I thought it was mediocre - the jokes were pretty staid and commonplace.

Lee's breakdown of the page was great though - really showed the skill and work that's involved in writing a funny scene (even if the end result doesn't tickle everyone).

However, I can that some people just want to watch and laugh - and if you don't and want to switch off that's fair enough. This hasn't done it for me in ep 1 or 2. I'll probably keep watching though.

I had to switch off halfway through the latest 'Him and Her' though - it just made me feel bad.

I enjoyed it again, I really like the characters and I care about where the story is going.

Quote: Lee Henman @ October 6 2010, 2:51 PM BST

Just watched ep 1 of this. It's a solid show.

I cringed in the first few minutes when Alan delivered the prehistoric gag "If God didn't want us to make animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat",

View original

Shouldn't that be "If God didn't want us to eat animals....?"

Quote: Chappers @ October 6 2010, 11:47 PM BST

Shouldn't that be "If God didn't want us to eat animals....?"

View original

Yes.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ October 6 2010, 11:09 PM BST

I enjoyed it again, I really like the characters and I care about where the story is going.

View original

Just watched it with the missus, she said more-or-less the same thing. And she's hard to please, being a comedy widow and all.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 2 2010, 10:14 PM BST

'There has been a spate of top-notch dramas on television recently. After Shane Meadows' brilliant This Is England '86 on Channel 4, there is still Downton Abbey on ITV and Whites on the BBC.

They could scarcely be more different, and yet they all have qualities in common - most notably, the pre-eminence of character. The head chef, the sous chef, the restaurant manager and the apprentice in Whites are totally convincing and recognisable creations. It also happens to be very funny, but the humour is so understated and truthful that the line between seriousness and laughter has all but disappeared. Whites is a perfect example of the modern sitcom, whose lineage can be traced back to the gag-free honesty of The Office.'

- David Chater previewing Whites in Saturday's The Times' Playlist magazine.

This is either a) the deluded ramblings of a diseased mind, b) written for a bet, or c) the most subtle piss-take in the history of TV criticism.

View original

When TV critics don't understand TV it's really scary. Like a surgeon telling you your appendix is in your neck. 'gag-free honesty of The Office'? The Office is full of jokes - and good ones. And there is nothing radical about their delivery either - they are set up, fed and punched.

Walker is right, this must be a piss take. Even a Times journalist can't be this ignorant.

Quote: Lee Henman @ October 6 2010, 2:51 PM BST

BIB:
Clumsiest man I've ever met in my life. Yesterday he slipped on some cooking oil and threw four dozen eggs in the air. It's like being in a silent movie.

ROLAND LAUGHS.

BIB: (CNT'D)
I need help in the kitchen, Roland! Sarah says I'm working too hard.

ROLAND:
How is Sarah?

BIB:
Wouldn't know, would I? Barely see her these days. It's last thing at night and first thing in the morning, just the back of her head resting on the pillow. Might not even be her, she might've escaped! For all I know it could be just cushions and a wig!

ROLAND:
You know me and Rebecca went through a similar thing. Never saw each other, and when we did it was just bicker, bicker, bicker. We became strangers. But you know what? We worked through it, yeah? (HE PLACES HIS HAND WISELY ON BIB'S SHOULDER) Always remember. This too shall pass.

BIB:
(BEAT) Rebecca divorced you and moved to Jersey.

ROLAND:
Ipso Facto, problem solved.

There's nothing wrong with that writing. For me, anyway.

View original

Sorry Lee but that reads like first semester script-writing course dialogue to me. The humour here is okay to keep the engine ticking while you bring home the big gags - but there are no big gags. Anyway you can't laugh when you're wondering why something was made and that must be the dominant emotion most viewers experience.

The whole thing feels completely artificial and as far away from a labour of love as is imaginable. There aren't really any characters at all, and the inexperience of the writers is shown in the sous chef/skooz relationship which is unpleasant to watch.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 7 2010, 12:25 AM BST

that reads like first semester script-writing course dialogue to me.

View original

Agreed. As I said before, it's creaky, too contrived.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 7 2010, 12:25 AM BST

The humour here is okay to keep the engine ticking while you bring home the big gags - but there are no big gags.

View original

I don't like doing "me too" posts, but sometimes I agree too much not to.

That's alright, mate, you more or less nailed it on page 6.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 5 2010, 11:04 PM BST

I've watched two episodes of this.

I didn't hear any jokes and I didn't laugh.

I don't like it.

It's a bad sitcom.

View original

Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 7 2010, 12:25 AM BST

'gag-free honesty of the Office'? The Office is full of jokes - and good ones. And there is nothing radical about their delivery either - they are set up, fed and punched.

View original

I wasn't going to add to my already pitch-perect critique in this thread, but that Times idiot needs a good thwack round the head with some laughter chops. Anyone who dismisses The Office as not containing gags, or being a proper out-and-out-funny sitcom... well, they're a bit weird aren't they?

I watched episode 2. As expected from a "so-so" episode 1 it didn't improve and in fact got worse. I won't be in for any more. The main problem for me is Davies's character. He's supposed to be the centre of it all, but his character is a bit... well, what exactly? If anyone can describe what makes him tick please send a message to the makers, because it isn't coming across here. I wouldn't be surprised if they originally wrote a Basil Fawlty-ish chef character - which I think it really needs to work - but somewhere along the way they hated the idea of comparison with FT so wimped out and made the chef not everyman, but nothingman.

By the way, for those debating the point, it clearly *is* a sitcom. It just isn't any good. Comedy-drama is the term given by insiders who've seen the previews and heard the (lack of) laughter.

Is it possible that the character was rewritten for Davies' limited range?

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 7 2010, 1:00 AM BST

Is it possible that the character was rewritten for Davies' limited range?

View original

It's more of a hob.

Actually, you make a good point. It's being sold a a star vehicle, but it looks like it wasn't written as one.

Quote: Badge @ October 7 2010, 1:01 AM BST

It's more of a hob.

Actually, you make a good point. It's being sold a a star vehicle, but it looks like it wasn't written as one.

View original

Perhaps Alan Davies isn't a "star". Some performers hold your attention whenever they step onto the screen even if they are doing nothing. Others don't, Alan Davies falls into the "don't" camp, infact I found myself more intrested in the set dressing than what Davies was doing.

Saying that, the set dressing is very nice.

Nice cutlery.

I'm a bit surprised by the opinions here, as I expected people to like it more. I certainly did. Darren Boyd, in particular, is excellent and much under-rated in pretty much everything he does (everything from Kiss Me Kate, through Safety Catch all the way to his exceptional cameo in Rev). He seems to strike me as much a main character as Davies.

In the first two episodes, I've enjoyed the relationships between the characters; Roland/Caroline's love-hate thing, Bib/Roland's matey stuff and Bib/Skooz's stand-offs (though agree in week 1 Skooz was far too unlikeable as a character).

Kiki is excellent and pitched perfectly by Isy Suttie, as she's made her (frankly unlikely) stupidity quite loveable. Particularly with the Bible exchange this week.

I think the Roland/Shay thing this week was a good strand, though they could have brought up the whole reason for conflict right at the beginning as it added nothing to drag us out in suspense about the star.

I'm intrigued by Matt King's character though -- he's probably worthy of a sitcom by himself.

Oh, what has been particularly funny is Walker's posts over the earlier pages of this discussion. Tim -- why you haven't attempted to become a comedy writer, I'll never know!

Dan