Cor.
Nighty Night Page 5
No idea about all this off-topic stuff but I'll watch the rest of series one when I get in from work tonight. I'll be cringing but loving it.
Seen it, loved it! The lead character is terribly egocentric but I love it! I feel sorry for Terry. I'll probably buy the second series on Amazon since they don't sell it (yet) here in the stores 
Loved the first series but found the second one to be too self-conciously over the top/gross/shocking and not very funny.
This is quite an old one, but worth watching. I had the whole lot as a gift and they're completely insane! All the characters are so funny and played perfectly. You'll enjoy it.
Look out for Mark Gatiss as Glen Bulb...hilarious!
Quote: happychef @ August 9 2012, 2:02 PM BSTLoved the first series but found the second one to be too self-conciously over the top/gross/shocking and not very funny.
I didn't even like the first series because of the exact same reason...I read good things about it (here on this site for instance)so I ordered the DVD of the first series on the internet. But I wasn't very impressed with the comic substance. For me this show is about getting attention of the critics and the audience by shocking and breaking taboos. And if this is your strategy you have to increase the intensity from episode to episode, from series to series to the point it's not funny anymore but just disgusting (and normally I'm not easily disgusted...I like "Ideal" for instance!).
On the other hand I liked the character played by Mark Gatiss; he was really funny...and give me Julia Davis in short skirt and high heels any day...
*throwing a pound in the "chauvinist-box"*
Wow. I'd caught odd bits of this before but I watched the entire first series online yesterday, whada show, whada lady.
I know Jill is a monster but I think the show is a great example of observational comedy, the characters are so well rounded and their idiosyncrasies are practically tangible.
Definitely not in agreement about this being deliberately dark and taboo busting. I don't get why people say stuff like "oh it's just being dark on purpose for the sake of it", as if that's a bad thing. No one has a problem with something being deliberately or overtly funny, so what's the difference?
It's like me saying "yeah I really like xyz but it's a bit too funny". Not attacking people who don't find this kind of humour amusing, just saying that that reasoning is a bit irksome.
Started on Series 2 and agree it is 'different' but I refuse to write it off just yet.
Got very high hopes for Human Remains too...
Quote: Chickenellie @ August 19 2012, 5:17 PM BSTDefinitely not in agreement about this being deliberately dark and taboo busting. I don't get why people say stuff like "oh it's just being dark on purpose for the sake of it", as if that's a bad thing. No one has a problem with something being deliberately or overtly funny, so what's the difference?
It's like me saying "yeah I really like xyz but it's a bit too funny". Not attacking people who don't find this kind of humour amusing, just saying that that reasoning is a bit irksome.
I think the theory is that the darkness appears to be gratuitous. Not needed, not necessary for the narrative. There purely for the purposes of shocking, not to progress the plot, explain the characters or provide humour.
A bit like when actors say they'll only do nude scenes if "artistically warranted", the view of some is that Nighty Night used dark, violent humour purely for the sake of it - in places at least - rather than because it was artistically warranted.
Quote: Aaron @ August 19 2012, 7:55 PM BSTA bit like when actors say they'll only do nude scenes if "artistically warranted".
Doesn't "artistically warranted" mean that it is part of the plot? Or s'posed to be?
Yes. It means that something is not gratuitous; that there would be a significant artistic loss if the scene were changed or cut.
Quote: Chickenellie @ August 19 2012, 5:17 PM BSTWow. I'd caught odd bits of this before but I watched the entire first series online yesterday, whada show, whada lady.
I know Jill is a monster but I think the show is a great example of observational comedy, the characters are so well rounded and their idiosyncrasies are practically tangible.
Definitely not in agreement about this being deliberately dark and taboo busting. I don't get why people say stuff like "oh it's just being dark on purpose for the sake of it", as if that's a bad thing. No one has a problem with something being deliberately or overtly funny, so what's the difference?
It's like me saying "yeah I really like xyz but it's a bit too funny". Not attacking people who don't find this kind of humour amusing, just saying that that reasoning is a bit irksome.
Started on Series 2 and agree it is 'different' but I refuse to write it off just yet.
Got very high hopes for Human Remains too...
This is only my opinion: Take "League Of Gentlemen"; with this show the dark jokes, the setting and the plot seem to blend semlessly into one another. It seems as if first there was a story and the dirty jokes evolved from it naturally (more or less).
With "Nighty Night" I got the feeling as if Julia Davis made a random list with disgusting things (condoms with "white stuff" in it for instance) that might amuse some people and shock others but definitely make an impression. And only afterwards she tried to build a story around the "filth". But as I said...this is merely my impression. And apart from that there were some aspects which I absolutely appreaciated like Mark Gatiss' character or Rebecca Front's acting.
I'd never say that "xyz is a bit too funny". I'd never say that "xyz is a bit too dark". But something being very very very dark doesn't make it automatically funny.
But hey...in the end it's only comedy, and it's good that there are people with different tastes.
Quote: Aaron @ August 19 2012, 7:55 PM BSTA bit like when actors say they'll only do nude scenes if "artistically warranted".
Now I know why my career as a porn actor never took off! 
Quote: Aaron @ August 19 2012, 7:55 PM BST(Darkness) purely for the purposes of shocking, not to progress the plot, explain the characters or provide humour.
Quote: Aaron @ August 19 2012, 8:11 PM BSTYes. It means it's not gratuitous; that there would be a significant artistic loss if the scene were changed or cut.
You're just a mass of contradictions, Aaron!
Quote: Tim Azure @ August 21 2012, 9:10 AM BSTYou're just a mass of contradictions, Aaron!
I don't think he's being contradictive. He tries to explain two different points of view...aren't you Aaron?
Quote: Tim Azure @ August 21 2012, 9:10 AM BSTYou're just a mass of contradictions, Aaron!
No, I'm not explaining Nighty Night in both. The first is a view of the show - that it went further than was necessary - and the second was clarifying the term 'artistically warranted'. I was not applying the term to Nighty Night, although can see how the original post could read that way. I have ammended it, which I hope makes things clearer.
Well... One could argue that isn't comedy gratuitous? Most artistic endeavors are inherently not necessary. (I'm being pretentious but I do also think that a little bit).
I don't dispute the NIghty Night is incredibly dark but when you look at it properly, the violence/freaky stuff is relevant to the story in pretty much every case. I get that it might not amuse you but just because there's a lot of something you don't personally like, you can't just write it off as unwarranted.
Quote: Gordon Bennett @ August 19 2012, 10:29 PM BSTThis is only my opinion: Take "League Of Gentlemen"; with this show the dark jokes, the setting and the plot seem to blend semlessly into one another. It seems as if first there was a story and the dirty jokes evolved from it naturally (more or less).
With "Nighty Night" I got the feeling as if Julia Davis made a random list with disgusting things (condoms with "white stuff" in it for instance) that might amuse some people and shock others but definitely make an impression. And only afterwards she tried to build a story around the "filth".
I understand why you could come to that conclusion but actually isn't putting yoghurt/milk in a load of condoms and hanging them around the house exactly the kind of twisted thing someone like Jill would do if she was a real person? It fits in perfectly with her controlling, manipulative, demented personality.
In that episode it is the milky condoms that promps Cathy to finally hit Jill and throw her out so it's also intrinsic to the storyline.
P.S. I agree it's a good thing people have different tastes but it's interesting to discuss the whys and wherefores.