Gavin & Stacey
On Saturday 12th May 2007 GMT at 2:12 PM GMT, Chappers 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 Saturday 12th May 2007 GMT at 2:17 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I'm not too keen, I heard it's not too far from Two Pints.
On Saturday 12th May 2007 GMT at 2:44 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
It's always worth a shot... and yes, Alison Steadman is very good in everything she does.
On Saturday 12th May 2007 GMT at 2:55 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.
Yes she is, and is he in it? I don't think I've spotted him on the adverts.
On Saturday 12th May 2007 GMT at 3:32 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.
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 Saturday 12th May 2007 GMT at 4:23 PM GMT, Martin H 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 Saturday 12th May 2007 GMT at 11:07 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.
Yes Rob Brydon is in it. You should check out the website guide
http://www.comedy.co.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).
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 Sunday 13th May 2007 GMT at 12:01 AM GMT, Martin H 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 Sunday 13th May 2007 GMT at 4:42 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Mark @ May 12, 2007, 7:07 PMYes Rob Brydon is in it. You should check out the website guide
You should know by now that I'm unashamedly lazy.
On Sunday 13th May 2007 GMT at 6:11 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Just watched it, only good bits were Rob Brydon and Don't look back into the sun.
On Sunday 13th May 2007 GMT at 8:53 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Just watched the 1st episode on-line...meh.
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 1:24 AM 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 Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 1:29 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Bang.
Right - well it seems from everything on this site that BBC is a total waste of our time.
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 1:35 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Have to say, it wasn't 'laugh a minute', but I really enjoyed it. Will definitely be watching the rest.
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 1:56 AM 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.
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 Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 3:59 AM 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 Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 4:02 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
a) shes a... b) shes a... and three shes a...
Why can't I think of lines like that?
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 3:36 PM GMT, Martin H said:
I hope that wasn't a serious question ajp29. 
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 6:19 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 Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 7:02 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ May 14, 2007, 11:36 AMI hope that wasn't a serious question ajp29.
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 7:36 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.
I really enjoyed it. Give it a go.
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 9:08 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 Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 9:13 PM GMT, zooo said:
Oh bugger, I didn't watch episode 2.
On Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 10:05 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 Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 10:56 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.
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 Monday 14th May 2007 GMT at 10:59 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Don't take my cynical baggage from me, its all i have.
On Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 2:36 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: David Chapman @ May 12, 2007, 10:12 AMThis looks interesting.
I'll make a point of watching it
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 Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 4:59 AM GMT, Ed Parnell said:
Am I able to take cynical hand luggage?
On Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 6:32 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.
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 Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 7:20 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
To self 'Think positive thoughts, think positive thoughts'
On Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 8:53 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 Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 9:16 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 Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 10:01 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 Tuesday 15th May 2007 GMT at 10:10 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I totally agree. But heyho. 
On Wednesday 16th May 2007 GMT at 12:30 AM 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 16th May 2007 GMT at 1:05 AM 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 16th May 2007 GMT at 1:17 AM 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 16th May 2007 GMT at 1:28 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Very wise words tonight!
On Thursday 17th May 2007 GMT at 12:16 AM GMT, Chappers 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 Thursday 17th May 2007 GMT at 2:52 AM 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 Thursday 17th May 2007 GMT at 3:45 AM GMT, Martin H 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 Thursday 17th May 2007 GMT at 4:03 AM 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 12:46 AM GMT, Chappers 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 1:06 AM 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 4:27 AM 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 4:44 AM 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 7:08 AM 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 7:38 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 8:20 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 9:00 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 9:05 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.
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.
Hear, hear!
On Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 10:49 PM GMT, Martin H 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 11:02 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.)
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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 11:17 PM GMT, Chappers said:
That's not a joke as such though is it.
It's funny though because of the situations.
On Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 11:30 PM GMT, Martin H 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 Friday 18th May 2007 GMT at 11:59 PM GMT, Chappers 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 12:05 AM 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 12:23 AM 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.
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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 3:31 AM 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 3:42 AM 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 3:48 AM GMT, Leevil said:
How do you get four giraffes into a mini?
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:02 AM 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
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?
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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:25 AM 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:30 AM 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:31 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 19, 2007, 12:30 AMDoes Crimewatch make you laugh?
Yes...
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:42 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
It was funny when they reconstructed a teenage rape and the actress got pregnant.
Did I say that? 
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 2:45 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Haha, that's brilliant if it's true.
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:14 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
True? Of course it's not true!
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:20 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Very good acting if it was.
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 4:27 PM GMT, Martin H 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.
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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 7:46 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Ruined? Not really.
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 9:46 PM GMT, Martin H 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 9:52 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 Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 9:58 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Didn't he say "that's bad melon." He didn't really point it out like in our faces.
On Saturday 19th May 2007 GMT at 11:58 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 2:46 AM GMT, Martin H 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 5:01 AM GMT, Chappers 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 5:05 AM 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 6:16 AM 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 3:05 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 5:00 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 5:55 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 6:48 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.
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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 6:57 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 7:27 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 7:32 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 7:35 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 7:40 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 7:52 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!!
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!
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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 7:58 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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 8:01 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!!!!!!!!!
Now that's more like it!
On Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 10:56 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.
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.
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 Sunday 20th May 2007 GMT at 11:59 PM GMT, Chappers 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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 12:11 AM GMT, Leevil said:
F**king 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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 12:13 AM GMT, Martin H 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.
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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 1:35 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Another good episode I thought, very enjoyable.
On Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 1:49 AM 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.
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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 3:17 AM 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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 3:18 AM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Hopefully it'll get pushed onto BBC2 soon. Put aside Pulling would be good.
On Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 4:07 AM GMT, Chappers 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.
Surely the public's opinion should be more important. Not some poncey critic from a pretentious paper.
On Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 4:23 AM 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.
Thanks.
On Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 4:49 AM 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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 12:13 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.
I'm certainly looking forward to the snippets of your sitcom that you are soon to post in the Critique Forum, Martin.
On Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 2:34 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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 3:02 PM GMT, Martin H 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.
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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 3:19 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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 3:37 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Agreed. IMO funnier than most so-called comedy dramas, but not a true sitcom for my money.
Moved accordingly...
On Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 7:49 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...
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 Monday 21st May 2007 GMT at 8:33 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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 12:27 AM GMT, Chappers 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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 4:13 AM 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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 5:39 AM 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!"
Ginge, I should have written he'd have had more chance getting a London cab to take him to Monkey Hell than Billericay.
On Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 1:49 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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 2:04 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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 3:15 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 22, 2007, 10:04 AMIT WASN'T A HALF PAGE!!!
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?
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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 3:24 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
What's this 'Writers' Room'? And why must scripts go there first?
On Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 4:05 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
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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 4:19 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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 5:22 PM GMT, Martin H 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!
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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 11:24 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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 11:34 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, ...
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 Tuesday 22nd May 2007 GMT at 11:49 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 12:19 AM 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 12:33 AM GMT, Martin H 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 1:52 AM 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 2:36 AM 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 3:59 AM 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 4:19 AM 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 7:20 AM 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 23rd May 2007 GMT at 12:35 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.
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 Thursday 24th May 2007 GMT at 2:52 AM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Don't quit the day job Godot! 
On Thursday 24th May 2007 GMT at 5:49 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 23, 2007, 10:52 PMDon't quit the day job Godot!
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.
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 Thursday 24th May 2007 GMT at 4:06 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 Thursday 24th May 2007 GMT at 7:27 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 Thursday 24th May 2007 GMT at 7:49 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 Friday 25th May 2007 GMT at 12:02 AM GMT, Chappers 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 Friday 25th May 2007 GMT at 12:33 AM 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 Friday 25th May 2007 GMT at 1:12 AM GMT, Chappers 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 Friday 25th May 2007 GMT at 3:49 AM 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 Friday 25th May 2007 GMT at 4:15 AM 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 Friday 25th May 2007 GMT at 7:49 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 24, 2007, 11:49 PMBut then i do live it Cardiff!
How can you tell? You're too far up your mate's arse to see any landmarks.
On Friday 25th May 2007 GMT at 4:55 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.
On Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 7:09 AM 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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 4:34 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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 5:38 PM GMT, Martin H 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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 6:18 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.
So, make some contacts. Get yourself some work as a film extra and while on set give your script to someone important.
On Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 6:35 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ May 24, 2007, 11:49 PMit's been praised by every critic who's seen it.
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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 6:39 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!!!
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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 6:41 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 26, 2007, 2:35 PMb) its not cutting edge when ten years have passed
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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 6:50 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!!!
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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 6:51 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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 7:23 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.
Indulge me, if no one else. I'd be very interested in seeing such a show.
On Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 7:23 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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 7:38 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.
http://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/1816 - Here's the thread!
On Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 7:39 PM GMT, Chappers 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.
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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 7:40 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Except as a credit.
On Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 8:17 PM GMT, Chappers said:
Ok - maybe there then.
On Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 8:29 PM GMT, Martin H 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 Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 8:34 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.
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.
Sorry. Wrong forum for sitcom allusions.
But the technique did work for Andy Millman!
On Saturday 26th May 2007 GMT at 10:45 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.
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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 8:26 AM 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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 12:25 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.
I'm not frustrated. Why are you?
(OK... maybe I'm frustrated sexually!)
On Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 12:35 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!
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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 1:14 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 27, 2007, 8:35 AM
You've really made sarcasm your own.
And I so wanted sarcasm to be mine...
On Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 4:13 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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 4:59 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!
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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 6:21 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.
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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 6:23 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!!!
Thats good humour Matthew?
On Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 6:28 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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 6:35 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!!!
It's prejudice from the apparent conditions in which the show was produced.
On Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 8:54 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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 9:58 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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 10:40 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Anal alert!
On Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 10:43 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 Sunday 27th May 2007 GMT at 11:10 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 Monday 28th May 2007 GMT at 12:11 AM 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.
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 Monday 28th May 2007 GMT at 12:49 AM 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 Monday 28th May 2007 GMT at 1:04 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
ContainsNuts smells
On Monday 28th May 2007 GMT at 2:45 AM GMT, Chappers 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 Monday 28th May 2007 GMT at 6:39 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 27, 2007, 6:40 PMAnal alert!
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 Monday 28th May 2007 GMT at 8:21 AM GMT, Badge said:
Don't close it down! There's loads of good debate in here! Amongst the bile!
On Monday 28th May 2007 GMT at 10:19 AM 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.
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 Tuesday 29th May 2007 GMT at 12:25 AM GMT, Chappers 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.
What was the best thing before Sliced Bread? I know someone else has said this before - but it is a good point.
On Tuesday 29th May 2007 GMT at 12:26 AM GMT, Leevil said:
Unsliced bread?
On Tuesday 29th May 2007 GMT at 6:12 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Fire then
bread then
sandwiches then
spreadable butter then
sliced bread
On Wednesday 30th May 2007 GMT at 3:01 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: ajp29 @ May 29, 2007, 2:12 AMFire then
bread then
sandwiches then
spreadable butter then
sliced bread
i think sliced bread came before spreadable butter. The old stuff used to rip the bread to buggery.
On Friday 1st June 2007 GMT at 9:11 AM 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 Friday 1st June 2007 GMT at 1:05 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I've just not got around to watching it since episode 2. Keeps being other stuff on...
On Friday 1st June 2007 GMT at 1:48 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 Friday 1st June 2007 GMT at 2:03 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 Friday 1st June 2007 GMT at 11:41 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 Friday 1st June 2007 GMT at 11:53 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.
You've changed your tune.
On Saturday 2nd June 2007 GMT at 5:05 AM 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 Monday 4th June 2007 GMT at 9:47 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 Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 12:22 AM 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.
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 Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 1:47 AM 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 Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 2:31 AM GMT, SlagA said:
Agree totally with you, ContainsNuts. I just couldn't let that statement go by without questioning it.
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 2:36 AM 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 Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 4:19 AM 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 Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 5:21 AM 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 Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 5:47 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 5, 2007, 12:19 AMThe performances are better than anything i've seen since The Office,
I can't let you get away with that Josh. The guy who plays Gavin can't act. In Roman's Empire, The Catherine Tate Show and Gavin and Stacy he plays the same character, and his voice, Jesus, it drives me crazy. The rest of the cast is good though, especially the guest stars.
I agree with you Josh but its not a comedy, comedy drama maybe but its more like a soap along the lines of Coronation Street with some comic moments. The problem was how it was promoted.
And for the record I always view things with an open mind.
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 6:33 AM GMT, Charley said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 5, 2007, 12:19 AMI 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.
Hi Josh.
First off I have to agree with some of Godot Taxi & AJP's posts.
G&S is in my view & like Godot's, a drama with some comical scenes.
I can in no way shape or form put it up there with The Office. It has a charm & an appeal I give you that. However I only watched my first eppy sunday night as I had blown it out previously in favour of one of my fav programmes *dont kill me* Desperate Housewives. Also a drama with some comical scenes.
I prefer Romans Empire to G&S and I do like the acting of the fellow who plays Gavin. I can understand why he would annoy some though.
In a nutshell Josh, you enjoy your G&S. Keep loving what you love. Dont be pissed that some may not. The Beauty of any comedy is in the ears & eyes of the beholder. There is a vast comedic taste in this forum and around the world.
Thank fook I say.
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 7:04 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Yeah Josh, you defend your corner so I have nothing but respect for you and your opinion. Mine just happens to differ. Please don't be offended by what I say because chances are i'm talking bullshit. (I usually am).
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 7:43 AM GMT, Charley said:
AJP you never talk bullshit. I love you, i do.xxx
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 8:09 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Now you're talking bullshit Thanks though
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 1:14 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I like it but its not on the Office's level at all, as that was truely groundbreaking and funnier. However, I also found myself gunning for the characters more than most.
One thing thats surprises me about this knowledgable crowd is that they are still debating whether its a comedy or a drama/soap with comedy in it. Of course its a comedy - full stop. There are enough jokes, extremely subtle as well as obvious. You might not get all of them or find them funny, but that doesn't mean its not a supposed to be a comedy.
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 2:23 PM GMT, David H said:
Can you give examples of the extremely subtle jokes as I may have missed them
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 2:33 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
i haven't memorised them, there are also quite a few running gags so its not something you can watch one episode, in the middle, of. Such as the 'marry one, shag one...' game.
Anyway, I like it, but not enough for defending it to the hills while at work
On Tuesday 5th June 2007 GMT at 3:51 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Mathew Horne's acting is a pretty subtle running joke
Man I made myself laugh out loud then.
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 3:45 AM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Just seen this in this weeks radio times:
Comedy of the week.
"This glorious series gets a perfectly pitched finale,
as the wedding arrives. The tender dramatic moments are
unashamedly sentimental and deftly handled - reminiscent
of The Royle Family at its very best - but the ceremony
is peppered with raucous, acutely observed comic moments,
from Smithy's disastrous best man speech to the return of
Dawn and Pete, the embittered married couple. Every member
of the excellent cast gets at least one terrific line ;
seeing everyone in one room brings home how many well-drawn
characters Ruth Jones and James Corden have created, almost
without us noticing. Truth be told, this is up there with
Peep Show for the comedy of the year."
Says it all for me! 
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 4:17 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Hers another review from Radiotimes of the Teletubbies
'The underlying transcient theme of the show is to juxtoppose the vibrancy of simple colour schemes and delivery with the modern informed and inspired technology and content. At times reminiscent of the Assent of Man, the show tackles the critical foundations of civilisation namely words and numbers. Up there with the World at War as documentary of the century. But too many ethic kids for me.'
Only kidding Josh. However if you could win an argument by simply repeating someone else's opinion then look back at the thread and I think I win.
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 8:20 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I take the Radio Times and saw that review (not the teletubbies one ).
I was also thinking of posting it. It troubles me when there is such a large discrepancy between what I think and a reviewer thinks. Normally reviewers throw shit at good programmes because they didn't watch them properly or misread the author's intentions, not the other way round.
The characters in G & S are fairly obvious clichés - from lairey Essex wide boy Smithy to 'fat slag' Nessa and Gavin's chirpy cockney chav mum. The married couple who are always arguing comes straight out of Father Ted.
That's what you get when actors write scripts - the dialogue and charcaters are highly reminiscent of things you've seen before, often of things the bloody actor's been in him/herself.
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 12:42 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
here we go again...
Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 6, 2007, 4:20 AM
I was also thinking of posting it. It troubles me when there is such a large discrepancy between what I think and a reviewer thinks. Normally reviewers throw shit at good programmes because they didn't watch them properly or misread the author's intentions, not the other way round.
Or maybe we are all different with different tastes?
Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 6, 2007, 4:20 AMThe characters in G & S are fairly obvious clichés - from lairey Essex wide boy Smithy to 'fat slag' Nessa and Gavin's chirpy cockney chav mum. The married couple who are always arguing comes straight out of Father Ted.
I don't see the 'obvious' cliches, some of the characters are from Essex and speak cockney because of it, i think your definition of chav is misplaced. Plus, sub-characters don't need to have as much depth as the main ones.
I actually love Father Ted, but if stupid Irish people isn't a bit of a cliche what is?
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 12:43 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 6, 2007, 4:20 AM
That's what you get when actors write scripts - the dialogue and charcaters are highly reminiscent of things you've seen before, often of things the bloody actor's been in him/herself.
Like what?
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 12:52 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 5, 2007, 11:45 PMJust seen this in this weeks radio times:
Comedy of the week.
"This glorious series gets a perfectly pitched finale,
as the wedding arrives. The tender dramatic moments are
unashamedly sentimental and deftly handled - reminiscent
of The Royle Family at its very best - but the ceremony
is peppered with raucous, acutely observed comic moments,
from Smithy's disastrous best man speech to the return of
Dawn and Pete, the embittered married couple. Every member
of the excellent cast gets at least one terrific line ;
seeing everyone in one room brings home how many well-drawn
characters Ruth Jones and James Corden have created, almost
without us noticing. Truth be told, this is up there with
Peep Show for the comedy of the year."
Says it all for me!
LOL!
Oh, such glorious bullshit.
A '... disastrous best mans speech.' Really? I'd hardly call that 'acutely observed'. More like 'tried and tested'. Which is fine... just not worthy of that reviewer's ramblings.
'Up there with Peep Show'? Obviously comedy, like every art form, is subjective and what goes for some, doesn't go for others'. Being as objective as possible though, I wouldn't be able to compare G&S with PS.
I like the show. It's OK. Watchable. Enjoyable in its own way. I laugh. It passes half an hour.
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 2:24 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ June 6, 2007, 8:52 AM
It passes half an hour.
So does a dodgy kebab
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 2:31 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I'm not trying to win and argument, cos it's just a difference of opinion. I just saw the review and thought i'd show that outside of 2 or 3 people on this forum it's regarded highly by critics and the public alike. It's normally one or the other. Peep Show for example, great critical praise but next to no one watches it. Or My family which critics hate but people watch in massive numbers. Here is a show that's getting the highest critical acclaim and it's viewing figures are brilliant. It will surely move to a main channel and i can't wait to watch it all again!
Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ June 6, 2007, 8:52 AM
.
A '... disastrous best mans speech.' Really? I'd hardly call that 'acutely observed'. More like 'tried and tested'. Which is fine... just not worthy of that reviewer's ramblings.
You should probably wait until you've seen the speech cos it may be acutely observed. Until you've seen it you probably shouldn't comment.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 6, 2007, 10:24 AM
So does a dodgy kebab
A dodgy kebab passes through you in half an hour. That's different
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 5:14 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Well, I've laughed along with most of the show... so I'm sure I'll find the speech funny.
My point was that the reviewer (and hardly an independent viewpoint is it, being a Radio Times write-up?) is talking about this 'disastrous' speech as if it were the most original thing he's ever seen. The content of said speech may potentially provide mirth but the actual concept of a best man cocking it up isn't new at all.
I wasn't passing comment on the show as such, merely the use of language, by the reviewer, in order to dress up a very basic premise.
TV is a mass medium. In order for programming to be successful, it has to appeal to the masses. G&S appears to have done just that.
You can argue about the definition of 'successful' amongst yourselves...
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 7:13 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ June 6, 2007, 1:14 PMThe concept of a best man cocking it up isn't new at all.
Well said Darren, a good point. Acutely observed? As Fawlty says "The bleedin' obvious" more like. And the Radio Times? It's like asking a car salesman to tell you the bad points about the car he's trying to sell you. Even Goebbels would have toned down some of their gushing reviews.
On Wednesday 6th June 2007 GMT at 7:15 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: SlagA @ June 6, 2007, 3:13 PM
Even Goebbels would have toned down some of their gushing reviews.
On Thursday 7th June 2007 GMT at 12:45 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Friends at work say it's really good - but I still haven't got around to watching it.
Incidentally I was best man once and I did a really embarrassing speech - not clever just pathetic - and I still worry about it now ... 25 years later!!!
On Thursday 7th June 2007 GMT at 5:55 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 6, 2007, 8:42 AMhere we go again...
Or maybe we are all different with different tastes?
I don't see the 'obvious' cliches, some of the characters are from Essex and speak cockney because of it, i think your definition of chav is misplaced. Plus, sub-characters don't need to have as much depth as the main ones.
I actually love Father Ted, but if stupid Irish people isn't a bit of a cliche what is?
Father ted isn't about 'stupid Irish people' either wholly or in part. One character is stupid - two if you count Dougal's counterpart on rugged Island. I love Father Ted, and it has minimal hack or clichéd writing. Some of the writing is in fact highly original and inspired. You miss the point, a little. You say the characters speak cockney because they are cockney. This is not the cliché, the cliché is in writing about these people in the first place. I was responding to an earlier post that described the show as highly original and with greater character depth than anything else they could think off. The same poster has compared it to Phoenix Nights and The Office. Most sitcom revolves around stereotypes. If you're a writer and have tried your hand at it, you'll know that the form resists deep and original characterisation, even in its most naturalistic, current incarnation, like Pulling or G & S.
Time and time again on this thread I have given concrete examples of what I consider to be weak writing in G & S. People come back with 'well I like it' kind of posts. Of course that's your prerogative. I don't decry anyone for liking it. I state why I think it is not much good. No-one (beyond Matt Stott saying the characterisation was warm) has made much of a stab at saying what they think is good about the writing. That doesn't matter over much, but whether it's good or not is not about personal taste.
If you said that you didn't think that the poetry of Ted Hughes was very good, no-one will take that criticism seriously. It is good. Rembrant can't paint. But he can paint.
Many of the writers on here aren't crazy about G& S at a script level, and I think their lack of enthusiasm would be shared by many professional writers if they were to watch the show. I don't know that and I could be wrong, but again my point is why is the show so highly praised and i don't think it's good?
I can see why people like Peep Show. Ideal with Jonny Vegas is brilliantly written. I can see why a reviewer would fail to appreciate a show because they didn't watch it properly, or didn't connect with what the writer was saying - it's happened so many times. What i can't understand, and you haven't addressed this - is why I don't think it's well written and they do. We're both using the same critical standards and tools. One of us is wrong. You would say it was me - I of course would say it's them.
On Thursday 7th June 2007 GMT at 1:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I get the point about writing and I am a writer but I learnt very early on (from a very successful writer) that you are writing for the public and not other writers. There is only one criteria in comedy and that is to make people laugh. The majority of the public aren't writers and won't be looking for the writing.
There are huge holes in the premise of G+S and some of the jokes do fall flat but there is a warmth to the comedy that gets you past that. I don't think its highly original or amazing, but if you watch as just a writer then you'll lose that overall impression that the public will get and, at the end of the day, they decide whats good or not - not us.
I think a writer needs to understand why people like things even if you don't as, again, these are the people that you are writing for. I don't think you are wrong to pick at the writing but I just think the importance of it isn't as high.
It also might seem better than it is because there is so much crap comedy about at the moment. But I like the character mix (Essex v Wales), the conflicts, the love story and the subtle jokes.
On Thursday 7th June 2007 GMT at 9:26 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I think the writing is superb for the following reasons. It's subtle and truthful to every single character. Within ten minutes of the first episode i was sucked into the world the characters live in, i felt i knew them and i think that is a testimnent to the writing to feel like that after 10 minutes. It's something that Peep Show, for me took 3 episodes to do, i love Peep Show by the way, i'm just using it as an example. The characters have heart and warmth and this i think is much harder than writing "dark" or "edgy" comedy. And yet within this story which could seem so touchy feely or sentimental it has an edge that sets it apart from the my family type shows. The 2 families in the show are named the Shipmans and the Wests. Never flagged up in the series, just left for you to realise. The character of Nessa is an incredible creation, her speech about Mohamed Al Fayed was so brilliantly brilliantly written, that although absurd and wierd it's handled and thrown away superbly. The way the writers have fully formed seven main characters who you believe in is surely testiment to wonderful writing. The review in the Times said,"This show should be shortlisted for next years BAFTA already, character comedy like this has never been so good." I, as you know, agree with him. I can't see what's remotely lazy in the writing, i think it's precise, well crafted and most importantly funny! The show gets funnier the more you watch it, because the jokes are all in the characters and the situation they are in. I agree that Gavin and Stacey isn't a "sit-com" as we know it, this for me is a plus. It's so much more. It's funnier than most stuff on television, in my opinion, and yet so moving and touching. It reaches out to you as a viewer and asks you to come on a journey with the characters, that for me is the definition of good writing. x
On Thursday 7th June 2007 GMT at 10:02 PM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 7, 2007, 9:00 AMI get the point about writing and I am a writer but I learnt very early on (from a very successful writer) that you are writing for the public and not other writers.
Surely your write for yourself and what you like, not what you think others will like. That's my thought on the matter anyway.
On Thursday 7th June 2007 GMT at 10:39 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PMIt's subtle and truthful to every single character. Within ten minutes of the first episode i was sucked into the world the characters live in, i felt i knew them and i think that is a testimnent to the writing to feel like that after 10 minutes.
Its a comedy drama so I agree with that. The writers are actors so you would hope they would have picked somthing up from their other projects.
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PMThe characters have heart and warmth and this i think is much harder than writing "dark" or "edgy" comedy.
Why do they attempt 'edgy' jokes then like the Diana jokes?
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PMThe 2 families in the show are named the Shipmans and the Wests. Never flagged up in the series, just left for you to realise.
Is that meant to be a joke? Jokes like that without context are cruel and lazy. Why is that funny? And why are you pointing it out?
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PMThe way the writers have fully formed seven main characters who you believe in is surely testiment to wonderful writing. The review in the Times said,"This show should be shortlisted for next years BAFTA already, character comedy like this has never been so good." I, as you know, agree with him. I can't see what's remotely lazy in the writing, i think it's precise, well crafted and most importantly funny!
Writing is all about conflict yet the conflict in this show does not arise from the characters but situations forced into the plot. an example would be the scene in the church with the sandwhich and the telephone call where Gavin is talking to another person on the phone and Stacy gets annoyed.
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 5:26 PMIt reaches out to you as a viewer and asks you to come on a journey with the characters
So does a news report.
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 3:34 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 7, 2007, 1:55 AM...the cliché is in writing about these people in the first place.
I say we need to turn Bill & Ben into a proper sitcom. A comedy about flowers? No clichés there!
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 3:46 AM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Look, i was asked to explain why i thought the writing to be good. I did that. It's just my opinion.
Not all writing is about conflict, this simply isn't true. Are you honestly saying every piece of narrative writing is about conflict?
The news does not and never will reach out a hand and take you on a journey with it's characters!!! What news are you watching? This is an absurd statement. Oh, did you think the news readers were actors and that all the stories were made up? Ah, bless.
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 4:45 AM GMT, Charley said:
I am an angel you know. Sent from heaven to bring piss & Ah!mennie
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 1:58 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ June 7, 2007, 6:02 PM
Surely your write for yourself and what you like, not what you think others will like. That's my thought on the matter anyway.
You should write in your own style but if you want to be successful other people have to like it. All those thousands of writers like what they write but it doesn't lead to success unless the producers and public like it.
Quote: ajp29 @ June 7, 2007, 6:39 PM
Its a comedy drama so I agree with that. The writers are actors so you would hope they would have picked somthing up from their other projects.
for the 8,000 time, its not a comedy drama its a sitcom. It is 30 mins long, its written as a sitcom and is publicised as a sitcom.
Quote: ajp29 @ June 7, 2007, 6:39 PM
Writing is all about conflict yet the conflict in this show does not arise from the characters but situations forced into the plot. an example would be the scene in the church with the sandwhich and the telephone call where Gavin is talking to another person on the phone and Stacy gets annoyed.
Its the Wests that choose to take the non-religious Shipman's to church. CONFLICT
Its the vicar who chooses to use a metaphor that Gavin doesn't get. CONFLICT
That is characters making choices which conflict with others. Plus a conflict can be external or even inner.
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 2:20 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
I agree that those scenes you mentioned have conflict. My point is that ajp made a statement that ALL writing is about conflict. Not just Gavin and Stacey, ALL writing. I just don't think this is true.
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 2:32 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 8, 2007, 10:20 AMI agree that those scenes you mentioned have conflict. My point is that ajp made a statement that ALL writing is about conflict. Not just Gavin and Stacey, ALL writing. I just don't think this is true.
I wasn't posting that for you, i was just saying that for ajp as he said they weren't character conflicts. I think the best writing has conflict at some level.
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 2:40 PM GMT, chipolata said:
There's a lot of replies in this thread. I almost wished I'd watched the show now, but I really can't warm to that oily English bloke in the lead role (he's very oily, and looks baguely like he fiddles with children).
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 3:33 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 11:46 PMOh, did you think the news readers were actors and that all the stories were made up? Ah, bless.
What? You mean they aren't?
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 7:38 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 11:46 PMNot all writing is about conflict, this simply isn't true. Are you honestly saying every piece of narrative writing is about conflict?
Josh, you're right when you say that not all writing has conflict but that's usually held up as an example of bad writing.
AJP is right to assert that all the best drama and all the best comedy is about conflict at whatever level. The first lesson we learn as viewers and writers is if there isn't conflict it's boring. Example: There's conflict between Morse and his sidekick, conflict in The Parrot Sketch. Yes, it varies in intensity and in the target and reason but there is always (rather should always be) a conflict and a tension in good writing.
Contains Nuts is right in that all conflict need not be external, but giving one reason why the show has to be a sitcom is because it's 30 minutes long is not true. I'm not disagreeing whether the show is or isn't a sitcom, I'm only looking at the logic of the statement which is the old syllogism: "All sitcoms are 30 minutes long. This show is 30 minutes long therefore this show is a sitcom."
Most definitions of sitcom use the term 'typically' or 'usually' when referring to episode time but this doesn't mean always. The fact that the word 'usually' is used indicates that there are examples contrary to this. That other types of show (journalism / news / drama / soaps) use the 30 minute format says more about traditional schedules than being an indication of genre.
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 7, 2007, 11:46 PMThe news does not and never will reach out a hand and take you on a journey with it's characters!!! What news are you watching?
The real question is: What news are you watching, if you even have to ask that question.
1) Most news programmes have human interest stories, vlog items, etc.
2) The news reporters (e.g. kate Adie) become well known in their careers and we empathise with their on-screen personas.
Try this: A female reporter (a talking head) talks from Kabul - Boring.
Then try this: Character: a vulnerable female reporter in a hostile environment. Journey: How i slipped into Afghanistan, dressed as a man. Now add shots of RPGs, guns, toothless dodgy-looking old men and camels (not needed for the actual news content) and suddenly it's a different story. It's more adventure story than news report.
3) Some of the best ever journalism (The news report from the Sudan in 1984 that initiated LiveAid) was done in a style of introducing you to the story and its characters. I will never forget that report. Not for the facts and figures but for the plight of the little boy, gone too far, left crying and dying under a blanket in the red earth, all alone. Why is that? It's because people naturally empathise with people, not cold facts, that's why this style of journalism deals more and more with the impact of events on people.
News has shifted radically from the old reading of facts to getting in amongst the fighting, getting at the story means getting at the people behind the story. Even the budget deals not so much with percentages but through interviews how this affect a real pensioner or a real family man.
So AJP is totally right in asserting that even good journalism seeks to draw you into story and character
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 9:45 PM GMT, Josh Dulaney said:
Of course you're right regarding news features and the like. You are, and i hadn't actually thought of it like that. This thread could go on and on and on. I just think it's a good show, a really good show and that's that really. Sit-com, not a sit-com, funny not funny, it's all opinion. I feel sure there is someone somewhere sat saying how partridge is shit, and that Peter Cook didn't have a funny bone in his body! It would be that persons point of view and nothing else. I truly expect to see Gavin and Stacey winning awards and going on to recieve higher praise than it already has, if that's possible. And i've enjoyed talking about it and am glad to have found this site. It feels like certain people on here will find negatives in everything until they find some success in their own comedy lives, i like to look for positives and i'm really positive for the 2nd series of Gavin and Stacey. x x x
On Friday 8th June 2007 GMT at 11:55 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
please don't take what i said out of context, i was using the 30 mins bit as part of the description not as the sole reason. Plus, sitcom and not sitcom is not an opinion it is up to the person who wrote it. WHether its funny or not is a matter of opinion - greatly here. The writers say they wrote it to be in the sitcom genre, the BBC call it a sitcom, and it has every markings of a sitcom. Not being funny doesn't make it a comedy drama.
BTW, according to Marc Blake's book 'Sitcom is always half an hour. If a comedy stretches to an hour, then it is called comedy drama.' I believe a lot of people here regard Blake highly on this site.
On Saturday 9th June 2007 GMT at 12:32 AM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 8, 2007, 7:55 PMBTW, according to Marc Blake's book 'Sitcom is always half an hour. If a comedy stretches to an hour, then it is called comedy drama.' I believe a lot of people here regard Blake highly on this site.
As Marc says in his book, sitcom is indeed pretty much always half an hour. The main reason being that sustaining the gag rate and the interest of the audience for an hour without any drama elements is a bit hard! The notable exceptions being extended [Christmas] special episodes (e.g. Vicar of Dibley) - they're still sitcoms despite being an hour.
On Saturday 9th June 2007 GMT at 3:01 AM GMT, SlagA said:
Josh, cheers, you are a pleasure to debate with. And yes, a show's worth is all just opinion.
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 8, 2007, 5:45 PMIt feels like certain people on here will find negatives in everything until they find some success in their own comedy lives
This isn't strictly true, my main gripe is with how the show got a commission not the show itself. I would have been aggrieved at the tale of how the show got commissioned whether I was a writer or not. And assuming that all negative feedback is from aggrieved writers purely because they haven't been commissioned isn't true either. It's an appreciation of detail and structure that may well aggrieve even professional writers when it comes to a series that they happen to dislike. And as you rightly point out, it may all boil down to that person would never have liked it despite being a / not being a writer as it is all down to personal tastes.
Re: Marc Blake's contention that it is all a 30 minute format, doesn't gel with many of the definitions that I googled, the three top ranks all used terms such as 'usually' and 'often'. Plus it's a very easy absolute to disprove. For example, a 'thirty minute' show in america when padded out by repetitive ad breaks is down to around 20 minutes, whereas BBC material is around 28-29 minutes. 50% variation is considerable. Even in the UK you have to write different length scripts for the BBC or commercial channels due to the effect of advertising.
The thirty minute restriction is set by the broadcaster rather than desired plot and structure. What use is a 35 minute ripper when it shunts all your programmes off the hour and half hour by an extra 5 minutes and confusing all the regular viewers? So I'd have to argue that it's a cultural (USA v UK) and a external (BBC v commercial channel) constraint rather than an 'ideal' that has been established over the years by industry pros as the perfect length for a sitcom. All other genres tend to fit into the 30 minute or 60 minute restriction too.
On Saturday 9th June 2007 GMT at 3:27 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Josh if you truly believe what you just wrote, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, why did you have a go at the 'writers' who you thought were jealous because they weren't good enough to write for TV?
Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 8, 2007, 5:45 PMSit-com, not a sit-com, funny not funny, it's all opinion.
Why don't you apologise then.
On Saturday 9th June 2007 GMT at 4:26 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Sitcom, sit-com, who decides?
FIIIGHT!
On Saturday 9th June 2007 GMT at 8:26 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: SlagA @ June 8, 2007, 11:01 PM
Re: Marc Blake's contention that it is all a 30 minute format, doesn't gel with many of the definitions that I googled, the three top ranks all used terms such as 'usually' and 'often'. Plus it's a very easy absolute to disprove. For example, a 'thirty minute' show in america when padded out by repetitive ad breaks is down to around 20 minutes, whereas BBC material is around 28-29 minutes. 50% variation is considerable. Even in the UK you have to write different length scripts for the BBC or commercial channels due to the effect of advertising.
The thirty minute restriction is set by the broadcaster rather than desired plot and structure. What use is a 35 minute ripper when it shunts all your programmes off the hour and half hour by an extra 5 minutes and confusing all the regular viewers? So I'd have to argue that it's a cultural (USA v UK) and a external (BBC v commercial channel) constraint rather than an 'ideal' that has been established over the years by industry pros as the perfect length for a sitcom. All other genres tend to fit into the 30 minute or 60 minute restriction too.
I think we are getting a bit pedantic here, myself included. Usual and often are still relevant words for my argument, but my main one is what the writers intended and what its presented as which is a sitcom.
BTW BBC is usually 26 mins and commercial is 22 mins so the difference isn't that big and can easily be managed without much rewriting as credits and scene cuts can be shortened or lengthened.
On Saturday 9th June 2007 GMT at 8:31 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Aaron @ June 9, 2007, 12:26 AMSitcom, sit-com, who decides?
FIIIGHT!
SitCom
Si-Co
Sico
SiCo
On Sunday 10th June 2007 GMT at 11:46 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
I saw the last episode and liked it as usual. How about that for a peace offering Josh. But I genuinely liked it, it is/was a very good comedy drama. Although I hate it when, when they get another series, programmes don't tie up storylines. Don't get me started on lost. It really bugs me. Oh well Hohum.
On Sunday 10th June 2007 GMT at 2:45 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 21, 2007, 3:49 PM
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.
Apololgies for quoting my own post from page six or something of this thread but it seems people ain't read it. Gavin & Lazy IS a sitcom. As writers, we must take this on board or we ain't gonna sell to the BBC. It's a sitcom. In the same way that Damien Hirst is a painter and Rachel Whiteread is a sculptor, even though someone else does his paintings and she casts everything in a jelly mould.
On Sunday 10th June 2007 GMT at 3:06 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 10, 2007, 10:45 AM
Apololgies for quoting my own post from page six or something of this thread but it seems people ain't read it. Gavin & Lazy IS a sitcom. As writers, we must take this on board or we ain't gonna sell to the BBC. It's a sitcom. In the same way that Damien Hirst is a painter and Rachel Whiteread is a sculptor, even though someone else does his paintings and she casts everything in a jelly mould.
LOL @ 'people ain't read it'.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say '... or we ain't gonna sell to the BBC.' Do you mean we need to recognise that G&S is a sitcom (and not a comedy-drama, or just plain 'comedy')... and that's how it was sold to the BBC? And if we don't name our comedy-dramas as sitcoms, we won't sell anything either?
I guess I don't really understand what the difference is. I mean, I know that 'Sit-Com' (or however you like to spell it) means 'situation-comedy'. But what's wrong with another label... and why won't it sell if re-badged?
Or am I missing the point? Sorry... bad headache, feeling a little hung-over.
On Sunday 10th June 2007 GMT at 5:01 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Darren, what I mean is, people get perfectly decent stuff rejected because it's 'old fashioned'. What most BBC readers and producers would call old fashioned is what people on these forums call classic sitcoms.
Sitcom doesn't really exist any more as you or I know it. It is 'narrative comedy'. Now, I know about My Family and Not Going Out - yes they are traditional, but believe me, they are exceptions now. Old style shows had themed epiosdes and no narrative arc. That's changed. There is a serial element to comedy these days - the influence of 25 years of Emmerdale and Eastenders being thrust down our throats, perhaps.
TV is very trend-driven and the trend at the moment is cinema verité, or realism or wobbly camera to you squire. As many writers know there ain't nothing real about realism, so I for one find this limiting. G & S is the best example of this. Even fans of the show admit that the humour is 'subtle'. The dialogue leans more towards naturalism than to old style 'sitcom dialogue'.
If I can quote myself from earlier in this thread again. Here's my version of a line from G & S:
COACH DRIVER:
Fags and weed, glue and speed. But I draw the line at freebasin' as I 'aven't got a fire extinguisher.
STACEY:
Aw, fair play.
The original exchange is this:
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.
No joke and very naturalistic.
On Monday 2nd July 2007 GMT at 2:36 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
I'm arriving a bit late on this and I'm not going to read a 17 page argument about what constitutes a sitcom these days.
I watched Series 1 on Saturday night, BBC3 showed all 6 episodes back to back.
I thought it was very good. It was funny, which is always a good start. Pretty strong characters. A nice divide between Gavin & Stacey, who were lovely people and Nessa and Smithy, who weren't. Lots of strength in the background, Uncle Bryn and Gavin's Mum in particular.
It was really well written, quite American style really, with the cliff hanger endings. I'd be very interested in finding out if the writers have the ability to write a second series and also to diversify and produce other stuff. Never the less, a very strong effort.
On Monday 2nd July 2007 GMT at 10:36 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I'm afraid i can't agree with you, although it seems there will be another series of Gavin & Lazy whether the writers can manage it or not.
I predict that series two will be toilet with only one joke to share between all six episodes, but magazines and newspaper reviews will say that is 'charming' and 'the funniest thing on TV since the first series' and 'brilliant' etc.
On Monday 2nd July 2007 GMT at 11:51 PM GMT, Britcom Barry said:
I did ask the question elsewhere "how important is the writer" and judging by this tread not as much as some would have you believe.
I did watch them all back to back and for me it just worked, I found it both entertaining and funny, I'm not prepared to study it any deeper than that as it tends to suck all the enjoyment out of it.
I would compare it to an architect, a child could drew a house which if built would give you somewhere to sleep and keep the rain off, so if it's raining and your tired then job done.
It doesn't have to be clever.
I don't think there a definitive different between a Sitcom and comedy drama, but for me this leant towards the later mainly I feel due to location and the fact it didn't have one, but many.
Anyway I enjoyed so that all that matters..................to me.
On Tuesday 3rd July 2007 GMT at 1:42 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Well said Barry.
On Tuesday 3rd July 2007 GMT at 2:07 AM GMT, Charley said:
*pulls up a chair*
*chants*
Man fight Man fight. Whoopie doopie doo!
On Tuesday 3rd July 2007 GMT at 3:06 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Anyone notice that since the show ended we haven't had any more posts from 'Josh Dealaney'?
I am I the only one to think that someone who only posts about one show and has read all of the reviews is possibly the writer?
The obvious conclusion would be that 'Josh' - which after all means to tease - is the fat boy - James Whatsisname, but Josh said he lives in Wales, so he could be Ruth Jones.
Think about it. Only posts about Gavin & Stacey. Has read All of the reviews.
I like 'Ideal', but I've never bother to find a review of it.
On Tuesday 3rd July 2007 GMT at 3:08 AM GMT, SlagA said:
EDIT
On Sunday 15th July 2007 GMT at 2:07 PM GMT, Kent Pete said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 12, 2007, 10:17 AMI'm not too keen, I heard it's not too far from Two Pints.
By what I have seen it's in a different league to Two Pints...Look at the cast for a start..Alison Steadman, Rob Brydon..You don't often find them in sh1te.
On Monday 16th July 2007 GMT at 12:24 AM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Kent Pete @ July 15, 2007, 10:07 AMLook at the cast..Rob Brydon..You don't often find them in sh1te.
Supernova.
On Monday 16th July 2007 GMT at 12:46 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Are people still arguing about this show???? Bloody hell . . .
On Monday 16th July 2007 GMT at 2:21 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
I thought this thread had died or did I go to the wrong wake?
On Monday 16th July 2007 GMT at 2:23 AM GMT, Reiss Ellesse said:
AJP pour another large one
On Monday 16th July 2007 GMT at 2:29 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Coming up! Its such a tragic loss isn't it.
On Thursday 6th September 2007 GMT at 12:58 AM GMT, missy 125 said:
i love gav n stace....maybe i am ruth jones....or maybe she has better things to do with her time
On Thursday 6th September 2007 GMT at 1:37 AM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: missy_125 @ September 5, 2007, 8:58 PMi love gav n stace....maybe i am ruth jones....or maybe she has better things to do with her time
If you are Ruth Jones, I loved it and where can I send my scripts to?
Yes, you must be the real deal. 125 being kabbulah numerology for "welsh actress, female." Combining the 3 digits gives 8 = 'the one above God' or as we know him ... Coogan.
On Thursday 6th September 2007 GMT at 2:06 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
We've had the wake for this thread ages ago, who's playing God and resurrecting it?
Only kidding Missy, welcome to the BSG. If you are Ruth Jones tell Coogan to stop driving people to suicide
On Thursday 6th September 2007 GMT at 3:13 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Strange one that missy 125 as she's disappeared.
So if it is you Ruth I started the thread praising you (arse lick) so please look at our MySpace. I've got a big part for you.
On Thursday 6th September 2007 GMT at 3:15 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Hello to you, Missy. Good to see someone else enjoying the show.
On Thursday 6th September 2007 GMT at 1:58 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Aaron @ September 5, 2007, 11:15 PMGood to see someone else enjoying the show.
Even if it is the writers.
I jest, Missy 125 - still waiting for that personal invite to see my script.
On Thursday 6th September 2007 GMT at 3:19 PM GMT, Darren Goldsmith said:
Quote: missy_125 @ September 5, 2007, 8:58 PMi love gav n stace....maybe i am ruth jones....or maybe she has better things to do with her time
And to further disguise the fact that you're the real Ruth Jones, you've f**ked up the grammar and punctuation in your post.
Clever
On Thursday 20th September 2007 GMT at 3:49 AM GMT, del-boy said:
what was the childhood of the gavin character like? does anyone know?
On Thursday 20th September 2007 GMT at 4:00 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I certainly don't, but welcome to the forums, del-boy.
On Thursday 20th September 2007 GMT at 6:04 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Hi Del-Boy welcome to the BSG
Adam
On Sunday 14th October 2007 GMT at 7:25 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Sorry but why is this in comedy and not sitcom? Regardless of whether individuals think it is funny or not it is still classed as a sitcom.
Anyways, I'm not resurrecting this thread because its been brought back to life anyhow. Amanda Steadman has revealed that they are already into filming for series 2 which is good news for people like me who liked it.
The people who didn't should just agree to disagree on this just like we all do with comedies.
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 12:08 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Well I think I started this off in the wrong place and no-one could be arsed to move it.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ October 14, 2007, 3:25 PMSorry but why is this in comedy and not sitcom? Regardless of whether individuals think it is funny or not it is still classed as a sitcom.
Anyways, I'm not resurrecting this thread because its been brought back to life anyhow. Amanda Steadman has revealed that they are already into filming for series 2 which is good news for people like me who liked it.
The people who didn't should just agree to disagree on this just like we all do with comedies.
So you didn't ressurect it then?
Anyway I'll look forward to the second series - with Alison Steadman.
I won't actually be watching it WITH her though.
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 12:45 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: David Chapman @ October 14, 2007, 8:08 PM
So you didn't ressurect it then?
Well no, as the show isn't 'dead' if its coming back soon. So I'm continuing with new info.
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 12:54 AM GMT, Chappers said:
OK then.
I thought you meant ressurect the thread which you have in effect done.
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 2:01 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: David Chapman @ October 14, 2007, 8:54 PMOK then.
I thought you meant ressurect the thread which you have in effect done.
OK, well I didn't know that was against the rules!
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 2:05 AM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ October 14, 2007, 3:25 PMSorry but why is this in comedy and not sitcom? Regardless of whether individuals think it is funny or not it is still classed as a sitcom.
That's David's fault for starting this thread in the wrong place. Anyway, now moved.
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 3:17 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Yeah, but it was then moved, and moved back again. And now yet again!
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 3:18 AM GMT, Chappers said:
I know - I do admit my heinous crime.
Inflict on me whatever punishment you deem appropriate - except pain.
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 4:11 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
We can keep it in the sitcom thread providing we add an h to the the word sitcom. Series 2? Between the first series of G and S and Roman's Empire are there any more Jesus jokes left?
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 1:19 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ajp29 @ October 15, 2007, 12:11 AMWe can keep it in the sitcom thread forum providing we add an h to the the word sitcom. Series 2? Between the first series of G and S and Roman's Empire are there any more Jesus jokes left?
On Monday 15th October 2007 GMT at 1:22 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 15, 2007, 9:19 AM
Yeah but Fhorum doesn't make sense
On Wednesday 7th November 2007 GMT at 3:27 PM GMT, David H said:
Nominated for seven awards! "Are you having a laugh?"
On Wednesday 7th November 2007 GMT at 3:37 PM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: David H @ November 7, 2007, 10:27 AMNominated for seven awards! "Are you having a laugh?"
I know I can't believe that. Or maybe I can it is the Comedy Awards after all, their decisions are hardly correct most of the time. I do hope Not Going Out beats it though in the categories where they are both nominated.
On Wednesday 7th November 2007 GMT at 4:33 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 7, 2007, 10:37 AMI know I can't believe that. Or maybe I can it is the Comedy Awards after all, their decisions are hardly correct most of the time. I do hope Not Going Out beats it though in the categories where they are both nominated.
Well they can never be right or wrong as comedy is about opinions, hence this thread. While I liked GandS, it goes to show how few successful comedies were around this year to compete with it. I'm surprised IT Crowd and Lead Balloon didn't get more nominations, especially for best TV Comedy.
On Wednesday 7th November 2007 GMT at 9:30 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
Well deserved too, a really great show. It's a billion times better than Peep Show or Star Stories, so I hope they take Best Comedy. Best New Comedy is tight because from the bits I've seen, Not Going out and Lead Balloon are very good.
James Corden deserves the newcomer award.
On Thursday 8th November 2007 GMT at 2:19 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Is Ruth Jones nominated for anything?
She deserves something for her versatility.
On Thursday 8th November 2007 GMT at 3:42 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
Quote: David Chapman @ November 7, 2007, 9:19 PMIs Ruth Jones nominated for anything?
She deserves something for her versatility.
Best Newcomer and Best Actress.
On Sunday 25th November 2007 GMT at 9:04 PM GMT, James Williams said:
I thought it seemed like more of a comedy-drama. The over-arching story and direction seemed to indicate that. I really liked it. Nothing like the lamentable 2 Pints; just because it's about a bunch of working class people, and includes crude material, doesn't make it the same. I thought some of it was a bit dodgy (like when Gavin proposes at gun-point), but forgiveable as it was warm and genuinely funny.
I don't think the script writing was 'lazy', I think it was purposefully toned down - focussing less on "you set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down" jokes and more on warm, gentle laughter. In this sense it seems to borrow from The Royle Family and to a lesser extent The Office. The bit where Rob Brydon explains how the internet works is very funny. It is absolute nonsense to say sitcoms like The Office are not great because "they had no jokes". There is so much more to it than that! It's like reader-response criticism: the viewer is judged intelligent enough to interpret and find various situations funny without a crafted punchline delivering a specific payload. They're different sub-genres I suppose, and I imagine would appeal to different personality types (e.g. presumably those further along the autistic spectrum would prefer fixed, classic in-your-face "gags").
As for the annoyance that only those inside the Beeb seem to be able to get things commisioned - this annoyance is understandable, but the situation is natural. It annoys me when the finished piece is so awful and badly crafted that a chimp could write better, but in this case I think the comedy was very, very successful. And I'm not the mythical "man on the street" who just laughs at knob gags - if such an audience exists. It was rude in places but most of the time it was "true" with it. And funny.
On Monday 26th November 2007 GMT at 12:15 AM GMT, Chappers said:
A very thorough review James.
But I still think it's a sitcom*. And there are the rude jokes but the real feel of the piece.
* to my mind the difference between a sitcom & comedy drama is 30 minutes. There is more time to develop a story in an hour plus long programme.
On Monday 26th November 2007 GMT at 3:05 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: David Chapman @ November 25, 2007, 7:15 PMA very thorough review James.
But I still think it's a sitcom*. And there are the rude jokes but the real feel of the piece.
* to my mind the difference between a sitcom & comedy drama is 30 minutes. There is more time to develop a story in an hour plus long programme.
Its definitely a sitcom. The attempts at jokes are always there even if they sometimes fall under the radar. Most scenes contain some sort of joke while a comedy drama has a lot more pure drama in them.
The nearest 30 mins comedy drama is Viv Vyle.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 3:46 AM GMT, Starscream said:
Okay, so there's a bunch of people that can post in a closed thread. Cheeky buggers. That was my thread!
So it's several months late and you've already had the discussion... is that any reason to cut me off in my prime? I'd started my own thread and everything! I was very proud. And it was ripped away from me.
I'm sure I'll get over it eventually...
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 3:58 AM GMT, Aaron said:
It's nothing personal, honest!
In answer to your thread...
No, I don't think it's a sitcom really either. But I'm not quite sure if it fits the 'drama' bill though, or indeed what else to call it? I dunno. I originally moved this into Other British Comedy, but some cheeky bastard (Mark I think) moved it back in here. Consensus people! Sitcom or not? (Irrespective of whether you thought it was funny.)
I actually only ever watched the first two episodes, so was glad to see it on again. Quite enjoyed it, but still, not a proper sitcom IMO. Looking forward to series two.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 4:02 AM GMT, Starscream said:
Awwww, you replied. I love you for that.
All better now!
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 4:45 AM GMT, Chappers said:
It was good though to my mind. Not brilliant but good.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 1:57 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 4, 2008, 10:58 PMNo, I don't think it's a sitcom really either. But I'm not quite sure if it fits the 'drama' bill though, or indeed what else to call it? I dunno. I originally moved this into Other British Comedy, but some cheeky bastard (Mark I think) moved it back in here. Consensus people! Sitcom or not? (Irrespective of whether you thought it was funny.)
Yes it was me that moved this thread back to its rightful place. It's a sitcom
Heavy on the drama admittedly, but in my opinion still contains all the attributes necessary to be a situation comedy. Plus, the creators call it a 'sitcom' which is always helpful when trying to classify a show.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 2:08 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I can't really see how it can't be a sitcom. They wrote it as a sitcom, it was commissioned as a sitcom, it was promoted as a sitcom, its half an hour long, its got lots of (I agree, subtle) humour throughout. Either people are missing the jokes or don't find them funny, but that still doesn't mean its not a sitcom.
It's also won loads of comedy awards, so its a half-hour narrative comedy about reoccurring characters. That is as good a definition of a sitcom as you can get.
I'm looking forward to seeing it and Pulling soon.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 4:27 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Watching the whole of series one back-to-back on the Beeb the other night, the show impressed me even more. The writing is strong and there are some very funny moments. It's warm-hearted and unpretentious and doesn't pretend to be anything otherwise. The stand-out comedy character for me is Rob Brydon's Uncle Bryn. I'm looking forward to the second series.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 4:50 PM GMT, Rockabilly said:
Watched it all back to back too, it was better that way! roll on series 2.
I have never really gelled with Brydon, but I think his performance in this is swaying me.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 4:58 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Definitively sitcom.
Dan
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 6:09 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ March 5, 2008, 9:08 AMI can't really see how it can't be a sitcom. They wrote it as a sitcom, it was commissioned as a sitcom, it was promoted as a sitcom, ... its got lots of (I agree, subtle) humour throughout.
Jam and Jerusalem.
Quote: Mark @ March 5, 2008, 8:57 AMYes it was me that moved this thread back to its rightful place. It's a sitcom
Heavy on the drama admittedly, but in my opinion still contains all the attributes necessary to be a situation comedy. Plus, the creators call it a 'sitcom' which is always helpful when trying to classify a show.
We all make mistakes, don't worry.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 6:36 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 5, 2008, 1:09 PMJam and Jerusalem.
Just cos the jokes are shit, doesn't mean its not one. Dawn French's character, the widow's children and Joanna Lumley's character are all supposed to be comic characters. I agree, it does push the boundaries though.
I find it hard to compare G&S to JJ, leagues apart and I find the humour in G&S quite constant. As I said, everyone involved (writers, BBC, critics, comedy awards) class it as a sitcom. Though, of course, Aaron's opinion wins
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 8:20 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ March 5, 2008, 1:36 PMThough, of course, Aaron's opinion wins
Correct.
On Wednesday 5th March 2008 GMT at 10:21 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Rockabilly @ March 5, 2008, 11:50 AMWatched it all back to back too, it was better that way! roll on series 2.
I have never really gelled with Brydon, but I think his performance in this is swaying me.
So you're not a troll after all, you've just got shit taste.
On Thursday 6th March 2008 GMT at 1:40 AM GMT, Rockabilly said:
No and im not a cabbie either , thank f**k.
On Thursday 6th March 2008 GMT at 1:45 AM GMT, zooo said:
No need to be rude, boys!
Well there's always a need, but that's no excuse.
On Thursday 6th March 2008 GMT at 3:44 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Ruth Jones made the show to my mind.
On Thursday 6th March 2008 GMT at 4:05 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Rockabilly @ March 5, 2008, 8:40 PMNo and im not a cabbie either , thank f**k.
You certainly haven't got the knowledge.
On Thursday 6th March 2008 GMT at 3:58 PM GMT, Rockabilly said:
You dont know me f**kwit, so leave it.
I made comments MY OPINIONS about a comedy programme! you wanna stir trouble? f**k off south of the river.
On Friday 7th March 2008 GMT at 1:27 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Okaaaaay, and there we shall leave the matter.
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 6:34 PM GMT, Mark said:
As if it hasn't won enough awards already, Gavin and Stacey is up for BAFTA Audience Programme of the Year.
It's up against The Apprentice, Strictly Come Dancing, Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain, Cranford and Britain's Got Talent.
You can vote here:
http://www.bestonthebox.com
(Incidently is that really the best six shows BAFTA could find in the 2007 schedules to put up for voting?!?)
BTW, in case you haven't realised, G&S 2 starts on BBC3 tomorrow night.
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 6:39 PM GMT, zooo said:
I might actually watch it this series.
I didn't give it a proper go last time.
And this has nothing to do with the fact that I suddenly fancy James Corden.
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 6:49 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: zooo @ March 15, 2008, 2:39 PMAnd this has nothing to do with the fact that I suddenly fancy James Corden.
You do? Wow, I will never understand the female mind.
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 6:51 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Well isn't he dating Sheridan Smith?
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 6:53 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well, he was. But he said he was single on the Lily Allen show, although he may have been trying to pull her.
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 7:05 PM GMT, Gavin said:
Oh yeh is the Lilly Allen thing any good? I keep meaning to watch
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 7:08 PM GMT, zooo said:
It's all right.
Totally depends on the guests.
It could do without the audience of baying chavs though.
On Saturday 15th March 2008 GMT at 7:13 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Agreed.
On Sunday 16th March 2008 GMT at 3:52 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: zooo @ March 15, 2008, 2:39 PMAnd this has nothing to do with the fact that I suddenly fancy James Corden.
Quote: Mark @ March 15, 2008, 2:49 PMYou do? Wow, I will never understand the female mind.
Mark, Zooo fancies Ricky Gervais - it's not much of a leap to this sparrow-eyed fat bastard.
On Sunday 16th March 2008 GMT at 5:49 AM GMT, Aaron said:
On Sunday 16th March 2008 GMT at 2:51 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well, someone's got to fancy sparrow eyed fat bastards!
I assume you must be some kind of adonis yourself, since you're standing in judgement over said fat bastards...
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 1:35 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: Mark @ March 15, 2008, 2:34 PM
It's up against The Apprentice, Strictly Come Dancing, Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain, Cranford and Britain's Got Talent.
What a strange selection. In that company it should walk it.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:03 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain was bloody brilliant actually!
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:40 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 16, 2008, 10:03 PMAndrew Marr's History of Modern Britain was bloody brilliant actually!
I preferred his earlier stuff with the Smiths.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:49 AM GMT, Mick Green said:
Was anyone else disappointed with the first two episodes of Series 2? I thought the first series was excellent but tonight's shows didn't live up to the high standards of that first series?
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:51 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: Mick Green @ March 16, 2008, 10:49 PMWas anyone else disappointed with the first two episodes of Series 2? I thought the first series was excellent but tonight's shows didn't live up to the high standards of that first series?
I've only got 1-5 at the moment so I'm missing this and Pulling plus all the other new stuff on BBC3 & 4 and ITV2-4.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:52 AM GMT, Rob B said:
Why this is so popular I have no idea. Although watchable its not in anyway funny
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:53 AM GMT, Paul Carroll said:
Really Mick? I enjoyed both of the shows tonight. There were a few good moments in there and Rob Brydon was brilliant as always.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:55 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: Rob B @ March 16, 2008, 10:52 PMWhy this is so popular I have no idea. Although watchable its not in anyway funny
In comparison to other new stuff it is good though - which is maybe not saying a lot but if you stick with it you get to sympathise with some of the characters.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 3:19 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I enjoyed it. Not really laugh-out-loud. But a few good laughs were there, and still rather entertaining and watchable. Will be tuning in again next week.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 3:40 AM GMT, zooo said:
I liked it!
Especially Corden's sensitive bit when he was alone with, erm... thingy.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:04 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Brynn. Or however it's spelled. Brydon.
Was good, yeah.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:07 AM GMT, zooo said:
Ooh, that too. He had a lot of sensitive bits! And topless bits.
I meant the other thingy...
Played by Ruth. The bit where she said 'it is yours' and he whispered 'I know'. Aw.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:09 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I don't remember that bit! *scratches head*
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:10 AM GMT, zooo said:
It was just after she walked in on him getting dressed.
When he told her he wanted to go to the scan with her.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:17 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I ... I actually don't remember any of that. o_O
I must have walked out of the room or something.
I suppose I was entering shows into the BCG database at the time.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:18 AM GMT, zooo said:
You weren't watching the microwave by accident again, were you?
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:19 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Erm...
I like the turny-ness.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:20 AM GMT, zooo said:
Aw. And the beeps?
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:21 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Not forgetting the little light!
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 2:49 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I thought it was very good. The characters are so well formed and believable whilst still being quirky. Its got a great blend of being moving and funny at the same time, which I think works as some moving moments get brought crashing down to earth with a joke.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 3:31 PM GMT, zooo said:
One line I assume must have been worded that way on purpose, that made me laugh...
Gavin: Come on mate.
Smithy: Don't come on me mate.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 3:48 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
There are a few hidden lines like that. Did anyone notice that after Ness said she lived with the bloke from Hearsay and a few from Katatonia she started talking in their lyrics?
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 3:49 PM GMT, zooo said:
Yeah!
I also liked the story about Richard and Judy.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 4:07 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Nessy in All Saints! ha!
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 5:06 PM GMT, Mick Green said:
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it was terrible. I just don't feel that it hit the heights of the first series. But then again, the first series, in my opinion, set the bar ridiculously high anyway.
I get the feeling they're really attempting to add a bit of substance to the characters in this series, which may be to the detriment of a few laughs? I guess future episodes will prove or disprove that.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 5:55 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Thought the first two episodes were really good and am glad to see this show back. I think it has established its own little world very successfully and it's a pleasure to spend time with these characters.
Particular favourites are the Rob Brydon and Alison Steadman characters. And that short little aside at the breakfast table where Bryn mentions the peanut butter and jam thing was a lovely morsel of good character comedy writing.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 6:19 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ March 17, 2008, 11:31 AMOne line I assume must have been worded that way on purpose, that made me laugh...
Gavin: Come on mate.
Smithy: Don't come on me mate.
Yeah, that was highly amusing!
Quote: ContainsNuts @ March 17, 2008, 11:48 AMThere are a few hidden lines like that. Did anyone notice that after Ness said she lived with the bloke from Hearsay and a few from Katatonia she started talking in their lyrics?
Didn't spot that one - but then I'm not a huge fan of either band, so not overly surprising.
Quote: zooo @ March 17, 2008, 11:49 AMI also liked the story about Richard and Judy.
But the mental images...
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 6:20 PM GMT, zooo said:
How can you not be a fan of Hearsay's classic Pure and Simple?
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 6:21 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Don't remember it, sorry!
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 6:23 PM GMT, zooo said:
You would if you heard it.
It was EVERYWHERE.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 6:57 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I'm sure I must have heard it. I just ... don't remember it. Erm.
Nope, nothing.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 8:14 PM GMT, Rosebud said:
I once attended a speech where a producer said, 'If your comedy isn't very funny, you refer to it as a comedy/drama.'
This would be comedy/drama then.
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 8:35 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Rosebud @ March 17, 2008, 4:14 PMI once attended a speech where a producer said, 'If your comedy isn't very funny, you refer to it as a comedy/drama.'
Was he/she an ITV producer trying to give helpful advice?
On Monday 17th March 2008 GMT at 10:35 PM GMT, Rosebud said:
No, it was said with a distinctly cynical tone.
Although perhaps it is a good strategy... I am struggling with a joke-lite script myself... hmmmmmm....
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 1:44 AM GMT, Chappers said:
You do have a strange taste in music zooo.
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 1:45 AM GMT, zooo said:
I would like to point out that my use of the word classic in the above post was IRONIC.
Thank you.
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 1:46 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Don't worry zooo. Everyone but David knows.
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 1:47 AM GMT, zooo said:
It's cos I like Take That.
I'm misunderstood! (by David)
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 1:57 AM GMT, Aaron said:
He is a non-believer. He must die.
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 2:32 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 17, 2008, 9:57 PMHe is a non-believer. He must die.
I probably will sooner than later.
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 2:40 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Let's hope.
On Tuesday 18th March 2008 GMT at 3:06 AM GMT, David H said:
All's I'll say is that if the comments of the writers ring true, "We'll only write a new series if we can better the last one" they'll be many series.
On Thursday 20th March 2008 GMT at 3:59 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
I watched Series 2, Episode 1 last night. It was absolutely superb. They managed to find a way of developing the story, enhancing Nessa's character and not alienating anyone.
My favourite bit was simply the look Stacey gave her Mum when she chirped into the conversation about ground rules for threesomes!
On Thursday 20th March 2008 GMT at 7:26 PM GMT, feckless said:
I've only been able to see 3 eps of Gavin and Stacy online (it is not shown here), but I loved Ruth Jones, brilliant as always. I wish I could see more.
On Thursday 20th March 2008 GMT at 7:32 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
Mods, delete this link if inappropriate. All 8 episodes shown so far are here:
http://www.surfthechannel.com/show/television/Gavin_And_Stacey.html
On Thursday 20th March 2008 GMT at 7:45 PM GMT, feckless said:
Holy cow! I go to STC every night and never saw new eps added. Bless you, Rick!
On Friday 21st March 2008 GMT at 3:20 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: feckless @ March 20, 2008, 3:26 PM
I loved Ruth Jones, brilliant as always. I wish I could see more.
There is a lot of her to see - but in a lovely way.
I'm pleased you like this because I was beginning to despair when I saw how much you loved J & J.
On Friday 21st March 2008 GMT at 8:04 PM GMT, feckless said:
Haha, I think J and J is just comforting to me-I read somewhere here that it has ambient humour and that is the perfect way to describe it. It is just kind of cozy to me.
Right. I watched like 5 eps of Gavin and Stacey in a row and Im all caught up. Wow, I just am crazy for this show. I guess it helps that I am Welsh and Stacey's family reminds me of my relatives over there . Ruth Jones is gorgeous, I have to say. I love how she co-wrote this with "Smithy", heh.
On Friday 21st March 2008 GMT at 8:23 PM GMT, Chappers said:
And to think that she is also Mfanwy in Llandbrevi etc and also Saxondale's wife - not to mention that pathetic creature in Nighty Night.
On Friday 21st March 2008 GMT at 8:27 PM GMT, feckless said:
Quote: David Chapman @ March 21, 2008, 4:23 PMAnd to think that she is also Mfanwy in Llandbrevi etc and also Saxondale's wife - not to mention that pathetic creature in Nighty Night.
Love Myfanwy, Mags and "Linderrr". I was overjoyed to see Julia Davis pop up on G and S
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 2:11 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
For a great early cameo by Ruth, go back to Brydon & Davis' wonderful series 'Human Remains'. Namely the episode entitled 'All Over My Glasses'.
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 7:08 PM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ March 22, 2008, 10:11 AMFor a great early cameo by Ruth, go back to Brydon & Davis' wonderful series 'Human Remains'. Namely the episode entitled 'All Over My Glasses'.
I don't remember that show at all. Rob Brydon I guess and who Davis?
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 8:49 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Julia Davis.
And if anyone's interested, James Corden's middle name is Kimberly. Aw.
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 9:11 PM GMT, zooo said:
I have died from cuteness.
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 9:28 PM GMT, Aaron said:
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 9:47 PM GMT, Chappers said:
I might search out Human Remains then - but I've only got 3 days to do it.
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 9:51 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Why, are you dying on Tuesday?
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 9:58 PM GMT, Chappers said:
Time Team!
On Saturday 22nd March 2008 GMT at 10:19 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Oh God.
On Sunday 23rd March 2008 GMT at 2:18 AM GMT, Charley said:
Quote: David Chapman @ March 22, 2008, 5:47 PMI might search out Human Remains then - but I've only got 3 days to do it.
When is it on. I missed it.
On Sunday 23rd March 2008 GMT at 3:09 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Charley @ March 22, 2008, 10:18 PMWhen is it on. I missed it.
2000.
On Sunday 23rd March 2008 GMT at 8:07 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: David Chapman @ March 22, 2008, 5:58 PMTime Team!
On Sunday 23rd March 2008 GMT at 5:49 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Personally I think that 'Human Remains' is the finest work that Rob Brydon & Julia Davis have done. Would love them to team up for a similar series.
On Sunday 23rd March 2008 GMT at 11:18 PM GMT, Chappers said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ March 23, 2008, 1:49 PMPersonally I think that 'Human Remains' is the finest work that Rob Brydon & Julia Davis have done. Would love them to team up for a similar series.
I've obviously missed a good'un
On Sunday 23rd March 2008 GMT at 11:55 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
I watch episodes 1 and 2 of G and S yesterday on BBC iplayer. As usual its a good comedy drama and Rob Brydon's character is funny at times but it ain't a comedy. But how many bloomin pop-references are they trying to cram into this series!?! Its amazing and lazy. They've sat in front of a TV and just thought thats popular lets reference it They've turned into observational comics. I'd wish they would drop the empty pop reference one liners and concentrate on the characters and the story. its ver irritating 'Look were calling Pete Townsend a peadophile but without actually saying it aren't we clever.' No you ain't.
On Tuesday 25th March 2008 GMT at 5:47 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Not much comment on series two of BBC's 'flagship sitcom'. It's on now and they just had Sheridan Smith doing a sub Catherine Tate routine. I think this programme is actually worse than Mayo - the execrable Alistair McGowan vehicle. It's not badly written because it's not written at all. The scenes are very weak riffs. Compare it to another unpleasant show about human waste - Shameless. The characters are equally detestable, but the writing shines in places.
Rob Brydon is keeping this show afloat single handedly. It hard to tell which are weaker - the characters of Gavin and Stacey or the actors playing them.
On Wednesday 26th March 2008 GMT at 6:57 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ March 25, 2008, 1:47 AMNot much comment on series two of BBC's 'flagship sitcom'. It's on now and they just had Sheridan Smith doing a sub Catherine Tate routine. I think this programme is actually worse than Mayo - the execrable Alistair McGowan vehicle. It's not badly written because it's not written at all. The scenes are very weak riffs. Compare it to another unpleasant show about human waste - Shameless. The characters are equally detestable, but the writing shines in places.
Rob Brydon is keeping this show afloat single handedly. It hard to tell which are weaker - the characters of Gavin and Stacey or the actors playing them.
I have to disagree with most of that. I think it is very well written and the acting is perfect for the sitcom. Fortunately, all the awards and ratings backs that up. I guess you just don't like it which is fair enough. I agree the Sheridan Smith scene was just like 'I am bovvvvered' though.
I really liked the trading in stock references in episode three - a really nice touch out of left field. Its a warm and friendly sitcom which I really enjoy.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 12:50 AM GMT, zooo said:
I loves it I do.
This week's was extra good.
I do like a rolled steel joist.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 12:54 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Haha, yes, the end was particularly good! Great show, very clever writing. And perfectly joined by Coupling afterwards.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 12:55 AM GMT, zooo said:
The old James Corden crush is gathering strength each week...
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 12:57 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I heard him do a radio interview last weekend. Actually rather funny. Bastard got free shoes! *shakes fist*
Would you uhh... Would you like the last corn-on-the-cob?
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 12:59 AM GMT, zooo said:
Wouldn't mind, as it goes.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:09 AM GMT, Aaron said:
'Cos uhhh, I'd really like you to have it.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:10 AM GMT, zooo said:
Tidy.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:29 AM GMT, Aaron said:
... Only if you'd like to have it, of course.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:33 AM GMT, zooo said:
Do you think he'd wear the hard hat in bed...
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:45 AM GMT, Aaron said:
If you asked nicely, I doubt he'd object!
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:46 AM GMT, zooo said:
Yay!
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:53 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Not a bit, y'know, YMCAish though?
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:55 AM GMT, zooo said:
Nah. As long as there's no leather trousers present.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:58 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Ah of course, good save!
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 1:59 AM GMT, zooo said:
Or any trousers at all, preferably.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 2:09 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Well, of course!
(Anyway, it might be you needing the hard hat...)
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 2:18 AM GMT, Mark said:
Back on topic: I missed the latest episode. I'll have to try and catch it tomorrow. Now we're over half-way into the new series what do people think? Better than the first, not quite as good, on par, over-rated, under-rated?
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 2:26 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Better, I think! Only actually watched past episode 2 of series one a few weeks ago, so can really see the improvement. The writing seems cleverer, and more real in a lot of ways, with a better natural flow and comedy to it. Well done to Corden and Jones.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 2:27 AM GMT, zooo said:
I didn't watch series one as avidly, but whether that's the fault of the show itself or my lack of concentration, I'm not sure.
I think they're concentrating on a wider range of characters in this series. Which I like. Was there as much Bryn in series 1?
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 2:42 AM GMT, Aaron said:
No, I don't think so. I'd guess his role and importance in the show has probably doubled since series one. A lot more of a supportive character, whereas he was primarily 'occasional' beforehand.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 9:26 PM GMT, Starscream said:
I absolutely adored the corn on the cob exchange. Absolutely priceless. Best bit so far in my opinion. I'm enjoying the whole series though.
Hands up everyone who hates Stacey!
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 9:31 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well I don't hate her, she is the least sympathetic character at the moment though. But maybe that's on purpose.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 9:36 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yes, was about to say the same. She's not exactly being put across as endearing over the past couple of episodes, particularly last night's one.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 9:38 PM GMT, zooo said:
The masturbation conversation was funny though.
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 9:42 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Haha, good Lord, I'd forgotten about that!
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 10:12 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 31, 2008, 5:42 PMHaha, good Lord, I'd forgotten about that!
I haven't. I'm trying to print the image - of Stacey not... ah no, get that new image out my head... Smithy ahhhh!
On Monday 31st March 2008 GMT at 10:14 PM GMT, Charley said:
I think this series is far better than the last.
I too do not like Stacey much, but the rest of them are pretty cool.
On Tuesday 1st April 2008 GMT at 2:38 AM GMT, Chappers said:
I've still not seen any of this series but it is funny (or not) that the two characters the show is named after are probably the wimpiest of the lot.
On Tuesday 1st April 2008 GMT at 3:02 AM GMT, zooo said:
As in Will & Grace.
On Tuesday 1st April 2008 GMT at 3:37 AM GMT, Joey Moose said:
I have not watched a single episode! People keep telling me it's good, but none of its trailers have made me laugh and that's usually a bad sign for me. Might give it a try if nothing else is on
On Tuesday 1st April 2008 GMT at 3:44 AM GMT, Aaron said:
It's not that kind of show. Everything leads on from something else; a very linear storyline. If you don't laugh at the trailers (I don't) then all that means it that you didn't find the trailers funny. They're of no consequence, and certainly no fair representation of the programme. The kind of linear storyline present in Gavin and Stacey can't be depicted like that. Give it a try.
On Tuesday 1st April 2008 GMT at 4:09 AM GMT, Joey Moose said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 31, 2008, 11:44 PMIt's not that kind of show. Everything leads on from something else; a very linear storyline. If you don't laugh at the trailers (I don't) then all that means it that you didn't find the trailers funny. They're of no consequence, and certainly no fair representation of the programme. The kind of linear storyline present in Gavin and Stacey can't be depicted like that. Give it a try.
Thanks, will do
On Tuesday 1st April 2008 GMT at 4:14 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
The only thing I can come up with to explain the popularity of this show is that the scripts are amateurish and this is a forum of amateur writers, so G & S closely resembles scripts being turned out by the people on here who like it. That doesn't explain its popularity amongst non writers though, and all the millions of people who never come on here.
I appear to be the only person in England who thinks it's embarrassingly awful. I must be wrong.
On Tuesday 1st April 2008 GMT at 11:42 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 1, 2008, 12:14 AMI appear to be the only person in England who thinks it's embarrassingly awful. I must be wrong.
You just don't like it/get it. Leave it at that. We're all different, no sitcom is liked by everyone. Just don't accuse the writing, or writers of the board of being amateur when its just a case of your taste differing from others.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 5:33 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
'I have nothing to declare but my genitals'? And you object to being called an amateur writer? You've kind of proved my point, as your pun would sparkle like flob on the back of a parka in any episode of G & S. Perhaps you might one day write for the show if it continues to be a hit.
Back to the analysis.
It's not a matter of taste, as I have made clear in earlier posts. Fawlty Towers and Only Fools and Horses are not to my taste, but I recognise their quality. As for 'not getting it', you need to read this thread from the beginning. I wrote most of it and I have provided line by line evaluation of the writing, and scrutiny on both the production and marketing of the show, not just 'it's shit' type of comments. You're right, I don't like it, but it interests me and it is so popular that I can't ignore it. I have said this before as well. The success and reception of this show is something that aspiring (amateur) writers on this forum need to examine. A recent Radio Times article called the show 'brave' for introducing a 'soap style' story element - Nessa's pregnancy. This is a round about way of saying, it's not funny anymore, or it's not really a sitcom - an example of the status and respect that is accorded the show. A returning sitcom that wasn't all that heavy on jokes might be considered a failure. G & S is the BBC's 'flagship' sitcom and it is brave and different. A flagship sitcom might prove the best example for wannabe writers to look at. No doubt, there are a few 'Bryan and Tracys' being written right now, whilst others are trying to work out what it is about an ostensibly dull and linear trek through dating, teen marriage, male-bonding and babies with feeble and nicked jokes that has proved so popular.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 1:55 PM GMT, swerytd said:
I preferred the first series and, though enjoying it, find this series 'clutching at straws' a little bit. As though they didn't quite know where to go. I can see what somebody previously said about observational elements creeping in. I like a bit of stand-up but it does seem to infer that it knows itself there is not much story going on.
That said, one of the last episode's best bits was the oven-gloves/tea towel bit. I liked that a lot.
I think the first series had a definite goal so Ruth Jones/James Corden knew where they were going and set out to hit it. The storyline basically wrote itself and had an end point and they simply created a few twists and turns and the very funny elements that went along the way. I'm not taking anything away from them but the story was there for all to see. Where to now though? I'm not sure they know, though I might be wrong and just can't see the twists coming...
Anyway, I think my point is that the funny observations are taking over from the plot. Which is a point that has been made already. So I will shut up now.
Dan
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 2:09 PM GMT, Aaron said:
'Brave'? 'Different'? We're getting into Sir Humphrey's teritory now!
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 2:35 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 2 2008, 2:33 AM BST'I have nothing to declare but my genitals'? And you object to being called an amateur writer? You've kind of proved my point, as your pun would sparkle like flob on the back of a parka in any episode of G & S. Perhaps you might one day write for the show if it continues to be a hit.
I don't see the need for a personal attack like that. One signature on a forum doesn't define a writer and I actually do write professionally. You've admitted yourself that you don't get why its so popular so my comments about not getting it shouldn't be taken so badly.
I can only speak for myself but I like it because its a warming sitcom, no one is made to look like a monster, everyone is good at heart and that makes you care about them to watch it. I think that is clever writing. I think its very funny in a subtle way. And there is a lot of humour there but its easy to miss (I know I have). Its not punchline jokes, but drawn out of situations and character.
And as for the issues, you're right they are nothing new but neither are the ones in all the family sitcoms out there. These are things that are major parts of life, its how the characters deal with them that is interesting. I think the Nessa-Smithy story is quite original. They are not pin-ups and they're not even that close.
Just my thoughts.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 3:33 PM GMT, David H said:
I think for a comedy series to have the lead characters blend into the background while secondary characters come to the fore is pretty embarrassing, and shows they should have either stuck to one series or drawn out them getting together.
Can you imagine Del Boy and Rodney becoming bit part and Boycie and whoever coming to the fore? Frasier and Niles drifting off while Gil and Bulldog took over the show? Basil Fawlty, Fletch doing the same thing?
The problem they faced in the show was that Gavin and Stacy are just not comedy people. They're nice, pleasant, but it doesn't make for good comedy. You have to exaggerate things. And having them as bland lead characters makes people want to watch the others more.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 3:37 PM GMT, zooo said:
As I've mentioned before, Will & Grace is the same. Just because the show is named after two particular characters doesn't mean that the writers want those two to be the focus, or the most interesting two.
Of course if it was Horne and.... whoever plays Stacy writing it, it may well have been those two that got all the best lines.
Or if Gavin and Stacey were the leads in the first series (I didn't really watch it) maybe they made a decision to switch focus to the others for series 2.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 3:51 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I was about to say what zooo said. There's no implication that Gavin and Stacey are the main characters. To me, they're the linking characters around which two bunch of oddities combine, and they are leading ALONG WITH Nessa and Smithy. Just because the show has their names, doesn't mean they're the central characters.
Marion and Geoff.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 4:24 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
i've found a little bit of a drop off in the quality of the second series...
nessa's 'interesting' past was touched on in the first series to good effect, but it was always grounded in some kind of reality. in the first ep of this series she was talking with her stock broker on the phone, and the entire cast seemed to pep up with advice regarding the market. i found that funny, to a degree, but it took the show out of the tone that had previously been set. a deliberate decision by the writers? or them running out of a decent narrative for the show?
the scene with smithy and his sister was dreadful...derivative of tate, little britain, most def not a good thing in my opinion.
but as for the show overall - i think it is a very good example of mainstream comedy. not comparable with the likes of The Office US or Peep Show for example - but infinitely better than the likes of Green green grass or my family.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 5:40 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 2 2008, 12:51 PM BSTI was about to say what zooo said. There's no implication that Gavin and Stacey are the main characters. To me, they're the linking characters around which two bunch of oddities combine, and they are leading ALONG WITH Nessa and Smithy. Just because the show has their names, doesn't mean they're the central characters.
Marion and Geoff.
Their world revolves around Gavin & Stacey too so its not a bad title either.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:09 PM GMT, xAmyx said:
Hi, I've just been reading through the posts, though I have to admit I skipped a few as the constant slating was getting repetative and boring to be perfectly honest.
Why is Gavin & Stacey so popular?
Because it's true to life. Everyone can relate to at least one of the characters, or knows somebody like them and that is what makes it so appealing!
Certain moments of total randomness (Nessa & the market in Tokyo) , only add to its charm- you will find people like her out there!
It doesn't have to be laugh-a-minute and full of jokes just for the sake of it, that wouldn't work for this show. It may not contain totally orignal storylines, but it's approached in a different way. This is meant to be true-to-life, are you telling me that there is a way to write a true-to-life sitcom without approaching subjects that have already been performed before?
The whole idea of this comedy is to create empathy for the characters in their situations, whilst providing laughs along the way and I think this is certainly achieved.
It may not be to your taste, but it's a very popular show and I think that, at least, should be appreciated.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:14 PM GMT, zooo said:
Hi!
Quote: xAmyx @ April 2 2008, 8:09 PM BSTHi, I've just been reading through the posts, though I have to admit I skipped a few as the constant slating was getting repetative and boring to be perfectly honest.
It's all right, lots of us love it too, honest!
That 'Oh' thing that Nessa does, is that a Welsh thing?
I think my Welsh nanny used to do it.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:19 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Indeed Amy, it is terribly tiresome. But, much to my displeasure, the majority of our members and posters are bitter, failed wannabe writers themselves, so take a negative view of everything on British television, their opinions poisoned with jealousy.
Anyway, welcome to the site.
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:20 PM GMT, xAmyx said:
Quote: zooo @ April 2 2008, 8:14 PM BSTHi!
That 'Oh' thing that Nessa does, is that a Welsh thing?
I think my Welsh nanny used to do it.
Haha, yes I know people who say that to get someone's attention, though not quite to the extent that Nessa does it.. after the second "Oh" they usually give up!
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:20 PM GMT, Charley said:
Tidy!
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:22 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Charley, had any corn on the cob recently?
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:27 PM GMT, xAmyx said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 2 2008, 8:19 PM BSTIndeed Amy, it is terribly tiresome. But, much to my displeasure, the majority of our members and posters are bitter, failed wannabe writers themselves, so take a negative view of everything on British television, their opinions poisoned with jealousy.
Anyway, welcome to the site.
Hello and thankyouYes I guessed so! Perhaps they should put a bit of time and effort into improving their own writing then, rather than constantly criticising everybody elses
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:30 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Indeed. I've tried telling them many a-time, but alas, they refuse to take note!
On Wednesday 2nd April 2008 GMT at 11:40 PM GMT, Charley said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 2 2008, 8:22 PM BSTCharley, had any corn on the cob recently?
Nah!
I am about to go rding a saddleles bike in a minute. I am a gagging for a bit o corn o the cob.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 5:40 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Got the first four episodes on tape,(missed them 'cos ive been away) and Ive just watched the first two-absolutely brilliant. The first epsidoe especially was, I thought, astoundingly good. Great, great characters, cracking script, and very funny indeed-on with the next two epsiodes then! Oh, and i cant be arsed slogging through this thread, but are there still a load of people slagging this show off? Fools. Its tidy.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:03 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: xAmyx @ April 2 2008, 8:27 PM BST
Yes I guessed so! Perhaps they should put a bit of time and effort into improving their own writing then, rather than constantly criticising everybody elses
Somehow I manage to do both.
Quote: Charley @ April 2 2008, 8:40 PM BSTNah!
I am about to go rding a saddleles bike in a minute.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 5 2008, 2:40 PM BSTare there still a load of people slagging this show off? Fools. Its tidy.
My flat's tidy. It's not funny either.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:08 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
I'm with Matthew on this and there's too much to read back through to see what the general consensus is on this.
I think the show is excellent and one of the best modern sitcoms by a long chalk.
There's lovely isn't wasn't it doesn't it? Look you all!
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:11 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Blenkinsop @ April 5 2008, 3:08 PM BST
There's lovely isn't wasn't it doesn't it? Look you all!
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:13 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I may be wrong, and Im reading a lot between the lines here, but I dont think Godot likes this show. And it seems to annoy him for some reason. We cant all like everything.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:29 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Sarcasm isn't humour, it's cowardly invective.
It's true, Matt. I dislike many shows - many that you love, including Torchwank, but we both like LOG, I think. Although it's influenced you a tad more than me.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:30 PM GMT, zooo said:
Do you like the Mighty Boosh?
I'm sure there's a show I thought you'd hate but you love...
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:41 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Oh yeah, we both like the Boosh. Although i'm not sure Matt likes it as much as i do.
Why did you think I'd hate it Zooo? For wit and and invention, it's amazingly sustained. I hate mediocrity and cliché, hence...
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:52 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 5 2008, 3:29 PM BSTSarcasm isn't humour, it's cowardly invective.
It's true, Matt. I dislike many shows - many that you love, including Torchwank, but we both like LOG, I think. Although it's influenced you a tad more than me.
Sarcasm can be funny. I do love the league, though Im not really sure how much its actually influenced my own writing, especially not on the limited amount of material ive put up on here. But if it has, im not fussed, its a great show. Better to be influenced by good stuff than bad. Though I sort of take it that you were trying to take the mickey out of my writing for some reason. And I love the Boosh, but if you like it more then good for you.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 6:58 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 5 2008, 3:41 PM BSTWhy did you think I'd hate it Zooo? For wit and and invention, it's amazingly sustained. I hate mediocrity and cliché, hence...
I'm not sure why!
Just that you tend to come across as quite an intellectual know it all grown up type.
The sort that usually misunderstand and hate the Boosh.
Poor Boosh.
I was glad to be wrong.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 7:27 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 5 2008, 3:52 PM BSTSarcasm can be funny. I do love the league, though Im not really sure how much its actually influenced my own writing, especially not on the limited amount of material ive put up on here. But if it has, im not fussed, its a great show. Better to be influenced by good stuff than bad. Though I sort of take it that you were trying to take the mickey out of my writing for some reason. And I love the Boosh, but if you like it more then good for you.
I'm not trying to take the mickey out of your writing. I've taken the time to comment on sketches you've put up, which i don't bother to do for many people. I think you write well. I also think that most of your material is highly derivative. This isn't an attempt to damn you with faint praise, it's just you're not a very funny guy. Even your posts are not funny. The best you can do is snide. See above. Funny people are funny all the time. They can't help it. Producers are far more interested in people who are funny than people who can write.
There is probably a future in TV for you - perhaps as a comedy performer. But not as a writer. Your funny stuff is not original and your original stuff is not funny.
Quote: zooo @ April 5 2008, 3:58 PM BSTI'm not sure why!
Just that you tend to come across as quite an intellectual know it all grown up type.
The sort that usually misunderstand and hate the Boosh.
Poor Boosh.
I was glad to be wrong.
I've been drawing comics and smuggling them into cereal packets for years. Tom Paulin does Wheatos, I've seen him.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 7:37 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 5 2008, 4:22 PM BSTI'm not trying to take the mickey out of your writing. I've taken the time to comment on sketches you've put up, which i don't bother to do for many people. I think you write well. I also think that most of your material is highly derivative. This isn't an attempt to damn you with faint praise, it's just you're not a very funny guy. Even your posts are not funny. The best you can do is snide. See above. Funny people are funny all the time. They can't help it. Producers are far more interested in people who are funny than people who can write.
There is probably a future in TV for you - perhaps as a comedy performer. But not as a writer. Your funny stuff is not original and your original stuff is not funny.
Ha! Have to say that I found that quite funny, even though you were really trying to rip me to shreds; the way you throw insults, and they are insults, as though its a fine and grown up thing to do, not just rude and arrogant. As for producers, and me not having a future in writing, im currently involved in the writing of a sketch show with a major company, who are also showing interest in a full show of mine; whilst another is talking about pitching a sit-com of mine to Channel four-so Id say your views on me are bang on the money!!
Why some people think its Ok to talk to people like this is beyond me, I never had a go at you, my original comment was supposed to be light hearted. Im sure you think that what youve written above is a fine and reasonable comment, but its not, its just insulting. If thats what you want to do, then carry on.
And Ill stop here with this; its supposed to be a thread about a show; not two fools trading insults!!
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 8:33 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
You attempted to get a rise out of me when you posted earlier and you succeeded, so what are you complaining about?
You can't resist leaving without a sarcastic dig and I can't resist a blunt attack. So what. This board is not an academic resource. I post to entertain. This is a rich thread and the longest thread on a show by far - more than a thousand replies.
Good luck with your major company and sketch show. If it ever makes it onto TV I will come round and valet your car. Or oil your skateboard if you haven't got a car.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 8:42 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Ok.
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 8:48 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
On Saturday 5th April 2008 GMT at 10:06 PM GMT, steve by any other name said:
Quote: Charley @ April 2 2008, 8:40 PM BSTNah!
I am about to go rding a saddleles bike in a minute.
What happened to the saddle Charley? Did you make a killing flogging it to some perv on ebay?
On Sunday 6th April 2008 GMT at 2:18 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 5 2008, 5:33 PM GMTI post to entertain.
Anyone?
On Sunday 6th April 2008 GMT at 2:46 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I find his posts very entertaining.
On Sunday 6th April 2008 GMT at 2:53 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Ha!
On Sunday 6th April 2008 GMT at 2:25 PM GMT, Joey Matthews said:
It's not two pints. (that's extreamly funny, least to me)
I'm not sure what the fuss is about Gavin and Stacey to be honest, I haven't laughed in all chances I've gotten to watch it. (I find the women who plays Stacey somewhat annoying) Having said that I do think it isn't bad but not what would watch.
Hehe, I do admit though I do still hold on to the old classic styles.
~Joey
On Monday 7th April 2008 GMT at 6:27 PM GMT, shaggy292 said:
If I hear Gavin say "Babe" or Stacey say "Lush" one more time I'm going to kick the sodding telly.
I like the show but I just think that Joanna Page and Mathew Horne are shite. Sorry. And how does Mathew Horne breathe with his top button done up all the time?
On Monday 7th April 2008 GMT at 8:02 PM GMT, zooo said:
Did you see Mathew Horne in Teachers? He's great in that.
On Monday 7th April 2008 GMT at 10:22 PM GMT, Charley said:
I did laugh at Brim or however you say/spell it, getting all in a higgledy piggledy. I also love the old lady character.
On Tuesday 8th April 2008 GMT at 7:18 AM GMT, annagranfors said:
as Stacey'd say, hiya!
I just caught up with the show...it's brilliant, in its wonderfully quiet way.
and, as with most things I get excited about, I did a wallpaper:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/2388196960_e9d5d4be80_o.jpg
and then I did another:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2090/2396176770_366dbb5f7b_o.jpg
...and there's one more to come...
they're designed for 1920x1200 monitors, but will probably crop nicely to 1024x and other sizes. hope someone enjoys! (oh, and BSG, feel free to use 'em if you want 'em.)
cheers!
On Tuesday 8th April 2008 GMT at 12:39 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Haha, like the second one - the first is a bit scary with their giganticness though!
Welcome to the site.
On Wednesday 9th April 2008 GMT at 6:57 AM GMT, annagranfors said:
Aaron...thanks for the welcome!
and, yah, they ARE a little big in that one. too much ice cream, probably!
here's another, but they're almost Lilliputian in this one...I tend to overcompensate...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2017/2399321861_8451e4cdec_o.jpg
...hey, can you add small (500 px.) images to the messages? (with the appropriate html, I mean.)
On Wednesday 9th April 2008 GMT at 12:39 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Ah, not too bad in that one!
And yes, images can be added with BSG Code.
On Wednesday 9th April 2008 GMT at 6:09 PM GMT, annagranfors said:
cool!
here's the last one, then, in small size...
and hi-rez:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/2400251155_527177a935_o.jpg
...it's just slightly improved over the last one. I waste bandwidth like this all the time.
On Friday 11th April 2008 GMT at 2:13 PM GMT, Sebastian Orange-News said:
Surely Gavin and Stacey is only so popular at the moment is due to the fact that there hasn't been a genuinely funny and clever sitcom since 'The thick of it'. The on Gavin and Stacey is solid but I can't think of one aspect of it that is original. Brim is the funniest character but to some extent they have just nicked the idea of Keith Barret and made a few changes.
On Friday 11th April 2008 GMT at 2:23 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Brim? Bryn's evil, bizzarro world, twin perhaps?
On Friday 11th April 2008 GMT at 7:06 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Not much praise for the second series then?
On Friday 11th April 2008 GMT at 8:20 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yes. It is better than the first.
On Friday 11th April 2008 GMT at 8:33 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Yeah, the second series is much funnier I think.
On Monday 14th April 2008 GMT at 5:27 AM GMT, graham said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 11 2008, 5:20 PM BSTYes. It is better than the first.
Really? I thought the first two episodes of series 2 were fairly funny. But the last two that I've watched (episodes 5 & 6, I think), barely made me crack a smile.
On Monday 14th April 2008 GMT at 11:48 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I think this series has been good, but the last episode was a little bit drama-heavy for me.
On Monday 14th April 2008 GMT at 2:21 PM GMT, Graham Bandage said:
I know, the last scene was a bit like Jones and Corden were sitting there, delighted with their last episode, just waiting for the courier to whisk it off to the Beeb, when a horrible thought occurred. I can imagine the scene, and here I am, imagining the scene . . .
CORDEN screams, drops pie. A blood-curdling sound.
JONES: "What is it? Look you! Lush, etc."
CORDEN: "A horrible thought has occurred. We completely forgot to resolve the dangling plot of Gavin and Stacey's separation. You know, the titular characters. Do you want that Kit-Kat?"
JONES: "I won't lie to you. We have. Yes, I do."
CORDEN: "What time's he coming?"
JONES: "Five minutes. What'll we do?"
CORDEN: "Oh, just get them to ring each other. Write their phones in a bit earlier. We'll end it on a bit of a cliff-hanger. Write it. Write it now."
JONES: "You do it, I'm eating this Kit-Kat seductively."
CORDEN, the sweat pouring from his brow: "Phew! Done it."
JONES: "Tidy."
JONES hands script to COURIER in motorcycle helmet.
CORDEN: "Do you think anyone will notice? Do you want that cake?"
JONES: "Yes I do. I won't lie to you. I wants the cake. No, nobody will notice. And I'll tell you for why. It's because everybody will be too busy laughing at Brydon."
CORDEN, reassured, picks up previously-dropped pie, wipes it clean and eats it.
FIN
I think I might be getting the writers mixed up with their characters.
On Monday 14th April 2008 GMT at 2:52 PM GMT, Sebastian Orange-News said:
For the last two weeks pulling has been better than Gavin and Stacey by a million miles
On Monday 14th April 2008 GMT at 3:03 PM GMT, graham said:
Quote: Sebastian Orange-News @ April 14 2008, 11:52 AM BSTFor the last two weeks pulling has been better than Gavin and Stacey by a million miles
I agree. And that's really saying something!
On Monday 14th April 2008 GMT at 11:57 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: graham @ April 14 2008, 2:27 AM BSTReally? I thought the first two episodes of series 2 were fairly funny. But the last two that I've watched (episodes 5 & 6, I think), barely made me crack a smile.
Well uhh, I've not seen the last two, so will have to get back to you on that one. But yes, from what I have seen, I reckon the humour's still there (if changed a bit), and the story is stronger.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 3:30 AM GMT, M Lewis said:
I only saw 80% of the first series and only saw the first of the second....but wife loves it and i saw it get the BAFTA so watched the last one tonight.
I don't get it.....it just didn't seem that funny? Obviously there are funny bits but they are pretty spread out for a sitcom. Far more com/drama but not dramatic enough.
oh, and shoehorning in the Catherine tait "am i bovered" scene was awful. Aside from Bryn and fat woman's scenes i don't think i laughed at all. Good luck to them....but i imagined it as a script and couldn't see how anyone commissioned it as a comedy?
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 4:00 AM GMT, patiowhore said:
I'm not a big fan of it to be honest, but know a great deal of people who love it. A lot of the humour does just tend to revolve around funny accents. Rob Brydon is quite funny it, but ultimately, all Bryn is, is an easily pleased middle aged man who marvels at everything. There's quite a lot of little things in the show that bug me also. I think Julia Davis is a bit short changed in her appearances, with some very basic writing. Alison Steadman gets on my f**king nut too. I suppose on one hand you could argue its a well written character if she's getting on your nerves as much as she gets on the nerves of the characters around her, but I find her character a bit tedious. Also, the Sheridan Smith character is Lauren the teenager, I agree with those who pointed that out. It just seems a bit padded out for my liking. The relationship between Nessa and Smithy seems the most interesting aspect of it, but I don't really see why Gavin and Stacey deserve so much screen time. There's not much going on with their storyline. They're a couple of young lovers who married too quickly, and are now going through a rocky patch. Bit boring in my opinion, and nothing that really holds my interest. I'm a fan of Ruth Jones though, so I've followed the show when I can, but all in all; can't really see what the fuss is all about.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 5:55 AM GMT, Crazyeyeskilla said:
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.
Hello all......first post on here and all that..... I put the above quote in from Aaron cos I was feeling the exact same for the last few weeks reading the "slatings" and petty arguments this great show has evoked. I'm all for debate and realise comedy is one area of life with HUGE differences of opinion but here's my two penneth on Gavin and Stacey for what its worth.....
G and S has me intrigued. I have loved this programme since episode one and have been waiting for the "backlash" for sometime! And after tonights Bafta success that backlash of seething jealousy will be on in earnest no doubt.
I first started watching it cos I saw Corden plugging it on some other tv show and thought I would give it a go and from the very first episode I was hooked and eagerly recommended it to family and friends alike who without exception all said thanks for pointing them towards the show. The interesting thing here being the fact that no matter who it was I recommended it to - be it my mum in her mid fifties, my best mate a 32 yr old bloke or my younger sister in her late teens they ALL loved it! If that doesn't say something for it as a sitcom I don't know what does!
The key point here being that whilst I love the Smiffy character and his oafish laddish charm, and my Mum loves Bryn and Staceys mum, as well as the whole tone of the show which is totally feel good and my sister enjoys the whole G and S romance cos it isn't forced upon you like some shows do - it kinda feels real. So there's clearly something in it for lots of different demographics. This is not to say they don't enjoy the show as a whole just making the point that because of the great set of characters and the ludicrously realistic acting in the show most people I know who like the show have a "favourite" character which is a helpful tool in creating popularity imo.
I went from loving Smiffy and his stupid Gavlar and Pamalarr stuff and his general interaction with Steadman to quickly thinking by the end of the first series "christ this show is making me feel wierd! It's a comedy and I actually "care" about the characters and what happens to them". Much as I love The Office, Partridge or Curb I couldn't honestly say I gave two hoots about what happened each week - I was simply waiting for Gervais, Coogan or David to make me PMSL by being their usual ignorant/arrogant selves.
I have seen lots of criticism form people saying "so why's it called Gavin and Stacey then when they are not funny and hardly in it sometimes?" Grr who friggin cares what its called! Talk about clutching at straws! The whole premise of both series is the two sets of family and friends interacting who have ALL been brought together by G and S - and I for one LOVE the relationship between G and S. Corden and Jones have the tone of it spot on - not too gushy, not too forced - just a simple love story between two young people who met and fell in love - whilst they have few funny moments this is no problem at all IMO cos they are the catalysts for all the other comedy with Ness, Smiffy, Bryn, Mick and Pamela - who are all excellent in my opinion.
Another well documented reason why it has become so popular is because there is a distinct lack of "malice" in the series and that is soooo refreshing to see. Ok so a character like Bryn is not maybe the most original creation in the world and he has become such a fav with lots of people no doubt because of Brydon but does anyone else notice that the other charatcers in the show laugh "with" him and not "at" him? Humiliation as a comedy tool becomes a little tiresome imo.
The scene with Smiffy's sister and the whole "robot" thing (I fookin' loved it ) has been roundly criticised by forumites as being too Catherine Tate/Little Britain but I simply cannot have this!! I was pmsl at their brother/sister fight as it was like watching a home video of me and my sister fighting from years ago - yet again just another brilliantly observed piece of acting/writing.
I've also seen crticism from people saying that the show has become too "drama" heavy in the last couple of episodes. Again I have to strongly disagree -i think the balance throughout both series has been absolutely spot on - christ surely you are allowed 5 or 10 minutes of serious stuff every few episodes to help take the story along and make you care just that little bit more about the characters in general. If iwant to watch a sitcom with characters I don't care about in the least i'll watch Friends or Two Pints. what some people do not seem to be able to get their heads around is that it is precisely these titbits of real drama that have thrust the show to the forefront of the publics affections - whilst Friends was ludicrously popular with women in particular even the most ardent of fans would be hard pressed to say they were "gutted" at missing an episode because deep down they knew nothing much would happen in the overall story and if they were honest would admit that they didn't really care what happened to the characters cos it was so obviously a make believe world. (Dunno why I keep using Friends as a barometer! think the writing on it was first class btw just too tired to trawl through my memory banks of comedy at the moment.)
My real fear for the show is Corden himself - he seems to polarise opinion. Some people love his cheekiness and others seem to despise him - even tonight on Digital Spy I have seen him described as slimy, obnoxious and boastful! Well my opinion on him for what it's worth is that he's simply quite young and says the wrong thing in interviews sometimes which people then jump on and accuse him of all sorts - really think he's a decent guy with a decent heart - oh yeah and a talent at writing and acting. It's gonna be a similar situation to Gervais I fear with 50% of people jut willing him to f**k up and then droning on about it for eternity - sad but true.
Oh well I could drone on myself about this for a bit more but dont want to blot my copybook first post and all that.
P.S. At the risk of doing just that I have to say to GODOTS ...seriously mate what planet are you on? I am literally scratching my head reading some of your criticisms of the script - are you watching it with the mute button on or something?
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 12:30 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Wow - long post!
I just didnt laugh....and I didn't see where I should have. It wasnt that I didnt find the gags funny, there just weren't any.
If you get a copy of the script and highlight the funny sections you would be hard pushed.
As an example - at one point someone calls someone and asks "are you at work" to which the response is "you called my work number" - is that supposed to be charming interaction between two people or is it suppose to be funny? I just don't get it (or see what I am suppose to get).
Oh, and I watched Friends in my late teens and for me and my mates missing an episode was unheard of - think you are being a little hard to suggest it was for women and no one cared about character. Ross and Rachel was an iconic pairing.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 1:35 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Welcome Crazyeyeskilla! Long, and very thoughtful post. I think I agree pretty much entirely, and hadn't even considered previously a couple of the points you raised.
Regarding the Catherine Tate/Little Britain accusations, I can't see anything of that at all. Seems to be people justifying hatred of one show by comparing it something they already dislike.
And to M Lewis, do you like The Office?
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 1:57 PM GMT, Graham Bandage said:
I am entirely liking Gavin & Stacey, and I'll tell you for why. The comedy arises naturally for the most part from the characters, and the characters drive the plot rather than the other way round. The characters are people you can imagine actually existing in real life, rather than the grotesques you'd find in Two Pints.
Incidentally, Sheridan Smith - the female Neil Fitzmaurice? Discuss.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 2:58 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 21 2008, 10:35 AM BST
And to M Lewis, do you like The Office?
To summarise:
I like Catherine Tait, i just don't like it being ripped off for no point - the scene i saw had the bloke that always has his shirt done up all the way (has he had a tracheotomy?) pull over so his mates sister could do an "am i bovered" sketch for no obvious reason.
I like The Office.
I think Ricky Gervais is a bit of a tool....but find him funny. (i would listen to him talk but wouldn't want to dine with the guy - i think he uses the "we are laughing AT the person being insensitive" as a defence for just laughing at minorities. In 2007 in the UK if you have a gag of a bloke laughing at a disabled person you KNOW 50% of your viewers are laughing AT the disabled person, so irrespective of what you THINK you are achieving, for a lot of people you are just doing spastic gags...which is fine, but don't get high and mighty about it)
I like the fat guy that wrote Gavin and Stacey - seems like a laugh, i would dine with him (donuts i expect)
Its not that i think G&S is bad.... But i dont get it...or see what i'm missing. In last nights show there was no laughs until Rob Brydon showed up with an ipod (and that's more down to him that the script)
Quote: Graham Bandage @ April 21 2008, 10:57 AM BSTThe characters are people you can imagine actually existing in real life, rather than the grotesques you'd find in Two Pints.
I agree - but making them natural doesnt make them funny.
Seriously, if someone posted the script for the first 5 mins of last night in the critique forum it would be ripped apart for being unfunny.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 3:09 PM GMT, Aaron said:
As would the script of The Office. That's the nature of these "realistic" shows. Remember Gervais and Merchant had to find the cash to film their own pilot (IIRC), in order to convey what they were trying to do? The format and basis of the show meant it didn't work on paper, and I'm pretty sure you'd find the same with much of the Gavin and Stacey scripts. If you don't find the show funny, and can't see what is meant to be funny (much like myself with The Office), then that's fine. It's just not appealing to your sense of humour. But don't start ripping apart the script as written, because the same and more could be said of programmes.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 3:22 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
The Office pilot was funded by the BBC and the scenes that they shot to get there were done by Merchant as a homework project for his BBC course....anyway, i see your point about the office script but it is still obvious where the humour should be whether you find it funny or not.
This isnt so much like or dislike...i just dont see whats funny. Maybe last nights was a bad example but the first 5 mins just had no attempt at a laugh....i dont mean there were laughs that i didnt find funny....there were just no laughs attempted.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 3:30 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I haven't seen the last episode yet, but well done on winning the BAFTA. I've always liked the show and always found it funny. The fact that people some people think it should be a comedy-drama proves that they don't get the many jokes that are made (not all punchline ones), they obviously just go over people's heads. To those that get the jokes and don't find that funny, well that's the beauty of humour. Its subjective and we all have different tastes.
To be fair there isn't much competition at the moment either, but I was surprised they weren't up for best sitcom - having been best comedy. Weird.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 3:45 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
lol - it didnt go "over my head"...i understood where all the humour was, i was just surpised at the lack of it.....and bearing in mind it wasnt full of funny i was a bit disapointed at some of the easy lines. For example, girl jumpping over car roof was superb...getting in and saying "i always wanted to do that" was lazy. Smithys "well done" when they all walk in at the end and disturb him and fat lass was class...the whole "neil" thing was lazy.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 4:23 PM GMT, Oliver said:
It's ok but it tries to rip off Peep Show etc and fails. Rob Brydon is funny because he's a funny guy. The Fat girl is just annoying (playing a hard nut), and the Welsh (portayed as cute and funny)tries my patience after the 18th joke.
PULLING is soooo much better!!
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 4:42 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 21 2008, 12:09 PM BSTAs would the script of The Office. That's the nature of these "realistic" shows. Remember Gervais and Merchant had to find the cash to film their own pilot (IIRC), in order to convey what they were trying to do? The format and basis of the show meant it didn't work on paper, and I'm pretty sure you'd find the same with much of the Gavin and Stacey scripts. If you don't find the show funny, and can't see what is meant to be funny (much like myself with The Office), then that's fine. It's just not appealing to your sense of humour. But don't start ripping apart the script as written, because the same and more could be said of programmes.
That isn't true at all. The office scripts are on-paper-funny. They don't require Gervais to take off. It's also a myth that the show was a slow burn. I saw the first episode when it was first broadcast and liked it immediately and you all know what i think of Gervais (He's a c**t). The first scene of the first episode contains a joke. I posted it a long time back when Chapman said there were no obvious jokes in the show (there are lots and lots). G & S is a ground-breaking show, because even people who like it admit that it isn't funny - much. But they still like it. I've taken against it only at a script level. I don't think old crazy-eyed corden can write comedy very well. But it seems that only M Lewis agrees with me.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 4:47 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Godot....EXACTLY my view!
And spot on about The Office scripts...the UK version opens with Brent on the phone to the guy and asks about his wife...who it turns out left him (funny or not its an obvious stab at humour) Likewise the US version re-jigs it to have Scott on the phone to get a sale and mistakes the female caller for a bloke ("must be a smoker"). While Gervais and Carrell take those lines to new levels its obvious they written for funny.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 4:50 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Smithy's sister was a dreadful, and entirely unfunny, addition to the script - it was so derivative i almost can't believe it. I don't find the show to be laugh a minute...which is fine in itself, but I don't think this is deliberate. An awful lot of the jokes fall flat. For me, I can at times 'hear' two different voices in the writing...and unless I'm mistaken this would be the first time that Jones and the fat lad have written together. Mixed.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 4:59 PM GMT, Crazyeyeskilla said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 21 2008, 9:30 AM BSTWow - long post!
I just didnt laugh....and I didn't see where I should have. It wasnt that I didnt find the gags funny, there just weren't any.
If you get a copy of the script and highlight the funny sections you would be hard pushed.
As an example - at one point someone calls someone and asks "are you at work" to which the response is "you called my work number" - is that supposed to be charming interaction between two people or is it suppose to be funny? I just don't get it (or see what I am suppose to get).
Oh, and I watched Friends in my late teens and for me and my mates missing an episode was unheard of - think you are being a little hard to suggest it was for women and no one cared about character. Ross and Rachel was an iconic pairing.
Like i said i did admire the writing in Friends, razor sharp at times which is good going over so long a period but by the 6th 7th 8th seasons i really couldnt care less about missing an episode - just my thought.
It does make me smile this criticism people have about GS not being "funny" enough - i smiled at the "you phoned my work number" line it obviously was not meant to be split your sides laughing! it was just another well observed line slotted in there which myself and many other people would recognise as having happened to them sometimes - that's it! nothing more nothing less. I think it just maybe disappoints you from the point of view that if you were a huge fan of Friends then they used to hatchet in a couple of their "big" gags at the start and end of the show - i think largely because they went for an ad break in the States straight after the credits!
If i did get the script i would have no trouble whatsoever highlighting the funny parts - the whole script is simply "laced" with an undertone of smut throughout both series which is part of the appeal for me hehe
just trying to see when and where they slip these gags in and if my missus "gets" it.last night's funny bits included "Barry's Island, Four fingers or five, I could speak for the Welsh, I thought your name was Colin, Don't want another Fatwah......." etc etc I've only watched it once but they are some of the lines i remember.
Anyways - as always it is each to their own, does intrigue me the amount of people who come onto this thread to run it down as not being funny though EVEN after it beats the flipping Apprentice (comedy gold itself at times and friggin popular show) to win a viewers award!! A f**king viewers award after being shown on BBC3!! Christ almighty WHAT more proof do the critics of the show need to realise that the show must be doing something right???
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 6:14 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 21 2008, 12:22 PM BSTThe Office pilot was funded by the BBC and the scenes that they shot to get there were done by Merchant as a homework project for his BBC course....anyway, i see your point about the office script but it is still obvious where the humour should be whether you find it funny or not.
Sorry, but to me it's no more or less obvious in Gavin and Stacey than The Office. I really think it comes down to taste in a show like this. There aren't traditionally obvious gag gags or comedy moments in that sense. It's the overall atmosphere which fuels things. Having said that, I've not got around to watching the past few episodes, so don't have direct reference to the specific scene(s) you're noting.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 6:27 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Crazyeyeskilla @ April 21 2008, 1:59 PM BSTi smiled at the "you phoned my work number" line it obviously was not meant to be split your sides laughing! it was just another well observed line
I suppose that sort of answers my question - there were funny lines in there that i missed as being funny.
I recognise that situation as being true to life - i just dont see why its funny.
When i hear a good line i often regret that its not something i would have thought of......i cant even imagine coming up with that dialogue to open that phone call...and if someone suggested it to me I'd have thought they were nuts...hence my confusion ( i guess i am not destined to write subtle well observed comedy
)Quote: Aaron @ April 21 2008, 3:14 PM BSTSorry, but to me it's no more or less obvious in Gavin and Stacey than The Office. I really think it comes down to taste in a show like this. There aren't traditionally obvious gag gags or comedy moments in that sense. It's the overall atmosphere which fuels things. Having said that, I've not got around to watching the past few episodes, so don't have direct reference to the specific scene(s) you're noting.
I will watch the others in this series in case last night was a bad example....seriously, it kicked off with 5 mins of ZERO gags (Barry's Island was the first i think)
YOu cant find 5 mins of the office were there isnt a gag (whether you like the joke or not)
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 6:46 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 21 2008, 3:14 PM BSTSorry, but to me it's no more or less obvious in Gavin and Stacey than The Office. I really think it comes down to taste in a show like this. There aren't traditionally obvious gag gags or comedy moments in that sense. It's the overall atmosphere which fuels things. Having said that, I've not got around to watching the past few episodes, so don't have direct reference to the specific scene(s) you're noting.
Yeah, there is a lot of subtlety in the humour but there is lots of it, I genuinely think the people who say there isn't much humour in it are missing it. How come other people can see it and others don't? I'm not talking about the people who just don't find the humour funny, that's a fair enough comment.
I don't see the similarity with Peep Show. PS is colder in its characters and stories, but still really funny. G&S shows lots of loving situations and is less neurotic.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 6:52 PM GMT, Griff said:
I don't know if the fact that I originally come from South Wales makes it somehow seem less of a comedy and more of a documentary. It doesn't make me laugh when they say "lush" because that's just normal to me. Anyway if you all like it, good for you. There's no shortage of great comedy around at the moment for all tastes. I'm off to see Peep Show 5.1 at the BAFTA talk tomorrow. Can't wait!
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 6:54 PM GMT, Graham Bandage said:
Quote: Griff @ April 21 2008, 3:52 PM BSTI don't know if the fact that I originally come from South Wales makes it somehow seem less of a comedy and more of a documentary. It doesn't make me laugh when they say "lush" because that's just normal to me. Anyway if you all like it, good for you. There's no shortage of great comedy around at the moment for all tastes. I'm off to see Peep Show 5.1 at the BAFTA talk tomorrow. Can't wait!
You're quite right. It'd be a dull world if we all shared the same tastes.
Unless we all shared the same tastes as me, in which case it'd be flipping awesome.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 7:20 PM GMT, Aaron said:
If not a bit salty.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 9:55 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 21 2008, 1:42 PM BSTG & S is a ground-breaking show, because even people who like it admit that it isn't funny - much.
Well thats just a sweeping statement that obviously isnt true; I find the show very funny indeed.
A great end to a great second series I thought, one of the very best comedies of the last couple of years. I really dont get the point of view that there arent any funny bits in it, I just think its not for some people, it doesnt tickle them and thats fine; but I like it and to me it seems chock full of funny delights. Great performances, great characters and consistently funny-good stuff; I hope theres a third series.
On Monday 21st April 2008 GMT at 10:25 PM GMT, Charley said:
I want to know what happened on the Fishing Trip.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 12:12 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 21 2008, 6:55 PM BSTWell thats just a sweeping statement that obviously isnt true; I find the show very funny indeed.
A great end to a great second series I thought, one of the very best comedies of the last couple of years. I really dont get the point of view that there arent any funny bits in it, I just think its not for some people, it doesnt tickle them and thats fine; but I like it and to me it seems chock full of funny delights. Great performances, great characters and consistently funny-good stuff; I hope theres a third series.
Totally agree.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 3:36 AM GMT, annagranfors said:
I made a very simple cover for this wonderfully simple (and simply wonderful) show...
Hi-rez at:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/2431911039_4d69040064_o.jpg
****
And now, we wait for Christmas...! (and Series 3???)
(or, in the meantime, the possibly impending Corden/Allen nuptials...???)
(and yes, I know they're denying it, but then, they would, wouldn't they?)
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 6:55 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Oh don't worry, there'll be a third series - the Bafta guarantees that.
Presumably the humour and 'funny delights' will be so subtle the third time around that on the surface it will resemble Primo Levi's Holocaust memoir Hier ist Kein Warum, whilst to those in the know it will be funniest thing on TV.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 3:59 PM GMT, Rockabilly said:
I love this show, it is clever, subtle, and keeps you interested in what happened in the past ,and what will happen in the future.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 4:04 PM GMT, zooo said:
So, in the final episode, when Gavin and Smithy were in the car together, did Smithy tell Gavin he loved him as in LOVED him?...
I was a bit confused by that.
I assume he just meant as a best friend though.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 4:22 PM GMT, Rockabilly said:
I think you assumed correctly, I hope so anyway, because the thought of the two of them together has just flashed across my brain ,and I need it never to happen again.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 4:22 PM GMT, zooo said:
Ha.
I'm guessing Gavin would go on top.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 4:36 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
I really like this series. Easy to watch and makes me laugh! Fun times!
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 4:57 PM GMT, Graham Bandage said:
Quote: EllieJP @ April 22 2008, 1:36 PM BSTI really like this series.
Jolly flipping well said.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 5:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Aye.
'Neil' though?!
What a name.
On Tuesday 22nd April 2008 GMT at 5:42 PM GMT, Graham Bandage said:
Less a name, more an instruction.
On Thursday 24th April 2008 GMT at 4:02 PM GMT, Oliver said:
OMG! Seriously this G&S is only worth watching to see how many crap basic jokes u can fit into 30 mins
I really despise having my tv license spent on this moderate level crap
On Thursday 24th April 2008 GMT at 4:30 PM GMT, Rockabilly said:
omg!! if you dont like it dont watch it!! I bet you OMG!! watch friends....seriously!!
On Thursday 24th April 2008 GMT at 9:20 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
What are cutting man you are Rockabilly.
On Thursday 24th April 2008 GMT at 11:19 PM GMT, Rockabilly said:
What you meant to put in print you taxi driving ( one handed no doubt...) onanist was this ....
''What [a] cutting man you are Rockabilly'' not ''What are...''
you should try typing with both hands, not just the one you dont use
for your self gratification.
If your going to be sarcastic , at least type it properly , you sad f**k!
On Thursday 24th April 2008 GMT at 11:26 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Whoooaaa, ok, that was a bit uncalled for.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 1:10 AM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Rockabilly @ April 24 2008, 8:19 PM BSTIf your going to be sarcastic , at least type it properly , you sad f**k!
It's "you're".
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 1:38 AM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 21 2008, 9:30 AM BST
As an example - at one point someone calls someone and asks "are you at work" to which the response is "you called my work number" - is that supposed to be charming interaction between two people or is it suppose to be funny? I just don't get it (or see what I am suppose to get).
Well, that's not a joke, that's why.
It sounds like one, and it looks like one. But it's not. It doesn't really make sense on any level.
From what I've watched it's one of those shows that thinks that sentimentality and little lines like the above makes a good comedy. It doesn't. Epitomises what's wrong with 21st century comedy. It's the kind of show that thinks it's above anything with laughter track. Crap modern observations, coy little 'realistic' lines, grandiose dialogue packed with mawkishness.
Also, The Office scripts are packed with gags. "I've got my own room. That's seen a lot of action . . . Dusting mainly") It's funny on the page, easily.
G&S, for me, is bloody awful. James Corden is absolutely appalling, and also really annoying. Horne isn't much better.
But then BabyCow haven't produced anything of any worth for years. Barring Saxondale which has it's moments.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 21 2008, 6:55 PM BSTWell thats just a sweeping statement that obviously isnt true; I find the show very funny indeed.
A great end to a great second series I thought, one of the very best comedies of the last couple of years. I really dont get the point of view that there arent any funny bits in it, I just think its not for some people, it doesnt tickle them and thats fine; but I like it and to me it seems chock full of funny delights. Great performances, great characters and consistently funny-good stuff; I hope theres a third series.
Great characters? Where? It's so flat. Having an accent and referencing real life doesn't make good characters. "Oh, look ANOTHER sad bit where they act all awkward and can't look each other in the eye." Christ, it's got 'Look at us, we're funny AND touching' written all over it.
The performances are non-existent and there's not a joke in sight.
Quote: Graham Bandage @ April 21 2008, 10:57 AM BSTI am entirely liking Gavin & Stacey, and I'll tell you for why. The comedy arises naturally for the most part from the characters, and the characters drive the plot rather than the other way round. The characters are people you can imagine actually existing in real life, rather than the grotesques you'd find in Two Pints.
But people in real life aren't funny on screen. I know some very funny people, but who just wouldn't work as TV characters.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 1:44 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Aw man, the double standards are suffocating.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 3:18 AM GMT, Rob B said:
Gavin and Stacey is fairly enjoyable to watch, but it's not a comedy in my opinion, and definately not a sitcom. Actually it's not even the best show Corden and Horne have appeared in together which was Teachers. Now Teachers was a show!
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 4:06 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Rockabilly @ April 24 2008, 8:19 PM BSTWhat you meant to put in print you taxi driving ( one handed no doubt...) onanist was this ....
''What a cutting man you are Rockabilly'' not ''What are...''
you should try typing with both hands, not just the one you dont use
for your self gratification.
If your going to be sarcastic , at least type it properly , you sad f**k!
As I told you on another thread you were trolling, I don't drive a taxi. My forum name is a joke, that you don't get, even after two prompts from me and a virtual explanation from another poster. Even my reply to him was a clue, but education appears to be your achilles heel, doesn't it? It's quite a feat to make a real grammatical mistake in a post picking up on an accidental one. But I'll try to be more circumspect next time I put something 'in print'.
By the way, 'onanist' as a synonym for wanker hasn't made anyone laugh for at least ten years. It dates
you.
Aaargh and you put square brackets in your quote!
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 1:09 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Rockabilly @ April 24 2008, 8:19 PM BST
If your going to be sarcastic , at least type it properly , you sad f**k!
I love lines like that!
A lot of Internet arguing could also take place in a real conversation between, say, two work colleagues (albeit a rather heated one)....but then someone throws in a "you sad f**k" and, in my little mind, its been said over the water cooler between these two bickering blokes on their coffee break. Just jars with my mental image so beautifully. Bit like the C word over the poker game in Curb!
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 3:24 PM GMT, Mark said:
OK people, back on topic:
It's interesting to see those that don't like this comedy starting to talk up. It turns out there's quite a few 'haters' out there it'd seem. We'd better be careful James Cordon doesn't read this thread - he doesn't take criticism well from what I've read.
If you don't like Gavin and Stacey check out Gareth McLean's blog. He and Cordon have started a war of words. This is the latest installment: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2008/04/even_if_james_corden_hadnt.html
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 3:34 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Gareth McLean has a funny face.
And that whole entry is a blatant "I'M NOT BOTHERED, HONEST!" whilst he secretly wipes away the tears. Look at the photo anyway. Can't decide if he wants to be emo or tramp.
But moving on. Yeah, interesting. I guess now that it's becoming more widely known to be popular and to be successful, those that don't like it are becoming more vocal. Which is always the case really.
P.S. Down with Firefox! Down with Apple!
What? Whaatt?!
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 4:01 PM GMT, Oliver said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 25 2008, 12:34 PM BSTGareth McLean has a funny face.
And that whole entry is a blatant "I'M NOT BOTHERED, HONEST!" whilst he secretly wipes away the tears. Look at the photo anyway. Can't decide if he wants to be emo or tramp.
But moving on. Yeah, interesting. I guess now that it's becoming more widely known to be popular and to be successful, those that don't like it are becoming more vocal. Which is always the case really.
P.S. Down with Firefox! Down with Apple!
What? Whaatt?!
Yeah but things that dominate because they are good srew business etc, hence the responses. G&S is pretty lame
Quote: Seefacts @ April 24 2008, 10:38 PM BSTWell, that's not a joke, that's why.
It sounds like one, and it looks like one. But it's not. It doesn't really make sense on any level.
From what I've watched it's one of those shows that thinks that sentimentality and little lines like the above makes a good comedy. It doesn't. Epitomises what's wrong with 21st century comedy. It's the kind of show that thinks it's above anything with laughter track. Crap modern observations, coy little 'realistic' lines, grandiose dialogue packed with mawkishness.
Also, The Office scripts are packed with gags. "I've got my own room. That's seen a lot of action . . . Dusting mainly") It's funny on the page, easily.
G&S, for me, is bloody awful. James Corden is absolutely appalling, and also really annoying. Horne isn't much better.
But then BabyCow haven't produced anything of any worth for years. Barring Saxondale which has it's moments.
Great characters? Where? It's so flat. Having an accent and referencing real life doesn't make good characters. "Oh, look ANOTHER sad bit where they act all awkward and can't look each other in the eye." Christ, it's got 'Look at us, we're funny AND touching' written all over it.
The performances are non-existent and there's not a joke in sight.
But people in real life aren't funny on screen. I know some very funny people, but who just wouldn't work as TV characters.
I LOVE YOU SEEFACTS!!!!!!!!!!! WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Gavin and Stacey = most boring, cliched, worthless program ever = for old and stupid common people!
James Corden is a fat bloke! Wow! That's brilliant
'oh look a welsh idiot and an essex prat get married and they 'luv each over!'
lets all cry and laugh and throw baftas at them
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 4:38 PM GMT, Aaron said:
'Cos maybe one will hit them on the head and knock them out cold?
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 4:46 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Quote: Oliver @ April 25 2008, 1:01 PM BSTYeah but things that dominate because they are good srew business etc, hence the responses. G&S is pretty lame
I LOVE YOU SEEFACTS!!!!!!!!!!! WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Gavin and Stacey = most boring, cliched, worthless program ever = for old and stupid common people!
James Corden is a fat bloke! Wow! That's brilliant
'oh look a welsh idiot and an essex prat get married and they 'luv each over!'
lets all cry and laugh and throw baftas at them
Oliver, I would like you to qualify your idea that G&S is for 'old and stupid common people'...failure to do so will lend weight to my belief that you posted an ill thought out and brainless comment.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 5:05 PM GMT, Oliver said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ April 25 2008, 1:46 PM BSTOliver, I would like you to qualify your idea that G&S is for 'old and stupid common people'...failure to do so will lend weight to my belief that you posted an ill thought out and brainless comment.
OH NO! Shit, do I have 28 days to reply!
Will my License To Think be revoked?
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 5:20 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
No, but by making such a strong statement and then refusing to back it up with any kind of cogent argument - it does indicate that perhaps your license should be.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 5:33 PM GMT, Oliver said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ April 25 2008, 2:20 PM BSTNo, but by making such a strong statement and then refusing to back it up with any kind of cogent argument - it does indicate that perhaps your license should be.
Well, I think the first thing to do would be to ressurect some Nazi's, burn some books, kidnap and gag a few artists, and then get them to help you punish me for my insolence....
...which of course I should be because I didn't respond to you at an exam level, with 'cohesive' arguments.
I can only assume you must know someone or you write for this show!
And if you do that does not suprise me.
chill out Grandad!!
) Happy thoughts
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 5:48 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Um, okay. I just think that on a site geared towards intelligent discussion regarding sitcom, it makes sense that arguments should be backed up with some kind of thought process.
I don't work on G&S, but I do work in the creative side of the industry. I don't know you, but if you have any kind of aspirations in the field, then you will have to up your game.
if not, that's cool, keep on truckin' - and keep on keeping me in work! peace.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 5:50 PM GMT, Oliver said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ April 25 2008, 2:48 PM BSTUm, okay. I just think that on a site geared towards intelligent discussion regarding sitcom, it makes sense that arguments should be backed up with some kind of thought process.
I don't work on G&S, but I do work in the creative side of the industry. I don't know you, but if you have any kind of aspirations in the field, then you will have to up your game.
if not, that's cool, keep on truckin' - and keep on keeping me in work! peace.
#
Ha Ha, if only you knew! But you kept going so I give in
Here's your synopis of why it appeals to the lower IQ levels:
Essex prats, Welsh monkeys. Boring information, emotion for morons.
jokes involving police in wales who cant stop talking but let you go when you commit an offence
hilariouus...
or
gay jokes involving brokeback mountain
or
a granny who uses facebook
All things that just about everyone no matter how retarded or incontinent can understand! No laugh out loud, witty, fast paced, new, or otherwise intelligent material.
Maybe next season they could do a joke about someone having sex with a sheep
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 6:08 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Ok, you're giving examples of why you dont like it - and true enough, you have highlighted a couple of jokes that are 'obvious' at best. And I agree that the show is certainly not deserving of the critical acclaim it appears to be enojying.
However, the question I asked was why you thought only 'stupid common people' would like it. Your implied connection between people of 'lower' social class and lack of intelligence is spurious, at best. It betrays an ill conceived prejudice.
I'm interested though, what part of the industry do you work in?
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 6:17 PM GMT, Oliver said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ April 25 2008, 3:08 PM BSTOk, you're giving examples of why you dont like it - and true enough, you have highlighted a couple of jokes that are 'obvious' at best. And I agree that the show is certainly not deserving of the critical acclaim it appears to be enojying.
However, the question I asked was why you thought only 'stupid common people' would like it. Your implied connection between people of 'lower' social class and lack of intelligence is spurious, at best. It betrays an ill conceived prejudice.
I'm interested though, what part of the industry do you work in?
No no!
I am really not one for political correctness. Stupid common people like simple jokes. If I said 'common people' are 'stupid' that would be different.
The Uk thrives on stupid common people
Who do you think buys Jade Goody/usher/britney spears perfume. Who watches Hotel Babylon, who goes into the cinema and pays to see 'EPIC MOVIE'
STUPID COMMON PEOPLE: (singing) 'we do....we do!'
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 6:29 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Hey man, Hotel Babylon is most totally excellent.
And, as Ian and charisma will no doubt tell us, it co-stars Emma Pierson.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 6:34 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Oliver, thanks for explaining. I see what you're saying, benefit of the doubt awarded.
You are 100% correct re Hotel Babylon, although I might expand that to say stupid middle class people like it just as much, if not more.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 6:45 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Sacrilege!
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 7:19 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I always assumed the phrase 'stupid common people' referred to the middle classes, not the lower classes. After all, there's nothing more homogenous than the middle classes. They all drink wine for example, whereas working class people drink anything from Cinzano to White Lightning. And most middle class people are very stupid, they're just well educated, which hides a multitude of sins.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 7:42 PM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
I watched chunks of G&S on Youtube last night and I'm sold cos it made me laugh
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 8:07 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
i've done the same today and really liked what i saw! Very different to the episode i watched on TV.
either the episode was a bad one or the show is best viewed as 2 min highlights on youtube!
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 8:53 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Seefacts @ April 24 2008, 10:38 PM BSTGreat characters? Where? It's so flat. Having an accent and referencing real life doesn't make good characters. "Oh, look ANOTHER sad bit where they act all awkward and can't look each other in the eye." Christ, it's got 'Look at us, we're funny AND touching' written all over it.
The performances are non-existent and there's not a joke in sight.
Yes Seefacts, great characters. Smithy, Brynn and Gavins Mom, are, in my eyes, fantastic characters. How you can say its flat is beyond me, but there we go. As for saying the performances are none existent-are we watching the same show?! Ive no idea why people on here get so worked up about this show if they dont like it, it seems most bizarre to me. And yes, to some of us the show is both funny and touching. Not to you, but not everything is to everyones taste.
It sort of depresses me that so many people on this site hate the show to such an extent; why is the quality and charm of this show passing them by?
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 8:56 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 25 2008, 5:53 PM BSTYes Seefacts, great characters. Smithy, Brynn and Gavins Mom, are, in my eyes, fantastic characters. How you can say its flat is beyond me, but there we go. As for saying the performances are none existent-are we watching the same show?! Ive no idea why people on here get so worked up about this show if they dont like it, it seems most bizarre to me. And yes, to some of us the show is both funny and touching. Not to you, but not everything is to everyones taste.
It sort of depresses me that so many people on this site hate the show to such an extent; why is the quality and charm of this show passing them by?
That's the problem - the 'charm' of the show is so self-knowing.
The way it's put forward as gentle and nice is so cloying. It papers over the fact it has no jokes.
Of course, a show like 2 Pints is far shitter and more infuriating. But everyone knows that, so that's fine. It has no pretensions.
James Corden's ungracious behaviour hasn't helped this show's cause, either.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 9:04 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Seefacts @ April 25 2008, 5:56 PM BSTThat's the problem - the 'charm' of the show is so self-knowing.
The way it's put forward as gentle and nice is so cloying. It papers over the fact it has no jokes.
Well thats where well just have to differ; I dont find it in the least cloying. And it may not have many jokes in the traditional feed and punchline tradition, but it still makes me laugh a lot, so I suppose it must still be funny. If the show didnt make a large amount of people laugh it wouldnt have been so lauded, I would have thought, so it must be doing something right. The shows just not for you, just because it doesnt make you laugh does not mean it doesnt have its merits and an audience or that it just plain isnt funny. Its that thorny issue of taste again, G and S just isnt to yours.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 9:06 PM GMT, Seefacts said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 25 2008, 6:04 PM BSTWell thats where well just have to differ; I dont find it in the least cloying. And it may not have many jokes in the traditional feed and punchline tradition, but it still makes me laugh a lot, so I suppose it must still be funny. If the show didnt make a large amount of people laugh it wouldnt have been so lauded, I would have thought, so it must be doing something right. The shows just not for you, just because it doesnt make you laugh does not mean it doesnt have its merits and an audience or that it just plain isnt funny. Its that thorny issue of taste again, G and S just isnt to yours.
I will point out though that I do like shows that aren't feedline-punchline types.
The Office (though it did have some trad gags)
Royle Family (untouchable in it's field)
Curb.
15 Stories High.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 9:12 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Seefacts @ April 25 2008, 6:06 PM BSTI will point out though that I do like shows that aren't feedline-punchline types.
The Office (though it did have some trad gags)
Royle Family (untouchable in it's field)
Curb.
15 Stories High.
Im not questioning whether you only like the traditional style of sit-com, just saying that the laughs are there if youre tuned into it; it obviously doesnt tickle you for whatever reason, we cant all like everything!
As a for instance, in one episode Brynn tells Smithy that he cant stay in his spare room as hes turned it into a high performance Gym. Now thats not a joke, but it made me laugh out loud. With these kinds of shows theres always the danger that for everyone whos laughing like a loon, there will be plenty more shrugging their shoulders and unable to see whats supposed to be funny. If there are clear jokes then at least you can see what was supposed to be funny, even if you dont find it so; with this kind of show any attempts at humour can pass you by all together and leave you asking 'where are the funny bits?'.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 9:41 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
I remain convinced that there are two, very different, 'writer's voices' going on in G&S. There are some moments, some dialogue that is genuinely very effective...but then you get the moments like when smithy's sister did the whole littlebritain/cath tate thing - i can't believe they thought that was a) funny b) not criminally derivative. i find the tone of the show very uneven.
On Friday 25th April 2008 GMT at 10:35 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Seefacts @ April 25 2008, 6:06 PM BST15 Stories High.
Storeys* (Yeah, I know, it's at odds with the norm.)
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ April 25 2008, 6:41 PM BSTsmithy's sister did the whole littlebritain/cath tate thing
Still can't see where that comparison is coming from.
And please use capital letters in your posts.
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 3:02 AM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ April 25 2008, 6:41 PM BSTI remain convinced that there are two, very different, 'writer's voices' going on in G&S. There are some moments, some dialogue that is genuinely very effective...but then you get the moments like when smithy's sister did the whole little britain/cath tate thing - i can't believe they thought that was a) funny b) not criminally derivative. i find the tone of the show very uneven.
This is a very good point! Either bits of the scripts are written on off-days, or one of the writers is not pulling their - no pun intended - weight.
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 3:23 AM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 25 2008, 5:07 PM BSTi've done the same today and really liked what i saw! Very different to the episode i watched on TV.
either the episode was a bad one or the show is best viewed as 2 min highlights on youtube!
Oh well excuuse me! Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Master/ ' I-don't-care-for- G&S-but-god-twat-the-person-who has-the-audacity-to-like-it', Sneering. Live with the fact that some of us like it and some of you don't. No need to get high and mighty.
Sake.
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 3:30 AM GMT, zooo said:
Konichiwa.
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 3:32 AM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: zooo @ April 26 2008, 12:30 AM BSTKonichiwa.
Um yes.
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 3:32 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Kung Hei Fat Choi.
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 3:39 AM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 26 2008, 12:32 AM BSTKung Hei Fat Choi.
That too.
Quote: zooo @ April 26 2008, 12:30 AM BSTKonichiwa.
Ha I have just done a google on 'konichiwa':
I was fine until I was mildly bitch slapped upthread.
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 4:03 AM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 25 2008, 5:07 PM BSTi've done the same today and really liked what i saw! Very different to the episode i watched on TV.
either the episode was a bad one or the show is best viewed as 2 min highlights on youtube!
Hmm upon reflection it seems that I may have been a bit hasty with my initial response, and that YOUR reply to me was sincere (it was, wasn't it?). Therefore I do not apologise but acknowledge that you were being sincere.
After all you are a bit of a Frazier Crane when it comes to comedy, no?
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 1:06 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
apology expected
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 1:08 PM GMT, Aaron said:
accepted*
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 1:09 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 25 2008, 7:35 PM BST
Still can't see where that comparison is coming from.
http://www.optimax.co.uk/
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 1:13 PM GMT, Aaron said:
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 1:15 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Aaron @ April 26 2008, 10:08 AM BSTaccepted*
You realise that if two people were engaged in conversation and you butted in to correct their grammar you would be regarded a complete tool?
On Saturday 26th April 2008 GMT at 1:38 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I think it's a bit late to avert that risk.
On Tuesday 29th April 2008 GMT at 12:59 PM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 26 2008, 10:06 AM BSTapology expected
Isn't it here yet?
On Tuesday 29th April 2008 GMT at 1:22 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Was it Margaret Thatcher who said... 'education is a dangerous thing, especially for the ignorant.'
On Tuesday 29th April 2008 GMT at 1:38 PM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: Marc P @ April 29 2008, 10:22 AM BSTWas it Margaret Thatcher who said... 'education is a dangerous thing, especially for the ignorant.'
Why not wait and see how things pan out before you start to make personal judgements?
On Tuesday 29th April 2008 GMT at 1:53 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 25 2008, 4:19 PM BSTI always assumed the phrase 'stupid common people' referred to the middle classes, not the lower classes. After all, there's nothing more homogenous than the middle classes. They all drink wine for example, whereas working class people drink anything from Cinzano to White Lightning. And most middle class people are very stupid, they're just well educated, which hides a multitude of sins.
That was the post I was responding to. Quite why it jumped into your spat I have no idea. But rest assured Old Cow I was referring to neither of you with my comment.
Which was just a silly made up thing anyway - if you read what it actually says!
On Tuesday 29th April 2008 GMT at 2:01 PM GMT, oldcowgrazing said:
Quote: Marc P @ April 29 2008, 10:53 AM BSTThat was the post I was responding to. Quite why it jumped into your spat I have no idea. But rest assured Old Cow I was referring to neither of you with my comment.
Which was just a silly made up thing anyway - if you read what it actually says!
Ah
Apologies for jumping the gun. Again.OK for all those I offend in future on this site, and believe me I have a very large shoe size and a mouth to fit, please accept my apologies in advance.
*Scuttles offline*
On Wednesday 30th April 2008 GMT at 10:22 PM GMT, Daveep said:
Oh....what is occuring? Crikey, its all a bit heated on this forum isn't it...whew! Anyhoo (I meant to spell that hoo, its onomatopoeic) I was wondering if any of you clever chaps and chapesses can confirm for me that Nessa's full name is Vanessa Shanessa Jenkins? I've just read elsewhere that her name is just Shanessa Jenkins but that can't be right because I remember howling st Vanessa Shanessa! I'll be devastated if I'm wrong!!!! Tidy
On Wednesday 30th April 2008 GMT at 10:24 PM GMT, zooo said:
I'm pretty sure she said that a couple of episodes ago, yep!
On Thursday 1st May 2008 GMT at 3:04 AM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Daveep @ April 30 2008, 7:22 PM BSTI was wondering if any of you clever chaps and chapesses can confirm for me that Nessa's full name is Vanessa Shanessa Jenkins?
Hi Daveep. Yup, I too seem to remember her checking into the hospital under that name.
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 5:43 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Rob B @ April 25 2008, 12:18 AM BSTGavin and Stacey is fairly enjoyable to watch, but it's not a comedy in my opinion, and definately not a sitcom. Actually it's not even the best show Corden and Horne have appeared in together which was Teachers. Now Teachers was a show!
Think that's why this show divides people on the site. It's not a sitcom, it's a half-hour continuing comedy-drama. They could have produced each series as three one hour shows. It starts out with good characters, but doesn't use them to full potential. A lot of the ongoing story arcs are predictable and there is some really lazy writing. A sitcom, however unconventional, ties up all the loose ends of a plot within 30 mins, even if that plot is part of an ongoing storyline. G&S is written more as a soap with a few jokes. (And James Corden should remember that pride cometh before a fall.)
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 5:45 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Ah, another G & S basher, this site is full of 'em. Theyre all wrong of course, but theyre secure in their bile!
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 5:47 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
I didn't say I didn't enjoy G&S, did I?
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 5:50 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ May 24 2008, 2:47 PM BSTI didn't say I didn't enjoy G&S, did I?
Um, you said something about some of the writing being lazy, it being predictable, characters not used to their potential; not exactly a ringing endorsement? I think anyone reading your review would imagine you werent that impressed with it.
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 5:54 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Actually I enjoy it, but it's not a sitcom, that was my point. Just because something's far from perfect doesn't mean I can't enjoy it. What I enjoy most are some of the performances, which bring it up a level or three. Not all of us have to love something unconditionally.
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 5:56 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ May 24 2008, 2:54 PM BST
Not all of us have to love something unconditionally.
Agreed, but there was still more negatives than positives in your review, so what else would people think? The last thing this bloody site needs is more G & S slagging!
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 6:01 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Don't think I was. Sorry if you disagree. It might be that TV comedy is generally in pretty parlous state that G&S seems like a work of genius to some. It isn't, but it's an enjoyable, fun show which deserves its audience.
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 8:15 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 24 2008, 2:50 PM BSTUm, you said something about some of the writing being lazy, it being predictable, characters not used to their potential; not exactly a ringing endorsement?
Most of my favourite shows could get those points made about them, even by me.
On Saturday 24th May 2008 GMT at 8:31 PM GMT, Alan Cornforth said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ May 24 2008, 3:01 PM BSTDon't think I was. Sorry if you disagree. It might be that TV comedy is generally in pretty parlous state that G&S seems like a work of genius to some. It isn't, but it's an enjoyable, fun show which deserves its audience.
The test of it's quality, judging by todays benchmarks, will be how many times it is being shown in 10 years time on UKUSTVGoldfish - I suspect it will have been forgotten.
On Friday 20th June 2008 GMT at 9:01 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Mark @ April 25 2008, 12:24 PM BSTWe'd better be careful James Cordon doesn't read this thread - he doesn't take criticism well from what I've read.
Has anyone suggested he may be in the wrong business to have that attitude?
On Monday 23rd June 2008 GMT at 3:50 PM GMT, Graham Bandage said:
Quote: SlagA @ June 20 2008, 6:01 PM BSTHas anyone suggested he may be in the wrong business to have that attitude?
Yes, I thought fat people were supposed to be jolly.
On Tuesday 29th July 2008 GMT at 1:36 AM GMT, Chappers said:
"Stacey" whatever her name is was on Loose Women today.
She said there are no plans for a third series but they're working on a Christmas special.
On Tuesday 29th July 2008 GMT at 7:47 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: David Chapman @ July 28 2008, 10:36 PM BST"Stacey" whatever her name is was on Loose Women today.
She said there are no plans for a third series but they're working on a Christmas special.
Yeah, well it's never felt like a show that was designed to run forever. There's only so many times G&S can row and then she pisses-off back to Barry.
On Tuesday 29th July 2008 GMT at 7:48 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: David Chapman @ July 28 2008, 10:36 PM BST"Stacey" whatever her name is was on Loose Women today.
She said there are no plans for a third series but they're working on a Christmas special.
She is just so flipping nice, isn't she.
I think they could squeeze another series out of it.
They could all four live together in a flat share in London. Or Wales, I suppose... nah, London.
On Tuesday 29th July 2008 GMT at 7:54 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I think ending it with a one-off special is perfect for the sitcom. At the end of the day its not supposed to be a long-runner as so much changes from one episode to the next.
Unlike sitcoms like Seinfeld that reset everyone at the start of the next episode.
On Tuesday 29th July 2008 GMT at 7:56 PM GMT, zooo said:
Aren't Corden and Horny working on a sketch show together now or something?
On Tuesday 29th July 2008 GMT at 8:19 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Yeah, under the title "Horne & Corden Have Come."
On Tuesday 29th July 2008 GMT at 10:28 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: hotzappa11 @ July 29 2008, 5:19 PM BSTYeah, under the title "Horne & Corden Have Come."
Oh, Jesus Christ!... Thought long and hard about that title, did they?
On Sunday 3rd August 2008 GMT at 4:50 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 29 2008, 7:28 PM BSTOh, Jesus Christ!... Thought long and hard about that title, did they?
Hardly!
On Friday 21st November 2008 GMT at 1:07 AM GMT, Chappers said:
Repeats starting tomorrow I see.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 1:04 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Third series of this fantastic show is now official!
http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/12/21/8022/official%3A_gavin_%26_stacey_to_return
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 1:07 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Brill.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 1:16 AM GMT, Loopey said:
Apologies if it has already been mentioned, but did you know that UHT is in the Christmas episode?
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 1:22 AM GMT, bighead65 said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ December 21 2008, 8:04 PM GMTThird series of this fantastic show is now official!
http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/12/21/8022/official%3A_gavin_%26_stacey_to_return
Whoopidy doopidy do! Can't wait
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 1:38 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Good stuff, love the show, it's such a joyful series. I hope they can keep the quality up for the third run.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 1:47 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I know its lush, I won't lie.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 1:59 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I'm especially pleased as I know the shows very existence pisses off so many people on here!
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 2:51 PM GMT, Griff said:
Gavin & Stacey is shit.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 3:10 PM GMT, Huge Bear said:
I saw one episode of this back in October and just couldn't figure it out. It seemed pleasant enough but not particularly funny, just loads of catchphrases.
Sorry if that sounds miserablist.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 3:12 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 21 2008, 8:59 PM GMTI'm especially pleased as I know the shows very existence pisses off so many people on here!
Quote: Griff @ December 22 2008, 9:51 AM GMTGavin & Stacey is shit.
Woo-Hoo!!
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 3:15 PM GMT, ShoePie said:
Quote: Loopey @ December 21 2008, 8:16 PM GMTApologies if it has already been mentioned, but did you know that UHT is in the Christmas episode?
I did not know this, I will keep an eye out for him. Hopefully his part will involve him saying Decoupage at least once!
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 3:20 PM GMT, Griff said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 22 2008, 10:12 AM GMTWoo-Hoo!!
I just posted that to brighten your morning.
(Although it's true, obviously.)
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 3:21 PM GMT, Huge Bear said:
Quote: ShoePie @ December 22 2008, 10:15 AM GMTI did not know this, I will keep an eye out for him. Hopefully his part will involve him saying Decoupage at least once!
Oh dear...you see?
(humbug humbug)
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 3:30 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Mister Milky is the king of decoupage!
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 3:32 PM GMT, Huge Bear said:
Quote: Marc P @ December 22 2008, 10:30 AM GMTMister Milky is the king of decoupage!
Out of that, I understood the word "king"...
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 5:28 PM GMT, nora said:
What is all this? Feckin' codetalkers?
UHT is milk. So milk is in the Christmas episode, why? Is it in their feckin' tea!?
I love Gavin And Stacey, it is a feel good piece of work, some people just don't wanna feel good, and just knock everything ...especially people that are more succesful than they are!
Ther seems to be quite a few frustrated, actors, comedians and scriptwriters on here; get over it! If you were any good you would not be asking people if they want feckin' fries with that!
Edited by Aaron.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 6:19 PM GMT, paul f said:
Flamin Nora , are you trying to say that hating something automatically means you are actually envious of it? Can't see the logic in that at all!
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 6:21 PM GMT, Griff said:
Plus, Nora laughed at her own joke with a smiley, which is an even bigger crime.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 7:01 PM GMT, nora said:
Quote: paul f @ December 22 2008, 1:19 PM GMTFlamin Nora , are you trying to say that hating something automatically means you are actually envious of it? Can't see the logic in that at all!
Yes
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 9:06 PM GMT, Pete said:
Quote: paul f @ December 22 2008, 1:19 PM GMTFlamin Nora , are you trying to say that hating something automatically means you are actually envious of it? Can't see the logic in that at all!
But hating something VERY popular will, statistically, be a result of a LARGE number of people acting out of jealousy/band wagon jumping.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 9:31 PM GMT, Ned1984 said:
Quote: nora @ December 22 2008, 12:28 PM GMTWhat is all this? Feckin' codetalkers?
UHT is milk. So milk is in the Christmas episode, why? Is it in their feckin' tea!?
I love Gavin And Stacey, it is a feel good piece of work, some people just don't wanna feel good, and just knock everything ...especially people that are more succesful than they are!
Ther seems to be quite a few frustrated, actors, comedians and scriptwriters on here; get over it! If you were any good you would not be asking people if they want feckin' fries with that!
Edited by Aaron.
So does that work for everything? I don't like rap music, does that mean I am jealous of all rappers? I don't like Marmite, is it because I wish I was a product made of yeast extract? I can't stand Mailbu, must be because I am jealous that I'm not a coconut based alcoholic beverage. I could go on but I think you see my point.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 9:32 PM GMT, Loopey said:
Quote: ShoePie @ December 22 2008, 10:15 AM GMTI did not know this, I will keep an eye out for him. Hopefully his part will involve him saying Decoupage at least once!
Apparently he is rifling through the goods in a lingerie department.
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 10:18 PM GMT, nora said:
Quote: Ned1984 @ December 22 2008, 4:31 PM GMTSo does that work for everything? I don't like rap music, does that mean I am jealous of all rappers? I don't like marmite, is it because I wish I was a product made of yeast extract? I can't stand Mailbu, must be because I am jealous that I'm not a coconut based alcoholic beverage. I could go on but I think you see my point.
If you are a frustrated rapper then .......YES! You see my point????
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 10:36 PM GMT, Griff said:
So then, statistics and psychoanalysis brainboxes, why don't "frustrated writers" hate EVERY successful show then, if it's just pure jealousy? How come all our shelves are full of DVD box sets of all our favourite successful shows?
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 10:42 PM GMT, bighead65 said:
Quote: Ned1984 @ December 22 2008, 4:31 PM GMTSo does that work for everything? I don't like rap music, does that mean I am jealous of all rappers? I don't like Marmite, is it because I wish I was a product made of yeast extract? I can't stand Mailbu, must be because I am jealous that I'm not a coconut based alcoholic beverage. I could go on but I think you see my point.
No! how can you hate Marmite?
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 11:52 PM GMT, nora said:
Your a frustrated writer aren't you Griff .... it's ok, someone has to sell burgers xx
On Monday 22nd December 2008 GMT at 11:59 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Nora, you're being needlessly provocative now. And going off-topic to do so. Please desist.
Thanks.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:11 AM GMT, Ned1984 said:
Quote: bighead65 @ December 22 2008, 5:42 PM GMTNo! how can you hate Marmite?
How can you like it?
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:13 AM GMT, Griff said:
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:25 AM GMT, Ned1984 said:
and 
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:26 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Must I ban you all? Back on topic please.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:29 AM GMT, ShoePie said:
Quote: Aaron @ December 22 2008, 7:26 PM GMTMust I ban you all? Back on topic please.
Gavin and Stacey....I didn't used to like it but I really do now. Weird!
Better?
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:34 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Much.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:36 AM GMT, bighead65 said:
Quote: Griff @ December 22 2008, 7:13 PM GMT
Not sure I do now.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:41 AM GMT, Ned1984 said:
Anyway, I didn't like Gavin and Stacey and everyone thinks I'm strange, but that is coming from the same people who think Porridge was "a loada aul shite".
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:46 AM GMT, bighead65 said:
I don't think Gavin and Stacey is shit, I just don't think It's a sitcom, just an ok comedy drama. Plus Porridge is in my top 5 of all time.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:48 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Ned1984 @ December 22 2008, 7:41 PM GMTAnyway, I didn't like Gavin and Stacey and everyone thinks I'm strange, but that is coming from the same people who think Porridge was "a loada aul shite".
Both are very good indeed, as far as I'm concerned.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 12:52 AM GMT, Ned1984 said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 22 2008, 7:48 PM GMTBoth are very good indeed, as far as I'm concerned.
I can see the appeal in it, I wanted to like it so bad because everyone was raving about it but just not my sort of thing.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 1:58 AM GMT, sanniberry said:
I caught James Corden on a few panel shows (NMTBC and 8 out of 10 Cats if I recall correctly) and decided to check out this Gavin and Stacey show he's in. By the looks of the first episode, it looked like a sort of peculiar, more comedy-focused and more Welsh version of Cold Feet or something, but I was curious so I kept watching. I finished S1 and went onto watch S2 until it hit me - am I supposed to be laughing? I did occasionally chuckle, and really enjoyed the character of Nessa, but it didn't really provide me sufficient entertainment and I hated James Corden's Smithy (what a prick!) and the mix of comedy/drama just didn't work for me in this one.
I suppose the thing that the show's title characters are the least funny/interesting ones in it is supposed to be a part of the funny, but I just really lacked interest in Gavin & Stacey. It just strikes me as a sort of wasted opportunity to have the show start after they've more or less fallen in love already. I never saw the chemistry develop, so I don't really care for it.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 3:16 AM GMT, nora said:
Thrush yeast extract? Is that the Aldi version?
I bet Gavin and Stacey don't eat that.... on topic see....?
Oops nearly forgot.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 3:31 AM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: sanniberry @ December 22 2008, 8:58 PM GMTI never saw the chemistry develop, so I don't really care for it.
That is a good point.
I care much more about the Smithy/Nessa attraction, cos I've seen it develop.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 4:58 AM GMT, Aaron said:
But isn't that half the point? It's not so much about Gavin and Stacey themselves, as the effects their relationship has on their lives and those around them. We've seen the Smithy/Nessa thing, and the families getting together and all of that malarkey. That's what the show focusses on. No?
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 5:10 AM GMT, zooo said:
I suppose.
But it's ended up that any scene about Gavin and Stacey I just get quite bored in. They're a bit too insipid and whiny.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 5:24 AM GMT, David H said:
"Previously she had indicated that the Christmas Eve special may be the end of the series, as she didn't want it to become 'boring and recycled'."
But she decided that's what some people want.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 1:52 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Aaron @ December 22 2008, 11:58 PM GMTBut isn't that half the point? It's not so much about Gavin and Stacey themselves, as the effects their relationship has on their lives and those around them. We've seen the Smithy/Nessa thing, and the families getting together and all of that malarkey. That's what the show focusses on. No?
Exactly.
Quote: David H @ December 23 2008, 12:24 AM GMT"Previously she had indicated that the Christmas Eve special may be the end of the series, as she didn't want it to become 'boring and recycled'."
But she decided that's what some people want.
And *yawn*
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 4:21 PM GMT, sanniberry said:
As I said, I get that that's at least part of the whole show and its "point" but that still means it lessens my enjoyment of the show, which is a shame as any show with the occasional Welsh spoken should be winner by definition.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 4:49 PM GMT, nora said:
I am looking forawrd to the Christmas special, not sure another series won't just be stretching it a bit much.
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 4:50 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: zooo @ December 23 2008, 12:10 AM GMTa bit too whiny.
Ha!! Some of your favourite people are whiners to the bone!
On Tuesday 23rd December 2008 GMT at 11:48 PM GMT, zooo said:
Probably!
(Who though...?)
On Wednesday 24th December 2008 GMT at 8:08 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ May 24 2008, 2:43 PM BSTThink that's why this show divides people on the site. It's not a sitcom, it's a half-hour continuing comedy-drama. They could have produced each series as three one hour shows. It starts out with good characters, but doesn't use them to full potential. A lot of the ongoing story arcs are predictable and there is some really lazy writing. A sitcom, however unconventional, ties up all the loose ends of a plot within 30 mins, even if that plot is part of an ongoing storyline. G&S is written more as a soap with a few jokes. (And James Corden should remember that pride cometh before a fall.)
Gavin & Lazy bashing? Let me through!!! This show is beyond toilet.
On Wednesday 24th December 2008 GMT at 8:20 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 24 2008, 3:08 PM GMTGavin & Lazy bashing? Let me through!!! This show is beyond toilet.
It's been too long, let's have a fight about it!!
On Wednesday 24th December 2008 GMT at 8:38 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Let's not.
On Wednesday 24th December 2008 GMT at 10:23 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Aaron @ December 24 2008, 3:38 PM GMTLet's not.
You bloody ebeneezer, it's Christmas!
How annoying, I wanted to say eChristmas.
eChristmass you c**ts - let me write what I want to write you f**king orwellian pricks, just because too words mean the same thing it doesn't mean they have the same effect!
ecsmus!
On Wednesday 24th December 2008 GMT at 10:25 PM GMT, Marc P said:
I liked some of it. Will tape tonights especially as UHT is in it.
And a lot of people sell burgers to put food on their own table. Let's now not look down on people whatever they do for a living, it's not clever and it's certainly not big. Unless it's a Mac of course.
On Wednesday 24th December 2008 GMT at 10:49 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Aaron @ December 24 2008, 3:38 PM GMTLet's not.
Stay out of it small fry, I wanna get pummeled.
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 2:05 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 24 2008, 5:49 PM GMTStay out of it small fry, I wanna get pummeled.
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 2:43 PM GMT, Gavin said:
I thought last night's was quite good, the group of people I was with were almost rolling in the isles so I'd conisder it a hit
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 3:01 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quite enjoyable. Don't think I so much as raised a smile though.
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 7:50 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Brilliant stuff, funny and made me all warm inside. Poor Smithy though!
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 8:36 PM GMT, zooo said:
It made me have Gavin and Stacey dreams!
Weird.
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 8:55 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Weeeird indeed!
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 8:57 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well, they were Smithy dreams I think. And Nessa possibly.
Oh no! It was Bryn!
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 9:06 PM GMT, DaButt said:
Thanks for reminding me to download this.
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 9:22 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ December 25 2008, 3:57 PM GMTWell, they were Smithy dreams I think. And Nessa possibly.
Oh no! It was Bryn!
That is somewhat worrying.
But then Jeremy Clarkson was in my dreams last night, so it's hardly my place to pass comment.
On Thursday 25th December 2008 GMT at 9:28 PM GMT, zooo said:
Haha!!
Saucy.
On Saturday 27th December 2008 GMT at 12:44 AM GMT, Mick Green said:
I thought it was as poor as most of the second series. It just confirmed they'll not hit the heights of the first series again.
On Saturday 27th December 2008 GMT at 8:50 PM GMT, Jeremy Quarshie-Halm said:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that this show is rubbish. I've watched a few more times and it is over rated. Yeah there are a few laughs but it is no way hilarious. I think it's absoultely ridiculous talk of it becoming the BBC's new Only Fools And Horses. If it becomes that succesful, there is something wrong with British comedy. I would like to however state just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not good. It took me a while to like Only Fools And Horses and The Office so maybe the third series might be better.
Edited by Aaron.
On Saturday 27th December 2008 GMT at 9:47 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Jeremy Quarshie -Halm @ December 27 2008, 3:50 PM GMTI'm glad im not the only one who thinks this shows is rubbish.
This place is full of 'em!
On Sunday 28th December 2008 GMT at 12:56 AM GMT, Pete said:
As someone who never really got G&S then got drawn in...the Christmas special SUCKED! It was one cultural reference after another! Every scene either had a dance, cultural reference or Smithy calling people funny names.....horrible.
And (correct me if I'm wrong) but was that it? I assumed there must be a part 2 as it just sort off ended with no conclusion.....in fact, what was it even about beyond "Welsh people visit Essex" ??????
On Sunday 28th December 2008 GMT at 1:10 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Well there's been a third series (apparently) confirmed now - otherwise, no, that's it. No second part.
On Sunday 28th December 2008 GMT at 2:02 AM GMT, Ned1984 said:
I don't like it but the people I watched it with are fans, they laughed quite a bit and I found some of it quite funny so I would say it was a hit.
On Sunday 28th December 2008 GMT at 2:08 AM GMT, Eat My Shirts said:
I've always hated this sitcom, but for some reason I started watching the repeats of the second series on BBC 1, and then topped it off with the Christmas special, which I kinda enjoyed.
I dunno what's wrong with me. I don't seem to be so hate-filled anymore it seems. I've even started to watch The IT Crowd. 
On Sunday 28th December 2008 GMT at 2:11 AM GMT, Ned1984 said:
I didn't like The IT Crowd to start with but it grew on me, Gavin & Stacey just didn't.
On Wednesday 31st December 2008 GMT at 2:16 AM GMT, Charley said:
I liked the Christmas special but it could have been better. I do like the characters though. Especialy Brin.
On Wednesday 31st December 2008 GMT at 4:13 AM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
By far and away the best thing on the box over Christmas. Great characters and an excellent story.
On Thursday 26th November 2009 GMT at 7:54 PM GMT, Tab vachha said:
Check Out An Exclusive Matt Horne interview:
http://www.t5m.com/nissan-cube-store/matt-horne-talks-design-at-the-nissan-cube-store.html
On Friday 27th November 2009 GMT at 12:55 AM GMT, Steve Sunshine said:
At least it delays the next series of the sketch show.
On Friday 27th November 2009 GMT at 2:39 AM GMT, EllieJP said:
That was ACE! I actually love it so much!
On Friday 27th November 2009 GMT at 2:46 AM GMT, Steve Sunshine said:
I won't lie to you.
I've taped it & will be watching it later.
On Friday 27th November 2009 GMT at 2:51 AM GMT, EllieJP said:
Yey. There were some classic lines.
Smithy - "Why's he wearing a dress"
Ness - "I don't know"
On Friday 27th November 2009 GMT at 3:21 AM GMT, Tim Faithfull said:
ah, this is like seeing an old friend again! I love Gavin and Stacey, they've just created so many multilayered and endeering characters, you can't help but get immersed in it! Great to see them all back again
On Saturday 28th November 2009 GMT at 9:56 PM GMT, jim howells said:
===POSSIBLE SPOILER===
Heard Ruth and James on the radio the other day. Ruth said about this being the last series and there will not be another one. Then James in the background said something like "Well, seeing as I'm not around anymore, it'll be difficult".
Could it be that Smithy dies in the final episode?
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 2:01 AM GMT, jim field said:
Smithy and Nessa are continuing their descent into the realm of grotesque characture - both are pitifully unfunny. Ditto Uncle Bryn.
Surprisingly perhaps, there is an appeal in the Gavin/Stacey axis; both give relatively understated and winning performances.
Overall, the show is poor. Appeals to the moron demographic? Sure, I can see that. Quality content? Not so much.
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 2:06 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: jim field @ November 28 2009, 9:01 PM GMTAppeals to the moron demographic? Sure, I can see that.
'I don't like it, I think it's rubbish, therefore anyone who does like it is a moron and I'm better than them'. Sheesh.
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 2:13 AM GMT, jim field said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 28 2009, 9:06 PM GMT'I don't like it, I think it's rubbish, therefore anyone who does like it is a moron and I'm better than them'. Sheesh.
No, not at all. There are plenty of things that I don't like - but still recognise as being 'good'. When I talk of the 'moron demo', I am actualy quoting a friend of mine from Uni who now works as a producer.
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 2:20 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: jim field @ November 28 2009, 9:13 PM GMTNo, not at all. There are plenty of things that I don't like - but still recognise as being 'good'. When I talk of the 'moron demo', I am actualy quoting a friend of mine from Uni who now works as a producer.
Well good for him/her.
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 3:19 AM GMT, Tim Walker said:
"And the producer said to me 'Ronnie, Ronnie, Ronnie, what you have to realise is that you appeal to the moron demographic..." 
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 3:53 AM GMT, AngieBaby said:
I thought Brin's rendition of 'Something inside so strong' was v. good!
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 3:54 AM GMT, jim field said:
*Bryn's*
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 4:04 AM GMT, AngieBaby said:
Yeah, alright jim, from someone who can't even be arsed to capitalise their own name...
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 4:16 AM GMT, Scottidog said:
Quote: AngieBaby @ November 28 2009, 11:04 PM GMTYeah, alright jim, from someone who can't even be arsed to capitalise their own name...
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 4:31 AM GMT, Moonstone said:
Ooh, is this a new series? I love G&S.
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 4:44 AM GMT, don rushmore said:
Quote: AngieBaby @ November 28 2009, 11:04 PM GMTYeah, alright jim, from someone who can't even be arsed to capitalise their own name...
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 4:52 AM GMT, jim field said:
Quote: AngieBaby @ November 28 2009, 11:04 PM GMTYeah, alright jim, from someone who can't even be arsed to capitalise their own name...
'laboured'
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 5:35 AM GMT, Aaron said:
That wasn't half bad. It's not an amazing show but it makes me laugh and keeps my attention, so it's doing its job, if not selling DVDs. Glad to see it back.
On Sunday 29th November 2009 GMT at 1:17 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Well, that was tidy! Actually I'm taking the piss, I didn't watch it. G & S is my Two Pints, but like Walker with that show I am morbidly interested in following its progress. What do people think of the show's producers telling the press it will be the final series? Advance attempt to curb criticism? Prepare people for the sense of loss? Prime people for a spin-off show (most likely in my view). It could be called 'Smithy & Nessa' and be mostly about two other characters - perhaps Gavin and Stacey.
On Monday 30th November 2009 GMT at 2:30 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Well, as before, still as good as it was. If you didn't like it before, you're not going to like it now as it's all the same in tone.
I did enjoy the first episode a lot. Thought it was very funny in places and it's 'nice' comedy.
The Dora/Ness battle was/is the funniest bit though. I do like that someone can't stand Nessa, as everyone else seems to (inexplicably) love her, as well as her not getting on with someone, as she seems to (inexplicably) get on with everyone!
Dan
On Friday 4th December 2009 GMT at 7:48 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Watched the second episode last night. Gavin & Stacey remains The Emperor's New Clothes. A happy, enthusiastically performed show written by two people who can't write.
It's stock-in-trade appears to be verisimilitude - ie 'this is how it is' - social and ethnic quirks and tropes in an accessible modern setting. It doesn't matter whether it's funny or not because this is what people actually say. Well, good writing never was that. And you can get across everything you want to say about how families eat take-away curry in less time and with more humour if you can write.
And am I alone in finding the references to real people tasteless? Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe, John Nettles, John Prescott etc. No doubt the living and non-medicated members of this line-up are pleased to be name-checked in the most popular TV comedy but the motivation behind it remains cheap and unfunny.
On Friday 4th December 2009 GMT at 8:10 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
You are a glutton for punishment Godot. You dislike the show a lot, but you're still, three series in, sitting down to watch the odd episode? Don't do it to yourself!
On Friday 4th December 2009 GMT at 8:35 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
I have to watch it Matt. It's not about my enjoyment! G & S was described as 'the gold standard of British Comedy' on the BBC Commissioning website last year and is still name-checked on it. It receives masses of pre-publicity (unlike Big Top) and is extremely popular. It needs to be understood.
On Saturday 5th December 2009 GMT at 7:22 AM GMT, David Carmon said:
I liked the first series.
By the second series the fame had gone to James Corden's head and he started acting up a bit. He's too OTT. I watched it on and off as I lost the will to live.
Didn't watch the first episode of the 3rd series, caught the second and liked it apart from when Corden was on screen.
They could do with killing him off after being ran over by an ice cream van. Then it would be more watchable
On Saturday 5th December 2009 GMT at 2:49 PM GMT, Lazzard said:
I've steered clear since about half-way through series one, which I gave the benefit of the doubt because I quite enjoyed the first one/pilot/thingy.
Accidentely caught this most recent episode and, frankly, it's just not good enough.
As Godot has said you can't just take the 'observational comic' minsdset ( "You know what it's like when,..."), in itself a pretty flogged horse, and turn it into drama.
We saw them order a curry, then eat a curry, then get drunk then smoke some cigarettes then have hangovers.
What's been added?
I think they think they're writing the Royle Family for the chav generation.
They're not.
What they are is very lucky to be still getting away with this.
On Saturday 5th December 2009 GMT at 5:59 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 4 2009, 2:48 PM GMTIt doesn't matter whether it's funny or not because this is what people actually say.
And in which comedies did that terrible trend begin?
On Saturday 5th December 2009 GMT at 10:03 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Lazzard @ December 5 2009, 9:49 AM GMT
What they are is very lucky to be still getting away with this.
Agreed. I'm amazed more people can't see it.
Quote: Aaron @ December 5 2009, 12:59 PM GMTAnd in which comedies did that terrible trend begin?
I dunno. I can't think of anything that offers such an unfiltered view of what people actually say, except maybe Early Doors, which wasn't very good.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 5:18 PM GMT, Pete W said:
It seems to me that Gavin & Stacy is a hit for 2 reasons. First of all it was initially aired on BBC Three so the critics could feel terribly pleased with themselves when they patronisingly 'discovered' it on behalf of the 'not so media savvy' public. Also because very few people watched it (or SKY+'ed/recorded it) the DVD sales where huge after it's main stars started on heir publicity hungry campaign to make themselves celebrities (rather than actors). (Of course the awards helped this hugely too; which in my opinion were partly because some award jurors thought the show was great and partly as a result of the panic wave of the show being 'the next big thing').
Secondly I think British TV was ready for something with a 'feel good factor'. After several years of negative television, first started with Anne Robinson insulting contestants on The Weakest Link to TV talent shows calling children talentless and making them cry via Gordon Ramsey telling potato peelers to f**kk off; viewers were ready for a large helping of love... or schmaltz.
Does this make G & S a brilliant comedy? Not for me. I'd say it was a gently amusing drama. I thought the Christmas Special was sweet but not funny, can't say I have bothered with series 3; should I give it a go?
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 5:35 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Pete W @ December 7 2009, 12:18 PM GMTshould I give it a go?
Up to you really isn't it?
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 6:15 PM GMT, john lucas 101 said:
For those of you who simply can't wait, the third series DVD is out today.
Even though it's only two eps in.
Kerching!
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 6:36 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: john lucas 101 @ December 7 2009, 1:15 PM GMTFor those of you who simply can't wait, the third series DVD is out today.
Even though it's only two eps in.
Kerching!
Is that strictly allowed? Surely whatever the juicy profit margins related to DVD sales, as the programme is paid for by the licence fee, I thought the show had to be broadcast free-to-air prior to any profiteering from the BBC's commercial arm? Or have I just made this principle up in order to justify my own prejudices?
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 6:38 PM GMT, john lucas 101 said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 7 2009, 1:36 PM GMTIs that strictly allowed? Surely whatever the juicy profit margins related to DVD sales, as the programme is paid for by the licence fee, I thought the show had to be broadcast free-to-air prior to any profiteering from the BBC's commercial arm? Or have I just made this principle up in order to justify my own prejudices?
Dunno, but they did it with series 2 of Armstrong and Miller as well.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 6:38 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 7 2009, 1:36 PM GMTIs that strictly allowed?
I'm pretty sure it's been done with other shows before, but I can't remember which ones. So that's useful. Does seem a bit bad though.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 6:48 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Oh well, I suppose more fool them who buy the DVD before having seen the series and found out if it's worth watching in the first place. It's only idiots' money, after all. However, I'm still not comfortable with the BBC doing this. Probably based on the fact that it gives people who can afford to buy the DVD an unfair advantage over other licence fee payers.
(Similarly, I don't think it's quite fair that the BBC gives "red button" people a chance to see the next episode of a show before those without this option. Must be one of the last "lefty" elements in my character, but it smacks of some form of unfairness which the BBC shouldn't be engaging in.)
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 8:35 PM GMT, Tony Cowards said:
I've never been an avid fan of G&S but enjoyed watching the odd episode, so was keen to see what this third series would be like now it seems to have picked up a mainstream audience and it's been so-so, Uncle Bryn is still generally the best thing in it.
However, one question, when did Nessa become such a nasty, unlikable character? I know that she always had a dark side but I always found her quite a sympathetic character, however in this series she seems to have turned into an absolute c**t!
Her treatment of Dave, Neil the baby, the old sweary woman, her dad, Gavin's dad, etc, has been really nasty and without any element of humour, why the complete change in her character? Is it supposed to be some reflection of her attitude to becoming a mother
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:08 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Isn't it supposed to be because she wants Smithy but won't admit it?
But I do think it's funny sometimes, like when she was taking the Indian orders and hung up abruptly on Gavin's dad.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:10 PM GMT, Tony Cowards said:
Quote: Moonstone @ December 7 2009, 4:08 PM GMTIsn't it supposed to be because she wants Smithy but won't admit it?
But I do think it's funny sometimes, like when she was taking the Indian orders and hung up abruptly on Gavin's dad.
You see that just really annoyed me, mainly because I think out of all the characters Gavin's dad is probably the nicest, most sympathetic one and I thought it was insufferably rude and not at all funny (I realise that this makes me sound really old fashioned).
I guess you are right about the whole longing for Smithy thing, she's clearly unhappy with Dave and seems to be lashing out.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:14 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Quote: Tony Cowards @ December 7 2009, 4:10 PM GMTYou see that just really annoyed me, mainly because I think out of all the characters Gavin's dad is probably the nicest, most sympathetic one and I thought it was insufferably rude and not at all funny (I realise that this makes me sound really old fashioned).
I can see what you mean, and I agree insofar as it doesn't work all the time, and it is a little strange that no-one ever pulls her up on it.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:15 PM GMT, zooo said:
Maybe she's been watching EastEnders, he's horrible in that.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:20 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Quote: zooo @ December 7 2009, 4:15 PM GMTMaybe she's been watching EastEnders, he's horrible in that.
That's it! She can't forgive him for what he did to Peggy.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:21 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
What's going on here, have we all suddenly become residents of an old people's home?
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:30 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 7 2009, 4:21 PM GMTWhat's going on here, have we all suddenly become residents of an old people's home?
Eh?
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:31 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Moonstone @ December 7 2009, 4:30 PM GMTEh?
Getting shows/characters/actors confused or mixed-up. Please try to keep up, Ian, else I'll have to up your Sanatogen.
On Monday 7th December 2009 GMT at 9:34 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 7 2009, 4:31 PM GMTGetting shows/characters/actors confused or mixed-up. Please try to keep up, Ian, else I'll have to up your Sanatogen.
Well it's their fault for using the same people everywhere.
By eck it's parky, where's me blanket?
On Tuesday 8th December 2009 GMT at 2:29 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
Saw the most recent episode last night, and I still think it's great, Bryn is amazing.
I thought the Indian ordering was great... agree about the point about Nessa hanging up on Gavin's Dad but it was funny.
I loved Smithy and his sister's rendition of Black Eyed Peas. Very funny.
On Tuesday 8th December 2009 GMT at 5:55 PM GMT, EarlyDoor said:
Quote: EllieJP @ December 8 2009, 9:29 AM GMTSaw the most recent episode last night, and I still think it's great, Bryn is amazing.
I thought the Indian ordering was great... agree about the point about Nessa hanging up on Gavin's Dad but it was funny.
I loved Smithy and his sister's rendition of Black Eyed Peas. Very funny.
Even though it was the rap bit from American Boy by Estelle feat Kanye West it was really funny indeed
All episodes with one of those Smithy moments in it are good!
On Tuesday 8th December 2009 GMT at 6:01 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
Quote: EarlyDoor @ December 8 2009, 12:55 PM GMTEven though it was the rap bit from American Boy by Estelle feat Kanye West it was really funny indeed
I'm so not hip with the kids.
Now you've said that, yes of course it was. 
On Tuesday 8th December 2009 GMT at 6:08 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: EllieJP @ December 8 2009, 9:29 AM GMTSaw the most recent episode last night, and I still think it's great, Bryn is amazing.
I thought the Indian ordering was great... agree about the point about Nessa hanging up on Gavin's Dad but it was funny.
I loved Smithy and his sister's rendition of Black Eyed Peas. Very funny.
*Agrees*
On Tuesday 8th December 2009 GMT at 7:31 PM GMT, Lazzard said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 5 2009, 5:03 PM GMT
I dunno. I can't think of anything that offers such an unfiltered view of what people actually say, except maybe Early Doors, which wasn't very good.
Which of course was inspired/spawned by The Royle Family which is where a lot of this all started.
Difference is TRF was brilliantly [IMHO] structured and written - to the point that it seemed to be 'just like real life'.
But it was a lot cleverer than that.
A bit like looking at a Matisse sketch and saying "Well anyone can do that " and then giving it a go yourself.
The results would be similarly lacklustre.
There you are, from Gavin & stacey to Matisse in one post.
Ithankyou.
On Tuesday 8th December 2009 GMT at 8:45 PM GMT, EarlyDoor said:
If I speak for myself Gavin and Stacey, Early Doors and The Royle Family are my three favourites of all time. People who don't fancy 2 or 3 of these like other shows that I don't fancy.
It's a personal taste of course, I like the moments in ED and Royle where actually nothing happens, I liked the bit where Smithy and Gavin did the Suggs walk on episode 2.
It's getting better every episode so the last one will probably be a more than decent ending to a great show.
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 3:16 AM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 7 2009, 1:48 PM GMTOh well, I suppose more fool them who buy the DVD before having seen the series and found out if it's worth watching in the first place. It's only idiots' money, after all. However, I'm still not comfortable with the BBC doing this. Probably based on the fact that it gives people who can afford to buy the DVD an unfair advantage over other licence fee payers.
(Similarly, I don't think it's quite fair that the BBC gives "red button" people a chance to see the next episode of a show before those without this option. Must be one of the last "lefty" elements in my character, but it smacks of some form of unfairness which the BBC shouldn't be engaging in.)
The good people of the BCG speak, people notice. (Although it may just be a coincidence, of course...
.)http://www.comedy.co.uk/news/story/00000208/early_release_of_gavin_&_stacey_dvds_causes_a_row/
Oh, so it will help make the "licence payer" more money then? OK, everyone expect that rebate on your licence fee in the New Year then... The profits will be likely used-up on medically insuring Brucie for another year of Strictly... anyway.
And it's a bit of a different situation to Pride & Prejudice, surely? As far as I recall, the plot of P&P has been openly available for nearly 200 years. As for Mistresses, never heard of it, Guv. Kafka is it?
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 4:28 PM GMT, swerytd said:
There's a BBC tool in development that tracks everything Tim Walker says ...
Dan
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 4:36 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: swerytd @ December 9 2009, 11:28 AM GMTThere's a BBC tool in development that tracks everything Tim Walker says ...
Dan
I like the sound of that. They could call it "The Zeitgeist App" perhaps?
The easiest way for the BBC to shut people like me up is to give us a sitcom commission. It worked with Isaacs, right?
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 4:39 PM GMT, swerytd said:
There he goes -- comparing himself to the great Isaacs! God-complex or what!
Dan
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 4:45 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
*subtly hides draft BBC Three script for 'Wall Shitters' in a draw*
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 5:30 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
SPOILER ALERT!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8403169.stm
Dear oh dear oh dear... I've put a spoiler alert, but as the BBC seems quite happy to release the DVD and then basically give the game away on its own website, who gives a toss, eh?
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 5:43 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 9 2009, 12:30 PM GMTSPOILER ALERT!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8403169.stm
Dear oh dear oh dear... I've put a spoiler alert, but as the BBC seems quite happy to release the DVD and then basically give the game away on its own website, who gives a toss, eh?
I hope he punches the annoying one.
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 5:46 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: chipolata @ December 9 2009, 12:43 PM GMTI hope he punches the annoying one.
And that one is...?
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 7:47 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Reading between the (poorly conceived) lines, I would imagine P******t arrives at the moment the priest asks if anyone knows of any just cause or impediment why Ness and Dave should not be married, like Dustin Hoffman from the Graduate.
Presumably Ness will then run off with P******t to some pisstake rendition of 'Mrs. Robinson' by Simon and Garfunkel. Smithy will try to do the decent thing in stopping them and die in the process.
I will be amazed if this is not what happens.
On Wednesday 9th December 2009 GMT at 7:51 PM GMT, Griff said:
I think the safest thing to do is not bother watching.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 2:36 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Great episode! Funniest of the third series so far.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 8:41 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Did you think so? I thought it was very comedy-drama tonight. The main funny bits were those with Mathew Baynton (Deano) in. Those were very funny though, granted.
Dan
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 8:54 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: swerytd @ December 11 2009, 3:41 PM GMTDid you think so? I thought it was very comedy-drama tonight. The main funny bits were those with Mathew Baynton (Deano) in. Those were very funny though, granted.
Dan
Every moment Bryn was on screen was hilarious, I thought. The sight of him going for it in that little denim jacket.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 9:17 PM GMT, Gavin said:
I've still not seen any of this series. Probably wait now and watch them all back to back once on BBC 3 or on DVD.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 9:22 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 11 2009, 3:54 PM GMTEvery moment Bryn was on screen was hilarious, I thought. The sight of him going for it in that little denim jacket.
Rob Brydon does the whole "man child" thing to perfection. The character of Bryn is not that many steps removed from Keith in Marion And Geoff.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 9:24 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 11 2009, 4:22 PM GMTRob Brydon does the whole "man child" thing to perfection. The character of Bryn is not that many steps removed from Keith in Marion And Geoff.
He's great, he really deserves to have had a big hit sitcom of his own. Instead he got that one set in Australia, which was only ok.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 10:52 PM GMT, Aldeem said:
Increasingly I feel uneasy watching this show. it seems to hinge on either the Essex lot going to Wales or the Welsh lot going to Essex, oh and gags about Smithy eating lots and Ness having shagged nearly every bloke in Britain and abroad. I honestly think it's not as funny as many have been conditioned to think it is. Very weak story lines in my humble opinion.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 10:55 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Aldeem @ December 11 2009, 5:52 PM GMTI honestly think it's not as funny as many have been conditioned to think it is.
Yep, people who like it have been 'conditioned'. It's not that different people just have different opinions or tastes or anything. Nope.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 11:03 PM GMT, jim field said:
This show is toilet-rim; the first season was passable, almost refreshing. It Jumped The Shark almost from the get-go of the second season.
On Friday 11th December 2009 GMT at 11:50 PM GMT, Aldeem said:
Apologies Matthew, wasn't meant as a dig, it's just that Corden and Horne seem to pop up everywhere these days (including in their dreadful sketch show) and be seen as flavour of the year, let alone month. It's OK, but just OK to me. I had my doubts during previous shows where there some forced scenes like Alison Steadman's outburst about Welsh people which was conveniently forgotten as early as the next scene. I wouldn't go as far as saying G&S is toilet rim, but maybe toilet seat heading in a southerly direction.
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 5:11 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Gavin & Stacey likes it's set pieces. If you struggle with narrative comedy writing they do help you structure your script. In some ways it reminds me of Four Weddings and a Funeral - another fairly weak vehicle praised to the Horsehead Nebula and beyond.
It's become a little bit more obvious to me why people like it - the setting is very familiar to most people and it's a bit soapy - and people like soaps.
It is still The Emperor's New Clothes in that people are essentially enjoying something other than what's there in front of them.
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 5:15 AM GMT, Steve Sunshine said:
It probably suffered from all the hype.
It is very watchable though & nicely done.
I'm not a big fan but it's good enough entertainment for me.
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 5:15 AM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 12 2009, 12:11 AM GMTGavin & Stacey likes it's set pieces. If you struggle with narrative comedy writing they do help you structure your script. In some ways it reminds me of Four Weddings and a Funeral
Or David Nobb's A Bit Of A Do?
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 6:52 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 11 2009, 3:54 PM GMTEvery moment Bryn was on screen was hilarious, I thought. The sight of him going for it in that little denim jacket.
Yeah, he was excellent in this one
And how excited he was to be with all the boys lol. Twas a good ep. Tis a great series, though so far this one hasn't been quite as good as the other two.
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 8:38 PM GMT, AndreaLynne said:
Bryn is like my Uncle Steve, so I enjoy watching this very much. I can't wait til I can see this series to see why there is so much debate over it's goodness or badness.
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 8:46 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: AndreaLynne @ December 12 2009, 3:38 PM GMTBryn is like my Uncle Steve, so I enjoy watching this very much. I can't wait til I can see this series to see why there is so much debate over it's goodness or badness.
It's nothing to do with this third series itself, a lot of people on here just reallllly hate the show full stop.
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 9:46 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 12 2009, 12:11 AM GMT
It's become a little bit more obvious to me why people like it - the setting is very familiar to most people and it's a bit soapy - and people like soaps.
Quote: AndreaLynne @ December 12 2009, 3:38 PM GMTBryn is like my Uncle Steve, so I enjoy watching this very much.
I rest my case. Thanks Andrea!
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 10:01 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I can't say I really know people who I think are just like Bryn.
On Saturday 12th December 2009 GMT at 10:30 PM GMT, AndreaLynne said:
My uncle is amazed by anything technological. He went on for days about his new GPS and just how did it know where he was?
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 7:43 AM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Aldeem @ December 11 2009, 5:52 PM GMTIncreasingly I feel uneasy watching this show. it seems to hinge on either the Essex lot going to Wales or the Welsh lot going to Essex.
Yeah, I think that is a weakness with the premise that is just now starting to show itself.
I'm still enjoying Gavin & Stacey... but does anyone else think that Nessa has started to become quite unlikeable?
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 9:17 AM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Mark, it's lovely to see you post and hear your opinions. Please do it more often - this is your f**king website after all...
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 2:08 PM GMT, Tony Cowards said:
Quote: Mark @ December 13 2009, 2:43 AM GMTYeah, I think that is a weakness with the premise that is just now starting to show itself.
I'm still enjoying Gavin & Stacey... but does anyone else think that Nessa has started to become quite unlikeable?
My feeling exactly. She always used to be funny and I know she always had an underlying dark side but so far this series she's just been an absolute c**t to everyone. I guess it's because of the situation she's ended up in and it's supposed to show how unhappy she is but it seems like a complete character change.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 4:51 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Mark @ December 13 2009, 2:43 AM GMT
I'm still enjoying Gavin & Stacey... but does anyone else think that Nessa has started to become quite unlikeable?
I know why people would say that, but I can't say I find her being a bigger and bigger arse anything other than funny myself. And I wouldn't say it's a character change, more a charater development. She was always a bit like that, now just more explicitly so; characters change and develop. The whole bit of her dumping her baby on Gwen, regardless of what Gwen nwas doing, really had me chuckling.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 5:47 PM GMT, Ben said:
I've never got into G&S, but a few clips I've seen of the new series look quite funny. I may have to go back to the start and watch a few episodes.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 7:47 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 13 2009, 11:51 AM GMTI know why people would say that, but I can't say I find her being a bigger and bigger arse anything other than funny myself. And I wouldn't say it's a character change, more a charater development. She was always a bit like that, now just more explicitly so; characters change and develop. The whole bit of her dumping her baby on Gwen, regardless of what Gwen nwas doing, really had me chuckling.
I may be reading too much into it (not for the first time), but do you think the writers (especially Ruth Jones) may have deliberately made Nessa increasingly more selfish and less likeable in order to try and reflect that she's not a happy bunny? That she's fearful of having made the wrong choices and is therefore going further down the "self will" road, in order to try and mask her dissatisfaction with life?
Only a theory, of course...
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 8:12 PM GMT, luis kmentt said:
I will have a go...which of the three series would you recommend as funniest?
tks. LK
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 8:27 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 13 2009, 2:47 PM GMTI may be reading too much into it (not for the first time), but do you think the writers (especially Ruth Jones) may have deliberately made Nessa increasingly more selfish and less likeable in order to try and reflect that she's not a happy bunny? That she's fearful of having made the wrong choices and is therefore going further down the "self will" road, in order to try and mask her dissatisfaction with life?
Only a theory, of course...
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 8:28 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 13 2009, 3:27 PM GMTYeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking.
Sorry for stealing your thunder then, Matthew, but one of us had to say it.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 8:36 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 13 2009, 3:28 PM GMTSorry for stealing your thunder then, Matthew, but one of us had to say it.
Quote: Moonstone @ December 7 2009, 4:08 PM GMTIsn't it supposed to be because she wants Smithy but won't admit it?
Then we were both beaten to the punch!
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 8:37 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 13 2009, 3:36 PM GMTThen we were both beaten to the punch!
Bugger. Though I would point out that my explanation was more protracted and contrived.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 9:18 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Mine was originally an in-depth, eloquent and insightful deconstruction of the narrative aiming to isolate and evaluate the crucial events within the text that ultimately and inevitably contributed to Nessa's transformation, and their relevance as implicit references to self within the overall narrative structure, but I decided to edit.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 9:58 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Only 20 posts behind you now, Ian. I'm on yo ass, baby!
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 10:07 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
Everyone catches me up and takes over eventually, it's what happens to me
The longer you remain on mo ass though, the better 
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 11:24 PM GMT, Tony Cowards said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 13 2009, 2:47 PM GMTThat she's fearful of having made the wrong choices and is therefore going further down the "self will" road, in order to try and mask her dissatisfaction with life?
Only a theory, of course...
Or maybe she's going down the route where she becomes an erudite but slightly pretentious writer, novelist, columnist and sometime team captain on "Shooting Stars", the "will self" road.
On Sunday 13th December 2009 GMT at 11:43 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Tony Cowards @ December 13 2009, 6:24 PM GMTOr maybe she's going down the route where she becomes an erudite but slightly pretentious writer, novelist, columnist and sometime team captain on "Shooting Stars", the "will self" road.
A bit tortuous, Tony, but
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:35 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
I loved this episode.
Bryn with his mini burgers and sausages and bachelor pad.
I was of course disappointed Stacey wasn't pregnant, but it was very obvious she wasn't going to be. Apart from the bombshell she dropped about being off the pill for so long.
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:39 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: EllieJP @ December 14 2009, 11:35 AM GMTI loved this episode.
I think it's one of my favourites of the shows entire run.
"I feel a bit weepy"
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:46 PM GMT, David Carmon said:
Best series was series 1. It was new and different. Now the fames got to Cordens head he acts up too much and spoils the characters original likeablilty. Nessa is doin my tits in with her 'whats occurin' every ten seconds, such a thing as milking.....
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:49 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Ah, I love Corden in this.
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:54 PM GMT, zooo said:
I liked this week's best too I think.
I really do love Bryn.
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:55 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: zooo @ December 14 2009, 11:54 AM GMTI liked this week's best too I think.
I really do love Bryn. Without him, I'm not sure I would be watching every week.
He is the best character.
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:55 PM GMT, David Carmon said:
He was good in series 1 but then the success of the show went to is head and now he overdoes it.
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:57 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 14 2009, 11:55 AM GMTHe is the best character.
Ha, you quoted before I deleted that bit.
I changed my miiiiiind!
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 4:57 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Arguably, they should have ended the show with the Christmas special. Not sure this series has added anything to it.
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 5:41 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
Quote: zooo @ December 14 2009, 11:54 AM GMTI liked this week's best too I think.
I really do love Bryn.
Me too! He's amazing.
On Monday 14th December 2009 GMT at 6:07 PM GMT, Moonstone said:
And my vote! Bryn is a superb comedy character.
Quote: David Carmon @ December 14 2009, 11:55 AM GMTHe was good in series 1 but then the success of the show went to is head and now he overdoes it.
To be honest, is it in his head or yours? Really, I haven't noticed him starting to overdo it at all. He's developed somewhat, sure, so is therefore a little different from when we first saw him, but this is neither a good nor a bad thing. It just fits in with the show, and I think both he and Horne, and all the other actors, do a brilliant job.
On Wednesday 23rd December 2009 GMT at 3:23 PM GMT, EllieJP said:
Finally watched last week's episode.
Wasn't one of my top episodes, but still pretty funny. Especially with the P ring! haha
On Wednesday 23rd December 2009 GMT at 6:09 PM GMT, Ming the Mirthless said:
NSFW: http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7686/staceyandbryn3.jpg
Bryn hears about Gavin's low sperm count and immediately springs into action
STACEY: "It's ever so good of you to help me and Gav out like this, Uncle Bryn"
BRYN: "Think nothing of it. Gavin's sperms may be a little on the lazy side - 'scrotum potatoes' if you will - but I assure you each one of mine is a cross between Sylvester Stallone and Duncan Goodhew"
On Wednesday 23rd December 2009 GMT at 6:57 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 4:04 PM GMT, Aldeem said:
Thought last night's was lame again. The predictable Essex to Wales or Wales to Essex trips are the only thing that keep the show going.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 4:20 PM GMT, Alfred J Kipper said:
Tried it to see if it has improved for the special but...I just don't like many of the characters, especially the main two - it seems a pretty crucial element to create characters who stand out, even if they're not nice characters - and neither Gavin or Stacey have big enough personalities. Is this why they have to pack the show with bigger side characters? It does seem like an odd way of doing things to me.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 4:58 PM GMT, Ronnie Anderson said:
By Gavin and Stacey standards this was a good episode. There were a few laughs in it and in the inclusion of 'There Is A Light That Never Goes Out' won me over though I think this is more to do with my obsession for this song rather than any quality in Corden and Jones's writing.
Of all the character I think Smithy is the only one who seems totally authentic. The rest seem to have been based on a mixture of characters previosuly played by the cast. I agree totally that Gavin and Stacey don't have big personalities. The truth is is that it isn't really about them and they do have to be pretty normal for the quirkiness of the other characters to come through but I think they could make them slightly less bland.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 5:09 PM GMT, Dolly Dagger said:
I did see this and although I don't hate the show, I normally don't watch it. I was surprised by the lack of funniness, but thought Alison Steadman had some good lines.
The infertility storyline didn't seem to make much sense; seems like they didn't do their research.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 5:31 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Watched it, loved it. Bryn offering to put lotion on Mick was a particular highlight. Great stuff.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 7:30 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 7 2009, 1:36 PM GMTIs that strictly allowed? Surely whatever the juicy profit margins related to DVD sales, as the programme is paid for by the licence fee, I thought the show had to be broadcast free-to-air prior to any profiteering from the BBC's commercial arm? Or have I just made this principle up in order to justify my own prejudices?
It was perhaps a 'best practice' type thing, but as this is far from the first time it's happened, I doubt it's a principle in the way Labour would understand the word.
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 7 2009, 1:48 PM GMTOh well, I suppose more fool them who buy the DVD before having seen the series and found out if it's worth watching in the first place. It's only idiots' money, after all. However, I'm still not comfortable with the BBC doing this. Probably based on the fact that it gives people who can afford to buy the DVD an unfair advantage over other licence fee payers.
(Similarly, I don't think it's quite fair that the BBC gives "red button" people a chance to see the next episode of a show before those without this option. Must be one of the last "lefty" elements in my character, but it smacks of some form of unfairness which the BBC shouldn't be engaging in.)
I genuinely don't understand this attitude. As long as it does get aired, and within a reasonable time period after the release of a DVD, I don't see what the fuss is. The idea that people love a show enough to be eagerly awaiting the next episode but not have enough money to buy the DVD is a fallacy IMO. People just go out and buy if they want to. There's probably not that level of mental reasoning with people who buy a DVD straight away (as you say, idiots' money.)
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 7:35 PM GMT, zooo said:
Friends always used to be available to rent before it came on TV. I used to watch the whole new series in one go back when I was about 17. (and then still watch it on TV each week).
I liked this week's Gavin and Stacey. Actually it made me quite fancy a holiday in Wales. :/
Witchcraft, I tell you.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 7:39 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
I'm literally having to hold my tongue at the moment. And slapping my straying hands, which want to type stuff about this series...
I'm glad that people are still enjoying it though...
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 7:45 PM GMT, zooo said:
Type it in invisible ink.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 7:50 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: zooo @ December 26 2009, 2:45 PM GMTType it in invisible ink.
But then certain producers would only have to rub lemon juice over their monitors and the game would be up...
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 7:52 PM GMT, zooo said:
Aw.
You need a nice new notebook.
'Dear diary...'
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 7:58 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: luis kmentt @ December 13 2009, 3:12 PM GMTI will have a go...which of the three series would you recommend as funniest?
tks. LK
There isn't a "funniest" series really, and it's very linear. It'll make little-to-no sense if you don't start with series 1.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 8:00 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: zooo @ December 26 2009, 2:52 PM GMTAw.
You need a nice new notebook.
'Dear diary...'
God no! If I started actually compiling handwritten notes about my opinions on comedy, instead of just jizzing them all over the internet, I'd really have to start worrying about my sanity...
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 8:06 PM GMT, zooo said:
I loved the bit last night when Archie Mitchell asked Bryn if everything was alright after that camping fiasco with the young boy(?) and there was a long awkward silence.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 9:17 PM GMT, Renegade Carpark said:
Quote: luis kmentt @ December 13 2009, 3:12 PM GMTI will have a go...which of the three series would you recommend as funniest?
tks. LK
Don't do it luis, it's not worth it. I tried watching one episode of this cack a year ago and I made it five minutes in before giving up - and this from the man who watched the first two episodes of Big Top.
It reminds me a bit of shows like The Royle Family or Shameless - you either buy into this world of make believe working class characters or you don't - and just as with the previously mentioned shows, I couldn't find a single character I identified with and therefore, the 'humour' of a fat bloke ordering curries was lost on me.
I wish you the best of luck with it luis, but don't expect a superbly witty sitcom with likeable characters or original observations on life. If however, you are a Ruth Jones fan, may I recommend the exceptionally brilliant and totally underrated Saxondale.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 9:44 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Saxondale is dismal.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 9:46 PM GMT, Ronnie Anderson said:
This is not as bad as Renegade says but Saxondale is brilliant.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 10:29 PM GMT, Alfred J Kipper said:
Saxondale became better every time I saw it. With Coogan at the helm, waddya expect! Much subtler and much more modern than Partridge, so maybe this is what put some viewers off. Some of his characters were amazing and his acting gets better and better.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 11:07 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 26 2009, 2:39 PM GMT
I'm glad that people are still enjoying it though...
Shouldn't they?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 26 2009, 4:17 PM GMTlikeable characters
I think the show's full of 'em!
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 11:14 PM GMT, bigfella said:
Having said I wouldn't watch this as I hadn't seen the other two series, I have watched every episode of this and really enjoyed it.
Turns out you can be wrong about something.
Also turns out you shouldn't judge comedy by the cover. Something called Gavin and Stacey was easily dismissed my me - the title didn't impress me so out the window it went. As I said turns out I was wrong.
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 11:22 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Some of the weirdest titles are the best in the end. Silly bigfella!
On Saturday 26th December 2009 GMT at 11:24 PM GMT, bigfella said:
Quote: Aaron @ December 26 2009, 6:22 PM GMTSome of the weirdest titles are the best in the end. Silly bigfella!
I know.
I'm sorry.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 3:53 AM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 26 2009, 6:07 PM GMTShouldn't they?
No, of course they shouldn't, Matthew. The great British public should adjust their viewing preferences to suit my personal tastes and, if it doubt, email me to see if it's OK for them to watch a programme. FFS!
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 4:37 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 26 2009, 10:53 PM GMTFFS!
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 5:07 AM GMT, AngieBaby said:
I forced my dear old mum to watch this, she'd never watched any of them, but I thought she'd like it, especially as Larry Lamb's in it. But she hated it, then again she's normally in bed at 9 each night, so I feel a bit cruel forcing her to stay up so late to watch this shambles of an episode.
I'm assuming they had a lot to set up for the final episode, but it was a bit of a let-down.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 5:51 AM GMT, Phil Cottrell said:
I found it quite OK. I just like spending time with the characters and I don't expect laffs every second...the application of sunscreen was amusing...I think this series is ending at about the right time.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 10:54 AM GMT, David Carmon said:
Corden really got on my wick again, but apart from that it was quite good.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 5:35 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: David Carmon @ December 27 2009, 5:54 AM GMTCorden really got on my wick again.
Why?! I think people just hate the guy and that's that, doesn't matter what he does now really.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 8:56 PM GMT, Mark said:
I'm really starting to dislike the character of Nessa now... I'm not sure why any of the other characters put up with her to be honest.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 9:17 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Mark @ December 27 2009, 3:56 PM GMTI'm really starting to dislike the character of Nessa now... I'm not sure why any of the other characters put up with her to be honest.
Ha, I loved the bit where Gavin says, 'What if they don't have any Irn Bru?'
And she flatly replies, 'Then go somewhere that does.'
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 9:29 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 27 2009, 12:35 PM GMTWhy?! I think people just hate the guy and that's that, doesn't matter what he does now really.
I don't even understand why they hate him. I don't get any of this 'smug' feeling that everyone complains of.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 9:30 PM GMT, zooo said:
He's one of the more likeable characters I'd have thought.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 9:35 PM GMT, Steve Sunshine said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 27 2009, 4:17 PM GMTHa, I loved the bit where Gavin says, 'What if they don't have any Irn Bru?'
And she flatly replies, 'Then go somewhere that does.'
That was my favourite line. It did make me laugh.
On Sunday 27th December 2009 GMT at 11:56 PM GMT, David Carmon said:
For me it's that James Corden in the first series is different to what he is now. He over acts too much now, he plays on the fact that people found him funny and thinks they will laugh at anything. He seems to love himself.
Also, a while back he slagged off Hollyoaks, he worked on it years ago and got a career leg up from it. Yes it might be a bit crap, but he should be grateful that someone gave him a job. His ego is inflated, can't wait til he crawls back begging for another Hollyoaks part when he's on the dole.
On Monday 28th December 2009 GMT at 12:02 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Hollyoaks is beneath even Katie Price. Anyone is free to criticise it.
On Monday 28th December 2009 GMT at 12:05 AM GMT, David Carmon said:
I like it
I just find it easy to watch, it entertains for a bit before dissolving, bit like flumps....which brings me back to Corden
On Wednesday 30th December 2009 GMT at 4:55 AM GMT, jim howells said:
Anyone want to bet that Mat Horne will be playing James Bond in 15-20 years?
On Wednesday 30th December 2009 GMT at 5:12 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I'd rather not, if I'm honest.
On Wednesday 30th December 2009 GMT at 5:15 AM GMT, jim howells said:
Check back 2027
On Wednesday 30th December 2009 GMT at 6:41 AM GMT, AndreaLynne said:
I just watched the Christmas special........meh.
On Wednesday 30th December 2009 GMT at 7:54 PM GMT, Aaron said:
It wasn't a Christmas special.
On Wednesday 30th December 2009 GMT at 10:58 PM GMT, AndreaLynne said:
Quote: Aaron @ December 30 2009, 2:54 PM GMTIt wasn't a Christmas special.
It was last year's Christmas special, and again I say "Meh."
On Thursday 31st December 2009 GMT at 5:16 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Ah, my mistake. Carry on then!
On Thursday 31st December 2009 GMT at 5:35 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 27 2009, 4:17 PM GMTHa, I loved the bit where Gavin says, 'What if they don't have any Irn Bru?'
And she flatly replies, 'Then go somewhere that does.'
Yeah, that's a cracker. Real echoes of Clement and La Frenais. You loved that bit? Are you serious?
On the other hand I see that people are starting to notice that this show is actually crap after three series of it. Congratulations on finally seeing the joke.
On Thursday 31st December 2009 GMT at 5:42 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 31 2009, 12:35 PM GMTYou loved that bit? Are you serious?
My apologies, but it made me laugh.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 31 2009, 12:35 PM GMTOn the other hand I see that people are starting to notice that this show is actually crap after three series of it.
People thought it was crap during the first series, if I recall rightly! I was one of the only people on here who liked it then, too!
On Thursday 31st December 2009 GMT at 7:13 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 31 2009, 12:42 PM GMT
People thought it was crap during the first series, if I recall rightly! I was one of the only people on here who liked it then, too!
Oh, you like everything, Matthew. (As Bussell will attest to.)
On Thursday 31st December 2009 GMT at 7:15 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 31 2009, 2:13 PM GMTOh, you like everything, Matthew.
Nah, I just don't watch or comment on the stuff I don't like usually; you will notice many many threads on shows with no comments from me!
On Thursday 31st December 2009 GMT at 7:17 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Weird, I get most of my enjoyment from commenting on shows I've never seen but instinctively presume are terrible. Try it, it's great fun!
On Friday 1st January 2010 GMT at 8:49 PM GMT, Hyde150 said:
Thing is about Gavin and Stacey is I don't think anyone thinks it's hillarious or a comedy classic but I like it because I just think it's a nice watch. It's pleasent, puts me in a good mood. I like the characters and you can't help but to relate to them and, very oddly, almost make friends with them in a hyper-reality sort of way. If you don't connect to the characters and are watching this like you'd watch any other sitcom, waiting for the funny, you're going to be disapointed. I really like Gavin and Stacey but can understand why people don't like it.
Having said all that I do think this series has been nothing on the previous two series. They're running out of reasons for them to all gather. Also Stacey, was previously a nice girl who was the height of normality. Now she irritates me. Seems to have got more thick and needy in this series. She seems to be falling in to the pretty blonde stereotype. Gavin and Stacey always been a sort of comedy drama, but they seem to be trying for more drama in this series as well. I do enjoy it though!
On Friday 1st January 2010 GMT at 10:47 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I think she's falling into the loving housewife stereotype, if anything. Doesn't seem to be interested in an awful lot. I don't think she has a job now, does she?
On Friday 1st January 2010 GMT at 11:28 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Aaron @ January 1 2010, 5:47 PM GMTI don't think she has a job now, does she?
Yeah, she works in a cafe kiosk-y thing at the beach.
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 12:37 AM GMT, DaButt said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 1 2010, 6:28 PM GMTYeah, she works in a cafe kiosk-y thing at the beach.
http://tinyurl.com/yk8o84p
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 1:28 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 1 2010, 6:28 PM GMTYeah, she works in a cafe kiosk-y thing at the beach.
Like I said ... she doesn't have a job, does she?
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 2:49 AM GMT, IT David said:
I must confess the line concerning a 'new thriller starring Kevin Spacey' which was in actual fact The Usual Suspects had me tittering for a good thirty seconds.
Was this a joke, as me suspects, or was The Usual Suspects only recently released in Wales?
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 2:57 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Well that was fairly good. A bit underwhelming and flat at the very end, but it did tie things up nicely.
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 3:24 AM GMT, EllieJP said:
I really enjoyed it. I did nearly cry a little couple of tears of happiness that they got pregnant. Yey.
I was so so happy that Ness said that to Gwen. I've been saying for ages Ness is a bitch to Gwen and finally she said thanks! That made me happy.
I loved the dress, the way they got to the church and just the poem in Church was ace.
Very sad it's finished but think it's for the best.
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 4:29 AM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
I have really enjoyed this show over the past few years but was a bit disappointed in tonight's last episode.
It seemed to cram the resolution of the story strands into the last 2-3 minutes and consequently these looked a bit like an afterthought.
Maybe they should have asked Auntie for a one-hour special to do all the unfinished business in a more dignified and less rushed manner.
Still, not wishing to have a gripe at what I thought was a very good show over all (but appears I have just had one...a gripe that is)
Oh well...
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 3:27 PM GMT, Aldeem said:
All very predictable but it made my wife cry so I guess maybe my overriding impression is that by and large it's more a show for the ladydeeeeez and soft men
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 5:15 PM GMT, Lindyloop said:
I really enjoy Gavin and Stacey, but that felt like a very flat ending. The whole 3rd series has felt a bit like that, to be honest. Still, had some nice moments, like 'stop all the clocks' at the wedding.
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 6:12 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: IT David @ January 1 2010, 9:49 PM GMTWas this a joke, as me suspects, or was The Usual Suspects only recently released in Wales?
No joke. My father was devastated to learn recently that Chaplin is dead and there's actually been two world wars. And just last week I helped him burn down the house of a witch, who owned a magical box with little people in it who talked to her.
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 10:27 PM GMT, AngieBaby said:
It was a bit predictable, but was warm and fuzzy. It felt right.
The best bit surely has to be John Prescott at the wedding. I nearly fell off the sofa. I didn't realise he had a sense of humour.
'Stacey Spacey' made me laugh too, I used to love the girls' stories about celebrities in earlier episodes. It was good to have another in the final.
On Saturday 2nd January 2010 GMT at 11:08 PM GMT, Aldeem said:
Stacey Spacey wasn't as good as the one about Una Stubbs almost marrying Idi Amin back in the 70s until she realised her name would be Una Amin.
On Sunday 3rd January 2010 GMT at 2:46 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
This series has had some great comic moments, but I can't help but think it suffered from being written and filmed in a shorter time than the other series. It felt that way. It was always going to end how it did, it was a warm and friendly sitcom so they couldn't make any of the main characters have a sad ending.
On Sunday 3rd January 2010 GMT at 3:03 AM GMT, Chappers said:
I was taken aback by Prescott's appearance.
Incidentally - after all this time a friend asked if Gavin and Stacey was a play on Cagney and Lacey. I must admit it had never occurred to me before.
On Sunday 3rd January 2010 GMT at 3:08 AM GMT, zooo said:
Me neither!
On Sunday 3rd January 2010 GMT at 5:06 AM GMT, Marc P said:
Quote: SlagA @ January 2 2010, 1:12 PM GMTNo joke. My father was devastated to learn recently that Chaplin is dead and there's actually been two world wars. And just last week I helped him burn down the house of a witch, who owned a magical box with little people in it who talked to her.
Where is Wales though actually?
On Sunday 3rd January 2010 GMT at 9:14 PM GMT, Godot Taxis said:
Obviously glad it's over but I will miss Gavin's Lego hair and weirdly sharp teeth.
On Sunday 3rd January 2010 GMT at 10:40 PM GMT, jim field said:
You know what? This was marginally better than the dross that has followed the pretty good first season. Overall though? Unfunny, cliche, a pathetic drive for the 'catchphrase'.
On Saturday 9th January 2010 GMT at 4:11 AM GMT, AngieBaby said:
I've just watched the 'out-takes' and I challenge anyone to watch them and not laugh. They obviously had a great time making the show.
On Saturday 9th January 2010 GMT at 4:17 PM GMT, jim field said:
Quote: AngieBaby @ January 8 2010, 11:11 PM GMTThey obviously had a great time making the show.
So what?
On Saturday 9th January 2010 GMT at 6:06 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: jim field @ January 9 2010, 11:17 AM GMTSo what?
Sheesh.
On Saturday 9th January 2010 GMT at 8:27 PM GMT, jim field said:
The point is, it is irrelevant whether they had a 'good time' making it - if the content is poor then the content is poor - FIN.
On Saturday 9th January 2010 GMT at 9:24 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: jim field @ January 9 2010, 3:27 PM GMTThe point is, it is irrelevant whether they had a 'good time' making it - if the content is poor then the content is poor - FIN.
She wasn't talking about the show content though, just that they appeared to have fun making it, which is a valid comment regardless of the shows actual quality. Also, not everyone thinks the content is poor - FIN.
On Sunday 10th January 2010 GMT at 4:37 AM GMT, AngieBaby said:
Thanks Matt. you explained my point well.
Jim, I enjoyed the out-takes as they obviously enjoyed working together, which made the programme fun to watch.
Rather than trying to pick holes, I try to enjoy comedy. Which is wy I enjoy this site.
I'd prefer trying to enjoying it rather than be contentious for the sake of it.