Close
Not Going Out
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Not Going Out starts tonight on BBC1 at 9:30pm. Afterwards do please post your thoughts here to help with our review because I suspect it might divide opinion.
Also co-writer Andrew Collins has agreed to a short interview next week so if you have any questions you'd like to put to him about the sitcom or writing industry in general please send them to us.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, paul bushen said:
We just watched "Not Going Out" and it was brilliant :-D
Just wish I could remember some of the jokes - there were so many I'll have to watch it again.
is it repeated ?
Can't wait until next week for the next epsisode
Paul.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, simon schlegel said:
Fantastic. Sharp and funny
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Croydesponger said:
I kinda liked it - a job init/self harms-sell farms were the jokes that made me lol. A curious mix of standup sitcom really (new format called sitstand?) and not sure what to make of it. Will definitely watch again.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I kind of liked it. Lee Mack and the Chinese adoption like scene was very funny. I'd watch it again, but this maybe just to drool over Megan Dodds 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
I have to say that I thought this was woeful.
It suffered from all the problems that most 'modern' sitcoms seem to suffer from, inasmuch as it wasn't remotely funny.
The characters had no depth and did nothing to engage me at all. They all seemed totally two dimensional.
I don't think I cracked a grin once except for the IT joke and I think I've maybe heard this somewhere else already.
On paper the cast and writer promised so much more and I can't really understand why we got what we got.
Maybe it was Andy Millmaned.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, AUblend said:
A bit wooden but at least they made the effort to be funny - and succeeded in places- unlike dogtown and the like
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
I thought it was a promising start for the show. It was all a little uneven and Megan Dodds' character needeed a bit of work but there were some good lines and maybe over time it could develop into a really good show.
I found Lee Mack and Time Vine entertaining even if their acting is unlikely to win them many awards.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sitcom-fan said:
I dont know what you see in it. i got bored of it 5 minutes in 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark Rushton said:
Unfortunately or not, it remains to be seen, I was out on Friday and missed it. Does anyone know if it's going to be repeated and if so when?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this show. As far as sitcoms go, it was quite disappointing I suppose, but it was still funny (well, reasonably).
The main problem with it is that it is too obviously a Mack/Vine vehicle. To think that characters would honestly talk and bounce off one another in quite that manner is cheesey, cringeworthy, and patronising to the viewer. As a standup routine it would have been fine, because that's exactly the style which one expects, and one knows what one is getting. As a sitcom though, it just wasn't believable. Yes it's their style of comedy, and yes the show is a vehicle for the two of them, but it could have been disguised much more successfully.
It will be interesting to see if/how the series develops.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Vulnax said:
Watched it, I like to try new comedies, and like Lee Macks previous work.
Reasonably funny, a bit contrived, and as said above it was a bit like the skecthes from The Sketch Show and Lee Macks lines / delivery smacked of that.
I'll watch again though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
Quote: Vulnax @ October 9, 2006, 7:25 PMit was a bit like the skecthes from The Sketch Show
View original
Thats enough to put me off it then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Hey, The Sketch Show wasn't that bad and I think Lee Mack's bts were easily the funniest. That show did have an awful lot of filler though and could have done with a decent editor. Maybe if Not Going Out had a good script editor then it could be much improved.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
I wasn't a fan of it at all. The humour just wasn't up my street. It was very rare I cracked a smile while watching that show. Each to their own I suppose though eh?
I was surprised also when it got it's Kelsey Grammar work over.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, paul bushen said:
Just watched ep 2 - brilliant
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
I wouldn't go quite as far as to say it was brilliant but it did make me laugh many times. The one complaint I would make is that there seem to be too many jokes in the show at times. The show has a very solid premise and it would be nice if they concentrated on the characters a little more and didn't try to crowbar in quite so many jokes.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ryan said:
i think lee's character is one that tends to make a joke out of everything.it's what his character centres around. personally i found the episode funny and it could be one of the mot promising ive seen on the bbc in a few years. more of the same!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: Blenkinsop @ October 6, 2006, 11:17 PMI have to say that I thought this was woeful.
It suffered from all the problems that most 'modern' sitcoms seem to suffer from, inasmuch as it wasn't remotely funny.
The characters had no depth and did nothing to engage me at all. They all seemed totally two dimensional.
I don't think I cracked a grin once except for the IT joke and I think I've maybe heard this somewhere else already.
On paper the cast and writer promised so much more and I can't really understand why we got what we got.
Maybe it was Andy Millmaned.
View original
Just for the record, it wasn't "Andy Millmaned". If you didn't like it, I'm afraid we can't blame any interfering outside forces. It was the sitcom we set out to make. If anything, the BBC were very supportive and let us get on with it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Well, I did quite like today's episode, I must admit. Yes, I still found some of the Tim-Lee dialogue a bit odd, but it felt a lot more like it had settled into itself and didn't have to "prove" it's worth in quite the same way. Much better. 
Oh, and I want the gorilla and bunny suits!
(And for anyone wondering, Andrew Collins co-wrote Not Going Out with Lee Mack. Welcome Andrew!)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I watched it for the first time tonight, and it actually really made me laugh.
I've found myself muttering 'I am a spanner' to myself and chuckling like a twat all evening.
What more can you ask from a sitcom...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Scott T said:
I really enjoyed tonight's episode. I liked the traditional structure but think the humour is well up to date. It's a good example to budding writers like myself of achieving a lot with only a few characters. My favourite bit was:
"I can't just turn it off and on like a tap"
"Force it"
"Alright, I can't just turn it off and on like a fawcet"
Great stuff.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Christian Cawley said:
Entertaining stuff - stumbled upon it by accident last night and I'm glad I did, not only for the lovely Megan Dodds but also for Lee Mack who somehow manages to be very funny despite not looking very funny.
Tim/Lee scenes reminiscent of Gary/Tony scenes in MBB, which cannot be a bad thing.
I'm looking forward to the rest of the series (Although not as much as Torchwood...)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Have been enjoying the show, and found myself laughing continuously through last nights episode. Yes, in many ways it feels quite an old fashioned sort of show, but the sheer rate of gags meens it gets enough good hits in to be consistently amusing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wheeler said:
Just watched last night's episode and enjoyed it. It's good to see a traditional sitcom that works. I've had enough of madcap, out there rubbish like Dogtown and Hyperdrive.
One criticism...the excessive use of audience laughter. It felt like hysterical laughter accompanied almost every line which became annoying after a while. That aside, a good show with some funny one liners.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Wheeler @ October 21, 2006, 10:57 AMJust watched last night's episode and enjoyed it. It's good to see a traditional sitcom that works. I've had enough of madcap, out there rubbish like Dogtown and Hyperdrive.
View original
Couldn't agree more. Too much niche tripe around now!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wheeler said:
Hopefully this will kickstart a return to the traditional structure. The traditional British sitcom is dead? My arse.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
I'm still enjoying it as well and I hope it gets a second series.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Scott T said:
I was wondering if Andrew Collins might be up for posting on the Writer's Forum the 'treatment' or 'synopsis' that was written for Not Going Out when it was submitted to the Beeb? I always struggle to make synopses sound as fresh as I'd like when I submit scripts. It's a bit cheeky to ask I know, but thought I'd ask as it would be a genuine help to me and - I'm sure - others.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: Scott Taylor @ October 21, 2006, 1:32 PMI was wondering if Andrew Collins might be up for posting on the Writer's Forum the 'treatment' or 'synopsis' that was written for Not Going Out when it was submitted to the Beeb? I always struggle to make synopses sound as fresh as I'd like when I submit scripts. It's a bit cheeky to ask I know, but thought I'd ask as it would be a genuine help to me and - I'm sure - others.
View original
I'm not sure I have such a thing, Scott, as I came onboard when the project was already "in development" at the BBC. I might have one for Grass.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
I skipped episode 1 after some really dodgy previews, so went to episode 2 with little expectation. I was pleasantly surprised to find it both likeable and funny. Third episode wasn't quite as good as the second but was still a very amusing way to spend half an hour. Certainly the most promising new "traditional" sitcom I've seen on BBC for a while.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I must admit that I missed the second episode after being a bit disappointed by the first, but if you think that it was better than 3, then I'll certainly watch it now.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wout Thielemans said:
Megan Dodds' character is getting better with every episode. She had a number of very nice acid zingers in episode three, and delivered them perfectly. She and Lee play very well off each other.
The traditional farce-storyline was well-handled, and the insight in Lee's character starts to make him more than a mere gag machine. I wonder how deep the series will dare to probe in his psyche though (as the accusation that his character only cares about himself is fairly correct, and it makes him a bit too invulnerable at the moment. I mean, hard to imagine anything short of a true personal disaster (say, an incurable disease) happening to Lee which could actually make him suffer at the moment).
Definitely one of the best 'neo-traditional' sit-coms around. One question though - apart from Lee Mack and Andrew Collins being credited as writers, there's a fair number of people providing 'extra material' - are these gag writers, coming up with one-liners? Or is it more of a full-fledged writer's room, with these people providing feedback and polishing up the basic script?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Scott T said:
Quote: Andrew Collins @ October 21, 2006, 4:14 PM
I'm not sure I have such a thing, Scott, as I came onboard when the project was already "in development" at the BBC. I might have one for Grass.
View original
Yes please, that'd be a great help. I think my scripts are often okay, but let-down by synopses and/or treatments simply because I'm never 100% sure what they are exactly, and it's difficult to get a straight answer!
If you have such a thing for 'Grass' I'd be very keen to view it
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: Wout Thielemans @ October 22, 2006, 6:23 PMOne question though - apart from Lee Mack and Andrew Collins being credited as writers, there's a fair number of people providing 'extra material' - are these gag writers, coming up with one-liners? Or is it more of a full-fledged writer's room, with these people providing feedback and polishing up the basic script?
View original
Thanks for your positive comments! Lee and I wrote the whole thing, locked in an office for six months. Paul Kerensa was drafted in to help us meet the deadline, so he is credited as a co-writer on one whole episode (still to air). He, Simon Evans and Derren Litten were also charged with taking the scripts away and suggesting extra gags, many of which were used. Also, I believe just Paul and Simon did some last-minute rewrites and "tabling" with Lee the week of each record. Also, as you'd expect, Tim Vine made suggestions for his character too.
As a rule of thumb, if you laughed at a joke, then I definitely wrote it. If you didn't, it was one of those other blokes.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Andrew Collins @ October 23, 2006, 1:53 PMAs a rule of thumb, if you laughed at a joke, then I definitely wrote it. If you didn't, it was one of those other blokes.
View original
Goes without saying!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
I still remember you from Telly Addicts
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: Scott Taylor @ October 22, 2006, 8:40 PMIf you have such a thing for 'Grass' I'd be very keen to view it
View original
Scott, I've checked and I'm afraid I can't find the original pitch document for Grass, or Not Going Out. Sorry about that. The rules as I know them are: sell it in one line ("a black comedy about a London-based pub bore who is put in the witness protection programme after seeing a murder and ends up in the middle of the Norfolk countryside"). Then explain it in a paragraph. Then provide a more detailed breakdown if one is required. But if you can't sell it in one line, you've had it!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
After my comments on the first episode I decided not to watch the second but tuned in again on Friday (I wasn't going out ho ho) and was pleasantly surprised by the episode.
I felt that it was stronger and a lot funnier and perhaps I was getting used to the look and feel of it also.
Anyway I will give it another go this week
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
now now Blenkinsop, your not sucking up to mr Collins here are you.....
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
Quote: Ginger Jesus @ October 25, 2006, 11:19 AMnow now Blenkinsop, your not sucking up to mr Collins here are you.....
View original
That's not my style.
But I'd just like to take the opportunity to compliment you on your fabulous avatar. You seem a decent sort of person and if you write a sitcom I'm sure it will be fab.
Now can you see that I'm not one of life's sucker-uppers?
I hope you can, as I imagine perceptiveness is another one of your good qualities.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
I take it all back! Savvy, is a word I'd use, shrewd is another. You clearly have excellent taste and are welcome to a small walk on part when my sitcom is produced.......
.......... you never know, we might even make it to YouTube.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
Great!
If I had any people I'd certainly get them to call your people (if you've got any that is) and we'd get something in writing to seal our deal.
I'm shooting on 3rd of January 2007 but can let you have a 'window' on any of the remaining 364 days.
Don't hang about though as I am expecting an offer of work to flood in at any minute.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
Sure sure. I think we need to push the envelope on this one. I'll get something written that isn't thrown straight in the bin. I could probably have some people hired by the end of November, and then we'll really be able to run with this.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Scott T said:
Quote: Andrew Collins @ October 25, 2006, 10:11 AM
Scott, I've checked and I'm afraid I can't find the original pitch document for Grass, or Not Going Out. Sorry about that. The rules as I know them are: sell it in one line ("a black comedy about a London-based pub bore who is put in the witness protection programme after seeing a murder and ends up in the middle of the Norfolk countryside"). Then explain it in a paragraph. Then provide a more detailed breakdown if one is required. But if you can't sell it in one line, you've had it!
View original
No problem, thanks for checking though. All advice is welcome. The little structure you outlined is more than is available in some info sites, so cheers.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
Quote: Ginger Jesus @ October 25, 2006, 2:09 PMSure sure. I think we need to push the envelope on this one. I'll get something written that isn't thrown straight in the bin. I could probably have some people hired by the end of November, and then we'll really be able to run with this.
View original
Rats!!
It just goes to show...me and my big mouth! That window that I promised you next year is no longer available. I know! I know! Building your hopes etc.
But the fact is that I've just bought a new shed at IKEA and it doesn't have a window so I'm afraid I going to have to use the one I promised you.
But I like the envelope idea. Sort of like a jiffy bag but only a bit smaller and a little less robust too. But hey! I like a challenge.
Do you think that we should be pro-active on this whilst exhibiting lots of synergy, project completion stroke (or maybe dash) deadline wise?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ryan said:
just wondering how much of the show is actually adlibbed by lee mack? him being a stand up comdedian and all.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
Quote: Blenkinsop @ October 25, 2006, 3:04 PM
But the fact is that I've just bought a new shed at IKEA and it doesn't have a window so I'm afraid I going to have to use the one I promised you.
View original
And heres me with more windows than the crystal palace!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: ryan @ October 25, 2006, 10:35 PMjust wondering how much of the show is actually adlibbed by lee mack? him being a stand up comdedian and all.
View original
Not as much as you'd imagine, as once we'd made it to the studio recording, the script was nailed down. However, as a stand-up, he was basically ad-libbing and riffing the whole time, much of which made it to the page. Plus, the rehearsal period was an important stage in development, and Lee and Tim and Megan came up with a lot of changes based on performing it. So you could say that part of it were ad-libbed and then the ad-libs were written into the final shooting script. And Lee definitely ad-libbed the Mick Hucknall line (with the fox fur) in episode two on the day of the recording.
I'm in the process of answering loads of questions about the show, sent to me by Mark, so bear with me and I'll get them back to him as soon as I can.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Well, congratulations Andrew et al. Very funny tonight. Had me laughing throughout. Seems much more comfortable and settled into itself every week. Can't wait for the next one!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wout Thielemans said:
Indeed, a good episode. The series keeps on improving. Nice to see a mainstream sitcom based completely on URST once again.
What I particularly liked was Lee's character being vulnerable to stress. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was concerned at first that Lee was going to be an invulnerable wisecracking machine. But his encounter with the acupuncturist (who was also very good in the first episode of Lead Balloon) showed that his attitude and smartarsiness also gets him into a lot of trouble, and people don't just let him waltz over them. In short, a succesful attempt at using Mack's stand-up persona in a sitcom environment.
Keep the gags coming, and I'll keep watching...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I love her!
She was good in Hyperdrive too.
Even if (almost) nobody seemed to like the rest of it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Christian Cawley said:
I tried to like Hyperdrive.
Does that help?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ryan said:
who thinks vegie burgers are a good idea?
lee: cows!
brilliant!! il be laughin for days at that one
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, paul bushen said:
Tonights episode was even better - I think I'm getting to know the characters but it's really the constant stream of gags that appeals to me.
The "cows" joke made me laugh until I had tears in my eyes
And I love "There's no 'F' in way"!!
cheers
Paul
And I haven't changed my mind since a certain writer started posting here
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yeah, last night's episode was brilliant, and that line was pure gold. Really enjoying it now, and hoping for a second series. (Do you know if there might be one, Andrew?)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Christian Cawley @ October 30, 2006, 12:34 PMI tried to like Hyperdrive.
Does that help?
View original
No.
: )
It's turned into a bit of an unmissable show, hasn't it?
Like a more successful version of what Linehan said he was trying to do with the IT Crowd - make an old fashioned modern sitcom.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 4, 2006, 9:10 PMYeah, last night's episode was brilliant, and that line was pure gold. Really enjoying it now, and hoping for a second series. (Do you know if there might be one, Andrew?)
View original
No word as yet from powers that be. Although I note that Jack Dee is already working on the second series of Lead Balloon, which began the same week as us. Not in any way jealous.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
The IT CROWD was great i thought, Ive seen a lot of negativity about it but I for one cant wait for series two, Linehan never lets you down, hes one of modern comedies true writing greats.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
It was good, but not great. Certainly had "old-fashioned" aspects to it in the way that Linehan was aiming for, but I dunno, didn't quite make it IMO.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I liked it too, Richard Ayoade was fantastic. But it didn't make me laugh very often.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Well I liked it anyway! A quick question for Andrew Collins, seeing as how both GRASS and NOT GOING OUT seem to be projects you were brought in to, do you have any plans in the future for producing your own original sit-coms?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wheeler said:
I liked this show at first but the constant stream of gags is starting to get on my nerves. I know, it sounds strange to criticise a modern BBC sitcom for having too many gags (the first minute of the first episode contained more funny moments than the entire series of Hyperdrive) but the machine gun approach to things is starting to wear thin - I switched off halfway through the last episode, a first for me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Interesting. I found that with the first episode, but feel that it has "mellowed" a little now. What do other people think?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
You probably just get used to the style.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I dunno, possible I suppose. But I didn't even watch episode two, just happened to catch ep 3, and really felt it was a lot different.
Andrew, was ep 1 produced - or written - as a pilot, with the others written as part of a full series?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 6, 2006, 6:33 PMI dunno, possible I suppose. But I didn't even watch episode two, just happened to catch ep 3, and really felt it was a lot different.
Andrew, was ep 1 produced - or written - as a pilot, with the others written as part of a full series?
View original
Episode 1 was indeed the pilot. We wrote it last year. The rest of the episodes were written this year. But we went back and rewrote a lot of the pilot, as Megan Dodds hadn't been cast last year, so Kate went from being English to American. From my dispassionate point of view, I don't see much difference between the gag rate in Episode 1 and the others, although I think Death (Episode 2) was a little quieter.
Incidentally, and ratings aren't everything, but we were up again last Friday to 3.6 million. That's 2.8 million in the first week, up to 3 million for Episode 2 and 3, then up to 3.2 million for Episode 4, and now 3.6. That's very much against the grain for new programmes, and it cheers me up no end.
I've answered all the questions Mark sent to me by the way, about NGO and Grass, so I'm assuming those will appear on the site very soon. I can't talk about the project I'm about to start work on today though. There is one, though, that's all that matters.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
God I'm crap. I've been writing a spec sit com since last Christmas and it was only last week that it occurred to me to put 'sitcom' into google and see what happened. Hence I'm very late with my response to Not Going Out. I think I was predesposed to hate it because my wife apparently went to school with Andrew Collins and he is obviously successful and I'm not. Sorry Andrew. Anyway, we sat down to watch the first episode and couldn't help but laugh, a lot, all the way through. Much more than I remember laughing at anything for ages.
'No man is an island' - 'What about the Isle of Mann' has stayed with me, I think from the first episode, and plenty of other things that have already been mentioned.
Maybe the quickfire stand up type of delivery is not traditional sitcom style, but at least it's funny, and that puts it head and shoulders above most of the other stuff that's out there. And hopefully it will stand up to repeated viewing when the DVD comes out, when you hear gags you missed the first time around?
I was hugely upset that I really really liked it. Rare these days that we actively sought it out each week and prioritised out viewing around it, rather than watched it because the baby had hidden the remote.
A breath of fresh air in my view.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Andrew Collins @ November 8, 2006, 7:11 AMEpisode 1 was indeed the pilot. We wrote it last year. The rest of the episodes were written this year. But we went back and rewrote a lot of the pilot, as Megan Dodds hadn't been cast last year, so Kate went from being English to American. From my dispassionate point of view, I don't see much difference between the gag rate in Episode 1 and the others, although I think Death (Episode 2) was a little quieter.
View original
Hmm, ok. Interesting. Well, I'll watch it again later and see. Perhaps it was just a bit different to what I was expecting.
Well done on the ratings though. Very good.
Quote: Andrew Collins @ November 8, 2006, 7:11 AMI can't talk about the project I'm about to start work on today though. There is one, though, that's all that matters.
View original
Oh, you tease!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Our interview with Andrew is now online... do check it out, it's a pretty interesting insight into the behind-the-scene work that went into making Not Going Out funny!
Click here to read
Note: Comedy Writers: read our extended interview instead! It contains lots of additional fascinating writing-related insight and advice that's not in the standard interview.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
I saw the episode with the young boy coming to stay. I apologise now as it wasn't my taste and I switched over after 5 mins. But it is really great to see a writer of the show answer questions, so mega-kudos to you for that, Andrew.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Ditto to the Slag's comments - much appreciated for a current beeb sitcom writer to take the time to give us these pearls of wisdom. Thanks Andrew.
I'm still enjoying Not Going Out but I can't comment on the pilot - episode 1 is the only one I've missed.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
I have to admit that i found the extended interview a bit demoralising. It only reinforced the impression that to get ahead in the biz, you have to already have links in the biz.
For example: The situation where Avalon fund Lee Mack to write a sitcom, the end result of which is a series of unrelated gags, so they then have to call in Andrew Collins (a true gentleman for giving us on the lower rung his time btw) to give it structure and character. Why are avalon funding an initial script that is totally deficient in the basic dramatic component of all sitcoms - character? Even newbies know that character and their interactions / reactions drive humour and plot. To me this screams another example of 'names' getting opportunities that other perhaps more talented writers are missing out on.
I once paid money for a scriptwriting course. Great stuff. At the end of the week at the Q+A session i asked how the tutor got his break into scriptwriting and how he'd advise us to proceed. His tale was as follows:
He writes a play and no one is interested. He has a house party and a friend of the daughter is a b-list actor who attends. He 'sees' the script on the bookshelf and reads it. He asks to play the lead and voila - the tutor finds it easy to get the unacceptable script accepted. He is now an established playwright.
Now, i have no chance of an actor reading my gear, gawd, not even the street cleaners talk to me. So i ask the tutor how i should develop links. He said unless you know someone inside then it's unlikely that i'll get to know people and therefore get a commission.
My next question was: why the *&"$* didn't he tell me that before i paid my fees. I'm hoping to prove myself (and him) wrong btw.
Anyway that's my cynicism excised for the weekend.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wheeler said:
Some interesting points as always, SlagA.
It's hard not to be cynical. When I was starting out with this whole sitcom lark, I invested in a how to write a sitcom book. The author noted that many people believe that TV is a closed shop, run by university graduates and a London clique who only give jobs to their mates. I carried on regardless. Unfortunately, everything I've experienced in the last few years has reinforced this belief. I keep on writing, mainly because I enjoy it, but also because I keep telling myself that it can be done, it isn't just a case of 'not what you know but who you know', you can get a commission if your work is good enough and lands in front of the right person. But it's hard to remain positive sometimes. Take a look at the current crop of Britcoms - were any of them written by newbies and, if so, did these newbies break in to the industry on the strength of their writing as opposed to the help of B list celebs or Oxbridge mates?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
SlagA, I can only suggest work up from a menial job a la Sullivan!
But yes, slightly more seriously, the whole situation sucks balls. But then, what doesn't these days? Sigh.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
Having watched most of this series I would have to say that I must eat my words.
I didn't like the first episode much and that may have been for two reasons. Possibly as it was written as a pilot or else the "look" of the thing (lighting, sets, inserts etc.)
However as it developed I found myself enjoying it more each week. I have continued to struggle with the "look" but have really enjoyed the script, storylines and cast.
Now on the humble pie diet and would murder for a curry!
It takes a big man to fill size 44 trousers.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: SlagA @ November 10, 2006, 7:39 PMI have to admit that i found the extended interview a bit demoralising. It only reinforced the impression that to get ahead in the biz, you have to already have links in the biz.
For example: The situation where Avalon fund Lee Mack to write a sitcom, the end result of which is a series of unrelated gags, so they then have to call in Andrew Collins (a true gentleman for giving us on the lower rung his time btw) to give it structure and character. Why are avalon funding an initial script that is totally deficient in the basic dramatic component of all sitcoms - character? Even newbies know that character and their interactions / reactions drive humour and plot. To me this screams another example of 'names' getting opportunities that other perhaps more talented writers are missing out on.
View original
I hope it didn't come across as me getting a job because of who I knew! You would not believe the amount of meetings I've had about projects at the BBC and elsewhere that came to nothing. Occasionally they reached pilot script stage, which meant I was paid for my troubles, but often these would involve just brainstorming sessions, for which one is not paid. Before Grass came along (an opportunity that only arose because I'd worked on soaps for the best part of five years, don't forget), I'd begun to think that I'd never get anything original off the ground. It's a bloody hard slog getting on to the carousel.
Also, part of Avalon's "development" of the sitcom was getting another writer in. Lee is a highly experienced stand-up, but had never written narrative comedy before, hence the need for another writer. Avalon spent that development money with no idea that it would lead to a commission. That's the gamble, isn't it, which production companies have to take. Of course it's going to be more of a gamble getting a less experienced writer on board.
This doesn't make it any easier for those on the "lower rung", as you put it. But look at it this way: there has never been so much comedy on TV. So many channels. So much more opportunity. You've never had it so good. I don't consider myself talented, but I am a hard worker and that counts for a lot. It's grim to think that you have to work for nothing to break into TV, but it's worth it, if that's what you really want to do.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Moxy Poron said:
At first glance I thought i'd find it annoying, but some of the jokes made me laugh quite alot and i quite liked the last episode best, although was that a monty python esk bit i saw at the very end (with the fish?) 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
With reference to the extended interview, which I enjoyed, I think something that stood out was that the foundations for Andrew's current success seemed to be laid back in the late 1980's. It has obviously taken 2 decades of hard work to get to this point. I didn't read it and think that he had been offered the writing gig because of who he knew, and I'm pretty sure that that wasn't what was being implied in a previous posting.
One of the things that frustrates me most about this business, as an outsider trying to break in, is that there is no set way of doing it. (Or if anyone knows one, please share the sectet.) It's not like being a teacher or an accountant. There is a huge reliance on being in the right place at the right time with the right knowledge and experience. I had my third feature screenplay optioned by a producer and after 18 months of re writes he had a meeting with, I think, Working Title to discuss their coming on board. Unfortunately, the meeting was scheduled for the 11th September 2001 and was cancelled while he was on the train from Edinburgh to London. And that was that. He tried for another couple of years to resurrect the project but to no avail.
I'm not even sure where I was heading with that, but I guess all one can ever do is keep writing, honing our craft in the hope that, one day, the geeky kid who used to sit next to you in maths gets the job of head of comedy at the BBC. And hope that he remembers how funny you always were. And not the time you pulled his chair out as he was about to sit down and he ended up in casualty in need of three stitches in his head.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Bloody terrorists!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Cheers for that Andrew. You're a top guy for responding.
As 'Steve by any other name' suggests my comments were aimed at the early stage of the project, prior to your involvement, not your particular experience at breaking through. Few people appreciate how much effort goes into writing, especially in character development. You're a deserved success, and I appreciate your hard work (and your undisputed talent, sir. Add humble to your list of likeable characteristics :-). My writing partner, SlagB, is an NGOut fan.
What is frustrating for me is that initial funding surely came through LM's name and not his experience because he was equally inexperienced and untested (in the narrative field) as the vast army of wannabe writers. They took a risk with LM and no pilot script but they could have taken a similar risk with an untried writer and a pilot script that demonstrated character development skills. It seems to indicate where they prefer to put their faith. I have a fear TV is believing its own hype re: the celebrity midas touch.
Leaving NGOut aside, there are several comedies on the screen that i think would have been rejected at the first stage if those same pilots had been written by newbies, and not certain 'names'.
Yep, The Slagg Brothers are serious about comedy and we'll do what's needed to break through.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Quote: SlagA @ November 12, 2006, 12:07 PMWhat is frustrating for me is that initial funding surely came through LM's name and not his experience because he was equally inexperienced and untested. They took a risk with LM and no pilot script but they could have taken a similar risk with an untried writer and a pilot script that demonstrated character development skills.
View original
Fair enough, but with respect, if you were a stand-up comedian who'd been working his arse off touring for years, gradually improving and making a name for himself, you'd be pretty cross if a TV network or production company wasn't prepared to put a project of yours into development. Don't forget, Lee had starred in and co-written The Sketch Show, which was on ITV and won a Bafta and transferred to the US. His time was right.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Yes, Lee Mack is a great stand-up.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Andrew Collins @ November 12, 2006, 12:53 PMFair enough, but with respect, if you were a stand-up comedian who'd been working his arse off touring for years, gradually improving and making a name for himself, you'd be pretty cross if a TV network or production company wasn't prepared to put a project of yours into development. Don't forget, Lee had starred in and co-written The Sketch Show, which was on ITV and won a Bafta and transferred to the US. His time was right.
View original
Certainly a good point. Would you think that the prod. co had expected to be hiring someone else in to write with Lee though, but they just weren't aware as to how far said writer (obviously yourself) would have to go?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, The Rude Baron said:
you all miss the obvious. becks may be a great footie player but does it give him the right to expect a managers job? should amount of effort in one area give autamatic right in another area? is there a level playing field when ability is ignored in favourt of who you are?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wheeler said:
Agreed. Being a good stand up doesn't necessarily mean you will make a good sitcom writer - they are completely different disciplines. A good recent example of this is Dogtown. I haven't seen their live act, but I'm told that Live!Girls! are good performers. However, they are unable to write a TV show as Dogtown so painfully demonstrated.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
Quote: The Rude Baron @ November 13, 2006, 10:43 AMyou all miss the obvious. becks may be a great footie player but does it give him the right to expect a managers job? should amount of effort in one area give autamatic right in another area? is there a level playing field when ability is ignored in favourt of who you are?
View original
It's a fact of life though isn't it. It's not isolated to the world of script writing or the world of Football. Comedians who work the circuit are going to meet the right people because of the job they do. They're networking all the time, whether that's their intention or not. Footballers are in the world of Football. Roy Keane has had no management experience yet he walked straight into a "top" management job at Sunderland. He's a recognised figure, who's going to put bums on seats, at least for a short while. If Ginger Jesus had applied and got that job, would have been uproar. And you can extrapolate this to just about every work place in the country. A friend gets someone a job, someone whos knows someone gets them a promotion, even though there are more suitable people who've applied.
There's no definitive answer. There isn't a set of rules you can follow thats going to gaurantee anything.I guess all people can do is just keep plugging away, writing quality, and maybe someone someday.....
Am I coming across as negative? Blame women.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
I agree with Ginger Jesus - networking (and lots of it) is key. There's someone out there who probably wants your script but you won't know who till you know a lot of people.
I don't see the problem with Lee Mack either: a) he can clearly write some funny lines and b) he has an established fan base plus a well-known name to boot which is going to bring viewers to the program. You can't blame Avalon for picking him over someone who may be able to write equally funny jokes but isn't (yet) as well known.
That does lead to a bit of a catch 22 (i.e. how do you become a big name if you can't get a commission because you're not a big name) - that's where the hard work and all that networking comes in!
It's not impossible - whilst I can't divulge names or details I know of at least 3 people on our writers directory who have got their scripts optioned in the last few months but are keeping quiet about it.
Anyway we're getting a bit off topic: the TV - a closed shop? thread Wheeler started is probably a better place for all this discussion.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, beng said:
I hope that BSG will interview the 3 actors of NOT GOING OUT.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Andrew Collins said:
Let's draw a line under this and say: NGO is proof that TV isn't a closed shop. BBC1 were prepared to take a risk on Lee by giving him his own Friday night sitcom. Think how much safer it would be for them to commmision, say, a spin-off of Only Fools And Horses? Or order up another episode of The Royle Family? Meanwhile, BBC3 is awash with sitcoms that don't have "star" names in them, and are written by relatively new writers. I feel the pain of anyone who feels it is a closed shop, and that it's not what you know but who you know, but bad writers wouldn't last five minutes in TV. You might be able to get your first break by who you know, but it would be your last job if you were no good at it. When I worked on EastEnders, I saw writers far more experienced than me taken off an episode because they were taking too long to reach a decent draft. Ability (as I hesitate to use the word talent) will out.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
Quote: Andrew Collins @ November 14, 2006, 6:52 AMLet's draw a line under this and say: NGO is proof that TV isn't a closed shop. BBC1 were prepared to take a risk on Lee by giving him his own Friday night sitcom. Think how much safer it would be for them to commmision, say, a spin-off of Only Fools And Horses? Or order up another episode of The Royle Family?
View original
Personally, I've never watched either Only Fools and Horses or The Royle Family, I've seen trailers and watched bits on the recommendation of friends but could not see the appeal. I, for one, then, am grateful that the BBC didn't take the easy way out, or I'd have had to find something else to do at 9.30 on a Friday night. As a viewer, I enjoy NGO enormously and look forward to future series, so on that level, applaud the BBC and the NGO team. As a writer, I appreciate the insight that Andrew has shared with us because it illustrates the time, effort, energy, and dissapointment (Grass) that we will all be going through if we are to achieve our ambitions. I think Andrew has been more than generous with his time and we are the ones who may benefit ultimately. I haven't seen any other sitcom writer sharing their experience so willingly with the wannabies and he deserves a lot of respect for that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
I agree with Steve that Andrew has shown himself to be immensely likeable and patient. He has clearly worked hard not only to get an opportunity but also worked at being ready for the opportunity when it arrived. Despite his protestations, he has ability AND talent. I want to thank him for his time when others would have simply waved a commissioned script at us and told us to go whistle. I think I always made clear my respect for him.
My comments were not intended as criticism of him, the show, or the staff, but a gripe at a perceived modus operandi within the upper echelons.
I'll continue, as always, writing my best.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Hear, hear!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leah Bevan said:
Quote: Nick @ October 8, 2006, 2:17 PMI thought it was a promising start for the show. It was all a little uneven and Megan Dodds' character needeed a bit of work but there were some good lines and maybe over time it could develop into a really good show.
I found Lee Mack and Time Vine entertaining even if their acting is unlikely to win them many awards.
View original
I thought Tim Vine was rubbish and for some reason American's out of context (ie in British shows) always set my teeth on edge.
Having said that Lee Mack is hilarious, every line that comes out of his mouth makes me laugh. I especially liked the yoga scene where he looked at his tummy button.
Cut the other characters and just let Lee talk, which I guess is saying that I like Lee Mack's stand up, which I guess means that I don't like the sitcom.
Now I'm confused.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh of the Decade said:
I think Not Going Out is brilliant. One of its best attributes is the high joke ratio. It’s overwhelming but in that good way. I know some people aren’t keen on the machine gun approach, but surely the strengths of a comedy should be measured in how much it makes you laugh, and this one keeps the laughs coming fast and hard. For me, far too many sitcoms rely on sentimentality, and it’s refreshing to watch one more concerned with making me wet myself. Ironically, Death (the gag-modest episode), was my favourite in the series.
For all the recent fuss about bringing back traditional styled sitcoms, this is the only show that truly performs in my opinion. Plus my Nan thought it was good. And she hates modern comedy.
Is it shot on HD? It seems to appear in the BBCHD schedule for the next couple of weeks.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I believe that the BBC now make most (pre-recorded) shows in HD. Much easier to sell to the lucrative American market.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh of the Decade said:
Cheers Aaron. I wasn't sure as a lot of HD converted shows (Torchwood for example) look really ropey, but I can't say I noticed it in Not Going Out.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I would be highly surprised if Torchwood wasn't filmed in HD actually. I can't comment on how "ropey" it is, but I'm sure it could be accounted for in other ways.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, pitchinvasion said:
Can anyone help? I've watched and loved the first five episodes but now back in Germany, I've tried to find somewhere on the net to watch Episode 6...anyone got any links (streamed or download)? I know I dont pay Auntie Beebs licence fee but no channel over here has obviously shown the series, there wont be a DVD release in Germany (I guess) and Im desparate to see the last show! Thanks in advance
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: pitchinvasion @ December 9, 2006, 6:21 PMCan anyone help? I've watched and loved the first five episodes but now back in Germany, I've tried to find somewhere on the net to watch Episode 6...anyone got any links (streamed or download)? I know I dont pay Auntie Beebs licence fee but no channel over here has obviously shown the series, there wont be a DVD release in Germany (I guess) and Im desparate to see the last show! Thanks in advance
View original
Hi pitchinvasion. Welcome to the site!
I'm afraid I'm not really much of a downloader myself so don't know where you could get the episode from, sorry. A couple of the other people on here are much more knowledgable about where to download Britcom from - hopefully they'll PM you.
In terms of a DVD, Germany is the same region as the UK so you could just import it from Amazon.co.uk... that is if the Beeb ever get around to releasing it on DVD!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, pitchinvasion said:
Thanks Mark, and congrats on the site, its great! Would appreciate it if anyone could PM me if they can help. Maybe Andrew Collins can help :-) Incidentally MTV are starting up a German version of Comedy Central in January, and are showing a lot of British sitcoms. "NGO" is not in the starting line-up but maybe if I badger them enough they will license the series...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
Notice from the news section that Pulling has another series on the way. Anybody know about more NGO?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: steve by any other name @ January 15, 2007, 9:40 AMNotice from the news section that Pulling has another series on the way. Anybody know about more NGO?
View original
Steve - I haven't heard anything about Not Going Out Series 2 yet. BBC1 always seem to take forever to make their minds up about re-commissions (except for when it comes to My Family - they recommission that without blinking thanks to the huge audience figures it brings them).
If they don't recommission it they've officially lost the plot as far as I'm concerned!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I'm sure we'll be the first to know - as soon as Andrew does, anyway.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Dave said:
I didn't like Not Going Out - it tried to be too American, in my opinion, what with having an pointless American character. And the plot was wafer thin! The thing about American sitcom is because they go on for 24 twenty two minute episodes, the writers have to pad it out with thin plots to ensure it goes on for longer. But the BBC only runs a sitcom for six episodes so they should make sure that every one has great plot twists and a good overall storyline, not showing some American woman trying to feed her dog vegerterian food in a park!
I didn't like Not Going Out - it tried to be too American, in my opinion, what with having an pointless American character. And the plot was wafer thin! The thing about American sitcom is because they go on for 24 twenty two minute episodes, the writers have to pad it out with thin plots to ensure it goes on for longer. But the BBC only runs a sitcom for six episodes so they should make sure that every one has great plot twists and a good overall storyline, not showing some American woman trying to feed her dog vegerterian food in a park!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Speaking from memory, I can't really remember any specific plot twists as such, but really didn't get the impression tht it was American or thin in any way either. I kind of agree about the American character though. It was interesting to throw another viewpoint into the mix I suppose, but her voice just grated on me. 
Still, like I've said before, I enjoyed it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
I guess that they just hired Megan Dodds because they thought she was the best actress though. Her nationality probably wasn't that important as they had Catherine Tate in the part before that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
Quote: Nick @ January 16, 2007, 1:47 PMI guess that they just hired Megan Dodds because they thought she was the best actress though. Her nationality probably wasn't that important as they had Catherine Tate in the part before that.
View original
I believe Andrew Collins has said that they had to do a re write once an American was cast in the role.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Well of course they had to tailor the part to suit her but I doubt that they hired her because of her nationality.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Megan Dodds is pretty and thus I'm happy she was in Not Going Out for that reason alone. Yes I'm shallow. That is all.
Actually it's not - just to clear things up - as Steve has said above, according to Andrew Collins the female character was actually written for an English actress to begin with but the part was re-written when it was decided Dodds put in the best audition.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Mark @ January 17, 2007, 5:12 PMMegan Dodds is pretty and thus I'm happy she was in Not Going Out for that reason alone. Yes I'm shallow. That is all.
View original
All Mark needs is a bit o' sitcom hottie-tottie and he's happy.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wheeler said:
Quote: Mark @ January 17, 2007, 5:12 PMMegan Dodds is pretty and thus I'm happy she was in Not Going Out for that reason alone. Yes I'm shallow. That is all.
View original
Couldn't agree more. Stick a cute American woman in a sitcom and I'm a happy man. Even if there wasn't an obvious reason for her to be there (my problem with NGO - would she really have gone out with Tim Vine?), who cares? Also have to say that I found her voice sexy in a quirky kind of way.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Has anybody seen Tim Vine's live DVD? In the extras it has Tim going to his local Pizza Hut and getting turned down by one of the waitresses. It makes me think that he wouldn't have stood much of a chance with Megan Dodds. Due to the fact that the show wasn't really going for realism it didn't really matter though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, monkeybeard said:
megan dodds is pretty and time vine and lee mack are funny = second series please
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Dave said:
I thought Lee Mack could be funny if the script was good. I only saw one episode, but of the 30 minutes I saw, I kinda thought that he had good delivery, but the good lines weren't really there.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh of the Decade said:
Quote: Wheeler @ January 17, 2007, 6:14 PM
my problem with NGO - would she really have gone out with Tim Vine?
View original
I think this shows she has issues with her self confidence. Which also explains her attraction to Mack. There's some pathos for you right there.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Hey, I'm attracted to Mack too!
But not Tim Vine.
That definitely means I win against Megan.
Yup.
:/
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, WXJLtonight said:
Just arrived. I was reading around the Lee Mack site and it says that he is writing the second series of Not Going out on his biography page for 2007. Is this his management being optimistic or has their been good news?.I sincerely hope Andrew and Lee get the go ahead on a second series. I do miss traditional sitcoms and certainly think this one deserves another series. I thought it was ok after the first episode but by the third I wanted to tune in every week. Sat and watched with my dad one night and he enjoyed it too. Loved the quick fire style and thought the characters warmed up as the series went on. Found lots of laugh out loud moments. As a yoga do-er, the yoga episode..
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
FYI - Not Going Out has been recommissioned for a second season. Full Story
It's good news in my opinion!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I can't remember watching this, but if it was on BBC1 it must be shit
Seeing as their both quick fire gag merchants, they don't talk like that in the show do they? Because I'm not sure if I could get on with that style, don't get me wrong I like their stand up, but in a show, I'm not to sure, I'll have to check it out before I judge I suppose.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
That was something I was really worried about at first, Leevil. In fact, I really didn't like the first episode as I found it was way too fake and exactly like that.
However, I caught it purely by chance on the third episode and was hooked. Don't know whether it toned down or I had been over-sensitive or what, but it just 'worked'. Didn't feel fake in that way, didn't feel overloading. Just very, very funny.
And more than happy Andrew and Lee have a recommission. Well done guys!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Good news - I really enjoyed this. Encouraging that they can recommission funny stuff as well as shite. Bit worried about Tim Vine being on Celebrity Fame Academy though... his songs are an acquired taste
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Quote: Aaron @ February 27, 2007, 12:49 AMThat was something I was really worried about at first, Leevil. In fact, I really didn't like the first episode as I found it was way too fake and exactly like that.
View original
My thoughts exactly, I’m happy to see it got a new series it will give me and the actors more time to feel comfortable with the characters.
Congratulations to Andrew
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, logboy said:
it was quite good, the first series. if youve seen either lee mack or tim vine do stand-up routines though, youll have heard chunks of this material before, which makes it feel a little lazy. still, as traditional comedians i cant think of two i like better, they do a good job of sharp, accessible comedy.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Not Going Out has won the 2007 Situation Comedy Rose D'Or! Story here.
Congrats to Andrew and Lee!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Lewis Roberts said:
well done to them for winning this award, very deserved in my book and i look forward to series two
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ed Parnell said:
You actually mean they beat 'After You've Gone?'
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Ed Parnell @ May 14, 2007, 10:54 AMYou actually mean they beat 'After You've Gone?'
View original
After You've Gone wasn't nominated. Not Going Out beat some pretty respected international comedies: Alle lieben Jimmy, Dr. Psycho, Legit, The Lighthouse, Little Mosque on the Prairie, The Royle Family, The Thick Of It, Turkisch fur Anfanger
The Golden Rose is one of the top four awards a British comedy can pick up IMHO (the other three being British Comedy Award, BAFTA, Golden Globe)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I watched this tonight and really enjoyed it. It was just silly fun, I've been a bit pissed off tonight, but it really helped me chill out.
I'll be watching next week now.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I really enjoyed last nights. I think i remember only watching the 1st episode and maybe some of the 2nd when it was first on.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Yeah same with me, watched the first episode and didn't think much of it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Erm... Is anyone else a little bit in love with Lee Mack, now?
Apart from being a great comic, I love the little bits of 'I'm in love with her but I can't say' acting he does in this series.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Last repeat tonight. : (
How long d'you think the next series will take to come?....
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
The next series is not actually that far away... It'll be shown this October / November time if they have it edited in time. If not it should be December / Jan.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Watched it tonight and there were some very funny lines and obviously some aimed at the fact she's a yank. The thing is she is such a terrible actress. Her voice is really infuriating.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I forgot about it! It's on at a weird time. I don't like that yank, what accent is that? I'll be sure not to visit where ever she comes from... *America*
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
lol
America is worth visiting.
Mainly Vegas.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I have family there, their American, I try to avoid it personally.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
My sympathies.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Even worse, some of them are of the hill-billy variety.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
That figures!!!!!!!!!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Thems inbreds are coming to getchu!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Mark @ June 4, 2007, 11:35 PMThe next series is not actually that far away... It'll be shown this October / November time if they have it edited in time. If not it should be December / Jan.
View original
Hurray!
Thanks Mark.
(Thark)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Dave said:
I saw an episode of Not Going Out when it was originally on. It was the one when Lee Mack has that goth kid round.
Personally, I didn't think it was up to much at all. Lee was good at answering dead quick, but the thing was, the stuff he said wasn't funny, so he wasn't quick-witted in the true sense of the word.
And that American woman in the park with her dog. Was that some sketch Mack and Andrew Collins thought up in their coffee break?
They should get rid of the American and stop pretending it's an American show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
How xeno-whatshisname. : )
That is what most people seem to think after one isolated watch. If you gave it another go, I'm sure it'd suck you in.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Dave said:
Who's xeno-whatshisname?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I think he's some bloke who sits in the pub moaning about foreigners.
; )
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
She means "xenophobic".
And Dave, if you're going to pick just ONE to watch, that's probably the worst to choose. Well worth getting a look at the others.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
It's a strange one really. It's like some fairly good stand-up in a sitcom setting which doesn't really work with an infuriating American woman.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Dave said:
I'll willing to give it another go - maybe I can catch it on tv links or something. Lee Mack is a likeable guy and I like Andrew Collin's stuff too.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I just watched the last 3 episodes on not going out i genuinly like it. The biggest problem i think is that i don't think i'll ever LOVE it. I can't when i don't actually care about anyone it. I think the set-up jokes are as good as i've ever seen in a sit com. I just don't believe so much of it. I don't believe he lives in that apartment, i don't believe in her and i don't care if they're happy or not. I'm glad it's gonna be on again though because i think they may be able to iron some of these things out.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I care!
But I agree that the apartment doesn't feel right.
Also, they barely ever mentioned what she's supposed to do for a living. I only just worked out in the last episode she was some kind of agent/publisher. But maybe I wasn't concentrating.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
personally i think its a pure gag-fest. There is no real charcter depth, but is there supposed to be? I love Vine and Mack's stand-up routines but found it a bit weird seeing it directly transported into a sitcom. I can see why people like it as it is funny, but I didn't really get into the characters and plot as these were clearly secondary to the jokes. A lot of people like that, so fair play.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
There is character depth! In the Lee being in love with thingy... thing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Walker said:
Yes, the American girl? Kate? Is that it? I don't know. The whole triangle thing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Have to say, I'd not been able to put my finger on it before, but Josh and Nuts have got it. Yes, it's funny - very funny, IMO - but I just don't feel a real connection to the characters like that. Not entirely soul-less of course, but something kind of missing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well, I don't *think* I feel a connection just because I fancy him. But it's always possible.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
I like it a lot... but there are just too many gags. And I never thought I'd be able to say that about any sitcom.
It's almost like the bit in a Disney cartoon where all the inanimate objects start singing and you just wish they'd get on with the story.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Lewis Roberts said:
I also like it a lot, and find it easy to watch, but i do find that although most of the gags are funny there isn't enough build up, where in only fools and horses, the most memorable scenes have a lot of build up, like the fall through the bar, he is trying to act all swish for the ladies and he falls over, in NGO there isn't any of these, there is just quick fire gags, as a stand up myself, i love the fact it is very stand up comedy-ish, but as a sit-come it is good but not great. (that is the most sense i have talked on here for weeks, i feel like a ramble now.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Chiaroscuro said:
Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ June 8, 2007, 6:15 PMI like it a lot... but there are just too many gags. And I never thought I'd be able to say that about any sitcom.
View original
Too many gags?! You're like the emperor who told Mozart there were too many notes in his opera.
Quote:
It's almost like the bit in a Disney cartoon where all the inanimate objects start singing and you just wish they'd get on with the story.
The stories are pretty thin though, aren't they? I don't think that's a bad thing for this show though. It just works, but I wouldn't want it getting bogged down with the characters' personal lives or it would be in danger of turning into...[whispers]Friends[/whispers].
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
It basically IS standup with the routines veeeerrrrryyy loosely joined up into a sitcom.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Lewis Roberts @ June 8, 2007, 8:01 PMi do find that although most of the gags are funny there isn't enough build up, where in only fools and horses, the most memorable scenes have a lot of build up, like the fall through the bar, he is trying to act all swish for the ladies and he falls over, in NGO there isn't any of these, there is just quick fire gags
View original
I disagree. In one episode (I forget which), there's a great set up throughout the whole show about Lee working in animal suits, giving out advert leaflets, with an absolutely brilliant payoff towards the end.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
I'm talking about balance. Light and shade. The spaces are as important as the... er, filled-in bits! In music and art... and comedy.
NGO would still be a million miles from Friends. Even with a bit more 'story'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Lewis Roberts said:
Quote: Aaron @ June 8, 2007, 11:15 PM
I disagree. In one episode (I forget which), there's a great set up throughout the whole show about Lee working in animal suits, giving out advert leaflets, with an absolutely brilliant payoff towards the end.
View original
I knew there was a few, but i think that a lot of the gags could have better build ups, although i wouldn't like it to go too intimate on the characters, i think the one you speak of Aaron is the one when The american girls aussie friend comes to stay and her and lee pretend to be a couple and looking back on it there was another gag in that very episode with some build up which came much earlier in the episode, where Kates (i think that is the characters name) has a woody doll and it says "if i was it will you touch it" so saying there isn't any build up was wrong on my part, and as a stand up i love the quick fire and well timed delivery, and i could watch it over and over, just a few more 'in-depth' storylines would make it better IMO.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: David Chapman @ June 8, 2007, 9:00 PMIt basically IS standup with the routines veeeerrrrryyy loosely joined up into a sitcom.
View original
I think that describes it best. But I think the writers must of intended it to be like that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
They probably did. I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
*ahem*
http://www.tvrecordings.com/show_detail.asp?ShowID=125
Thought people might be interested.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Unless my maths is incorrect, i guess that means there will be 8 episodes in the 2nd series. I hope that they're not spreading their material too thin.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Teddington?!
And Nick, there may actually be more added. From what's up now though, I'd guess 7 + Christmas special.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Andrew Collins (the co-writer) told us a while back that they were writing seven more episodes. I guess one of those dates is either a warm-up trial run, chance to re-film some scenes or a backup date in case someone is ill. Or perhaps there is a Christmas special coming after all!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Ah, 7 more episodes. Maybe they had another one left over already...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hellboy said:
did you hear kenn dodd died ???
did he ??
no dodd he.
great program
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Rob B said:
Looked at the TV recordings site and it seems that they've dropped the American bird for somebody called Sally Bretton? Didn't like the American bird to start with, but after I got used to the accent I thought she was pretty good, and she was hot looking too. Not sure it will be the same
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Welcome Rob and Thanks can’t say I’ll miss that voice
Quote: Rob B @ July 4, 2007, 3:58 PMsomebody called Sally Bretton?
View original
She was last seen in Green Wing, the pretty office girl
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Oh, she always plays slappers. Let's hope she's extending her range.
At least everyone can shut up complaining about the 'annoying' American now.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Ironically, the American girl (brain's gone blank for a name) grew on me during the repeats.
Still, I'm sure it'll be great in the new series.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Megan Dodd's is gone? Say it ain't so.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, danield1000 said:
I'm not sure if I like this show so far feels very stand up but must of taken ages to think of all the gags. I liked sally bretton in green wing so thats a plus to the show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Rob B said:
To quote the site.
"We have a strictly limited number of tickets available for exclusive read-throughs for the Rose d’Or and RTS award-winning sitcom NOT GOING OUT starring BAFTA winners LEE MACK and TIM VINE, and this series introducing SALLY BRETTON and MIRANDA HART.
Now that his flatmate Kate has moved back to America, Lee (LEE MACK) is faced with homelessness when his best mate and landlord Tim (fellow BAFTA winner and stand-up, TIM VINE) puts the apartment up for sale.
Unable to buy the flat himself due to his enduring inability to earn a steady income, Lee is forced to rent the spare room from the flat’s new owner, Tim's ambitious younger sister Lucy (SALLY BRETTON). Unsurprisingly, the arrangement turns out to be far from perfect.
Sibling rivalry turns into full-on anxiety as Tim quickly becomes suspicious of Lee's feelings for his kid sister, whilst Lucy grows more and more worried about her brother's inability to get an acceptable girlfriend - or a promotion. To top it all, happy-go-lucky Lee starts to seriously question the suitability of his new flatmate's boyfriend. "
I seem to recall Miranda Hart was already in one episode as a hypnotherapist, so it will be interesting to see how she's integrated.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but I'm surprised Lee doesn't play a stand-up in the show a-la Seinfeld.
He probably does, I've only seen 1 or 2 episodes.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Rob B @ July 4, 2007, 3:58 PMLooked at the TV recordings site and it seems that they've dropped the American bird for somebody called Sally Bretton? Didn't like the American bird to start with, but after I got used to the accent I thought she was pretty good, and she was hot looking too. Not sure it will be the same
View original
Hi Rob. Welcome to the site.
I was a bit of a fan of Megan Dodds (the American) in a visual sense too
Sally Bretton is quite easy on the eye too though thankfully (you may have seen her in Green Wing playing Kim or as Donna, the new girl in The Office).
Sally Bretton
- versus -
Megan Dodds
Tough one.
Incidently here's some details about the forthcoming read throughs...
Quote:Not Going Out Exclusive Read-throughs
- visit www.tvrecordings.com to book your FREE tickets online.
We have a strictly limited number of FREE tickets available for exclusive read-throughs for the Rose d'Or and RTS award-winning sitcom NOT GOING OUT starring BAFTA winners LEE MACK and TIM VINE, and this series introducing SALLY BRETTON and MIRANDA HART.
Now that his flatmate Kate has moved back to America, Lee (LEE MACK) is faced with homelessness when his best mate and landlord Tim (fellow BAFTA winner and stand-up, TIM VINE) puts the apartment up for sale.
Unable to buy the flat himself due to his enduring inability to earn a steady income, Lee is forced to rent the spare room from the flat's new owner, Tim's ambitious younger sister Lucy (SALLY BRETTON). Unsurprisingly, the arrangement turns out to be far from perfect.
Sibling rivalry turns into full-on anxiety as Tim quickly becomes suspicious of Lee's feelings for his kid sister, whilst Lucy grows more and more worried about her brother's inability to get an acceptable girlfriend - or a promotion. To top it all, happy-go-lucky Lee starts to seriously question the suitability of his new flatmate's boyfriend.
The read-throughs take place on the 18, 19, 20 July at The Gate Theatre, Notting Hill Gate Tube – doors open at 19:00.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Mark @ July 4, 2007, 10:14 PM
Sally Bretton
- versus -
Megan Dodds
Tough one.
View original
Not that hard, surely? (No pun intended.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Yay! I love Miranda Hart.
I think she was Lee's acupuncturist.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Greg Sammons said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 9, 2007, 4:13 PMI think the writers must of intended it to be like that.
View original
I had the honour of chatting to one of the writers, before the sitcom had been broadcast, and he was saying how when he was explaining to Lee how,
"This line sets up this line"
Lee would just say,
"Yeah but that line needs to be a gag too"
Still, I think he enjoyed the challenge - and it certainly reaped rewards.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Greg Sammons @ July 5, 2007, 6:21 PMStill, I think he enjoyed the challenge - and it certainly reaped rewards.
View original
As it happens, if you flick back through this thread a bit you'll find a couple of posts from Andrew on here. He was also kind enough to let us interview him - as a general note to everyone it's worth a read: (interview)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, earman2009 said:
I don't know if anyone else has asked this on a previous page and quite frankly I can't be arsed to go through that many pages to check. Is there any news on a DVD release for this?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Not that I know but aren't the repeats still on?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
No David; they finished at least a month ago.
Re DVD, nothing definite as yet, but almost certainly out just in time for the new series (and of course Christmas rush).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, earman2009 said:
There shouldn't be a huge wait then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Miranda Hart is bloody awful.
Hope they don't change it too much - it's quite American the way they've made positive and assertive alterations really, not many shows address problems within the structure.