Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 17 2010, 10:40 PM BSTNot really, there have been many terribly unfunny sitcoms over the years.
BB's point I fancy 
Quote: chipolata @ August 17 2010, 10:41 PM BSTThe responses to this banal and empty show are far more interesting than the show itself.
Quote: Marc P @ August 17 2010, 10:43 PM BSTBB's point I fancy
If you say so.
(Marc clearly fancies Bushbaby, it's the little orange ball, isn't it?)
Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 17 2010, 10:45 PM BSTIf you say so.
(Marc clearly fancies Bushbaby, it's the little orange ball, isn't it?)
I reckon she's a babe Mister M S and funny too
I'm sure she's a hoot.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 17 2010, 10:49 PM BSTI'm sure she's a coot.
Matthew! 
Quote: Chris Forshaw @ August 17 2010, 3:00 PM BSTThat's why I was quite surprised to hear you say he wasn't that famous. I was under the impression he was pretty big news as far as TV goes.
This is what I find most the most bizarre and most annoying about this show - Amstell hasn't really made it that big yet, nowhere near as big as he thinks he has, and not big enough to merit a biocom. He's jumped the gun massively and this weakly written show looks likes a huge indulgence and nothing more. So what if it's getting better every week, it still ain't great and it's about a bloke whose ego is far bigger than his celebrity. This show is a bad idea. Simple Simons! Jjjleppkkk.
Yes, but there are examples of sitcoms being made by relative unknowns that went on to be huge. When The Office was made Ricky Gervais was a z-list nobody best known for a lousy chatshow, guest spots on a lousy topical satire show and appearances on umpteen Why I Love The Eighties type shows. Sitcoms like Lead Balloon and Curb also prove that non-actors can thrive in the genre. IMO they made a mistake with Amstell but I can understand what lead them to give him a shot in the first place.
Yes this is similar I suppose to Curb and Lead Balloon in that it's 'biographical' but surely both David and Dee were much better established than Amstall is? I just think he and the BBC have been premature in coming out with a mainstream channel peaktime biocom, it isn't BBC 3 or 4 it's on. And I'm sure much of the cool response to this show is down to Amstall not having mass appeal, ie. he is an acquired taste.
My opinion of him personally has actually gone up a lot, watching this, but as a writer-performer, comedian, I'm afraid it's gone down (He's much better suited to panel shows and presenting). Simon, that's the risk you take, putting sitcoms out, I know of no other genre of TV which the public is so obsessively fussy about, sitcoms will either get worshipped, ignored, or hated. GH is firmly in the latter bracket for this viewer.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 18 2010, 8:52 AM BSTMy opinion of him personally has actually gone up a lot, watching this, but as a writer-performer, comedian, I'm afraid it's gone down
Um. Right?
Did not like the second episode one jot. I hope it gets better, otherwise I'll be jumping ship.
I missed last week's episode as I was busy 'doing' 'something'.
Will be watching tonight and hopefully having some laughs.
There's optimism for you.
*grabs hold of Alfred's arm and hisses*
No doubt there will be many people saying how terrible it was again, but I'm still loving it; and Amstell was better once again!
I thought it a little weaker this week, but there were still a good few laughs.
