Finally some good comedy on BBC1 on a Friday night. These guys are funny.
PS Did you notice the huge list of writers?
Oops that's upset the "Not Going Out" crowd.
So put subtitles on your DVDs and I'll take a look! 
The Armstrong & Miller Show Page 3
Never liked Armstrong and Miller's wacky stuff on CH4 years ago but since then they've branched out and become much more likeable IMO. (Can't help thinking Miller looks like Rob Brydon).
I think the set-up with the pilots was excellent and a real surprise, though I don't know whether they needed to keep going back to it. Out of the three sketches on a similar theme (LB's Vicky, CT's 'bovvered and this one) I thought that was far superior. Though I don't think we need any more of it now.
I liked the whips and chains sketch. Should have more of that sort of standard. The rest was ordinary to okay but very long winded at times (the football manager especially). Still seem to go for easy targets like Abramovich/Ramsey but it was more watchable than PS.
One other thing though, you are told to have a theme for a sketch show. PS does have a theme, but this is just random sketches. Is it one rule for one and another for others?
Quote: David H @ October 27, 2007, 11:28 AM(Can't help thinking Miller looks like Rob Brydon).
I used to get them confused quite a bit, so yes. Definitely.
I thought that was great, really funny. A big mainstream comedy that was actually funny. It might dissapoint some exactly because of that, its a BBC 1 show, it was never going to be edgy or experimental, what it was was very funny material being played expertly by two highly likeable and skilled performers. Very enjoyable stuff, I hope they manage to keep up the standard throughout the rest of the series.
It seems strange to me that some are hating on the Serafinowicz sketch show yet applauding this, when Serafinowicz is at least trying some new things out. You couldn't tell this show apart from most mainstream sketch shows.
I have laughed at the Peter S show and I think he's a great mimic. Does anyone know the 'thing' he put on the internet that caught the BBC's attention and basically got him the show?
Liked the Pilots. Liked the, "Kill them," sketch. I enjoyed most of them. And I slightly agree about the PS comment. All in all I will watch next week.
Quote: Martin Holmes @ October 27, 2007, 1:03 PMIt seems strange to me that some are hating on the Serafinowicz sketch show yet applauding this, when Serafinowicz is at least trying some new things out. You couldn't tell this show apart from most mainstream sketch shows.
A lot of people praised the Serafinowicz show after 1 ep as well though and it's only since then that people have really criticized it for a perceived decline in quality.
I'm not sure that the PS show is any more innovative anyway though. All of the stuff mocking TV shows has been done before (Mitchell and Webb for example) and doing impressions of famous people isn't really breaking new ground.
I think some people were harsh on PS right from the start of the series. And no it's not the most innovative thing ever, but it's different to most sketch shows around, the use of real life things mixed with the surreal and silly and even satire.
its funny to see what works and what doesn't.
its also funny to see what different people like.
i liked this, but then maybe that's because i am 38 and the sketches appealed to me.
PS is on bbc3 and the demographic is 18 - 24. and i didn't get it. nor adam and shelley.
maybe i am my dad.
if the young ones came out now, would i get it?
PS is on BBC2 not BBC3. And should not be compared to Adam and Shelley for that was shite. 
oh yeah, so it was.
personally i thought PS and adam and Shelley were abouit the same quality. both cack.
Quote: Martin Holmes @ October 27, 2007, 1:03 PMIt seems strange to me that some are hating on the Serafinowicz sketch show yet applauding this, when Serafinowicz is at least trying some new things out. You couldn't tell this show apart from most mainstream sketch shows.
Firstly, I'd just like to say that the following, whilst inspired by your post Martin, isn't aimed directly at you, nor you alone.
HOWEVER, your post perfectly encapsulates EVERYTHING I hate about writers, particularly those active here on the BSG, and why I am far from surprised that most of them have had no - or very little - success whatsoever. When you (writers, not you personally) finally realise that trying things out and being new and clever isn't necessarily good, and isn't the be-all and end-all of comedy, MAYBE you might have some luck in the industry. The fact that there is rarely anything "new", and when there is it comes from established names (PS for example) should really be ringing alarm bells for anyone with an ounce of sense. Commissioning editors do not want anything of that ilk (well, are highly unlikely to at least) from unknown names. They want safe shows that they know will be successful. It costs millions to produce a six-episode comedy series, even on a relatively restrained budget. Do you put that amount of money - and ultimately your job - on the line by making something which you don't know if it's going to work? Very unlikely.
The view that something should only be applauded if it is "trying some new things out", and that this shouldn't because it isn't trying anything new, is just plain barmy. Perhaps, from a purely technical, writers' perspective that may be the case in part, but some of us here are just viewers, and really couldn't give a flying f**k if something is new or not. At the end of the day, as a writer your sole purpose should be to make the audience LAUGH, not be all smarmy and pushing boundaries, challenging convention and what have you. As long as it makes the viewer laugh, he or she is happy.
The sooner budding writers realise that, and stop trying to be clever and cutting edge, the happier we'll all be.
Sorry. Just a real pet hate of mine.
(Oh, and just as a note, I am primarily a viewer, but have also done a bit of writing, so have a relatively sound understanding of both sides of the equation.)
I agree to some degree Aaron, and though I do want to see new ground ventured into, my primary concerns are just whether something is enjoyable or not, if it makes me laugh. If its combining breaking new ground with being funny, then great, but it should always come down to, in the end, whether its funny or not; I think this show was. Innovation for innovations sake is pointless, it has to actually be funny. I think if you are a writer, as I am, to do something ground breaking, you really do have to have proven yourself first; otherwise no one is going to take a risk on you. Ive had little bits of success here and there, and so far its always been for the more basic, mainstream stuff. The problem with most mainstream comedy is not that it has been playing safe, but that the quality of the writing, in my opinion, has been very poor; most comedies on BBC1 just arent funny, I think that this show, at the moment, is an exeption and shows that mainstream doesnt have to mean shit. Even if most times in recent years, it has been.
Yes, I think that that's pretty much what I was going for. Not sooo much on the last part, as much of the more recent comedies I have enjoyed (even if not exactly hilarious), but yes. Otherwise, I think we're pretty much on the same page.