I thought the second series was much better than the first. The agent and Barry were easily the stars of this. Didn't really care much for Andy and Maggie, though enjoyed them both in the Bowie episode.
Extras - Series 2 Page 7
I thought Maggie was brilliant, but I agree Agent and Barry shined.
Agent and Barry were definitely the main draw of the second series.
Quote: David Chapman @ July 8, 2007, 1:02 AMprobably better than a lot of other stuff but by RG's standards
But all the other stuff IS exactly the same standard because it is ALL the same. Ricky Gervais is really good at being/playing Ricky Gervais but when the wheels come off the Ricky Gervais bandwagon, as they did at the Princess Dead gig, it ends up being excellent car crash entertainment.
I think when The Office came along many people were thinking it's a brilliant piece of work (and it still is IMO) but the more you see Gervais the more you think "That is it." That is the only type of comedy he can do.
But then John Sullivan writes the same type of humour all the time. Roy Clarke does. Richard Curtis and Ben Elton do. Edmonson and Mayall did.
There's a part of me that says, "Have your own style and we like that, we're comfortable with it." But then you think it'd be nice if they tried something new. If Richard Curtis wrote his take on gross-out humour, say.
I'm surprised that, on a website full of people who are interested in comedy, no-one has noticed the intentions of the 2nd series - to mock Little Britain (which was their main rival for awards when they had The Office), as well as other trashy comedies, for selling out and working for the money rather than quality. If you can't see that was the intention of series 2, then it's hardly surprising so many people don't appreciate it.
Quote: David H @ July 9, 2007, 9:55 AMI think when The Office came along many people were thinking it's a brilliant piece of work (and it still is IMO) but the more you see Gervais the more you think "That is it." That is the only type of comedy he can do.
Is there anyone who does things any differently? Gervais seems to get a lot of flak for writing one type of comedy. But as you rightly point out, lots of people do the same. Even guys who are lauded over, like Kevin Smith, have a comfort zone and very rarely stray from it. I think it can get repetitive, like Peter Kay, who annoys me because he just refuses to develop his writing at all. But with Gervais, I think he's got a bit of mileage left. He knows when he's run out of idea's and he puts a different spin on each show. That was important with people like Sullivan and Marks and Gran and others. Their stuff wasn't original, it stuck to a similar formula but the situations and characters varied.
I'm not being facetious, but I genuinely can't think of a comedy writer who tried new things and different formula's and different types of comedy. Gervais does what he does. A lot of the humour in his shows comes from embarrassing and ironic situations.
He's doing drama next, apparently.
Is that enough of a change?
Quote: Jeremy Smith @ July 9, 2007, 2:36 PMI'm surprised that, on a website full of people who are interested in comedy, no-one has noticed the intentions of the 2nd series - to mock Little Britain (which was their main rival for awards when they had The Office), as well as other trashy comedies, for selling out and working for the money rather than quality. If you can't see that was the intention of series 2, then it's hardly surprising so many people don't appreciate it.
I wasn't aware that the quality of comedies (or anything else) should be judged on their intentions. I think Tony Blair had good intentions with the Iraq War.
Nor that the absence of anyone else stating (one of) the bleeding obvious intentions of Extras 2 meant they didn't "get" it. Maybe they thought it was bleeding obvious.
To my mind, Extras 2 failed relatively speaking because it lost track of elementary rules of sitcom (or any dramatic form): you need the characters to behave believably; you need them to be consistent; and you need to care about what happens to them.
My verdict:
Extras 1 = very good
Extras 2 = disappointing (though not quite as bad as some on here are suggesting)
I did find though that Extras two was very much built around the premise of the small guy meeting the big star, much more so than the first series. I also felt that some of the diversionary business could have been stronger, and I honestly questioned why the Millman character did certain things.
It wasn't the worst thing ever as some have said, but it could have been much stronger had it not been so concious of the gravitas of some of it's guests.
It was a Sitcom. It doesn't necessarily have to reflect real life!
Little film of Ricky and Stephen, about their final Extras special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Lceai0lps
I found it very funny!
This is what I think people (not people here, just some people) take as Ricky being 'himself'. But isn't. Obviously. 
Quote: zooo @ July 13, 2007, 7:08 PMLittle film of Ricky and Stephen, about their final Extras special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Lceai0lps
I found it very funny!
This is what I think people (not people here, just some people) take as Ricky being 'himself'. But isn't. Obviously.
Watching it on youtube. 
Recently bought the DVD of series 2
I hadn't seen it since it was on & I always seem to find that I enjoy Extras more on second viewing.
But the backstage stuff on the DVD has been hilarious. It looked like they had a lot of fun making it.
Quote: Steve Sunshine @ April 9 2010, 8:29 PM BSTIt looked like they had a lot of fun making it.
Of course they did! Pretty much every TV show should be heaps of fun to make! Why? Because it involves making a f**king telly programme, not nursing terminal cancer patients in a hospice or spending 14 hours a day sewing trainers together in a dimly-lit, poorly ventilated f**king sweatshop!
*coughs*
Sorry... Anyway, yes it did look like fun.