Quote: ContainsNuts @ 9th September 2015, 3:31 PM BSTI think I've missed why that makes it inevitable that they would find each other attractive enough to take it further.
You are obviously a stunningly handsome man/beautiful woman who doesn't have to worry about those sort of things.
Quote: Chappers @ 9th September 2015, 3:40 PM BSTYou are obviously a stunningly handsome man/beautiful woman who doesn't have to worry about those sort of things.
Finally, we agree.
OK - mainly Sit but not really Com. Still enjoying it though. Cringing throughout.
Bit predictable and jokes set-up too easily (like leaving his phone downstairs). And yes, I agree with fact there's been no basis for them to like each other whatsoever, him calling her 'the one' was cringe, fact the heartbeat of the show is their romance, I expected more believability here.
As a vehicle to carry the message "Transgender people are just like the rest of the population, except that they've had surgery to change their bodies to better-suit their minds", I give the show my support.
As a sitcom or a comedy-drama however, it's taking up valuable TV time that could have been allocated to something funny and/or well-written.
Quote: curtis patrick @ 11th September 2015, 12:08 AM BSTBit predictable and jokes set-up too easily (like leaving his phone downstairs). And yes, I agree with fact there's been no basis for them to like each other whatsoever, him calling her 'the one' was cringe, fact the heartbeat of the show is their romance, I expected more believability here.
I agree. The second episode was incredibly contrived and not really that interesting.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 11th September 2015, 6:58 PM BSTAs a vehicle to carry the message "Transgender people are just like the rest of the population, except that they've had surgery to change their bodies to better-suit their minds", I give the show my support.
As a sitcom or a comedy-drama however, it's taking up valuable TV time that could have been allocated to something funny and/or well-written.
Yes.
Just gave it another go and watched episode 2.
Quote: ContainsNuts @ 11th September 2015, 9:18 PM BSTI agree. The second episode was incredibly contrived and not really that interesting.
Agree. To be honest, I did giggle at one point though. But that's purely down to Jane Duvitski being able to make weak writing into something funny.
I don't understand why one family (Judy's) are able to give decent performances and the other family (Leo's) are all uniformly crap. The little brother might be the most punchable character I've ever seen in a British comedy.
It's a real shame as I really wanted to like this series.
I've just watched the latest episode and it seems the whole series is essentially just a public information broadcast intercut with comedy sketches to keep us awake and watching.
They got the idea from 'Children in Need', I'm sure.
Yes it does seem to be a bit just explaining the ins and outs.
Quote: DougWonnacott @ 12th September 2015, 10:44 PM BSTYes.
Just gave it another go and watched episode 2.
Agree. To be honest, I did giggle at one point though. But that's purely down to Jane Duvitski being able to make weak writing into something funny.
I don't understand why one family (Judy's) are able to give decent performances and the other family (Leo's) are all uniformly crap. The little brother might be the most punchable character I've ever seen in a British comedy.
It's a real shame as I really wanted to like this series.
Once again I'm in agreement with you Doug. I watched Ep3 yesterday whilst doing the ironing and Janine Duvitski is excellent. I did chuckle when Judy wore a size 11 bowling shoe to Leo's titchy size 8.
As for the genitally based discussion, well let's just say, it reminded me of the conversations which used to occur in the back of Bab's Cabs in TLOG. I doubt that the writer intended that to be the case though?
Quote: Chappers @ 19th September 2015, 7:36 PM BSTYes it does seem to be a bit just explaining the ins and outs.
Plus the shake it all abouts.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 19th September 2015, 11:06 AM BSTI've just watched the latest episode and it seems the whole series is essentially just a public information broadcast intercut with comedy sketches to keep us awake and watching.
They got the idea from 'Children in Need', I'm sure.
Inclined to agree, it's a shame. I still rate Rebecca Root though and would like to see her in a different role.
Quote: TheBlueNun @ 19th September 2015, 10:39 PM BSTI still rate Rebecca Root
Casting her as Judy was a very wise move as she has single-handedly saved this series from going down in history as nothing more than a sermon disguised as a sitcom.
My heart goes out to her in every scene as her pain is almost palpable.
Quote: zooo @ 4th September 2015, 9:12 AM BSTI did find it quite endearing (and unusual) that the dad and son were constantly cuddling on the sofa.
That made me uncomfortable.
Quote: zooo @ 4th September 2015, 9:12 AM BSTI did find it quite endearing (and unusual) that the dad and son were constantly cuddling on the sofa.
Quote: Bentfer @ 20th September 2015, 9:50 AM BSTThat made me uncomfortable.
I've never seen anything like it in my life, and I've lived a relatively long life among a wide variety of people.
I found it disturbing but I don't know why.
I've seen dads very cuddly with kids up until maybe 12/13. I imagine it's the kid that doesn't want to do it anymore after that point.
I didn't find it distasteful, just unusual! I thought maybe one of the writers had that kind of relationship with their dad and wanted put it in. (So to speak.)
I enjoyed Boy Meets Girl and thought Rebecca Root made for a very good leading lady.
I agree there were similarities to Hebburn but no bad thing as I like Jason Cook.
