Bishop is doing quite a decent job of channelling Barker while putting his own stamp on the role. He is believable as a third generation Fletch. Bonnar and Coleman have a more difficult job. Are these supposed to be the same characters as played by MacKay and Wilde or not? If so, it is an impossible ask, particularly for Bonnar. Coleman at least has his own well developed comic tics to bring to the role.

What shouldn't be an issue is the supporting cast. These all basically have a clean slate to work with. But with the exception of Dave Hill's Lottery and Steve Meo's Owen none in the first episode demonstrated the comic chops of the fondly remembered lags of yore.

Been avoiding watching this because I knew it would soil the legacy but it came on so I watched it, with a long uncomfortable grimace. It was so inferior to the original and looked so pointless an exercise because it couldn't possibly ever better the classic original I fear C&LF have wittingly lessened the legacy of their own masterpiece, especially by keeping the same name with nothing added.

Non Porridge-aware millennials watching this will possibly come away thinking Porridge is a rank average sitcom and not the ground breaking classic with the best cast of comedy actors ever assembled for a TV sitcom and made with some of the cleverest scripts ever written. I don't agree the writers have still got it either after watching this. This ep was so sub standard from the original especially series 1 & 2 that it was sad to sit through. A ghostly shadow at best. Why do it at all? They can't need the money that badly, they were hardly out of work as writers in the golden years of TV when payments and ratings were high. I'm just baffled by it. Harm has undoubtedly been done to a great show.

Quote: Firkin @ 11th October 2017, 3:33 PM

The original gave the actors more free range, this one has them mimicking the past. The new Fletcher seems to put all his effort into faithfully copy Barker's mannerisms and speech patterns. This was one of the best sitcoms ever made, leave it at that. Why do an inferior copy?

View original

Tick.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 14th October 2017, 1:57 AM

Been avoiding watching this because I knew it would soil the legacy but it came on so I watched it, with a long uncomfortable grimace. It was so inferior to the original and looked so pointless an exercise because it couldn't possibly ever better the classic original I fear C&LF have wittingly lessened the legacy of their own masterpiece, especially by keeping the same name with nothing added.

Non Porridge-aware millennials watching this will possibly come away thinking Porridge is a rank average sitcom and not the ground breaking classic with the best cast of comedy actors ever assembled for a TV sitcom and made with some of the cleverest scripts ever written. I don't agree the writers have still got it either after watching this. This ep was so sub standard from the original especially series 1 & 2 that it was sad to sit through. A ghostly shadow at best. Why do it at all? They can't need the money that badly, they were hardly out of work as writers in the golden years of TV when payments and ratings were high. I'm just baffled by it. Harm has undoubtedly been done to a great show.

Tick.

View original

When you say 'the best cast of comedy actors ever assembled for a TV sitcom', I disagree.

Ronnie Barker is undoubtedly in and around the the top comedy actors of all time. However, in Porridge, although the supporting cast were funny (thanks largely to the scripts), I wouldn't put them down as laugh out loud actors. But like I said, thanks to the writing quality, the likes of Godber, Luke Warm and Harry Grout were hilarious support. Fletch led the line from start to finish as the actor is a natural comic.

But when you say the best cast of comedy actors of all time assembled for a TV sitcom, it is without a doubt, Only Fools and Horses. That is a comedy where its supporting cast were as funny as the main cast much of the time. Every single supporting actor was funny and delivered their role so naturally. Yes, that is mostly down to Genius John, but those actos (Challis, Lloyd-Pack, Kenneth MacDonald et al) were the best set of comedy actors in a TV show.

For me, Fletch was the centre-point and his character helped to make the surrounding cast funny. You needed Fletch all the time for this to happen. In Only Fools and Horses, you didn't always need Del Boy to lead the line to line up a laugh or three.

Just.....horrifically poor

This is such an odd beast. It's bad and I know that it is, I mean a comedy plot where there are two cakes in identical boxes and they get mixed up. In 2017, really? But despite myself I still find myself laughing at Clement and La Frenais writing, it's still very watchable.

Are you complaining that a sitcom has the plot of a sitcom, Mr Sitcom?

Quote: lofthouse @ 14th October 2017, 4:19 PM

Just.....horrifically poor

View original

That

They axe Count Arthur yet commission this atrocity?

Who the hell is in charge of BBC comedy?? And what planet is he from...!

Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 15th October 2017, 11:11 AM

Are you complaining that a sitcom has the plot of a sitcom, Mr Sitcom?

View original

Well, a little, it's the sort of plot that would have been dated in the 70s. I appreciate that there's only a certain amoutn of things that they can do but it does seem a tiny bit like going through the motions.

Quote: Firkin @ 11th October 2017, 3:33 PM

The original gave the actors more free range, this one has them mimicking the past. The new Fletcher seems to put all his effort into faithfully copy Barker's mannerisms and speech patterns. This was one of the best sitcoms ever made, leave it at that. Why do an inferior copy?

Personally I would have liked to see a completely new character, Russell Brand or even an American comedian like Bill Burr. At least there would have been more to discover, more surprise.

View original

Russell Brand? God forbid, no!

Russell Brand doing porridge? Surely not.

Quote: Aaron @ 7th October 2017, 4:18 PM

(Thanks!)

Similarly, Bishop's Fletch is very enjoyable. He's picked just the right hints of mannerisms and whatnot to use in Nigel. Can really believe he's Norman's grandson.

View original

Kevin Bishop's speech pattern and pace as Nigel is very reminiscent of Ronnie Barker.

I hadn't realised there were already 3 of these already.

Just started to watch Episode 1.

Quote: G180e @ 7th October 2017, 8:08 PM

Yeah, it wasn't terrible but it wasn't great either. If you forget about the original and treat this as a seperate show, it's not all that bad. The writing is still good, Clement and La Frenais are still excellent comedy writers. However, this will never be as good as the original and I think the BBC know this.

View original

Exactly what I was going to say.

I thought that Barry's girlfriend was very reminiscent of Caroline Ahearne - looks and mannerisms.

I also noticed in the credits Rory Gallagher. Surely not.... .

If only.