Close
Gavin & Stacey
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
This looks interesting.
I'll make a point of watching it as Alison Steadman is always class. Isn't she the mother in law of "H'ard" in Worst Week of my Life?
Rob Brydon is on Jonathan Ross on Radio 2 this morning - probably talking about it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I'm not too keen, I heard it's not too far from Two Pints.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
It's always worth a shot... and yes, Alison Steadman is very good in everything she does.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 12, 2007, 10:12 AMThis looks interesting.
I'll make a point of watching it as Alison Steadman is always class. Isn't she the mother in law of "H'ard" in Worst Week of my Life?
Rob Brydon is on Jonathan Ross on Radio 2 this morning - probably talking about it.
View original
Yes she is, and is he in it? I don't think I've spotted him on the adverts.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 12, 2007, 10:17 AMI'm not too keen, I heard it's not too far from Two Pints.
View original
It's so much better than 2 Pints, it's not even on the same level.
But i watched episode 1 online and thought it was great. Ruth Jones plays her chaacter really well and Alison Steadman and her husband are great to watch.
It's not laugh a minute but it's got enough jokes to keep you wanting me. Also watch out for the "powdering your nose" joke.
Rob Brydon is in it, only for like 2 scenes on the 1st episode.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Just watched the clips on the BBC Three website, didn't notice one joke in any of them. I can't tell it apart from any other recent British sitcom that's been on BBC Three (except Ideal).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 12, 2007, 10:55 AM
Yes she is, and is he in it? I don't think I've spotted him on the adverts.
View original
Yes Rob Brydon is in it. You should check out the website guide
http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/tv/gavin_stacey/Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 12, 2007, 12:23 PMJust watched the clips on the BBC Three website, didn't notice one joke in any of them. I can't tell it apart from any other recent British sitcom that's been on BBC Three (except Ideal).
View original
Not sure if you realise Martin but the first two episodes are online. Its not an 'in your face' sitcom, more one which looks to generate laughs via more subtle methods. It's a 1,000,000 times better than Two Pints IMHO, but then again seeing as I have a un-explainable hatred of that pikey 'comedy' don't read too much into that figure.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Yeah BBC Three videos never seem to work properly for me, it maybe because they play in Real Player, but whatever it is I can't get them to work properly.
But judging from the clips it looks bad, it's not exactly subtle is it "Your Uncle's coming around with the rape alarm, he couldn't find pepper spray, so you'll have to make do with the alarm", ooh they mentioned 'rape' and they mentioned 'peadophile' before that..how daring and imaginative. I will watch the first two episodes tommorow and give them a proper chance, but from what I've seen so far its more of the same old stuff.
And as much as I don't like Two Pints at least it has the occasional joke or an attempt at one, rather than just using 'uncomfortable awkward humour'. And the first episode ever of Two Pints was really good, it went down hill after that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Mark @ May 12, 2007, 7:07 PMYes Rob Brydon is in it. You should check out the website guide
View original
You should know by now that I'm unashamedly lazy.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Just watched it, only good bits were Rob Brydon and Don't look back into the sun.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Just watched the 1st episode on-line...meh.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Saw the writer on Soccer AM - yet another case of the old boy network. Another nail in the new writers' coffin.
Two known actors put in a brief 'idea' for a one-off about a 'wedding where nothing much happens' and the beeb tells them to write a series. Never written anything before this, never wrote a redraft, wrote 6 episodes in 3 months, so therefore thumbs up from the Beeb.
Can any of us here imagine sending in one paragraph about 'a wedding where nothing much happens' and getting a reply to expand it into a whole series?
Please shoot me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Bang.
Right - well it seems from everything on this site that BBC is a total waste of our time.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Have to say, it wasn't 'laugh a minute', but I really enjoyed it. Will definitely be watching the rest.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: SlagA @ May 13, 2007, 9:24 PM
Two known actors put in a brief 'idea' for a one-off about a 'wedding where nothing much happens' and the beeb tells them to write a series. Never written anything before this, never wrote a redraft, wrote 6 episodes in 3 months, so therefore thumbs up from the Beeb.
View original
Just seen the two episodes. Liked it a lot.
Got to hand it to the BBC that they recognised from a 'brief idea' that something as good as this would be forthcoming. The BabyCow mafia helps, of course.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ed Parnell said:
I couldn't get into it. It seemed a little too...I don't know. Kind of contrived, really. Although I can see what they were doing. Flowed well. Just not a lot of jokes there, or if there were I missed them!
Not unknown.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
a) shes a... b) shes a... and three shes a...
Why can't I think of lines like that?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
I hope that wasn't a serious question ajp29. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
So... no good then? I missed it... was hoping to catch the repeat on Thursday... or at least record it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 14, 2007, 11:36 AMI hope that wasn't a serious question ajp29.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ May 14, 2007, 2:19 PMSo... no good then? I missed it... was hoping to catch the repeat on Thursday... or at least record it.
View original
I really enjoyed it. Give it a go.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I liked it. Its not laugh-a-minute but a nice story with a few good laughs. I was getting a bit sick of Matthew Horne being in everything but its a role he does well. I will be watching more.
Star spotters will have noticed Julia Davis in episode two. Fantastic lines.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Oh bugger, I didn't watch episode 2.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I thought it was great, really funny, warm and full of great characters plalyed expertly by a really good cast. Watch it without bringing a load of cynical baggage to the table and you might just enjoy it you know.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 14, 2007, 6:05 PMI thought it was great, really funny, warm and full of great characters plalyed expertly by a really good cast. Watch it without bringing a load of cynical baggage to the table and you might just enjoy it you know.
View original
I agree with that. There are quite a few comedy writer wannabes here that seem to slate everything from the start. Everyone has different tastes when it comes to comedy but I think you have to be quite broad minded and less cynical if you want to write for it. Alternatively, you have to write something better. Good luck.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Don't take my cynical baggage from me, its all i have.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 12, 2007, 10:12 AMThis looks interesting.
I'll make a point of watching it
View original
Well I didn't make much of a point did I?
Very mixed opinions I see so "I'll make a point of watching it" on Thursday.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ed Parnell said:
Am I able to take cynical hand luggage?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 14, 2007, 6:56 PMI agree with that. There are quite a few comedy writer wannabes here that seem to slate everything from the start. Everyone has different tastes when it comes to comedy but I think you have to be quite broad minded and less cynical if you want to write for it. Alternatively, you have to write something better. Good luck.
View original
Hear, hear! I've been thinking (and occasionally saying) the same thing for months now. It's rather indicative, in a way. And, I fear, may very well be keeping our membercount down.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
To self 'Think positive thoughts, think positive thoughts'
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I totally agree about the cynical baggage thing, but go to any other comedy forum and that's *all* there is. We should be grateful there's as little as there is here.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Well said Zooo. I like to think that we praise and criticise in equal measure the things we like and don't like.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
It seems to me that anything newly-commissioned tends to get hammered by a lot of the writers on the forum. This, then, smacks of 'a writer scorned'.
However, I have done no analysis on this and it could be a false impression.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I totally agree. But heyho. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Its mainly only stuff which is lower than the standards we set oursleves. No writer here has criticised the new series of Peep Show because we recognise how talented the writers are. But I agree that it inevitably informs our opinion (I'm being very grown up today...Boobs, bush, minge. Thats better).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Well, yes of course, but the trouble is, stuff like My Family, After You've Gone, and dare I say even Two Pints and My Hero are very popular, despite the 'quality' of the actual humour. If it's what the public wants, then it's what the public wants. Less time should be spent complaining and point-blank deriding these shows, and much more time spent appreciating what aspects of them make them so popular! Obviously as a writer one wouldn't want to recreate another show (aside from its popularity perhaps), but surely the first step to commissioning success for a new writer is to work out what the current trends are, and, well not emulate them, but take them into account?
Well that made sense to me anyway. Hmph.
Mini-rant over.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
I agree with you Aaron. I was just trying to explain why sometimes we criticise. I don't think I did it very well. But as a rule I think you should be positive unless something really really annoys you. Because being flippant is stupid and can annoy people, then you're arguing for/against something you don't really feel that strongly about. (I'm being grownup again...pants, bum and bugger [not instrcuctions btw])
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Very wise words tonight!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
When you're as old as me you remember stuff that really was good (Yawn yawn).
A lot of stuff seems so lazy and just gets littered with swear words for a few extra laughs. (who said Boring old git?)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
I'm getting that already David. I'm longing for the glorius days of Britpop. What will it be next 'those were the days George Bush, Iraq and Terrorism.'
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
I think if something is good it will get praised, if its below standards it will get criticised, that's fair I say.
I don't dislike every new commissioned series, when Ideal firs started a couple of years ago I really liked that and still do. Same with Peep Show, The Thick Of It, Early Doors.
It's just that we get more bad comedies than good comedies, so expect more complaining. And just because a show appeals to some people doesn't mean that you have to pretend to yourself that maybe it is actually good.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I just try to give my honest opinion. I'm passionate about writing and comedy itself. I think it's good that we pull apart a new script and analyse it to see what works, what doesn't, what's cheap and what's quality.
For a bad example; My dad hates those Builders From Hell type shows, because it gives everyone else a bad name, making everyone think their all cowboys, my dad, who is actually a gardener, which they do feature, gets concerned that it will effect his business.
My point being that we care about our business, we don't want British comedy to be a laughing stock(bit of irony for you there) We want to produce quality and we'll jump to the defence when obviously poor shows get produced because it's the safe thing to do.
Here's a bad metaphor: Would you rather buy the supermarket brand or the better quality named brand?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Ideal is really good because -
A) It's an original and slightly dangerous theme
B) It's well written
C) It's well acted
Not many other new series can boost all 3. Just B & C would be a start.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
The problem with comedy (and the good thing) is that it is so subjective. However, this means that when you criticise a show that others like it will be seen as cynicism because the other person can't see why you don't like it. When you agree with someone you can relax knowing that you both have excellent taste in comedy.
Brushing off contrary opinion as sour grapes is easy unless it's a show that you personally dislike, then does it suddenly become considered opinion? I enjoy finding out why people like or dislike a show. I think differences just mean that there's another reason to celebrate individuality, rather than a reason to get mad at each other.
My main gripe was derived from the writer's own comment about the origin of the series. Ask yourselves this question:
How can an executive tell from a half sheet of A4 that describes a different scenario to the one that the executive wants (with it's main premise being quote 'a wedding in which nothing much happens') that it's comedy gold? How does he then send the writers a reply that says go write 6 episodes of a different series?
Does the fact that the 1/2 page sheet of vague description come from 2 known names in the ascendancy have something to do with it? Would that same sheet of vague ideas have generated the request to write a series on a different premise if it had come from you or me?
Be honest.
To counter the earlier claim that the executive 'saw genius' in the idea, he clearly didn't. He told them to go away and write something different. So what he saw on the paper wasn't brilliant, or he'd have said 'write that' instead.
If we really believe that a vague idea gets such a response through talent alone, why are we wasting our time writing complete pilots? Just send off the vague idea and win a commission writing an idea that the producer suggests instead.
Whether the show is good or bad is personal opinion but bear in mind that when you have the Beeb and Baby Cow involved it's going to end up slick because of their input. For an example of how creative input along the line can lift a script, look at the Office. As a script alone it died. No one saw potential in it. It took a pilot to make the rejected script come alive. When everyone got involved the end-result was way above the script. There are plenty of examples where the reverse happened but having the Beeb and Baby Cow involved is going to let a script reach max potential.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
I did read somewhere at an award do Steve Coogan said to Ruth Jones, "You scrub up well, do you want to play my wife in my new series?" That series was the one he did to do with pets, name escapes me.
I watched the two episodes online and it was what I come to expect. It meandered along in a quite harmless way but there were no laughs and everything seemed to go as planned. Not really a comedy IMO. I didn't bother watching Ep 3 but if he's proposing in Ep 2 they're going at a brisk pace.
Some of the scenes like where he was doing a pub quiz, what did that tell us? The main characters barely spoke to each other. The scene about the sunglasses and the spot was first draft stuff I thought.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Well maybe if you did the BBC would give you a series. I personally thought this was one of the finest comedies i've seen in years. I have to go back to The Office for something with such brilliantly observed characters and performances. My only problem is that it's on BBC3? It seems odd when it's such a cut above everything on 1 or 2. Only Peep show for me stands up against it.
Slag, in answer to your concerns about the vague half sheet of A4 paper being a wedding about nothing, i heard both Gavin and Stacey writer on the Fred Mcauley show on monday and they said they wanted to make a tv film about a wedding but in with the proposal they put a back story of how the leads characters met and stuff. It seems it was this that the BBC saw "genius" in. I had never heard of the bloke writer before so i would hardly call them known writers. Oh and by the way, i just watched ep 3 online and thought it was incredible. Best thing Rob Brydon has ever done. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I don't want to divide the forum down the lines of comedy audience and prospective comedy writers but when you do something (or try to) you get to know how it's done, so when I watch this show along with the Slags and Martin Holmes (and others) we see that the writers have made simple, lazy choices. They also cannot write jokes – there are none – only 'funny' scenes. Some of the humour also relys on the fact that Ruth Jones is fat. I mean, christ.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Hi Josh,
I meant that they were reasonably well known names within the 'Biz'. Sadly, it seems if an actor fancies his hand at writing, he has instant platform that gives him an unfair edge over other novices.
Takeabow said that the last mainstream show to be commissioned from real unknowns was apparently Operation Goodguys, way back. That's sobering.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I don't know about the others, but one of the writers of Operation Goodguys was Ray Burdis, who was already an established actor, although not as big as Ruth Jones (See, I can do fat jokes as well) so it wasn't written by unknowns either. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I thought it was great, and I was getting at people earlier who had been slagging it off because many were doing it without having even seen it! Theyd 'heard things' or seen clips, and on the basis of that were running the show down, which is just idiotic. Personally I dont think the writing was lazy, it was spot on, and very funny. And I do think that a lot of people take a delight in running shows down, every comedy has to be a stone cold classic or it seems to be deemed a failure, I dont think any other genre of TV is judged so harshly, so black and white-ly.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 18, 2007, 3:08 AM... the writers have made simple, lazy choices. They also cannot write jokes – there are none – only 'funny' scenes. Some of the humour also relys on the fact that Ruth Jones is fat. I mean, christ.
View original
But a comedy is meant to be funny. It doesn't necessarily need jokes (although I don't agree for a moment that there were none) to make it funny. Look at The Office. People seem to love that so much that they'd sleep with Ricky Gervais, but is there an actual joke anywhere in the show? (As opposed to bad jokes told by the characters as part of the story.) Not from what I've seen there aren't.
And whether the choices were extensively considered or "simple [and] lazy", that doesn't detract from their value to the audience. If it's funny, it's funny. If it's not, it's not. Evidently some of us here find it funny, and some don't. Doesn't make "simple [and] lazy" bad.
As for basing jokes on Jones's size, again, if it works it works. Evidently the writers, commisioners, script editors, etc etc - and yes, myself - thought that it did. There's nothing wrong with it. It's just a different level and kind of humour, and one which you evidently don't go for.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 18, 2007, 5:00 PMPersonally I dont think the writing was lazy, it was spot on, and very funny. And I do think that a lot of people take a delight in running shows down, every comedy has to be a stone cold classic or it seems to be deemed a failure, I dont think any other genre of TV is judged so harshly, so black and white-ly.
View original
Hear, hear!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
You guys obviously aren't familiar with the internet then. Every genre of TV gets judged harshly by its main critics, if your a movie buff there will be a forum out there judging every new movie just as harshly, same goes for drama's, documentaries etc.
This is a comedy forum so expect comedy to be judged.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 18, 2007, 5:05 PM
Look at The Office. People seem to love that so much that they'd sleep with Ricky Gervais, but is there an actual joke anywhere in the show? (As opposed to bad jokes told by the characters as part of the story.)
View original
Aaron, as you know I'm not a huge Gervais fan, but I wouldn't argue that he can't write. And there are lots of jokes in the Office. Since you asked, here's a joke from the first scene of the first episode.
BRENT: (Into phone)
I'm seeing you Sunday aren't I? –
For my sins... How is Elaine?
She left you yet? Yeah... Alright, see you then...
HE PUTS PHONE DOWN AND GRITS TEETH
BRENT:
She has left him, I forgot about that.
-----------------------------------
Why I think G & S is lazy – look at the scene in the first episode where Stacey receives advice from the old woman in the street. The old woman says something like 'don't let him go too far, a kiss and a cuddle, that's all...' And you just know that the next line is going to be something like 'Don't let him bum you' or 'don't suck him off' and it is! Because the people who wrote it think that it would be hilarious if an old person said something crude and unlikely. In fact it was totally expected. That's what I mean about lazy writing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
That's not a joke as such though is it.
It's funny though because of the situations.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
That is a joke, it has as set up and a punchline. But yeah The Office doesn't have a lot of jokes, hence why it is not "high quality comedy" its just a pretty good comedy in recent times.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Punch line? Where?
But that's not to say I don't think it's funny. It is one of the best sitcoms of the last few years.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I don't think a good comedy has to contain a lot of jokes or been defined by how good it is by the jokes. To me a well written comedy is something with good character development, making you care about the characters and believe anything they say.
Jokes and Situations are important to make it recognisable as a comedy, but joke and situations can happen to anyone.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 18, 2007, 7:02 PMAaron, as you know I'm not a huge Gervais fan, but I wouldn't argue that he can't write.
View original
I didn't either (well I didn't then anyway). That's my point. A show doesn't have to have a lot of jokes to be good. As long as it's funny, it's funny. Doesn't matter how the funny comes about.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
The seen with the old lady actually actually says,"well no not nothing, a kiss, a cuddle, a cheeky finger just don't go selling him the whole farm!"
For me that was a laugh out loud line. So did the Times who gave it 5 stars, the metro who gave it 5 stars and the bbc who have already recommisioned it. I truly think this could be the best new series since phoenix nights.
I meant to say sCene! Sorry it's late x
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Okay, well some of you are thinking of a joke as 'how do you get four giraffes into a mini?' Very few sitcoms contain this kind of humour. Their jokes are like the one I quoted from the office.
An example of a joke from Gavin and Stacey is Ruth Jones saying have you seen my thong, and the chubby lad turning up wearing it. This is also a very lazy and hackneyed joke, but this sitcom appears to be the new home of feeble, overused gags.
What about that one of Alison Steadman's knickers on the radiator being mistaken for bedsheets? I had to mop the floor after that one...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
How do you get four giraffes into a mini?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 18, 2007, 11:31 PMThe seen with the old lady actually actually says,"well no not nothing, a kiss, a cuddle, a cheeky finger just don't go selling him the whole farm!"
For me that was a laugh out loud line. So did the Times who gave it 5 stars, the metro who gave it 5 stars and the bbc who have already recommisioned it. I truly think this could be the best new series since phoenix nights.
I meant to say sCene! Sorry it's late x
View original
5 stars? Out of what, a hundred?
The BBC recommissioned Jam & Jerusalem, and DIDN'T greenlight a series of Dave Spikey's excellent Magnolia.
Quote: Leevil @ May 18, 2007, 11:48 PMHow do you get four giraffes into a mini?
View original
It used to be 'two in the front and two in the back', but these days I prefer 'you can't, they've been commissioned to write a sitcom by the BBC.'
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
I don't think Peep Show has any jokes in it, has it? There doesn't seem to be set-ups and punchlines just situations and recognisible characters who behave consistently. I know Mark would rather be in bed with a Blue Riband and a book while a party goes on in his flat and that's what's funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
If you laugh at anything, it was because there was a joke.
Unless you're a cruel, insane bastard, in which case Crimewatch might make you laugh.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 19, 2007, 12:30 AMDoes Crimewatch make you laugh?
View original
Yes...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
It was funny when they reconstructed a teenage rape and the actress got pregnant.
Did I say that? 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Haha, that's brilliant if it's true.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
True? Of course it's not true!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Very good acting if it was.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Quote: David H @ May 19, 2007, 12:25 AMI don't think Peep Show has any jokes in it, has it? There doesn't seem to be set-ups and punchlines just situations and recognisible characters who behave consistently. I know Mark would rather be in bed with a Blue Riband and a book while a party goes on in his flat and that's what's funny.
View original
It is a very character based comedy but it still has its fair share of jokes. From last nights show when Jez said that him and Superhans had played "Melon-Cock" or whatever they called it. And then Nancy goes to eat the Melon with the hole in it. Although this was then ruined when Jez re-emphasised this joke by pointing it out to us, just in case we missed it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Ruined? Not really.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Well okay ruined was a strong word. But took something away from the original joke, we got it, we didn't need it pointing out to us, we're not stupid.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
How did he point it out?
Him saying 'Don't eat that'?
He didn't say 'cause we had our dicks in it last night'.
Or did he...? I may have forgotten.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Didn't he say "that's bad melon." He didn't really point it out like in our faces.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Sorry, didn't see Peep Show, but I can't believe somebody put their dick in a melon. What's wrong with Hovis? Or Kingsmill if you've got money to burn.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Yeah but he said previously that they put their dicks in the melons right...funny.
Then we see Nancy taking out the melon with a hole in it...really funny.
Jez then saying "Don't eat that, it's bad melon"...just seemed like a "Hey just incase you forgot about the dick in the melon part and missed the visual gag...let me spell it out for you, she's about to eat the same melon".
Still the rest of the show was fantastic.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Look - although I meant to do so I missed Gavin & Stacey
Comedy doesn't need jokes (with punch lines)- it just needs to make people laugh.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
That's the point! The bedsheets line isn't meant to be a "joke" it's something the character would say. It's something that someone like that character does say, it's the type of lame joke my dad would say. I just can't find anything wrong with the series yet. Jam and Jerusalem got good viewing figures i think, but the bbc recommissioned this before it ever aired. I just think it's so fresh. I can't see how it's lazy at all. Great actors, shot brilliantly, great soundtrack. I mean if it's not your thing godot that's fine but i can't see what there is to criticise.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Josh, I've only been criticising the script.
There isn't a problem with the acting or the direction or the production values. It's just poorly written. In fact, after watching the first two episodes again on BBC3 tonight I realised that I cut this programme too much slack.
It's actually awfully written.
Weren't you embarrassed by the ending to episode two? The scene where the guard objected to the couple kissing over the barriers? The appearance of an armed response unit because Gavin jumped the barriers! If you think this is even on the outskirts of possible, you don't live in London.
Also, did you see that in episode one Gav got a black cab from Picadilly Circus back to Essex!
You won't get a central London black cab to go as far South as the Elephant and Castle, let alone Billericay, which must be forty miles away. The fare would have been about £200.
It would have been more realistic to have Gavin teleport to Billericay.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
But that's the point! He paid a fortune for the cab cos he just had to get there to see her. Also regarding the armed response unit, he was holding a bag and jumped the barrier. Didn't someone get shot last year like 11 times by an armed response unit for pretty much the same thing?! What about the stuff in the quiz, i thought it was fantastic. I think the form of the script is unique, and i feel it's really rare to have a sit-com with such strong seriel elements and i think it's this that makes it so good.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Josh, since you've just joined and you'll seem to go to any lengths to cover the arse of this show I'm guessing you're involved in the production, right?
Paying £200 for the cab is not the point, yes that would work well to show how smitten he was, but first he has to get £200. Most people of his age couldn't afford it. But you're forgetting the first point. The cab wouldn't go to Billericay in the first place. Even if you offered him £200. There's no fare back from Essex and what if you couldn't pay him? A London cab can make £200 in two hours without even trying.
No-one got shot for jumping barriers – it's a shame that you still believe that. It was the undercover police unit that was observed jumping the barriers, the poor bastard they shot bought a ticket. He was an electrician on his way to work. MI5 had also been watching him all day covertly. Now, Gavin – were they watching him? He was carrying a ring box, not a f*cking missile. Jumping the barriers will get you a long-distance bollocking from BR staff. If there is anyone on the platform they ask to see your ticket. It happens quite often at the weekend. I've never seen anyone pull an M16.
The armed response unit scene could still have been done credibly, it just needed better writing.
The only good writing I've seen so far is the route-planning scen with Rob Bryden and Matt horne. That was well done and worthy of inclusion in any script.
The joke with the bedsheets/knickers wasn't meant to be lame by the way as indicated by the fact that Gavin laughed.
Stop making excuses for this show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Err, no, cos we happen to like it. You dont, so dont take it so personally that those who do would like to defend it a little. If you dislike it so much, dont watch it again and dont post about it again; we all get the message-you hate it!!! I dont, I found it funny and am not really bothered if a man taking such a long taxi drive is realistic or not, who really cares?!? So, in short, if you dont like it, thats fine, just stop trying to belittle those that enjoyed the opening two episodes.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 20, 2007, 1:55 PMErr, no, cos we happen to like it. You dont, so dont take it so personally that those who do would like to defend it a little. If you dislike it so much, dont watch it again and dont post about it again; we all get the message-you hate it!!! I dont, I found it funny and am not really bothered if a man taking such a long taxi drive is realistic or not, who really cares?!? So, in short, if you dont like it, thats fine, just stop trying to belittle those that enjoyed the opening two episodes.
View original
The first thing editors and script readers challenge you on when you submit a script is the realism of the story. If you're not a writer, you may not know that. Just the scene with the cab is enough to get a script thrown back. So lack of realism is a VERY sore point with writers.
I don't watch G & S for enjoyment, I watch it because I want to be involved with the production of TV comedy. You appear to watch it for entertainment. Since you have nothing to say about it other than you liked it, it would seem more appropriate if you, rather than I, did not post again.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Wow, your a really nice, reasonable fellow now arent you!! As it happens, I am a comedy writer whos had plenty of work performed on stage, and even on radio four (to blow my own trumpet a little)
The very fact that the cab scene appears in the finished episode obviously negates the point you make about how it would immediately be thrown out by a script editor, doesnt it?
I liked the the two episodes ive seen so far because they were warm, well written (in my opinion), expertly performed by a truly great cast and, again in my opinion, really pretty funny.
Now how about not being so nasty in the future, just because others hold a differing view to that of your own? Comedy is, after all, that most subjective of mediums, your opinion is just that, your own, it doesnt mean it must be true for everyone. Voice it, but perhaps dont deride others so heavilly for theirs; this should be a place for healthy discussion, not arguments, we like to leave that to other, lesser forums.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I've not criticised anybody personally for liking this show, although you've accused me of it twice. You actually told me to 'stop trying to belittle those that enjoyed the opening two episodes'.
I've made no personal remarks at all, only slammed the script.
So perhaps you shouldn't have been offend at all by my last post, which only reversed your suggestion that I shouldn't post again.
You've worked in the industry, you know how G & S was made. The writers are friends of Cougan and Normal, the script is developed by Baby Cow and pitched to the BBC. The script wouldn't make the sift in the writers room.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I'm not making excuses for the show as don't think it needs excusing. Y'no, there's loads of stuff i don't believe in fawlty towers, seinfeld, curb your enthusiasm but i, as a viewer agree to let them go, because although set in the world we live in these shows will always have artistic license. I don't work on Gavin and Stacey, my friend was the 3rd A.D so i took an interest and got caught up in this message board. Your anger doesn't seem to be towards the show, but towards the fact that you don't have show on television. The Times today says,"This should already be pencilled for the Bafta shortlist next year!" The mail has given it 5 stars and the telegraph says it's writing is sublime and terrific. It's fine that you don't like it but i think that you're in the minority.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Well, I disagree Godot, and thats about as far as I think Im going to go with this, I think perhaps Ill do something else for the rest of the day other than argue with someone I dont know about, really, nothing. So. Yep. Whatever. And I hope you enjoy sitting through the rest of the series, gritting your teeth in pain!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Also, when the writer was on soccer am he said they took it to the bbc3 and they said write it and THEN they went to baby cow productions. So it DID make the sift in the writers room. And then some!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 20, 2007, 3:35 PMWell, I disagree Godot, and thats about as far as I think Im going to go with this, I think perhaps Ill do something else for the rest of the day other than argue with someone I dont know about, really, nothing. So. Yep. Whatever. And I hope you enjoy sitting through the rest of the series, gritting your teeth in pain!!
View original
Call me names and run away then.
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 20, 2007, 3:40 PMAlso, when the writer was on soccer am he said they took it to the bbc3 and they said write it and THEN they went to baby cow productions. So it DID make the sift in the writers room. And then some!
View original
I once read an interview in the radio Times with a well-known writer who claimed he began a script (a dramatisation of that person's life) because he lived near the person and understood his problems having read about them in the newspaper. The asst. producer of the show told me they'd actually commissioned him to write the script. He knew nothing about the guy.
That script never saw the sift, my friend.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Ok then, one last time! God Im a sucker for this kind of crap . . .
Im not running away Godot, firstly, because Im in my own house, so Id have to exit swiftly and race off down the street, which would be stupid, secondly, I just dont want to sit here all day trading verbal blows with a stranger about something that I really dont have a vested interest in, or even all that much of a passionate interest! I was just disagreeing with you for gods sake!! Ok, I apologise, I know it wasnt fair of me to have an opposing view, and from now on if you type anything I disagree with, or I think is being overly combatitive to other posters for no real reason, Ill just sit with my head in the dirty washing basket for an hour or two so the temptation to reply fades; then award myself with some chocolate. Mmm, chocolate . . .
Now I really am going to leave it there, I promise! I have a life! I have things I want to do! There are flowers to smell and pretty girls to kiss! I wont let you drag me back in here, you hear me Godot!!!!!!!!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 20, 2007, 3:58 PMOk then, one last time! God Im a sucker for this kind of crap . . .
Im not running away Godot, firstly, because Im in my own house, so Id have to exit swiftly and race off down the street, which would be stupid, secondly, I just dont want to sit here all day trading verbal blows with a stranger about something that I really dont have a vested interest in, or even all that much of a passionate interest! I was just disagreeing with you for gods sake!! Ok, I apologise, I know it wasnt fair of me to have an opposing view, and from now on if you type anything I disagree with, or I think is being overly combatitive to other posters for no real reason, Ill just sit with my head in the dirty washing basket for an hour or two so the temptation to reply fades; then award myself with some chocolate. Mmm, chocolate . . .
Now I really am going to leave it there, I promise! I have a life! I have things I want to do! There are flowers to smell and pretty girls to kiss! I wont let you drag me back in here, you hear me Godot!!!!!!!!!
View original
Now that's more like it!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 20, 2007, 2:16 AMThe scene where the guard objected to the couple kissing over the barriers? The appearance of an armed response unit because Gavin jumped the barriers! If you think this is even on the outskirts of possible, you don't live in London.
View original
I live in London, and although yes, very unlikely, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 20, 2007, 2:16 AMAlso, did you see that in episode one Gav got a black cab from Picadilly Circus back to Essex!
You won't get a central London black cab to go as far South as the Elephant and Castle, let alone Billericay, which must be forty miles away. The fare would have been about £200.
It would have been more realistic to have Gavin teleport to Billericay.
View original
I too raised an eyebrow at the cab all the way back home. A tad 'out there'. (Actually, are we sure it was meant to be the same cab?) However, your insinuation that cabs won't go that far out is quite frankly bollocks. I don't think for a moment that ALL drivers would go quite that distance, but having seen London-registered black cabs - with passengers - as far out as Reading in the past, I can more than believe it. Besides, outside the M25 they're (supposedly) unrestricted on what they can charge, so it's fairly easy money.
Aside from that, calm down everyone, please!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I used to be a referee. Shall I jump in and sort things out? Typically late of course.
This point about "Realism" - we're talking about comedy. In lots of sitcoms that's the whole point. It's NOT real.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Fucking hell. This sitcom really get the emotions stirring. They should put this on the poster.
I thought the programme was so average enough not to even comment on.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 20, 2007, 3:32 PMThe Times today says,"This should already be pencilled for the Bafta shortlist next year!" The mail has given it 5 stars and the telegraph says it's writing is sublime and terrific. It's fine that you don't like it but i think that you're in the minority.
View original
That really doesn't mean the show is any better. It's Paper talk and also just because something is popular doesn't mean its good...Little Britain, Catherine Tate etc.
It's just that the majority of the public are fools, who like shit music, shit films and shit comedy. That's a smug view to take maybe..but it's true.
Just started watching Episode 3, it is incredibly average as Leevil says, shot nicely, acting is alright, but it's more of a drama, there was hardly anything to laugh about in the first few minutes of it, just one dragged out joke about her having been engaged 5 times before. And stuff like "He was a prick" and "A lovely man......Ahmed". 5 star comedy eh guys?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Another good episode I thought, very enjoyable.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 18, 2007, 8:05 PMI don't think a good comedy has to contain a lot of jokes or been defined by how good it is by the jokes. To me a well written comedy is something with good character development, making you care about the characters and believe anything they say.
Jokes and Situations are important to make it recognisable as a comedy, but joke and situations can happen to anyone.
View original
Sorry if this is out of sync as I just catching up on some old posts but just would like to agree with Leevil on this point.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
But they are critics from well respected newspapers. It's not the publics opinion, it's that of the sunday times critic. The show isn't popular yet. I have no doubt it will be. I think the pace of it is somethin g to really credits the writers for. I personally can't think of a better new comedy that's come out in the last 6 months.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Hopefully it'll get pushed onto BBC2 soon. Put aside Pulling would be good.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 20, 2007, 11:17 PMBut they are critics from well respected newspapers. It's not the publics opinion, it's that of the sunday times critic. The show isn't popular yet.
View original
Surely the public's opinion should be more important. Not some poncey critic from a pretentious paper.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Quote: Britcom Barry @ May 20, 2007, 9:49 PMSorry if this is out of sync as I just catching up on some old posts but just would like to agree with Leevil on this point.
View original
Thanks.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
What about me? I put my cock on the block criticising this!
Arrgh! Someone's just pushed shit through my letterbox!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 20, 2007, 8:13 PM
It's just that the majority of the public are fools, who like shit music, shit films and shit comedy. That's a smug view to take maybe..but it's true.
View original
I'm certainly looking forward to the snippets of your sitcom that you are soon to post in the Critique Forum, Martin.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Well, I quite liked the first couple of episodes. Thought it was really good. Admittedly, I am very forgiving of comedy since I started writing.
Must say this thread has been almost as entertaining also. How about a sitcom about people who disagree vehemently over an item on a messageboard and eventually get it together after trying to track each other down to claim retribution...
Everyone knows everyone in the industry -- it really is a different world if you're not in there -- and it will probably always be that way. You need to get to know people to get your stuff *read*, let alone commissioned.
For example, John Sullivan should have carte blanche really and he's writing The Green, Green Grass. Now I quite like it and certainly don't think it's as bad as other people on here. I still get the feeling he's writing it cos the Beeb want a Fools and Horses spin-off rather than cos he wants to.
Maybe I'm not being fair on him.
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Quote: JohnnyD @ May 21, 2007, 8:13 AM
I'm certainly looking forward to the snippets of your sitcom that you are soon to post in the Critique Forum, Martin.
View original
Yeah that's going to be good to see the feedback on here now, I'm sure people will now be intending to judge it just as harshly as I've been judging Gavin & Stacey and Roman's Empire, which is fair as that what I've been doing. Just remember mine isn't on TV though.But yeah, my comments aren't said in hate of other people on here so don't take stuff the wrong way, they're in hate of the comedy I'm discussing. Because I'm so passionate about comedy and know how bloody great British comedy has been in the past, how fantastic comedy can be on a whole, I just find it a great shame that shows like G&S and RE get not only commissioned but praised just because the standards of British comedy have dropped so low with in the last few years that it becomes a valid argument just to say "Well it's better than any other comedy so far this year", that doesn't make it good.
A new comedy will come along soon hopefully that will really be fantastic and if it is, you will see me be the first to praise it. I don't just hate every new comedy, I just have extremely high comedy standards and expect so much, maybe too much of new comedy.
Another point, is G&S actually a sitcom? Or is it meant to be a comedy drama? Cos the last 5 minutes of last nights show was just a big argument between everyone with no real jokes, apart from calling a Welsh person a "sheep shagger" (how very original) but yeah it seemed more like a comedy drama to me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I think I've already made this point or maybe somebody else has but what the hell,
Do you think it's been wrongly cast as a sitcom? Maybe it's a comedy drama? I've only watched the first episode, but from what I saw, not particularly funny, but maybe a err "nice" little story?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Agreed. IMO funnier than most so-called comedy dramas, but not a true sitcom for my money.
Moved accordingly...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 21, 2007, 11:37 AMAgreed. IMO funnier than most so-called comedy dramas, but not a true sitcom for my money.
Moved accordingly...
View original
No, this IS meant to be a sitcom, Aaron, in the sense that we here on BSG understand it, it's just that sitcom has now become 'narrative comedy'. That's what it's called on the BBC writersroom site. They offer guidelines for writing 'narrative comedy' and encourage you to submit a page or two explaining where your comedy is going, ie. 'Brent eventually gets made redundant and Dawn shags Tim'.
Obviously most of the sitcoms we love from the past didn't really go anywhere – that was the point. The characters encountered a different situation every week but stayed in their fixed roles (for the most part). I for one prefer this.
An example. If the Good Life had been commissioned today, the writers would have been encouraged to plot a narrative whereby Tom and Barbara eventually bought Gerry and Margo's house and got planning permission to turn it into a city farm and Margo became a Tory MP – for example.
Aaron, you don't have to move G & S back, but nearly everything from now on is going to be like this.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
Can't believe I missed this thread. brilliant entertainment guys.
Not seen the show though.
Would like to say though, that if Godot is actually a Taxi as his name would suggest then he would know the costs etc...
Rubs chin "Oooohhhh, it's gonna cost ya!"
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I think the main difference between a sitcom and comedy drama is its length(Ooh er).
Sitcoms are usually about half an hour but comedy dramas are more likely to be twice that - more of a story but with the gags further apart.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Got to back up Godot here. Far from being a nasty thread, I find this interesting to read.
RE: realism in sitcoms - it depends on the premise of the show. Weird things happen in the Young Ones and Mighty Boosh but not as weird as Black Adder or Fawlty Towers and again not as weird as more 'real' world comedy. It's all to do with suspension of belief but this suspension has to obey the rules of the premise. If a sitcom is set in the 'real' world it has to obey real world rules. An A-bomb in the kitchen is normal for the Young Ones but it wouldn't happen in less surreal shows as the audience would think 'bloody hell, what's going on here.' Breaking the rules of real world can be done in very clever ways such as Spaced's use of false futures but it has to be clearly shown that the rules were broken in a specific context (such as rewind or a double-take).
I make no contention with the show. When the BBC and Baby Cow put their weight and excellent production abilities behind a show it is going to look good, it's going to have great acting. Fact. Those institutions are brilliant and those qualities are not at issue.
My point has always been that the show idea which was submitted (and recieved such a glowing BBC response) was a half-page half-baked idea containing the phrase 'a wedding in which nothing much happens' Just that one phrase shouts lazy lazy lazy and demonstrates an inability to write.
Can any writer here be proud of submitting that line? Be honest. I'd smash my printer before allowing that line to be read by anyone else.
Is our mistake that we should forget writing pilots and submit half-page ideas to producers, totally bypassing the writers' room? However, the fact that the submitter clearly needs to be a rising star actor may rule this route out for most of us.
Any real script editor reading a line like that would put it to the side as vague and poorly written. However this piece of paper is leapt on by a producer and the submitter is told to write a project focusing on the backstory not the idea.
Another question is how much backstory on four main characters can you include in a 200 - 400 word synopsis of a different idea? Clearly not a lot. Yet the backstory is what was picked up. You don't have to be a writer to see that this screams desperation to get these actors involved in a show somehow?
That a producer read this half-page immediately tells you that this never went through the Writers' Room. No half-page submission would pass through that hive of inactivity, especially when the original idea is so heavily modified by the commissioner, yet another indication that the actual submission wasn't that interesting (else thay'd have produced that original submission surely?)
Can any writer honestly say that they'd expect a response like that from a producer IF they didn't have an 'in' or the ear of the producer? Any self respecting producer would say, show me an episode. But they were told to write the series on the basis of a few hundred words of vague description.
I put a smiley here to try and show everyone my gripe is with the process of how this show ever got made and not with its admirable forum defenders, the writers, or the production departments.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Thanks to the Slag A for weighing in. Fellas, I don't know if you've read this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk20/feature_gavinandstacey.shtml
The interview confirms that the script didn't go anywhere near the writers room but was submitted to directly to Stuart Murphy. It also reveals that the first episode only took 24 hours to write! That long, some of the less kind amongst you might be thinking, but this is still an astonishing fact to publish, and shows the confidence that the people involved have in this show.
Quote: Ginger Jesus @ May 21, 2007, 4:33 PMCan't believe I missed this thread. brilliant entertainment guys.
Not seen the show though.
Would like to say though, that if Godot is actually a Taxi as his name would suggest then he would the costs etc...
Rubs chin "Oooohhhh, it's gonna cost ya!"
View original
Ginge, I should have written he'd have had more chance getting a London cab to take him to Monkey Hell than Billericay.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Its definitely a sitcom as its introduced as one, and is obviously 30 minutes long. It is full of jokes but maybe not that obvious/funny. The story and characters are very engaging and there are enough laughs for me to really enjoy it and forget the gaping holes in the story line (why are they in such a rush, oh yeah cos they need get married in THIS series)
The only slightly disappointing thing is its going down the old wedding road that seems to be the obvious story line these days. Green Wing, Worst Week, Peep Show and now this.
They all do it differently and well but it is becoming a bit tired and totally ruining one of my sitcom storylines.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
IT WASN'T A HALF PAGE!!! Whoever said it was? Oh that's right you did. From what i gather it was a detailed treatment with defined characters and a long back story. From what i can see your anger is not at the show but the fact that no one will make your show? Is this right?
I agree contains nuts, the rush of the wedding is a bit much. Something do with it happening on her dads 50th? I'm with you though, i completely believe in the show. I think it's amazing. It has 3 facebook fan sites already!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 22, 2007, 10:04 AMIT WASN'T A HALF PAGE!!!
View original
The writer said in an interview that it was half-page treatment, so I can only go on what he tells me (and the rest of the UK). You seem to know an awful lot about this show but you do reveal that you have some stake in this (you say you know someone involved in the show) after your dogged defence of it, why does it comes as no surprise?
If you are actually involved in the show don't get so upset. All shows attract criticism and I'm not even criticising the show. I've said that quite plainly. I'm referring to a submission process that seems to place weight on 'names' rather than content.
You conveniently ignore the writers' own descriptive phrase for the project as 'a wedding in which nothing much happens' Be honest. Does that sound like seminal genius or vague unformed ideas? Who of the writers here would post that phrase in our Critique forum and not expect some criticism for wooliness?
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 22, 2007, 10:04 AMFrom what i can see your anger is not at the show but the fact that no one will make your show? Is this right?
View original
Going by the logic of that statement I should be angry at EVERY show, but I'm not. I have no stake in this but you do. Josh, there is no real anger in my criticism. I was at pains to end my last post with a smiley to show I'm not mad at the show, its forum defenders, or the production companies, or talented actors. But you ignored this. So just for you ...
I love the Beeb and BabyCow are fab.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
What's this 'Writers' Room'? And why must scripts go there first?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 22, 2007, 1:39 AMThe interview confirms that the script didn't go anywhere near the writers room
View original
I don't think some people here have any idea what BBC Writersroom is for. A comedy submission to Writersroom has NEVER been commissioned. It is for 'promoting' talented writers - giving feedback, placing in workshops, ...
Perhaps a lurking BBC employee could elaborate (and maybe correct me).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I love you too. I do. I don't have anything to do with the show, i just know someone who worked on it and took an interest. I also just think it's brilliant. I no what you mean about saying a wedding where nothing happens but i just don't believe the bbc would make this show just because of the people in it. Maybe they would but i think the fact that the show is getting good viewing figures and amazing reviews means they were justified in whatever decision they made. This is for you
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 22, 2007, 10:04 AM
I agree contains nuts, the rush of the wedding is a bit much. Something do with it happening on her dads 50th? I'm with you though, i completely believe in the show. I think it's amazing. It has 3 facebook fan sites already!
View original
Bloody hell, well the argument ends here I guess, you know you've made it when you've got 3 facebook fansites!! (double exclamation mark to add more emphasis)
Anyway, everyone knows my views on this show, I don't like it, it's lazy and is poorly written.
However I can't really agree on the point that the line 'its a show about a wedding where nothing much happens' is bad, because then I would be a hypocrit because one of the best sitcoms ever and possibly my favourite sitcom ever Seinfeld was first introduced to the network executives by Larry David as "It's about these four friends, living their lives where nothing happens".
However let me make this clear G&S is no Seinfeld, not in the slightest. G&S has no smartly, intricate plot writing, it certainly isn't as funny as Seinfeld and can't write dialogue like on Seinfeld.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Not finding something funny, or not liking a show, I dont believe makes the writing automatically 'lazy'. Its a good show, not amazing, but very good, and I think that its detractors on here who keep saying that the writing is lazy as one of the reasons for not liking it is lazy in itself. It doesnt flick your switch, which is fair enough, but that doesnt make a show lazy, just not your cup of tea.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: JohnnyD @ May 22, 2007, 12:05 PM
I don't think some people here have any idea what BBC Writersroom is for. A comedy submission to Writersroom has NEVER been commissioned. It is for 'promoting' talented writers - giving feedback, placing in workshops, ...
View original
This may all be true, but not always what the BBC has said or implied. The big issue, I think, is that for previously uncommissioned writers with no product "out there", there aren't many options of where else to go. Hence there is (justifiable in my opinion) discontent at a process which enables some inexperienced writers to go straight through to development when everyone else is forced to buy a Lotto ticket to get some "feedback" or a workshop place.
Btw, I haven't seen Gavin and Stacey, but this thread is a cracker.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I agree that its unfair that the writers seem to have had a much easier ride because of their status than other first time writers, but that this kind of thing is unavoidable and occurs in all trades. If you know people, or have some industry cache attached to you, then of course doors are going to open much easier than for the likes of us. Like I said, its unfair, unfortunate, but a sad fact of life. And I dont think that there is one of us on here who would not exploit contacts/industry friends/our position to help get something commisioned. That is if any of us had any contacts/industry friends or position!!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I can't see what's lazy in the writing. I don't think a cast of such quality would attach themselves to gavin and stacey if tthey agreed. So i'm sticking with Alison Steadman, Julia Davis, Mathew Horne, Rob Brydon and Matt Lucas. Comedy of the week again in radio times as well.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Well Matt Horne was in Roman's Empire and Rob Brydon is in Annually Retentive...so saying the cast wouldn't be involved in something rubbish is not strictly true.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
Just saw the first two and found it very enjoyable thought the big fellow played his role very well. Felt more like a comedy drama than a sitcom to me.
But very pleasant, couldn’t see much wrong with the script and the production and cast were top notch. Mind you I try not to over analyse these things, it take all the enjoyment out.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Ok, point taken. I stand corrected. Romans Empire IS dreadful, Annually retentive is like watching memento the right way round! Terrible terrible shows. Gavin and Stacey though has still attracted a steller cast none the less.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Josh - thanks for the wink - i'm glad that we can talk about it without getting on high horses.
Matt, you're a star, and when you're up there, I'll be tapping you as a contact, that's if you'll be answering my emails then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Just watched episode 4 of Gavin and Stacey online and it really had me in stitches. Are you a friend of Matt Hornes slag? If so that's awesome!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ed Parnell said:
Like any other business, you have to use who you know to some extent.
I work in radio, and jobs are not really advertised. I just get offered stuff.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 22, 2007, 7:24 PMNot finding something funny, or not liking a show, I dont believe makes the writing automatically 'lazy'. Its a good show, not amazing, but very good, and I think that its detractors on here who keep saying that the writing is lazy as one of the reasons for not liking it is lazy in itself. It doesnt flick your switch, which is fair enough, but that doesnt make a show lazy, just not your cup of tea.
View original
I didn't say it was lazy because I didn't like it. The reason I didn't like it is because it's poorly scripted. That the only reason. I actually really like Matt Horne and larry lamb and Alison Steadman. If you go through the posts you'll see that I actually praised some of the writing (the route-planning scene with Rob Bryden).
The fact that the first episode was written in 24 hours is in itself an indication of the first-draft quality. In fact, if that statement is true, the first episode IS a first draft.
Further proof is indicated by some of the lines:
SMITHY:
Don't get overexcited, you know what happens to people who get overexcited?
GAVIN:
What?
SMITHY:
Nevermind.
He then goes on to talk about something else.
&
COACH DRIVER:
Fags and weed, glue and speed. But I draw the line at crack – that way everyone knows where they stand.
STACEY:
Aw, fair play.
This sentence doesn't really make any sense. Why does everyone know where they stand because he draws the line at crack? It is clearly not widely known what the driver's policy is because Stacey knows him well but she still asks if she can smoke a cigarette on the coach. It's just limp writing.
A BETTER VERSION MIGHT BE:
COACH DRIVER:
Fags and weed, glue and speed. But I draw the line at freebasin' as I 'aven't got a fire extinguisher.
You may find that miserably unfunny. But it IS a joke. The first one isn't.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Don't quit the day job Godot! 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 23, 2007, 10:52 PMDon't quit the day job Godot!
View original
Ouch.
Quote: Badge @ May 22, 2007, 7:34 PM
This may all be true, but not always what the BBC has said or implied. The big issue, I think, is that for previously uncommissioned writers with no product "out there", there aren't many options of where else to go. Hence there is (justifiable in my opinion) discontent at a process which enables some inexperienced writers to go straight through to development when everyone else is forced to buy a Lotto ticket to get some "feedback" or a workshop place.
Btw, I haven't seen Gavin and Stacey, but this thread is a cracker.
View original
Badge, I couldn't agree more. The writersroom website goes to pains to tell you to not submit anything to any other department as it will just be returned there. I was told by an assistant producer that it was a bit hit and miss, which is certainly my experience. After telling me that my script would be above the standard of most of their submissions, it was returned unread.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
I don't know how anyone can write a half hour comedy script in 24 hours. You need to put it away and then look at it with fresh eyes.
The 'world wide web' joke, to me, summed up the show. They knew they had to make the scene funny, they put something down and had Matthew Horne do a few facial expressions. If you want to write a top sitcom you've got to work at that scene and also ask why is he over there in the first place?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I think you're right. To me, the finished script of episode one is the sort of thing I would put into development. Say, this could work – put in a few jokes, think about the characters – why for example is 26 year old office worker Stacey's best friend a 40 year old woman who works in a coin arcade etc., and come back.
Eric Chapel says a half hour script should take about two and a half weeks, in his book. I don't think he's a particularly good writer, but he's written a lot of scripts under commission, so it must be a fair assessment.
The 24 hours story may not be true anyway, there're a lot of lies told in publicity.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Hmmm... I would have thought '24 hours' was merely a bit of spin too.
I'm not sure exactly how the whole commissioning/production system works but I'm guessing there are tight time (and budget, obviously) constraints on a show of this type which will mean even experienced writers have to let some things go.
It's a shame... but, unfortunately, a reality. As is the increased probability of known entities (Ruth & James for their acting to date) getting a shot at having a sitcom (sorry, comedy drama) commissioned and produced over a struggling unknown.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Maybe they meant a total of 24 hours.
I feel guilty having started this thread but not having seen it at all. But there is too much - not necessarily good - stuff to try and watch and I refuse to watch more TV than I do already. Last Detective will do me tonight.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Come on David, can you manage about 50 posts tonight, to catch me up?
I'm having the night off, so you have an opportunity.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
What?
Eh?
Sorry - that was supposed to be 2 different ones but they get lumped together.
Look- I'm missing Dangerous.
I got a block of 17 together there. Is that a record?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
See this is where i get confused Godot? They DID the script made and the BBC love it and the critics and the public, so maybe where you're going wrong is by not doing this. The way you guys talk about the show it's as if it's not doing well but it's been praised by every critic who's seen it. It's a hit and everyone i know loves it! But then i do live it Cardiff!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
...and you're mates with someone working on it. You never turn up on any other threads.
EDIT: sorry, after research, at this point out of your 18 entries 14 are defending G&S on this thread, and 3 are defending G&S on the "Is this funny" thread. Where is that pesky other one? Can anyone else help?
And btw, no problem with you supporting your favouraite show, just worth noting you are a bit of a one-trick pony...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 24, 2007, 11:49 PMBut then i do live it Cardiff!
View original
How can you tell? You're too far up your mate's arse to see any landmarks.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Ginger Jesus said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 25, 2007, 3:49 AM
How can you tell? You're too far up your mate's arse to see any landmarks.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Ladies, ladies! Come on now, calm down.
Josh: They're too stubborn and bitter. Best to drop it now.
Godot, Badge, and anyone else: Chillax! (I've always wanted to use that word.) No matter of his apparent connections to the show, he still likes it, and accordingly is just trying to stick up for a show he enjoys. WHY he enjoys it (in that respect) is neither here nor there...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Thanks Aaron. Not entirely sure what the problem is, oh yeah! The show got made and none of this lot can get there shows made, and yet somehow the BBC still make Rush Hour and My family, this lots scrpts must be dreadful!!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
That point is ridiculous though because it's all about contacts nowadays. If the guys who wrote G&S hadn't have been actors and known the right people no way would this script have been made.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 26, 2007, 1:38 PMThat point is ridiculous though because it's all about contacts nowadays. If the guys who wrote G&S hadn't have been actors and known the right people no way would this script have been made.
View original
So, make some contacts. Get yourself some work as a film extra and while on set give your script to someone important.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 24, 2007, 11:49 PMit's been praised by every critic who's seen it.
View original
I waiting to see what Charlie Brooker says. G and S is alright but it ain't funny, its a drama not a comedy. Actually this is how crap it is (i'm losing it now) they had two Diana jokes in one episode.
a) Diana died ten years ago
b) its not cutting edge when ten years have passed, and
3) how small are the brains of the 'genius' writers if they can't think of jokes which don't have Diana in.
G and S, soppy mainstream drivel drama not new and innovating comedy.
Rant over
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 26, 2007, 12:34 PMThe show got made and none of this lot can get there shows made, and yet somehow the BBC still make Rush Hour and My family, this lots scrpts must be dreadful!!!
View original
Yet another sideswipe against 'My Family' giving Josh something in common with the embittered writers.
Sitcom is a popular mass-entertainment art form. 'My Family' is very popular and, thus, very successful. It's ironic that this forum seems populated with people who can see nothing good in 'My Family' and so, I would contend, don't really like sitcom.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 26, 2007, 2:35 PMb) its not cutting edge when ten years have passed
View original
Comedy doesn't have to be "cutting edge". I find it much less funny when it's trying to be all innovative and new. The Mighty Boosh? Give me The Goodies any day.
The Office? Terry and June please.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 26, 2007, 12:34 PMThanks Aaron. Not entirely sure what the problem is, oh yeah! The show got made and none of this lot can get there shows made, and yet somehow the BBC still make Rush Hour and My family, this lots scrpts must be dreadful!!!
View original
Its easy to criticise without attempting to do anything, like you are doing. The writers on here don't because they put their money where their mouth is. Plus they're not willing to sell their souls like your friend did which gives them more integrity than you'll ever have. We get it Josh, you like G and S but don't get personal because eveyone will think you're an arse.
Maybe we should start two threads, one for criticism of G and S and one for praising it then everyones happy
Sorted
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I was thinking about writing a Terry and June style sitcom a while back, see my sketch called something like 'A day at the beach'.
Still might give it ago one day when everyone is sick of cutting edge comedy and traditional is back in fashion.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 26, 2007, 2:51 PMI was thinking about writing a Terry and June style sitcom a while back, see my sketch called something like 'A day at the beach'.
Still might give it ago one day when everyone is sick of cutting edge comedy and traditional is back in fashion.
View original
Indulge me, if no one else. I'd be very interested in seeing such a show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
All I did was call Mr Josh a one trick pony, because he only comments on G&S! But glad to see you branching out now, Josh. I've already said he's entitled to support a show if he likes it. I haven't even seen G&S, so I haven't commented on it. I only joined in to make an observation on how different people perceive the BBC writersroom. Can we move on?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 26, 2007, 3:23 PM
Indulge me, if no one else. I'd be very interested in seeing such a show.
View original
http://board.sitcom.co.uk/thread/1816 - Here's the thread!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: JohnnyD @ May 26, 2007, 2:18 PM
So, make some contacts. Get yourself some work as a film extra and while on set give your script to someone important.
View original
That's a bit of a stupid comment. We're not all frustrated actors - we're frustrated writers.
I've got no desire to appear on screen.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Except as a credit.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Ok - maybe there then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Yeah about the contacts, I aren't an actor and have no desire to be an actor. I'm a writer and want to have a career in writing. That said I do have a couple of contacts, not big BBC cheifs that can commission my stuff, but I have access to get stuff filmed (which I'll do if no other production company takes on board my sitcom).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: JohnnyD @ May 26, 2007, 2:18 PM
So, make some contacts. Get yourself some work as a film extra and while on set give your script to someone important.
View original
Quote: David Chapman @ May 26, 2007, 3:39 PM
That's a bit of a stupid comment. We're not all frustrated actors - we're frustrated writers.
View original
Sorry. Wrong forum for sitcom allusions.
But the technique did work for Andy Millman!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 26, 2007, 2:50 PM
Its easy to criticise without attempting to do anything, like you are doing. The writers on here don't because they put their money where their mouth is. Plus they're not willing to sell their souls like your friend did which gives them more integrity than you'll ever have. We get it Josh, you like G and S but don't get personal because eveyone will think you're an arse.
View original
Im sticking up for this show too, so dont forget to have a go at me! I think Josh is being quite reserved in his comments, seeing as how vitriolic some of the nay-sayers are against him!! Oh, and I have no links whatsoever to this show, I just happen to like it. Sorry, Ill pretend I dont, if that makes it easier for those that dont!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
I repent, i'm sorry, please forgive me for having an opinion. Can you see god up there on your moral high horse? MS is obviously far superior to all of us so we should stop having opinions and start conforming cos apparently BSG ain't a democratic forum.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 26, 2007, 3:39 PM
That's a bit of a stupid comment. We're not all frustrated actors - we're frustrated writers.
I've got no desire to appear on screen.
View original
I'm not frustrated. Why are you?
(OK... maybe I'm frustrated sexually!)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 26, 2007, 6:45 PM
Im sticking up for this show too, so dont forget to have a go at me!
View original
I hadn’t forgotten. I was just having my ribs strengthened with titanium plates so I could carry on reading your posts.
You’ve really made sarcasm your own.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 27, 2007, 8:35 AM
You’ve really made sarcasm your own.
View original
And I so wanted sarcasm to be mine...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
More 5 star reviews for Gavin And Stacey today. Incredible how well it's doing! I can't wait to see the show all over again on BBC2!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 27, 2007, 12:13 PMI can't wait to see the show all over again on BBC2!
View original
What? Only BBC2? Not BBC1 primetime?
Seriously though, sounds like I'll have to give it a go on the repeats. I just don't like joining in with something half way (threads about G&S excepted).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 27, 2007, 4:26 AMI repent, i'm sorry, please forgive me for having an opinion. Can you see god up there on your moral high horse? MS is obviously far superior to all of us so we should stop having opinions and start conforming cos apparently BSG ain't a democratic forum.
View original
I wasnt on my moral high horse, and I think everyone should express their opinion; I was just pointing out the fact that I thought the person you were attacking was always posting and replying with good humour; whilst you were accusing him of being up his own arse and, I think, of in fact being an arse. I was just hoping for friendly debate, not name calling, I get that everyone has an opinion of their own and I appreciate opposing views to my own, I just dont like or see the point in posts, which at least to me, appear aggressive in tone.
I think youll find I have never tried to stop people giving their opinion, why the hell would I want to? Im just against poeple getting a cob on because people dont agree with them. And if this is a democratic forum, then I think people should be able to continuously defend a show they happen to like, something which others actually seem to have a problem with. So lets express all of our differing opinions, but also keep it friendly, debate is the name of the game, not arguments and who can come up with the best put downs.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 26, 2007, 12:34 PMT Not entirely sure what the problem is, oh yeah! The show got made and none of this lot can get there shows made, and yet somehow the BBC still make Rush Hour and My family, this lots scrpts must be dreadful!!!
View original
Thats good humour Matthew?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Well, yes; its humourous in tone, I think. Thats why all the exclamation marks and face thingy at the end. I read it as being in good humour anyway. And it was in defence at a few posters having a go in return, but yes, that reads as good natured ribbing to me.
I just dont understand why people are getting so heated about this, and seemingly taking the whole thing so personally! Its just a few people with differing views about a programme!!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 27, 2007, 2:28 PMI just dont understand why people are getting so heated about this, and seemingly taking the whole thing so personally! Its just a few people with differing views about a programme!!!
View original
It's prejudice from the apparent conditions in which the show was produced.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Exactly, its the equivilent of a man giving a woman a job just because of her looks rather than qualifications. Anyway how does being an extra in average programmes qualify you to be a writer? Also, in my opinion, G and S is not very good.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Heck... I can stand all the name calling... it's just the lack of correct spelling, grammar and punctuation which gets to me...
Seriously... do you lot ever check over your typing?
Oh, hang on… I’ve just realised you might not understand me, so here’s my post again… in 'thicko-text':
heck ic an stand all the name calling its just the lack of coreect spellinggrammer and punctuatio’n which get’s to me seriously do you lot ever check over you’re typing
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Anal alert!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I once bought this film called 'Anal Lesbians 2'. It turned out to be a load of butch looking women cleaning up.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
What the hell is going on in this thread? Can't people put their evident egos to one side and discuss this properly without getting personal and insulting? Returning an insult is almost as bad as no one needs to lower themselves here.
Surely everyone knows that comedy is subjective. GandS will have fans and critics like EVERY sitcom does. This forum is to discuss these opinions, knowing that people will disagree and that its not an offence to have different tastes.
I don't know or have slept with anyone involved with GandS and I like it a lot. Believe me I don't like most new comedies. Its not got as many laughs as the sitcom greats but its got an engaging story (pardon the pun) and thats how I think they planned it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ May 27, 2007, 7:10 PMWhat the hell is going on in this thread? Can't people put their evident egos to one side and discuss this properly without getting personal and insulting? Returning an insult is almost as bad as no one needs to lower themselves here.
Surely everyone knows that comedy is subjective. GandS will have fans and critics like EVERY sitcom does. This forum is to discuss these opinions, knowing that people will disagree and that its not an offence to have different tastes.
View original
Thats exactly what ive been trying to say, but it seems to have been a controversial point of view with some people for some reason! Its a good thing that theres different points of view, so we can have a healthy discussion. So lets all put across our views, whether we agree or not, and not take it so seriously/personally when others, and their will always be those with opposing views, disagree with you.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I agree it's not a gag gag gag sitcom. Y'no there's no set-up joke. But i think it's this that makes it so truly original. It's funny because the characters are so brilliantly observed. It's odd for a half our comedy to have so many strong seriel elements and that's what makes it so compelling. x
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
ContainsNuts smells
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I'm sorry your honour. If I'd known it would end up like this I'd have never started it. Please give me a lenient sentence.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 27, 2007, 6:40 PMAnal alert!
View original
Might be anal, but from the site rules...
Unless said in legitimate context (for example, a programme title), "txt spk" is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, and will NOT BE TOLERATED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. This is a pet hate of the BSG's editors, and will be heavily enforced. As far as is possible, correct English spelling and grammar should be used. We also request that members refrain from SHOUTING UNNECESSARILY in their posts.
Just a friendly note to anyone who has let their standards slip.
Anyway, back on topic-ish. Calm down everyone! I really don't want to have to close this thread, but it's getting perilously close.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Don't close it down! There's loads of good debate in here! Amongst the bile!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 28, 2007, 2:39 AM
Anyway, back on topic-ish. Calm down everyone! I really don't want to have to close this thread, but it's getting perilously close.
View original
No don't do that Aaron. I take it all back Gavin and Stacy is the best thing since sliced bread. That was sarcastic but I seriously think that Gavin and Stacy is a decent comedy drama but not 'comedy' as BBC keeps calling it.
Anyway I have to apologise for any negaative posts directed at contributors. I blame alcohol and hangovers (not a good combination). I sincerly apologise. After all we don't want this forum to get an awkward family get together vibe, especially as i'd be the weird uncle who noone wants to talk to.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 28, 2007, 6:19 AM
No don't do that Aaron. I take it all back Gavin and Stacy is the best thing since sliced bread.
View original
What was the best thing before Sliced Bread? I know someone else has said this before - but it is a good point.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Unsliced bread?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Fire then
bread then
sandwiches then
spreadable butter then
sliced bread
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 29, 2007, 2:12 AMFire then
bread then
sandwiches then
spreadable butter then
sliced bread
View original
i think sliced bread came before spreadable butter. The old stuff used to rip the bread to buggery.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
No posts on G & S for a while. I'm still watching it! Episode four was the best so far in my opinion – based on the fact that I actually laughed a few times.
I still find it heavy going though, with many of the jokes so unpolished they're more like splinters than gems.
Brydon is pretty good.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I've just not got around to watching it since episode 2. Keeps being other stuff on...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I think its holding its own and I'm still enjoying it. I'm finding it enjoyable for what it is rather than watching it with pre-conceived ideas of what it should be.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
I have the latest episode on HD ready to watch. I'm enjoying it... laughing at the unpolished jokes... !
Crikey, I must be so unsophisticated.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I LOVE the unpolished jokes! I truly think it's the best comedy show on television at the moment.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 1, 2007, 7:41 PMI LOVE the unpolished jokes! I truly think it's the best comedy show on television at the moment.
View original
You've changed your tune.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Good one. Sorry, i know i go on about it to much, but i just really like the programme. I don't see any unpolished jokes. Just amazing characters.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
No, watched the episode last night and it is far from being a comedy. Three laughs per page is a comedy. I don't even know which bits are supposed to be the comic moments. I mean even though I don't like Green, Green, Grass I can tell where I'm supposed to laugh. I seriously don't know about this. When Rob Brydon comes into it 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 27, 2007, 8:49 PMI agree it's not a gag gag gag sitcom. Y'no there's no set-up joke. But i think it's this that makes it so truly original.
View original
I'm amazed that statement passed without comment, Josh. There is nothing 'truly original' in having no set-up jokes, nor in the basic premise of the show.
There are plenty of original or groundbreaking sitcoms, G+S however is not in that league. I think you're alone as one of the show's defenders when you call it 'truly original'
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
its certainly not groundbreaking, i agree. But it doesn't have to be.
If you watch something that you already have written-off the its unlikely to be funny. Humour is about taste and if you are expecting crap it will usually be so.
G+S is obviously to some people's taste and not to others. Isn't all comedy?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Agree totally with you, ContainsNuts. I just couldn't let that statement go by without questioning it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
I watched this for the first time l.night. I enjoyed it. The actors make it. There was a few laugh out loud bits & i did find it entertaining. I will be watching again next week.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I think it's truly original because i can't think of another comedy that has the depth of feeling or character that Gavin and Stacey does. The performances are better than anything i've seen since The Office, the production values are incredibly high for a bbc3 show and i think it stands up against anything else that's on at the moment. I cannot remember the last time i cared so much for the characters in a half hour comedy. We're never ever going to agree on this. I just think in 2 years time this show will have won awards and have moved to a primetime channel and be up there with the greats. That's my hunch anyway. 
That's a pirate. That's how serious i am about this. Yes, a pirate.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
You're certainly right that we will never agree on the quality of this show.
However I'm not deaf or blind and I am aware that this show has been extremely favourably reviewed and has many supporters. In fact a few pro reviewers have said that it's not very funny, but they still found it charming and likeable. The success of this show is something that anyone who wants to write sitcom for the BBC will have to consider seriously.
Regarding its reputation in the long term:– I watched the first series of the office when it was broadcast – and got it. I also liked and rated This Life when it was first shown and universally panned. I like to believe that I've got a good eye and ear for trends and can spot quality when I see it. That may not be true, but at the moment I think that a show so thinly written will not endure long term. I think that by the time the second series is airing and G & S has been hammered to death on mainstream channels, the critical backlash will begin and it will go down like the second series of Nighty Night did.
My only beef with this show is the writing. I think the script is an actor's script, rather than a writer's one, and that at a textural level it is thinner than a lampshade.
I take on board the previous poster's point about the acting and characterisation, but do not think this distinguishes the show particularly. I can't see how it is any more original for example than the recent 'Pulling' which was also about two people getting married and presented in a naturalistic style.
I didn't like that show either because it seemed mean-spirited, but the opening credit sequence of the first episode is funnier than the whole of Gavin & Stacey (in my opinion). I'll post a clip if people haven't seen it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 5, 2007, 12:19 AM