The IT Crowd 2.0 Page 16

Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 24, 2007, 6:26 AM

There are a number of instances in this series and the last where the show has suffered a little because Linehan is directing. A little example is last weeks show when Jen goes for a taxi at the end. It's not quite punchy enough because the original take isn't long enough but the editor has to hold it. The first series had a few scenes where the characters' heads are too close to the top of the frame because Linehan had ordered too tight crops. Another good example is when the jap businessman jumps on Jen's feet in the DMs, the cut away of the outside of the building doesn't work. It's Linehan trying to get the same effect from the Father Ted scene when the AA man tries to stop Jack drinking and it jump cuts to an ambulance. He's a good director of actors and he gets the most out of his lines but like many writers who direct falls down on shooting 'coverage' and the technical stuff.

I totally agree with AJP about the episode being contrived and a bit lazy, although it was very funny. It definitely feels as if Linehan didn't have the ideas for this series or he was working on something else at the same time. And now we know why Chris Morris isn't in it any more.

But do you really think the average person notices or cares about some of the technical stuff you've mentioned?

Depends what you mean by average person. I wrote it for the people on this forum of which you're a member and i'm another. If you don't care that's up to you.

Regarding editing: if a film is badly edited, only editors will say 'that's badly edited', but most people recognise that something's 'wrong', they just don't know what it is.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 24, 2007, 8:25 AM

Depends what you mean by average person. I wrote it for the people on this forum of which you're a member and i'm another. If you don't care that's up to you.

Regarding editing: if a film is badly edited, only editors will say 'that's badly edited', but most people recognise that something's 'wrong', they just don't know what it is.

I'm not even sure if some people will recognize something is wrong. I think it would have to be Garth Marenghi's Darkplace level of bad for people to actually notice.

I'm not sure I'd consider us to be average viewers. Percentage wise, I think there are far more people viewing the program than are online discussing it.

That's not to say that it's not important. I think if it is well directed and edited it elevates the results of the show. Maybe I'm way off, but I think a show like Spaced has great directing and editing and it improves the show's overall quality enormously. Had it been poorly directed, I think it definitely would have been a worse show in general, but would a techno dope like myself actually see what could have been (or where the direction had gone bad)?

Regarding editing: if a film is badly edited, only editors will say 'that's badly edited', but most people recognise that something's 'wrong', they just don't know what it is.
[/quote]

i totally agree. any minor mistake in directing or editing can cause a joke to fail or a scene to be less funny than it should be. when a show is done really well you don't notice, you just laugh. when mistakes are made everyone will notice, its just that people like us will realise why we are noticing, whereas "normal"people will just not laugh. or notr laugh as much as they should.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 24, 2007, 6:26 AM

There are a number of instances in this series and the last where the show has suffered a little because Linehan is directing.

Unfortunately Linehan makes a less-than-convincing cameo at the start of this Friday's episode.

I have to agree though - It is one of those things you don't notice if it is done right, but direction is quite important in making things funny.

Quote: Mick Dolan @ September 24, 2007, 3:32 AM

I thought, "My God, Arron – who didn't laugh at Spaced or This is Spinal Tap – laughed all the way through! It has to be rip-roaringly, side-splittingly hilarious. But it wasn't. I prefer the 'situational' stuff...

I like the funny stuff. :)

Quote: Aaron @ September 24, 2007, 11:15 AM

I like the funny stuff. :)

I just realized I spelled your name wrong. Ouch! In my defense, I've got a cold today. :S

Quote: Mark @ September 24, 2007, 11:04 AM

I have to agree though - It is one of those things you don't notice if it is done right, but direction is quite important in making things funny.

As particularly proven by Home Again.

Got a couple more preview clip for you guys, this time of Episode 6, up on YouTube :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XgMfGtjaDM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XGs36hUrtQ

Enjoy!

I'm no good at names but is the girl the receptionist in Doc Martin?

Quote: Mick Dolan @ September 24, 2007, 3:32 AM

I agree with Leevil... I shouldn't have read this thread before watching. I thought, "My God, Arron – who didn't laugh at Spaced or This is Spinal Tap – laughed all the way through! It has to be rip-roaringly, side-splittingly hilarious. But it wasn't. I prefer the 'situational' stuff, like when Roy and Moss both get caught in predicaments as a result of the bathroom attendant and their inability to pee. It was certainly contrived, but it had its moments. I loved the bits with the boss, except the punchline... this is a suitcase.

It wasn't a suitcase, it was a briefcase. Christ! ;)

Or it was a suitcase, and Roy is just really massive.

I meant to mention this earlier, I'm surprised that no-ones mentioned that Moss's appearance on the news is obviously a reference to the real life event where that bloke ended up on the news when he had only went for an interview.

Quote: earman2009 @ September 24, 2007, 9:41 PM

I meant to mention this earlier, I'm surprised that no-ones mentioned that Moss's appearance on the news is obviously a reference to the real life event where that bloke ended up on the news when he had only went for an interview.

I thought the same too. It was a good idea though.

Quote: earman2009 @ September 24, 2007, 9:41 PM

I meant to mention this earlier, I'm surprised that no-ones mentioned that Moss's appearance on the news is obviously a reference to the real life event where that bloke ended up on the news when he had only went for an interview.

I thought it was so obvious i didn't feel the need to mention it was obvious but as soon as moz said, i have an interview with the producers and I can't remember the name i gave, I knew that was going to be the punchline. Its also why I mentioned it was contrived.