Nathan Fielder is behind Dumb Starbucks, gets shut down by Health Dept | Hacker News Reader

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

latimes.com

38 pointsstaunch21 comments

Open articleView on HN

evan_ called it:

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

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

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

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

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! ;-)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can somebody explain the joke behind the "Dumb"?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com