It wasn't uneven. And I have some recollection of the cast changing, so it's unlikely.
Grandma's House - Series 1 Page 31
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 5 2010, 6:29 PM BSTOr was that first episode infact the pilot in some shape or form? Could explain its unevenness.
Maybe it only seemed uneven due to your fits of rage and throwing things at the telly. 
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 5 2010, 1:57 PM BSTI thought that last episode was very funny, but so much so that it made the series look extremely inconsistent, lopsided even. I certainly wasn't expecting to laugh like I did after three weak episodes at best.
Four episodes in and it got funny? A year of script editing; written and filmed out-of-order; and then it got funny in episode 4? Maybe your perception changed?
In the first minute of episode 1, I laughed at:
"I've got no life; I can't eat crisps."
"I can't believe a fully-grown human-being was born in the mid-1990s."
And that's pre-Clive.
It just seems like its trying to be 'The Royle Family' meets 'Curb' and therefore ends up being inferior to both. Amstell's non-acting is reminiscent of Seinfeld but he doesn't pull it off as well. How about a bit of originality for a change?
Quote: bob4apples @ September 5 2010, 9:07 PM BSTHow about a bit of originality for a change?
Well said. Maybe the timing of this strikingly unoriginal looking thing starting the same week as the seemingly original looking Roger and Val was planned to deflect such criticism of the Beeb.
I tried watching this again; it is not without wit and even a smidgeon of charm, but winking at the camera that this is a painfully self-indulgent vanity project does not actually make it any less a painfully self-indulgent vanity project: "If this was on the telly people would switch it off." Hmm.
Marry me Timbo.
We all get the picture, just don't watch it and stop endlessly bleating on about it.
Maybe he likes to watch it and then rail against the quality of television these days?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 5 2010, 9:16 PM BSTWell said. Maybe the timing of this strikingly unoriginal looking thing starting the same week as the seemingly original looking Roger and Val was planned to deflect such criticism of the Beeb.
I disagree with your analysis of both shows.
That's what freedom of speech is for.
But how are you defining originality? Many have stated that GH is seemingly copying shows in its style and premise. Surely this makes it somewhat unoriginal?
Roger & Val is turning a lot of people off because of its unusual premise, how many two hander sitcoms have there been? And if it's the lack of overt verbal comedy that some don't like, then how often is it we get such a strong example of a sitcom not following this usual sitcom formula? For me at least, R&V does seem to be original, or it's making an effort to be.
Maybe the 'many' people are wrong. 
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 5 2010, 11:41 PM BSTRoger & Val is turning a lot of people off because of its unusual premise, how many two hander sitcoms have there been?
No, it's turning people off because of its painfully slow pacing and lack of humour. The realism is not an issue, nor is the 'real time' thing inherently bad - but it's just not hitting the mark for some of us. (Or at least, not hitting it enough.)
Caught up with last week's ep. Some very funny stuff in this. Never liked Amstell much before but enjoying him in this. Rebecca Front is stealing it, though. Love the stuff about 'get in the f**king balloon'.
I've enjoyed it so far. Not something I'd get on DVD and re-watch, but it's had some funny moments. I particularly like the aunt character.