Seen first 2 'episodes' and agree with most on here that its laughter-light and badly executed. It supposed to be a cultural divide/fish out of water story about precious British writers with a hit show about a posh boarding school being taken to the States.

Of course they're going to change it because it's for a completely different audience. We do the same with substandard versions of their series. If they were developing a contemporary UK sitcom instead it might have worked a little better. And if they have a BAFTA winning show why don't they just walk out? In reality, I don't think Gervais/Merchant for example would be so naive. Or they would step back and let the money roll in.

Since everybody ignored me when I said this last time:

DAISY HAGGARD SO FAR IS PWNING THIS PIECE OF SHIT SITCOM.

Yeah, I did that. I went caps, bitch.

She was jolly good, yes. I think I only laughed out loud at her bits.

(Not that I'm suggesting she has comical 'bits'.)

Quote: zooo @ January 12 2011, 2:22 AM GMT

(Not that I'm suggesting she has comical 'bits'.)

View original

Yes you are.

Well, I am a bit.

I don't think it's fair or accurate to describe David Crane as "just another staff writer" on Friends. And neither does IMDb.

He and Marta Kaufmann also co-created Dream On.

What, the Dream On?

Yes.

Daisy Haggard's US accent was pretty bad.

Quote: zooo @ January 12 2011, 2:22 AM GMT

She was jolly good, yes. I think I only laughed out loud at her bits.

View original

She was fine, but let's be fair, in that first episode she barely did anything.

Isn't it slightly ironic that if it were a "version of", say, Richard Griffiths who was starring in Episodes, it wouldn't have been commissioned? The fact that it's the widely-known Matt LeBlanc who's parodying himself means that it gets the slot and catches the interest of a broader audience. This rather makes a hypocrisy of ridiculing/criticising TV networks for favouring big names over talent.

That aside, the first episode was efficient and had one or two decent moments. Mangan and Greig don't exactly have to stretch themselves in their roles, but they are always good value as excellent reactors to the situations confronting their characters. I hope, in terms of plot, the next six episodes aren't as predictable, because otherwise this won't hold any audience's (informed or not, Anorak) attention. Personally, I could do without any more TV comedies about showbiz and stars playing oh-so-hilarious caricatures of themselves. On the surface it may look like the famous showing a sense of humility and the ability to laugh at themselves, but I sense that underneath it's still an ego-stroking exercise.

Also, in general terms, Mangan and Greig are rather too good-looking to convincingly play comedy writers.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 12 2011, 9:07 AM GMT

She was fine, but let's be fair, in that first episode she barely did anything.

View original

True! But for some reason her little comments and faces were funny.

Quote: Tim Walker @ January 12 2011, 9:57 AM GMT

On the surface it may look like the famous showing a sense of humility and the ability to laugh at themselves, but I sense that underneath it's still an ego-stroking exercise.

View original

Absolutely, Les Dennis on Extras is the only example I can think of a celebrity really lettiing his guard down. The LeBlancs, Amstells, Coogans and Brydons are just trying to impress us with how self-aware they are.

I somewhat liked the show myself, it did feel a bit more 'comedy drama' at times - laughs were occasionally in short supply, but I at least found it funny in places.

Did seem daft though that LeBlanc didn't show up in the first episode. Especially considering the plot seemed rather dragged out, so they could have put him in it.

Real show killer for me though was Griffths audition scene, which might have been hilarious 'in the show'; but just confused me as to why they were laughing, why the show was worth taking to the states, and why the writers really cared about having Griffths as the main actor. Rather ruined the whole concept for me.

(I've been wondering why they didn't write an actually funny 'sketch' for the audition with a really grotestque style headmaster that instead of being asked to be 'more American' (Which didn't seem that much different IMO) was asked to make the main character more 'likeable' which would then easily ruin the audition & the whole concept of the sitcom..)

Still I'll give it next week I think.

I think the whole point of the audition scene was that the hangers-on were laughing because the boss was laughing; and sitting stoney-faced because he was sitting stoney-faced. The actual audition was an irrelevance to what was really happening in the room. More pointed direction/editing might have made this clearer. As it is Mangan's question, "What just happened here?" was the one most viewers were left asking.