Sorry, I've made a proper thread for it now!
So, who else watched the first episode? Call it heresy, but I liked it! Not a patch on the original, but I couldn't fault Clement and La Frenais' script and I laughed out loud more often than not. Bishop's portrayal does slip into imitation quite often though, every line just felt written for Barker.
Can't figure out what was going on there with a locked thread. 
You didn't cast nasturtiums about the moderators did you?
Anyway, "every line just felt written for Barker." Precisely so why did they bother - half expected Ronnie B to come out of one of the cells and say to Bishop "What the **** are you playing at."
Didn't like it, and this first episode was to me just an expansion of one of the original ideas AND didn't work at all.
(Thanks!)
I saw the first two episodes a couple of weeks ago; preferred the second, but really enjoyed both. Dick and Ian's writing still shines, and I really enjoy the performances of Bonnar and Coleman. Similar to McKay and Barraclough, but not identical. An air of the originals about them.
Similarly, Bishop's Fletch is very enjoyable. He's picked just the right hints of mannerisms and whatnot to use in Nigel. Can really believe he's Norman's grandson.
My only real fault with the programme is, like most modern productions, it just looks too glossy, clean and pristine. Overproduced. The set looks almost space-station-like. Doesn't feel like how a prison would or should look, even if some genuinely are like that. Could've cut a great chunk out of the budget by taking a traditional approach to sets.
Yes, I feel conflicted because based on the cast I wouldn't be watching, but the writing is still so on point and the hit rate on the gags extremely high. I just find it odd watching Bishop imitating Barker's speech rhythms I suppose, I just end up imagining Barker saying the lines and finding them funnier! Bonnar isn't a patch of Fulton Mackay at all though, in fact it's s shame they went for another Scot, the comparisons are inevitable! And the introductory monologue isn't anywhere near as snappy as the original. It's weird, I feel like I'll be laughing at this for the next five weeks whilst still finding lots of things to criticize.
Yeah, it wasn't terrible but it wasn't great either. If you forget about the original and treat this as a seperate show, it's not all that bad. The writing is still good, Clement and La Frenais are still excellent comedy writers. However, this will never be as good as the original and I think the BBC know this.
Quote: Aaron @ 7th October 2017, 4:18 PMMy only real fault with the programme is, like most modern productions, it just looks too glossy, clean and pristine. Overproduced. The set looks almost space-station-like. Doesn't feel like how a prison would or should look, even if some genuinely are like that. Could've cut a great chunk out of the budget by taking a traditional approach to sets.
Spot on.
Firstly, bit curious as to why the title of thread says 2016, series 1. I know the initial 'one-off' special was broadcast in 2016 but this series is a 2017 series. Just being a pedantic charmless nerk.
Anyway, I concur with most of the opinions of the thread. I didn't know iPlayer were showing the whole series in one? Bonus!
Bishop portrays a fairly believable descendent to Norman Stanley Fletcher, however, almost all the support cast are not on the same level as funny as the original series. Surely it's harder to get the main character right, to that of supporting cast?
That 'Azis' or however it's spelt, is just such a non-character. There's just nothing there. Who is he meant to be? A Bunny Warren type inmate? Grouty style bad boy is too serious, not subtlety serious like Grout. His side-kick (the big lad) is always the type-cast heavy. I think casting type-casts is a bad idea for comedy.
Someone said about the set looking too pristine. Totally agree. Even though modern prisons are probably required to be of a certain standard, they could have got away with having a rustic, grubby prison. Sure there are a few about still!
A couple of small things I've noticed so far. Fletch should be on the first floor, not ground. I don't know why, but him being on the ground floor amongst the screws constantly doesn't work. Whereas in the original, they got away with all sorts and was more believable when scheming upstairs.
Also, I haven't seen Bishop sport the wash towel around the neck yet - not since the comeback special.
And why is it Porridge, series 1 and not series 5? This is after all, Porridge. Not a spin-off nor a Prequel.
Anyone recognise the judge who does the spiel in the opening credits? Whatshisname from The Fast Show.
Finally, I know it was established that Nigel Fletcher was a cyber criminal in the initial comeback, but I wouldn't have chosen that as his 'profession'. There's something about a certain generation of writers who write about something entirely different from their generation. A bit like Ben Elton and the type of dialogue 'down with the kids yooof talk' used in the Wright Way.
I'm such a pedantic arsehole. Sorry all.
Anyway, Bishop does a decent job playing Grandson Fletch. As ever, supporting cast are pretty naff. The McKay equivalent looks the part, sounds the part but his ruthless and ridiculous streak in persona isn't quite there. Baraclough isn't far off, but again, not quite there.
I can't work out if the writers want different kinds of characters or perfectly mimicked ones.
but relevance to the thread , anything called porriage isn't gonna be any good without seeing it don't need to
Oh dear.
Quote: comedywriter dude @ 8th October 2017, 8:53 AMno relevance to the thread but your avatar scars the shit out of me, like a saw movie but actually scary
That is Hercules Grytpype-Thynne from the Telegoons. Even worse than genial Harry Grout for gentlemanly villianry.
There's too much going through the motions, making a carbon copy here. Bring in some new plots here, bring in some new expressions or innuendos.
You do know that the original Porridge is one of our best sitcoms? What would you call a prison sitcom?
I'm in agreement with all the media reviews listed in "press" section - it's piss poor!
In terms of chemistry inevitably a poor imitation of the original, but Clement and La Frenais can still write the arse off any sitcom writer living.
The original gave the actors more free range, this one has them mimicking the past. The new Fletcher seems to put all his effort into faithfully copy Barker's mannerisms and speech patterns. This was one of the best sitcoms ever made, leave it at that. Why do an inferior copy?
Personally I would have liked to see a completely new character, Russell Brand or even an American comedian like Bill Burr. At least there would have been more to discover, more surprise.
Quote: Tursiops @ 11th October 2017, 12:02 AMBut Clement and La Frenais can still write the arse off any sitcom writer living.
No wonder they are popular with the prison population.
