The Trip - Series 1 Page 14

I haven't watched last night's but probably will later. The question that I ask myself though is, would I watch it if it didn't have high profile actors like Coogan and Brydon in it? The answer is 'probably not' which suggests to me that there is a certain element of comedy rubbernecking involved in me watching it at all, as it's not really got a decent premise or a point to make other than 'aren't we a couple of wags' and Coogan exposing himself as a vulnerable 40 something man who wants people to like him a bit more.

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 23 2010, 9:37 AM GMT

Although I saw the unsuccessful pass as not (entirely) serious, I guess they were showing that whereas Coogan has a reputation as a womaniser, Brydon could be predatory too.

View original

Brydon making a pass at a girl, who he thought was giving out signals, doesn't make him 'predatory'.

It's perfectly legal, and morally acceptable, for a married man to have a kiss and cuddle with another woman, just as long as it doesn't lead to sex.

*imagines a world where that was true*

*shudders*

Sucks to be you, Don.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ November 22 2010, 11:34 PM GMT

Well as the start did with Coogan, the end brought a darkness to 'Rob Brydon'

View original

Maybe Brydon will end up turning into Coogan, shagging every woman he can, turning to drugs and craving Hollywood success.

Maybe not.

Quote: don rushmore @ November 23 2010, 6:16 PM GMT

It's perfectly legal, and morally acceptable, for a married man to have a kiss and cuddle with another woman, just as long as it doesn't lead to sex.

View original

Spoil-sport

The only thing that slightly annoys me is that Brydon's career is dismissed so easily. An awful lot is forgettable fluff, but Marion and Geoff and Human Remains are the equal of anything Coogan has done, including Partridge.

I guess doing endless Tom Jones impersonations and a chat show makes people forget he does 'proper' work too!
I think they're both great, although I do think Partridge is better than anything I've seen of Brydon. Still, I'd rather hang out with Brydon in real life, so he wins that one...

Quote: chipolata @ November 23 2010, 6:49 PM GMT

The only thing that slightly annoys me is that Brydon's career is dismissed so easily. An awful lot is forgettable fluff, but Marion and Geoff and Human Remains are the equal of anything Coogan has done, including Partridge.

View original

Indeed, Human Remains was a great series, as was Marion and Geoff, though my wife finds the latter a bit sad and morose. I just shout "Abba, Christians, Beatles, Doors!" at her and throw rice in her face.

Quote: Aldeem @ November 23 2010, 7:04 PM GMT

Indeed, Human Remains was a great series, as was Marion and Geoff

View original

Yes. And I just want Brydon to ocasionally remind Coogan to that he too has had his moments of greatness.

Quote: zooo @ November 23 2010, 6:51 PM GMT

I'd rather hang out with Brydon in real life...

View original

Even if he sings to you embarrassingly on a public sofa?

I'd just give him a swift kick to the groin. Help him reach the high notes.

You would so let Brydon feel you up.

No offence to the man, but: ew.

This is getting harder to watch.
But in a good way.
Coogan turning down the coke was a fabulously economic piece of writng/acting.
Clever stuff.

It's getting boring seeing the same old impressions every week. Okay you can do Michael Caine, Ronnie Corbet and Al Pacino...we get it!

Could it be a suggestion that they consider themselves one trick ponies?

It is an impressive show, but just a bit repetitive.

Quote: jacparov @ November 23 2010, 11:38 PM GMT

Could it be a suggestion that they consider themselves one trick ponies?

View original

I fear that there may be many members of the public quickly coming to that conclusion...

I'd like the fans of this show to be more specific about what they think makes this show good.

So you think it's "Impressive" or "well-observed" or god-forbid "funny" then be specific and say why.

I think it a poor piece of work and here's why:

1) It is dramatically inactive. The characters wants and/or needs are deeply unclear.

2) The relationship between the primary characters is irrelevant to the forward motion of the individuals. Meaning they aren't trying to get anything from one another - they have no dramatic purpose for being in the same room together.

3) Individual events do not add up to anything. The photographer does a line...so what? It never goes anywhere and is irrelevant to the Coogan's journey (what little journey he has) Brydon researches Coleridge...reads his poem.... to what end? It doesn't influence the characters or the audience's understanding of the characters.

4) It's repetitive. This has been mentioned a lot here, not sure it requires further explanation but if some one wants to throw the Beckett/Pinter argument at me privately I'll take it on.

5) The whole food angle is deeply muddy. Why are they reviewing restaurants? What do we learn about them or ourselves from this endeavour? So they know nothing about food - we got that in the first episode now what statement are they trying to make by having us watch them eat (with ignorance) in successive episodes?

I look forward to your responses!