Another very funny episode and the fact that Warren is quite aggressive makes it more fun, interesting and different.
Warren Page 6
Quote: Chappers @ 19th March 2019, 9:57 PMAnother very funny episode and the fact that Warren is quite aggressive makes it more fun, interesting and different.
Yes, I think it's getting stronger and stronger every week. Whilst it's probably not the best sitcom ever made, it's still very much worth a watch, just for Clunes alone.
Apologies for being late to the party.
I was very discouraged by the first episode but on the grounds of reasonability I thought I'd give the second episode a go.
Oh dear. I gave up after 13.5 minutes.
As a fan of Martin Clunes I'm disappointed with his cod-cockney accent.
The programme appears to be "real life" therefore one would expect the characters to have a semblance of normality.
But Anne is just a no! For example, why on earth would she have accepted the blame (on behalf of Warren) for running over the cat?
And the grandparents. One can only assume they are both senile, giving Warren the fiver in the belief it would be of financial help, yet they are not portrayed as such.
The elderly neighbour who apparently passed her driving test after lessons from Warren's competitor yet she is shown as totally unable to handle the Mini. Nonsense!
The only time I laughed throughout was on 13 mins of ep 2 when Warren rang Daz and called him a "Wanker"!
Obviously some schoolboy still left in me at 58.
I stopped watching after that as I figured it had peaked.
I shan't be returning.
Hopefully the young writing team get the opportunity to go on to better things.
Quote: garyd @ 23rd March 2019, 3:15 PMHopefully the young writing team get the opportunity to go on to better things.
I'm sure they will but, in the meantime, I think they're doing a decent job with "Warren".
The series is set in the real world but that doesn't mean that the programme fails if every aspect of every plot doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.
The most obvious illogicality is the fact that Warren has a relatively successful driving school business despite treating most of his students like something he's just scraped off the sole of his shoe. If we can forgive that as we sit back and enjoy the programme, I think we can forgive him and the writers almost anything - as long as they make us laugh.
I mean, at the end of the day in the final analysis when all is said and done, the essential purpose of a sitcom is to make the audience laugh.
If "Warren" does that for you, that's great.
If it doesn't, there's an almost infinite choice of other stuff to watch.
Quote: garyd @ 23rd March 2019, 3:15 PMApologies for being late to the party.
I was very discouraged by the first episode but on the grounds of reasonability I thought I'd give the second episode a go.
Oh dear. I gave up after 13.5 minutes.As a fan of Martin Clunes I'm disappointed with his cod-cockney accent.
The programme appears to be "real life" therefore one would expect the characters to have a semblance of normality.
But Anne is just a no! For example, why on earth would she have accepted the blame (on behalf of Warren) for running over the cat?
And the grandparents. One can only assume they are both senile, giving Warren the fiver in the belief it would be of financial help, yet they are not portrayed as such.
The elderly neighbour who apparently passed her driving test after lessons from Warren's competitor yet she is shown as totally unable to handle the Mini. Nonsense!
The only time I laughed throughout was on 13 mins of ep 2 when Warren rang Daz and called him a "Wanker"!
Obviously some schoolboy still left in me at 58.
I stopped watching after that as I figured it had peaked.I shan't be returning.
Hopefully the young writing team get the opportunity to go on to better things.
Many of the plots of Hancock's Half Hour were scarcely believable; many of the plots of Bilko were scarcely believable; many of the plots of One Foot in the Grave were scarcely believable. It didn't make them any less funny.
In fact if the plots of sitcoms were restricted to being true to life, they would all be very mundane with no laughs at all.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 23rd March 2019, 9:27 PMMany of the plots of Haancock's Half Hour were scarcely believable; many of the plots of Bilko were scarcely believable; many of the plots of One Foot in the Grave were scarcely believable. It didn't make them any less funny.
In fact if the plots of sitcoms were restricted to being true to life, they would all be very mundane with no laughs at all.
They are all studio audience sitcoms that don't take themselves too seriously and have the according heightened sense of reality though. Single-cam, like Warren, by its very nature of presentation, is required to be more straight and real.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 23rd March 2019, 9:27 PMMany of the plots of Haancock's Half Hour were scarcely believable; many of the plots of Bilko were scarcely believable; many of the plots of One Foot in the Grave were scarcely believable. It didn't make them any less funny.
In fact if the plots of sitcoms were restricted to being true to life, they would all be very mundane with no laughs at all.
The genius of One Foot though is that it WAS believable, due to Renwick's painstaking process of setting up and threading everything that happens logically in the first half of an episode, leading to a payoff that makes absolute sense. Warren does not. I caught the end bit with the radio phone in. It didn't work because it didn't follow any kind of logic.
Quote: Aaron @ 23rd March 2019, 10:01 PMThey are all studio audience sitcoms that don't take themselves too seriously and have the according heightened sense of reality though. Single-cam, like Warren, by its very nature of presentation, is required to be more straight and real.
A sitcom is a sitcom, no matter how it's filmed. With the same sole raison d'etre (to entertain & amuse its audience). I doubt very much whether the man on the Clapham omnibus would differentiate.
Tonight's episode was decent enough in parts but I'm trying to remember if there's ever been a successful sitcom in which the main character would knowingly, intentionally, cheerfully and frequently make innocent people unhappy in order to gain some sort of advantage. Angry is fine: unhappy is not fine!
As I've said before, the writers need to be less concerned about plot and more concerned about character.
Comparisons with One Foot are wildly far of the mark: Victor Meldrew was well and truly a grumpy old man. Warren however is an objectionable shit - his manipulation regarding the caravan was repellent IMO!
Loved it again. Like Jack Dee with attitude.
Quote: gb901 @ 25th March 2019, 10:09 PMhis manipulation regarding the caravan was repellent IMO!
I have to agree and I think it was a colossal error on the part of the writers to have his machinations continue for so long. One try or maybe two that ended immediately in failure would have been funny but, when extended as long as it was, it wasn't funny. Worse than that, I think it actually sucked much of the funniness out of the rest of the programme.
"Repellent" is a dreadful word to use about anybody but I think it's justified in this instance.
I can only hope that one or both writers are reading this thread and that it makes them think about bucking their ideas up!
Yes, still enjoying, but his nastiness is becoming a bit tiresome. I can't think that anyone could keep being so awful without going off their rocker and having a mental breakdown.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 25th March 2019, 10:07 PMTonight's episode was decent enough in parts but I'm trying to remember if there's ever been a successful sitcom in which the main character would knowingly, intentionally, cheerfully and frequently make innocent people unhappy in order to gain some sort of advantage. Angry is fine: unhappy is not fine!
As I've said before, the writers need to be less concerned about plot and more concerned about character.
Nighty Night springs immediately to mind
Quote: Sitcomfan64 @ 26th March 2019, 12:27 AMNighty Night springs immediately to mind
I think the difference between Jill Tyrell and Warren Thompson is that Jill was what mental health professionals refer to as "an absolute f**king nutter" whereas Warren is just a selfish c***.
Another difference is that the writers of "Nighty Night" intended to make Jill appear every bit as bad as she did in fact, appear.
I don't think the writers of "Warren" are intending to make Warren unlikeable. I think it's entirely possible that they don't realise what they're doing.