Free Agents Page 5

Quote: bigfella @ February 15 2009, 2:35 PM GMT

Couldn't get Head's character at all - just didn't get the who has been f**king section round the meeting table. Odd. But we will see how it pans out.

View original

Yes that scene was peculiarly repellent. Is this how people behave in PR? Was it being satirised? What was it all about?

This reflects the problem I had with the PR setting. If the show is about the relationship between the two principle characters rather than about the job they do, why give them a job that causes us to despise them?

It seems that the writer is using the PR backdrop because that is what he knows, but it is not a setting that is going to resonate with most viewers.

Quote: Timbo @ February 15 2009, 4:21 PM GMT

but it is not a setting that is going to resonate with most viewers.

View original

Does that matter? Being a rag and bone man doesn't resonate with me, but Steptoe And Son is brilliant. I think people have seen agents and that world in enough shows over the years to be able to latch on to it.

An agent and PR are different. What are these people supposed to be doing? Is the setting just to make it look a little bit more glam? I dunno....?

But the setting affects how we perceive the characters. I have seen sufficient depictions of the PR world to have the impression, accurate or not, that you would need to be a tosser to work there - an impression that this show seems to confirm, whether deliberately or inadvertently, I am not sure, which is part of the problem. Is the writer saying 'I used to work in the PR industry and it is a moral vacuum which I despise', or is he saying, 'I used to work in PR and I met all these amusing larger than life characters with whom I can populate my sitcom'? Where a sitcom is set in a world that the viewer knows only at second hand, and is inclined to hold a negative view of, the expectation is that the show will have a view of that world, rather than that it simply forming a backdrop. The particular complication here, is that because the principle characters do the job they do, and do not appear to be particularly conflicted about it, we are inclined to find them unengaging, an indeed to be suspicious of any apparent charm - which, since the show relies heavily on Mangan's charm, is a problem.

Quote: Timbo @ February 15 2009, 5:10 PM GMT

The particular complication here, is that because the principle characters do the job they do, and do not appear to be particularly conflicted about it, we are inclined to find them unengaging, an indeed to be suspicious of any apparent charm - which, since the show relies heavily on Mangan's charm, is a problem.

View original

Well, all I can say is, speak for yourself. Your seem to be making a sweeping judgement about the show's entire audience, as opposed to saying this is how you felt. Because I didn't feel like that.

Fair enough, but this discussion started with the scene with Anthony Head in the boardroom, which I think enforced any prejudices, intentionally or not. As the show develops the writer's view of the industry and the character's feelings about his job may become clearer. But at the moment I do not find the characters as sympathetic as the writer perhaps intends.

Quote: Timbo @ February 15 2009, 6:06 PM GMT

Fair enough, but this discussion started with the scene with Anthony Head in the boardroom, which I think enforced any prejudices, intentionally or not.

View original

Basically that character is supposed to be a monster; a sex obsessed, foul mouthed monster. It came across better in the original pilot, because he was in it more and wasn't introduced in such a rubbish way. I think though, even in that scene, the way some of them react to Head shows that they too think him a prick.

Personally, I think this first episode was a bit lacking, but for some reason expect it to grow as it progresses.

I liked this.

More of a comedy drama than sitcom but that's right up my strasse, I like the genre. For me though the swearing became a bit too tedious, it would work just as well without it really.

But get this!!

I saw them filming this episode in Golden Sq October / Nov time - I was just opposite the camera's POV. I'd spotted SM but didn't recognise SH. And how spookey is this also?

I've got one of those fold up TV chairs that SM bought. The exact same model. So what about that? I fully expect shares in any BAFTAs that this might win.

Good stuff but shame I can't watch it with my old auntie Gladys 'cos of all the potty-mouth.

Oh, dear...

http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2009/02/15/8301/tabloid_targets_c4_sitcom

Yes I saw that. Here is the original.

I quite liked last night's episode. It may be rude and foul-mouthed, but rude and foul-mouthed can be funny - and it was.

Quote: Blenkinsop @ February 15 2009, 6:38 PM GMT

I saw them filming this episode in Golden Sq October / Nov time - I was just opposite the camera's POV. I'd spotted SM but didn't recognise SH. And how spookey is this also?

View original

This reminds! There was a huge flaw in the first episode; the hairy guy said something about Father's Day being next week (or soon anyway) and then they went outside and it's all autumnal and Father's Day is in June. It's the sort of lack of detail/continuity that really bugs me.

To be honest, I didn't even really notice the swearing much. Anyone who takes any notice of that newspapers 'campaign' is a c**t.

Quote: Timbo @ February 15 2009, 4:21 PM GMT

If the show is about the relationship between the two principle characters rather than about the job they do, why give them a job that causes us to despise them?

View original

Do they have such a job?

Interesting about that tabloid campaign - the swearing didn't really even register with me, certainly not the "c**t"!

I didn't notice any swearing.