Count Arthur Strong - Series 3 (TV) Page 4

Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 21st May 2017, 9:46 AM

I know that people complain it's the Michael Show. No doubt they also complained Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em was the Betty Show or that One Foot in the Grave was the Deayton Show.

View original

No-one ever made these complaints. Ever.

Tried it again last night. Hopeless.
It was literally all about Michael - ropey flashbacks included.
As well as being side-lined, Arthur's character has completely changed - the thought of him organising a surprise party for anyone but himself would have been unthinkable in the past.
The whole joy of the character was that he was a monster - completely self-centered and delusional.
Now he's just a silly uncle.
Tragic.

Ahh! At last we now see why the seemingly pointless new character of Birdie was introduced into this present/now finishing series - it was just so they could play the Family Ticket "joke" to get into the safari park in the last episode.

Maybe you have other ideas but up until now I was wondering what she was doing in this as she seemed to bring nothing to the party.

All the friends are awful.
Their main problem is that they like him for some unknown reason, they think he's the bee's knees.
The joke used to be that everyone just used to put up with him, to a greater or lesser extent, despite his appalling rude-ness and idiocy.
Every decision made in bringing this across to TV has been wrong headed.

As I said I watched the Jilted John one and enjoyed it with the music jokes included but haven't watched it since.

Have only fully watched first two eps but wasn't happy it got itself into a long opening scene rut in café where the second half action is set up at ridiculous length making you not want to bother watching the pay off in the second half. It starts all tell tell and finishes with a bit of show. It's a very stiffly presented sitcom which looks contrived and strained. The first series had some charm as he was a new TV character but by the third series is looking like a typical Linehan vehicle with very patchy narratives shoehorning a character from a different sitcom in when he can be bothered.

Why couldn't they let Delaney write it? Then we'd have got the true CAS.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 16th July 2017, 2:24 PM

Why couldn't they let Delaney write it? Then we'd have got the true CAS.

View original

Do we know that this isn't what Delaney wants it to be? Maybe this is kind of what he wanted from the radio show all along. No way of telling.

He called you "My dear Aardwolf, or maybe Adolf?" when you tried to interview him, didn't he?

Well I listened to his last radio series, what was it, the ninth or something and it was the same style as his earlier ones I heard so I'd assume he was happy with what he had.

Okay, much of that malapropism stuff is wireless worthy only, I get that. You have to write a different way for TV but if that makes it too different from the radio version then why chance it at all? For a few grand more Delaney's let someone make an inferior CAS, or make CAS inferior, depending on which way you view things. And too different to give you a hint of what the original was like.

Why couldn't he just say what most of us thought 'Look, it's a radio piece, it won't work on telly, ta but I'll stick to what I've got.' ? If that's not too naïve.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 16th July 2017, 2:54 PM

Why couldn't he just say what most of us thought 'Look, it's a radio piece, it won't work on telly, ta but I'll stick to what I've got.' ? If that's not too naïve.

View original

Well, it was a live character - i.e. a visual performance - before radio.

Just watched Ep 7 (I think) "The Lucky Streak" - much better, because Michael was on holiday.
Much more Arthur-ish - accidentally joining the Scientologists, annoying a TV commercials director
Couldn't last, though - Michael returns and Arthur sees the error of his foolish ways.
The whole point of the character is he is delusional - he NEVER sees the error of his ways.
That's the very essence of a great sitcom character.
Annoying.

Have just spent an hour and a half watching the last three episodes of Series 3. I missed most of Series 2 but watched most of Series 1. I still love this programme. I like the fact that it is different from the radio series which is marginally better. Hancock was different on radio and television and again the radio version was slightly better so it is in good company. I see it as following late in the Hancock tradition more than anything else although the Father Ted aspects are also pretty clear. And mainly I like the characters in the television series. I'm warming to Birdy who is being brought in more and I think it benefits from an oddball female character who is likable and has some pathos.

Thought "The Soupover" was good but not one of the best although I saw it when it went out and it was not a great day. Very much liked this afternoon the one with the Scientologists and especially Safari Park. I think the series definitely benefits from outdoors locations and still rate the flying school one in Series 1 as the best. There were echoes of Reggie Perrin in Safari Park but not duplication. Nice lineage. It is also the case that some of the funniest life stories - or at least it used to be the case before car loans - emanate from dodgy cheap cars. That has been true in my life and I thought the series tapped into that experience of many people historically very well. Overall, probably 9 out of 10.

More please - it's my favourite British TV sitcom since Father Ted - and taking into account some of these cues!

Unsurprising news: the show has been canned.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/news/2728/count_arthur_strong_cancelled/

Perhaps he'll do some more radio .
Hope so.
I want the rude, nasty Count back - the cuddly one was just plain boring.

Why did it need to finish though? It tried a new timeslot and was found to be not quite right.

Morning. First post and all that. I've only registered today after hearing yesterday that CAS has been ditched by the Beeb. It's the first sitcom I've laughed out loud at since Phoenix Nights and some of the early Not Going Out shows. The central character is refreshingly strong for a modern sitcom even though I gather he's clearly been watered down from the radio shows. I must catch up with the radio stuff. Most sitcoms in the modern age are strangled through political correctness. Arthur somehow manages to transcend the PC agenda and still manages to be fantastically offensive without upsetting anyone watching. That's just so rare these days, it really is. This was comedy gold that appealed right across the age spectrum from kids, to my mum and dad who are in their 90s. They commented that it was just old fashioned funny- it didn't rely on filth to be funny, it just relied on Arthur to be wound up like a clockwork toy and be sent off on his way.

The potential storylines for this guy were and are endless, mainly due to the fact that at heart he's a lifelong dreamer. The pathos that goes with the realisation that all his schemes are doomed to failure is essential in all the very best comedies. the fact that he then comes out of a reality check with another hairbrained idea gives you the relief you need as the watcher- that it's ok, Arthur will attempt to conquer the world in a different way next week! Again I understand that the pathos side of Arthur isn't present in the radio shows, but most of the classic shows have an element of it in their makeup.

I have to agree with most posters on here that the transition to tv looks like it's been done in a hamfisted way. Some of the characters are almost totally superfluous due to being just too weak. Eggy is just a sad guy with an egg obsession. That's it, there's nothing more to him at all. They don't even make reference to it at any point, and at the very least he could have a rant about eggs every now and then rather than just be there for a one liner or reaction shot. They didn't even use the sandwich board for some easy visual jokes with it getting in the way of the everyday functions of life. I used to think the same about John, but as the show has gone on he's developed into quite a good character. They hit on dressing him up in different costumes with 'Safari'. He was genuinely funny dressed as a bewildered schoolboy in short trousers and a cap. Loads of potential laughs with him. Birdy was also becoming a bit more rounded, with a scatty personality that only came out at the very end. Bulent also was developing into not just a guy who rants 24/7, but a character who is funny when he makes mistakes and has to back down or eat humble pie, such as when he lost the cafe to Arthur in a poker game.

The only real conundrum for me is Michael. I like Rory Kinnear as an actor, and he has his dads eye for comedy too (Roy Kinnear's comedy face of fear was the best in the business, with the possible exception of the also much missed Reg Varney), but the trouble with Michael is that he's not a strong enough character to be pushed centre stage into a lead role. If he was more cynical, more paranoid about Arthur even, he'd generate some interest. As it's turned out, one of the best episodes of the last series (the one where he's away on holiday with his nice, but just 'nice' girlfriend- there, I can't even remember her name) is one of the funniest as Arthur is left alone to wreak his usual havoc. Someone earlier posted that the Michael/girlfriend love story is pretty pointless, and it is pointless.

The show's scheduling has been a disaster too. Most times I watched it the next day after recording it, but once I didn't get it at all due to Wimbledon. How are people expected to get into a show that's continually shunted around like that?

Overall, it's a disastrous decision to ditch a show that still had faults, but when it was good, wow, it was really good. As a former comedy fanzine writer I was even going to try to submit some scripts to Steve Delaney for future ideas, but there's not much point in doing that now I suppose. A shame it's gone, it will be sadly missed by many.