On the strength of that poor episode they should have just stuck a camera on one of Delaney's live Count Arthur performances. As a fan I want this to work but I laughed once. It's not playing to the character's strengths and apart from Rory Kinnear as the foil, the rest of the cast are a waste of time.
Better Arthur great but I can't take to the rest of the cast.
Off for a oxo drink before removing my pubic hair with some tweezers.
I agree it is Marmite.
Love the radio show and often find it Laugh Out Loud. Felt cautious about the TV one so tonight's episode was my first.
It took 15 minutes of resistance but then I thought it was great. That is, great as in rolling around on the floor uncontrollably.
The Count really works for me as a character.
I'm enjoying it. I think it's brilliant. I'm loving the Count! 
I laughed a whole lot during tonight's episode. Arthur's garbled recounting of the deeds of Jack the Ripper to a group of nonplussed tourists was hilarious; especially the bit about the headless ghost 
I like the supporting characters. Rory Kinnear is a terrific straightman.
Michael keep meeting that foreign bloke was the funniest bit of the episode for me. Wasn't very impressed by the rest.
Michael trying to take Arthur off the Ilfracombe
Hysterical !
Rubicon
Quote: lofthouse @ July 15 2013, 9:16 PM BSTMichael trying to take Arthur off the Ilfracombe
Hysterical !
Rubicon
I'm so glad the Beeb saw faith in the show and have already given it a second series!
As someone who's never heard of Count Arthur Strong before, I didn't approach it with caution, worry, anticipation, trepidation or jubilation. I just watched it as a new sitcom. It's really funny. I love Arthur. I read 8 new sitcom scripts recently. Three were really good. This blows them all away. Quality!
First episode made me laugh now and again. I thought that Michael - and others, probably - was functioning as a kind of idiot's guide, there to point out Arthur's wordy funniness to the audience as though they were halfwits. I laughed an awful lot at the second episode, but the same thing was going on, and with other characters too- Arthur's language and delivery is funny (like the headless murder victim 'going on about it', which phrase made me snort with laughter) but then some bystander stopping my full enjoyment of the laughter by pointing out the incongruity and labouring it.
It is almost like nobody quite trusts the material and the character, or maybe the intelligence of the audience, and the flow is stopped for explanation.
I wonder if Geoff Tipp was script editor.
It's still the only show on at the moment making me laugh, though.
Quote: GallonOfAlan @ July 10 2013, 12:48 PM BSTWell, The IT Crowd took a good enough while to get up to speed so writing it off on the strength of one episode is a bit premature IMO
That one episode is probably the most important one. It's supposed to be so funny, engaging and attractive to the audience (which this clearly wasn't) that they want to watch more. Seems like a lazy argument to say viewers should hang around just in case it might get better.
So what if your 'slow burner' theory doesn't work out? Should I watch 2, 3 or the waste my time on the whole series, just to find out what I knew after episode 1? Or do what I did with this: watch one episode, determine it was an unfunny pile of poo and check out something better?
Just watched both episodes on the BBC iPlayer and I must say I absolutely loved it.
It didn't have me laughing out loud or anything, but it kept me interested and entertained.
The comedy and jokes were silly and goofy which is right up my alley.
Also I've never listened to the radio show, so I went in watching with no type of expectations for what it's worth.
The second episode was much better than the first episode, so I hope the quality of the show continues to improve.
I'll definitely continue watching.
Quote: bob4apples @ July 16 2013, 9:45 AM BSTThat one episode is probably the most important one. Its supposed to be so funny, engaging and attractive to the audience (which this clearly wasn't) that they want to watch more. Seems like a lazy argument to say viewers should hang around just in case it might get better.
Sometimes, if the humour is subtle or particularly original, it's hard for an audience to warm to it straight away, and perseverance is essential. If you don't hang around, you're only ever going to see/hear things that are much like stuff you already know.
I agree with much of what the previous posters said about the second episode; much improved, quite a lot of stuff happening, and personally I liked to see the Count doing his trademarked 'inappropriate aggressiveness,' when he condemned the cafe-owner for wanting to sell human eggs.
What I'm finding discordant above all else is that way The Count seems to exist in a Count-style world, whereas Michael/Martin seems to be a different, Linehan-style world. It's like two different shows have been spliced together.
Quote: Nogget @ July 16 2013, 10:01 AM BSTand personally I liked to see the Count doing his trademarked 'inappropriate aggressiveness,' when he condemned the cafe-owner for wanting to sell human eggs.
Yes! That was my favourite bit.
Quote: Pip Bond @ July 16 2013, 8:02 AM BSTIt is almost like nobody quite trusts the material and the character, or maybe the intelligence of the audience, and the flow is stopped for explanation.
Very probably, this happened quite a lot in the radio show as well though. There'd be an abnormal pause for laughs or the gag would soon be repeated, or sometimes Arthur would explain it himself. That was the problem with the radio show, half of it was taken up revelling in its own jokes and making as much out of them as possible. Radio tends to allow that sort of self indulgence, but doing that on TV is going to look ridiculous, so really they needed to radically change this for the change of medium.
I haven't seen it yet.
