Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 14 Paid Members Posted March 14 (edited) I can't imagine myself sitting down and watching that. As good as Theroux often is, it would just make me uncontrollably angry and sad. Then again, I did watch Domestic Violence, the 2001 Frederick Wiseman documentary about a women's shelter in Florida, and that obviously wasn't a laugh-a-minute. Brilliant though, as Wiseman's films always were. A few of his are getting posthumous streaming releases so I really hope his work gets wider recognition. Almost certainly the greatest documentary filmmaker of all time. Edited March 14 by Devon Malcolm Quote
Paid Members BomberPat Posted March 16 Paid Members Posted March 16 On 3/14/2026 at 11:42 AM, SuperBacon said: The thing is with that Tikky Tokky lad, is I don't even think he believes 99% of what he's saying, he's just trying to make money in any way he can. I haven't watched it yet, because I can't imagine that I would learn anything from it that would offset how angry these pricks make me, but surely this is the point, that they're all grifters? You do have to be a misogynist prick on some level to go for that particular grift, but the scale of it is just to make money. I found it interesting that, after seeing it praised pretty much everywhere else, the Independent gave the documentary a two star review because they felt Theroux hasn't figured out how to tackle the fact that these people ultimately just thrive on attention. Quote
Members SuperBacon Posted March 16 Members Posted March 16 17 minutes ago, BomberPat said: I haven't watched it yet, because I can't imagine that I would learn anything from it that would offset how angry these pricks make me, but surely this is the point, that they're all grifters? You do have to be a misogynist prick on some level to go for that particular grift, but the scale of it is just to make money. Oh absolutely, I just got the feeling with him in particular that he just says shit to be controversial without any real meaning behind it. It's very much "say the first thing that comes to mind" level spiel, at least to me. He's an absolute bellend but I felt it was more just a means to an end, whereas with the others I felt it was a bit more ingrained. But I know nothing of any of them, maybe they're all just putting it on. 17 minutes ago, BomberPat said: found it interesting that, after seeing it praised pretty much everywhere else, the Independent gave the documentary a two star review because they felt Theroux hasn't figured out how to tackle the fact that these people ultimately just thrive on attention. It's a tough one isn't it, how do you present a documentary about people that thrive off attention when they're the main purpose of the documentary? It's depressing that people have picked up on him not answering the question "are Israel committing a genocide?" For me, him not answering that is perfectly fine. The lad probably doesn't even know what a genocide is, and is just trolling looking for a clippable answer. Louis did the right thing by not rising to it, and the two documentaries he's made on the subject of settlers and zionists I'll give him the benefit of doubt. Quote
DavidB6937 Posted March 16 Posted March 16 I definitely don't agree with the "don't give them attention or another platform!" approach that some people have used as a criticism of the documentary. You can't just do documentaries on nice things. It's a format that's there to educate and raise awareness, whether good or bad, and so you can't just take the stance that some of these people will thrive on the attention. Will they? Absolutely, but it's just as much about raising awareness to more people that will be vehemently against what they stand for, and that's far more important. The more dissenting voices out there the better and a subject like this will have flown under the radar to a lot before. Quote
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 16 Paid Members Posted March 16 I think directly involving them in the making of a documentary like this is the main problem. You're giving them the oxygen of publicity they live off. I like Theroux but platforming these turds was a mistake. You can make this documentary without them, we already know they're turds. Quote
DavidB6937 Posted March 16 Posted March 16 29 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said: I think directly involving them in the making of a documentary like this is the main problem. You're giving them the oxygen of publicity they live off. I like Theroux but platforming these turds was a mistake. You can make this documentary without them, we already know they're turds. To be honest I felt like being there with them and seeing how they were, how they acted around other people, how they changed etc was far more powerful than just giving a few clips from some streams etc. He needed to be there. He needed to be in the mix. They came off far worse from being in his presence and bullying him than they ever would have just someone making a "look at these idiots" documentary without them. You could see they were uncomfortable and shifty and it definitely added to breaking down their bravado. Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 16 Moderators Posted March 16 (edited) All due respect you haven't seen it so you can't really say that. I didn't know who any of them were even though I was aware of the existence of the manosphere. I thought it was a good introduction to understanding who these guys are, what they do and what they are about. Louis makes documentaries about people and what makes them tick, I don't think that's really possible without spending time with those people. Edit: sorry that was in response to Dev. But to add further, yeah, I think he was caught off guard a bit but the fact they were streaming him. But he handled it well, and probed them without letting them set the narrative and make the conversation about what they wanted it to be about. I think where some people have said he should have pushed harder he actually made the right decision. He challenged in just the right way which couldn't have happened if he hadn't spent time with them. Edited March 16 by Chest Rockwell Quote
CTXRussomark Posted March 16 Posted March 16 1 hour ago, Devon Malcolm said: I think directly involving them in the making of a documentary like this is the main problem. You're giving them the oxygen of publicity they live off. I like Theroux but platforming these turds was a mistake. You can make this documentary without them, we already know they're turds. That's a very strange viewpoint to have on a Louis Theroux documentary of all things. His whole thing is getting these kinds of people directly on camera and letting them lay bare just how idiotic they are. The Westboro Baptist Church episodes are regularly cited as some of his best work and they would absolutely fall into the same category as these lot. Doing a documentary about them (rather than with them) wouldn't have anywhere near the same impact. Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 16 Moderators Posted March 16 Something I think it did really well was shatter the illusion that because these guys do live streams that their content is not carefully curated and it's 'raw' which is a narrative they push, and a perception that a lot of people have, even their detractors. That's simply not the case. Quote
Members SuperBacon Posted March 16 Members Posted March 16 24 minutes ago, CTXRussomark said: The Westboro Baptist Church episodes are regularly cited as some of his best work Found this ranking pretty spot on. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/mar/10/louis-theroux-20-best-documentaries Of course, we all know the Lake Palmer episode of Weird Weekends is the best one but that's by the by. May the flame of our love never die. Quote
Rossman Posted March 16 Posted March 16 (edited) 3 hours ago, SuperBacon said: Oh absolutely, I just got the feeling with him in particular that he just says shit to be controversial without any real meaning behind it. It's very much "say the first thing that comes to mind" level spiel, at least to me. He's an absolute bellend but I felt it was more just a means to an end, whereas with the others I felt it was a bit more ingrained. But I know nothing of any of them, maybe they're all just putting it on. It's a tough one isn't it, how do you present a documentary about people that thrive off attention when they're the main purpose of the documentary? It's depressing that people have picked up on him not answering the question "are Israel committing a genocide?" For me, him not answering that is perfectly fine. The lad probably doesn't even know what a genocide is, and is just trolling looking for a clippable answer. Louis did the right thing by not rising to it, and the two documentaries he's made on the subject of settlers and zionists I'll give him the benefit of doubt. He was riled by this point and was just throwing insults at Louis to try and get a reaction. You could see Louis was making him look stupid in front of his mum and even she stopped defending him. It wasn't even his thoughts. Someone in the comments on the livestream. Said, ask him about Jimmy Saville. I don't think HS Dickhead was even alive when the Louis / Saville doc came out. Then someone else said, ask him the Israel question. Why would he need to answer it, it's not a documentary about politics or Louis' views. His dad is also ex England rugby player, Victor Ubogo. So I bet he would get a nice wedge in child maintenance. But you can see these lot will do anything for clicks, or get a reaction. They jump on the next livestream craze to keep the momentum going. The lad with the crazy eyes was now doing amateur predator hunting. They showed a clip of him at the end, when he was 10 years old, reviewing Haribo marshmallows! Edited March 16 by Rossman Quote
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 16 Moderators Posted March 16 43 minutes ago, Rossman said: His dad is also ex England rugby player, Victor Ubogo. So I bet he would get a nice wedge in child maintenance. Rugby players are not known for being wealthy... Quote
wordsfromlee Posted March 16 Posted March 16 27 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: Rugby players are not known for being wealthy... Maybe not wealthy themselves but over half the England rugby team are privately educated. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.