Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2009, 2:47 PM BST
It was good, but that good? I'm shocked so many people like it at all.
No, not as good as all that. Perhaps fans are relieved that they didn't cock it up totally.
Reggie Perrin - Series 1 Page 16
Quote: Bad dog @ April 27 2009, 2:51 PM BSTNo, not as good as all that. Perhaps fans are relieved that they didn't cock it up totally.
I wonder how many of the 5m were fans of the original, and how many were just Friday night comedy fans who tuned in to see a Martin Clunes sitcom, and had never seen the Leonard Rossiter show?
Quote: Peter Gash @ April 27 2009, 2:17 PM BSTYes, of course that's the case, it's set in stone
Battlestar Galactica invented the re-imaging genre - it took existing characters, an existing situation and the existing premise and then took the lot in a totally different direction.
This is exactly the same.
Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2009, 2:47 PM BSTAs you say, the original series was tied to the books. But why then go on to assume that this series will be too? Sure, it takes the basic premise of a middle-aged man living and working in suburbia having some kind of breakdown, but beyond that it doesn't have to be remotely similar.
Erm, this is why I asked the question: where will this series go? Also I did say 'presumably' he fakes his death...
The original series was so tied to the books that it only progressed when Nobbs wrote another novel; they pressed him to write one. I don't expect for a moment they will wait for him to write another installment if they want to go elsewhere with Reggie this time round, but it's interesting they have him on board all the same. The new Reggie is obviously going down the same route as the old one so far (that is to say, one episode), and they have made a big point about how they are adapting a novel and not necessarily 'doing a remake'. If they are adapting a novel, usually they carry forward major plotlines.
If he doesn't fake his death, re-invent himself, become a success etc there was really little point in having David Nobbs on board or calling the central character Reggie Perrin!
Well they can do what's in the books, but they're not limited by it, they can go beyond it. Or something.
My thoughts on Reggie Perrin are too complex and rambling to get down here at any useful length. I have written about it, at great and offputting length, on my blog. You may or may not wish to plough through it - the choice is yours! I just thought I'd link to it for those with time on their hands:
http://www.wherediditallgoright.com/BLOG/2009/04/fall-and-rise-and-fall-and-rise-and.html
One-word summary: wrong.
I read that title on the page as ending with "and awful".
Totally irrelevant TRUFAX for you there.
*reads*
Hmm. Very interesting. I can't help but feel that you've judged it on points which haven't (yet?) happened in this series - the nature of his disillusionment and final-straw breakdown as an example. I don't really agree that the idea of the breakdown is now out of date, but if by the end of the series we see that is is presented in the same way and for the exact same reasons as the original, then that contrast is a fair point to make. And I've forgotten the rest of what I was going to say.
One teeny factual point is that the commuter belt began growing a good hundred or so years before, but really picking up in the 1920s with Metro-land. But uhhh, that's just me being very very sad and anal.
In short: interesting and very well thought-out post, but some points would (IMO) hold a bit more water if made at the end of the series than after the first episode.
Quote: Andrew Collins @ April 27 2009, 4:22 PM BSThttp://www.wherediditallgoright.com/BLOG/2009/04/fall-and-rise-and-fall-and-rise-and.html
One-word summary: wrong.
Hmmm deep thoughts... but you're right. So many things about it don't work- the office is a neverland that is halfway between old and new, nobody is called Reggie anymore and also Reggie's house is almost Jerry and Margot's from 1970s Surbiton. I read an interview that Clunes did where he said that Reggie's wife has been updated, but it seems little more than "Hello darling, I'm very busy as I have to insert 21st century activity here."
But as I said elsewhere, as a standalone sitcom it has some funny lines and is better than a lot of stuff out there. It's just not going to have a cast as good as the original, or capture the feel of the original, or the impact of it.
I think Andrew overestimates the extent to which Reggie was a man of his time. The essential experience of commuting really has not changed since the days of Metro-land, and a feeling of being trapped in one's life is hardly era specific. If anything, with the raised expectations of the baby boomer generation, and the inevitable feelings of middle-aged disappointment, Clunes' Reggie is a more universal and identifiable figure than Rossiter's.
Some of the updating is neither one thing or another, and I think the writers tottered a little on the tightrope between familiarity and modernity, but on the whole they did rather better than I expected. Perhaps because of this tension the show lacked the consistent vision of the original. But it still succeeded in being more true-to-life than just about any other mainstream sitcom of recent years; and a lot funnier than most.
I hated how the studio audience found all the sight gags to be the funniest things they had ever seen - it sounded so patronising.
From the trailer I've just seen, it appears that there will be a new hippo-equivalent sequence. Very interested to see how they cut that in with the rest of the episode this time round.
Interesting to read Andrew's comments but I agree with Aaron that to judge all of those things on one episode seems premature. For example, in the original series the character of Reggie's wife only started to grow and get more screen time as the series progressed so the same may be true here.
Also, I don't think that the only valid remakes feature new special effects. People will keep interpreting Austen and Dickens until the cows come home and there is no reason why they shouldn't do the same with Nobbs's books.
I do wonder as well how much Andrew's feelings are coloured by NGO being cancelled by the BBC and Perrin appearing in its slot...
Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2009, 4:56 PM BSTBut uhhh, that's just me being very very sad and anal.
What's new?
Erm, in the original series was the character who said "Super!" called David? Because I can't help thinking there's a passing resemblence between him and Andrew Collins, which is, of course, Super!
Haven't seen the Martin Clunes version yet but intend to. However, I think anyone who is old enough to remember the original when it was on is bound to be biased towards it. I caught the two blokes doing the Tony and David types and it didn't feel the same at all, which I suppose was the point.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ April 27 2009, 7:03 PM BSTHmmm deep thoughts... but you're right. So many things about it don't work- the office is a neverland that is halfway between old and new, nobody is called Reggie anymore
You are right that nobody is called Reggie anymore but how many people had the middle name Iolanthe in the 70s? Does it really matter? (Andrew's Not Going Out mentioned a character named Anna Svetic (sic) didn't it?)
I'm sure that any real office nowadays would do presentations using PowerPoint but did the office in the original really resemble reality? Nobbs has admitted that he wrote it all through guesswork.
Don't get me wrong, if Andrew or anybody else thought the show was unfunny or badly acted then I could understand that and would probably agree with some of their criticisms. But the original show was never exactly an authentic or realistic portrayal of office life and wasn't really intended to be I don't think.