Quote: ContainsNuts @ December 31, 2007, 11:08 AMSome people here said it was better than Extras which is ironic as the point of WTWB was that G&M were using it show what 'morons' liked to watch.
Of course, there would be no irony in 'morons' preferring WTWB!
Well, I mentioned the Ramsay bit earlier. That bit was not creative enough for me because it was just Ramsay having an argument. I wanted to either see some sort of clever wordplay somewhere, somehow, or some twist to make it more interesting. It was like they had an idea and didn't really bother writing it in properly.
A lot of the other cameos were so unremarkable I can't really remember them. Maybe that's a good thing. I don't think it is though.
All the sub-plot bits with Maggie towards the end were a bit tedious. It was like they had said "We need a sub-plot, we need a change of pace, but we're starting to run out of ideas so keep having shots of Maggie looking grim."
I also found the extension of throwaway references made in the first series a little curious, e.g. working in the Carphone Warehouse and Ronnie Corbett. I mean, they had a whole episode in series 2 expanding on the Corbett reference, I thought it was odd to hear about it again in the special. I think this is nit-picking on its own, but with the various other things it seems to be the equivalent of me sitting in my digs at uni trying desperately to reach the 5,000 word mark for an essay, and packing in overly long or weaker stuff to hit the limit.
The transformation of Millman, the everyman, to Scrooge and back was rather clumsy and sudden - getting that extra fired and everything - for me it just wasn't believable at all. It was a classic soap-opera like moulding of character to fit the needs of the plot, something which the writers mocked in the WTWB Spanish special (I've said this already too.) This observation strikes me as glaringly obvious, and certainly not ignorant or pretentious. It's so obvious that I'm trying to think of a reason why the writers would do it on purpose.
There was other stuff too, but as I said, I'm not going to go through everything because I don't want to be accused anymore of being a nit-picker, which I'm sure I've added enough fuel to the fire for already. The whole thing just left me a little disappointed; even the inclusion of Dean Gaffney, which made up some of the funniest bits, seemed like an all-too obvious choice. It was still very, very good, but I just think it was stretched out a little too long to be deemed a classic. I'm not sure I should comment on it further until I've watched it again (which will probably not be for some time), as I'm hoping I will enjoy it a lot more the second time round. I certainly don't fancy watching it with pen and paper in hand writing down all the odd odds and ends that seemed a little too weak or easy. But I did go away from it on first viewing a little disappointed.
Edit: Extention/extension misspelling. Pedantic me.
Quote: James Williams @ December 31, 2007, 5:14 PMI'm not being a pseud, it's called intellect.
Arrogant as well as pretentious. Nice combination.
Maybe you'd like to talk about your 'thesis' or G&M's 'mise en abyme' again at this point... 
On an unrealted point, I think the reason why a lot of people find WTWB funny is because they know it's a piss-take. If the BBC had made that exact same show but had made it with serious intentions then people would be laughing a lot less.
Quote: Nick @ December 31, 2007, 5:50 PMArrogant as well as pretentious. Nice combination.
Maybe you'd like to talk about your 'thesis' or G&M's 'mise en abyme' again at this point...
On an unrealted point, I think the reason why a lot of people find WTWB funny is because they know it's a piss-take. If the BBC had made that exact same show but had made it with serious intentions then people would be laughing a lot less.
It's called a fact. I can't apologise for knowing long words or long terms, and why should I? And while 'mise en abyme' is not in the popular idiom but is a directly related/applicable concept, 'thesis' certainly is. Why do people have to get funny?
My point is that none of my points were pretentious, but they were relatively sophisticated, and used long words. If you don't want a discussion about it with me, fine, just say "I enjoyed it" or "I hated it" or whatever, there's no problem with that, is there? I just thought people might have some interesting observations. I resent being called arrogant and pretentious because I'm not afraid to use sophisticated arguments or long words.
Quote: James Williams @ December 31, 2007, 5:56 PMIt's called a fact. I can't apologise for knowing long words or long terms, and why should I? And while 'mise en abyme' is not in the popular idiom but is a directly related/applicable concept, 'thesis' certainly is. Why do people have to get funny?
My point is that none of my points were pretentious, but they were relatively sophisticated, and used long words. If you don't want a discussion about it with me, fine, just say "I enjoyed it" or "I hated it" or whatever, there's no problem with that, is there? I just thought people might have some interesting observations. I resent being called arrogant and pretentious because I'm not afraid to use sophisticated arguments or long words.
There is a time and a place for using long words. I have no problem with people using sophisticated English at all but I'm afraid that you weren't doing that. Do you seriously think that your opinions on the Extras Christmas special should be described as being a 'thesis'??? Is that the correct word to use???It's all very well knowing long words but you have to know when to use them and when not to use them.
Also, your comments weren't that sophisticated. They were just the same points restated again and again and again... Everytime somebody disagreed with you it was always their fault because they didn't understand what you were saying.
If you thought that other people might have some interesting observations then why did you not listen to what other people had to say? All you did was ignore everybody who held opinions that were different to your own.
Most of the time I was accused of being a nit-picker for picking out one thing - the tissues gag - when I was chiefly using it as an example. I could only assume that people didn't understand I was using it as an example, as the argument is at cross-purposes to what I was saying.
I said 'relatively sophisticated'. Are you saying that my arguments are less than, or as sophisticated as, people who just said they enjoyed the show, without any qualification whatsoever?
Thesis is exactly the right word to use. It means:
a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, esp. one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections: He vigorously defended his thesis on the causes of war.
*
*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thesis
This is just another example of someone arguing for the sake of it, to the extent of not even bothering to look up the word they wish to argue about. Bone-headed? Lazy? I'm bewildered.
And now you say I wasn't using sophisticated English? Why is everyone so argumentative and resistant to stimulating discussion? I'm not ignoring anyone, but if someone argues at cross-purposes why should I pretend that what they seem to think I said is correct when it isn't?
Quote: James Williams @ December 31, 2007, 5:14 PMI'm not being a pseud, it's called intellect.
Wooooooooo!
I can't be arsed to read beyond this because there's more than 10 words in each comment.
lol.
Hilarious stuff James thanks. You didn't happen to notice the example used there did you? 'He vigorously defended his thesis on the causes of war.' THIS is the context with which the word thesis is used. NOT when discussing a comedy Christmas special on a webboard. Sorry if you can't see that.
I don't think anybody whats to argue for the sake of it and I certainly don't. But if the only way that you can deal with people who disagree with you is to call them 'blind' or 'frenzied fans' then that's your problem.
Now I don't have any interest in exchanging insults with anyone so I withdraw from this now but if you could try to remember that you are not on Newsnight Review then it would be appreciated.
Quote: Nick @ December 31, 2007, 6:37 PMlol.
Hilarious stuff James thanks. You didn't happen to notice the example used there did you? 'He vigorously defended his thesis on the causes of war.' THIS is the context with which the word thesis is used. NOT when discussing a comedy Christmas special on a webboard. Sorry if you can't see that.
I don't think anybody whats to argue for the sake of it and I certainly don't. But if the only way that you can deal with people who disagree with you is to call them 'blind' or 'frenzied fans' then that's your problem.
Now I don't have any interest in exchanging insults with anyone so I withdraw from this now but if you could try to remember that you are not on Newsnight Review then it would be appreciated.
Quote: Nick @ December 31, 2007, 6:08 PMIt's all very well knowing long words but you have to know when to use them and when not to use them.
How true. A forum about Gervais certainly doesn't need them. Shorter words like 'c**t' and sour' usually cover it.
Quote: Nick @ December 31, 2007, 6:37 PMlol.
Hilarious stuff James thanks. You didn't happen to notice the example used there did you? 'He vigorously defended his thesis on the causes of war.' THIS is the context with which the word thesis is used. NOT when discussing a comedy Christmas special on a webboard. Sorry if you can't see that.
I don't think anybody whats to argue for the sake of it and I certainly don't. But if the only way that you can deal with people who disagree with you is to call them 'blind' or 'frenzied fans' then that's your problem.
Now I don't have any interest in exchanging insults with anyone so I withdraw from this now but if you could try to remember that you are not on Newsnight Review then it would be appreciated.
Why can't I use it in this context? The example was given because it was more resonant, not because the word is not applicable in this situation. Again, you choose to attack my mode of expression rather then what I actually say.
"An avid writer, I hold a 1st class English degree and am a qualified journalist. I have a number of sitcoms in the works. That number is one."
No f**king wonder. I bet you read the Guardian as well.
And a friend of mine did his English thesis on Blackadder, so even in this context it's acceptable.
Quote: David Chapman @ December 31, 2007, 6:46 PM"An avid writer, I hold a 1st class English degree and am a qualified journalist. I have a number of sitcoms in the works. That number is one."
No f**king wonder. I bet you read the Guardian as well.
Erm...
I don't really think this level of personal attack is appropriate.
Come on guys, theres only 5 hours left in 2007...shouldn't we be merry and happy and not fighting over stuff like this?! No. OK, keep it going, I'm being thoroughly entertained!
I can understand people arguing vigorously over opinions on a show, but to pull up my profile and be quite specifically nasty - because of a discussion about a sitcom - is pretty cheap. Forgive me if I've lost all respect for Chapman!
