On the glaring similaity to their previous work topic, I'm starting to come round to their side. They are known for a certain style of comedy which they introduced and has been copied endlessly. Do commissioners want them to change it? My answer is no, of course they don't. They possibly could write a sitcom in a different vein, but would their fans and the BBC want it? They are famous for their brand of comedy so let them carry on. Moreover, if you've found fame for creating a distinctive product that's had many copies, then I think you might want to drop the odd reminder of who the master is.

If this was their first sitcom, it would be hailed as much as The Office was, possibly more. We just have to get used to seeing the same setups, same 'awkward comedy' thing, same framework again and again. It's lost its impact but I think it's still funny.

BTW I loled at the Derek Noakes clip, whether it's right to or not. It was very funny, and imo, harmless. Is the comedy landscape a better place with Ricky Gervais in it? Very, very much so!

Quote: Millsy @ November 25 2011, 12:46 PM GMT

I thought the Helena Bonham-Carter scene last night was staggeringly unfunny.

View original

Really?!! I had tears rolling down my cheeks. At one point I thought they were going to put the lid on the bin as well. I'd have probably written that in, myself. Funniest scene yet, imo. Davies was hilarious. Excellent episode. Sorry, Davis!

Quote: Hyde150 @ November 25 2011, 8:30 PM GMT

I just don't get Warwick yet. He comes across as deluded and egotistical one minute, and the next largely likeable and very much down to Earth.

View original

I found the same thing with "Extras", one minute Andy Millman was a bumbling idiot making a fool of himself then the next he's quite clever and calculating, his personality and character just seemed to change according to what the next "joke" was, there was no consistency to his personality.

Not sure what to make of "Life's Too Short", it makes me laugh a couple of times per episode (which is more than a lot of current sitcoms) but the whole thing feels very artificial. The scene with Warwick in the bin was clearly just RG and SM thinking "what's the worst thing we can get a dwarf to do" and then shoehorning it into a scene.

I like both RG and SM but I think they need to step back a little, stop trying to "challenge boundaries" and doing the whole shock thing, and get back to being funny and writing believable, consistent characters (something "The Office" had).

Quote: Tony Cowards @ November 26 2011, 10:26 AM GMT

one minute Andy Millman was a bumbling idiot making a fool of himself then the next he's quite clever and calculating,

View original

Aren't people in reality a bit like that though? It is only in fiction that characters are consistent.

One of the many reasons that this show isn't getting much love is because it lacks (what our American cousins would call) 'heart'. There aren't really any characters whom display genuine warmth, self-awareness, humility and - well - decency.

The reason The Office was more than just a funny comedy was Tim and Dawn. (This is a fact that Stephen Merchant was keen to point out, Ricky Gervais perhaps more grudgingly so.) They are our people on the inside and their characters and storyline tempers (and enhances) the banality, the arrogance and the veiled nastiness going on around them. Tim and Dawn are the rudder which keep the ship sailing in the right direction, ultimately making it far more than just another workplace comedy.

In Extras, though somewhat less successfully (especially during the special, where the character was poorly served), we have Maggie (and, on occasion, Darren and Barry) as our person-on-the-inside. She is the warmth which anchors the comedy. Though, by this show, it works less well as G&M have made her far too often the butt of the joke - which in some ways is derogatory to the "ordinary" viewer. But there was some heart in the show. Andy Millman is a thoroughly horrible character and the occasions G&M attempt to humanise and solicit empathy for him occasionally work, but often feel forced and manipulative. The comedy is still very strong in this show, but in general the heart isn't there in sufficient quantities to elevate the show to the heights of The Office.

In Life's Too Short the concept of a character with heart has been abandoned completely. There is no-one to care about in this show, which leaves the comedy elements exposed and, most times, feeling mechanical and hollow.

My advice to sitcom writers (including myself) is that, if you're going to write a show featuring an relentlessly obnoxious lead character, remember you (generally) need at least one character towards whom an audience can consistently feel warmth.

Quote: Timbo @ November 26 2011, 10:47 AM GMT

Aren't people in reality a bit like that though? It is only in fiction that characters are consistent.

View original

Yeah, I agree. In some relationships you're the joker, in some you're the sensible head etc. But if you have traits that define your character, such as being egotistical or arrogant, these traits are always present regardless of what role you take in a relationship. I think Gervais and Merch wanted to create a pompous arrogant Brent esc figure, and Warwick more often than not comes across largely likeable. The acting and the writing don't quite meet IMO, we just seem to end up with, on occasions, a caricature-figure of Brent that doesn't fully work. I'm not sure who you blame for that though?

Very good post Tim Walker. I very much agree.

Not sure about that; does not the heart come more from the empathy we feel in our identification with the lead's self-inflicted misfortune and the redeeming moments of decency or rebellion?

In Life's Too Short, Davis is a vain and bumptious character, but there is a feeling of putting on a front, that adversity has made him what he is; his hurt dignity and perseverance in the face of continual humiliation makes him not unappealling.

Excellent post Tim! You make some very good points indeed.

Quote: Tim Walker @ November 26 2011, 11:13 AM GMT

My advice to sitcom writers (including myself) is that, if you're going to write a show featuring an relentlessly obnoxious lead character, remember you (generally) need at least one character towards whom an audience can consistently feel warmth.

View original

But I feel Davis is also providing this, I agree, essential character, himself. Davis is a different character to the classic/standard sitcom monster, Del Boy, Fawlty, Rigsby, Bouquet etc. etc. The whole show is very tongue in cheek, it's like a spoof of a spoof. Who cannot like such an obviously likeable man, the real Warwick Davis? This is, for me, all part of the plan.

Who cannot feel sympathy for him in any of those 'humiliation' scenes? Dressed demeaningly in a bear suit he actually looked like a cute teddy bear; standing in a toilet, I bet many viewers went 'Aaaahhh, bless'. In a bin, the same. He's both the Del Boy and the Rodney, the Fawlty and the Manuel, I feel, so you don't need the extra actor playing that character, for me, he's playing it himself.

I think Gervais, with his love of cute animals, knew this, so all he has to do is dress him up at the end of the episode and he gets all the pathos and viewer - character empathy he needs. Infact, I'm absolutely certain already, that he'll be getting more than even Manuel did, and that's a lot! LTS just needs the size of audience that FT got, now.

Quote: Timbo @ November 26 2011, 11:25 AM GMT

Not sure about that; does not the heart come more from the empathy we feel in our identification with the lead's self-inflicted misfortune and the redeeming moments of decency or rebellion?

In Life is Short Davis' is a vain and bumptious character, but there is a feeling of putting on a front, that adversity has made him what he is; his hurt dignity and perseverance in the face of continual humiliation makes him not unappealling.

View original

You got there before me, or at least finished your post before I did.

Quote: Timbo @ November 26 2011, 10:47 AM GMT

Aren't people in reality a bit like that though? It is only in fiction that characters are consistent.

View original

But comedy is generally about archetypes not real people, we need to be pretty sure how the character will react in a given situation (with the occasional curveball thrown in to keep us on our toes).

To take one example, in "Friends" Joey is the stupid one, he doesn't suddenly become Einstein in an episode because that would ruin the characterisation, the people in sitcoms are ciphers really, they need to be consistent as a sort of shorthand so it's one less thing we have to think about when getting the "jokes" (and I use joke in the loosest possible sense of something that will make us laugh not necessarily a funny line).

Quote: Tim Walker @ November 26 2011, 11:13 AM GMT

In Life's Too Short the concept of a character with heart has been abandoned completely. There is no-one to care about in this show, which leaves the comedy elements exposed and, most times, feeling mechanical and hollow.

View original

See, I could have written my own post exposing the inherent frailties of this show, but there's not much point when Mr W. is on hand with this concise and exact view.

Suffice to say, I watched ep 3 last night and found it so bloody boring.

It depends how broad you like your sitcoms to be! Personally I don't really want sitcoms with 2 dimesional 'stupid ones', I want characters that can surprise you whilst still being believable, like people in real life will surprise you by saying something unusually funny or intelligent, for example.

As for Tim's comments, I think it depends on how much empathy you have. For a psychopath like him you need someone really warm and inoffensive for him to even pretend to empathise with them.

Quote: Stephen Ryder @ November 26 2011, 11:32 AM GMT

Excellent post Tim! You make some very good points indeed.

View original

Couldn't agree more.

Warwick may be just impersonating Brent, but it's still the funniest thing on TV at the moment. I'm sure he'll win an award at the next Comedy Awards.

Warwick's character is not that much like Brent.
On a superficial level there are similarities.
But there are bound to be.