The Armstrong & Miller Show
On Saturday 24th February 2007 GMT at 4:13 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Went to the recording tonight for the first episode (I think) of Ben Miller and Alexander Armstrong's new series. I'm not hugely familiar with the previous series' they did, but thought that it was pretty good. A bit hit and miss in places (what isn't these days?), but some of it was very good, so yeah, not bad on the whole. I fear it'll be filed instantly away with other recent shows for being repetitive, but I'll certainly give it a good go.
It'll be on BBC One in the Autumn.
On Saturday 24th February 2007 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
The old shows were pretty good from what I remember, so Im looking forward to this.
On Saturday 24th February 2007 GMT at 7:44 PM GMT, zooo said:
Hurray. I love their old stuff too.
Have they, per chance, brought back the naked characters in the episode you saw?
I do hope so.
On Saturday 24th February 2007 GMT at 8:39 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
From what I understand Zooo, this is supposed to be a completely new and fresh show, so Id be surprised if they try and bring back any of the old characters form the Channel four series.
On Saturday 24th February 2007 GMT at 8:48 PM GMT, zooo said:
Damn it.
On Saturday 24th February 2007 GMT at 10:49 PM GMT, Aaron said:
No, no "naked" characters as such. And as Matthew points out, this is a completely new show; Hat Trick (the production company) are billing it specifically as 'series one'.
On Sunday 25th February 2007 GMT at 4:54 PM GMT, David H said:
These two have gone on since their Channel 4 series and proved quite likeable, to me anyway.
I was not a fan of their sketch show though and found many of the sketches pointless.
On Friday 2nd March 2007 GMT at 2:40 PM GMT, Pablo cakeface said:
I hope they bring back Chuffy! One sketch I remember from their show was the Glengarry Glenn Ross spoof featuring research scientists instead of real estate salesmen, when the character originally played by Alec Baldwin attempts to motivate them by with threats and abuse.
'Second Prize is a set of steak knives.'
On Saturday 3rd March 2007 GMT at 12:28 AM GMT, zooo said:
Oh, Chuffy was the best!
On Saturday 3rd March 2007 GMT at 8:19 PM GMT, zooo said:
Armstrong and Miller video diary...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCJ03PcW0f8
On Saturday 3rd March 2007 GMT at 8:48 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Looks good! Really looking forward to this. Oh, and the clip showing the surgeon characters from the new Harry Enfield show was really funny too I thought, so maybe that wont turn out to be as rubbish as I was fearing!
On Wednesday 10th October 2007 GMT at 12:34 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Friday 26th October 2007. 9:30pm. BBC One.
Not Going Out one week, grapes 'n shit the next. 
Can't wait.
On Wednesday 10th October 2007 GMT at 8:02 AM GMT, catskillz said:
Yeah, I was a big fan of the "Chuffy" sketch as well. I think Alexander Armstrong is a massive talent.
On Wednesday 10th October 2007 GMT at 3:38 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Did we ever see Sarah Alexander's nudity in the old shows? My memory as a 10 year old boy, seems to recall we did.
On Thursday 11th October 2007 GMT at 1:39 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I believe so, yes.
On Thursday 11th October 2007 GMT at 2:06 AM GMT, Leevil said:
http://forum.dumpstersluts.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2365&stc=1&d=1137120354
On Thursday 11th October 2007 GMT at 3:17 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Bappage.
I just KNOW you've spent the whole day Googling for that.
On Friday 26th October 2007 GMT at 9:49 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
This starts tonight, Im looking forward to it as I liked their old shows a lot. Interested to see what kind of material theyll do now theyre on BBC1 instead of Channel 4.
On Friday 26th October 2007 GMT at 9:54 PM GMT, Ben said:
I'm looking forward to this. I used to love their old Channel 4 shows, especially the 'Chuffy' sketches.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 12:57 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Really looking forward to this too. Never seen anything of them before, but went to the first night's recording and really enjoyed it. Hopefully it's made the transition from (sound) stage to screen well.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 1:58 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Brilliant. Loved it.
Who Do You Think You Are? particularly.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 2:01 AM GMT, Treenifer said:
'Twas good. Hope they keep up the quality. A bit stretched in places, but you have to expect that.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 2:04 AM GMT, Ben said:
I thought it was very good.
Highlights for me were:
- The blind-fitter sketch
- The dad explaining to his son why his parents split up
- The Gordon Ramsay style chef - which I thought was a bit predictable, but then had a great twist and ending
- The melon sketches
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 2:04 AM GMT, Chappers said:
I'd seen about it before but never realised who was in it.
I watched it - interrupted by dogs - and there were some good sketches.
I especially likedthe Gordon Ramsay sketch - wouldn't we all love to do that?
And everyone remembers what they were doing when they heard President Kennedy got shot.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 2:21 AM GMT, Martin H said:
Well that was shit I thought. What was it's point? If an old double act is going to get back together you'd think they'd have some really good plans but it just lacked direction and wasn't funny...apart from the 'Easter Party' sketch and the West Wing style one, the rest was just really bad.
Talk about Serafinowicz using repetition at least he expands on the joke! Three times they did the "Kill Them" gag and twice the two generals talking in 'chav' speak, oh how original.
I like Armstrong & Miller but this was just bad.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 3:10 AM GMT, Aaron said:
The real question of course, is what does Zooo think?
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 4:34 AM GMT, catskillz said:
Disappointing. On the plus side, I came up with a brilliant idea for a sketch of my own, while watching it.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 4:40 AM GMT, jacparov said:
Damn, wanted to watch this but missed it as i was out getting pissed.(don't you just hate having a life?)
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 11:08 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: jacparov @ October 27, 2007, 12:40 AMi was out getting pissed.(don't you just hate having a life?)
View original
The notion that "getting pissed" equates to having a life is, IMO, a very interesting one.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 12:58 PM GMT, Nick said:
Thought that it was pretty good on the whole. Obviously some sketches were better than others and at times it draged a little but it made me laugh quite a few times which has to be the main objective.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 3:05 PM GMT, Mannikin Bird said:
Finally some good comedy on BBC1 on a Friday night. These guys are funny.
PS Did you notice the huge list of writers?
Oops that's upset the "Not Going Out" crowd.
So put subtitles on your DVDs and I'll take a look! 
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 3:28 PM GMT, David H said:
Never liked Armstrong and Miller's wacky stuff on CH4 years ago but since then they've branched out and become much more likeable IMO. (Can't help thinking Miller looks like Rob Brydon).
I think the set-up with the pilots was excellent and a real surprise, though I don't know whether they needed to keep going back to it. Out of the three sketches on a similar theme (LB's Vicky, CT's 'bovvered and this one) I thought that was far superior. Though I don't think we need any more of it now.
I liked the whips and chains sketch. Should have more of that sort of standard. The rest was ordinary to okay but very long winded at times (the football manager especially). Still seem to go for easy targets like Abramovich/Ramsey but it was more watchable than PS.
One other thing though, you are told to have a theme for a sketch show. PS does have a theme, but this is just random sketches. Is it one rule for one and another for others?
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 4:07 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: David H @ October 27, 2007, 11:28 AM(Can't help thinking Miller looks like Rob Brydon).
View original
I used to get them confused quite a bit, so yes. Definitely.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 4:12 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I thought that was great, really funny. A big mainstream comedy that was actually funny. It might dissapoint some exactly because of that, its a BBC 1 show, it was never going to be edgy or experimental, what it was was very funny material being played expertly by two highly likeable and skilled performers. Very enjoyable stuff, I hope they manage to keep up the standard throughout the rest of the series.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 5:03 PM GMT, Martin H said:
It seems strange to me that some are hating on the Serafinowicz sketch show yet applauding this, when Serafinowicz is at least trying some new things out. You couldn't tell this show apart from most mainstream sketch shows.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 5:26 PM GMT, Mannikin Bird said:
I have laughed at the Peter S show and I think he's a great mimic. Does anyone know the 'thing' he put on the internet that caught the BBC's attention and basically got him the show?
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 5:27 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Liked the Pilots. Liked the, "Kill them," sketch. I enjoyed most of them. And I slightly agree about the PS comment. All in all I will watch next week.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 5:33 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ October 27, 2007, 1:03 PMIt seems strange to me that some are hating on the Serafinowicz sketch show yet applauding this, when Serafinowicz is at least trying some new things out. You couldn't tell this show apart from most mainstream sketch shows.
View original
A lot of people praised the Serafinowicz show after 1 ep as well though and it's only since then that people have really criticized it for a perceived decline in quality.
I'm not sure that the PS show is any more innovative anyway though. All of the stuff mocking TV shows has been done before (Mitchell and Webb for example) and doing impressions of famous people isn't really breaking new ground.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 5:43 PM GMT, Martin H said:
I think some people were harsh on PS right from the start of the series. And no it's not the most innovative thing ever, but it's different to most sketch shows around, the use of real life things mixed with the surreal and silly and even satire.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 5:49 PM GMT, johnny roulette said:
its funny to see what works and what doesn't.
its also funny to see what different people like.
i liked this, but then maybe that's because i am 38 and the sketches appealed to me.
PS is on bbc3 and the demographic is 18 - 24. and i didn't get it. nor adam and shelley.
maybe i am my dad.
if the young ones came out now, would i get it?
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 5:50 PM GMT, Martin H said:
PS is on BBC2 not BBC3. And should not be compared to Adam and Shelley for that was shite.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 6:06 PM GMT, johnny roulette said:
oh yeah, so it was.
personally i thought PS and adam and Shelley were abouit the same quality. both cack.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 8:04 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ October 27, 2007, 1:03 PMIt seems strange to me that some are hating on the Serafinowicz sketch show yet applauding this, when Serafinowicz is at least trying some new things out. You couldn't tell this show apart from most mainstream sketch shows.
View original
Firstly, I'd just like to say that the following, whilst inspired by your post Martin, isn't aimed directly at you, nor you alone.
HOWEVER, your post perfectly encapsulates EVERYTHING I hate about writers, particularly those active here on the BSG, and why I am far from surprised that most of them have had no - or very little - success whatsoever. When you (writers, not you personally) finally realise that trying things out and being new and clever isn't necessarily good, and isn't the be-all and end-all of comedy, MAYBE you might have some luck in the industry. The fact that there is rarely anything "new", and when there is it comes from established names (PS for example) should really be ringing alarm bells for anyone with an ounce of sense. Commissioning editors do not want anything of that ilk (well, are highly unlikely to at least) from unknown names. They want safe shows that they know will be successful. It costs millions to produce a six-episode comedy series, even on a relatively restrained budget. Do you put that amount of money - and ultimately your job - on the line by making something which you don't know if it's going to work? Very unlikely.
The view that something should only be applauded if it is "trying some new things out", and that this shouldn't because it isn't trying anything new, is just plain barmy. Perhaps, from a purely technical, writers' perspective that may be the case in part, but some of us here are just viewers, and really couldn't give a flying f**k if something is new or not. At the end of the day, as a writer your sole purpose should be to make the audience LAUGH, not be all smarmy and pushing boundaries, challenging convention and what have you. As long as it makes the viewer laugh, he or she is happy.
The sooner budding writers realise that, and stop trying to be clever and cutting edge, the happier we'll all be.
Sorry. Just a real pet hate of mine.
(Oh, and just as a note, I am primarily a viewer, but have also done a bit of writing, so have a relatively sound understanding of both sides of the equation.)
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 8:43 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I agree to some degree Aaron, and though I do want to see new ground ventured into, my primary concerns are just whether something is enjoyable or not, if it makes me laugh. If its combining breaking new ground with being funny, then great, but it should always come down to, in the end, whether its funny or not; I think this show was. Innovation for innovations sake is pointless, it has to actually be funny. I think if you are a writer, as I am, to do something ground breaking, you really do have to have proven yourself first; otherwise no one is going to take a risk on you. Ive had little bits of success here and there, and so far its always been for the more basic, mainstream stuff. The problem with most mainstream comedy is not that it has been playing safe, but that the quality of the writing, in my opinion, has been very poor; most comedies on BBC1 just arent funny, I think that this show, at the moment, is an exeption and shows that mainstream doesnt have to mean shit. Even if most times in recent years, it has been.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 8:49 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yes, I think that that's pretty much what I was going for. Not sooo much on the last part, as much of the more recent comedies I have enjoyed (even if not exactly hilarious), but yes. Otherwise, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 9:34 PM GMT, Martin H said:
I'm not saying all comedy has to be 'new' and 'breaking new grounds' not at all, I'm a huge fan of Not Going Out and it doesn't get more mainstream and formulaic as that. But what I'm saying is, if someone is going to make a show which is just similar to all other shows out at the minute there has to be something in it that grabs you, like jokes perhaps. Especially with the sketch show format which many normal viewers, plus writers and critics are saying is a very tired format now and unless you are going to try something at least slightly original or at least funny with lots of gags then there's not much point in attempting it.
It was the same with Whitehouse and Enfield, two great comedians (well one great and one slightly good), they got back together for a new show, so you think "well if these two are getting back together they must have something good up their sleeves that needs to be done"...but it didn't it was just another poor sketch show with no point, no personality etc. And that's how I felt with Armstrong & Miller last night.
I don't know if you've read any of the samples of my sitcom scripts that I've posted on here in the past but I'm not trying anything 'edgy' or 'risque' with them, I'm not trying to break new grounds, I'm just trying to create something with a strong plot and lots of jokes and decent characters in a slightly original premise and plot. I would rather stick to that than to just say "f**k it...I'll write something in the exact style of Two Pints or GrownUps because then it'll get commissioned"...I'd rather never be commissioned than to have my name associated with something like that. Plus my sitcom script has had some positive feedback, and without blowing my own trumpet (which means I'm about to blow my own trumpet) one of those positive feedbacks was from Baby Cow.
That's my smug and self-satisfied rant over.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 9:42 PM GMT, Aaron said:
lol, well, when you clarify a bit on the sketch thing, yes. Good point. For me, it was pretty funny, but each to their own. Like you say though, there definitely needs to be a change if people are going to keep churning out sketch show after sketch show after sketch show.
(And no, I'm afraid I haven't read your stuff. Nothing personal, I just have a really short attention span. )
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 9:51 PM GMT, Chappers said:
I agree with Aaron 3 posts above - although he could haveput it more succinctly.
It doesn't matter if it's new or cutting edge.
Comedy has to be funny.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 9:53 PM GMT, Martin H said:
Yeah, I'm not saying it's wrong that you found it funny, I was just surprised that some of the people that were quite harsh on Serafinowicz were in my opinion over-praising this show.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 9:59 PM GMT, Chappers said:
I was saying I didn't find PS funny but some of this was.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 10:02 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ October 27, 2007, 5:53 PMYeah, I'm not saying it's wrong that you found it funny, I was just surprised that some of the people that were quite harsh on Serafinowicz were in my opinion over-praising this show.
View original
I disliked them both
I don't particularly care whether it's new, or even whether it has much personality, I just want it to be funny and this wasn't.
On Saturday 27th October 2007 GMT at 10:28 PM GMT, Mannikin Bird said:
Comedy has to be funny.
[/quote]
Hear hear!
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 12:15 AM GMT, Ben said:
I dont see how PS is trying anything new. It's just parodies and spoofs of modern day culture which have all been done many, many times over the years. I'm not saying that Armstrong and Miller were trying anything revolutionary, it was just straightforward sketch comedy.
However, it is certainly not easy to try something new in popular culture. Look at music for example, can you honestly name one young and exciting band who are truly doing something different.
The only original comedy I can thnk of in the 00's is The Office, but even then there had been several docusoap comedies already. What I'm trying to say is that so much has been done already over the last 50 years and it's becoming harder and harder to do something original.
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 1:50 AM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: Winterlight @ October 27, 2007, 8:15 PMHowever, it is certainly not easy to try something new in popular culture. Look at music for example, can you honestly name one young and exciting band who are truly doing something different.
View original
There are hundreds, you just don't hear them on Radio 1.
Quote:The only original comedy I can thnk of in the 00's is The Office, but even then there had been several docusoap comedies already. What I'm trying to say is that so much has been done already over the last 50 years and it's becoming harder and harder to do something original.
The Office..original? Come one, it was good but it wasn't original, The Day Today and People Like Us already did the exact same thing. Most original thing of the 00's is/was Arrested Development.
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 3:12 AM GMT, Ben said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ October 27, 2007, 9:50 PMThere are hundreds, you just don't hear them on Radio 1.
View original
Yes, thats a fair point and I know that. I like plenty of bands that won't ever get near the top 40.
Getting a TV show is a bit harder though than getting a recording contract. An original sounding band can easily get a release on an independent record label, but an original TV show will need to have something popular about it as well to attract the major stations.
This is getting ridiculously off topic and I accept part of the blame for this!
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 3:13 AM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
I would say that the Pilots was the best acted, scripted, lit, observed and realised sketch that I have seen in years. Superb! Tears running down my face; but then I'm a bit of an elderly git in comparison to some of the young bucks on here.
Also I think that the Peter S show has many good points too. My only regret is the repetition that seems to be mandatory with today's sketch show format. I Can never decide whether it's lazy writing or that research has shown that the average punter doesn't have the capacity to laugh at more than six funny concepts in any one series
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 3:16 AM GMT, Ben said:
I thoguth the pilots sketch was good, but they should have just kept it to one sketch in the show.
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 2:10 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: Blenkinsop @ October 27, 2007, 11:13 PMMy only regret is the repetition that seems to be mandatory with today's sketch show format. I Can never decide whether it's lazy writing or that research has shown that the average punter doesn't have the capacity to laugh at more than six funny concepts in any one series
View original
I think a big part of it is down to money and that sets and/or costumes have to be used more than once. The challenge I gues for any sketch show is to come up with characters who can be sustained over several sketches and I think that's where a lot of shows come unstuck.
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 3:38 PM GMT, David H said:
I agree with Martin's point. And can accept that it wasn't exactly a new sketch show that made you think I must watch it every week like the brilliant Arrested Development. But it was subtle, which PS is not. I actually think PS is written for a teenage audience.
What I find really patronising though about the sketch shows I've seen recently, in the same way the BBC tell us what we should be watching, is the same character coming back later in the episode. 30 seconds/1 minute fine - I might look forward to them next week. But not showing them again four sketches later. And again two sketches after that. It's too much!
When will these people learn less is more?
On Sunday 28th October 2007 GMT at 4:01 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I'd just like to make the point here that the editors are often more to blame in the arrangement of sketches than the writers. Of all of the many sketch shows I've seen recorded, I don't remember a single one which appeared EXACTLY as we saw it in the studio. Sketches swapped around, moved to later episodes, and indeed lots of different ones added in. TA&MS was a perfect example of this.
On Monday 29th October 2007 GMT at 2:30 PM GMT, Jay72 said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ October 26, 2007, 10:21 PMWell that was shit I thought. What was it's point? If an old double act is going to get back together you'd think they'd have some really good plans but it just lacked direction and wasn't funny...apart from the 'Easter Party' sketch and the West Wing style one, the rest was just really bad.
Talk about Serafinowicz using repetition at least he expands on the joke! Three times they did the "Kill Them" gag and twice the two generals talking in 'chav' speak, oh how original.
I like Armstrong & Miller but this was just bad.
View original
I'm coming to the conclusion that Martin IS Peter Serafinowicz!
For what its worth, I thought A & M were pretty good, although some of the sketches were overlong. The bondage skit was very funny and liked the "where are you?" bits too. Will be interesting to see how it fares in the coming weeks.
As for PS, I still think the jury is out. Mixture of brilliant and bad for me. Still, both are a million miles ahead of that Harry Enfield shit last year (but that's another story....)
On Tuesday 30th October 2007 GMT at 1:24 AM GMT, Magnus D said:
I liked this, I thought it was a good sketch show. I did not see their original shows, so this was the first time seeing the duo, and I liked what I saw. The Gordon Ramsey sketch was brilliant. There was a lot I liked about it, but I just wish every sketch wasn't swear filled to the max (then again, I don't think there's a single comedy now that does not have at least 100 swear words in each episode).
But anyway, I enjoyed it, and am looking forward to Episode 2 on Friday.
On Tuesday 30th October 2007 GMT at 3:12 AM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I liked most of it. Will be watching it again. Some original and strong sketches.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 5:28 AM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 26, 2007, 11:10 PMThe real question of course, is what does Zooo think?
View original
I've only just flipping seen them!
I love it.
So much better than all the other recent sketch shows. Almost every one of the sketches funny.
Not, as I had come to expect as acceptable, a 50:50 hit rate.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 1:45 PM GMT, Jay72 said:
Good show again. Seems to be a bit more consistent than PS who tends to veer between the brilliant and the bad.
The How Many Hats sketch was very funny and liked the Channel 4 announcer. A couple of the punchlines you could see coming (The Polish workers and the Doll sketch - the latter was very weird). Not bad though.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 2:07 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
I saw it for the first time last night, there was some good stuff. I particularly liked the Black and White war film stars who talked like teenagers and the 'If you're not going to buy that, please feck off' skits.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 2:25 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Jay72 @ November 3, 2007, 9:45 AMThe How Many Hats sketch was very funny and liked the Channel 4 announcer. A couple of the punchlines you could see coming (The Polish workers and the Doll sketch - the latter was very weird). Not bad though.
View original
Yes, I loved the Channel 4 announcer. Very funny. Not so hot on the hats though, and can honestly say that I couldn't "see" the punchline to the Polish workers.
Overall, I really enjoyed it again. Great writing, and generally a very refreshing return to good-quality sketch shows.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 3:33 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
The pilots were great again.
"You know I had like two legs?"
"Yeah."
"Well, i've only got 1 now."
"Oh my god, random."
LOL. I really enjoyed it but i'm not a big fan of the Football Manager sketch or the "F**k off," sketch.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 3:58 PM GMT, zooo said:
I liked the last line in that sketch. 'Off you f**k'. I used it on my mother later. Who luckily, had also seen it.
Quote: hotzappa11 @ November 3, 2007, 11:33 AMThe pilots were great again.
"You know I had like two legs?"
"Yeah."
"Well, i've only got 1 now."
"Oh my god, random."
View original
I love the pilots!
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 3:59 PM GMT, Splodge said:
I missed Armstrong and Miller last week, but caught it last night and loved it! I used to watch the C4 version in my teenage years and I'm ashamed to say that I never really 'got it' at the time, but now in my mid twenties and after hearing their Radio 4 show repeats on BBC7, I felt they were so good that I went to the trouble of recording them all. Oddly enough, despite not getting it originally, my own writing fashion style was in similar territories to the ones in their radio show.
As for The Peter Serafinowicz Show, I keep on forgetting that it's on so I've only seen the first one (and last nights) but the Butterworth sketches have me choking with laughter - just his general incompetence
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 4:07 PM GMT, David H said:
I thought the standard dropped alarmingly. Probably because it was so similar to the first.
The Abramovich thing doesn't work at all and the doll one was unfunny and way too long. The young lad with his father does his open-mouthed expression for far too long. Dentist doesn't really work, MP followed down hall doesn't work.
Channel 4 thing was a surprise, the Polish workers was pretty good, pilots is well written but now the surprise has gone is just too similar to others. The man going in the shop was pretty good first time round but why do you have to go back to it 
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 4:31 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ November 3, 2007, 11:58 AMI liked the last line in that sketch. 'Off you f**k'. I used it on my mother later. Who luckily, had also seen it.
View original
Quote: zooo @ November 3, 2007, 11:58 AMI love the pilots!
View original
Those two pilot sketches were the first two to be recorded, and I enjoyed muchly then, and continue to now. Brilliant.
I brought you some grapes 'n shit.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 4:43 PM GMT, Martin H said:
First half of last nights show was absolutely awful, most of the sketches were repeated from last week, with the exact same pay-offs and not only was they repeated from last week but they were then repeated again throughout the episode. Really really bad.
But that doll sketch was funny, although you could see the ending coming a mile off, but it was still good. But then it soon went back to it's repetition...I mean that "if you're not going to buy anything f**k off"..was used THREE times with no expansion on the joke whatsoever. Ugh!
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 5:16 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
I thought that was fantastic, I enjoyed it even more than last weeks. Great writing and Armstrong and Miller themselves are just so good. Loved the pooing on a train song, the pilots, the dentist; just really liked it. I think its looking like turning into my favourite sketch show of the last couple of years, though its still early days yet. Its not reinventing the wheel, but its just so well done,and funny; Ive also enjoyed the Peter Serafinowicz one, but for sheer enjoyment and number of actual out loud laughs, this ones got the edge.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 5:56 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 3, 2007, 12:43 PMFirst half of last nights show was absolutely awful, most of the sketches were repeated from last week, with the exact same pay-offs and not only was they repeated from last week but they were then repeated again throughout the episode. Really really bad.
But that doll sketch was funny, although you could see the ending coming a mile off, but it was still good. But then it soon went back to it's repetition...I mean that "if you're not going to buy anything f**k off"..was used THREE times with no expansion on the joke whatsoever. Ugh!
View original
Are you really judging this show on its merits Martin? It seems that because you like the PS show, you feel the need to criticise this one as you see it as some sort of competition.
Your comments about repetition don't really add up as well. The PS show also uses a lot of repetition both from week to week and during each episode so to single out A&M for that doesn't make too much sense.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 6:11 PM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: Nick @ November 3, 2007, 1:56 PMAre you really judging this show on its merits Martin? It seems that because you like the PS show, you feel the need to criticise this one as you see it as some sort of competition.
Your comments about repetition don't really add up as well. The PS show also uses a lot of repetition both from week to week and during each episode so to single out A&M for that doesn't make too much sense.
View original
I want to like this show because I do like Armstrong & Miller and some of their old work but this show is just really really average I feel. The PS Show is no great I admit that, but I think it's funnier and yes it does use repetition too much in each episode but in the week to week repeat sketches it does at least try to expand on them in some way.
On A&M last night it repeated sketches from last week(lots of them as well, the dentist, the pilots, the teacher, the West Wing corridor one, the Dad and son etc) and it also repeated sketches within the episode. The Hat Quiz and the doll ones were good sketches I felt but the rest of the show was really bad.
I'm still waiting for the British sketch show equivalent of Mr Show but it looks like we'll be waiting a long time to get it.
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 11:06 PM GMT, Paul W said:
I agree Martin the past few years have been disappointing... which is a shame because I love sketch shows, Big Train and Mr Show (thanks Martin) are good sketch shows which can't seem to be replicated easily.
summary - Average... again 
On Saturday 3rd November 2007 GMT at 11:25 PM GMT, Mark said:
I thought this latest episode was very good, but yes the repetition which kills so many sketch shows has started to creep in.
The musical numbers with those two old chaps make me laugh (going to the loo on the train).
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:08 AM GMT, Martin H said:
I take back what I said about liking the doll sketch because it was ripped off this old John Cleese and Terry Gilliam sketch:
http://dethroner.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/helpmag_christopher.jpg
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:22 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 3, 2007, 11:08 PMI take back what I said about liking the doll sketch because it was ripped off this old John Cleese and Terry Gilliam sketch:
http://dethroner.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/helpmag_christopher.jpg
View original
I think thats a little over the top, its more than possible for two people, over the space of many, many years, to come up with the same idea. You can say its very similar, but you cant actually claim out right that its ripped off, because you dont know.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:36 AM GMT, Martin H said:
Okay I can't say for definite but the idea is really similar and I'm sure Armstrong & Miller knew about it beforehand. Maybe it happened subconsciously though.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 5:59 AM GMT, Aaron said:
In what respect DID you like it? It's writing? It's humour?
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 2:45 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Right ive just watched this and would have thought it was an average sketch show apart from one very very disturbing sketch. The sketch where the man dates a childs doll is just sickening. I can see no merit in it, the punchline was shit and thw whole thing smacked of very thinly veiled paedohpilia. I have no idea how they got the audience to laugh at it as i just watched with bewilderment. Sorry if this has been touched on earlier.
The rest of the show was alright and had a high hit rate. I just can't see past that sketch.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 2:50 PM GMT, Baumski said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 3, 2007, 2:11 PMI want to like this show because I do like Armstrong & Miller and some of their old work but this show is just really really average I feel.
View original
What crossed my mind is that although you're right, this is still a better crafted and funnier show than, say, Mitchell and Web who, as a team, make Hale and Pace look like a classy double act.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:20 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ajp29 @ November 4, 2007, 9:45 AMRight ive just watched this and would have thought it was an average sketch show apart from one very very disturbing sketch. The sketch where the man dates a childs doll is just sickening. I can see no merit in it, the punchline was shit and thw whole thing smacked of very thinly veiled paedohpilia. I have no idea how they got the audience to laugh at it as i just watched with bewilderment. Sorry if this has been touched on earlier.
The rest of the show was alright and had a high hit rate. I just can't see past that sketch.
View original
I honestly cant believe you just said that! That is very odd, its just a sketch about a man and a woman both falling for little plastic dolls, its silly and absurd, not dark and disturbing!!! How you can say it smacks of thinly veiled paedophilia is just beyond me, you honestly think thats what they were getting at, because I really dont think they were, the very idea is ridiculous! I think you reading way too much into it and adding layers to it that only exist in your head! How about if the man had fallen in love with a bouncy castle, would that still have constituted paedophilia? Because innocent little kids bounce on those things you know! And does that expose Rainbow as having had a secret bestiality agenda? Your telling me a grown man living with all those friendly animals and nothing was going on??
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:34 PM GMT, Ben said:
There was some repetitiveness in this weeks show. Recurring characters simply have less of an impact each time you see them.
I really don't get the paedophilia accusations though. The punchline to that sketch was so predictable though - that annoyed me a little bit.
I think the only great uk sketch show of the last 10 years is Big Train. Although, saying that, Monkey Dust was certainly funny and a brave venture. Oh and Jam as well, that was bloody hilarious.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:36 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 4, 2007, 10:20 AMI honestly cant believe you just said that! That is very odd, its just a sketch about a man and a woman both falling for little plastic dolls, its silly and absurd, not dark and disturbing!!! How you can say it smacks of thinly veiled paedophilia is just beyond me, you honestly think thats what they were getting at, because I really dont think they were, the very idea is ridiculous! I think you reading way too much into it and adding layers to it that only exist in your head! How about if the man had fallen in love with a bouncy castle, would that still have constituted paedophilia? Because innocent little kids boince on those things you know! And does that expose Rainbow as having had a secret bestiality agenda? Your telling me a grown man living with all those friendly animals and nothing was going on??
View original
Well firstly no its not the same a falling in love with a bouncy castle. Big Train did a very funny sketch with a puppet. Why did it start in a toy shop and why is it a child's doll? Why is the man finding a children's toy sexually arousing? It should have been a bouncy castle or something like that. The fact that the doll appears in the man's eyes to be a helpless easily manipulated object is clearly some sort of metaphor. Theres definately some disturbing personification going on.
I am reading into it but I don't think too much. If it wasn't deliberate then in my eyes its reckless. My main point really is how this got through production. Its shocking. Did no-one think maybe we need a sketch with a better punchline or what are we trying to say with this sketch. Like most sketch shows all the jokes have been done before so what diferentiates them is the style and presentation of it. Therefore wirters do think about the different 'layers' of their sketches.
Political Correctness and tabloid paranoia have caused some riduculous accusations but this is clearly, in my eyes, not the case with my objection.
Feel free to think i'm a looney. I just wanted to share my opinion.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:52 PM GMT, zooo said:
Would it have been better if it was a teddy bear?
Or would that be just the same to you.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 3:54 PM GMT, Baumski said:
Quote: ajp29 @ November 4, 2007, 9:45 AMThe sketch where the man dates a childs doll is just sickening. I can see no merit in it, the punchline was shit and thw whole thing smacked of very thinly veiled paedohpilia.
View original
Couldn't see that myself. Without wishing to tread too deeply, these were mature 'adult' dolls who knew what they were letting themselves in for when they signed the standard contract. The fact is they were happy to take the money for their 15 minutes of fame. We all do things that we later regret and they'll just have to live with the consequences and as such, I'll have no truck with this absurd nonsense.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 4:04 PM GMT, Mannikin Bird said:
You are not a looney AJP29. I also found that sketch uncomfortable. The rest of the show was very entertaining and I really like Armstrong and Miller. I can only think that there must have been some sort of discussion about it's inclusion and the yes's won the vote. IMHO it wasn't necessary contribution to the show.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 4:04 PM GMT, zooo said:
The only thing that bothered me about that sketch was that it wasn't one of the funniest ones.
There was nothing offensive to me in there. MAYBE if it had been a baby doll, rather than a woman, it might have been a bit dodgy. But either way, it was just an inanimate object that looked quite amusing in a bike basket.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 4:24 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: ajp29 @ November 4, 2007, 9:45 AMThe sketch where the man dates a childs doll is just sickening. I can see no merit in it, the punchline was shit and thw whole thing smacked of very thinly veiled paedohpilia.
View original
It actually angers me a little when people make ridiculous comments like this. The dolls were both of adults as other people have said so the idea that it was 'thinly veiled paedophilia' is absurd. For a man or woman to find a doll sexy would be no different to them finding Lara Croft or Jessica Rabbit sexy. Sad perhaps but nothing more. It certainly wouldn't make them a paedophile in any way, shape or form and that kind of ignorance is, imo, unacceptable.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 6:48 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: ajp29 @ November 4, 2007, 10:36 AMWell firstly no its not the same a falling in love with a bouncy castle. Big Train did a very funny sketch with a puppet. Why did it start in a toy shop and why is it a child's doll? Why is the man finding a children's toy sexually arousing? It should have been a bouncy castle or something like that. The fact that the doll appears in the man's eyes to be a helpless easily manipulated object is clearly some sort of metaphor. Theres definately some disturbing personification going on.
I am reading into it but I don't think too much. If it wasn't deliberate then in my eyes its reckless. My main point really is how this got through production. Its shocking. Did no-one think maybe we need a sketch with a better punchline or what are we trying to say with this sketch. Like most sketch shows all the jokes have been done before so what diferentiates them is the style and presentation of it. Therefore wirters do think about the different 'layers' of their sketches.
Political Correctness and tabloid paranoia have caused some riduculous accusations but this is clearly, in my eyes, not the case with my objection.
Feel free to think i'm a looney. I just wanted to share my opinion.
View original
like the majority, I can't agree about your peodo theory. I think it reveals more about what's in your mind than anything else. The object of the sketch, which was a little predictable and weak, was basically a miniature woman made of plastic. So what if its a kid's toy? Its not a kid. All this talk of metaphors etc, its a daft sketch - remember what surreal is?
I think its comments like this that are unnecessarily restricting comedy today.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 7:16 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: ajp29 @ November 4, 2007, 10:36 AM
Feel free to think i'm a looney. I just wanted to share my opinion.
View original
I never said I think youre a looney, just that I find your theory a little ridiculous, which I think it is. Its a silly, surreal sketch, whether its actually funny or not is another matter. I agree with what someone else said, if the doll would have been a baby or of a child, then maybe you could acuse it of being dodgy, but the dolls were of adults. You were just sharing your opinion, I, in return, was sharing mine.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 8:54 PM GMT, Baumski said:
Quote: Nick @ November 4, 2007, 11:24 AMFor a man or woman to find a doll sexy would be no different to them finding Lara Croft or Jessica Rabbit sexy.
View original
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think Lois from 'Family Guy' has really nice legs.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 8:57 PM GMT, zooo said:
I fancy the dog.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 9:11 PM GMT, Paul W said:
I'd give Barneys missus one out of the flintstones... I like the dead eyes.
Too far?
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 10:52 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ November 4, 2007, 1:48 PM
I think its comments like this that are unnecessarily restricting comedy today.
View original
I'm glad my comments carry so much weight.
On Sunday 4th November 2007 GMT at 11:35 PM GMT, zooo said:
You could be the new Mary Whitehouse, if only you'd put a bit of effort in!
On Monday 5th November 2007 GMT at 12:05 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Have to say, I agree with everyone else. I know Adam and I have never - and will never - exactly see eye-to-eye as far as politics and socety goes, but Adam, I really think you're off your f**king trolley with this one. I echo the points everyone else has made. It's just an inanimate object, of a human. And an adult human at that.
On Monday 5th November 2007 GMT at 12:18 AM GMT, Chappers said:
I thought it was one of the funniest sketches and it was because of the paedophilic connotations. I've heard about a gay bloke who collects Barbie Dolls and has hundreds with all sorts of costumes including some really pervy ones.
Quote: Mark @ November 3, 2007, 7:25 PMI thought this latest episode was very good, but yes the repetition which kills so many sketch shows has started to creep in.
The musical numbers with those two old chaps make me laugh (going to the loo on the train).
View original
I'm old enough to know that those 2 old blokes are based on Michael Flanders and Donald Swan who sang things like "Mud, mud, glorious mud".
On Monday 5th November 2007 GMT at 12:48 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood.
On Monday 5th November 2007 GMT at 1:33 AM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Quote: zooo @ November 4, 2007, 6:35 PMYou could be the new Mary Whitehouse, if only you'd put a bit of effort in!
View original
He's not saying that the show should be banned, and he's not written vitriolic letters to the BBC or waved flags of any nature. He voiced an opinion. The main problem with political correctness in comedy is that it lets talentless fools like Jim Davidson get away with looking 'subversive'.
On Monday 5th November 2007 GMT at 1:39 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ November 4, 2007, 8:33 PMHe's not saying that the show should be banned, and he's not written vitriolic letters to the BBC or waved flags of any nature. He voiced an opinion. The main problem with political correctness in comedy is that it lets talentless fools like Jim Davidson get away with looking 'subversive'.
View original
Who on earth thinks Davidson is subversive?! I think its a widely held belief that hes an idiot. And you say he voiced an opinion, well thats what everyone else has done as well, fairs fair.
On Monday 5th November 2007 GMT at 1:46 AM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Davidson has a large fanbase, many of which support him because he is seen to stand up to political correctness. Yes, you can identify him as a sad and talentless bigot, but a lot can't seem to as he remains hugely successful. That was just an example, however, and I realise that Leevil has also given a methaphorical arse kick to the little boil with a microphone so maybe I should find a new example.
On Monday 5th November 2007 GMT at 2:37 AM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ November 4, 2007, 8:33 PMHe's not saying that the show should be banned, and he's not written vitriolic letters to the BBC or waved flags of any nature. He voiced an opinion. The main problem with political correctness in comedy is that it lets talentless fools like Jim Davidson get away with looking 'subversive'.
View original
I'm with ya, spicey.
I was just joking in response to that ~
Quote: ajp29 @ November 4, 2007, 5:52 PM
View original
On Tuesday 6th November 2007 GMT at 4:21 AM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 4, 2007, 7:05 PMbut Adam, I really think you're off your f**king trolley with this one.
View original
I have to admit in hindsight that... I was right Mwahahahahahahaahhahaha. But yes maybe I should have not used a buzzword. Next time i'll stick to safer words like Rape and Facist Islam 
Anyway should still point out, after having sidetracked this whole thread, that I thought it was a good show with a hight hit rate for me.
On Tuesday 6th November 2007 GMT at 4:27 AM GMT, Badge said:
I liked the doll sketch, by the way.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 2:59 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Brilliant. Loved it. Mr BBC, if you're reading this, commission more. Now.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:11 AM GMT, Martin H said:
"Armstrong & Miller: How to stretch out 6 sketches for 6 weeks"
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:15 AM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 9, 2007, 10:11 PM"Armstrong & Miller: How to stretch out 6 sketches for 6 weeks"
View original
Still enjoying Peter Serafinowicz then?
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:16 AM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: Badge @ November 9, 2007, 10:15 PMStill enjoying Peter Serafinowicz then?
View original
Not as much as I was in the first three episodes no.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:17 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 9, 2007, 10:11 PM"Armstrong & Miller: How to stretch out 6 sketches for 6 weeks"
View original
Personally, I couldn't give a shit if they've stretched out 15, 2, 5654, or just the one - as long as it's funny.
Quote: Badge @ November 9, 2007, 10:15 PMStill enjoying Peter Serafinowicz then?
View original
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:33 AM GMT, Chappers said:
I thought generally it was good. A better hit rate than some of the others.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:38 AM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 9, 2007, 10:17 PMPersonally, I couldn't give a shit if they've stretched out 15, 2, 5654, or just the one - as long as it's funny.
View original
You really think it's funny every week though? The dentist talking about something disgusting while dealing with a patient? Or the pilots speaking chav? Or Pride & Prejudice style dancing? Or two singers singing crude songs? Or 'Be A Teacher'?
It's just the same joke over and over again and it depresses me because you can tell there's no passion gone into making this show, it's just a quick money making machine.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:38 AM GMT, Jay72 said:
Its pretty good. Yes, there are some repeated sketches and they don't always hit the mark, but the decent stuff outweighs the bad. Just hope it doesn't fall away in the next few weeks.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:45 AM GMT, Aaron said:
Well, I've not really thought of it in that passion/money way, but I think I'd probably disagree with you there.
The dentist I wasn't overly amused by to begin with. The pilots I actually rather enjoy, although the one tonight I thought was a bit weaker. The singers I've somehow managed to pretty much completely miss every time they've been on, so I can't comment. Be a teacher isn't particularly good though, and never was. Dancing, again, I was never a huge fan of either.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that whilst it is, like any other sketch show, a little hit and miss, on the whole I have been finding it far funnier than any other sketch show in quite a while.
(Yeah, kinda what Jay said.)
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:52 AM GMT, Jay72 said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 9, 2007, 10:45 PMWell, I've not really thought of it in that passion/money way, but I think I'd probably disagree with you there.
The dentist I wasn't overly amused by to begin with. The pilots I actually rather enjoy, although the one tonight I thought was a bit weaker. The singers I've somehow managed to pretty much completely miss every time they've been on, so I can't comment. Be a teacher isn't particularly good though, and never was. Dancing, again, I was never a huge fan of either.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that whilst it is, like any other sketch show, a little hit and miss, on the whole I have been finding it far funnier than any other sketch show in quite a while.
View original
Tend to agree with that too, and to an extent with Martin. Some of the repeated stuff, like the pilots, dentist and dancing doesn't always do it for me. I generally find the one-off material better, like the half price pots for example. Perhaps by the last episode I may feel differently if the same stuff is cropping up, which I fear it will.
In short. Better than Serafinovicz, not as good as Mitchell & Webb (that's opened up a can of worms now!), f**king streets ahead of Tittybangbang, Adam and Shelley, etc, but that's no big surprise.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:01 AM GMT, Aaron said:
See, the half price pots I thought was poo. Ditto the affair stuff.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:40 AM GMT, jacparov said:
i chuckled a couple of times but didn't laugh out loud once, which isn't good enough for me personally. However, having tried to write a few sketches myself i know how f**king hard it is so i think i'll give them a break.
At least their not adam and shelley.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:41 AM GMT, zooo said:
I could actually watch the chavvy pilots all day.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:46 AM GMT, Aaron said:
I brought you some grapes and shit.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:54 AM GMT, zooo said:
Hee.
I just giggled like a little girl.
Keep it up!
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 5:14 AM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Good again, not as funny as the first two episodes, but still very enjoyable.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 5:31 AM GMT, David H said:
How many more of the father/son do we have to endure?
Is it me or do sketch shows wear thin quicker than ever now? Maybe because there are so many about but I'm getting pretty tired of them after two episodes to be honest. I thought the best sketch by a mile tonight was the weatherman, probably because it was brand new. Though I didn't think it was that funny, just good acting by Miller.
The SatNav was done brilliantly......on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue. This was a poor imitation.
As an aside, in the opening sequence, doesn't Ben Miller look really old when they switch to a blue screen?
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 5:37 AM GMT, Aaron said:
The title sequence looks really rather odd full stop.
Random.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 6:38 AM GMT, zooo said:
Hee.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 2:49 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: David H @ November 10, 2007, 12:31 AM
Is it me or do sketch shows wear thin quicker than ever now?
View original
Well I guess any sketch show nowadays has to repeat characters and settings for financial reasons. Something like The Two Ronnies probably had a much bigger budget so that wasn't as much of a problem.
I would say though that every sketch show in history has probably had a very mixed success rate. People only remember the classic sketches from The Two Ronnies but they forget that there were plenty that missed the mark as well.
The reason why A&M works for me is that the ideas stand up to repetition. Even if the jokes are essentially the same from week to week, I think there are just enough variations to allow them to remain funny.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:48 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Nick @ November 10, 2007, 9:49 AMWell I guess any sketch show nowadays has to repeat characters and settings for financial reasons. Something like The Two Ronnies probably had a much bigger budget so that wasn't as much of a problem.
View original
This would actually be a very interesting topic to explore. Don't suppose anyone has the relevant figures...?
More to the point, however, there wasn't quite the same platform for other bitter, unsuccessful writers and spoilsports to whine about low production values and ... Oh wait, nevermind.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:48 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
"I clip his wing, and he started falling and I heard him shouting, 'Oh my god. I'm going to die!'"
"That's like so random."
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 3:49 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I'm wearing my wife's knickers.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:20 PM GMT, zooo said:
Every time he says that, I'm never expecting it.
Bravo Ben.
(Or I'm just thick.)
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:29 PM GMT, Baumski said:
But about the severed hand sketch. Really was laugh out loud stuff.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:31 PM GMT, zooo said:
It made me feel a bit too sick to enjoy it!
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 4:34 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I thought that LM was a bit more convincing in that one than Ben, but still very funny, yes.
And no Laura, I don't expect it either.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 5:59 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: Nick @ November 10, 2007, 9:49 AMWell I guess any sketch show nowadays has to repeat characters and settings for financial reasons. Something like The Two Ronnies probably had a much bigger budget so that wasn't as much of a problem.
View original
Quote: Aaron @ November 10, 2007, 10:48 AMThis would actually be a very interesting topic to explore. Don't suppose anyone has the relevant figures...?
View original
Yes, very interesting. I suspect the Two Ronnies actually had a smaller budget... but that was because TV was cheaper to make in those days.
I don't have any figures for the Two Ronnies but I suspect that the six episodes of Armstrong and Miller probably cost the BBC in the region of £2m - £3m in total (but I don't know that for sure).
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 7:26 PM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: Nick @ November 10, 2007, 9:49 AMWell I guess any sketch show nowadays has to repeat characters and settings for financial reasons. Something like The Two Ronnies probably had a much bigger budget so that wasn't as much of a problem.
View original
Surely the BBC are pumping more money than ever into sketch shows now? If you look at something like Serafinowicz, it has extremely high production values, it's all very detailed and precise and looks good on screen, but then the actual dialogue is underwritten.
Take something like the Two Ronnies or Monty Python and look how cheap the production was, the tacky sets where the walls wobbled but we haven't seen sketch shows as great as those for a long time. The focus was on the dialogue and the performances and you weren't distracted by Hollywood style sets.
Nobody has the balls or creativity anymore to make a cheapish sketch show that doesn't rely on the same sketch/character appearing week after week.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 7:40 PM GMT, Badge said:
I guess the emphasis on recurring characters shows that the biggest old-school influence on current sketch shows isn't Python or the Ronnies, but Dick Emery.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 8:57 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Proper leg-end, him. Kenny too, but would he in turn have been influenced by Dick Emery?
All in the best possible taste, of course.
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 10:57 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
I think this is getting better and better. Just watched this week's on Sky+. Very good indeed.
Well written and acted and some great ideas too. Although there is repetition in recurring characters each show has some nice stand alone items and it had me lol quite a few times.
I particularly love the Flanders and Swann parody but would concede that one might have to be of a certain age to appreciate this.
Best skecth show about in a long long time. Hurrah!!
On Saturday 10th November 2007 GMT at 11:46 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Blenkinsop @ November 10, 2007, 5:57 PM
I particularly love the Flanders and Swann parody but would concede that one might have to be of a certain age to appreciate this.
View original
Yes. Which one is that then?!
On Sunday 11th November 2007 GMT at 3:32 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
'Ere Zoo was you draggged up?
I refer of course to oneself. You see I move in rather high circles and am used to talkin' proper like and that.
On Sunday 11th November 2007 GMT at 3:57 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 10, 2007, 2:26 PM
Take something like the Two Ronnies or Monty Python and look how cheap the production was
View original
I'm not sure about that at all. Some of the stuff on The Two Ronnies was really extravagant. For example, something like The Pinocchio sketch or the songs every week. I really can't imagine any sketch show nowadays being able to pay for all the costumes, choreography and rehearsal that were required to do those songs.
On Sunday 11th November 2007 GMT at 4:39 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Very good point about Pinocchio. Probably wouldn't get location filming in quite the same way either. The Kingsmill ad, the yokels and so on. But then we've all seen the heiroglyphics, and that doesn't look like it could get much cheaper!
On Sunday 11th November 2007 GMT at 4:40 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
Yes I think that it's all relative to the time really. As Nick says there must have been a lot spent on costumes etc for the Two Ronnies set pieces.
Their run of the mill sketch things could get away with fairly low key cheap sets as the material, I feel, centred round the quality of the writing and perhaps didn't try, as do many of today's equivalents, to have very high production values trying to give things a very authentic look, and perhaps trying also to detract from some dip in quality of the material actually being presented.
On Sunday 11th November 2007 GMT at 4:45 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Very true, very true. I guess the trouble now is that they're overly concerned with selling to overseas markets, who are far too picky (particularly the Americans) over high-quality, slick productions.
Which is quite ironic I think, given the quality and style of graphics on American branding and such...
On Sunday 11th November 2007 GMT at 4:55 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
Yep! Think that's correct. If you strip sketches down to their bare bones and perform them on a stage without the benefit of production techniques then that is the true test of whether or not the ideas are strong.
The Airforce Officers in A & M is realised beautifully on TV but it would go over just as well on a stage with no more in the way of props than perhaps just two peaked caps or bomber jackets.
On Sunday 11th November 2007 GMT at 10:50 PM GMT, Martin H said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 11, 2007, 11:45 AMVery true, very true. I guess the trouble now is that they're overly concerned with selling to overseas markets, who are far too picky (particularly the Americans) over high-quality, slick productions.
Which is quite ironic I think, given the quality and style of graphics on American branding and such...
View original
Yet it's an American sketch show which has come the closest to Monty Python and that was Mr.Show (for the late 90's) which was made on a shoe-string budget and is one of the best sketch shows ever, and guess what...had only two recurring characters over it's 4 season run and no repeat sketches or catchphrases.
On Tuesday 13th November 2007 GMT at 5:54 PM GMT, Nick Rivers said:
thanks martin. hadn't checked out Mr Show before.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=y-ZNX1jqbOk
now i have !
On Tuesday 13th November 2007 GMT at 6:47 PM GMT, zooo said:
Ooh, my first time too.
Excellent.
On Tuesday 13th November 2007 GMT at 7:22 PM GMT, johnny roulette said:
i like that.
On Tuesday 13th November 2007 GMT at 9:09 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ November 13, 2007, 1:47 PMOoh, my first time too.
Excellent.
View original
Quote: johnny roulette @ November 13, 2007, 2:22 PMi like that.
View original
*snigger*
On Tuesday 13th November 2007 GMT at 9:15 PM GMT, zooo said:
On Tuesday 13th November 2007 GMT at 9:22 PM GMT, Aaron said:
*continues to snigger to self*
On Wednesday 14th November 2007 GMT at 4:50 AM GMT, Badge said:
That is some sketch! Even when you know what's coming it kind of makes it funnier, and then you don't quite know what's coming anyway.
On Thursday 15th November 2007 GMT at 12:44 AM GMT, Jay72 said:
That's excellent! Thanks Martin.
On Thursday 15th November 2007 GMT at 3:12 AM GMT, Ben said:
I think Big Train was an excellent stab at a surreal/absurd sketch show.
I've only seen one Mr Show sketch, after being recommended by Martin, and it was very good. It was the audition one and it was a very well executed idea, yet very simple.
On Sunday 18th November 2007 GMT at 5:26 AM GMT, Jay72 said:
Went out last night and not only forgot to tape it but forgot it was even on at all. I've praised the show so far, but the fact I forgot it was actually on the telly makes me wonder if I like it as much as I said.
On Sunday 18th November 2007 GMT at 5:28 AM GMT, Aaron said:
It was Children in Need last night.
QI was the only programme on as normal.
On Sunday 18th November 2007 GMT at 5:32 AM GMT, Jay72 said:
Aaaaahhh. No wonder I didn't realise. I thought there was a rational explanation.
On Sunday 18th November 2007 GMT at 5:34 AM GMT, Aaron said:
On Saturday 24th November 2007 GMT at 4:45 AM GMT, jacparov said:
getting a bit samey this now, they needed more characters from the start.
On Saturday 24th November 2007 GMT at 4:33 PM GMT, Jay72 said:
Wasn't that impressed this week to be honest. Agree that the characters are becoming a bit repetitive and its running out of steam a bit. Mind you, I have been laid up with a virus for 4 days, so I'm probably not finding stuff as funny as I should be. 
On Saturday 24th November 2007 GMT at 6:23 PM GMT, Nick said:
Thought it was the weakest episode so far. Still a few laughs though.
On Saturday 24th November 2007 GMT at 7:30 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
It was ok, but easily the weakest episode so far; the fighter pilots were still great though.
On Saturday 24th November 2007 GMT at 8:52 PM GMT, Mark said:
I still think it's pretty fresh. Like you say, figher pilots were great, as was the cheating with best friend wife and the guys at the piano. The psycho football owner was pretty good this week as well - I'm warming to that.
On Saturday 24th November 2007 GMT at 10:43 PM GMT, jacparov said:
yeah i liked the fighter pilots, with the young german in the background lol!
On Sunday 25th November 2007 GMT at 12:27 AM GMT, Jay72 said:
Didn't like the fighter pilots initially, but they have grown on me throughout the series.
On Sunday 2nd December 2007 GMT at 1:01 AM GMT, Mannikin Bird said:
Missed a couple of episodes but tuned in last night. Some really good material as I've missed shows I don't know how often characters are repeated but the SatNav was good, taxi driver was predictable but very well written, the pilots are just brilliant, not sure about the pharmacist sketches though. They are both terrific actors and very likeable.
On Tuesday 4th December 2007 GMT at 3:12 PM GMT, David H said:
Gave it another go the other night but it's so lame. Couldn't they give the SatNav guy another direction to go in? He's been going in the same direction all series with a voiceover thrown on top. Very amateurish.
And the guy who's having it off with his mate's wife. Is that still going It could have been great had they done it two/three times out of six. But no, have to show every single week. Can't believe the divorced dad is still there with the lad still doing the same open mouthed expression for Christ's sake. If you're going to do a sketch, at least attempt to do it well. Then there's the football manager 
, the teacher thing has been done to death. They even overdid the chemists which wasn't great to start with.
Didn't understand the cafe joke at all. Obviously one of the writers had a problem once and just had to get it down on paper. The political one was a good joke but it was a long time coming for just one joke and I thought it ended up a bit clunky.
On Tuesday 4th December 2007 GMT at 3:33 PM GMT, Nick said:
I thought it was a pretty good episode. I actually still like quite a few of the running gags as they are still funny but I agree that the football manager has dragged on for too long.
On Tuesday 4th December 2007 GMT at 6:36 PM GMT, Mark said:
I think it's the best sketch show we've seen for quite a while. Many more hits than duds each week.
Quote: Mannikin Bird @ December 1, 2007, 8:01 PMas I've missed shows I don't know how often characters are repeated
View original
There's some repeats, but others are new sketches (e.g. the mobile phone ones and the pharmacist sketches)
Incidently, if you did want to catch up on previous episodes, at the time of writing, they can be found on Stage6.com (which is like YouTube but with better quality full-length videos).
On Tuesday 4th December 2007 GMT at 8:05 PM GMT, roscoff said:
Yep for my four penneth I agree with Mark. Miles better than anything else at the moment until the beeb give me my own sketch show series of course.
On Saturday 8th December 2007 GMT at 3:15 AM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
"I'm up in a plane and shit."
On Saturday 8th December 2007 GMT at 3:19 AM GMT, Ben said:
I watched the first episode and thought it was pretty good. Then the second episode suffered from a bit of repetition, so I didn't bother watching it again until tonight. I thought it was a bit hit and miss. I don't think they've scaled the heights they did on Channel 4, but there usually seems to be a couple of treats in each show.
On Saturday 8th December 2007 GMT at 2:51 PM GMT, David H said:
The pilot was better tonight due to change of setting and I thought the sketch with the designer was a very good one. Apart from that, it was same old, same old. They've even got the PM sketch (which I only saw last week) repeating itself. There's much more to comedy than repitition.
Why not have a sketch in episodes 1, 3 and 6 and 2,4 and 5, instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6.
On Saturday 8th December 2007 GMT at 4:11 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: David H @ December 8, 2007, 9:51 AMWhy not have a sketch in episodes 1, 3 and 6 and 2,4 and 5, instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6.
View original
Money.
I agree that sometimes there is too much repetition but that's pretty much a certainty with this type of show. On the whole though, I think the success rate is still good and I hope it returns for another series.