No, you're not alone. Tim Key is an annoying talent-vacuum anyway, but the scene would have defeated a much better actor as it was so poorly written and unbelievable. Subtlety appears to have gone out of the window for G & M and it used to be something they did well.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ November 20 2011, 10:31 AM GMTthe scene would have defeated a much better actor as it was so poorly written and unbelievable. Subtlety appears to have gone out of the window for G & M and it used to be something they did well.
That scene was totally cringeworthy, over the top and not funny at all. A-Team van? please?
I know Depp takes his method acting seriously, but not all British people have brown stumps for teeth. I guess the cigar smoking has taken it's toll.
And if I hear once more, which films Davis has appeared in I think I might scream!
Quote: Godot Taxis @ November 20 2011, 10:31 AM GMTTim Key is an annoying talent-vacuum
Gosh.
Quote: AngieBaby @ November 20 2011, 11:06 AM GMTA-Team van? please?
Surely it just cemented how low down he is; a van was considered more newsworthy.
Quote: Timbo @ November 19 2011, 11:44 PM GMTDid he even get a line this week?
I think all he got was at the end which was 'That's cheap' when referring to the quote Shaun gives for the office
I also agree with the reporter bit being awful. It was cringe, but not in a good, comedy style way cringe, but in a 'my-god-this-is-shockingly-unfunny' way. Shame really because I do really like Tim Key
Quote: Goose24 @ November 20 2011, 11:28 AM GMTI think all he got was at the end which was 'That's cheap' when referring to the quote Shaun gives for the office
I'm sure he could do more if he wanted, the idea that seems to be around that mean old Gervais won't let poor little Merchant speak is silly.
But he is billed as one of the shows three stars; the fact that they could not be arsed to write him any dialogue does kind of indicate how undercooked the show is.
Quote: Timbo @ November 20 2011, 11:56 AM GMTBut he is billed as one of the shows three stars; the fact that they could not be arsed to write him any dialogue does kind of indicate how undercooked the show is.
Well that's a different point.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 19 2011, 2:55 PM GMTYeah, he was brilliant, as always, and it really felt like a lead sitcom character and world in the making there. This frustrated, close to the edge local news reporter desperate for the big leagues.
They would have to tone him down somewhat to sustain a whole series. Could be interesting, but do G&M have the inclination? Probably not.
Quote: Stephen Ryder @ November 20 2011, 8:27 AM GMTNice to know I'm not the only one who thought Tim Key was annoying as the local news reporter.
He was far too OTT as-is, but there were seeds of a potentially interesting character (why is he in the job and why so angry?). You couldn't have that constant irritation over 6x 28 minutes.
The reporter bit didn't work, like the rest of it, because none of these characters is real. G&M's first two sitcoms worked entirely because the characters were real, and when they strayed from reality - as they did sometimes with Extras - it was much, much weaker. I am gobsmacked that anyone would think a one-note out-of-place unrealistic character like the reporter has potential for their own sitcom, but each to their own. I just won't watch it.
After 2 episodes, by far the funniest bits are where Warwick is referring to Willow. The line in ep 1 about it getting some money back is the best thing in the show so far.
Quote: Aaron @ November 20 2011, 6:21 PM GMTThey would have to tone him down somewhat to sustain a whole series. Could be interesting, but do G&M have the inclination? Probably not.
He was far too OTT as-is, but there were seeds of a potentially interesting character (why is he in the job and why so angry?). You couldn't have that constant irritation over 6x 28 minutes.
Fair point, but the way he acted and reacted was not believable FACT. Oh dear there's the David Brent coming out of me lol.
Quote: Badge @ November 20 2011, 6:33 PM GMTI am gobsmacked that anyone would think a one-note out-of-place unrealistic character like the reporter has potential for their own sitcom, but each to their own. I just won't watch it.
Not exactly like he was in this episode no, and probably not even G & M writing it, but there's obvious potential in the idea. A frustrated man trapped in the little leagues who thinks he deserves more, but really isn't and whose own growing fury at where he is is actually killing any chance for advancement. Sounds like the groundwork for a potential show to me.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 20 2011, 6:38 PM GMTA frustrated man trapped in the little leagues who thinks he deserves more, but really isn't and whose own growing fury at where he is is actually killing any chance for advancement. Sounds like the groundwork for a potential show to me.
You mean, Fawlty Towers?
Quote: Aaron @ November 20 2011, 6:41 PM GMTYou mean, Fawlty Towers?
Well exactly. If you're trying to write a sitcom, it's exactly that kind of solid idea you build on; in a few lines you have the character, the trap and why things will never change; that's a strong foundation to write from and it's obvious when you see it.
How to move from specific to generic in one easy step. I like the generic, by the way - but Aaron pointed that out more eloquently. Gist is that there is potential in the reporter character, if put in a classic sitcom format, not necessarily played by Tim Key, nor as a reporter, nor written by G&M.
Quote: Badge @ November 20 2011, 7:04 PM GMTGist is that there is potential in the reporter character, if put in a classic sitcom format, not necessarily played by Tim Key, nor as a reporter, nor written by G&M.
No, some of that wasn't what I was saying. And that Aaron could so quickly point out an actual sitcom basically validates what I was pointing out, that you could quickly see the basis of a sitcom there. Generic or not. It's been used before, it'll be used again, and it's the kind of foundation you build a show on.
