Quote: Charlie Boy @ December 27 2011, 8:58 AM GMTWell said!
You mean childish crap?
And it was so realistic who an 70 year old man caught up with a runaway horse!
When did I mention realism?
The Royal Bodyguard Page 7
James Cary blogged on this: http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.com/2012/01/royal-bodyguard.html
I sort of thought it was alright, but during the second episode I was losing faith quite a bit. The microlite was ridiculous (particularly how quickly he got hold of it) and only seemed to serve to get him on the roof, so he could comedically fall down from it. Everything is a bit too conveniently generating 'comedy' for me.
There is also an annoying amount of 'comedy muzak' overlaying the silly goings-on which is irritating in the extreme.
The first episode was much more entertaining, I thought.
Dan
Quote: swerytd @ January 6 2012, 11:17 AM GMTJames Cary blogged on this: http://sitcomgeek.blogspot.com/2012/01/royal-bodyguard.html
I sort of thought it was alright, but during the second episode I was losing faith quite a bit. The microlite was ridiculous (particularly how quickly he got hold of it) and only seemed to serve to get him on the roof, so he could comedically fall down from it. Everything is a bit too conveniently generating 'comedy' for me.
There is also an annoying amount of 'comedy muzak' overlaying the silly goings-on which is irritating in the extreme.
The first episode was much more entertaining, I thought.
Dan
It is me, or does the analysis ultimately just say that this programme might be funny if it was funnier. If my mum was more like Seinfeld she'd be funnier. The question of "how in the name of Zeus did it get made/past screen test/out of someone's head an onto a piece of paper" remains.
Appreciate that the world is made of opinions, but I'm afraid "entertaining" should not....no, wait....MUST not be used in conjunction with this show. Unless the sentence is "I'm entertaining the view that this is supposed to be comedy. On viewing, however, this is clearly not the case".
Of course there's always that pesky fact that PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. 
I've only seen bits of this show, but does the David Jason character dye his hair, or just vanity on the part of the actor?
Quote: zooo @ January 6 2012, 4:00 PM GMTPEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
No they don't. 
Quote: zooo @ January 6 2012, 4:00 PM GMTOf course there's always that pesky fact that PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
No doubt. The issue is that different opinions tend to be wrong.
Different from yours you mean? Yes, well we all think that. Anyway, my point is, someone might say it was entertainng, and that's correct, to them it was. You think it was not entertaining, and that's also correct, to you it wasn't.
It just gets a bit silly when we say something was FACTUALLY NOT entertaining. That's not for you (or anyone else) to say.
Quote: chipolata @ January 6 2012, 4:39 PM GMTI've only seen bits of this show, but does the David Jason character dye his hair, or just vanity on the part of the actor?
That is an interesting question. Jason is so old he has to be extensively made-up in order to look remotely credible in the part, so are they making a virtue of necessity by making him look like Fraser, Godfrey and Jones in "Keep Young and Beautiful"?
Quote: Nedders @ January 6 2012, 3:58 PM GMTIt is me, or does the analysis ultimately just say that this programme might be funny if it was funnier. If my mum was more like Seinfeld she'd be funnier.
Hello, Nedders. I'm not saying that, I hope, since saying "it might be funnier if it was funnier" would be a silly thing to say. What I say on my blog, rather repetitively on reflection, is that the show has been focussed very much one character carrying all the jokes - which is a bit of gamble - and that this central character that is not clear enough in intention. It is confusing. Who does this guy think he is? Does he know he's a fraud? Or an idiot? This makes the show muddy and therefore the jokes are not focussed enough. Confusion is the enemy of comedy. The central character is not clear enough, so the audience are confused and then not laughing.
What people like to say, rather lazily in my opinion, is that 'A show like this would never work'. This is rarely the case. A sitcom set in a Mobile Hospital in the Korean War? That'll never work. And yet... Most settings or situations can be make to work with the right blend of characters, stories and plots. It's like when people piled in on The Persuasionists, which could have worked. But didn't. For reasons I outline on the blog. At least, that's my opinion.
Quote: Charlie Boy @ December 27 2011, 8:58 AM GMTAnd it was so realistic who an 70 year old man caught up with a runaway horse!
Don't quite get this. Would it be more realistic for the 70 year old to manage the runaway horse rather than get caught up? Which he did anyway. Does your day-to-day life usually have horses in it, Charlie Boy? There's kind of a sense of "what's going on here" every time horse management comes on screen for most people.
Having seen the first two episodes, I thoroughly enjoyed Sir David Jason's performance, despite the writing being a little dubious. I always thought Jason's comic ability was a little over rated, despite enjoying his previous sitcoms. His roles of Blanco (Poridge), and Granville (Open All Hours) relied largely on the huge talent of Ronnie Barker and similarly, Del Boy would never have succeeded without Lennard Pearce (Grandad), Buster Merryfield (Uncle Albert) and Nicholas Lyndhurst, not to mention the other brilliant actors in Only Fools and Horses. Something I think was backed up in the final outing of the Trotters which was not quite right without Albert and Mike.
Having said that, David Jason has made me reconsider after his performance in The Royal Bodyguard. His performance was incredible, particularly given that the writing was not nearly as good as for his previous sitcoms, there were still a lot of laughs. Great to see him back in a BBC comedy; I could never take him seriously as Frost.
Quote: Mark Rogers @ January 6 2012, 8:32 PM GMTI always thought Jason's comic ability was a little over rated, despite enjoying his previous sitcoms. His roles of Blanco (Poridge), and Granville (Open All Hours) relied largely on the huge talent of Ronnie Barker and similarly, Del Boy would never have succeeded without Lennard Pearce (Grandad), Buster Merryfield (Uncle Albert) and Nicholas Lyndhurst, not to mention the other brilliant actors in Only Fools and Horses.
Hmmm . . they used to say Hancock couldn't manage without Sid James.
Quote: Nedders @ January 6 2012, 3:58 PM GMTThe question of "how in the name of Zeus did it get made/past screen test/out of someone's head an onto a piece of paper" remains.
My guess would be it has something to do with the fact the writers had produced one good sitcom for the Beeb, wanted another one, pitched an idea that actually doesn't look too bad on paper, hasn't been done before (in sitcom), and most of all the writers were already tried and tested and 'on the books'.
Now, I agree that all of that is fine, right up to the point of reading the script. If, after reading these scripts, they decide to commission the sitcom (which they did) then I conclude that this commission is one of those 'favour' commissions for 'having done well for us in the past but not had much shown since'. Because, we all know, I think, that had those scripts been sent in by you or me or other unheard ofs then it would have been hurled into the bin with glee.
I reckon they possibly had a meeting after read throughs and said 'Look, we've got a man who may make this Turkey fly, we hear that David Jason would love a sitcom to do again. Get your writers to make him fall over a lot and we have a guarranteed ratings winner - remember when he fell through the bar?'
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ January 7 2012, 8:53 AM GMTMy guess would be it has something to do with the fact the writers had produced one good sitcom for the Beeb, wanted another one, pitched an idea that actually doesn't look too bad on paper, hasn't been done before (in sitcom), and most of all the writers were already tried and tested and 'on the books'.
That's how life works. You want a job you're employed on your past record.
And I would expect that the BBC only saw the pilot script and then commissioned a full series, which the writers then went off and wrote. Not very well, as it happens, but dems da breaks.
As Alfred says, it's fine that a track record gets your material read and it is right that Commissioners should put some faith in proven talent, but even so... The script is pony, and just because scripts have been commissioned it does not mean they have to be put into production. There is such a thing as cutting your losses.
James Cary's blog is right; Jason's character is just not consistent. For stupid behaviour to be funny it has to be driven by some sort of internal logic.