2nd series Job Lot, Vicious, Badults why?

Why have the worst sitcoms of the past 5 years been given a 2nd series?
The Job Lot ok had a couple of ok jokes, 4/10 as background comedy, probably needs canned laughter, although I hate that it would actually benefit this programme.
Who is the audience? Probably doleys, real doleys, not jobseekers, people who watch Jeremy Kyle to feel better about their lives, that's who.

Vicious wouldn't look out of place in the 70s but what is it about? SHITE that's what, unrealistic shite badly written. I can only imagine the audience is a bunch of middle class 70yr olds whom have their butlers shop at Waitrose.

BADULTS, WTF? Is daddy the director at the BBC? Audience? I have no idea, ironically neither do they.

Why? Because, thankfully, not everybody shares your sense of humour.

I'm glad about Vicious' "second coming".

Vicious's*

Vicious was okay in my opinion and watchable, not so sure about The Job Lot. But then what do I know as I must have been one of the few who liked The Royal Bodyguard.

Vicious was fun but with 3 of the best actors in the world, they could have been rapping Derek Jacobi's In The Night Garden script. The script was somewhat leaden, nice set.

Badults is quite good, if a bit over the top and clumsy. Pappy's fun club are he hugely talented and have been going for years, they deserve another chance,

The Job Lot seemed full of good ideas and was actually quite funny.

Sitcoms like any other art form don't produce, 100% genius all the time. And none of the above were ever less than entertaining and amusing.

Unlike The Royal Bodyguard. .

That was awful.

Quote: Aaron @ August 23 2013, 10:58 PM BST

Vicious's*

View original

You sure about that though? Could be right but I'd like the evidence for it from some thoroughly conclusive grammar tome (but I don't think there is any). Going to a grammar school isn't evidence enough for me, (trembling) I'm afraid. I've seen it consistently written both ways all through my reading and writing life, many times by the same writers or papers or editors and you get it both ways all the time on BBC websites, and you know how good BBC copy is.

Conclusive proof, for me, that Gordon is as right as you on it. I think the scourge that is pedantry has led many to assume it has to be s's when in actual fact s' is just as correct, more concise, looks better, more writerly and's favoured by me. Amusingly, well for me, it's the grammar Nazis who insist on s's. How fitting. Morning.

This isn't the place for a heated grammar debate, but the word 'vicious' is simply a word that ends in an s. It is neither plural nor possessive. Therfore when talking about something that belongs to it (being used as a proper noun), we add apostrophe s. Do we not?

Quote: Aaron @ August 24 2013, 8:43 AM BST

This isn't the place for a heated grammar debate, but the word 'vicious' is simply a word that ends in an s. It is neither plural nor possessive. Therfore when talking about something that belongs to it (being used as a proper noun), we add apostrophe s. Do we not?

View original

I'm not plural or possessive, not even vicious (at least I hope so). I'm only a Swiss man that tries to write English sentences...with mixed results, obviously.

I agree with Sooty: The Royal Bodyguard was awful.

It was great!

Gordon you're no more Swiss than the Queen of England and I maintain you weren't really wrong. Aaron (ever the editor)'s over precise technical definition is all that is wrong with Grammar - a pompous intrusion on man's time invented by pedants who had no great love or flair for English lit, often failed writers with a grudge. I like the Muirism 'real writers just write' and the more you write the more lovely that notion seems and we should look at getting back to that. imoo. Why haven't I noticed this smiley before, it's me.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 24 2013, 9:33 AM BST

Gordon you're no more Swiss than the Queen of England

View original

I do drink the occasional tea...but my passport says I'm a chocolate worshipping, cheese snorting, Nazi gold hiding tax evading racist.

It's hardly pompous if he puts a spanking great smiley next to it, is it. You do get angry over the silliest things, Alfred!

Quote: Aaron @ August 24 2013, 8:43 AM BST

This isn't the place for a heated grammar debate, but the word 'vicious' is simply a word that ends in an s. It is neither plural nor possessive. Therfore when talking about something that belongs to it (being used as a proper noun), we add apostrophe s. Do we not?

View original

Word. You only really use the apostrophe on its own after a plural noun or if it is a personal name ending with an S. Like Wicks' posts. I know this because I did extensive research on how to properly puntuate my own name, many years ago.

Quote: Tim Azure @ August 24 2013, 10:40 AM BST

Not awful, you kind of expect more because it's David Jason. Him doing comedy drama is safer ground, but who wants safe ground?

View original

I really wanted it to be good. Maybe a bit too much.

Quote: james bream @ August 23 2013, 8:57 PM BST

Vicious wouldn't look out of place in the 70s but what is it about? SHITE that's what, unrealistic shite badly written. I can only imagine the audience is a bunch of middle class 70yr olds whom have their butlers shop at Waitrose.

View original

I'm not 70.