Well to be honest, I haven't noticed myself noticing any homages so far in Psychoville, so I should think most people won't be aware of any clumsiness as you put it.
Psychoville - Series 1 Page 21
Quote: zooo @ July 3 2009, 7:46 PM BSTYou're not 'catching them out' by knowing this stuff, you're understanding their influences, which is what they WANT you to do.
Then I epic fail.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ July 4 2009, 10:38 AM BSTLots of this show has a realistic edge and you can believe the characters
Where do you live? Just so, y'know, I can avoid there at all costs...
Quote: Maurice Minor @ July 4 2009, 10:38 AM BSTFilm references should be a happy coincidence, not clumsily engineered.
Quick! Someone call Simon Pegg!
Har.
Quote: Aaron @ July 4 2009, 12:41 PM BSTThen I epic fail.
I only get them in the League (most of them) after watching with the commentaries. 
Quote: Maurice Minor @ July 4 2009, 10:38 AM BSTFilm references should be a happy coincidence, not clumsily engineered.
Anyone see Flight of the Conchords the other night?
"Forget it Brian...it's NewZealandtown"
Quote: shaggy292 @ July 5 2009, 7:40 PM BSTAnyone see Flight of the Conchords the other night?
"Forget it Brian...it's NewZealandtown"
Yes, I liked that bit.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ July 4 2009, 10:38 AM BSTFilm references should be a happy coincidence, not clumsily engineered.
'Should' doesn't come into it; it's whatever works.
Just watching episode two for the first time and thought I'd look on eBay.
Apologies if this has already been posted.
Reminder: don't miss tonight's special 'no cuts' episode whatever you do. Totally unique in modern comedy terms I think, and very ambitious.
They're also doing a great job with the online extras. The websites are really funny and add to the back stories. Here's the latest two to go online:
http://www.bestmurders.co.uk/site.html http://www.murderandchips.co.uk/
Did anyone have a go at the stitch up a friend extra on the website? I did one ages ago and it never got sent on to the person I was setting up.
Some of the extra content the guys have produced is better than the show proper. I laughed out loud to some of the stuff on David's website: http://www.bestmurders.co.uk/
Reece, Steve, I know at least one of you will be reading this: Please give David and Maureen their own spinoff series!
Quote: Aaron @ July 9 2009, 10:41 PM BSTReece, Steve, I know at least one of you will be reading this
Really. 
Hello 
I don't normally even consciously acknowledge these things - perhaps it stuck out to me after the excellent design of the previous episodes - but I noticed tonight that although the furnishings were very cosy, homely type, it was all very spaced out, more like a modern warehouse-conversion apartment. Seemed to be a vast expanse behind and to the sides of the sofa, which was unused.
zooo suggested perhaps it was purposeful to appear more like a set on-stage. Which, the more I think about it, would make sense, a kind of multi-layered self-referential thing what with it having no cuts and suchforth?
Just an observation anyway...
Quote: Nil Putters @ July 9 2009, 10:42 PM BSTReally.
Hi from me also.
If you ever need a large man in a Henry VIII type role, I'm your man! Simply contact me via this website!!!
Enjoyed tonight's episode, quite liking the fact that David is a relucant serial killer.
The superman scene where the kiss bit came on and they both looked at each other was somewhat disturbing.
Quote: Aaron @ July 9 2009, 11:10 PM BSTI don't normally even consciously acknowledge these things - perhaps it stuck out to me after the excellent design of the previous episodes - but I noticed tonight that although the furnishings were very cosy, homely type, it was all very spaced out, more like a modern warehouse-conversion apartment. Seemed to be a vast expanse behind and to the sides of the sofa, which was unused.
zooo suggested perhaps it was purposeful to appear more like a set on-stage. Which, the more I think about it, would make sense, a kind of multi-layered self-referential thing what with it having no cuts and suchforth?
I assumed the vast spaces were purely practical - not only has the camera man got to be walking forwards, backwards and sideways, but the sound guys too. Plus people to shift cables etc. Your point about the actual furnishings themselves is valid - that sort of space ought to have had 'modern' stuff. The bits they used suit smaller spaces.
By coincidence I watched Hitchcock's Rope the other day which inspired this - and considering that film was made in 1948 using cameras the size of a small car, the set was much more elaborate; tighter and much more furniture. To make the film was almost like a ballet - as the camera moved, technicians would roll walls back and lift furniture out of the way, only to put it all back for the camera returning to pan the other way. This was obviously a lower budget affair so I would assume a spacious, spartan set was the way forward, but they chose the wrong style.
As for the show itself.. it was a nice idea but the camerawork became a bit of a gimmick. As a viewer I wasn't 'drawn in' to the plot further than normal; in fact I became more aware of the presence of the camera than if it had been shot normally. With Rope there was a larger cast; it was a party with people moving in and out of the room. The camera therefore had a reason to move as it had to track people and eavesdrop, enabling it to set up the next piece of action at the same time. It worked very well because you weren't altogether aware of what it was doing; that it was all perfectly planned. As a viewer it all just 'happened'. With this episode, having two people for most of the time remaining round the sofa left it too static. It meant that the camera had to be constantly moving so it could be in the right place for the doorbell or the clock in the same way that Hitchcock found, but unlike Hitchcock there were no other pieces of action happening to enable the camera's view to just 'fall naturally' on the next set up. I became very conscious that the camera was moving far more than usual and it was a bit distracting.
Nice plotline, good twist, some nice gags (Vendetta - although I thought he was going to make a remark about a moped)..and it was quite an achievement to shoot it like that an keep the pace going, but it actually detracted from the plot. Call me a philistine, but they ought to have shot it conventionally and had a better set.
Very good points there, Maurice.
Rope is a fantastic film and it was nice to see them pay homage to it. (They even got the doorbell FX spot-on.) Overall a good episode and really interesting to see a different style introduced halfway through a series. Ambitious, if nothing else.
If one is going to pay tribute to Rope then perhaps a little more tension about the fear of the body being discovered in the trunk was needed? I know this is comedy, but there wasn't much of a sense that if the body was discovered the game would really be up.
The twist was good and the development of the main two characters' story was well done. Really loved the dancing sequence! Best bit.
Agree though that the point of the directorial style of Rope was not to just try and impress with a seemingly seamless one-take, but also to allow smooth movement of the camera amongst a set-up busy with people - nipping in-and-out of individual conversations and viewing moments of tension developing. Not really achievable on the same scale in what was mostly a two-hander. (On the other hand, one has to remember this is ostensibly comedy and has other considerations.)
Looking forward to the next episode.