Quote: Marc P @ April 28 2009, 2:56 PM BST

There is something a bit too thrusting and manly about Reggie too with your man playing him, which can't be helped. Rossiter was always the mouse that was about to turn but Martin Clunes is kind of physically against that type. Looking forward to watching the rest of the series mind.

View original

Maybe this one works because Clunes is so different to Rossiter. Perhaps if they'd tried to find a Rossiter-like actor, it would have just looked like an embarrassing immitation. I'd be very interested if anybody has read the novels, how Reggie comes across in them, compared to the two small screen portraits of him.

Quote: chipolata @ April 28 2009, 3:31 PM BST

Maybe this one works because Clunes is so different to Rossiter. Perhaps if they'd tried to find a Rossiter-like actor, it would have just looked like an embarrassing immitation. I'd be very interested if anybody has read the novels, how Reggie comes across in them, compared to the two small screen portraits of him.

View original

That's a good point! I haven't read the books.

I have never heard such rubbish than what this person has written

The debut of Reggie Perrin on Friday night was dated in both form and content. It was a sitcom shot in a studio before a live audience (you don't see them so much these days), and it was a revival of The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin which between 1976 and 1979 carried some weight as a critique of the little man lost amid corporatist capitalism. I didn't think it had much original to say then and I don't think that it does now. It is, however, very funny, largely because of Martin Clunes as Perrin who lumbers through home, his daily commute and his office life, like a giant suffering the early stages of pathological disinhibition. Clunes must have been wary of stepping into Leonard Rossiter's shoes. He is funnier than Rossiter was in the part.
Andrew Billen, The Times, 27th April 2009.

Quote: johnny smith @ April 28 2009, 5:38 PM BST

I have never heard such rubbish than what this person has written

View original

Might be a mate of Martin Clunes. There's nothing else that could explain that cos it's clearly drivel.

Quote: johnny smith @ April 28 2009, 5:38 PM BST

I have never heard such rubbish than what this person has written

View original

Peruse these boards, you'll find stuff that knocks that into a cocked hat.

(Although I personally don't find anything particularly wrong with what was said. Seems a perfectly acceptable opinion to me.)

Quote: Marc P @ April 28 2009, 1:57 PM BST

It did have a very seventies feel about it all. My main problem is that they seem to have fallen victim to events outside of their control. At a time when the world is in recession and the UK heading for a Depression, the trivial middle management phoney marketing nonsense just doesn't ring true for the times and so isn't funny. A couple of years ago in the madness peak of property prices etc, maybe - but nowadays not really.

View original

Hey! Middle-class man doesn't like his middle-class lifestyle! LOOK! He's becoming so ZANY!

"LOL".

Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2009, 11:32 PM BST

From the trailer I've just seen, it appears that there will be a new hippo-equivalent sequence. Very interested to see how they cut that in with the rest of the episode this time round.

View original

I have just seen new hippo-equivalent sequence in the latest trailer which seems to be a demolition ball that hits his mother-in-law, and it struck me how unfunny and unsubtle it looked. It reminded me too much of 'The Young Ones' and 'Bottom' and Vic and Bob.

Quote: chipolata @ April 28 2009, 3:31 PM BST

Maybe this one works because Clunes is so different to Rossiter. Perhaps if they'd tried to find a Rossiter-like actor, it would have just looked like an embarrassing immitation. I'd be very interested if anybody has read the novels, how Reggie comes across in them, compared to the two small screen portraits of him.

View original

I've read them, but relatively recently and *after* seeing the original series. I can't remember them that well (which questions how good/relevant they actually are nowadays). I'm pretty sure my view of them was me putting Leonard Rossiter into the character, so I read it with him as 'the star' (if you see what I mean).

In fairness, I didn't think it would ever be remade, so didn't realise my awful mistake at the time!

(It also begs the question: how 'good' is a book if you immediately forget all about it? I remember enjoying it as I read it, but now I can't remember anything about it. And I normally remember the really good ones.)

Dan

Quote: chipolata @ April 28 2009, 3:31 PM BST

Maybe this one works because Clunes is so different to Rossiter. Perhaps if they'd tried to find a Rossiter-like actor, it would have just looked like an embarrassing immitation. I'd be very interested if anybody has read the novels, how Reggie comes across in them, compared to the two small screen portraits of him.

View original

In general, I think the books are a lot grimmer than either of the series. The incestuous relationship between Jimmy and Linda is an obvious example and also his suicide attempt. Reggie and Joan going to a seedy hotel together in the books seems much more real than their meeting in the 1970s series. Plus there are allegations of flashing and sex offences.

Physically I think Reggie is more like Clunes than Rossiter.

Quote: swerytd @ April 29 2009, 11:20 AM BST

I've read them, but relatively recently and *after* seeing the original series. It also begs the question: how 'good' is a book if you immediately forget all about it?

View original

I actually think it's difficult to judge the books in that way. If people read them now they will obviously not be as memorable as when they were first written simply because we already know the characters and so much that is going to take place.

Similarly plenty of people who read the books first were never that keen on the original series.

I saw the original when it first came out and liked it.

I saw this and liked it too.

I agree with whoever said that the object of Reggie's affections in the original series (Sue Nicholls' Joan Greengross) was not typically and conventionally attractive, but that worked because it meant that you could believe that Reggie could have a chance with her and that she could find Reggie attractive as well (like Miss Jones in Rising Damp, Joan Greengross was probably unlucky in love and would settle for anything), whereas Lucy Liemann's Jasmine Strauss is just way out of (Martin Clunes') Reggie's league because she's just so damn conventionally attractive - which is just typical of a programme made in the 21st century.

Okay, that is a valid criticism.

But johnny, what gives? You are on 52 posts now and just about all of them have been attacking this series. I can understand not liking the show, but why the obsession?

I've just watched episode one. Some funny parts, but the show is inferior to the classic original in every respect. There seems to be a lot of the charm took out of the old show. And I think that the characters of Anthony and Steve are unbearably unfunny. But will watch episode two tonight.

Quote: Jack Massey @ May 1 2009, 1:31 PM BST

I've just watched episode one. Some funny parts, but the show is inferior to the classic original in every respect. There seems to be a lot of the charm took out of the old show. And I think that the characters of Anthony and Steve are unbearably unfunny. But will watch episode two tonight.

View original

I think that's rose-tinted specs. It was always a bit hit and miss - and "great" and "super" were supposed to be unbearable.

Okay, enjoyable but still looking more of a mistake than a good idea.