Firkin he came to fame as a presenter in that format so that's not the issue, the truth is much simpler, he is working off piss poor material and I have no idea how it was allowed to happen. The character was a potential Golden Goose and what ever was decided next should have been monitored but it wasn't.
I remember there was an idiot once called Dennis Pennis or something like that and his caper was calling people over to his camera crew at major events and making a fool of them. Sadly it was the fact that he had a BBC camera crew that brought his victims over to him as he used their good name/credibility to do piss poor stuff
For me the poor quality of this show should have been spotted and the writers should have been told to do some research not f**k around and serve us 'Bubble Meta Shit'.

Piers Morgan's talked about it and brought out the same empty rhetoric as was in the vapid outlier Sun review. It looks like my earlier theory about it was correct. What a parasite

Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 6th March 2019, 3:53 PM

the truth is . . . he is working off piss poor material

View original

Correct.

The writers got it right (see what I did there?) with "Mid-Morning Matters" but they've got Alan completely wrong with "This Time".

Sidekick Simon is a waste of space and, for all she is being allowed to contribute to this series, so is the normally-excellent Lynn.

Will "This Time"be cancelled after Series 1?

I don't know but if there were any justice in the world, it would have been cancelled a few minutes into Episode 1!

Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 6th March 2019, 3:53 PM

I remember there was an idiot once called Dennis Pennis'.

View original

Dennis Pennis was gold. Not all of it granted,, but when Kaye was good it was hilarious.

I wouldn't think there are any plans for another series because he will screw it all up.

Quote: Sitcomfan64 @ 6th March 2019, 5:03 PM

Dennis Pennis was gold. Not all of it granted,, but when Kaye was good it was hilarious.

View original

I just think that he used the kudos built up by the BBC over decades to lure people over so he could insult them and that might be entertaining as comedy is subjective. But for me on his own without that level of bait he would have been lucky to stop someone on the High Street and if he did and said what he was saying to the people on his show I reckon he would get his jaw broken in 3 minutes.

Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 6th March 2019, 3:53 PM

Firkin he came to fame as a presenter in that format ........ he is working off piss poor material

View original

In his first incarnation, it played more as if he was chatting in his living room or down the pub. He was hapless and not overly professional and the format didn't restrict him. In this incarnation the focus is more on the show than on him, and more effort is being made to make it authentic than simply funny. It's also more like a magazine show than a talk show, so he has more monologues when in my view he's best when interacting with guests. Also his co presenter is humourless yet authentic, but gets way too much camera time. In fact the whole supporting case are bland. So I would agree it's not working, but it is a different format, for all the aforementioned points. Out of interest why do you think the critics like it?

Because I think they are scared of going up against what is basically an institution straight off the bat. I suspect they will get on the band wagon as the viewing figures plummet and social media indicates its dislike. Or rather its disappointment .

Quote: Firkin @ 6th March 2019, 6:51 PM

Also his co presenter is humourless yet authentic, but gets way too much camera time. In fact the whole supporting case are bland.

View original

Alan is the source of the comedy, as he was always going to be, but I thought the supporting cast was decent in this. It contrasted two very different types of the inane TV presenter. That's the point really, it would be like criticising Alan because his tangents about cars aren't interesting.

Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 6th March 2019, 7:01 PM

I suspect they will get on the band wagon as the viewing figures plummet and social media indicates its dislike. Or rather its disappointment.

View original

A minority with the nostalgia goggles on won't make a huge difference I'm afraid. The social media engagement is largely positive.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with nostalgia. This is about one person creating a character and making it massive and then someone else trying to change it. I am not doubting the writers' abilities across the board I am just saying that what they had to work with came with a well-informed fan base and they didn't get onto that fact and it shows in spades.
It happened with Shameless, the first two series were based on the writer Paul Abbot's life. After that others took the mantle and changed direction as they had no real knowledge of that life.
As for social media it is a rabbit hole that many go down and in doing so affiliate themselves with this site and that site and before long the only thing being filtered to them gives a false perspective.
The show lost a million viewers in a week, are you suggesting that's because people were too busy backing it on Twitter that they forgot to watch it?

I think people are judging it too quickly and being negative if it's not what they were expecting. It's only two episodes in with four to go and sometimes you're just not in the mood for comedy and it might seem like it falls flat. Sometimes when I put on a DVD of stand-up that I've watched before and know I laugh at I realise I'm not laughing because I'm not in the mood.

Coogan is a craftsman so I think when all six episodes have been broadcast and everyone can look back on it all as a whole they will raise a glass of malty bitter to Alan. Maybe even stare in to the distance for a few moments of deep gratitude.

Tarby Coogan is great and these brothers are good writers, but this is wrong, I want it to be right but it's not. You tell me what writer on here could get a sitcom were it was a given that the first two episodes would be piss poor?

I'm hoping it gets better but I do agree to an extent. I'm reserving judgement until all episodes have been on and I could decide it finishes perfectly or gets worse. It looks like they have tried a format that will appeal to the widest audience including youngsters but I really don't think there is much about his character that will appeal to the younger generation. The choice of slot can't be helping either because 9:30pm is very late and on a Monday it's probably the worst time for new Alan. 20 years ago it was a prime time slot but does that even exist now with so many other channels and Catchup TV? It's also after the 9pm watershed even though there is no material to require it to be shown that late.

Just caught ep 2

I don't get all the negativity

Sure it's not side splittingly hilarious

But it's amusing and enjoyable

Unfortunately any new AP show isn't ever going to compare with the classic shows of years ago

It set such sky high standards that anything new isn't going to get near really

But it's good

Better than most of the bilge around on tv these days

Quote: lofthouse @ 8th March 2019, 9:50 PM

Just caught ep 2

I don't get all the negativity

Sure it's not side splittingly hilarious

But it's amusing and enjoyable

Unfortunately any new AP show isn't ever going to compare with the classic shows of years ago

It set such sky high standards that anything new isn't going to get near really

But it's good

Better than most of the bilge around on tv these days

View original

I hear what you're saying, Lofthouse, but we're not talking about a once-great boxing champion or a once-great footballer who, although still better than you or me at the job, is nevertheless, due to advancing years, a million miles past his best. We're talking about somebody who has absolutely no reason not to perform as well as he ever did.

I agree it is (in parts) amusing and enjoyable but, if it wasn't Steve Coogan in the driving seat, it wouldn't be sufficiently amusing and enjoyable for it ever to have been commissioned.

He should be able to do much better than this.