Reggie Perrin - Series 1 Page 21

Quote: SnoopsWarner @ May 2 2009, 11:35 PM BST

It's hypocritical. By citing easily obtainable reviews, he's supporting his view that this show is sub-par; the exact same thing the pro-Reggie Perrin camp is doing by perpetuating the cycle of "circle-jerking" over this miserably damp squib.

View original

You do realise that in one case he copied and pasted words from a review and passed them off as his own opinions. That is...weird imo.

I'm sure that lots of people don't like the show which is up to them. There are plenty of comedies that I don't like. I'm glad that I've never been bored enough to post incessantly about them though or needed my own opinion to be validated so much.

Quote: Nick @ May 2 2009, 11:44 PM BST

I'm sure that lots of people don't like the show which is up to them. There are plenty of comedies that I don't like. I'm glad that I've never been bored enough to post incessantly about them though or needed my own opinion to be validated so much.

View original

Huh.

I suspect some people could say the same thing about you essentially "picking" on him whenever he adds another review to the thread. Which, y'know, isn't entirely worthy of complaining about. This being the Reggie Perrin discussion thread and all.

Quote: SnoopsWarner @ May 2 2009, 11:49 PM BST

I suspect some people could say the same thing about you essentially "picking" on him whenever he adds another review to the thread. Which, y'know, isn't entirely worthy of complaining about. This being the Reggie Perrin discussion thread and all.

View original

The reason I post on this thread is because I quite like this version of the show and admire David Nobbs's work very much.

The reason I post on this site is because I like British sitcoms.

If I were to go onto message boards based on shows or people who I dislike and post incessantly then that would make me a rather strange individual.

I do not copy and paste words from a review and pass them off as my own opinions. I think you'll clearly find that I just I agree with them and say that I share their opinions.

A quote from the review from The Scotsman on April 18th :

'why remake it as a studio-bound sitcom rather than do the one thing that might have worked and film it as a dark comedy drama? Making it in the same style as the original merely highlights how much it suffers by comparison.'

Quote: johnny smith @ April 25 2009, 12:43 AM BST

Why remake it as a studio-bound sitcom rather than do the one thing that might have worked and film it as a dark comedy drama? Making it in the same style as the original merely highlights how much it suffers by comparison.

View original

Now feeding time is over.

Quote: Nick @ October 6 2008, 6:18 PM BST

To be fair, I guess that thousands of novels have had many interpretations. That's not to say that I can see it working though...

View original

Quote: Nick @ October 16 2008, 3:34 PM BST

Not sure how I feel about this in all honesty. On the one hand, I've liked an awful lot of the things that David Nobbs has written and some of what Simon Nye has done as well. Clunes isn't bad either (although no Leonard Rossiter obviously) so if this had no Perrin connection then I would be genuinely looking forward to it.

On the other hand, it has an awful lot to live up to and it will be tough not to make comparisons. Perhaps the best way to watch it is as a completely separate entity though.

View original

Quote: Nick @ April 15 2009, 12:18 AM BST

I may be very dense but I didn't understand the point that you were making. New series can't return obviously. Were you saying that you're impressed with the BBC for backing sitcoms? I'm not sure anything has changed really.

View original

Quote: Nick @ April 26 2009, 11:06 AM BST

I can see what you (and the reviewer) are saying and agree (obviously) that Martin Clunes is not as good an actor as Rossiter was. But Rossiter wasn't Perrin. He was just giving his version of a character from a novel. Now I love his portrayal but I also know that there are plenty of people who had read the novel who could never take to the TV show in the same way. Rossiter was very different from the Reggie that had been written.

One of those reviewers also claimed that Nobbs based the character on the MP who faked his own death but that is not the case.

View original

Can we all grind this to a halt now?
Kind of taking the thread off track.

Anyway - I saw all the originals - and still find this funny.

Did anyone else find the Reggie breathing fire at Chris' door scene a bit random and stupid because there was no cut back to reality after it happened.

I also cringed when Reggie said 'Take an e-mail for me' to his secretary. It just sounded so horrible because it is a mixture of 1970s dialogue (Take a letter for me) and present day jargon (e-mail).

I'm just so glad that I watched this show alone in my bedroom instead of watching it downstairs with my dad. I wouldn't have been able to bear witnessing his reaction while watching this. My dad is 52 and so was in his 20s when the original was on and it was one of his absolute favourite sitcoms and it still is. It was a show you could enjoy when you were young and can still enjoy now, unlike this 'update' which seems to be aiming all it's so called jokes at people aged 16 and under.

God, there is so much wrong with this show it's unbelievable!

Quote: johnny smith @ May 6 2009, 4:17 PM BST

It was a show you could enjoy when you were young and can still enjoy now, unlike this 'update' which seems to be aiming all it's so called jokes at people aged 16 and under.

View original

What an odd thing to say. I, like several other posters on here, enjoyed the original first time around, and, on the whole, am enjoying the remake, particularly the fresh material, despite being rather older than 16.

Quite. I couldn't disagree more at the sub-16 TA accusation. Would have gone more along the lines of 25+ primary target, with anyone younger a good bonus.

With all the shoehorned-in references to laptops, iPods and Amy Winehouse and the stale jokes about sex and bodily functions, the teenage demographic seems to be exactly what this show is aimed at

Quote: johnny smith @ May 6 2009, 4:17 PM BST

Did anyone else find the Reggie breathing fire at Chris' door scene a bit random and stupid because there was no cut back to reality after it happened.

I also cringed when Reggie said 'Take an e-mail for me' to his secretary. It just sounded so horrible because it is a mixture of 1970s dialogue (Take a letter for me) and present day jargon (e-mail).

I'm just so glad that I watched this show alone in my bedroom instead of watching it downstairs with my dad. I wouldn't have been able to bear witnessing his reaction while watching this. My dad is 52 and so was in his 20s when the original was on and it was one of his absolute favourite sitcoms and it still is. It was a show you could enjoy when you were young and can still enjoy now, unlike this 'update' which seems to be aiming all it's so called jokes at people aged 16 and under.

God, there is so much wrong with this show it's unbelievable!

View original

I'm 52 and loved the original too but am enjoying this.

This new one looks a bit tired to me, but then again, so did The Legacy of Reggie Perrin.

I didn't really watch the original so I'm judging this on its own merit. There are some hilarious moments/jokes but a lot of weaker/random ones too. My main problem is that Reggie is a bit too annoying for me, compared to other anti-heroes such as Blackadder and Rick from Lead Balloon.