I found it pretty average stuff. Not terrible, but no great either. It seemed to be a much more expensive version of 2DT, with no discernable advantages over that show. That said, it was nice to have comedy back on ITV on Sunday nights. When I was growing up it was a well developed slot with Spitting Image, The New Statesman and Hale and Pace going out at that time. Fair play to them for trying to bring it back.
Just bring back spitting image or 2DTV.
Headcases was just complete crap IMO.
According to The Guardian, the show attracted 4 million viewers (19% of the audience) at the start, makingit the most watched programme at for the first quarter-hour. However, the second half was beaten by the BBC One news.
I was so disappointed that I felt moved to spend my morning finding places to comment about Headcases. Anything to avoid starting work!
Hm. I agree. Forced.
I'd also say that it's not particulary satirical. Nowhere near as clever or incisive - or as silly - as Spitting Image but then ITV were probably asking for trouble billing Headcases as the new Spitting Image!
When I think what UK comedy writers can achieve, Green Wing and League of Gentlemen to name just two, this just doesn't measure up.
Another thing: Spitting Image characters were endearing and accurate despite being ugly and extreme. I find Headcases' characters unpleasantly creepy. Can't put my finger on it but... yuk.
Finally. In a world of instant communications I expected topicality, a series full of this week's issues. Spitting Image episodes were written the week before release, so the content was always bang up to the minute.
I don't like to be harsh but Headcases is just ordinary. I found something recently, while hunting around for funny CG stuff online, that is much more deserving of the Spitting Image mantle. I'm probably not supposed to put links in here so I'll just say that I reckon ITV has missed a trick. If they'd come across World Leaders first, they'd probably have commissioned a series from these people instead of commissioning Headcases.
I can't think about Putin, Brown, Bush, Sarkozy, Merkel etc without giggling these days. Try world-leaders.com!
Welcome to the site. 
Quote: Kate Naylor @ April 8 2008, 1:28 PM BSTAnother thing: Spitting Image characters were endearing and accurate despite being ugly and extreme. I find Headcases' characters unpleasantly creepy. Can't put my finger on it but... yuk.
That's the CGI. It's just so cold and unfeeling. Doesn't have the human level that something like puppets, filmed live rather than generated, does.
Quote: Kate Naylor @ April 8 2008, 1:28 PM BSTI'm probably not supposed to put links in here so I'll just say that I reckon ITV has missed a trick.
Not at all. Please post away.
Hang on a minute... Kate Naylor? Any relation?
Quote: Kate Naylor @ April 8 2008, 1:28 PM BSTI found something recently, while hunting around for funny CG stuff online, that is much more deserving of the Spitting Image mantle ... If they'd come across World Leaders first, they'd probably have commissioned a series from these people instead of commissioning Headcases.
I haven't had a look at the World Leaders stuff properly yet as it streams really slowly, but you could have at least used a pseudonym on this forum if you're going to pretend not to have a vested interest.
http://www.strutyourreel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4248&sid=dbcc09166528b6dade7c82b2cc8f4108
Kim Fuller, eh? Not a bad writer behind them then. And good detective work Bomber!
For my first bash, here's my analysis of Headcases:
First:Comedy means having a funny script. This lacked one.
Two: CGI is sexless and poor unless you have the budgets of Shrek and Toy Story, with the wind moving individual leaves; hair, shadows responding etc. But if the script was funny, you could have overlooked this. These days all comedy scripts seem to be naff. Just tune in to anything on Radio 4 at 18.30. There also seem to be too many writers. After all Harry Corbett got a laugh with his hand stuck up a bear's bum. All right, it was a long time ago.
Three: the charm of SPITTING IMAGE was that it the set was real and your eyes could look around ( all right for Gordon Brown, your eye) and see the naff curtains, the tablecloths, the plates, the shading of the eye makeup on the Queen, Ian Paisley, whoever. There was charm in the puppets and in the sets. There is none in Headcases. The backgrounds were devoid of anything- there was nothing to please or interest the eye.
Having said that, I want it to succeed. It has to be a barb in the establishment, and it's choosing easy targets- the Peter Andres,Beckhams etc. These are not the concerns of the target audience
who are ABC1, not CDE. They should be the scumbag politicians, at home and abroad, industrialists, international figures.
The Sootyj perspective.
Head cases was ok, animation was alright. But let's be honest it was no Spitting Image.
Voices nicely done, and good characterisation (especially on Princes, and Cameron)
Lots of good jokes, and nothing overlong. Only Beckham, and the Dames notably dated, and poor.
But it was deeply unadventurous, and extremely safe, and dull. Check out Nick Cohen's excellent article in last Observer.
For a show that had state of the art CGI, some of the best writers, and impressionists in the country, and a very big budget. It was deeply profoundly unmemorable, and average. Funny yes, but beyond the Gordon Brown internet gag, nothing I'd repeat.
Satire should be challenging, and exciting. This was definitely an unloved cousin of 2D TV, and Spitting Image.
Quote: sootyj @ April 8 2008, 10:54 PM BSTVoices nicely done...
And no matter how correct the ret of your post was, these three words render it null and void!
(Ish.)
Here's a thought- what makes FONEJACKER so good- most of the time- is the range of voices- PLUS the naff contra-pictures/ cut out Terry Gilliam animations- with sound effects.The Indian autocue with squeaks- They're one half of the whole package.
I'm sure many zlotys cheaper than CGI- AND they are done in less than half the time-.One of the most irritating things about computers is the rendering time sitting over the shoulder of a mouse pusher whiel he does a not so good flash, or harry or flame or paintbox or whatever.
So as an idea
it'll save money AND be better)ditch the CGI it's not doing anything.
Use Novak's BARDZO DOBRY cut out system. It rocks.
I only saw the first bit on their site (Couldn't get the second half to work), but I kinda agree with what's been said. The CG disappointed me, as a cgi 'trainee' I was expecting slightly better and felt the models were a bit too different in style for my liking. Didn't really notice much bad with the voices, but then I was looking more at the visuals.
Quite liked the character of Brown as Scrooge, but wasn't so keen on the celb stuff. (though I rarely am). Ultimetly it didn't seem as good as I remember 2dTV being, and didn't seem to have much of an edge to it.
(From what I can make out from their behind the scenes vids it looks like all the episodes have been made & finished all ready. Isn't the point of this that it's largely made very near the time?)
Quote: Hennell @ April 9 2008, 11:35 PM BSTFrom what I can make out from their behind the scenes vids it looks like all the episodes have been made & finished all ready. Isn't the point of this that it's largely made very near the time?
I believe about six minutes of each episode is going to be made in the week leading up to broadcast (Heather Mills talking for example), but you're right, in the main they have made most of it already... which is a shame.
Seeing as it is all computer-based production I'm suprised they can't have a quicker turn-around, but I guess perhaps these things take longer to make than an outsider like me thinks.
Well I thought things could be turned around quicker, but I guess to do it 'well' probably does take a while. (I figured once modelled and rigged, things could be done very fast indeed. However sets and lighting do take their time, and I have no idea how they're doing the lip-sync)
I suppose 6 minutes is a sensible amount, obviously shows want to make sure they'll have something that's good. I suppose not really caring for celebrities 'goss', I'd have no idea there if they're very up to date with their jibes or just more very 'zeitgeist-y' made several months ago.
The biggest time consumer is the actual rendering, I believe. Creating the animation, writing etc, is relatively easy when you've got everything set up properly - but the rendering is the real bitch.
Of course, I stayed away from my course's animation class like the plague, so don't quote me on that.
