Close
Roman's Empire BBC2 12/04/07 21.30
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
I thought it worthy to bring this to your attention, just notice a trailer for it, but other than that it’s completely past me by.
There also little or nothing on the web.
Wonder why they’re keeping it a secret?
COMEDY: Roman's Empire
Channel: BBC 2 South 2
Date: Thursday 12th April 2007
Time: 21:30 to 22:00 (starting in 7 days)
Duration: 30 minutes.
Comedy series. Roman Pretty is a self-made millionaire with three beautiful daughters. When guys get romantically involved with his daughters, they become members of the family and pawns in his business empire - whether they like it or not. In episode one, Leo tries to get his girlfriend Nikki back by outing her new boyfriend Seb who he suspects is gay. Jenny gives birth to a baby, while her husband Jase plans an escape from the country.
Starring: Neil Dudgeon, Matthew Horne, Montserrat Lombard, Nicholas Burns, Sarah Solemani, Chris O'Dowd
(New Series, Widescreen, Subtitles)
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=105344
Copyright GipsyMedia Ltd.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I'm really looking forward to this because it's got a nice plot and a good cast. I also think it sounds something like Arrested Development, not that it'll be on par with such a show but i think it'll have that type of feel to it.
By the way, there's a bit about it on this site in the "in production" section i believe.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, earman2009 said:
Sounds Good! 
Although I'd rather see Chris O'Dowd in the second series of The IT Crowd.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Hurrah!
I love Matthew Horne and Nicolas Burns.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I've seen a couple of adverts for this, and thought it looked quite promising. Here's hoping!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
FYI - Our guide to the show is here
Sorry, its a bit lacking at the moment but will be expanded.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, XGaryPX said:
Cant wait for this on Thursday looks quite interesting.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
It sounds and looks like shit to me. But I'll watch it on Thursday just to prove myself right.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
I think and will do the same as Chipolata, all the people in it I hate as actors, especially Nicolas Burns the king of 'that voicing'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Bump
Just as a reminder as it starts in a little over a hour.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Well, i really enjoyed this and i hope it improves. I like it's quirky humour and camera style, and it reminded me a little bit of Seinfeld and Arrested Development in ways.
The visual gags also had me laughing, especially the "Sluts" one.
I thought Matthew Horne, Neil Dudgeon and Chris O'Dowd were great in their roles as main character, dad and the husband trying to escape but i found Nicholas Burns a bit over the top.
I'd easily watch it again.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Promising start, look forward to next week episode.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Hmm. Yes. Interesting. Not sure what to make of it really. The story I found quite compelling so I suspect I'll be watching again next week, but there was something about it... I dunno. Odd.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Talking babies? Nappies? Incest undertones? Odd. You don't say. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I meant more the vibe it gave off rather than the content!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, GUY PRESS said:
Really disappointed. I expected a lot after all the hype. Stereotypical poorly played characters and an unimaginative storyline. I hope to God it get's better, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Please prove me wrong in the next episodes I will be tuned in. ;-)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Shit, more of 'that voice', poorly written characters, hardly any jokes, it's style was like Arrested Development but when you try to draw that comparison this show was never going to come out on top as AD is one of the finest comedies of the Noughties. I mean come on, 'spankies' for gods sake, I don't understand why stuff like this gets commissioned.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
A tad odd was'nt it?
I am going to watch a few more episodes before I go on to give my critique.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I wasn't that impressed either. Missed the end of Hotel Babylon to watch it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, GUY PRESS said:
In Summary Compared to what I've seen from Whitehouse and Hill tonight most of our Supposed Comedy output should be written off - Romans Empire included!
Congrats to Paul Whitehouse & Harry Enfield and all involved with the show for a first episode this is what's about IMPRESSING and making you laugh!!!
Makes you realise how crap Catherine Tate + are. how low have the brit publics expectations become?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: David Chapman @ April 13, 2007, 9:11 PMI wasn't that impressed either. Missed the end of Hotel Babylon to watch it.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, earman2009 said:
I thought it was really good. Not brilliant, but definitely has potential. Chris O'Dowd seems to have the best character in this.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
Was it just me who thought Roman was alot like the Denholm character from The IT Crowd?
I wasn't impressed at all. I'm not going to pass my judgement yet, but an unimpressive first episode for me. I hope next week's is significantly better.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Paul W said:
Yeah I didn't like the first episode much either, it was ok watching I may watch the rest of the series but not with much interest
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Thanks Aaron - that reminds me I can go back to watch the end of Hotel Babylon. I know you love it too really.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Right -- I'm quite forgiving of comedy (much more than a *lot* of you!) so can say I enjoyed it. It was good, well acted and made me laugh. I do have an appreciation of how hard it is to actually write a sitcom since I've been trying myself.
Now the proper rant begins. It's written by Harry and Jack Williams, who are very young at 25 and 28 and the sons (I am led to believe) of novelist Nigel Williams.
It strikes me as just another example of who you know, not how well you write. Don't get me wrong, they obviously can write but they're not *so* much better than the writers on here that they should be fast tracked straight to BBC2.
I also may be completely wrong. They may very well have sent their unsolicited script into the BBC Writers' Room and got commissioned that way. But I very much suspect that it was passed on through connections in the industry.
In fairness, it could have been the best sitcom ever written and this fact would royally piss me off. It's not though. But it's not that bad either.
I feel better now
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Paul W said:
Hmmm good point Swer, Fortunately it's not as bad as acting but it's true I guess if you know the right people you will get your stuff looked at by the right people and even worked on by the right people to make it presentable for TV.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, bob4apples said:
I thought it was terrible. The only thing that kept me interested was the girl but that's it. BBC Comedy has forgotten how to be funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I agree with the comment about it being like Arrested Development, only not nearly as good. There was just something about the whole thing that didn't gel. I heard the guy who was in it on Jonathan Ross saying they got 1.2 million viewers for the first episode. I guarantee that within a few weeks that number will have fallen to below one million and it won't get a second series. And while we're on the subject of Arrested Development ripoffs, wasn't the Robinsons mentioned somewhere else on this forum just another AD immitator that fell at the first hurdle?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Paul W said:
1.2 million viewers... isn't that quite low for a prime time sitcom on BBC2?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I'm not sure how many will agree with me but i enjoyed the 2nd episode.
It had a lovely peformances from Chris O'Dowd (his screen wife was funny to) and the main guy whose name i can't remember. Nicholas Burns was over the top as usual, and there was too much flesh, ha.
Fact: Morwenna Banks is the voice of the baby.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Hmm, well I did kind of enjoy it. Not funny particularly, but watchable. DID NOT LIKE KITTY DYING THOUGH. *angry*
Matthew Horne is the name you're thinking of.
(And yes, I spotted that too.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I missed the second show. I think it's only fair to try something twice - but I was on my death bed. Maybe it's on my replay service. Is it worth having another go?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Can't hurt any...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
I think it was an improvement, but i still don't think very highly of it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
I didn't enjoy the second show as much. Felt I wanted it to end.
Why does Leo(Mathew Horne) *always* wear a shirt and tie? That is *really* aggravating...
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
It's like a unfiform isn't it, the average joe/loser?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Kitty =^..^= said:
I watched it and thought "this is getting vvveeerrryyy strange". i liked the fact that its quite fast pace, meaning if you dont like one bit you go onto the next bit.
however some jokes could be polished and the sterotyping could be a little better. oh and
"BOSH!!!!!!!"
that character is so scary. he dances naked in churches, because that's what normal people do?!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I liked the 3rd episode. I laughed a few times but mostly had a grin on my face all the way through. Chris O'Dowd on top form again but Nicholas Burns really needs to tone it down though.
I'm fond of the direction, quick cuts, etc.
Oh, and Scarlett Rose Patterson the youngest girl may play a bit of a chav but she's darn cute. It needed to be said i think.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
I think this series is getting better as it progresses. I really enjoyed the 3rd episode.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Watching this now and its pants, its been on for 14 minutes and there has been only two jokes which were rubbish.
Yet another British version of an American show which is rubbish, at least the American Office is watchable and quite funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Just watched this weeks' ep, and must say it's growing on me. More of a comedic light-hearted serial than a true comedy/sitcom I think, but I am finding that I like it.
Bosh!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Are they paying you?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I wish.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Come on Aaron the Romania joke was a crime against comedy. They even gave you a shot of the map in case you're retarded. I bet they came up with the joke before they gave Roman his name.
Having said that I can see how it is likeable, therefore I apologise for that outburst. I will now go and punish myself.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Just watched the repeat showing on Sunday night of Roman's Empire... and I can't help liking it. Sure... it's not belly laughs but there's only so much excercise you can take in one day!
OK, the 'Romania' joke was not that funny... although there is that weird effect of repeating something (including showing where on a map Romania actually is) until it becomes ludicrous... and then very funny again.
I find myself responding to the characters... (espcially Nikki Pretty!) and the whole thing has a slightly 'dirty/rude' feel to it which I like. But then I'm a pervert.
Anyway... maybe not 'must see'... but definitely 'must record'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
In which case, am i the only one that laughed at the "Did someone call the Dalai Lama?" line?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ajp29 @ April 30, 2007, 1:30 AMCome on Aaron the Romania joke was a crime against comedy. They even gave you a shot of the map in case you're retarded. I bet they came up with the joke before they gave Roman his name.
View original
But "Romania" isn't the joke. The joke is that Roman is such a self-absorbed idiot that he neither knows it is a real place, nor listens when Leo tries to tell him that it does exist. And I liked the little map touch. Thought it worked well to emphasise the point.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
When I was young it was called Rumania.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 1, 2007, 12:38 PM
But "Romania" isn't the joke. The joke is that Roman is such a self-absorbed idiot that he neither knows it is a real place, nor listens when Leo tries to tell him that it does exist. And I liked the little map touch. Thought it worked well to emphasise the point.
View original
*Sighing and rolling my eyes... ;-)*
Yes Aaron... I think I got it...
*More sighing and comedic rolling of eyes*
Hee hee
Quote: David Chapman @ May 1, 2007, 7:43 PMWhen I was young it was called Rumania.
View original
When I was young they called it 'Rumbleania'
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ May 1, 2007, 7:46 PM
*Sighing and rolling my eyes... ;-)*
Yes Aaron... I think I got it...
*More sighing and comedic rolling of eyes*
Hee hee
View original
Well quite.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
I wonder what over Roman related puns they will use.
Roman wasn't built in a day.
All roads lead to Roman.
Roman is a castle.
The long and winding Roman.
You'll never walk aRoman.
Ro Ro Roman your boat gently down the stream.
The crowd say Roman Selecta
Whose house? Roman's house.
My name is who? My name is what? My name is chiccchici Roman
Its late and i'm more than a little drunk, i'm a big drunk.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Didn't they do the first two (at least) already? Hmmm...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Did they? I should pay more attention but the narrator's voice drives me to a suicidal state of boredom. Maybe that's why they show Nathan Barley's arse so much, its probably a Health and Safety thing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
Ooooooooops. I am enjoying it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
I really enjoying this series not only is it holding my attention there are plenty of laughs. The best new sitcom for many months with a style all of it’s own. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yeah, I'm liking it more and more. R. Kelly. Classic. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Haha, i loved the R.Kelly joke to. I still think Nicholas Burns should have toned down his character a bit.
Still, i think i'm in love with Nikki.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
I must have missed the R. Kelly joke...
Damn!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
People are actually liking this?! It's a half-arsed Arrested Development rip off.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
I wish i could remember the R Kelly joke, all i remember is laughing at it and then i woke up without knowledge of what was actually said.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, gleamhound said:
Does anyone else think it's a bit like The Royal Tennenbaums, but in sitcom form?
For what my opinion's worth, I enjoyed this week's episode much more and not just because of the gorgeous Montserrat Lombard wearing that outfit!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
That has to be the weirdest name I've ever seen.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
I like it. It really is quite humourous.(that is not a dip).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Absolutely tons of money has been spent on this show. Every episode has asides featuring actors and stories that you never see again – like the soldiers in the 'fire at Will joke' which I seem to remember from my own school days.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I'm watching it now. I saw the first one but wasn't impressed. However after missing the last couple it isn't so bad. Quite surreal in fact and - dare I say it - almost has a Green Wing feel. Several different sketches loosely linked. I cringed when the brick dropped (on his nether regions for those who didn't watch it. Lots more cringing in fact.
Who does Roman remind me of? The tone of his voice etc.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: gleamhound @ May 4, 2007, 11:52 PMDoes anyone else think it's a bit like The Royal Tennenbaums, but in sitcom form?
View original
Yes! I was trying to work it out, but that's it! And I thought that film was crap as well. Really, this sitcom is so full of lame gags that can only possibly work because they're doing it with high production values and loads of cutaway shots - we'd all get chased out of town if we wrote down the "Our Kelly" gag (repeated! for gawd's sake) in an unsolicited script.
Another example of who you know and who's attached to it, not how good it is.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
*shakes fist at you for saying TRT was crap*
Whyioutta!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Probably on paper it would look nothing special but visually it seems very good. (especially Montserrat in THAT costume).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 8, 2007, 11:59 AMProbably on paper it would look nothing special but visually it seems very good. (especially Montserrat in THAT costume).
View original
She really does have the oddest name in television.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
who cares about her name... 
I think I'm falling for Kelly Pretty too... perhaps it's the stripy tights...
Damn, I'm weird!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
And the Mum.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
As I predicted back in April, ratings are going downhill fast and there's not a chance in a hell of a second series. If there are any BBC executives reading this, you could save a lot of time and money by just asking me directly if somethings going to work or not. I'll even offer this service free of charge.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Or ask me. Because I'm more forgiving. I'll take a few DVDs as payment.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Quote: chipolata @ May 9, 2007, 10:05 AMAs I predicted back in April, ratings are going downhill fast and there's not a chance in a hell of a second series. If there are any BBC executives reading this, you could save a lot of time and money by just asking me directly if somethings going to work or not. I'll even offer this service free of charge.
View original
Thank god your not making the decisions others wise we wouldn’t have Dads Army Only Fools or Blackadder all of whom struggled with ratings when they first started as well as getting panned by the critics, even one the greatest sitcom of all time Porridge was greeted with a luke warm reception when it first aired.
I thinks it a goer and look forward to the second series if and when it get commissioned. Maybe the best new sitcom this year.(so far)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Good point Barry...
And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't 'The Good Life' struggle with ratings on its first showing too? Look how great that turned out to be.
This obsession with 'instant hits' is false economy... I've heard that new movies released out of Hollywood have to perform in their first weekend... otherwise they're deemed a failure. Crazy!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Look Darren, are you being brave with your Avatar because Charley's half way round the world?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: hotzappa11 @ May 8, 2007, 11:06 AM*shakes fist at you for saying TRT was crap*
View original
No, I said I *thought* it was crap. Maybe it wasn't.
Roman's Empire is, however, crap.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 9, 2007, 8:30 PMLook Darren, are you being brave with your Avatar because Charley's half way round the world?
View original
LOL! Mayyybeee...
I'll exchange it for something 'softer' when she gets back...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Chicken.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
It's so, SO odd - but I still love it. Brilliant episode tonight. Might not be laugh-a-minute TV, but still very good.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I thought tonight was great, maybe one of the best episodes. Kelly Pretty makes me want to do naughty things.
I also loved her delivery when the guy in the threatre makes a wang-shaped Zebra...
"It's like i'm at the zoo."
Chris O'Dowd was great again. "I'm a Jew and so's my wife, but she's dressed as Muslim and we're here to get our baby baptised by you Anglicans." (I think that's right.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 10, 2007, 5:55 PMChicken.
View original
Who, me? SQUAWKKK!
Quote: Aaron @ May 10, 2007, 10:01 PMIt's so, SO odd - but I still love it. Brilliant episode tonight. Might not be laugh-a-minute TV, but still very good.
View original
Totally agree. It isn't laugh a minute but I'm not worried about that. It's just so compelling.
It can trot along as it is without any complaints from me. The only thing that I'd like to see happen is for Leo to get a spine. He has to win at some point doesn't he?
Quote: hotzappa11 @ May 10, 2007, 10:12 PMI thought tonight was great, maybe one of the best episodes. Kelly Pretty makes me want to do naughty things.
View original
Err... yeah, I've found that out about myself too. I still reckon it's the stripy tights... I guess I have some weird form of Goth fetishism, or something.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
It definitely is a grower. It's the weirdness and style I think.
No - it's not terribly funny but absorbing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Krycek said:
I'm quite enjoying it, quirky and unusual. Certainly one of the better shows on at the moment.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
This thread makes me cry a little bit for the sake of British Comedy, it just shows how bad the state of comedy is, when people are classing this as the 'best British sitcom of the year so far'.
Instead of watching this, why not buy or download a couple of series of Arrested Development and see it be done 10x wittier, smarter and all round superior.
For example:
Arrested Development:
(After Tobias joins The Blue Man Group)
Tobias: I just blue myself.
Michael: There's got to be a better way to say that.
Roman's Empire (do you get it, he's called Roman and he owns an empire and it's the same as the Roman Empire, from history, haha...):
Seb: I had to blow them all off, one by one.
Leo: Seb, there are many ways which you could've said that differently.
--
It's so obvious the writers for this show are sat watching AD while writing Roman's Empire.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
I've seen this and Gavin and Stacy and can't work out if the guy with the classes is a really good actor acting badly or a really bad actor not acting
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 13, 2007, 6:06 PMRoman's Empire (do you get it, he's called Roman and he owns an empire and it's the same as the Roman Empire, from history, haha)
View original
Arrested Development (do you get it, they're a building firm and the CEO is arrested)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Arrested Development is a smart title though because it works on lots of levels, yes they're a model home development firm and the owner gets arrested, but then it's also about the kids of this family (Michael, Gob, Buster, Gob and Lynsey) not truly growing up due to their parents and their parents business..hence Arrested Development.
Much smarter than, he's called Roman he owns an Empire..hey presto.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 13, 2007, 6:06 PMInstead of watching this, why not buy or download a couple of series of Arrested Development and see it be done 10x wittier, smarter and all round superior.
View original
Piracy supports terrorism. You terrorist! No wonder it was axed, it never got the viewing figures because people downloaded it!!
I never download
it is wrong. How would you feel if people copied your podcast and it reached millions of people, I'd bet you'd hate that!On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 13, 2007, 10:58 PMArrested Development is a smart title though because it works on lots of levels, yes they're a model home development firm and the owner gets arrested, but then it's also about the kids of this family (Michael, Gob, Buster, Gob and Lynsey) not truly growing up due to their parents and their parents business..hence Arrested Development.
Much smarter than, he's called Roman he owns an Empire..hey presto.
View original
But you could still argue that pretty much the same for Roman's Empire. It's not just that his name is Roman, but that he controls everything in a very empirical, dictatorial fashion. Neither are more or less clever than each other. They just work on slightly different levels.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I've only seen bits of Roman's Empire, but I think the name is fine. It's better then, Living with two people who you like individually or whatever the hell it was called.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 13, 2007, 11:11 PM
Piracy supports terrorism.
View original
Jude, supports terrorists well my opinion's changing
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Hey, I've bought Arrested Development on DVD, I'm no terrorist. Although the hundreds of other programmes I've downloaded may go against that.
Maybe the Roman's Empire name isn't shit, but I think it is and I know the programme is.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
How can you say it isn't the best sitcom this year,a dn your argument being Arrested Development? It was hardly this year was it? For me, it is deffinatly the best new sitcom (i.e. Peep Show doesn't count) of 2007. And i haven't seen Gavin and Stacy yet so don't try to compare the two.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
I wasn't saying Arrested Development is the best sitcom of the year, it was cancelled last year. I was saying this show is a rip off of Arrested Development, it wants to be that show so much, its like the writers have just watched a bunch of Arrested Development DVD's and gone "This looks easy".
The point about it being "the best sitcom of the year so far" was seperate, I was just pointing out how bad the state of British comedy is if this is classed as the best we can offer.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
If you feel that way, try to see it as a comedy inspired by Arrested Devlopment It sounds a lot better.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
What is the best new comedy of the year? I can't think of one?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Ahh i see, in the same way Neitchze inspired Hitler.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
Not fair. You used dictators. Everything sounds bad with dictators. Don't believe me? Yes, Prime Minister with Margaret Thatcher?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 14, 2007, 6:56 PM
The point about it being "the best sitcom of the year so far" was seperate, I was just pointing out how bad the state of British comedy is if this is classed as the best we can offer.
View original
As the first to use the "the best sitcom of the year so far" phase, I should add that I hope I’m not still saying in December, but use it to counter others that were saying how bad it was and shouldn’t be re-commissioned.
I not sure it says much about the state of British comedy after all when it started we were only four months in and we are lucky if we get one or two great sitcoms a decade.
Not seen much AD but will look out for some repeats but as a rule I don’t enjoy American shows (I know I’m missing out but I have some kind of mental block)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Nobody will repeat AD, that's why we hold our DVD closely. heh
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Yeah exactly AD got a rough time on BBC2 shoved on at like 12:30am if not later. I have really high comedy standards, maybe that's a bad thing and makes be sound bitter, but I'm just passionate about comedy and know that it CAN and HAS been so much better than the recent output bar a couple of decent shows. But yeah I urge anyone to check out AD, one of my fave sitcoms ever, its just a beautifully funny show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
I saw quite a lot of Arrested Development... until they started mucking about with the time slot. I enjoyed it... but then I'm also enjoying Roman's Empire just as much.
Does that mean I don't have 'really high comedy standards'? No... just that I have a broader sense of humour.
What makes 'better' comedy anyway? If a custard-pie-in-the-face gag still makes some people roar with laughter but isn't as clever, say, as the characterisation of Michael's magician brother in AD... does that make AD funnier? Again, no... just different strokes for different folks.
I say bring back AD... and keep RE going too, for at least another series. The one thing I would HATE to happen is that new comedy is slagged off and then dumped, simply because it didn't pull in enough ratings to make the grade. I fear it could happen with RE... which is a real shame because more of that attitude can only result in less time and therefore development in new writers.
And, presumably, none of us wants that?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Walker @ May 14, 2007, 7:15 PMNot fair. You used dictators. Everything sounds bad with dictators. Don't believe me? Yes, Prime Minister with Margaret Thatcher?
View original
You said it sounds better to say inspire. They did do Yes Minster with Margret Tatcher btw. It was shite
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Yeah it is annoying when programmes get dropped because they don't pull in the ratings, exactly what Fox did to Arrested Development. Although it won Golden Globes and Emmy's and was a critics smash, low ratings meant it was pulled. Fortunately in the UK that doesn't seem to happen as much because if something is a critical hit then that is enough for it to stay on TV.
Roman's Empire hasn't got the ratings or the critical acclaim and rightly so.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 14, 2007, 8:45 PMYeah exactly AD got a rough time on BBC2 shoved on at like 12:30am if not later. I have really high comedy standards, maybe that's a bad thing and makes be sound bitter, but I'm just passionate about comedy and know that it CAN and HAS been so much better than the recent output bar a couple of decent shows. But yeah I urge anyone to check out AD, one of my fave sitcoms ever, its just a beautifully funny show.
View original
That's what I'm like, with films as well. It annoys everyone I know.
I have a 15 minute time period for a film, if I don't like it after that I'll turn it off.
"But it gets better at the end"
Bollocks, it should be good all the way through and I find it insulting as a writer, the amount of crap that gets produced just because they have a got twist at the end.
I do watch crappy films, I love my Kung-Fu and Cheesy 80's sci-fi/action films, but their the only ones I let get away with it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 14, 2007, 7:09 PMWhat is the best new comedy of the year? I can't think of one?
View original
For me, After You've Gone, Gavin and Stacey, and Roman's Empire. In that order.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 14, 2007, 9:49 PM
They did do Yes Minster with Margret Tatcher btw. It was shite
View original
My point exactly.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 15, 2007, 11:22 AMYeah it is annoying when programmes get dropped because they don't pull in the ratings, exactly what Fox did to Arrested Development. Although it won Golden Globes and Emmy's and was a critics smash, low ratings meant it was pulled. Fortunately in the UK that doesn't seem to happen as much because if something is a critical hit then that is enough for it to stay on TV.
Roman's Empire hasn't got the ratings or the critical acclaim and rightly so.
View original
I don't know anything about Fox... presumably they're a commercial network though. And if that's the case, low audience ratings are the death knell. How do you justify, to your advertisers, low ratings?
Luckily the BBC doesn't operate in quite the same fashion... which means that there is potentially more chance for a sitcom or, indeed, any programme to develop. Individual opinions on programmes aside, we should all applaud these efforts because it can only mean good things for the entertainment industry.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I'm sure on AD wikis site it explains the whole mess it got into, with one network exec leaving and promising them a new series or something but then the network exec gave them a shorter series, it was a bit of a mess anyway.
There's a bit on Screenwipe, I think? Where they explain about how shows get on the air and then get axed.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, naniwaelegy said:
I just find this show so horrible and cynical that it makes me really sad to think it ever got off the ground. Who possible thought that ripping one of the greatest sitcoms in recent times (rather than simply screening it) was a wise move. The lack of ambition is dreadful as is the lack of ambition in the writing. "There is no such place as Romania" is a weak joke to start with - but to dilute it even further with a picture of a map showing Romania...beggars belief. And the joke it was stolen from is far superior. (Arrested Development....It's not like there's a book that teaches you to be a parent...and a cut to "Amazon.com has X amount of books on the subject of parenting" with all the books on the page all being little jokes ). I've watched AD numerous times and keep finding new jokes hidden away, obscure references, clever wordplay, call backs, call forwards the whole gamut. Some of the jokes are broad (most plots with Tobias) and some are relatively intellectual (Use your Allusion...I'm thinking of Poe) I found the level of passion in AD awe inspiring - while this...is simply depressing. I know I shouldn't watch it if I don't like it...but the fact that it gets an audience at all beggars belief. I really believe that shows like RE hurt British comedy and should never make it to the air.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Just to respond to the comments earlier in this strand relating to a comment I made. Comparing witless bilge like Romans Empire to Dadf's Army, Only Fools and Horses and The Good Life is ludicrous. And if you really think it has the potential to one day rank alongside them then you know bugger all about comedy.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: naniwaelegy @ May 16, 2007, 12:02 AMI just find this show so horrible and cynical that it makes me really sad to think it ever got off the ground. Who possible thought that ripping one of the greatest sitcoms in recent times (rather than simply screening it) was a wise move. The lack of ambition is dreadful as is the lack of ambition in the writing. "There is no such place as Romania" is a weak joke to start with - but to dilute it even further with a picture of a map showing Romania...beggars belief. And the joke it was stolen from is far superior. (Arrested Development....It's not like there's a book that teaches you to be a parent...and a cut to "Amazon.com has X amount of books on the subject of parenting" with all the books on the page all being little jokes ). I've watched AD numerous times and keep finding new jokes hidden away, obscure references, clever wordplay, call backs, call forwards the whole gamut. Some of the jokes are broad (most plots with Tobias) and some are relatively intellectual (Use your Allusion...I'm thinking of Poe) I found the level of passion in AD awe inspiring - while this...is simply depressing. I know I shouldn't watch it if I don't like it...but the fact that it gets an audience at all beggars belief. I really believe that shows like RE hurt British comedy and should never make it to the air.
View original
How does it 'hurt' British comedy? Even if RE is a pale comparison to AD, the fact that the BBC commissioned a show is good news. Trust me, it really is. If nothing else, it has the potential to be used as a springbobard in an arena where risk taking with new comedy just isn't the norm.
RE has low audience figures, true... but remember, AD, despite it's cleverness didn't fair well on UK screens either.
Look, I found AD very funny... but I also find RE very funny The 'Romania' joke made me laugh... and again when they showed the map. Admittedly, I don't laugh as much (or maybe even as loudly) as I did with AD but I find it strangely compelling. And I'll keep watching until they stop screening it.
Why does it have to be clever? Why does it have to contain 'obscure' jokes? These things don't always make hit comedies (just look at 'My Family').
Quote: chipolata @ May 16, 2007, 9:46 AMJust to respond to the comments earlier in this strand relating to a comment I made. Comparing witless bilge like Romans Empire to Dadf's Army, Only Fools and Horses and The Good Life is ludicrous. And if you really think it has the potential to one day rank alongside them then you know bugger all about comedy.
View original
I have no idea what constitutes 'good' or 'bad' comedy. And I don't really care.
I've said this before, in another thread, but what makes me laugh... makes me laugh. It doesn't get any more simple than that. If so-called 'bad' comedy makes me laugh then so be it.
You can't claim something isn't funny (and therefore not worthy of a show on TV) just because you didn't laugh. It just didn't resonate with you is all.
I personally found 'Only Fools...' to be a very dull show. But I would never call it bad... it's just something I don't like.
Bottom line... humour is not quantifiable.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I think this thread is going to last longer then the show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
LOL! Now THAT'S funny...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Quote: chipolata @ May 16, 2007, 9:46 AMJust to respond to the comments earlier in this strand relating to a comment I made. Comparing witless bilge like Romans Empire to Dadf's Army, Only Fools and Horses and The Good Life is ludicrous. And if you really think it has the potential to one day rank alongside them then you know bugger all about comedy.
View original
How could you possible know how it would evolve in the future, the only comparison being made with this show and that of the show mention above was they all started with poor ratings.
Quote: chipolata @ May 16, 2007, 9:46 AMAnd if you really think it has the potential to one day rank alongside them then you know bugger all about comedy.
View original
I know what make me laugh isn't that good enough for you
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, naniwaelegy said:
...I just feel that the progressive lowering of standards is bad for the British comedy scene...especially when there is precious little else. If there was a whole host of programmes of the same degree of quality as The Thick of It or Help - which are filled with passion and insight then the occasional dud like RE could be swept aside. But there is very little high quality comedy. And the general...."well that will do" will just drag the bar lower and lower.
I don't demand my comedy be clever or obscure (though I don't mind when it is) - but I would like to feel that some degree of care and passion had gone into it - rather than the ignorant, poorly written waste I see in RN. I know it's extreme - but I'd rather the Beeb commission nothing than commission rubbish. But as we obviously disagree we should probably leave it at that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: naniwaelegy @ May 17, 2007, 12:16 AM...I just feel that the progressive lowering of standards is bad for the British comedy scene...especially when there is precious little else. If there was a whole host of programmes of the same degree of quality as The Thick of It or Help - which are filled with passion and insight then the occasional dud like RE could be swept aside. But there is very little high quality comedy. And the general...."well that will do" will just drag the bar lower and lower.
I don't demand my comedy be clever or obscure (though I don't mind when it is) - but I would like to feel that some degree of care and passion had gone into it - rather than the ignorant, poorly written waste I see in RN. I know it's extreme - but I'd rather the Beeb commission nothing than commission rubbish. But as we obviously disagree we should probably leave it at that.
View original
One of the things I like about this site (a lot!) is that, in most cases at least, people refrain from the abusive, insulting and downright immature behaviour as seen on other forums.
I take your point about lowering standards... I don't see that myself in the case of RE, obviously... but the idea of someone having a different opinion to me, especially when that opinion is well executed is, frankly, great.
I welcome debate (even heated debate) on these matters. It'd be a sorry world where everyone agreed all the time. Although we'd never know how sorry it was of course...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ May 17, 2007, 9:16 AM
It'd be a sorry world where everyone agreed all the time.
View original
I agree
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Har de har...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I'm really torn now, part of thinks "great that's over." And another part of me is sad to see it go. Well, the series end anyway.
Perhaps I just need my Kelly Pretty fix.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: naniwaelegy @ May 16, 2007, 12:02 AMI just find this show so horrible and cynical that it makes me really sad to think it ever got off the ground. Who possible thought that ripping one of the greatest sitcoms in recent times (rather than simply screening it) was a wise move. The lack of ambition is dreadful as is the lack of ambition in the writing. "There is no such place as Romania" is a weak joke to start with - but to dilute it even further with a picture of a map showing Romania...beggars belief. And the joke it was stolen from is far superior. (Arrested Development....It's not like there's a book that teaches you to be a parent...and a cut to "Amazon.com has X amount of books on the subject of parenting" with all the books on the page all being little jokes ). I've watched AD numerous times and keep finding new jokes hidden away, obscure references, clever wordplay, call backs, call forwards the whole gamut. Some of the jokes are broad (most plots with Tobias) and some are relatively intellectual (Use your Allusion...I'm thinking of Poe) I found the level of passion in AD awe inspiring - while this...is simply depressing. I know I shouldn't watch it if I don't like it...but the fact that it gets an audience at all beggars belief. I really believe that shows like RE hurt British comedy and should never make it to the air.
View original
Thanks Nani. There was me just thinking RE was 'influenced' by The Royal Tenenbaums. I know that it's popular with some, but I'm glad that this super piss-weak show has ended. If you put this much money and quality acting behind any script it will 'work'.
A script from this show wouldn't make the sift in the writersroom. As somebody mentioned it was only commissioned because it was written by NIgel Williams' kids and the C.E. was probably handed the script when he came round to dinner.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: naniwaelegy @ May 17, 2007, 12:16 AMBut there is very little high quality comedy.
View original
But how does one define "high quality", or "comedy", and especially so together? Taken literally, "comedy" is just something that's funny. And "high quality" is, presumably, something which does what it's intended to? (I don't have OED with me, but will exact definitions when I can.) So on that basis, anything that's particularly popular is "high quality comedy". Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. Little Britain. My Hero. Etc etc.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Why does something that is popular have to be classed as 'high quality comedy'?
High quality comedy to me is something that first of all has lots of jokes in it, secondly a great script/plot, thirdly brilliant characters/cast and something that is filled with passion and you can see that the writers care about the show and making something as best as they can.
Shows like Peep Show and Arrested Development weren't/aren't hugely popular, mainstream shows yet I would class them as 'high quality comedy'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
You're all obsessed. I haven't even seen this show and I'm hating it!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 18, 2007, 6:19 PMWhy does something that is popular have to be classed as 'high quality comedy'?
High quality comedy to me is something that first of all has lots of jokes in it, secondly a great script/plot, thirdly brilliant characters/cast and something that is filled with passion and you can see that the writers care about the show and making something as best as they can.
Shows like Peep Show and Arrested Development weren't/aren't hugely popular, mainstream shows yet I would class them as 'high quality comedy'.
View original
Well that's what I'm saying: "What IS 'high quality' comedy?" A very good answer though. Nicely put.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Yeah it's hard to actually define "high quality comedy", but I think it's obvious to anyone when you compare two shows such as say Curb Your Enthusiasm and Lead Balloon which one is the "higher quality comedy".
Same as say Seinfeld compared with Two Pints. The Day Today compared with Broken News etc.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I just brought some "High quality comedy" my Curb Season 1 finally came today, 9.99 from Play, checked it again, its gone up to 11.99...
High Five!!
Although I hope it has nothing to do with me reviewing it as "genius"?
If that it the case, I'm going to be busy today reviewing everything as crap and hopefully they'll drop the prices.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
Never really got the bashing of Two Pints, i thought it was very good, some great one liners, good plots, pretty decent characters. I think a lot of people find it scary because it is aimed at the younger audience.
I was never too fond of Seinfeld either, so comparing the two still works just in the opposite to me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Lol. I'm not a fan of Two Pints because to me, it feels like it goes for the easy laughs, just by saying something disgusting.
I don't think it's really bad, but as a writer I feel it's uninspired?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
The first the episode of Two Pints actually was really good and showed promise. First series was okay I suppose. From then on it just became lazy, as Leevil says just goes for easy laughs by saying crude stuff.
Two Pints doesn't even deserve to be in the same sentence as Seinfeld really, so I'm sorry for doing that.
Seinfeld is intelligent, fantastically written, great characterisation and extremely funny. One of if not the best sitcom ever and anyone that can't even appreciate its comedy has not watched it properly.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
Well i was in Yoga practice as i watched it ... bah, my opinion sticks. I enjoyed TPL throughout it's run. When Janet Killed Jonny was also a great episode/special.
And naming a sitcom after yourself ... Arrogance.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Network decision, they commissioned the show on the basis of Seinfeld's popularity, they thought that would draw viewers. And arrogance would be one word you wouldn't use to describe Jerry Seinfeld if you actually watched the show (the real life Jerry I mean, the character is arrogant) because in the show he always puts the other characters over more than himself, he always gives them the best plots and he often takes a backseat which is a real testament to him.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Walker @ May 19, 2007, 8:25 PMAnd naming a sitcom after yourself ... Arrogance.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Scott T said:
I don't know about 'Why does something that is popular have to be classed as 'high quality comedy'?' and all that, but Roman's Empire made me laugh, so I like it.
It really is that simple.