And here's one more. 
Lunch Monkeys - Series 1 Page 5
I decided to watch it with an open mind.
But why the f**k does it have to be filmed in the same way as the Office?
Personal injury claims? Bugger! That's what my Sitcom Trials was about.
Lunch Monkeys will no doubt get many comparisons with The Office, unfortunately most of those comparions will be prempted with the words 'shitty f**king rip off of'.
You know it's bad when the Asian kid doesn't even look Asian and talks exactly like the character Keanu Reeves from Saxondale.
This is extremely lazy comedy with every gag sign posted way in advance and characters without a single redeeming feature. Honestly, I've seen better written children's shows (and with more convincing acting).
And what's with the carnival of bad regional accents? Are they ticking off some sort of proportional representation box?
Renegade Carpark Verdict: Crap out of Ten.
OK, well it was better than the pilot, Admin, though it would have been truly staggering if it hadn't achieved that goal.
The script was competently structured, though I thought the plot strands were fairly bland and predictable. The story was leading the characters rather than the other way around. Too many gags required a lot of work in setting them up, for what were ultimately weak pay-offs. Too many lines which I felt like I'd heard a million times before. Conversely, the few quirky and original lines didn't feel connected with the characters in any way.
It was a good idea to limit the number of characters (compared with the pilot) but they were all pretty much "out-of-stock" with nothing much to make them interesting, engaging or sympathetic. The performances wobbled annoyingly between attempts of naturalism to broad sketch comedy mugging. (One character, Kenny, was too thick to remember how a chat-up line went but, the next moment, smart enough to make a very knowing crank call.) The office manager character (I forget her name, sorry) was an especially jarring performance, of the "Mr Spencer!!!" school of comedy acting.
Fine to use a "first day in the job" plot as a way to introduce a sitcom, but it really seems a desperate idea to announce the pregnancy of one of the main characters in Episode One. We don't know the character, we don't (yet) care about the character, so why would we care if she's suddenly pregnant? Pregnancy storylines are best used when it changes the dynamic between characters who've had time to endear themselves to us.
Don't really see what this show's "raison d'etre" is. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. It's not a knockabout comedy and it's not a subtle observational/character show. I don't think it really cares about the fact it's set in a legal firm. That's fair enough, but unlike The Office there's nothing else in the show to make the workplace setting seem irrelevant.
Putting in lines like "It just seems like there should be more to life than this" is not really a substitute for a premise (though it might be a line that some thought to themselves whilst watching this programme). When it boils down to it, it just wasn't funny enough.
(Not that it matters - basically the same gag has been done a dozen times in sitcom - but I was annoyed by the rude name-tag running joke. It's pedantic of me, but on a point of pure practicality, how was anyone going to switch his name-tag 3 times without him ever noticing? Why would he take it off in the first place? Why the hell would one even wear a badge to give someone an induction - except as a very weak tribute to the character of Gareth Keenan, of course? I don't mind that it was a poor gag, but one that actually tests one's patience...? Probably just me though, I should get more fresh air or something.)
On the plus side it wasn't excessively vulgar and the characters weren't particularly dislikeable or completely interchangeable. The direction by Matt Lipsey was good and the production seemed slick and confident. I can't say anything made me laugh (though I did enjoy the line "We could do it in the style of a dog"), but possibly next week it might. I will give it another go (- "Oh, how generous of you, Tim!" - Jesus, I really should get something resembling a life).
P.S. Why does almost every BBC Three sitcom seem to require some generic upbeat little ditty to play between every sodding scene? It really doesn't distract one from the fact that a scene isn't ending on a strong laugh - which they really should.
P.P.S. To the Lunch Monkeys production team (who apparently read drivel like this), you will be glad to hear I shall probably be unemployed in a couple of months. Will script edit/drop trousers for food. Soon won't be able to afford the internet and will have to write my critiques in my own poo on the walls of a squat - having watched the shows on the telly in the notorious gay sauna I work in. 
(Oh, for the record, we do all appreciate that every comedy production team sets out with the intention of making the best, funniest show they can. And that comedy is judged harshly compared with say, drama. Or Adrian Chiles.)
EDIT: Oh, yeah, thanks Godot - the title - I forgot. I wonder if the youngsters working in office pools tomorrow will be shouting "Lunch Monkey!" at each other, with big, knowing smiles all over their Jamie Oliver-type faces? I'm no Derren Brown but...
Pretty good acting from Steve John Shepherd and the Darrel guy. I have high hopes for Nigel Havers as he was magnificent in Manchild, way back.
I'd have to agree with Tim's post re structure and pacing. And raison d'etre. And use of pregnancy.
I was amused to see a cutaway of a photocopier tray filling up, which is used in The Office a couple of times.
Shit, shit title.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 10 2009, 11:36 PM BSTOK, well it was better than the pilot, Admin, though it would have been truly staggering if it hadn't achieved that goal.
The script was competently structured, though I thought the plot strands were fairly bland and predictable. The story was leading the characters rather than the other way around. Too many gags required a lot of work in setting them up, for what were ultimately weak pay-offs. Too many lines which I felt like I had heard a million times. Conversely, the few quirky and original lines didn't feel connected with the characters in any way.
It was a good idea to limit the number of characters (compared with the pilot) but they were all pretty much "out-of-stock" with nothing much to make them interesting, engaging or sympathetic. The performances wobbled annoyingly between attempts of naturalism to broad sketch comedy mugging. The office manager character (I forget her name) was an especially jarring performance.
Fine to use a "first day in the job" plot as a way to introduce a sitcom, but it really seems a desperate idea to announce a pregnancy of one of the main characters in episode one. We don't know the character, we don't (yet) care about the character, so why would we care if she's suddenly pregnant? Pregnancy storylines are best used when it changes the dynamic between characters who've have time to endear themselves to us.
Don't really see what this show's "raison d'etre" is. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. It's not a knockabout comedy and it's not a subtle observational/character show. I don't think it cares about the fact it's set in a legal firm. That's fair enough, but unlike The Office there's nothing else in the show to make the workplace setting irrelevant.
Putting in lines like "there must be more to life than this" is not really enough of a premise (though it might be a line that some thought whilst watching this programme). When it boils down to it, it just wasn't funny enough.
(Not that it matters - basically the same gag has been done a dozen times in sitcom - but I was annoyed by the rude name-tag running joke. It's pedantic of me, but on a point of pure practicality, how was anyone going to switch his name-tag 3 times without him ever noticing? Why would he take it off in the first place? Why the hell would one even wear a badge to give someone an induction - except as a very weak tribute to the character of Gareth Keenan, of course? I don't mind a poor gag, but I don't like one that really tests one's patience. Probably just me though, I should get more fresh air or something.)
On the plus side it wasn't excessively vulgar and the characters weren't instantly dislikeable. The direction by Matt Lipsey was good and the production seemed slick. I can't say anything made me laugh, but possibly next week it might (I will give it another go - "oh, how generous of you, Tim!" - Jesus, I really should get something resembling a life).
P.S. Why does almost every BBC Three sitcom seem to require some generic upbeat little ditty to play between every sodding scene? It really doesn't distract one from the fact that scenes aren't ending in a strong gag.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, thanks Godot, the title, I forgot. I wonder if the youngsters working in office pools will be shouting "Lunch Monkey!" at each other tomorrow with big, knowing smiles all over their faces?
Is it bad that I liked it... for a BBC Three show it was not bad, not bad at all... o and about the asian guy not looking asian... he looked asian to me?
Not at all. It's each to his/her own around here. (There is no "cool" crowd around here, despite the rumours.) I like 'The Carpenters', some philistines don't. No-one around here would/should criticise you personally for enjoying a sitcom. Comedy is, after all, subjective.
Yeah I thought that was pretty crap. It wasen't terrible but I didn't laugh at any point. I'll watch another episode before I pass final judgement though.
Quote: sitcom critic @ September 10 2009, 11:55 PM BSTIs it bad that I liked it... for a BBC Three show it was not bad, not bad at all... o and about the asian guy not looking asian... he looked asian to me?
No sitcom critic, it's not bad that you liked it. After all, you might work in a post room for a legal firm and this might be a mirror of truth into your world.
Living in London, I see Asian people everyday and to me, the actor just didn't look Asian. If they hadn't called him Asif or shown a piece of paper with Asif written on it, then I never would have guessed in a million years that he was meant to be Asian. He looked more Mediterranean / Middle Eastern / Turkish to me. I'm not saying that he should have been wearing a turban and making cups of tea for Windsor Davis but surely, the casting people could have found someone a little more authentic.
Before I'm accused of some sort of bizarre racism, the writer made his character educationally sub-normal. So although 'whitey' granted an ethnic character to actually exist in his sitcom, he made him a retard, so I don't know where that leaves us.
But really, these are minor points. Lunch Monkeys is bland, derivative, unimaginative, charmless drivel.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 10 2009, 11:36 PM BSTP.P.S. To the Lunch Monkey production team (who apparently read drivel like mine), you will be glad to hear I shall probably be unemployed in a couple of months. Will script edit/drop trousers for food. Soon won't be able to afford the internet and will have to write my critiques in my own poo on the walls of a squat.
Tim, you are the comedy writing equivalent of a crack whore. That was a truly shameless display of arse licking toadyism and it made me feel physically sick.
Oh well, when your snorting lines off of some producers' cock and living in your huge mansion with Baftas, you can laugh at me from your Bentley as I steal change out of wishing wells to buy soup.
I will also laugh at BBC newsreaders doing self-conscious yet smug "comedy" song and dance routines on charity shows, for the sake of a warm bed for the night. And I'm happy to have a colonoscope rammed up my arse whilst shouting "Two Pints!" in order to record an ironic BBC Three ident (in exchange for clean needles).
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 11 2009, 1:26 AM BSTI will also laugh at BBC newsreaders doing self-conscious yet smug "comedy" song and dance routines on charity shows, for the sake of a warm bed for a night. And I'm happy to have a colonoscope rammed up my arse whilst shouting "Two Pints!" in order to form the basis of ironic BBC Three ident (in exchange for clean needles).
Yeah and then you and Jack Whitehall will be found slumped over on the pavement outside of some nightclub (probably a gay one) and you'll be in all the papers and everyone will love you and think you're really funny and intelligent. But is that what you really want? Money, fame, adoration, free Sky+? Is it? Is it? Or is it?
It matters not, as guess what buddy? You've just been off topic-ed!
(And so have I 
)
The exchange of dialogue in the toilets that began "Your cock getting any action then, hippie?" was pretty funny and well written/delivered.
The discerning reader will go to the effort of reading these hidden pearls, no doubt. 
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ September 11 2009, 1:32 AM BST
Yeah and then you and Jack Whitehall will be found slumped over on the pavement outside of some nightclub (probably a gay one) and you'll be in all the papers and everyone will love you and think you're really funny and intelligent. But is that what you really want? Money, fame, adoration, free Sky+? Is it? Is it? Or is it?
It matters not, as guess what buddy? You've just been off topic-ed!
(And so have I
If I quote all this and then say "I watched Admin but didn't realise this was the new title for it until now - Admin was okay I thought", does that count as off topic?
Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 11 2009, 1:38 AM BSTThe exchange of dialogue in the toilets that began "Your cock getting any action then, hippie?" was pretty funny and well written/delivered.
That solicitor character had potential, but for me the actor's performance strayed over the line into caricature. (Not helped by the inconsistency in the lines written for him.)
Quote: Badge @ September 11 2009, 1:43 AM BSTIf I quote all this and then say "I watched Admin but didn't realise this was the new title for it until now - Admin was okay I thought", does that count as off topic?
(This is though.)
EDIT: Though it's on the same page as where I make an on-topic comment about the show. 