100 Replies to “Sports TV | David Mitchell’s Soapbox”

  1. @MultiGregorz You couldn't think of an insult of your own so you just thought you'd reiterate my insult back to me?.. Smart 🙂

  2. It also helps if the advertising is fun to watch. I got a Chromebook ad before this one. And I love those so I don't skip them half the time.

  3. @DisturbedRetards The allusion that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy moans is a view that has been constantly refuted by it's publishers. Megadodo Publications admit that the guide has many bitter, badly-paid, universe-weary travellers as the Guide's writers, the extensive editing process picks apart the many millions of bitter rants about the absence of anything truly 'floopy' and the general pointlessness of the cosmos.

  4. @TheWilbott These are harvested for more useful information hidden in the gibbering rantings of hapless writers stranded in far-flung points of the galaxy, and pumped out as a calmer, wittier and more interesting companion to the intrepid hitchhiker.
    Curiously enough, when the Guide's fuel cell starts to drain it sounds more and more like a grumpy, cynical old man who has seen all the universe has to offer and is already terribly bored with it.

  5. That's disputed. Most people use the word to refer to mutually beneficial relationships, not parasitic ones. A few scientists would agree with you, but only a few.

    But there's one thing we can be entirely sure on, and that's that it's spelled "symbiosis".

  6. Yes we all love David but can we all appreciate for a minute the wonderful talent of John Finnemore, co-writer of the soapboxes. We love you John!

  7. Note how half the people having arguments in the comments have attempted to adopt David Mitchell's mannerisms as their own, including more exotic language than they would otherwise in order to sound more intelligent.

  8. Couldn't it also be that Mitchell's fans have a more robust grasp of the English lexicon than the average?

    I was under the impression that archaic words were a good thing (they do add spice to otherwise bland conversation), but now I'm finding out from you it might just be we're all being pretentious and the only way to fix our predicament is to join the status quo… =P (BTW: all of those words are indeed part of my day-to-day speech, Mitchell or no; believe it or not, some of us read =P)

  9. i never thought about advertisements on tv like that before… the broadcaster is selling the viewers to the ad companies… but it's so true!

  10. Advertising and legality in its entirety is frankly ridiculous, the idea that anyone would for example not go with a certain company because a footballer removed the shirt that the logo was on is utterly ridiculous yet a player gets a booking if they do it. Also while I understand copyright laws to an extent, the fact that a pub in my area might have to change its name because it's called the hobbit and a movie company is suing it is also ridiculous and pathetic.

  11. It can be pronounced both ways. Some people pronounce 'nauseous' as 'naw-see-yus', some pronounce it as 'naw-shus'. It's like with with a bunch of words.

  12. If I see that damn advert that precedes every one of David's rants one more time, I'm going to start agreeing with what he's just said.

  13. I'm pretty sure you explained it David, when you pointed out that they both have a reason to concede. They both realize that the other side has just as good a reason to concede.

  14. you used, 'mannerisms' and 'exotic'. how often do you use those words? maybe your a psychiatrist or do marketing for bounty chocolate bars? BOOM! you've just been mitchelled!!! lol, i know what you mean though i've seen plenty of 'mitchellesque' comments on these videos.

  15. The reason why everyone is commenting like david mitchell talks is because they have just watched a david mitchell video and david mitchells voice is running through their heads. Equally obvious is the fact that you have just watched a david mitchell video and his voice is running through your head when you read the comment.

  16. David Mitchell was wrong–I watched 2 minutes or commercial to listen to him be grumpy I didn't understand at all. It was a Borderlands 2 advertisement though, so it was still worth it.

  17. Notice how this gentleman has adopted a superior than thou ranting dialogue in an ironic attempt to personify David Mitchell's soapbox style observances

  18. Can I have a Robert Webb's Soapbox please?
    I mean, no offence David, but I would really, REALLY like to see a Robert Webb's Soapbox.

  19. I thought it would be good to have each soapbox vid to be followed by Roberts Retort. It would be Webb coming on to argue points made by David or use his basic subject matter to go on an equally hilarious rant.

  20. But symbiosis gets the message across, whereas if he had said mutualism, most viewers wouldn't have had a clue what he was talking about.

  21. Well, he actually answered his question.
    Broadcaster 1 wont remove his logo, because he is waiting on the Broadcaster 2 to unblurr to make the content better.
    And Broadcaster 2 won' t unblurr it because he waits for Broadcaster 1 to take down his logo, because it is blurred.

  22. I feel like I have to concentrate and say big words in David's videos so I don't get shunned by those who do exactly the same as me.

  23. Being eloquent doesn't either.
    Davids speech patterns aren't wholly unique. I'm sure he's not wrong, but I don't think it should be discouraged or seen as pretentious either.

  24. I always thought the reason was to discourage illegal redistribution. Like the NFL is very strict about that. Say  Fox is broadcasting sunday night football there's a logo on the screen the whole time. Usually just next to the score, not that bad. If that broadcast is illegally redistributed then it's easy to just point at the fox logo and go, yep he/she stole this from us. SIC 'EM

  25. The answer to your question is quite simple, David: it's the law. Indeed, any time you encounter something that seems unreasonable, illogical, or nonsensical, the explanation is usually that it's required by law. In this case it would be illegal to not blur the first logo, as you'd be in effect claiming to be a broadcaster that you are not.

    The original broadcaster doesn't stamp their logo on the footage for free advertisement, they do it because it's the law. And they don't bother to keep the original footage without the logo because 1. it doesn't exist, because the footage was edited together with the logo on there 2. it would be costly to produce and maintain two different versions of the same footage, one of which is illegal for you to even use. 

    As for the second broadcaster: the rules for clearly identifying a broadcast with logos, signs, or announcements are clearly dictated by regional laws. Misidentifying your broadcast, by leaving the original logo visible, would result in heavy fines and penalties for the second broadcaster. 

    Indeed, you are being presumptuous that it is the second broadcaster who does the blurring at all. As often, the first broadcaster will blur the logo before sending the footage to the second broadcaster.

    As for why the second broadcaster doesn't superimpose their logo over the first broadcaster's blurred logo, that's probably just laziness. They have one frame with one choice of corner for their logo, and they don't bother keeping the other three choices or hiring someone to redo the superimposing for each new piece of footage. Or perhaps the country of the original broadcast and the country of the second broadcast simply have different legal standards for which corner of the screen the logo must appear.

  26. What I don't get is why they put their own logo in a whole new corner, instead of putting it over the blur. Alternatively, why not just make their logo a solid logo so it'll cover the other one entirely, with no need for blurring anything?

  27. some people says these things and I'm thinking to myeslf whey are they saying these things when they could be dong other stuff more interesing like beers with friends and playing football with children in the garden.

  28. 400 BC, Athenians gathered around grumpy Socrates while he complained about things.
    2016 BC, people from around the world streamed grump David Mitchell to watch him complain about things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *