It was slightly better as you can see the writer is funny but the plot involving a computer was dated and the ease in which they paid for a cruise was way way off. The cruise story and the refusal to pay for it could have been a better script. This could be me being harsh it does happen (A lot) but the way he just stumped up a cheque for the cruise after doing everything he could to save dough was very thin.
There is a spark in there though but it needs to catch fire via interaction on a more realistic dialogue level and less use of totally comprehensive issues and the introduction of more personal dynamism .

I think you are being a bit harsh - surely all comedy has to be a bit OTT, after all it is meant to be a comical situation and reality doesn't necessarily have to come into it.

Last night's episode was rather heavily plotted and the various plotlines were barely credible.

That's normally a sign of desperation as far as the writers are concerned. You know the sort of thing I mean - "Let's send them all off to Spain for a holiday, where everybody has a different adventure and hilarity is bound to ensue!"

"Warren" can survive and indeed thrive on character: just let him do his job and live his life and all shall be well.

Herc I'm not being harsh, I understand stretching reality in comedy really well. But this format is supposed to be realistic not high concept , abstract or surreal so any stretching goes to credibility in this instance.
Conned on the internet , ten years ago maybe, just like the clairvoyant etc in the 1st episode it's been done to death and peaked with Clinton Baptise in Phoenix Nights when he was 'Getting the word Nonce' !
Even the flippant payment for a cruise wasn't just way off it was wholly out of the step with his money saving actions in relation to his tax return?
As for the cheque he was asked to provide to pay for it I would have gone with 'Pinging' it and the struggle to 'Confirm payment' with the wife leaning over in the end and pressing send etc.
The struggle to look real only becomes a struggle when what you're writing is not real, if it's wacky that's fine as you can get away with it.

Well I still liked it (even though I didn't at first) and that's probably because I take comedy at face value and not try to dissect it - if it makes me laugh, I just lie back and let it wash over me.

I have done comedy scriptwriting way in the past, but never had much success, whereas you I presume take it more seriously, which is great ; but not for me and that's probably why I went onto question setting, which explains why I foam at the mouth at some of them that passed the pitch and edit on Only Connect.

I love it! Warren is such a grumpy bastard.

If it makes you laugh then it's succeeded. I didn't bother with Partridge.

Last night's episode was better as Martin Clunes is very good at what he does and the young lad was as well. His wife and the neighbours and their story lines are still well off but it was watchable despite being slightly predictable.
However I would have to say that without Clunes it would be dead on its back. I watch shows with the subtitles on so I can 'see' the script and Warren's wife's lines were well out and contradictory? In one scene she expresses genuine concern that her kid is on drugs the next she's joking about contacting the Priory.
But I enjoyed the chicken story and the lad's date part, but the neighbours and the wife are the weak link for me.

The problem with "Warren" (it seems to me) is that the writers lack confidence in their own ability.

Paul McKenna can write very funny dialogue and I'm not talking about cheap-ass jokes: I'm talking about good comedy writing. For some reason, however, he feels that isn't enough and so proceeds to come up with farcical situations that would just never happen in real life.

For me, the worst part of last night's episode was the final few seconds in which Warren was pelting the neighbours' house with eggs. That was seriously and quite worryingly aggressive behaviour on his part: it changed his character from "amusing grumpy sod" to "unlikeable dangerous sociopath".

Rood I agree there is some good writing in there but I fear the writer may have been working under a remit rather than going totally down his own route.

Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 19th March 2019, 11:47 AM

In one scene she expresses genuine concern that her kid is on drugs the next she's joking about contacting the Priory.

View original

I don't think she was joking.

I do as for me the Priory is associated with the rich and famous while inner city drug counselling is normally seen as the domain of the NHS or voluntary groups etc.
And while that may not be factual I suspect it's the generally perceived notion. For me I would have gone with 'I'll have to look on line for local help' that shows concern and it stops the plot from stumbling unnecessary while people process if the reference was a comedy line or one of concern.

Quote: Aaron @ 19th March 2019, 12:44 PM

I don't think she was joking.

View original

My take on that line is that she wasn't joking: the "joke" was that she thought calling the Priory an appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.

As such, it was quite funny.

If you think your kid is on drugs and you're cracking jokes, then how your kid got on the drugs in the first place is no longer a mystery.
Look it's your basic plot , one is concerned the other isn't , you don't dilute one side . Warren is indifferent as such his character relies to an extent on the other character's clear concern.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 19th March 2019, 12:57 PM

My take on that line is that she wasn't joking: the "joke" was that she thought calling the Priory an appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.

As such, it was quite funny.

View original

Yes, this exactly.

They'd already set up that she was overly-concerned and overreacting by the mere fact she thought him being a bit quiet meant he was on drugs. This was a further overreaction in that vein. Confirmatory, not contradictory.

I can see your points and your interpretation hopefully you can see mine as well. I'm not pedantic by nature , I just love comedy dialogue and when I see a grey area I always wonder why they never amended it?