Quote: jacparov @ January 31 2009, 10:06 PM GMTAlthough I didn't notice it in this episode the one problem I have with NGO is that whenever they enter the flat they leave the bloody door open! No real northerner would do that, think of the heating bill!
Apparently they've taken an effort to stop that, after our criticisms!
As for the narrative comments... Well, too many sitcoms of late have put plot ahead of funny. The humour is almost a secondary consideration (as in not being important, as opposed to not being thought of first). But Not Going Out really raises the bar again and - regardless of the method by which it is written - the finished episode has laughs as the primary concern. It's more that the plot is used to establish the scenario where specific jokes will work, than the jokes coming from this uber-important story. And in my book, that's anything but a bad thing.
Quote: Aaron @ February 1 2009, 1:43 PM GMTAs for the narrative comments... Well, too many sitcoms of late have put plot ahead of funny. The humour is almost a secondary consideration (as in not being important, as opposed to not being thought of first). But Not Going Out really raises the bar again and - regardless of the method by which it is written - the finished episode has laughs as the primary concern. It's more that the plot is used to establish the scenario where specific jokes will work, than the jokes coming from this uber-important story. And in my book, that's anything but a bad thing.
Well one of the main differences between stand-up and a sitcom is that a sitcom has to be both funny and have a good narrative. Like I said, its got better but not enough. I also agree that some sitcoms have focused too much on the story but going the other way is bad too.
Perhaps what has been established here is a new genre and NGO is ploughing a new furrow. Let's hear it for...
Standcom? or perhaps even Situp?
Ahem-hem 
Quote: Danny K @ January 31 2009, 9:30 PM GMThttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1U6-bWv5jzI
There's not a word out of place nor a dull moment - it's sheer genius. (If I'm wrong and anyone thinks this paticular clip is not funny, say so, as I don't think such a person exists.)
Blenkinsop's review was perhaps the most accurately observed of the thread. While you were correct to encourage him to be more forthright, the following dissection of his critique was remarkably condescending for a response devoid of any worthy counter-argument.
Fortunately, the baffling hyperbole above suggests that you were indeed being ironic.
Quote: Aaron @ February 1 2009, 1:05 PM GMTWith additional material by Simon Evans, Paul Kerensa, Dave Cohen, Oliver Dennis, Simon Griffiths, David Isaac and Liam Woodman.
F**k me! That many people?! This is a show that I've only ever seen a few episodes from both the first two series, and whilst I didn't really dislike it, it evidently hasn't done enough to make me stick around. Having said that, I think I'll give the repeat of this first episode a look, see what it's like now.
I agree with what a few others have said, that the relentless cold gaggery is probably what bars me from fully engaging with it; which is evidently the very quality that appeals to so many about the show!
I'm a huge fan of NGO but thought this episode was one of the weakest I've seen, not least because of the "April Fool" finale. Huge let down.
I went to the recording of one of the shows and was lucky enough to sit through a second episode at the studio because they still had one scene to shoot. Both the episodes I saw were better than this one IMHO.
Quote: Aaron @ February 1 2009, 1:43 PM GMTAs for the narrative comments... Well, too many sitcoms of late have put plot ahead of funny. The humour is almost a secondary consideration (as in not being important, as opposed to not being thought of first). But Not Going Out really raises the bar again and - regardless of the method by which it is written - the finished episode has laughs as the primary concern. It's more that the plot is used to establish the scenario where specific jokes will work, than the jokes coming from this uber-important story. And in my book, that's anything but a bad thing.
I think that's spot on! I think it's most important that it makes you laugh and Not Going Out is far funnier in terms of laugh out loud moments than most sitcoms on at the moment. For what it's worth, I actually quite like the narrative, especially the on-going arch, as well and it looks like theyve made much more of an effort with it this year. The first episode seemed to make way for plot where before they may have put in a gag. However, I can completely see why people find the style of NGO grates. I kind of agree that the 'April Fool!' was a bit of a cop out, but they just about got away with it.
I still loved it anyway!
After all the talk of the first episode being a lot more 'adult' am I the only one who thought that it was actually a lot more childish?
Still a good episode though - light years ahead of the other new comedies the BBC are putting out at the moment.
Quote: Greg @ February 1 2009, 5:00 PM GMTAfter all the talk of the first episode being a lot more 'adult' am I the only one who thought that it was actually a lot more childish?
Good point.
Digital Spy are reporting that it was watched by 3.45m losing out to Trial & Retribution with 5.26m on ITV.
Quote: Rustle T Davis @ February 1 2009, 3:50 PM GMTI'm a huge fan of NGO but thought this episode was one of the weakest I've seen, not least because of the "April Fool" finale. Huge let down.
I don't think that's true in this episode. 
The April's fool day thing did spoil the episode mainly because it was clearly played out over at least two days!
Quote: Aaron @ February 1 2009, 1:43 PM GMTAs for the narrative comments... Well, too many sitcoms of late have put plot ahead of funny. The humour is almost a secondary consideration (as in not being important, as opposed to not being thought of first). But Not Going Out really raises the bar again and - regardless of the method by which it is written - the finished episode has laughs as the primary concern. It's more that the plot is used to establish the scenario where specific jokes will work, than the jokes coming from this uber-important story. And in my book, that's anything but a bad thing.
I do see what you are saying and I agree to a point. I think they could have ended the programme with a non pregnancy in a less - for want of a better word - crap way. Lucy could just come on her period or something, then we can all laugh at how silly women are. I don't write sitcoms (evidently) but I'm sure there is a better ending out there somewhere. Who knows? It may have even worked if she was actually preggers. 
I really do hate it when sitcoms get serious, for example Only Fools and Horses. In the latter series Del boy seemed to make a speech about how precious life is or a lesson on humanity to his son in every flipping episode. 
Pffft. I watch comedy to go "Haha!" not "aha!"
Tim seems to be even more in-touch with his feminine side and his inner child than ever! I love it!!
Wow, quite some debate. I think people are reading too much into the 'plot'. I'll be the first to say that plot is normally important, but in the case of Not Going Out, the joy I get from the show is in the clever and witty jokes - there's just so many of them (oh, and as mentioned earlier, there was Tim's awesome prat fall this week too).
Either way, I think we all have to agree they did a mighty good job of getting that episode past the censors (to be clear: I'm glad they did). When you think about it, an episode based around stray seamen scheduled in the 9:30pm slot should be giving the censors heart attacks... especially with the Daily Mail currently after the Beeb's blood.
