Lab Rats Page 10

Quote: Aaron @ July 11 2008, 3:26 PM BST

Well that I won't argue with. Leon particualrly is an absolutely brilliant character.

View original

I think most of that can be laid at the feet of Tom Hollander and Simon Curtis who is primarily a theatre director.

Freezing is an interesting project in that it has absolutely the very best talent available in it. Hugh Bonneville and Tom Hollander are both naturally funny men as well as being in the front rank of British screen actors. Curtis as well (not richard curtis - ha ha) is simply one of the most literate and experienced directors around.

No comedy show I can think of in recent memory has had this level of talent chucked at it - not to take away from the scripts – which are also excellent. But that is why it is so good. Consider the performance of Tim McInerny as Bamber, the foodie History writer. A comedy actor as opposed to a theatre actor would have done half as good a job with that role.

Quote: The Cool Mikado @ July 11 2008, 3:33 PM BST

http://whythatsdelightful.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/how-to-be-a-tv-reviewer/

View original

disagree with him....if Lab Rats becomes something good then i'll praise it at the time. Right now i gave up 30 mins of my day for something that was bad, as such we should be allowed to put the boot in all we want. (although i assume he is directing his comments more at pro critics who could cause the show to never see a second series and hope of improvement)

Quote: Aaron @ July 11 2008, 3:36 PM BST

Thanks TCM. I'll no doubt forget to look again, but it does look like it could be an interesting series.

On which point, I see that Chris Addison himself wrote Lab Rats. Yikes.

View original

Actually, he co-wrote it with Carl Cooper, who also co-wrote "The Ape That Got Lucky" with Addison, a series which won Gold Sony Award for comedy, which in a way makes the lack of quality in "Lab Rats" even more shocking.

Quote: Pete @ July 11 2008, 3:56 PM BST

disagree with him....if Lab Rats becomes something good then i'll praise it at the time. Right now i gave up 30 mins of my day for something that was bad, as such we should be allowed to put the boot in all we want. (although i assume he is directing his comments more at pro critics who could cause the show to never see a second series and hope of improvement)

View original

Yes, I would assume he's commenting more on the "professional" commentators, and those who've instantly dismissed the whole series. I think that most people, certainly here, have quite rightly only commented on it as an individual episode.

Quote: Ian Wolf @ July 11 2008, 3:58 PM BST

Actually, he co-wrote it with Carl Cooper

View original

Yes, but Cooper wasn't in the show as far as I'm aware. Point was that as he wrote it, Addison would presumably have been playing it as intended, or close to.

I've spotted the ratings for the episode on The Guardian website. The episode got 1.7 million viewers and an 8% share.

In comparison, Mock the Week got 2.6 million viewers and a 12% share, and Still Game got 1.3 million and an 8% share (the same as Lab Rats).

I just watched this again (without my writing hat on). Much more fun on a second viewing. Now the characters are established, I think the rest of the series is going to be fun.

A grower, then - but Addison and the other lad need to sharpen up their performances.

There ya go!

Yeah, he is great in The Thick of It but seemed stilted in this, as did Dan Tetsell. It was a shame.

I'll keep watching as it was alright and am sure it'll get better. Wasn't as good as I expected it to be. Jo Enright was good though; liked her ridiculous character -- one of those 'Phoebe's, whose universe makes sense to herself and no-one else.

Dan

Quote: swerytd @ July 11 2008, 6:32 PM BST

Yeah, he is great in The Thick of It but seemed stilted in this, as did Dan Tetsell. It was a shame.

View original

Absolutely agree with with this, and what other's have said.

In their defence, that was the first time some of them had performed in a studio sitcom. Let's hope they managed to settle into their roles and found a more natual rhythm by the second recording.

It's certainly too early to judge the show as a whole yet (although I think it safe to say that the CGI snail was a bad idea). I'm giving it at least another episode before deciding if it has merit (Geoff McGivern's scientist character has potential?).

Here's some interesting thoughts from Graham Linehan, directed at reviewers:

When reviewing a new sitcom, always remember to slag off the very first episode as brutally as you possibly can. Don't worry that this introductory episode will probably be the least representative of the series, and forget about any notions of giving the show 'time to develop'. Just watch the opening half hour of a six-week run, make your mind up there and then, dash off your sixty words about something that took someone a year to develop, and get some well-earned sleep!

(Fun fact: Twice in my career, I've had the experience of journalists actually apologising for their early bad reviews and retracting them–it happened with Father Ted and The IT Crowd. I'm not saying that will necessarily happen with Lab Rats, but even the possibility should make anyone with a conscience pause before they lace up their hobnail boots.)

The trailer didn't make me want to watch it, so I didn't!

Am glad to see that I didn't miss anything. Roll on IT Crowd Series 3

Wow, harsh response from many! As 'writers', maybe it would be prudent to stop bitching and give this one a chance?!

I haven't read the entire thread, however it seems that nobody here ever considers the fact that this is an entirely new sitcom before casting final judgment. New concept, unusual tone (wavering between sillysurreal and traditional) and yet it's been given a big fat thumbs down by so many members. Surely you should be looking at the potential (which I think it has in spades) for this to be really really good?

Word.

Quote: wonderboy85 @ July 12 2008, 12:13 PM BST

I haven't read the entire thread,

View original

Evidently.

Quote: wonderboy85 @ July 12 2008, 12:13 PM BST

Wow, harsh response from many! As 'writers', maybe it would be prudent to stop bitching and give this one a chance?!

I haven't read the entire thread, however it seems that nobody here ever considers the fact that this is an entirely new sitcom before casting final judgment.

View original

I think it's only a minority of members who've made their final judgement. Most people are relatively open-minded, and will watch at least one or two more before casting their view. The comments so far have, for the most part, only been in relation to the one episode. Or at least that's how I read them!

FWIW, I reckon the episode itself was really pretty poor, but the concept isn't too bad, and I can see what they were trying to do. Like any other show, I'll stick with it to the bitter end. Hopefully it will improve!

His big leg disturbed me.