I noticed in the credits of these new episodes that Charlie Higson is no longer script supervisor/associate producer which may contribute towards the reason why the show isn't as good as it used to be.
Shooting Stars Page 19
Quote: johnny smith @ September 3 2009, 2:52 PM BSTthe reason why the show isn't as good as it used to be.
In your opinion. The episode last night was great. In my opinion.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ September 3 2009, 3:22 PM BSTGo have sex with a beautiful womans vagina.
I only caught the last ten minutes of Shooting Stars. Were there any beautiful women's vagina's in it, otherwise I fear we may have wandered off topic.
I enjoyed the dangling nuts.
I thoroughly enjoyed last nights episode! Much better than the first one. I think the first new episode lacked a lot of spark, it was (as I believe someone mentioned earlier) as if they were just going through the motions. I now have my confidence restored in the new series. 
It was also brilliant see more inexplicable stuff, like the whole omelet thing, and the pound coin Vic showed the camera after that dance.
Is it me, or did Vic & Bob do less of that in the old series? The surreal-ness/inexplicableness came more from the questions, whereas with the humour in other areas, you could understand why it was funny, other than "it's random". This feels like more of a move towards their old sketch shows and Big Night Out, which I thoroughly hope continues, and perhaps shows their wanting to do stuff like that again, which of course I also very much support.
....or (quite likely) I'm reading too much into it. ^^;
Quote: Liëka @ September 1 2009, 3:43 PM BSTOkay; I'll work on that.
hey any luck on that particular misson?
Quote: Nabillia @ September 3 2009, 7:45 PM BSThey any luck on that particular misson?
Not as yet, but I'm still going. It takes longer because I (foolishly) deleted them as I watched them first time round, and have to download them all over again. 
Quote: Liëka @ September 3 2009, 7:50 PM BSTNot as yet, but I'm still going. It takes longer because I (foolishly) deleted them as I watched them first time round, and have to download them all over again.
ah right thanks a bunch im trying to as well im just working my way back from season 2 so between the two of us we shud find it soon enough (y) 
Quote: Nabillia @ September 3 2009, 9:29 PM BSTah right thanks a bunch im trying to as well im just working my way back from season 2 so between the two of us we shud find it soon enough (y)
Ahh found it. season 2 episode 13, cheers for ur help
Quote: Nabillia @ September 3 2009, 9:38 PM BSTAhh found it. season 2 episode 13, cheers for ur help
Aw! I just found it, and was just coming triumphantly to tell you, when I find you beat me to it. 
Ah well. Glad that's sorted for you. ^___^
I've just read an unfavourable review of the show - in Private Eye magazine. Sadly, Private Eye don't publish their articles online, so I've have to write it all out.
There's always a romantic attraction to the idea of the comeback.
Nostalgic sportswriters have spent the summer rhapsodising the dramatic return of Formula One's Michael Schumacher and the possible recall to the England cricket squad of 40-year-old TV dancing champion Mark Ramprakash. But th esecond of these dreams never got off the ground and the first was embarrassingly abandoned. BBC executives might have remembered these precedents before agreeing to return of Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer with Shooting Stars, the spoof game show which was a huge success in the 90s.
It's not surprise that Vic and Bob might have been keen to have another shot because you scene, their agents may not have been overstretched on their behalf of late. But Shooting Stars makes a risky property to dust off because the balance of power within the show has altered so dramatically.
Back in the day, Reeves and Mortimer were the unquestioned guvnors of the format, assisted by the little-known comedian Matt Lucas ad thr baby-faced scoremaster George Dawes and the fresh and innocent weathercaster Ulrike Jonsson, who could be teased about her friendship with Prince Edward and her general air of fragile unattainability, the joke being that Vic and Bob acted like they might have a chance with her but didn't.
Since Little Britain, Lucas is one of the most successful comedians in Britain and really doesn't need this gig but has turned up for the new run, which says a lot about his loyalty and humility but changes the dynamic of the sow dramatically by giving the impression that he is doing a favour for two old mates.
In contrast Ulrika - introduced to please old fans of the show as "Ulrika-ka-ka" - probably does need the gig but adds a different unease to the proceedings.
The sweet Swedish meteorologist is now known as Sven's mistress, the woman who landed John Leslie in it and, to the tabolids, "4x4", having accumlated children with a quartet of different men. So, while the hosts still moon hopelessly after her, viewers are tempted to think that, if they just hang on, they have a good statistical chance of marrying her. Reflecting these shifts, Mortimer does crude gags about her having got a new set of knockers.
For insurance the first show imported as a panellist Christine Bleakley, a younger woman with the sort of image now that Ulrika had then, who was subjected to the familiar flirtations although these seem rather pervy now that the age-gap between the presenters and their target is so much greater. Bleakly was subjected to a particularly gruesome gag, in which Reeves pulled down the back of underpants showing a gruesome skid-mark (props department, hopefull) to reeal a cartoon of The One Show he'd drawn in the crack of his bum. A later round introduced the word "apu", purely so that Bleakley could be tricked into saying, "I'll go for apu", allowing Reeves to reply: "Well, make it quick, then."
Desperate stuff, but then Shooting Stars is one of those irritating series in which, rather than trying to write good or original jokes, the scriptwriters type out bad or old ones and try to pass them off as irony. The boyd open with a sort of Morecambe & Wise spoof, a badly-sung song with homo-erotic undertones. There are gags about oriental pronunciation and other as desperate as "What's Amy Winehouse's favourite tube station?" Answer: "High Barnet."
Still, it's possible that some of the audience will have found all of this mildly amusing enough to tune in for episode two, in which case they may soon come to the conclusion that their TV set on iPlayer is playing tricks on them because the second edition is almost indistinguishable from the first.
At best there are variations on the same jokes, as when Vic and Bob open with another ironically bad homo-erotic song which least has slightly different lyrics. Much of the rest, though, is simply repetition: introducing Ulrika, Mortimer again does the ka-ka-ka stuff on the end of the name, which might at least be excused as a historic catchphrase, but then repeats word for word his song from the series opener: "Loving you is easy because your boobs are new."
Indeed, the belief that something which wasn't very funny the first time will become hilarious if you do it oftene ough seems to be the driving principle of Shooting Stars. Comedy has always had catchphrases and running gags but a show consisting almost entirely of them suggests desperation and laziness, as does everything about this unwise resurrection.
I've just noticed that in the first episode, they mis-spelt Christine Bleakley's name - her surname sign said 'Beakley' and that's how Vic pronounced it - actually I think that the mis-spelling of a guest's name has been done before so it might just be one of the many running jokes.
Quote: johnny smith @ September 4 2009, 6:03 PM BSTI've just noticed that in the first episode, they mis-spelt Christine Bleakley's name - her surname sign said 'Beakley' and that's how Vic pronounced it - actually I think that the mis-spelling of a guest's name has been done before so it might just be one of the many running jokes.
Well there was Frank Boff.
Quote: Ian Wolf @ September 4 2009, 2:16 PM BSTI've just read an unfavourable review of the show - in Private Eye magazine. Sadly, Private Eye don't publish their articles online, so I've have to write it all out.
Nice work Ian.
As for the review what a bitchy unfair mess.
It's obvious the reviewer never liked the show in the first place so the chances of him liking now are pretty slim.
I am biased because I love Vic and Bob and think they are the funniest comedians of all time but I still maintain that review is very harsh.
Has there ever been a comedy show that made a comeback where people DIDN'T say it was better in the old days? Probably not.
As far as I can see, this is the same show as it ever was. And for that I'm thankful. And to those people who were expecting them to shake up the format, why on Earth would they for God's sake?