True, but who hasn't?
Grandma's House - Series 1 Page 17
Quote: zooo @ August 17 2010, 1:15 PM BSTTrue, but who hasn't?
I was wondering where Don Rushmore had got to.
Quote: jim field @ August 16 2010, 11:57 PM BSTWhy delete my preview, of that I have no idea.
Anyway, on a forward path; this Ep was a continuation from last week's season premiere. The scenes were sharper. Fact. Amstell again dominated with his naturalisitc stylings. Anyone who cannot see this is clearly, at best, a MOR Unit. Or at worst, a Skillset Defecit. Seriously, this is an excellent show.
I'm not sure that some of the people who say they liked it really 'get' it though. That's a concern.
You must have a vested interest in the product. It's rubbish at best. There is no way any other new writer would have got this on screen, the editors wouldn't have bothered to read after the first ten pages. I think maybe Eldorado just beats it for being naff.
I thought this episode was better than the first, but still not so great.
Few laughs again but not enough. I thought Simon's performance was a hell of a lot better in this episode though.
I see a lot of people are saying Simon is acting naturalistic and just playing himself, but in the first episode it felt like he had gone too far and was actually being himself on the set of a sitcom. This episode I felt he was actually involved with the story and other actors and was better for it.
Quote: Chris Forshaw @ August 17 2010, 1:50 PM BSTI thought this episode was better than the first, but still not so great.
Few laughs again but not enough. I thought Simon's performance was a hell of a lot better in this episode though.
But a few laughs is not normally enough for the Beeb, their stipulation is at least three a page. It'd have been rejected straight off with any other writer.
I'd have perhaps not been as scornful had it been advertised as a light drama but sitcom? Never.
Oh I agree; it's infuriating that sub-standard stuff like this makes it to screen just because of who's involved.
It made me laugh rather a lot Bushbaby, so perhaps it just isn't for you.
Quote: Chris Forshaw @ August 17 2010, 1:58 PM BSTOh I agree; it's infuriating that sub-standard stuff like this makes it to screen just because of who's involved.
Guh.
Yet again I have to eat my words because my first reaction was wrong. I really enjoyed this episode and am warming to Amstell. Clive is brilliant.
I would still prefer a few more 'jokes' and something that resembles a plot but no show is perfect, well, maybe Frasier.
I've seen lots of pilots starring people more famous and successful than Simon flipping Amstell, which never got given a series.
It really didn't get made just because it had his name attached, I assure you!
I like it & that is that! Anything that makes me laugh gets my vote.
Quote: zooo @ August 17 2010, 2:02 PM BSTI've seen lots of pilots starring people more famous and successful than Simon flipping Amstell, which never got given a series.
It really didn't get made just because it had his name attached, I assure you!
I agree, Amstell just isn't a big enough 'star' for that. I'd say 60-70% of people I know would neither of heard of nor recoginise him.
Quote: jacparov @ August 17 2010, 2:07 PM BSTI agree, Amstell just isn't a big enough 'star' for that. I'd say 60-70% of people I know would neither of heard of nor recoginise him.
It was Simon's idea and he co-wrote it, where in the ones starring bigger stars, they haven't written it.
This production just about breaks all the Beeb's rules on writing sitcoms, in fact writing anything, or is it true that only rejected scripts have the rules thrown at 'em?
Come off it Bushbaby, you just don't like it, that's all. And that's fine.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 17 2010, 2:12 PM BSTCome off it Bushbaby, you just don't like it, that's all. And that's fine.
It is so boring and just conversation in a house. The direction/acting/camera work leaves something to be desired.
A sitcom, according to the Beeb should have a beginning a middle and an end.
Also what about stereotypes? Constantly that is a rejection excuse, what is sterotype if it's not the 'every day' person? I'd say therefore, all the characters in this are stereotyped.
I like humour Matthew, I wake up laughing most mornings trying to fathom out just why I'm so happy. I find something to laugh about in most things. I looked forward to this as I did Inn Mates but that was geared to youngsters.
This to me is becoming the king's clothes.
Quote: bushbaby @ August 17 2010, 2:10 PM BSTIt was Simon's idea and he co-wrote it, where in the ones starring bigger stars, they haven't written it.
This production just about breaks all the beeb's rules on writing sitcoms, in fact writing anything, or is it true that only rejected scripts have the rules thrown at 'em?
I think that The Royle Family was written by the stars of that show, Coogan wrote/co-wrote Partridge.
Do the BBC really have 'rules'? They are really just guiding principles that can be broken if you have the talent and can justify your decisions and artistic vision. Or some such shite.