I respect its place in comedy history but I must say I've never deliberately put an OFAH DVD in, despite the fact that we have all of them at home. It does make me laugh from time to time but it's just not for me.
Everyone loves Only Fools and Horses. Right? Page 3
Quote: chipolata @ May 19 2009, 1:00 PM BSTYes, but I can understand people not liking it simply because of it's reputation as one of our "most loved sitcoms". Some people object to being told how to feel about it.
That always makes me laugh when people do that.
TWAT:
It's true I MAY have enjoyed it but now I refuse to, on the basis that other people have told me how good it is, therefore attempting to influence my opinion.
FRIEND:
But..it is good.
TWAT:
That's as maybe. But I object to you telling me that.
FRIEND:
Why?
TWAT:
Because you're trying to influence my opinion.
FRIEND:
So what IS your opinion?
TWAT:
I don't know, I've never seen it. And I never shall.
FRIEND:
Fair enough. (BEAT) Nice weather we're having isn't it?
TWAT:
It may be. But I object to you asserting your opinion on me...
FRIEND:
Oh f**k off!
My favourite sitcom is a tossup between Only F & H, Porridge, Fawlty Towers....and many others!...Get it?
For anyone to not rate OF&H as right up there shows a complete lack of knowledge.
The hoity-toity may not agree....but what do they know?
Yes, but what does a race horse know either?
It always surprises me when people say that when it became a longer drama that it became crap. I would say that Dates, series six and then the Jolly Boys' Outing are as good as television gets.
Although it couldn't maintain that standard, there were still plenty of good episodes after that including Stage Fright, Mother Nature's Son and the 1996 trilogy.
Also while I agree that Grandad was a great character, the first series wasn't that great imo and Uncle Albert probably appeared in a lot more really strong episodes.
For me it was always one of those shows that was and you know sometimes I watched.
There seemed to be a definite switch over from the very funny to the very unfunny and annoying. Uncle Albert's mate's tale about escaping from Germany in WW2 was a genius example of a long gag, the rioters wearing the disco gear, the satellite dish that attracts jets all laugh out loud.
But at some point it became all about the women they dated, kids and other stuff. Then it was like The Royle Family for morons.
Basically few shows are consistently funny for the whole of their runs. Even Father Ted seemed to hit some slack spots in its 3rd series.
Quote: sootyj @ September 3 2009, 8:54 AM BSTEven Father Ted seemed to hit some slack spots in its 3rd series.
Must have missed those bits.
Great sitcom, should have ended with them becoming millionaires, which was the whole point. They'd achieved everything they wanted to achieve; when they went off into the sunset, it was one of the best endings a sitcom ever had (or so we were led to believe).
The Christmas specials that followed, well, I just didn't want to put myself through self imposing trauma.
Ultimately the BBC need the ratings and the performers the money.
It takes a titan to over ride that kind of pressure.
Yes I too agree that it went on too long, sitcoms that go on and on lose their impact and even risk having their once great reputation tarnished, it really is, for me, as simple as that. There is one overriding reason why some creators of the most critically acclaimed sitcoms ever aired decide to cut them short, against much pressure not to, and this is their belief that they cannot sustain the same high quality of material series after series after series, and would rather see their creations remembered for the brilliance they achieved over that short period. I don't think you can overestimate the role of the ego in this either, considering two such creators who followed this rule, Cleese and Gervais. I do wish more great sitcoms would follow this rule, OFAH was a great creation but it did lose its impact, absolutely no question, as did Dad's Army. The Americans destroy every sitcom they make because of this drag out effect so the evidence is clearly there for us to see and learn from. Quite honestly, with the healthy repeat and DVD market we have today I see no reason to flog a really good sitcom to death anymore, there's no good reason for it! A great sitcom is a great sitcom, it is not a sitcom-soap which is what they all become if they are flogged way beyond their natural death.
Quote: sootyj @ September 3 2009, 8:54 AM BSTThen it was like The Royle Family for morons.
Despite that fact that it finished (OK, originally) before The Royle Family started.
The 2001-3 episodes were woeful at best. I'm still having nightmares.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 5 2009, 12:54 PM BSTYes I too agree that it went on too long, sitcoms that go on and on lose their impact and even risk having their once great reputation tarnished, it really is, for me, as simple as that. There is one overriding reason why some creators of the most critically acclaimed sitcoms ever aired decide to cut them short, against much pressure not to, and this is their belief that they cannot sustain the same high quality of material series after series after series, and would rather see their creations remembered for the brilliance they achieved over that short period. I don't think you can overestimate the role of the ego in this either, considering two such creators who followed this rule, Cleese and Gervais. I do wish more great sitcoms would follow this rule, OFAH was a great creation but it did lose its impact, absolutely no question, as did Dad's Army. The Americans destroy every sitcom they make because of this drag out effect so the evidence is clearly there for us to see and learn from. Quite honestly, with the healthy repeat and DVD market we have today I see no reason to flog a really good sitcom to death anymore, there's no good reason for it! A great sitcom is a great sitcom, it is not a sitcom-soap which is what they all become if they are flogged way beyond their natural death.
Sorry about this, but is it possible you could split your posts up into readable chunks?
That slab of text is very difficult to read.
It's easy to see the style adopted by other members on here.
Yeah, I agree. Seeing a chunk of writing like that puts you off before you even start, yet if it were three bits it wouldn't be that bad.
Yes.
I find it interesting when people say that things went on too long.
Everyone in the show the writer, the actors etc all need paying in order to make a living. It is not unreasonable that when someone offers them that money that they will take it.
I think it is unrealistic and unfair that these people are meant to walk away from paid work for the sake of "artistic integrity" or in order to "maintain the reputation of the programme".
After all these people don't come after us and tell us to quit our jobs after a couple years beacuse that work you did on the factory refit will never be beaten!
Using a similar metaphor though, if a builder had built you a beautiful, near-perfect house to live in - yet he continued to insist on adding crappy-looking extensions to the property afterwards - you'd be fairly pissed-off, wouldn't you? (Especially when he was insisting you pay for them.)