Quote: Mav42 @ March 1 2009, 4:59 AM GMT

This has got to be the most overrated progamme on here.

The characters are absolutely abysmal. Clearly the intention is for a half-hour slew of shallow, uninhibited "jokes", but they've sacrificed far too much in the way of drama, and been far too lazy with the set-up: flat share; class divide; will-they-won't-they romcom; three witty characters, two dumb ones.

Where's the ingenuity or depth to warrant all this acclaim? The strength of each episode rests entirely on the quality of its one-liners - funny at best, deflating at worst and always more miss than hit.

It is not entirely without merit, and I am not calling for it to be panned, but rather than herald it as a great comedy of our time, this ought to be pegged as the very worst we ought to accept in sitcom - passable viewing, but ultimately a benchmark for all others to strive to far surpass.

View original

Agree with every word.

Quote: Rustle T Davis @ February 28 2009, 11:35 PM GMT

Aaron, I'm a bit freaked out by your new avatar. It's like someone new's come along and muscled in on your territory.

View original

Muscled in? You mean it doesn't seem like me?

It looks like a Bono wannabee

Quote: Mav42 @ March 1 2009, 4:59 AM GMT

This has got to be the most overrated progamme on here.

The characters are absolutely abysmal. Clearly the intention is for a half-hour slew of shallow, uninhibited "jokes", but they've sacrificed far too much in the way of drama, and been far too lazy with the set-up: flat share; class divide; will-they-won't-they romcom; three witty characters, two dumb ones.

Where's the ingenuity or depth to warrant all this acclaim? The strength of each episode rests entirely on the quality of its one-liners - funny at best, deflating at worst and always more miss than hit.

It is not entirely without merit, and I am not calling for it to be panned, but rather than herald it as a great comedy of our time, this ought to be pegged as the very worst we ought to accept in sitcom - passable viewing, but ultimately a benchmark for all others to strive to far surpass.

View original

From reading this I get the impression that you look for realism in your comedy rather than unashamed funny. A desire for humour through realistic, recognisable situations. Which thankfully this particular sitcom doesn't try to give.

Quote: Huge Bear @ March 1 2009, 1:30 PM GMT

It looks like a Bono wannabee

View original

Now that's just slanderous.

To me as well as to him!

To me, to you.

Quote: zooo @ March 1 2009, 1:55 PM GMT

To me as well as to him!

View original

Eh?

The Chuckle Brothers are true legends.

(That I would be interested in a Bono lookalike...)

You'd never poke Bono given the chance?

Quote: Huge Bear @ March 1 2009, 2:04 PM GMT

You'd never poke Bono given the chance?

View original

Bono looks like a spud.

What have you got against spuds?

Quote: Aaron @ March 1 2009, 1:36 PM GMT

From reading this I get the impression that you look for realism in your comedy rather than unashamed funny. A desire for humour through realistic, recognisable situations. Which thankfully this particular sitcom doesn't try to give.

View original

Not especially.

I don't think that strength of character or situation necessarily constitutes realism, or hinders comedy - nor do I think it's ever possible to disregard both as callously as they have here.

Look at other, successful comedies with the same ethos; that same eagerness to achieve such a high frequency of jokes. None of them have been as lazy as NGO with the basic set-up. The Simpsons, Police Squad, Darkplace, Futurama... all have gone several steps further to concoct a more original premise; a more interesting bunch of characters, and all achieve laughs much more regularly.

It is not enough to forgive the writers, as many have, for making poor decisions simply because they have done so consciously, as a matter of premise. I am sure the budding writers' community on here can back me up when I say that plenty of faults inherent in programmes are self-inflicted; decided upon at the ideas stage, often with the very best of intentions.

The reality is that NGO has a huge number of failings, even by the standards of the most unconventional, unashamedly shallow comedies, and too few of them come under scrutiny simply for appearing too well-intended conceptually.

Quote: zooo @ March 1 2009, 2:03 PM GMT

(That I would be interested in a Bono lookalike...)

View original

Ohhhh, I see!

Quote: Huge Bear @ March 1 2009, 2:04 PM GMT

You'd never poke Bono given the chance?

View original

Poke, yes. Of the white-hot iron branding variety.

Quote: Mav42 @ March 1 2009, 4:17 PM GMT

The Simpsons, Police Squad, Darkplace, Futurama... all have gone several steps further to concoct a more original premise; a more interesting bunch of characters, and all achieve laughs much more regularly.

View original

Well I'd disagree with that. I was a huuuuuuuuuuuge fan of The Simpsons, absolutely loved it. But for me, NGO has a much higher laugh rate. And more satisfying the laughs are, too.

Another enjoyable episode- lifted by the sight of Tim in those shorts!
Have to admit to be a bit scared when Lee entered the flat and the neighbour was hiding behind the door!
There were some great laugh out loud lines again, even if the plot wasn't as strong.

"Winston Churchill didn't leave a note saying- to whoever's been doing the fascism can they please be aware I've complained to Yvonne in Human Resources"

"Fu- 'Theme Tune'- uk"

Quote: Aaron @ March 1 2009, 5:06 PM GMT

Well I'd disagree with that. I was a huuuuuuuuuuuge fan of The Simpsons, absolutely loved it. But for me, NGO has a much higher laugh rate. And more satisfying the laughs are, too.

View original

Well, Simpsons at it's height, as enjoyable as NGO can be, is in a completely different league to this show. I don't think any of the writers of NGO would see that statement as an insult though!