Quote: Tim Walker @ December 1 2011, 9:58 AM GMTSo now Gervais is defending the show against a "barrage of criticism" that this show exploits Warwick Davis.
It is not teh only criticism, but it is certainly out there. But as you say, it does deflect from the real issue, which is the uneven quality.
I seem to recall Steve Carrell is going to be in Life's Too Short. What I'd like to see is them somehow combining his appearance with The Office, the US version where Brent did a cameo, Extras and this new show edited into a 1 hour 30 minute movie - I'm sure it could be done because there's so much overlap between the shows.
I've said before that there's enough scope in the Hancock radio shows to edit them into something longer.
That's an awesome idea! I'd especially like to see the same scene from two different viewpoints in two entirely separate sitcoms!
Dan
I've also said before that rather than straight repeats some shows should be recorded with 2-3 different scene options at different points which can be interchangeable. That way the broadcast has new life and the viewer never being quite sure what chain of events they will see next.
Yeah well, don't let it go to your head...
Dan
Quote: swerytd @ December 1 2011, 12:17 PM GMTYeah well, don't let it go to your head...
Dan
I somehow knew that would come back to haunt me! 
I'm a Ricky Gervais fan (or at least I was a big one) and I am very unimpressed with LTS to say the least. Recycled characters and format, the whole show has been done before but better. Warwick = Brent The accountant = Darren Lamb. Even the dumb assistant of Warwick's you can argue is the 'Maggie' like character.
You can hear Gervais' voice through every single character, it feels so horribly scripted and lacks the realism The Office had which was a show that felt like it was improvised a lot of the time because of how well it was made. Davis' sub par acting also doesn't help the show feeling like a documentary as well.
Gervais and Merchant have tried too hard to make the show feel like there is a healthy combination of story with humility as well as simply laughing at Warwick's expense.
Fortunately it's not going to have a long future as there is nowhere for the series to go, I'd be quite surprised if they bother to make a second series of it. They would have run out of celebrities to use anyhow.
I'm not sure if this link has been posted already but this sums up exactly how I felt about LTS from episode 1.
http://whatculture.com/tv/lifes-too-short-the-difficult-third-series.php
I also should mention that yes, there are two writers and Gervais is getting the stick, but he quite clearly is the bigger character and dynamic in the partnership. He's the one tirelessly and quite feebly defending his work instead of taking a back seat. His arguments are all so weak as well, giving Warwick a 'real role' but it's undermined by him continually laughing at dwarves and not giving them real roles.
If the comedy was made well then he could just take a back seat. I don't recall Chris Morris ever defending his satire quite so vehemently with Brass Eye. If it's satire, LTS is guilty of a very lazy form of it.
I'm a massive Ricky fan, and although I am enjoying the show it's certainly his least enjoyable for me. I can't imagine anyone saying this was their favourite Gervais/Merchant sitcom, even allowing for differing tastes. And I wouldn't expect or want to see another series of it.
I still look forward to his next project though. This one hasn't really worked, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't make me think 'Oh he's lost it, it's over for him'. That seems to me an unreasonable overreaction.
[
Quote: zooo @ December 1 2011, 1:02 PM GMTI still look forward to his next project though. This one hasn't really worked, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't make me think 'Oh he's lost it, it's over for him'. That seems to me an unreasonable overreaction.
Quite. Just because you're a good writer, it unfortunately doesn't follow that everything you touch turns to gold.
Quote: Alfred @ December 1 2011, 12:47 PM GMThttp://whatculture.com/tv/lifes-too-short-the-difficult-third-series.php
That article gives a very fair and accurate summary I'd say.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 1 2011, 1:13 PM GMTThat's because he's a different person who prefers to stay out of the limelight. He always just lets the work speak for itself, rather than become a 'personality' himself.
That's precisely the point. The 'satire' and comedic value in LTS isn't very good, therefore it can't speak for itself, it doesn't have any depth. Gervais has to inform the public about the point of it because we're all seemingly missing the point. Well-made satirical comedy shouldn't have to do that. I read a comment about the slapstick with Warwick falling off a chair, it possibly mocking documentary-making conventions that focus on aspects like this. That's something I don't get as well. People trying to garner hidden/true meanings from it, as if it's a convoluted and complex sitcom. It's slapstick through and through and that's what makes Gervais laugh, search 'dwarf' and 'Gervais' in YouTube for proof. It's laughable.
How likely is it do you think that we are likely to see Gervais & Merchant in a future sitcom together having a more prominent role each than in LTS? I know that both men are very much in demand which makes it less possible, but I would still like to hear what other members think.
I do hope that Gervais & Merchant won't be discouraged from co writing any sitcoms they MAY have in the pipeline, because of the negativity that LTS has received.
Quote: Alfred @ December 1 2011, 1:34 PM GMTThat's precisely the point. The 'satire' and comedic value in LTS isn't very good, therefore it can't speak for itself, it doesn't have any depth. Gervais has to inform the public about the point of it because we're all seemingly missing the point. Well-made satirical comedy shouldn't have to do that.
No, what I was saying is just that Morris is a bad example, as he would probably never speak out anyway, regardless of how his work was being recieved, where as Gervais is a constant media presence and will.
Before Four Lions, Morris seemed to have barely given an interview. Very different approaches.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 1 2011, 1:44 PM GMTNo, what I was saying is just that Morris is a bad example, as he would probably never speak out anyway, regardless of how his work was being recieved, where as Gervais is a constant media presence and will.
Before Four Lions, Morris seemed to have barely given an interview. Very different approaches.
I was just pointing out the nature of satire. Morris being a master of employing it as being a form of social commentary, his comedy is a work of art which can speak for itself. Now, we can't really say the same for the satire in LTS. But I could have used any comedians name there whoever deals with satire. Gervais spends too much time explaining his convictions with his comedy in order to maintain credibility, but again, there is no credibility so it's just an on-going process.
Warwick Davis is small and can't reach stuff HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA so much stuff he can't reach!
