Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 6, 2007, 8:42 AM
here we go again...
Or maybe we are all different with different tastes?
I don't see the 'obvious' cliches, some of the characters are from Essex and speak cockney because of it, i think your definition of chav is misplaced. Plus, sub-characters don't need to have as much depth as the main ones.
I actually love Father Ted, but if stupid Irish people isn't a bit of a cliche what is?
Father ted isn't about 'stupid Irish people' either wholly or in part. One character is stupid – two if you count Dougal's counterpart on rugged Island. I love Father Ted, and it has minimal hack or clichéd writing. Some of the writing is in fact highly original and inspired. You miss the point, a little. You say the characters speak cockney because they are cockney. This is not the cliché, the cliché is in writing about these people in the first place. I was responding to an earlier post that described the show as highly original and with greater character depth than anything else they could think off. The same poster has compared it to Phoenix Nights and The Office. Most sitcom revolves around stereotypes. If you're a writer and have tried your hand at it, you'll know that the form resists deep and original characterisation, even in its most naturalistic, current incarnation, like Pulling or G & S.
Time and time again on this thread I have given concrete examples of what I consider to be weak writing in G & S. People come back with 'well I like it' kind of posts. Of course that's your prerogative. I don't decry anyone for liking it. I state why I think it is not much good. No-one (beyond Matt Stott saying the characterisation was warm) has made much of a stab at saying what they think is good about the writing. That doesn't matter over much, but whether it's good or not is not about personal taste.
If you said that you didn't think that the poetry of Ted Hughes was very good, no-one will take that criticism seriously. It is good. Rembrant can't paint. But he can paint.
Many of the writers on here aren't crazy about G& S at a script level, and I think their lack of enthusiasm would be shared by many professional writers if they were to watch the show. I don't know that and I could be wrong, but again my point is why is the show so highly praised and i don't think it's good?
I can see why people like Peep Show. Ideal with Jonny Vegas is brilliantly written. I can see why a reviewer would fail to appreciate a show because they didn't watch it properly, or didn't connect with what the writer was saying – it's happened so many times. What i can't understand, and you haven't addressed this - is why I don't think it's well written and they do. We're both using the same critical standards and tools. One of us is wrong. You would say it was me – I of course would say it's them.
).
