It's like your favourite band. You don't necessarily like everything they do but enjoy them trying - but f**king hate U2.
Not Going Out - Series 3 Page 40
Quote: Aaron @ March 1 2009, 5:06 PM GMTWell I'd disagree with that. I was a huuuuuuuuuuuge fan of The Simpsons, absolutely loved it. But for me, NGO has a much higher laugh rate. And more satisfying the laughs are, too.
WOW! That may be the most surprising thing I've read on this forum to date. I'm a big fan of NGO and if we are looking at The Simpsons post-series 9, which is a big pile of turd, then yeah I could probably agree with you. But The Simpsons, especially around Series 3-8 was just comedy at its best, the laugh rate was phenomenal, all good gags too and such a diverse mixture of humour, which no other comedy has come close to except for maybe Arrested Development.
Not Going Out is good, but it definitely has faults but I think with this type of sitcom the longer it goes the better it will get and these faults will be ironed out. And the Beeb should be giving it another series, what with it dominating Al Murray's new sketch show on Friday night.
Wow, still quite shocked here. 
Just read a review in Broadcast (from about three weeks or so ago) where they were less than flattering about this show.
I do like it a lot. It's funny and one of the few sitcoms that my fiancee will actually watch! That said, there does seem to be something missing this series that wasn't in the first couple of years.
It's probably Lee's infatuation with Sally, which seemed to be a core component of last year, doesn't seem to be anything other than a footnote this year. Which I think is a shame as it's a great show. Hence also why some people complaining he's 'charmless' this time around -- maybe he just seems shallower.
That said: I know I'm always going to laugh out loud numerous times at every episode, so it's fulfilling those criteria. No other sitcom is gag-after-gag-after-gag, which I reckon is a good thing. Long may it continue.
Dan
Quote: swerytd @ March 1 2009, 9:35 PM GMTIt's probably Lee's infatuation with Sally, which seemed to be a core component of last year, doesn't seem to be anything other than a footnote this year.
Really? :/
Hi everyone, been reading your comments, and as one of the names that zooms past on the credits of this series I thought it might be worth responding. Way too many to answer individually but I've picked out a few.
"It seems to me that every line is either a feed or a punchline and therefore, IMO, this comes accross as contrived and purely a vehicle for the joke rather than having any real narritive value. The gags are relentless and ultimately for me just too much… Its main fault for me is that I don't really care or feel for any of its characters… In summary NGO is a well-crafted piece of comedy but overall it is too cold in its delivery and in the world that it seeks to create… As one great comic turn used to say: "First rule of comedy Spike, you gotta have reality" and for me that's just what's missing... Perhaps what has been established here is a new genre and NGO is ploughing a new furrow. Let's hear it for... Standcom? or perhaps even Situp?"
I do think 'NGO' (and 'IT Crowd') are great examples of two shows trying to drag the audience sitcom into the 21st century. I felt series one of 'NGO' was very strong on narrative, but for whatever reason the female lead changed.
Series 2 then, effectively started from scratch. Not only did we have two new female leads, but the Tim-Lee relationship needed to be re-defined.
Like many BSGers, I was initially disappointed at the new direction, but stuck with the show and felt it had really found its feet by the end. As many have pointed out, the new characters are now well-established, and the Tim-Lee relationship is back on track. I think those of you who still aren't sure will have been won over by the end of series 3.
What I'm picking up most from the doubters is the lack of 'reality'. We're all so used to the single camera sitcom now that we've forgotten how much we always used to allow the audience sitcom to get away with. Personally I prefer the word 'believability'. There's not a lot of reality to the plots of some of the great audience sitcoms – Steptoe, Seinfeld, Frasier, Blackadder, Father Ted, to pick a few examples – but we believe in the characters enough to allow the writers and performers to take us into their worlds. 'NGO' isn't quite there yet, you appear to be saying. Personally I think it's well on the way.
And now, in no particular order, a few more responses to your comments:
"The show felt a bit different as well. Obviously the departure of Alex Hardcastle might have contributed, but the whole thing left me a tad cold."
Worth mentioning the role of the producer, who with Lee makes the biggest creative input. The massively talented Alex (who I noticed this week also wrote the theme music) produced and directed series one. (He also produces and directs 'Lead Balloon') Series two had a new producer, Charlie Hanson, this series was produced by Jamie Rix, a man who is also an exceptionally talented comedy writer. So Alex's producing role was already less evident in series 2.
"It's a prime example of something being made because of who had written it, not how good it is, Lab Rats being another example, shocker."
Interesting point, it's true that the BBC is looking to writer-performers as well as writers for their sitcoms right now. I know that most of you who are seeking careers in comedy are mainly writers, so it's worth getting to see and know some of the up-and-coming comedy acts playing around the country. If there's an act you particularly like you should approach them and offer your services. Most of them will be flattered, the worst that can happen is they'll say no thanks.
"Not Going Out is written by Andrew Collins, Lee Mack, Nick Stacey, Paul Kerensa, Simon Evans, Derren Litten, Simon Dean, Darin Henry, Daniel Peak, Dave Cohen, Oliver Dennis to name but a few, there are others too. It's not a star-written vehicle by any means."
Yes it is. Those of us whose names you see at the end don't get to look at the script until it's already gone through several drafts. Lee is a brilliant gag writer but he's aware, as we all are, that however funny a gag is you can always make it funnier.
"The show still lacks heart though - a strange affliction since Lee and Tim are so loveable. And the show is curiously about nothing. Nothing at all."
A bit harsh, I think. And some of the episodes still to come do explore the big stuff – relationships, family, sex - and in a different way from other sitcoms.
"I hope they keep getting better, but I've a sneaking suspicion this might be the best one of the lot."
There's a real debate going on these boards about plot versus character. Obviously we all want to write the perfect sitcom that marries the two so you can't see the join. But each to their own tastes - for the plot lovers among you there's some great episodes still to come. You'll just have to trust me on that.
"His delivery is so fast that it's difficult if one is a bit 'Mutt and Jeff'."
Speaking (too loud) as a fellow hearingly challenged soul, I take your point. I've found 888 subtitles with the sound still on is fine for comedy – interestingly '2 Pints of Lager' improves phenomenally with only subtitles and no sound at all. And occasionally, no picture.
"…most overrated progamme on here… characters abysmal… half-hour slew of shallow, uninhibited "jokes"… sacrificed too much in the way of drama… lazy set-up: flat share; class divide; will-they-won't-they romcom; three witty characters, two dumb ones. Where's the ingenuity or depth… the strength of each episode rests entirely on the quality of its one-liners… not entirely without merit… ought to be pegged as the worst we ought to accept in sitcom - passable viewing, but ultimately a benchmark for all others to strive to far surpass."
There's nothing on TV that comes within a mile of arousing such passionate and heated debate than the audience sitcom. For those of us who love the form, and want to see it continue, there's a constant frustration when a show, for which we had high hopes, fails to match up to the perfect episode we have of it, written in our heads. 'It Crowd' and 'Not Going Out' began around the same time, and promisingly enough to raise everyone's hopes that the audience sitcom was at last being dragged into the 21st century. I'd say both of these shows are on the way - as is 'Old Guys'. Just as shows like 'Blackadder', 'Only Fools', 'Men Behaving Badly' and countless others took one or more series to find their feet – but went on to become timeless favourites.
'There does seem to be something missing this series that wasn't in the first couple of years. It's probably Lee's infatuation with Sally, which seemed to be a core component of last year, doesn't seem to be anything other than a footnote this year. Which I think is a shame.'
I think that's just how the order of the episodes has worked out. Series one had more Lee and Tim – this has come back in series three but there are still a few 'will-they-won't they' episodes. (Don't tell that to Mav42 though).
Enjoy the rest of the series!
Dave Cohen
Quote: Mav42 @ March 1 2009, 4:17 PM GMTLook at other, successful comedies with the same ethos; that same eagerness to achieve such a high frequency of jokes. None of them have been as lazy as NGO with the basic set-up. The Simpsons, Police Squad, Darkplace, Futurama... all have gone several steps further to concoct a more original premise; a more interesting bunch of characters, and all achieve laughs much more regularly.
Not 100% sure why you're comparing our show to The Simpsons or Futurama, which are cartoons, nor to Police Squad, which was a parody. For my money, if you examine the "basic set-up" of The Simpsons it's: a family of five, living in a town. It sounds pretty lazy, and yet, in its stride, it's one of the funniest shows on television. You may not like Not Going Out, but that's subjective, as is liking it. It's unhelpful to allow subjective opinion about a show (or anything) to solidify into concrete objectivity.
As for laugh-count - again, laughs are subjective! I can sit through an entire episode of a comedy I love and not laugh. (Some people who post on this forum seem to laugh quite regularly at Not Going Out - so you not laughing at it is no more or less valid than the opinion of someone who does laugh at it.) If I sound defensive, it's only because you keep accusing me - and the other people who write the show, and conceived it - of laziness. That's quite harsh.
Quote: Mav42 @ March 1 2009, 4:17 PM GMTIt is not enough to forgive the writers, as many have, for making poor decisions simply because they have done so consciously, as a matter of premise. I am sure the budding writers' community on here can back me up when I say that plenty of faults inherent in programmes are self-inflicted; decided upon at the ideas stage, often with the very best of intentions.
The reality is that NGO has a huge number of failings, even by the standards of the most unconventional, unashamedly shallow comedies, and too few of them come under scrutiny simply for appearing too well-intended conceptually.
Who has forgiven the writers, as you put it? Those who like the show have no need to forgive anyone; those who don't (and there are plenty), are unlikely to forgive anyone.
What are the faults we "self-inflicted"? To make it unrealistic and studio-based? That was a decision Lee made early on, and one that shaped the show. I don't see how it's an infliction? You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not following your argument. Do you find the programme wanting because it is too simple in premise? You state our "failings" as "reality" when, again, I respectfully suggest you are basing your criticism on the fact that you don't find it funny, which is subjective. If your personal views were "reality" then nobody would disagree, and yet, strangely, some do.
When you compare NGO to "most unconventional, unashamedly shallow comedies" are you saying that it, too, is "unconventional"? I'd say it's about as conventional as a sitcom gets. But I'd be interested to hear you elucidate, as your opinion is as valid as anybody else's.
Quote: Anorak @ March 2 2009, 1:21 PM GMTHi everyone, been reading your comments, and as one of the names that zooms past on the credits of this series I thought it might be worth responding. Way too many to answer individually but I've picked out a few ... Enjoy the rest of the series!
Dave Cohen
A valiant response, Mr Cohen. Nice one.
Bloody hell - the writers strike back!
I've always really enjoyed the show. It strikes me as being a rare example of a UK sitcom with the sensibility of a US one, in that it does actually make a great effort with the actual funny lines, rather than just plod along in some hopefully amiable manner. Certainly don't think you can criticise the writers for a lack of effort!
Quote: john lucas 101 @ March 2 2009, 2:41 PM GMTCertainly don't think you can criticise the writers for a lack of effort!
On a wider point, is writing really that hard work? I'd rather write than work down a mine or empty bedpans.
Quote: chipolata @ March 2 2009, 2:45 PM GMTOn a wider point, is writing really that hard work? I'd rather write than work down a mine or empty bedpans.
Hopefully any good material is the result of 'relatively' hard work. Of course there's no relation to proper proper work like mining or nursing. And that.
Quote: chipolata @ March 2 2009, 2:45 PM GMTOn a wider point, is writing really that hard work?
Nope.
I'd rather write than work down a mine or empty bedpans.
Me too. I'd rather write (and perform) than do anything, certainly work down empty bedpans, that sounds awful.
Quote: Aaron @ March 2 2009, 11:58 AM GMTReally? :/
Yeah. But Dave C's answered my concerned. Given that he helps write them, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt 
Dan
Quote: Anorak @ March 2 2009, 2:53 PM GMTMe too. I'd rather write (and perform) than do anything, certainly work down empty bedpans, that sounds awful.
Rather empty bedpans than full ones. Talking of which, back to NGO.
Quote: Anorak @ March 2 2009, 2:53 PM GMTMe too. I'd rather write (and perform) than do anything
Clearly! I'm sure you could have written an episode in the time it took you to write that reply!
Dan
You'd be surprised how quick it is to write a response like that when you're avoiding writing something else...
My fave line from last Friday:
Man: I'm going to cut off your penis (or dick, can't remember) and stick it on your head so everyone will know you're a dick head.
Lee: Or I can tell them myself.
LOL