Quote: Garry Lee @ May 30 2012, 10:51 AM BSTI'll be happy if it doesn't return for a 3rd series, because like The Office (UK), it's great with just 2 seasons.
That'd make more sense if The Office (US) wasn't the better version of the show; primarily for the sake of having more series.
Quote: MTpromises @ May 30 2012, 6:36 PM BSTThat'd make more sense if The Office (US) wasn't the better version of the show; primarily for the sake of having more series.
I disagree, and I'll leave it at that, as we're going off topic.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 18 2012, 8:29 AM BSTHmmm, hmmm, brings up several points here, which writer? Both? Amstell, very possibly, he's got more work lined up in his better known jobs, can't afford the time to write a new series, but the pro writer with few credits to his name? Turning down his b&b work? Really?!
Do you mean Dan Swimer, one of the most in-demand gag writers currently working on British television? Dan Swimer, him of Stand Up For The Week, Ask Rhod Gilbert, My Funniest Year, The Jonathan Ross Show, The Marriage Ref, Class Dismissed, A League Of Their Own, You Have Been Watching, Horne & Corden, Would I Lie To You?, The Big Fat Quiz Of The Year, Never Mind The Buzzcocks, and numerous others?
Poor guy. However will he feed his family?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 18 2012, 8:29 AM BSTAnd the ratings thing, in my mind a factor. If they'd been airing to millions then I'm not sure they'd be talking about ending it at two.
For once, you may have stumbled blindly across a truth.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 18 2012, 8:29 AM BSTThen, and not leastly, we have the mystical figure of 2 here. Two series, how often does that happen at the Beeb?! I'm not going to research it as I know it has to be easily the most common number of BBC sitcom series made. That's a big factor too, has to be, for whatever curious reason the Beeb have for it, it happens way too often to be mere coincidence. They just seem to like making two, unless the show's a clear winner, in which case they'll go on, (or a real stinker which forces them to close at one) but the annals are full of okay or average sitcoms getting two series. I think the site's editor could confirm that.
You make it sound like some big conspiracy. One series to establish a series' potential, a second to give it another chance to improve and bed in with the public. Either it then gets the viewers and praise and is recommissioned, or doesn't and isn't. No big mystery.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ May 18 2012, 3:39 PM BSTDon't think it would have the same charm. Just a lonely homosexual moping around his trendy flat waiting to get sex murdered.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 25 2012, 8:21 AM BSTBBC, no more of this barely a sitcom vanity project nonsense please! Learn the lesson that the ratings tell you. And get back to making true sitcoms.
Yeah, no more Ricky Gervais, I agree.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 25 2012, 9:58 AM BSTone reasonable 'character' in the auntie
???????
And so it all becomes clear.
Anyway, final two episodes.
Really enjoyed episode 5. Lots of laughs, particularly from Tanya. A great female character. (Because she's a great character. And female. Not because she's female. And I'm not female either. Alfred.) Really enjoyed it, the best episode of the series I recall.
Finale didn't do so much for me. Some really nice bits, and the rather downtrodden ending was admittedly an interesting twist on telly norms, but otherwise it just seemed to peter out over the last 5-10 minutes, somehow becoming neither overly interesting, nor funny.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 25 2012, 8:21 AM BSTAnd get back to making true sitcoms.
What is a true sitcom though? Fawlty Towers? A farce. Blackadder? Historical. Steptoe & Son? Kitchen sink drama. Most good sitcoms were actually experimental.
I think I prefered the first series to the second. The second series seemed to go a bit over-the-top, particularly with Clive's character.
Quote: Tim Azure @ June 4 2012, 8:09 AM BSTWhat is a true sitcom though? Fawlty Towers? A farce. Blackadder? Historical. Steptoe & Son? Kitchen sink drama. Most good sitcoms were actually experimental.
Blimey, no, see what you're trying to say, I think, but the reality is the opposite here, all the above were formula or true sitcoms = One outlandish main character, his escapades, an antagonist, stories that involve some kind of action driven by main charcter's desires, his failure to get what he desired, usually brought about by his own incompetence, madness or foiled by antagonist. Cue much hilarity and laughing at idiot main character. All equals classical formula sitcom you cannot go wrong with.
Farce is just a style, historical just a setting and kitchen sink drama a misnomer here.
In GH you don't have a strong central character, but a weak wishy washy one. He has a few mild desires but doesn't seem to act on them, and all we hear is talk about them, there is therefore no real action. The antagonist is an indirect one, Clive, but a strong character, infact so strong he became the real central character, the sitcom monster if you like. The minor bits of action we got all came through Clive. GH was far more kithcen sink than S&S, in that there is no real desire or drive to escape the domestic setting, in S&S Harold tries every week to escape it, but just can't.
Kipper for once you speak the truth.
It's weird how such powerful nuanced characters floated around such a nonentity.
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Preferred Series 1 to be honest. Although the 2nd series wasn't terrible, I felt it wasn't as funny and I felt there were potentially too many 'sitcomish' coincidences, which don't entirely work in a show like this.
Still good though.
Aw. Disappointing to hear Amstell say that there will be no more. One of the best recent British sitcoms.
Hope he's coming up with a new sitcom idea as we speak.
Never found it funny, anyway!
Quote: Charlie Boy @ December 21 2012, 7:35 AM GMTNever found it funny, anyway!
Series 1 was good, series 2 was excellent. A shame but it did feel like it had come to the natural conclusion.
