Nathan Fielder is behind Dumb Starbucks, gets shut down by Health Dept(latimes.com)

38 pointsby staunch12 tahun yang lalu21 comments

latimes.com

Nathan Fielder is behind Dumb Starbucks, gets shut down by Health Dept

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-nathan-fielder-dumb-starbucks,0,2524213.story

22 comments

emhart12 tahun yang lalu

evan_ called it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208379

lisper12 tahun yang lalu

The biggest problem with dumb-starbucks-as-parody is that it isn't very funny.

adamnemecek12 tahun yang lalu

I mean it was not necessarily supposed to be funny in and of itself but in the context of the TV show.

k0mplex12 tahun yang lalu

i think it's hilarious. but i was there in person yesterday so maybe it's a "you have to be there" thing.

RRRA12 tahun yang lalu

I'm surprised most people were not wondering why the McDonald of coffee was this popular anyway...

Maybe this'll make them go to their local coffee shop instead, dumb or not! ;-)

cpqq12 tahun yang lalu

Great publicity for his show. From the first season, he helps businesses who are failing or struggling to get a ton of business / foot-traffic. Probably a variation for Season 2, which is coming out soon. Looks like it's worked.

GhotiFish12 tahun yang lalu

Maybe not so great, I still have no idea what show this is about. I don't think I'll ever care, either.

edit: Wait, skimmed the article again.

Nathan for you?

pbtbtbtbtbt

cnlwsu12 tahun yang lalu

Starbucks should be paying CC for this kind of publicity...

mbreese12 tahun yang lalu

The real question is how will SBUX react to this... if they start rattling legal sabers, it could be bad. However, if they go along with the joke, then it could be great publicity. I hope they go along with the joke.

despideme12 tahun yang lalu

Given that this is Comedy Central (owned by Viacom), I'd imagine the idea was run past Starbucks' legal department before it was greenlit. I'd also wager there's a legal agreement governing what CC can and can't do, and even how Starbucks will or won't react.

mbreese12 tahun yang lalu

Oh, I doubt it. This is probably produced by an independent production team for CC. I don't know if CC legal would be notified before the fact of this or just prior to broadcast.

In the OP, they had quoted Starbucks (PR?) saying that they thought "Dumb Starbucks" was misusing their trademarks.

jamesbrownuhh12 tahun yang lalu

Viacom is all about the money - I'd say there was a non-zero chance that they actually made Starbucks pay to be the subject of the sketch, and Starbucks PR are just playing along.

CamperBob212 tahun yang lalu

Can somebody explain the joke behind the "Dumb"?

gkoberger12 tahun yang lalu

By using the word "Dumb", it (in theory) becomes a parody. You couldn't call your store "Starbucks", however "Dumb Starbucks" (again, in theory) is a parody and therefore not a copyright violation.

CamperBob212 tahun yang lalu

Sure, but why that particular adjective? "Dumb" doesn't carry any cultural resonance or verbal alliteration when paired with "Starbucks."

If he'd called it "Fourbucks", for instance, that might've been funnier.

evan_12 tahun yang lalu

The joke isn't that he's making fun of Starbucks. The joke is that Nathan Fielder (or more accurately, the character he's playing) is so naïve that he thinks that the "Dumb Starbucks" plan will actually work. His character is supposed to be the dryest, least-witty person on the planet. He takes everything seriously, and when he does say something funny, it's funnier because he seemingly doesn't realize it.

If it was funny, it would ruin the joke.

recursive12 tahun yang lalu

I think it's intended to be the minimal parody required for legal parody status.

CamperBob212 tahun yang lalu

I'm tempted to ask for an explanation of the downvotes, too, but I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.

anigbrowl12 tahun yang lalu

This isn't actually relevant (although it's part of their schtick) because parody is not a defense to trademark infringement. Brands typically aren't covered by copyright because they're not substantial enough to qualify as a work.

6291017364512 tahun yang lalu

pstack12 tahun yang lalu

Never heard of him, but what a dumb stunt. Ooh, so artistic. Edgy. Anti-establishment. Ooh.

ng1212 tahun yang lalu

It's supposed to be kind of stupid. The guy used to write sketches for Demetri Martin's show to give you a sense of his comedy style. If you don't think it's funny, that's fine, but it's not supposed to be "anti-establishment" or anything of the like.