Quote: lofthouse @ July 19 2013, 2:55 PM BST

Definitely. The first third of ep 2 was flat but it steadily improved and the last third was very very funny.

Watch to the end people!

View original

Isn't the idea of paying professional writers to write things for money that they are able to make 30 minutes of comedy be funny for 30 minutes? Yes, I know, dramatic tension, story arc, setup, tension and resolution, a lot of Robert McKee stuff. But a 30 minute studio sitcom should be funny for most of the thirty minutes. If the first ten minutes are entirely mirthless, claiming that it got better later, even if true, says either that the scriptwriters should give back part of their fee, or the script editor should get out of Starbucks and do some script editing. No one picks up an episode of Fawlty Towers and says, "yes, I know this is shit, and this, and this, and this, but it gets better at the end, just you wait".

Quote: Tokyo Nambu @ July 19 2013, 6:19 PM BST

No one picks up an episode of Fawlty Towers and says, "yes, I know this is shit, and this, and this, and this, but it gets better at the end, just you wait".

View original

True, but being one of the most highly acclaimed sitcom of all time, Fawlty Towers is perhaps an ambitious standard to expect.

The people who made this TV version of what I thought was a brilliant radio show have tinkered with the format to the point that it is now broken.
The Count essentially 'spoke to camera' in the radio show - with no visuals you need someone talking to tell you what's going on - his ramblings were what was funny, interspersed with a few barmy characters and bizarre situations.
Because they didn't want him to speak to camera they invented someone for him to speak to - hence the Kinnear character.
And once they had him, they needed a reason for him to be there.
Hence the 'biography' angle.
Suddenly you've got a show about a shy, nervous writer who meets a mad old bloke.
What happened?
That's not what I ordered!
IMHO they should have gone a bit more Hancock on it.

Plus - anyone get as slight deja vu moment when the caped figure started chasing the indian guy from out of the fog?

I had never listened to the radio show, and from what I'd gathered about the character I hadn't been keen to watch or listen to it at all.
But it's the BCG so if there's a popular thread that doesn't involve counting then it does get tempting to become involved.

Just watched ep 2 & thought it was pretty funny, I definitely had a few chuckles during the half hour.
But I'm glad that Rory Kinnear won't be the next Dr Who, as pleasant as he seems.

Quote: Tokyo Nambu @ July 19 2013, 6:19 PM BST

No one picks up an episode of Fawlty Towers and says, "yes, I know this is shit, and this, and this, and this, but it gets better at the end, just you wait".

View original

I don't agree with this rubbish that something may get better in time. How long should we wait for that? First episode of this was dire and unfunny, and now the second was a slow burner, apparently. Quite some time to invest on the offchance it may be funny, then to discover we were right all along. Or should we sit through 2 more hours of this to come to the same conclusion? Not winning the audience over from the start, that's just bad writing.

It did win some people over from the start. I don't think it's fair to declare it bad writing just because you didn't warm to it.

Haven't watched it yet and never knew about the radio show but nine pages here says I've got to at least see what all the fuss is about.

Quote: Shandonbelle @ July 20 2013, 9:18 PM BST

Haven't watched it yet and never knew about the radio show but nine pages here says I've got to at least see what all the fuss is about.

View original

Yes it's good but stick with it as Episode 1 is quite poor compared to the second one.

http://www.countarthurstrong.com/arthurs-diaries/

First 1000 orders for a signed copy !

Quote: zooo @ July 20 2013, 8:51 PM BST

It did win some people over from the start. I don't think it's fair to declare it bad writing just because you didn't warm to it.

View original

That's not quite the point he's making.

Some shows just are slow-burners in that their comedy works better through familiarity with the characters, however... But they should still aim to grab the audience from episode one.

Driving slowly in an ice cream van, with the music playing, dressed as an undertaker (?), holding your finger to your lips to instruct a child not to say anything is surreally, brilliantly spooky. And spookily, brilliantly surreal. And surreally, spookily brilliant. That bit was the funniest thing I've seen on TV in ages - classic Linehan (probably).

The cafe girl making up random stuff seemed like a really weird, forced way to create the comedy situations, I don't think it was ever really explained why she did that?

Quote: Raymond Terrific @ July 21 2013, 11:07 AM BST

The cafe girl making up random stuff seemed like a really weird, forced way to create the comedy situations, I don't think it wasn't ever really explained why she did that?

View original

Agreed - totally unconvincing.
What's even more discouraging is that she's bound to develop into some ghastly love interest for Rory Kinnear - once again the plot being driven by a secondary character.

Quote: zooo @ July 20 2013, 8:51 PM BST

It did win some people over from the start. I don't think it's fair to declare it bad writing just because you didn't warm to it.

View original

Not just me either. And how many of those who did warm to it immediately were already familiar with the radio show? Quite a fair percentage I would say. So to a new viewer, it's a big let down then. ie. bad writing

I still think that's generalising. If not one new viewer liked it, then it's fair to call it bad writing. But if plenty did, then it's just writing that didn't work for you.