Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 6 2010, 9:59 PM GMTa clear message to the prods and commissioners - stop bringing in crap from your usual suppliers and start hunting down and developing new talent that knows what true sitcom is.
The Persuasionists was from a new writer, and - perhaps tellingly - a production company new to the studio sitcom format.
But I agree with the current trend of comedy thing.
But the pressure in all the talent calls etc seems to be for ever more conservative stuff.
The idea of just asking some writers to write (as described in those recent dramatisations of famous comics lives) seems to be going
.
Okay, I just watched episode two on iPlayer and I would say it was excellent.
Lot of good jokes: 'Lily Allen's just a fat chimney sweep' - coming from the skinny blonde - so character humour as well as an imaginative 'dis'. Clive's poem - what was it called? 'My todger up her wrong 'un' Immaculately delivered by Jared Christmas. No corpsing (unlike Bellamy's People). And impressively, the poem was a reasonable attempt at a faux poem unlike the crap you normally see when someone is supposed to be a poet. The idea of the model wanting to date a very ordinary guy so it was clearer who was famous was also a good idea, well used throughout the episode.
Now, what's wrong with it then? After two episodes I would say that it clearly is miscast. Adam Buxton is absolutely useless. I know that everyone likes Adam & Joe and this guy has (had?) a pedigree, but he does not bring anything at all to this show. The last scene in the cab trying to hump the model was utterly unconvincing. What kind of actor can't do comic lust?
Iain Lee is a great bloke but again is pretty much cashing the cheque here. My suggestion would be for the Buxton and Lee role to amalgamated into one as they are used similarly and not distinct enough as characters. That would give you Keaton, Jared Christmas, the blonde and the Buxton/Lee everyman figure. Good spread of different characters. Recast the Buxton/Lee character and Daisy Haggard as well - who is okay, but not brilliant.
Make the agency smaller, grottier and about to go bust. That way there's a tension to every time they cock up a campaign. Also change the name. HHH+H is terrible - worse than Denholm Reynolm and Reynolm Industries in IT Crowd. (Linehan's unwillingness to put any effort into establishing that company as a credible business caused him problems throughout the three series).
The title. Whose bright idea was it to change it from 'The Scum Also Rises' (a worthy pun and a comment on the characters) to 'The Persuasionists' (utterly meaningless and worse than the current shit-title holder Lunch Monkeys).
Now, do I watch episode three?
Well I'm going to watch it on iPlayer just to see what this level of badness is, which is now the official benchmark for having sitcoms moved. On that point, I think it's a brilliant decision by the Beeb, for a change, you watch the viewing figures rise now, I bet they do. It was also cashing in on the latest public fad for punitive measures against immoral and overpaid types, to make a cash strapped nation feel better. It IS a waste of public money to put out such bad TV, and this one small decision does sound like the semblance of an apology for it. And after Lab Rats, the unbelievable Bonekickers and one or two other shows failed to get the once obligatory 2nd series on the BBC, I do feel that the top execs there are starting to show their authority at last, and won't put up with badly written, lazy, unoriginal, trend following shows anymore.
On the new writer thing, surely they just got the WRONG new writer here, I hope it doesn't put them off taking on new writers, there must be many out there who could write better stuff in their sleep than the stuff that bloke put out in the name of comedy (what I saw of it). I'll watch an episode of it now.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ February 7 2010, 9:19 AM GMT.
My suggestion would be for the Buxton and Lee role to amalgamated into one as they are used similarly and not distinct enough as characters.
I also thought this.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 7 2010, 10:39 AM GMTWell I'm going to watch it on I player just to see what this level of badness is,
I've only caught three episodes, but the opener aside, it really isn't this pit of comedy hell. It's not a genius sitcom, but there's been much worse shown; much, much worse. I feel a bit sorry for the writer as his name might now be forever connected with what's been talked up as a massive turkey, when it really isn't.
Having said that, I suppose Linehan started off with a sitcom that was panned, and he's done okay!
Quote: Matthew Stott @ February 7 2010, 10:54 AM GMTI've only caught three episodes, but the opener aside, it really isn't this pit of comedy hell. It's not a genius sitcom, but there's been much worse shown; much, much worse. I feel a bit sorry for the writer as his name might now be forever connected with what's been talked up as a massive turkey, when it really isn't.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Not managed to catch this yet. Probably no point if it's going to get axed anyway.
But what I don't get is why they keep putting new sitcoms on BBC Two AKA the dead channel, where they get hidden away in case they disease normal TV and people realise there's more to TV than Strictly Big Brother Solves a Problem Dancing on The Ice Factor. It would have made more sense to put it on BBC Three or BBC One instead.
Quote: David Carmon @ February 7 2010, 12:45 PM GMTNot managed to catch this yet. Probably no point if it's going to get axed anyway. But what I don't get is why they keep putting new sitcoms on BBC Two AKA the dead channel, where they get hidden away in case they disease normal TV and people realise there's more to TV than Strictly Big Brother Solves a Problem Dancing on The Ice Factor. It would have made more sense to put it on BBC Three or BBC One instead.
BBC2 might have been struggling with its comedy lately, but it's still the channel that gave us The Office, Alan Partridge, The Day Today, the League of Gentlemen and The Fast Show. And if this show had been on BBC1 it would have been bounced even faster. It may have done better on BBC Three, or at least a lower profile failure, but the problems started long before transmission.
Yet BBC One will still let Big Top flop and keep it on for its full run, nothing makes any sense anymore 
Miranda should be given a primetime BBC One slot when it returns and Big Top dumped on CBeebies
I am quite enjoying The Persuasionists, but then I also have a soft spot for Big Top and Lab Rats. They are all deeply flawed of course, but they are completely without pretension and full of gags. Which is rather refreshing.
Quote: Timbo @ February 7 2010, 1:42 PM GMTI also have a soft spot for Big Rats. Which is rather refreshing.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ February 7 2010, 9:19 AM GMTThe title. Whose bright idea was it to change it from 'The Scum Also Rises' (a worthy pun and a comment on the characters) to 'The Persuasionists' (utterly meaningless and worse than the current shit-title holder Lunch Monkeys).
I'm not sure who chose 'The Persuasionists' but as I understand it, the BBC bigwigs decided that 'The Scum Also Rises' was not suitable for a BBC television programme.
Quote: Timbo @ February 7 2010, 1:42 PM GMTI am quite enjoying The Persuasionists, but then I also have a soft spot for Big Top and Lab Rats. They are all deeply flawed of course, but they are completely without pretension and full of gags. Which is rather refreshing.
I very much agree with this.
But they are all woefully sub standard sitcoms, let's be honest, so something has gone wrong somewhere - either the BBC have stopped looking for top quality talent, there just isn't any top quality talent out there (don't believe this), they are scared of backing unknown talent and are too tied to existing 'names' (v much believe this) or there just isn't the money available now to develop the better sitcom ideas that do arrive in the post (I can definitely beleve this too). I also firmly believe now that established 'comedy' names have become the main focus for where the top channels look for new sitcom ideas, often wrongly thinking that their comedy pedigree will transfer brilliantly into a top sitcom. Well I can think of only ONE case where this has actually happened on the BBC, and it was to enormous success, and that was Gervais. Unfortunately it fooled a lot of (foolish) execs into thinking this wouild happen regularly - simple minded idiots! (Well I suppose you should put Mack & Vine and Hart in the success category too, though their sitcoms were not in the same league as Extras or The Office.) So when will they get back to some sort of gold standard formula that they should adhere to when ordering new sitcoms - there IS a scientific formula for great sitcoms already devised by Oxford grads, and the one that followed their laws most of all, Only Fools and Horses. Well let's get back to that kind of stuff then, and leave this throwaway experimental shite in the BBC Three bin.
I haven't seen any of these shows. But gag stuffing is pretty basic and something I thought most good comedy writers grow out of.
Sitcom is sort of a halfway house between drama and comedy. Really great classics have worked because they're "situation comedies."
Character, plot and situation all create the humour. The actual gags are usually quite slight.
