Have been trying to defend this, because I like Warwick as a performer and the PC criticisms have been a bit knobbish, but the writing is desperately lazy.
Life's Too Short Page 34
Viewing figures for last nights show anyone? Didn't watch it myself, by the sounds of it I didn't miss much...
Kept its audience share from last week (4.2%), but less than a million people tuned in.
35% audience decrease on the slot average.
Quote: Aaron @ December 9 2011, 3:16 PM GMTKept its audience share from last week (4.2%), but less than a million people tuned in.
35% audience decrease on the slot average.
Who'd have thought it would ever happen, a sub one million viewing for a prime time RG sitcom, lazy writing is lazy writing no matter who is behind it!
I've not seen the last couple but after the first one, which I thought had a reasonable amount of laughs in it, despite the fact that Warwick Davis is essentially playing Rocky Gervais playing David Brent as a short person, it quickly went downhill from there.
One episode, possibly 2 or 3, the bit at the wedding where he made a total embarrassment of himself, was so predictable and as if they were told they only had 24 minutes worth of film for that episode and needed to bolt on another few. It was then that I began to lose any enthusiasm to even bother to watch it.
I guess I'd equate it to a once successful band churning out a self-indulgent 3rd or 4th album just for the sake of it rather than because it contained any real hits or decent tunes.
Quote: Millsy @ December 8 2011, 12:19 PM GMTMaybe we're supposed to laugh at the ignorance of the woman.
Quote: zooo @ December 8 2011, 1:03 PM GMTOf course we are.
Actually we aren't. We are meant to be laughing at Warwick. The woman asks him if she can take a picture and when he says "Anything for a fan" she says: "A fan of what?" She is taking a picture because he is a dwarf and he looks funny.
We are meant to laugh at his presumption and self importance - which is quickly deflated by the woman's dismissive comments and the chain of events which result in him falling over and being humiliated.
True, that too. It is possible to have two things to be laughing at in a scene. (Or not, but it was written to be funny even if it did not succeed.)
OK, I think most people on here are agreed. It isn't that it is degrading to dwarfs, it's the fact it's shit that people don't like it. It really is that simple.
Just watched the last ep, I can't believe they went down the obvious narrative lane they did. What they over-do is this honesty people seem to have in front of him. That doesn't happen with such regularity. The whole situ at the end was just hair-pullingly Gervais at his worst.
No excuse for such lazy repetition.
I don't know if the writing is lazy, but it is quite predictable, and you can't get away from many of the characters talking in a Gervais/Merchant "voice" or style.
I'm still looking forward to the one with Cheggers, Barry et al.
As I know It's bound to make me laugh.
I quite like the fact that they've brought back a slice of Extras without it being official.
Having said that I don't think the last couple of episodes have been that good, and I hope they are saving the best till last.
What you're all missing is that Gervais *meant* this show to be unfunny. Unfunny writers are just as much ordinary people like you and me, and to see them writing unfunnily on national TV helps us become more aware of them. If you don't like it, it means *you're* prejudiced against unfunny writers.
It's not only pantos that have unfunny writers, you know.
Quote: Nogget @ December 10 2011, 9:33 AM GMTIt's not only pantos that have unfunny writers, you know.
Oh yes it is! 
There was actually a pretty good joke early on with the life coach (who mysteriously turned into a medium) who said he 'loved black men' and corrected it to 'people'. That level of subtlety has been absent from the writing for pretty much the whole series.
Still, the life coach character didn't work overall for the reason given above as well as the straight dialogue steal from Clinton Baptiste: "Is there a John in room..." but Warwick's gullibility was believable.
I even like the rapist joke although it needs to be delivered without Warwick hearing and the racist addition over-complicates and spoils it.
What I didn't like and don't understand is why they write scenes where men talk to women about 'doing them' - it was just believable when Gareth did it thanks to the brilliantly creepy acting and appearance of Mackenzie Crook but didn't work in Extras and doesn't work here. It's just not believable in any way.
The checkout girl asking if the condom would fit a dwarf is also completely unbelievable and I suspect I wasn't alone in praying that they wouldn't make the girl he'd just arranged a date with turn up and witness it.
Bizarrely incompetent.
Yes, I look to sitcoms for realism as well.
Quote: JohnnyD @ December 10 2011, 9:26 AM GMTA dozen references in this thread to the writing being 'Lazy'.
'Lazy Critique'.
Interesting post. Do you think that the writing shows signs of the craft spent on The Office, or the better episodes of Extras? Do you think G&M have spent enough time on character and plot? Or do you think the opposite?
"Lazy critique of critique."