But in that one episode, I felt it was a little forced at times, and the exchange between the female characters and Simon's boyfriend wasn't good. If they were males and I felt the acting looked weak, I'd say the same, as I do about Amstell, who I'm beginning to think is deliberately 'non'acting badly.
Maybe the style isn't your cup of tea?
They are playing caricatures to an extent, I think.
Well I am being ultra critical I guess, probably because this show is the opposite of what my cup of tea is, fair comment. But with me it's more about why this show was commissioned. If it'd turned out to be brilliant then I'd applaud the Beeb, but it is barely managing to be mediocre, imo.
I think the third episode was a million times better than the second which I hated. Had some good laughs and kept me interested. Also I want to punch Simon in the face a little less. ACT DAMNIT.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 25 2010, 10:02 AM BSTBut with me it's more about why this show was commissioned.
Why should a show be commissioned then?
I think this was commissioned because people liked it. But I may be talking a pile of old boo-hockey.
Oh yes, let's have this debate again. *punches self in face*
I'll probably be sticking with it after this week's episode.
Well imo, a sitcom should be commissioned if enough people with a love of sitcom can convince the commissioners that a script sizzles with invention, style, has bold colourful characters, avoids copying too many past shows or situations and can attract an audience.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 25 2010, 10:28 AM BSTWell imo, a sitcom should be commissioned if enough people with a love of sitcom can convince the commissioners that a script sizzles with invention, style, has bold colourful characters, avoids copying too many past shows or situations and can attract an audience.
Yeah, of this list the last one is only really important though isn't it?
Not to me, no, call me an idealist, but I believe the sitcom should be revered above all other progs and the paying public deserve much better than having the BBC cobble together a sitcom mainly because they know and like the star and creator and this makes it easier to make, despite the obvious lack of depth in the script to any reader.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 25 2010, 10:55 AM BSTNot to me, no, call me an idealist, but I believe the sitcom should be revered above all other progs and the paying public deserve much better than having the BBC cobble together a sitcom mainly because they know and like the star and creator and this makes it easier to make, despite the obvious lack of depth in the script to any reader.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 25 2010, 10:55 AM BSTNot to me, no, call me an idealist, but I believe the sitcom should be revered above all other progs
Mainstream means just that. Appealing to the majority. People like the comfortable world of genre. Every now and then someone comes along and creates a new genre, but rarely.
To me the genre is the problem here, it's a comedy/drama and not a situation comedy. The dialogue is too lengthy as well, IMO
That's the thing about Genres, you get to pick what you like. No point watching a western and complaining about the guns. But you are right if you watch it expecting to get a sitcom and your genre expectations are not met then you have every right to feel disappointed. But only with one episode on that basis. 
###But only with one episode on that basis.###
True but like everything else, I do like to see if a prog improves.
I didn't like Ideal when it first started
I view GH as a drama/comedy now and enjoyed the last ep
