Rubber bandits 1916

Dannyriver

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Well, it's just in well made TV one would always expect to have hidden mics, it adds a certain quality to the show, when I see mics out on a TV show u get the feeling that the person who put mics out like that wasn't able to get a decent sound out of the mics if they were hidden so there fore I assumed that.

Fair enough, now that I've explained the Bandit's aesthetic you might be able to appreciate their shows a bit more because you re gonna see loads of mics sticking out and people using packets of crackers for factories and vapes to give the impression of buildings on fire. It's all part of the crack.

AnonoBoy

qweerty wrote: »

Again, not a documentary, but it can't be excused of presenting the simistic narrative of that period that somehow still survives.

Next up how limited the view of trench warfare in Blackadder Goes Forth was.....

AnonoBoy

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Well, it's just in well made TV one would always expect to have hidden mics, it adds a certain quality to the show, when I see mics out on a TV show u get the feeling that the person who put mics out like that wasn't able to get a decent sound out of the mics if they were hidden so there fore I assumed that.

Well given that the show was about the Bandits making a program (they constantly refer to it and even get a presidential medal at the end for making it so well!) it's actually very very likely that the mics on display are there deliberately. While you might feel that it was done because the sound recordist wasn't able to record the sound properly I think everyone else realised that it was a deliberate choice and added to the aesthetic of the show.

The show was made by people with a good deal of experience in making television programs. Unfortunately in this case you just misunderstood what they were going for style-wise. It's not a big deal but honestly dude, stop banging on about it, you're making yourself look foolish.

The sound recordist alone has worked in the sound department on shows like Game of Thrones, The Fall, Ripper Street and Quirke. Does he sound like someone who doesn't know how to "get a decent sound out of the mics"? Or do you think perhaps you might be mistaken in your belief that the mics weren't visible deliberately?

sadie06

I laughed my ass off at this. Considering we are all likely to be 1916'd out by about mid-January I think it was clever of them to get in early.

Dannyriver

sadie06 wrote: »

I laughed my ass off at this. Considering we are all likely to be 1916'd out by about mid-January I think it was clever of them to get in early.

I agree that it worked our nicely but It wasn't the Bandits choice, RTE were scared **** less of it so they tried to stick it out at 11 new years eve to fulfill contract and hopefully slip under the radar and disappear. However the public reaction was so strong especially in the public figure department that they rowed back and repeated it it at a prime time slot 4 days later. Watch them take the credit for it in the coming weeks.:D

Ol' Donie

Dannyriver wrote: »

Because it only takes one to emphasise the low budget aesthetic which has been a staple of Rubberbandits work from the beginning. I.E The illusion that 'we re just chancing our arm all the time when in fact we know exactly what we we are doing.' There are people in Ireland who still think they re just 2 knacker culchie chancers from Limerick, and any clear evidence to the contrary they simply dont want to hear.

Again why do you think they didn't come up with a way of hiding them if it wasn't a conscious thing?

They clearly are just 2 knacker culchie chancers...

Did you not hear them talking about having a big party with all the drugs you want and your favourite tunes...Carl Cox and Judge Jules and that?
:D:D

Funniest thing I've seen in months.

qweerty

Mehapoy wrote: »

That's not quite true, he had some poems etc. that would look off colour by modern standards, but there was a cult of masculinity of youth at that time, saying it is accepted he was a 'latent paedophile' is pushing it! Also they mentioned a few times about the lack of public support the rebels got before and during the insurrection.

Second half of Little Lad of the Tricks:

There is a fragrance in your kiss
That I have not found yet
In the kisses of women
Or in the honey of their bodies.

Lad of the grey eyes,
That flush in thy cheek
Would be white with dread of me
Could you read my secrets.

He who has my secrets
Is not fit to touch you:
Is not that a pitiful thing,
Little lad of the tricks ?


I'm not willing to argue further on this. By "most quarters," I ofc meant people who have actually investigated it - ie historians, etc. I accept that it is not accepted in wider society, but only through ignorance.

As it happens, I see little wrong with unconsummated paedophilia, and, no doubt, Pearse had ample opportunity to do so (as disgustingly flippant as that sounds). And, yes, there was a genre, to which Shakespeare contributed, eroticising boys. And our Oscar Wilde went steps further than Pearse when eliciting the service of young teenage rent boys. But it remains that it is quite likely that Pearse had inclinations that would disturb many people, and cause them to question the legitimacy of a movement to which he was so central: the pen of the above-quoted poem also wrote Ireland's founding document.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Next up how limited the view of trench warfare in Blackadder Goes Forth was.....

Brainless analogy.

AnonoBoy

qweerty wrote: »

Brainless analogy.

You really don't get jokes do you?


I think the fact that you're expecting a pair of comedians who are known for being off the wall to include DeValera's misogyny in a forty-something minute show about 1916 to be hilarious.

On the Rebellion thread it might be somewhat more pertinent to the discussion but here you're expecting two guys called Mr. Chrome and Blind Boy Boatclub who have a song called Double Dropping Yokes With Eamon DeValera to go into the finer details of the Rising?

That's a completely cracked view to have.

You're saying that it's not a doc but that's not an excuse. In fact that's the only excuse they need to have.

It's a comedy show, if you want a far reaching look at 1916 and the people behind it then you should be seeking out a documentary not a show that includes a talking fish called the Trout of No Craic and a tramp-like president who gives out confirmation badges to two lads wearing plastic bags before saying "The D is for Dancing" and breaking into a dance routine.

"I know it's not a documentary but that's no excuse for them not knowing that Georgia Salpa isn't a goat but is in fact a woman."

qweerty

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You really don't get jokes do you?


I think the fact that you're expecting a pair of comedians who are known for being off the wall to include DeValera's misogyny in a forty-something minute show about 1916 to be hilarious.

On the Rebellion thread it might be somewhat more pertinent to the discussion but here you're expecting two guys called Mr. Chrome and Blind Boy Boatclub who have a song called Double Dropping Yokes With Eamon DeValera to go into the finer details of the Rising?

That's a completely cracked view to have.

You're saying that it's not a doc but that's not an excuse. In fact that's the only excuse they need to have.

It's a comedy show, if you want a far reaching look at 1916 and the people behind it then you should be seeking out a documentary not a show that includes a talking fish called the Trout of No Craic and a tramp-like president who gives out confirmation badges to two lads wearing plastic bags before saying "The D is for Dancing" and breaking into a dance routine.

"I know it's not a documentary but that's no excuse for them not knowing that Georgia Salpa isn't a goat but is in fact a woman."

Considering the length of your post, it has obviously affected you deeply.

My initial post laments (but doesn't condemn) the fact that two intelligent, satirically-mind comedians made no attempt to correct inaccurate portrayals of Irish history. Your post laments the fact that I have those opinions. I may be wrong, but at least my cause is in some way worthy!

AnonoBoy

qweerty wrote: »

Your post laments the fact that I have those opinions.

No it laments that you're banging on about them a bit too much and calling others opinions "brainless" even when they're clearly jokes.

I may be wrong, but at least my cause is in some way worthy!

Buddy we're arguing on boards about a television programme - there's nothing worthy going on here at all. And I certainly wouldn't call either opinion a 'cause'. Perhaps you're the one taking this a bit too seriously given your choice of language?

adrian522

https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/685093449469673472