I would like to read the supposed "angry reactions". I suspect they were merely playing along even further. Celebrities are real-life trolls 78.151.108.236 (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, celebrities are just stupid and will say anything to give them a few seconds of the public's attention. I think Lineker was maybe in on it, but not Manning or ANY of the others! 94.195.129.125 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly obvious to me that Hugh Dennis was "..in on the gag....", since he is clearly acting from a script (or at least, that's how it came across to me...). Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between "celebrities lampooned" and "celebrities involved".

82.5.68.95 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Director Michael Cumming, in his Q&As following screenings of Oxide Ghosts, confirms that all the celebrities who appear did not realise at the time that they were being lampooned. Some found out afterwards, before the actual broadcasts.

Morris and Cumming had a rule that if any celebrities appeared to rumble them during the filming, they would not use any material from that celebrity. He further says that of all the celebrities they filmed with, only Toyah Willcox (filmed for the animal rights episode) refused to say the lines she was presented with, on the grounds that they were plainly ridiculous (the elephant with the trunk up its bottom) and she would sound stupid, so she improvised her own, completely serious plea about animal rights generally - which wasn't used.

Cumming also relates that he expected that many celebrities would object in the way Toyah did, only be stunned when they read the lines as written and, in many cases, asked if they needed to do a retake.

Re-release or mistake?

Play.com lists 2 Brass Eye DVDs, one set for release in August 2007 - does anyone know anymore about this?

Editorializing on paedogeddon section

It seems un-encyclopedic to mention that the articles in the Daily Star and Daily Mail ran next to stories that might be seen as pedophilic (I know that's not a word), it seems like an extension of the "some people say" routine that is also used in that section to interject the author's personal opinion while maintaining the illusion of objectivity. It all seems very Fox News to me.

I see your point, and in most cases I would agree.
However, the Observer article cited in that area of this article actually includes mention of those two juxtapositions (the two other papers putting harsh condemnations of the special next to things that one could potentially regard as borderline-pedophilic [which is a word]) and the Telegraph mentions one of them. So this is Wikipedia reporting on a secondary source's editorializing, rather than Wikipedia doing its own editorializing. As such, I personally feel that it is both acceptable in and beneficial to the article.
But upon reading the section again in light of your criticism, I realised that this article did not make it clear enough that this is just Wikipedia reporting on the Observer's voice, rather than Wikipedia's voice directly. Additionally, I noticed that the description of the Star's adjacent piece was inaccurate (this article described that piece as being about her breasts, which is only true to some extent; it contained quite obvious innuendo regarding her breasts but it wasn't explicit and that wasn't the entire point of the piece).
I've edited the section to account for these things and to remove/minimise these problems. I personally think that the new version is fine. Thanks for pointing out the problem.
And on one thing we can definitely agree: We must NEVER let Wikipedia resemble Fox News. Never. BreakfastJr (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Hindley

The part about about the series being postponed because of the pulp/myra hindly sketch is wrong. The show was actually postponed because of legal issues surrounding the cake fiasco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben the mighty (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Ben the mighty 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the main problem was the Sutcliffe musical (IMO one of the tamer items in the series), which was eventually cut and only restored when the series was repeated in 2001. -212.139.65.164 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paedogeddon

I've cut this line, which was sitting on its own at the end of the section without any context:

"It is noted that the word "Reconstruction" appears over five times, often for the same scene."

Noted by whom? Appears where? Over five times? It sounds like this might be true and possibly even relevant, but I've frankly got no idea what it's on about. If you understand it, could you work it into the article somewhere that flows and makes sense? 81.107.32.231 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Eye Special (Paedogeddon) transcript

The transcript link gives a 403 for me. If the link isn't going to be usable for anyone, should we just remove it? D4g0thur 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try webarchive first or a similar service. If it's irrecoverably dead, baleet it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite and qualify

Above someone has already brought up the "none of the celebrities realised tehy were being lampooned" statement, but there are several more statements-of-fact which are presented without any qualification or attempt to attribute them to a reliable source.

Please bear in mind Pillars of Wikipedia.

For me references to the ironic nature of the tabloids reporting of pedogeddon are an issue. Ironic is an opinion. We need to state ironic according to whom, and provide a citation to statements of their ironic-nature - not links to page-scans and assume the reader is astute or like-minded enough to reach the same conclusion as yourself.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

The Daily Mail article itself was probably:

  • "Sarah and the Shineshine Girls; How the bikini princesses made a splash in the Med". Daily Mail. London. 30 July 2012. Archived from the original on 2007. Retrieved 17 July 2012. royals have been out making the most of the sunshine. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie donned bikinis for a dip in the Med on a family holiday. The Duchess of York joined in the fun in a black one-piece swimsuit as the trio dived from the bows of the launch Black Silver during a cruise off St Tropez at the weekend. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)

the date matches, although the Highbeam mirror is without photographs for confirmation. —Sladen (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Cooke

I have recently moved the brief passage on the paedophile and convicted child murderer Sidney Cooke from his own article. As there has been a minor, slow, edit war on this issue for a while, I have added an extended explanation of my reasoning on that article's talk page. As those who consider it legitimate to add a reference to Brass Eye to Cooke's article are more likely to be watching this page, I invite them to contribute to the discussion on the other talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brass_Eye&oldid=806569252"