Naboo from the Mighty Boosh

He doesn't though. All of his appearances are slow, boring and completely lacking in expression and emotion. The scene in "The call of the Yeti" when he is explaining about owl beaks, and his delivery of the joke about Howard's eyes at the end of "Journey to the centre of punk" are two of the worst performances I've ever seen by any actor. I seriously doubt this is intentional.

Seriously, how does he play the character well?

Do you not think the lack of acting ability is why he is in the show anyway? Nobody is saying he can act, they are saying his style of 'acting', fits the part perfectly.

I think you've just missed the point of Naboo, to be honest. The way he plays the character is what makes the character funny - I think maybe he's just not to your sense of humour, since you don't seem to understand the joke..

The show isn't meant to attract the crème de la crème of acting talent, it's meant to be a comedy. Show me a comedy which has incredible acting and then ask the question again!

You know what? I do understand why some people find it funny, but TBH I think that you seem to think that you've grasped a "point" which really isn't there. If a capable actor was playing the part then I'd know it was deliberate, but Michael Fielding is not a capable actor! I doubt that rushing through and slurring his lines is deliberate.

Fawlty Towers, but I agree comedy doesn't have to have great acting talent, just either very good script writers and comedians or something else.

Fawlty Towers? I always just thought the whole thing was done to suit John Cleese's rather hilarious style to be honest. Certainly the rest of the actors hardly had the most difficult job in the world. I guess this just proves how subjective the whole issue is.

Of course, but that doesn't really mean the standard of acting had to be high. I'm also not trying to say how good the actors/actresses are, just that comedies aren't meant to be a place to showcase acting talent. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that in comedies, the last thing I would tend to think about is the quality of the acting, as that's rarely the point with comedies...so long as it doesn't compromise the actual programme of course.

You know what? I do understand why some people find it funny, but TBH I think that you seem to think that you've grasped a "point" which really isn't there. If a capable actor was playing the part then I'd know it was deliberate, but Michael Fielding is not a capable actor! I doubt that rushing through and slurring his lines is deliberate.

Have you noticed how many of those actors were serious actoooors/actresssooorses.

And I think John Cleese can definitely act as could his wife and real wife who co-wrote it.

I agree with the OP. He's a bad actor. I don't think he should be kicked off the show, though.
To say 'Oh, you don't get the joke' is a poor defence of bad acting. It's a TV show, after all. If perhaps Michael Fielding wasn't a brother of Noel Fielding, or occasionally demonstrated that he could do something other than 'faux'-wooden...

I agree completely, it's just that you wouldn't go 'wow, that's great acting' when watching Fawlty Towers. I'm not trying to say that acting in comedies is easy, far from it, but poor acting can easily be compensated for whilst good acting is rarely noticed.

But "bad acting" is subjective! To go with my Only Fools and Horses thing again - I think that all of the actors in that are bad actors. It never ever makes me laugh. I don't even smile. But so many people find it funny, so I wouldn't go around saying that they're crap actors - I just accept that I don't get the joke. Then I get over it, and go watch something else.

No one is using "you don't get the joke" as a defence of "bad acting". I would guess that all the people saying the former, genuinely don't believe that he's a bad actor.