Was that Geoffrey Hutchings I saw in the trailer? Didn't he shuffle off this mortal coil recently?
It looks a bit boring, but I suppose I'll give it a go. Simon Amstell has been known to raise a grin round these parts in the past. Not sure of the sitcom format though. I hope it's funnier than 'Rev', the news tends to be funnier than that POS.
Yes it was, and yes he did.
I hated that clip. Awful writing, and Amstell clearly can't act. Insular, inane, indulgent. I've been waiting to slag..er review this sitcom project since I first read about it under the heading 'Creatively bankrupt and nepotistic mega TV co. gives cozy peaktime TV slot to one of their own star presenters regardless of having no previous in any discipline in the king of TV artforms, sitcom.'
By the very brief previews I've seen, I think I will enjoy the oncoming fallout for all concerned. 
I think it looks quite good. A bit different too, which is nice.
Sorry but it looks like a pile of shit and about as funny as an itchy lung.
It reminds me of that Chegwin line in Extras, 'Is the BBC still run by queers and jews?' Seemingly it is. Run by and for them.
OK Alfred, that's just uncalled for. Not before the programme's even aired.
Or after, in my opinion. But there we are.
I pretty much ignore trailers ever since I foolishly dismissed Pulling because the trail annoyed me.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 4 2010, 8:37 PM BSTIs the BBC still run by queers
I have never ran the BBC.
Let me say I have absolutely nothing against either 'types', I was commenting on the BBC's notoriously exclusive, familial and downright nepotistic culture, as many have alleged it to be. It is no big secret that the afore mentioned 'types' seem to be everywhere in the corporation. Amstell is a talented presenter, but it appears to me already that he cannot act, and his material seemed insular and about his own celebrity life. This is self indulgence, surely?
Do we really need another celeb bioprog that is about as detached from most of our lives as you can get, and already done to death? And did Amstell get this prime sitcom slot through his his fantastic manuscript, or because he handed it in himself to one of his friends at the BBC? I think I make a valid point sir, madam, other members, but am willing to be disagreed with. Good morning.
Yes, I imagine if you work regularly and successfully for a channel, they will be more inclined to consider any other work from you.
For 'other' work to be considered is fine, no prob, but to be given automatic preference over better crafted, more genuine and more suitable material from an outsider and unknown is plainly wrong both morally and artistically, because it is agreed surely that the quality of BBC's sitcoms has been very patchy or hit and miss in the last decade. Part of this problem, imo, is their increasingly nepotistic looking, inhouse policy on commissioning.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 5 2010, 9:41 AM BSTFor 'other' work to be considered is fine, no prob, but to be given automatic preference over better crafted, more genuine and more suitable material from an outsider and unknown is plainly wrong both morally and artistically, because it is agreed surely that the quality of BBC's sitcoms has been very patchy or hit and miss in the last decade. Part of this problem, imo, is their increasingly nepotistic looking, inhouse policy on commissioning.
Which may well be a legitimate point. However you first phrased it was in a small minded and nasty way.
As for this show, I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment. I don't think Amstell is without talent, and I have a feeling it's going to be a spin on the Curb Your Enthusiasm formula, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 5 2010, 9:41 AM BSTPart of this problem, imo, is their increasingly nepotistic looking, inhouse policy on commissioning.
Surely nepotism is an inherent aspect of any industry. If you can get your mates a job, then why wouldn't you.
