Other cynical comedy fans that are even worse than me for cynicism think that Not Going Out is sublime and yet I still can't get into it.

I don't have a specific reason for disliking it but I think the constant gags may have something to do it.

The characters seem very fake and only there to provide one liners. There is no emotional investment I suppose.

I am aware lots of people just want comedies to be funny but I don't even think that all the one liners work, a lot seem really forced and crowbarred in.

Saying that in the episodes I have seen there is usually at least one gem of a line.

Quote: Spagett @ February 21 2009, 3:28 PM GMT

The characters seem very fake and only there to provide one liners. There is no emotional investment I suppose.

I am aware lots of people just want comedies to be funny but I don't even think that all the one liners work, a lot seem really forced and crowbarred in.

Saying that in the episodes I have seen there is usually at least one gem of a line.

View original

I'm a big fan of Not Going Out but I'd agree with that. A lot of silly set ups to provide (admittedly hilarious) one-liners a lot of the time. Slight dip in quality in last night's episode but it was probably to be expected just because the previous two have been so good.

I don't understand how so many people like this show and find it funny. The storylines/plots and the characterisations are so paper thin. I mean, where does Tim live? Why don't we ever see his flat? What are Lee and Tim's jobs? Why don't they ever seem to be at work?

And a lot of the jokes are the sort that you know are supposed to be funny but they don't give you the energy to be able laugh at them.

I think we're all in consensus (or at least the people who do watch/like NGO)... this week's episode wasn't as good as previous weeks (it ended on a bit of a down didn't it?)... but it was still one of the funnier things on TV during the previous 7 days. The charades cough joke was ace.

Quote: johnny smith @ February 21 2009, 5:55 PM GMT

I don't understand how so many people like this show and find it funny. The storylines/plots and the characterisations are so paper thin. I mean, where does Tim live? Why don't we ever see his flat? What are Lee and Tim's jobs? Why don't they ever seem to be at work?

View original

Sorry to get defensive of the show for a moment, but I'm guessing you missed series two then? As in the last series we did indeed see Tim's flat, we did see Lee earning his living, we did find out what Tim does for a job, we did see scenes in Lucy's office etc etc.

This is a studio sitcom (with just two main sets... the flat and the pub) so going 'out and about' isn't always possible every episode (hence why things happen in the evening). Anyway, I think you're missing the point of NGO... it's not meant to be that realistic - it's mainly just a vehicle for gags (something a lot of sitcoms forget to add in)!

Well I enjoyed last night's episode. It ticked all the boxes for me. I don't care about emoting over the characters, or the front bloody door - I just enjoy the sheer silliness, the 'cheap' laughs, the farce. No one, but no one, gets to put Lee down with the last witticism. He's an out-witticism-er. (Try and say that fast three times.)

For a bit of a story (where the characters have caught my interest), and where I want to know what happens next, then Free Agents is the only game in town and shaping up nicely. But oh, the downgrading of the laugh a minutethon that coming straight over from NGO to Free Agents entails is still a bit of a shock to the system. However, jokes-a-second are not what I tune in to Free Agents for - that's what NGO's for.

As for The Old Guys - I'm still not sure what to make of it.

For sheer non-stop laughter - then it just has to be NGO.

Quote: Anon Umus @ February 21 2009, 9:23 AM GMT

So what was the classic moment? Last nights was good but IMHO not a classic?

View original

On page 32 of this thread I posted this:

Quote: Rustle T Davis @ February 20 2009, 2:40 PM GMT

Whilst we're on the subject of the door... in an earlier post I 'promised' said door would be seen closed on at least one occasion during the next episode. As I've just spotted this week's episode isn't the one I thought it was going to be... I lied. Looks like you'll have to wait another week.

View original

The episode I saw filmed must be next week's. Can I just clarify, I can't remember too much about the episode I saw filmed so I wouldn't say the whole episode is a classic, but there's one moment that really sticks out in my mind.

I thought this week's episode was the weakest of the series so far, but seeing as I still laughed... many, many times, that doesn't mean an awful lot.

Personal opinion only of course but I must admit I'm not a fan of NGO either. There are a number of perfectly decent gags in each episode but I can't crack a smile.

I'd maybe have preferred it if there was just one rather than two stand-up comics as the leads. I think sitcoms should have 'proper' actors in them in the main -- this is too heavily slanted the other way, and comedians (or these ones anyway IMO) cannot bring the requisite depth of character that I personally feel sitcoms should have to work properly.

Not really comparing like with like at all, but I much prefer 'Free Agents' I think because there is quite a bit of shading in there.

Who really cares where Tim works? It's not supposed to be clever-clever. Just funny.

Surprisingly the one scene they did with only one take was where the boyfriend in the white suit (you just knew what was going to happen) had the chocolate fountain thrown over him.

Quote: Seefacts @ February 20 2009, 11:46 PM GMT

And, nicked from another forum: Only two sets again. Wonder why?

View original

What the hell does that mean? Does it make it funnier or cleverer to have dozens of sets?

Quote: David Chapman @ February 22 2009, 9:25 PM GMT

What the hell does that mean? Does it make it funnier or cleverer to have dozens of sets?

View original

I think he was wondering if there has been budget cuts, hence the use of only two sets.

Quote: David Chapman @ February 22 2009, 9:25 PM GMT

What the hell does that mean? Does it make it funnier or cleverer to have dozens of sets?

View original

I think it's just curiosity is all. I had wondered the same thing, it's not an attack on the show or anything!! Why so defensive?

Quote: Martin Holmes @ February 22 2009, 10:06 PM GMT

I think he was wondering if there has been budget cuts, hence the use of only two sets.

View original

Exactly.

Quote: David Chapman @ February 22 2009, 9:25 PM GMT

What the hell does that mean? Does it make it funnier or cleverer to have dozens of sets?

View original

Wow! Christ, you've not been this animated since V day.

The big problem with this show is the complete absence of any heart.

I know some on this Board will say: 'It's funny. That's good enough for me.' But the bloke in the pub is funny. I want a sitcom to also have engaging characters. For me, this is a 'record/watch once/delete' sitcom.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ February 21 2009, 12:50 AM GMT

But how is trying to make sure she doesn't have a boyfriend protective or even over-protective? Yeah at the end he was being protective, but earlier in the show he was just trying to stop her having a boyfriend by looking through her phone! That is stalker-ish!

The the week before he was trying to stop her getting together with a lesbian.

Fair enough he likes her, I just think if they want us to buy this 'relationship' more they should have Lee look less like the creepy 40 year old lodger.

View original

Alright, alright, so I missed out the word 'jealous'. I still heavily dispute the 'creepy' accusation. He's just a bit immature and OTT.

Quote: Leevil @ February 21 2009, 3:03 AM GMT

Sometimes it's funny but most of the times it's not.

View original

*shakes head*

Quote: Stuart Doherty @ February 21 2009, 3:29 AM GMT

No one should ever try to be witty or amusing in a sitcom.

View original

Utterly incorrect. IMO, obviously.

Quote: Anon Umus @ February 21 2009, 9:23 AM GMT

So what was the classic moment? Last night's was good but IMHO not a classic?

View original

Quote: Rustle T Davis @ February 20 2009, 2:40 PM GMT

I've just spotted this week's episode isn't the one I thought it was going to be...

View original

Quote: Mark @ February 21 2009, 7:04 PM GMT

Anyway, I think you're missing the point of NGO... it's not meant to be that realistic - it's mainly just a vehicle for gags (something a lot of sitcoms forget to add in)!

View original

And thank f**k for that!

Quote: Danny K @ February 21 2009, 7:14 PM GMT

Well I enjoyed last night's episode. It ticked all the boxes for me. I don't care about emoting over the characters, or the front bloody door - I just enjoy the sheer silliness, the 'cheap' laughs, the farce.

View original

Definitely agreed.

Quote: Seefacts @ February 22 2009, 11:09 PM GMT

Wow! Christ, you've not been this animated since V day.

View original

I've heard plans for Series 4 have been put on hold due to ratings decreasing?

Any truth to this?

God, I hope not!