Well it's off and running, or stumbling some might say. It's a good way of seeing Cleese in something, but the mature Cleese is very different from the younger one. This mature version is stuck with his difficult situation, the younger one would be seeing off Roger with a cricket bat or something. So we are stuck with the comedy of cringe and soapy chitchat for another six episodes or more. Great. Or maybe you think it is.
When is it on?
The new series is a bit madder than I remember the first being. As ever it's nothing amazing, but quite enjoyable and inoffensive for the most part. I could've done with less of the puppet though.
After dragging myself through Series 1, no thank you. How can so many funny actors can make such a balls of a supposed sitcom is nothing short of a miracle. Boring!!
If you need a car to take you to the local supermarket and back, don't buy a Ferrari: it makes absolutely no sense.
Likewise, if you're a TV broadcasting company and you want to produce Hold the Sunset, don't cast John Cleese, Alison Steadman, Jason Watkins, Rosie Cavaliero, Joanna Scanlan, Anne Reid, James Cosmo and Peter Egan in it - cos that makes no sense either.
Wondered when a forum for the second series of this absolutely sure alleged "comedy" would begin. BBC have outdone themselves: this second series is even worse than the first!
On a number of occasions over the years, I've been watching a TV sitcom and I've thought "This simply isn't funny."
Very occasionally over the years, I've been watching a TV sitcom and I've thought "This simply isn't funny - but it's funny on paper."
What I mean, of course, is that occasionally a funny script, even when followed to the letter, doesn't translate into a finished TV product that's funny.
I think that's the case with the second series of Hold The Sunset. I didn't pay much attention to the first series, having come to the conclusion at an early stage that it wasn't my cup of tea, so I can't say very much about that first series.
Talking about the second series, the problem (as I see it) is that it's been dreadfully miscast. I'm not talking about just one or two actors I'm talking about almost the whole shooting match.
There can be little doubt that the actors in the main cast are top-notch but the script just isn't suitable for actors of this illustrious calibre most of whom are much better suited to serious drama than they are to comedy.
The crocodile puppet is (to my mind) very funny indeed - on paper - but it's not even remotely funny on screen. In fact, it's bloody annoying!
Why? Because Jason Watkins (as good an actor as he is) is not the man to bring out the best in his character Roger and his reptilian friend.
It's a bit late in the day to suggest that the series should be recast but the fact of the matter (again, to my mind) is that it should have been cast very differently in the first place.
I can only assume all involved in this atrocity had their judgement clouded by the thought of receiving a very large licence fee payer funded cheque?
Quote: gb901 @ 10th August 2019, 8:27 PMI can only assume all involved in this atrocity had their judgement clouded by the thought of receiving a very large licence fee payer funded cheque?
The wage bill must, as you say, be truly colossal and the tragedy is that for a lot less money the BBC could have employed "lesser" actors better suited to comedy roles who would have made the sitcom a lot more entertaining than it is.
Laurence Olivier was (I think it's true to say) a much better actor than Tony Hancock but just as Hancock would probably not have shone as Henry V, Olivier would probably not have shone in a sitcom written by Galton and Simpson entitled "Larry's Half-Hour".
Horses for courses!
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 5th August 2019, 12:34 AMAfter dragging myself through Series 1, no thank you. How can so many funny actors can make such a balls of a supposed sitcom is nothing short of a miracle. Boring!!
It's not their fault but the script. Steadman and Cleese don't need to prove their comedy acting credentials. Not sure about Watkins, the only thing I can remember seeing him in was Trollied, an incredibly unfunny 'sitcom'. All actors like to work and casting directors like to cast the best actors so in times when the sitcoms are poor (Can there be a worse decade for sitcoms than the teenies? No!) then they inevitably star in sub standard shows. 
One upside of the ratings success of HTS and the recent crop of senior citizen sitcoms is you get to see the odd very good actor who you haven't seen for a while. This latest one has Peter Egan and I think he's the best thing in it, of what I've seen, although it is a minor straight role. Hmm is there an under used sitcom actor thread brewing? ...
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 11th August 2019, 10:22 AMHmm is there an under used sitcom actor thread brewing? ...
Why not. 
You going to make the first move? 
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 11th August 2019, 10:22 AMIt's not their fault but the script.
I agree it's not the actors' fault but I have to say (again), it's not the script's fault either.
The problem is that the actors and the script are a mismatch.
As gentle sitcoms about elderly people go, Charles McKeown's script is a perfectly decent one.
I'm trying to imagine The Office with a cast drawn from the cream of the British acting profession - and I don't think it would have worked anywhere near as well as it did with its cast of lesser-known performers who were ideally suited to the script and did an absolutely brilliant job with it.
When casting a TV sitcom, sometimes the "best" actors are not the best choice.
Let me edit that as 'best actors for the role' then. Casting directors tend to know what they are doing, they are probably the most specialist and accomplished of all the creative/non technical crew, that's the consensus. They come from an acting background, they know their actors, they research, they watch all similar roles to see who the actors are to give them some ideas, they match up actors to character notes regarding age and other distinguishing factors, their ability to do characters or naturalistic acting etc. and their reliability, their professionalism etc.
And not least their popularity or pulling power. Not least doesn't mean that's the only factor, or it shouldn't do, although I believe it is usually weighted fairly heavily in known actors favour for TV shows and definitely leading roles. And then they audition. If others were better in all that criteria and the auditions then they would be playing those parts that Cleese and the others are. All subjective I agree but imoo it's the script at fault, these actors know how to make people laugh. I have to ask do the writers?
It simply does not have one endearing feature and nothing to recommend it.
