Gavin & Stacey Page 15

Hers another review from Radiotimes of the Teletubbies

'The underlying transcient theme of the show is to juxtoppose the vibrancy of simple colour schemes and delivery with the modern informed and inspired technology and content. At times reminiscent of the Assent of Man, the show tackles the critical foundations of civilisation namely words and numbers. Up there with the World at War as documentary of the century. But too many ethic kids for me.'

Only kidding Josh. However if you could win an argument by simply repeating someone else's opinion then look back at the thread and I think I win.

I take the Radio Times and saw that review (not the teletubbies one ).

I was also thinking of posting it. It troubles me when there is such a large discrepancy between what I think and a reviewer thinks. Normally reviewers throw shit at good programmes because they didn't watch them properly or misread the author's intentions, not the other way round.

The characters in G & S are fairly obvious clichés - from lairey Essex wide boy Smithy to 'fat slag' Nessa and Gavin's chirpy cockney chav mum. The married couple who are always arguing comes straight out of Father Ted.

That's what you get when actors write scripts - the dialogue and charcaters are highly reminiscent of things you've seen before, often of things the bloody actor's been in him/herself.

here we go again...

Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 6, 2007, 4:20 AM

I was also thinking of posting it. It troubles me when there is such a large discrepancy between what I think and a reviewer thinks. Normally reviewers throw shit at good programmes because they didn't watch them properly or misread the author's intentions, not the other way round.

View original

Or maybe we are all different with different tastes?

Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 6, 2007, 4:20 AM

The characters in G & S are fairly obvious clichés - from lairey Essex wide boy Smithy to 'fat slag' Nessa and Gavin's chirpy cockney chav mum. The married couple who are always arguing comes straight out of Father Ted.

View original

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?

Quote: Godot Taxis @ June 6, 2007, 4:20 AM

That's what you get when actors write scripts - the dialogue and charcaters are highly reminiscent of things you've seen before, often of things the bloody actor's been in him/herself.

View original

Like what?

Quote: Josh Dulaney @ June 5, 2007, 11:45 PM

Just seen this in this weeks radio times:
Comedy of the week.
"This glorious series gets a perfectly pitched finale,
as the wedding arrives. The tender dramatic moments are
unashamedly sentimental and deftly handled - reminiscent
of The Royle Family at its very best - but the ceremony
is peppered with raucous, acutely observed comic moments,
from Smithy's disastrous best man speech to the return of
Dawn and Pete, the embittered married couple. Every member
of the excellent cast gets at least one terrific line ;
seeing everyone in one room brings home how many well-drawn
characters Ruth Jones and James Corden have created, almost
without us noticing. Truth be told, this is up there with
Peep Show for the comedy of the year."
Says it all for me!

View original

LOL!

Oh, such glorious bullshit.

A '... disastrous best mans speech.' Really? I'd hardly call that 'acutely observed'. More like 'tried and tested'. Which is fine... just not worthy of that reviewer's ramblings.

'Up there with Peep Show'? Obviously comedy, like every art form, is subjective and what goes for some, doesn't go for others'. Being as objective as possible though, I wouldn't be able to compare G&S with PS.

I like the show. It's OK. Watchable. Enjoyable in its own way. I laugh. It passes half an hour.

Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ June 6, 2007, 8:52 AM

It passes half an hour.

View original

So does a dodgy kebab

I'm not trying to win and argument, cos it's just a difference of opinion. I just saw the review and thought i'd show that outside of 2 or 3 people on this forum it's regarded highly by critics and the public alike. It's normally one or the other. Peep Show for example, great critical praise but next to no one watches it. Or My family which critics hate but people watch in massive numbers. Here is a show that's getting the highest critical acclaim and it's viewing figures are brilliant. It will surely move to a main channel and i can't wait to watch it all again!

Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ June 6, 2007, 8:52 AM

.

A '... disastrous best mans speech.' Really? I'd hardly call that 'acutely observed'. More like 'tried and tested'. Which is fine... just not worthy of that reviewer's ramblings.

You should probably wait until you've seen the speech cos it may be acutely observed. Until you've seen it you probably shouldn't comment.

View original

Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 6, 2007, 10:24 AM

So does a dodgy kebab

View original

A dodgy kebab passes through you in half an hour. That's different

Well, I've laughed along with most of the show... so I'm sure I'll find the speech funny.

My point was that the reviewer (and hardly an independent viewpoint is it, being a Radio Times write-up?) is talking about this 'disastrous' speech as if it were the most original thing he's ever seen. The content of said speech may potentially provide mirth but the actual concept of a best man cocking it up isn't new at all.

I wasn't passing comment on the show as such, merely the use of language, by the reviewer, in order to dress up a very basic premise.

TV is a mass medium. In order for programming to be successful, it has to appeal to the masses. G&S appears to have done just that.

You can argue about the definition of 'successful' amongst yourselves...

Quote: Darren Goldsmith @ June 6, 2007, 1:14 PM

The concept of a best man cocking it up isn't new at all.

View original

Well said Darren, a good point. Acutely observed? As Fawlty says "The bleedin' obvious" more like. And the Radio Times? It's like asking a car salesman to tell you the bad points about the car he's trying to sell you. Even Goebbels would have toned down some of their gushing reviews.

Quote: SlagA @ June 6, 2007, 3:13 PM

Even Goebbels would have toned down some of their gushing reviews.

View original

Friends at work say it's really good - but I still haven't got around to watching it.

Incidentally I was best man once and I did a really embarrassing speech - not clever just pathetic - and I still worry about it now ... 25 years later!!!

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?

View original

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.

I get the point about writing and I am a writer but I learnt very early on (from a very successful writer) that you are writing for the public and not other writers. There is only one criteria in comedy and that is to make people laugh. The majority of the public aren't writers and won't be looking for the writing.

There are huge holes in the premise of G+S and some of the jokes do fall flat but there is a warmth to the comedy that gets you past that. I don't think its highly original or amazing, but if you watch as just a writer then you'll lose that overall impression that the public will get and, at the end of the day, they decide whats good or not - not us.

I think a writer needs to understand why people like things even if you don't as, again, these are the people that you are writing for. I don't think you are wrong to pick at the writing but I just think the importance of it isn't as high.

It also might seem better than it is because there is so much crap comedy about at the moment. But I like the character mix (Essex v Wales), the conflicts, the love story and the subtle jokes.

I think the writing is superb for the following reasons. It's subtle and truthful to every single character. Within ten minutes of the first episode i was sucked into the world the characters live in, i felt i knew them and i think that is a testimnent to the writing to feel like that after 10 minutes. It's something that Peep Show, for me took 3 episodes to do, i love Peep Show by the way, i'm just using it as an example. The characters have heart and warmth and this i think is much harder than writing "dark" or "edgy" comedy. And yet within this story which could seem so touchy feely or sentimental it has an edge that sets it apart from the my family type shows. The 2 families in the show are named the Shipmans and the Wests. Never flagged up in the series, just left for you to realise. The character of Nessa is an incredible creation, her speech about Mohamed Al Fayed was so brilliantly brilliantly written, that although absurd and wierd it's handled and thrown away superbly. The way the writers have fully formed seven main characters who you believe in is surely testiment to wonderful writing. The review in the Times said,"This show should be shortlisted for next years BAFTA already, character comedy like this has never been so good." I, as you know, agree with him. I can't see what's remotely lazy in the writing, i think it's precise, well crafted and most importantly funny! The show gets funnier the more you watch it, because the jokes are all in the characters and the situation they are in. I agree that Gavin and Stacey isn't a "sit-com" as we know it, this for me is a plus. It's so much more. It's funnier than most stuff on television, in my opinion, and yet so moving and touching. It reaches out to you as a viewer and asks you to come on a journey with the characters, that for me is the definition of good writing. x

Quote: ContainsNuts @ June 7, 2007, 9:00 AM

I get the point about writing and I am a writer but I learnt very early on (from a very successful writer) that you are writing for the public and not other writers.

View original

Surely your write for yourself and what you like, not what you think others will like. That's my thought on the matter anyway.