Tom,
A lot of comments on here and in the press to the effect the title miss-sells the product. I would imagine that the title has helped the show stand out in the listings, but at the expense of deterring some viewers who might have appreciated it. Was this a calculated trade off, or has the negative reaction to the title surprised you?
Hi Tom,
I like many was offput by the title when I first saw it, as I'm finding British comedy has become pretty common-denominator, low brow "let's appeal to the youths", without any real wit or depth to the humour. That said the concept of the show was one that I thought was worth a watch, and I have watched the first episode. For the most part I enjoyed it, I actually found the main character to be a really developed likeable character, not the obnoxious sorts of other shows I'll fail to mention. The thing which didn't hold my attention to the second episode (though I will now watch it as it's been recommended to me by a few others) was that I felt the show didn't really know what it was trying to be. It had this great concept, a kind of Reaper or Brimstone or even My Name is Earl for sti's. But I'll give it another watch.
StephenM -
I'm glad you liked the first two eps. I started out writing feature film scripts and the half-hour (well, 23 minutes) is the shortest length I've written for. For me, the appeal of working at feature-length was the ability to tell a complete story, usually one about a single main character undergoing a fundamental and lasting transformation; that's a very satisfying kind of story to craft. I came to TV writing a little later, but I think the influence of feature-writing remains. The half-hours I develop usually feature a lot of serial elements -- Scrotal Recall is written so that every episode informs the others -- rather than stand-alone story-of-the-week episodes. I also spend a lot of time tracking the emotional shifts in my stories, which is something that feature film development really emphasises. I do love a good sketch show (though they're rare these days, it seems) but those rhythms are alien to me and I've never tried my hand at it.
Tursiops -
You're right on all counts! The title was a calculated trade-off; we (mostly) found it amusing and thought that it combined the STI element with memory, and was memorable, and set up some expectations for the show that we could then play against. It was definitely debated and, no, there wasn't consensus. But in the cold light of day possibly we got this wrong. The negative reaction to the title has been stronger than I thought it would be, and it would seem from Twitter that many people have been surprised to like the show when they've ventured beyond the title... suggesting that they arrived with negative preconceptions (and further suggesting that there is perhaps still a large audience that's been put off altogether). So, all told, it was a calculated risk, and perhaps one we got wrong. I just hope that the show finds its natural audience *despite* the title, and that the title will fade into the background in due course. Or perhaps we should just change it (can we do that? Is there precedent for this, comedy historians?)
DeathbyMonkey -
Thanks for your comments, and glad you (partly) liked it! I hope that if you stick with the show our intentions for it will become clearer. For me it's all about that central three-way friendship tracked through a turbulent decade. The other lovers are marker-points in their history, but theirs is the relationship that we're really exploring. I also like what the flashback structure enables us to explore - how, in the present, our past forms a coherent narrative... but when we're living day-to-day that narrative can completely elude us. By the time episode four's done with, I hope those ideas will be up and running and the show's identity clarified.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments.
Curiously on the comedy circuit the pun title is becoming seen as a real cliche, that and though it's a bit of a cheap laugh I think it not so much offensive as it's simply making a large swathe of comedy lovers think "it's not for them" when it really is. I don't think I'm the only one that's getting tired of the current style of British comedies. That's my 2c on title
Quote: Tom Edge @ 14th October 2014, 4:22 PM BSTOr perhaps we should just change it (can we do that? Is there precedent for this, comedy historians?)
There is, although I think you'd have to go back a fair bit to find any!
The most famous example is The Goon Show, or The Crazy People for its first series.
Quote: StephenM @ 14th October 2014, 1:48 PM BSTAfter episode 1 I watched the second straight afterwards so that's probably a good sign.
I usually hate it when they do it, but this is a show that might have benefited from having the first two episodes go out back to back. I think anyone sitting on the fence after the first one would have been won over by the second, I certainly was. 
So the question for Tom is this: what the heck is 'Dutch mudflaps'?!
Aaron, I believe if you search your true feelings, you'll discover for yourself what Dutch Mudflaps must inevitably be :-)
There was lively discussion amongst the cast about the likely definition. I'm told that Antonia's guess was the filthiest.
I can only wonder...
More irritating Channel 4 shite, like a teenager the channel is desperate to go on and on about sex, thinking this will make it trendy and popular and a bit edgy, f**king yawwwn.
The channel is over 30 years old and it still hasn't grown up. 
Oh I've just seen the author is present here, brave for a writer I'll give him that. Sorry but I'm sick of this of stuff and I can't be bothered to see if it is well done or not because both the title and the subject put me off - why should I have sympathy with someone who I assume must end up having had unprotected sex with lots of people by the end of the series?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 1st November 2014, 1:10 AM GMT- why should I have sympathy with someone who I assume must end up having had unprotected sex with lots of people by the end of the series?
He's actually had it all before the start of the series.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 1st November 2014, 1:10 AM GMT...*snip*...Sorry but I'm sick of this of stuff and I can't be bothered to see if it is well done or not because both the title and the subject put me off - why should I have sympathy with someone who I assume must end up having had unprotected sex with lots of people by the end of the series?
Oh puhlease lighten up 'Mr.Kipper', seriously!? 'Tis a bloody comedy we're on about here, not exactly 'real life' now is it. Are you seriously judging/admonishing the poor choices of a mere character, one could even say a mere 'narrative trope', as the reason for avoiding a TV programme!? (If so, I think you'd find you've probably been missing out on much you might've/would've otherwise enjoyed - your loss!) I don't even know what to say to that, but best I keep shtum lest it come out sounding inadvertently insulting...
@Tom Edge-
As to the whole 'title thing' - I really don't see what all the 'brouhaha's all about. I really think it's more than high time that people stop being so damned touchy/squeamish/uptight/puerile/ridiculous about the merest hint of a penis or scrotum, let alone just the mere mention of a word associated to one. - I really don't see what's so "crass" about the title (as someone else mentioned) - Are we really still that 'Victorian' & uptight !?? ... (Mind you, I can't even imagine what they'll probably change it to if/when it gets to the States, who are even more touchy & puritanical about these things.)
Personally, I think it's a perfectly fine & well suited title for the subject matter. Instantly gave me a good 'chuckle/groan', which after all ain't exactly a bad thing when it comes to comedy/pun titles. I say if someone missed out on the series due to something as stupid as taking offence to, or even just misjudging the tone and didn't even bother investigating further, then it's their loss and deservedly so!
I also don't think there necessarily IS a 'disjoint' between title & tone when considering the subject matter and different characters involved.
I'm actually one of those rarest of men who's not afraid/ashamed to admit I can enjoy a good 'rom-com' - (in fact, Dylan Witter himself comes across as probably being another) - HOWEVER, only when they're done right, ... as I think all involved have clearly done here. ... So, I'd just like to extend my congrats to Tom on a fine (& funny) job done ! - I've enjoyed every minute & can't wait for the next/last episode to see how it's all wrapped up. - (Or how left dangling for a possible S2 - which I, for one at very least, would certainly welcome.)
OK, I admit it - I only found this messageboard through googling "Dutch Mudflaps" (interesting idea and will be trying it out on 'Mrs P' next time she seems in a receptive mood...)
I've just registered on here to say how much I'm enjoying the show (and the title!)
Really well done.
Good morning all...
Mr Kipper, I think Channel 4 would be delighted at your verdict "The channel is over 30 years old and it still hasn't grown up". You can expect to see that as a pull-quote on their in-house newsletter :-)
Sorry you don't want to watch the show, but you're not alone in having been deterred by title/concept alone. I will say this though: the character hasn't had lots of unprotected sex - in the vast majority of cases he's used a condom. But regardless of whether you're 'pretty sure' you did everything right, it standard practice to contact previous partners anyway. The show's not really about the STI, or the sex, though.
@SapientOoze
The title's perceived crimes are many, including mention of a body part and being a pun. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I think it probably put off quite a few people who'd otherwise like what they found. Delighted you've enjoyed the show, and likewise @WarsawPact
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 1st November 2014, 1:10 AM GMTMore irritating Channel 4 shite, like a teenager the channel is desperate to go on and on about sex, thinking this will make it trendy and popular and a bit edgy, f**king yawwwn.
It's really not about sex at all. It's about maturing and relationships.
Quote: WarsawPact @ 1st November 2014, 8:24 AM GMTOK, I admit it - I only found this messageboard through googling "Dutch Mudflaps" (interesting idea and will be trying it out on 'Mrs P' next time she seems in a receptive mood...)
