Doesn't appear to be a thread about this. (I did search.) Anyway, this started tonight then. Well? I am going to watch it on iPlayer later, but I confidently predict it won't be very funny. I hope to stand corrected. Well?
Oh, and the link to BCG Guide...
Just beat me to it. Surprised there was no thread yet.
Best new sitcom of 2009? I think so.
I couldn't manage more than ten minutes. I thought it was shit. That doesn't stop it being the best new sitcom of 2009.
yes point taken, qualification required.
Good characterisation, believable, funny, totally unpatronising (unlike that marshmallow one about the Ladies' Detective Agency). Not an easy subject to do funny. And completely unlike any other comedy on at the moment.
Was hoping this would be on iPlayer, but not as yet. 
Quote: Anorak @ July 8 2009, 11:28 PM BSTGood characterisation, believable, funny, totally unpatronising (unlike that marshmallow one about the Ladies' Detective Agency). Not an easy subject to do funny. And completely unlike any other comedy on at the moment.
F**k, I'm going to hate this.
Think 'Outnumbered' without kids. Or parents.
An empty house then... OK... Oh, is the grandfather still there?
Well he wasn't in Episode 1. But if he turns up next week, somewhere in the Tanzanian outback having taken a wrong turning on the M25, imagine the pathos. I'm stifling a tear just imagining it.
When I read about the general outline of this show, I could understand the reasoning behind the decision to open with a 60 minute episode. However, by 30 minutes I was looking at my watch and thinking it was really dragging its heels. It wasn't efficient use of its time in terms of plot, introduction of characters; and especially in terms of comedy.
The script was very laboured with a lot of expositional dialogue and littered throughout with really poor jokes. This show needs to decide if it's a satire or a farce - it seems to be trying to be both and was unsuccessful on both fronts. The plot strands were contrived and meandering.
The pace of this show, with each comic strand being heavily laboured, was just so leaden. Scenes dragged on and on and then were returned to once the point or "gag" had been made. Suggests lack of confidence in the script and/or poor comedy direction. (In some senses this show was trying to ape the real-time immediacy and behind-the-scenes panic of The Thick Of It. However, in that show not a second on screen is wasted and the performances are directed to give an air of authenticity.) Clearly a good deal of money went into this hour of TV, but the very weak storylines and tepid humour didn't justify the budget.
The performances were mainly quite good (though inconsistent in tone). It was nice to see Martin Jarvis back on screen. But as the writing didn't really inform the direction, the actors seemed caught between the two stools of naturalistic and heightened performance. (Mackenzie Crook's guest appearance was very mannered and self-conscious - couldn't really tell if he was playing thick/disinterested. He was doing a lot of "prop acting" during his scenes, always a bad sign of a weak part.)
The show didn't really suffer from being too "in", it was just not funny or clever enough. If it had opened with a tight 30 minute episode, showing some potential, then I would be far more optimistic for the rest of the series. But having seen a full hour I feel that this show has probably shown all its cards in terms of how high a standard of comedy one can expect from it.
There was potentially a really witty show in the original concept, which wasn't matched by the execution. It may well have worked better if it was aiming to be a dark satirical drama. In terms of trying to be a comedy with strong jokes and much laughter, it misses. Will be delighted if it can turn this around during the rest of the series, but wouldn't put any money on it.
Yeah, I take your points. I have to admit that I was distracted throughout for various reasons and probably only saw about 30 minutes in total. So it never dragged for me.
It's a shame what you say about 'Thick Of It' (itself inspired by a Rory Bremner sketch featuring Chris Langham as an incompetent Minister and an actor as Alastair Campbell, and filmed exactly the same way), because I know various 'Flak' pilots and scripts have been lying around for at least five years. Five years ago this would have looked new and innovative.
That'll teach me to only watch half an episode...
Flabby and not a lot of laughs. A wasted opportunity.
I know, said one bright spark, let's take 'Drop the Dead Donkey' and bring it up to date by making it all 'Thick of It'.
Unfortunately, the bastard child of these two great shows was born an abhoration.
When they copied the bits from You Tube, it reminded me of those really awful spoof movies like 'Meet the Spartans'.
Agree with Tim, the dialogue was one exposition / joke set up after another.
Renegade Carpark verdict: How much did they spend on this?!
Currently the Beeb say they're not doing any 'media' based stuff.
I wonder if this is why.
It stank the place out IMHO
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ July 9 2009, 1:19 PM BSTRenegade Carpark verdict: How much did they spend on this?!
The production of 'expensive crap' seems to occur repeatedly. So why is it that money gets put into poorly written material, is it that someone in charge demands things to be written this way before they will fund it?
