Quote: lofthouse @ April 6 2013, 10:55 PM BST

Superb show

However the Daisy character annoys me more and more

She's stupid

We all know that

But she's stupid to a ridiculous and unrealistic degree

Now, when Dougal McGuire was ludicrously stupid it was ok because Craggy Island is a surreal insane world

Not Going Out isn't - it's a more normal realist world they inhabit

So her utter utter mongyness seems way over the top and unbelievable

Nothing against the actress though - she's great!

View original

Even I'm not as mad as Daisy, and I got given an appropriate adult at the nick (honestly).

Sorry, didn't like last week's opening episode at all. The jokes, were cringeworthy, the plot contrived and predictable and the absence of Tim Vine has totally ruined the show's dynamic. Even the "buy an identical pet to replace the one you killed" was a direct lift from Only Fools And Horses (the one where Grandad buys a canary from the pet shop).

Early days yet but could this be a series too far?

The lack of originality is cured by the rapid fire frequency of the (mostly) good jokes/lines imo.
What's harder for me to take is the bad acting, sloppy directing and sterile atmosphere. All these elements were also present in The Mighty Boosh for example; but that show was surreal and deliberatly cheap looking. So that made sense there.

My problem is that I was "raised" on Porridge and OFAH; maybe that's why I'm intolerant in this regard.

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ April 9 2013, 1:55 PM BST

The lack of originality is cured by the rapid fire frequency of the (mostly) good jokes/lines imo.
What's harder for me to take is the bad acting, sloppy directing and sterile atmosphere. All these elements were also present in The Mighty Boosh for example; but that show was surreal and deliberatly cheap looking. So that made sense there.

My problem is that I was "raised" on Porridge and OFAH; maybe that's why I'm intolerant in this regard.

View original

We all were. But not all of us see such problems in Not Going Out.

But you can see the differences in these elements between NGO and some shows of the "classic era"? (If it is a problem or not lies in the eye of the beholder.)

I don't see why it's blasphemy to talk about these observations...Nigel Ball already told me more or less to shut up because it's not allowed to criticise a show that's has good ratings and several series. If it's successful it's a work genius by definition? (By the way, I even wrote in an earlier post that I enjoyed the episode despite my complaints.) Blimey, this show has a strong lobby.

I love the jokes in "Not Going Out" but I'm increasingly getting frustrated by the characters acting in a way that no human being would ever act and doing things no-one would ever do.

I realise it's not the most realistic of sitcoms but surely it needs to have some level of believability?

It's not just "Not Going Out" but things like the Sue Perkins show and various others just have me constantly thinking "why would she do that?" or "why is he saying that?".

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ April 9 2013, 2:20 PM BST

But you can see the differences in these elements between NGO and some shows of the "classic era"?

View original

I certainly see that they are different types of programmes that work in different ways and employ different styles of presentation and filming, yes. I do not agree that the direction is sloppy or the atmosphere 'sterile', however.

At the first mention of a pet shop, my dad said, "Ah, they're pinching it from Del Boy!" and I said, "You don't know that yet. Say that at the end if it happens."

I thought it was okay, but Lee had his head in that sack for a long time and constantly looking at a dead rabbit's remains was a bit distasteful. I think this may turn out to be a weaker episode from this series; certainly, the others sound like they will be much better.

Quote: Aaron @ April 9 2013, 4:47 PM BST

I certainly see that they are different types of programmes that work in different ways and employ different styles of presentation and filming, yes. I do not agree that the direction is sloppy or the atmosphere 'sterile', however.

View original

So, for example the man realising it's not his rabbitt before even looking into the bag is part of the show's hyper-reality style? And Lee Mack's woodeness is deliberate?
I let you off the "sterility" question, though.

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ April 9 2013, 5:38 PM BST

So, for example the man realising it's not his rabbit before even looking into the bag is part of the show's hyper-reality style? And Lee Mack's woodeness is deliberate?

View original

This is certainly not a series I would describe as even nearing "hyper-reality", and that is the sole such mistake I have noticed out of all 35 (and a half) episodes broadcast to date. Poor acting, yes, and a single example of sloppy direction, but I shan't be condemning the series on that one isolated incident.

I do not recognise any woodenness in Mack either. He is not an actor and yes it shows on occasion, but his performance has never jarred nor caused me to question the programme. It may indeed be far more notably out of place were he to appear in a Rising Damp or a Steptoe And Son, but for Not Going Out it works just fine.