Quote: woble @ February 5 2009, 11:31 PM GMTFriday night, there should be the absolute creme of comedy talent being original,
Is that "Man creme" you're talking about?
This is one where I saw the read through. It seems to have changed quite a lot.
Yes - the jokes are contrived. Still very funny.
Funny episode, made me laugh a lot.
Fantastic episode. I was laughing all the way through.
Quote: David Chapman @ February 6 2009, 10:03 PM GMTYes - the jokes are contrived. Still very funny.
For me there was only real "that's an odd thing to say - oh, it was the set up to a gag" moment (the fairy tale/happy ending one), otherwise the dialogue flowed fairly naturally (if not naturalistically).
EDIT: Oops sorry, we've moved onto talking about the next episode - I've not caught up with that one yet.
Episode 2 and I can't remember when I last laughed out loud so much before, (besides previous NGOuts). Had to grab a kitchen towel at one point as I fetched a cuppa in to mop up the tears of laughter. I simply cannot fathom those who sit stoney-faced throughout NGO. They must have something in common with serial-killers or something.
Lee Mack and Tim Vine rose to another level of excellence. One of the highlights for me didn't involve lightning fast repartee, but one guessing, and the other dropping crockery in the kitchen to signify the wrong answer. And Sally Bretton (landlady Lucy) who is more an actress than a comedienne gave a masterful comedic performance with her Tourettes syndrome routine. Bravo! And every line of Lee Mack had me cracked up. Well done to all involved. Magnificent episode. Absolutely superb!
Very funny episode. I was laughing almost consistently from beginning to end.
"don't indicate!" lol
I agree, my favourite episode of all so far, laughed out loud consistently.
Yeah very funny throughout. Did like the use of the mugs, and the accidental breaking of her own.
Quote: woble @ February 5 2009, 8:27 PM GMTHello, never written on here before but after watching a good twenty minutes of Not Going Out last Friday I feel I have to say something. I thought it was so bad I was almost sick. I don't know how anybody can see even the smallest grain of humour in that excuse for a comedy. The overall quality of the thing was just so breathtakingly low I don't know what anybody could ever see in it. The acting, the set, the script, the narrative, I could go on. This is BBC One prime time Friday night, you would never find a drama made in such a way with such a budget. I reckon you'd struggle to buy a fridge with the budget this thing has got, and it's on air because Lee Mack is supposed to be famous. If that script was sent in by a nobody it wouldn't have got through the BBC letterbox, never mind the comedy executives. Its a prime example of something being made because of who had written it, not how good it is, Lab Rats being another example, shocker. There is so much talent out there dieing to get a break and the BBC just turns to Lee Mack because he's a 'name'. The episode in question was the last one on BBC One with the running joke of a girl getting pregnant because her boyfriend had a little time to himself in the bath before her. What a crap joke, who even shares bath water these days anyway?
Veryveryveryveryveryveryvery dull.
Each to their own, obviously, but it's quite hard to read such a systematic dismantling of a programme I've had such a big hand in. Hey, I'll live. But just to address a couple of points:
I'm not quite sure what the budget has to do with it. You compare the budget to the price of a fridge, which suggests you think it is too low. It's a studio-based sitcom and makes no attempt to disguise that, but it's actually a hell of a lot cheaper to make a "one camera" show like Lead Balloon or The Office, and yet they look more "filmic" and less stagey and perhaps more expensive? Either way, to criticise the lack of budget is a practical rather than a creative complaint so it's difficult to defend: it costs what it costs.
It wasn't commissioned because Lee Mack was a "name", as he was much less well know than he is now when we got the green light, back in 2005, before he'd even hosted They Think It's All Over or been on Jack Dee's Live At The Apollo. Certainly he'd been in The Sketch Show on ITV, but as part of a team, and the BBC gave us the commission based on a pilot we made, not on his celebrity. We are in our third series now, and the BBC simply don't recommission unless they feel the figures are good, or that they've got a critical hit on their hands, or both! Our numbers have been steady throughout, which is why they have made a commitment to the show. We are very grateful for this support. It does seem that a solid number of viewers return to the show.
As for the notion that if a "nobody" had sent in the script it wouldn't have been made - it's an odious hypothetical. There are so many factors that influence whether or not a script is made or not. I can assure you that not all first-draft scripts were accepted and taken to second draft. Some were rejected. This one was accepted - and not because Lee wrote it - he is a co-executive producer, but the other execs and the producer act as quality controllers and sounding boards for all scripts. It was chosen to open the series because it was felt that it introduced the characters well, which would make it inclusive for first-time viewers. Even with the first series, the episodes went out in a different order to the one we planned. If you don't like the show, clearly this won't change your mind, but the scripts go through many rigorous stages before they are filmed, with jokes being changed and added right up until recording (as anyone who attended the audience read-throughs will know: these are designed to test the material with an audience to see if they work. Not many other TV comedies do this, but we do.)
Also, on the plot point about the bath water, if you'd watched to the end, you'd know that Lucy didn't know Lee had been in the bath, so they didn't knowingly share bath water. It doesn't matter, really, as you'd turned off or over.
I feel the comparison with Lab Rats was tenuous too, other than the fact that you didn't like that either. That was certainly not commissioned because of a "name". It was developed from a pilot on BBC Three where "new talent" is nurtured. (Chris Addison is well known to those who see a lot of live comedy, but The Thick Of It is a BBC Four show, with a relatively small, clued-in audience. He's exactly the kind of new talent the BBC should be bringing through, and it is.)
I don't mean this to sound too defensive, I just felt that the main charge about why the programme was commissioned was off the mark.
I return to my original thesis: each to their own. I'm just glad you weren't actually sick.
Quote: Rob0 @ February 6 2009, 11:33 PM GMTYeah very funny throughout. Did like the use of the mugs, and the accidental breaking of her own.
I love her.
I liked the sequence in the bar, with Lee trying to retell the accident and Tim correcting every single word.
This was better than last weeks'. I can see why Andrew Collins might be proud enough to trail it here. It was neatly plotted.
The show still lacks heart though - a strange affliction since Lee and Tim are so loveable. And the show is curiously about nothing. Nothing at all.
Like Seinfeld.
Are you talking to me, Laura? I haven't seen Seinfeld so I wouldn't know.
I was!
That's the thing that gets said the most about Seinfeld, that it's not about anything.
(Have you really not seen it?...) 
Quote: zooo @ February 7 2009, 12:32 AM GMTI was!
That's the thing that gets said the most about Seinfeld, that it's not about anything.
(Have you really not seen it?...)
Exactly zooo. Do you remember the episode where George and Jerry have a meeting with a studio exec to pitch their sitcom idea to them? When asked: What's it about", George says, slowly, "Well, it's kinda about nuthin'. Nuthin' happens".
That episode was an in-joke for aficionados of the series as Larry David, and Jerry Seinfeld explain in their books and the DVD extras that SEINFELD was devised from the word go as a show about nothing. The characters must never develop or come to any kind of self-awareness, nor find any resolution to their lives. They must retain their 'shallowness' to the end of each episode and indeed the series end.
Look how Scrubs (which I also like) takes the polar opposite approach (and yet still succeeds), and always has the lead character moralising on the day's events, 'learning' and becoming a better person for it. Almost straying into Box chocs/you-never-know-what-you're-gonna-get homilies.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ February 7 2009, 12:19 AM GMTAre you talking to me, Laura? I haven't seen Seinfeld so I wouldn't know.
Oh what joy awaits you! Get ye to evilBay and buy some cheap DVDs of Seinfeld - but not any of the early year series.
