[taping]
Likewise here.

Went to the recording of the 14th episode last Thursday. The set is truly wonderful in it's attention to detail. I hope the subtelty in it comes across as well on TV as it did for me sitting there, giggling at the wonderful touches.

I've just seen it. It was quite funny, I thought. not brilliant, but not as bad as had been suggested. Part two was funnier than part one - the young guy's voice is uncannily like Herring's isn't it? Delivery of "That's impossible!" "Moon man" etc.

Mind you I'd just seen Enfield's show (which I had wanted to like, honest) and that was fucking terrible. I am not using hyperbole in saying I didn't laugh once. What *happened* to him???

Yeah, I agree, while not absolutely fantastic it was a pretty good sitcom, certainly miles ahead of just about every other Sky One homegrown programmes. The guy who sounds like Herring is Jason Freeman - I have to say I did a doubletake while watching the opening scene - I thought Herring was hidden somewhere on set or something. Also I thought Rebecca Front looked slightly odd with her hair like that - she reminded me of someone I can't quite place now.

Taped it and watched it. Will post my review on this tomorrow......

Meant to say - one problem with TGP is that Murray always looks like he's about to burst out laughing, particularly when he's supposed to be seething with rage. Or is this deliberate?

Can't say I was especially enamoured with it. I find Al's character dull and as he's the pivotal character, I'm not sure I'll stick with it. I probably would have had it been 6 episodes, but I cann't bear the thought of FORTEEN did someone just say they went to? Sitcoms should be 6 episodes and no more. Controversial, but true.
If I'm around next Mon I might watch it. Though I probably won't be and I doubt I'll bother taping it.

22 episodes...

I liked it. Al was as manic as ever and you can't help but laugh at him. His mannerisms have been bred to entertain. I thought Jason Freeman was a pitfall though, a wish-wash left over who as a character wouldn't even make it into Enfield's embarrassing 'so your turds are firm?' example of a show no matter how much he longed to emulate Herring in his teen years.

The set I agree is great, Julia Sawalha is great and as an introductory show I think it is a prelude for lots of smutty/sexist/nationalist/homophobic fun to come.

It wasn't what i expected - i didn't really know anything about it, but i imagined it would be more subtle - it reminded me of harry hill comedy acting - having said that, once i'd accepted the loud, overacted format, there were some good moments. However, the post credit sequence was terrible.

I haven't got Sky but I did see Episode 10 �Help! The Aged� being filmed. I rather enjoyed it but I have to agree with those dear departed souls, The Corpses, that the banter during the breaks was far funnier than the show. I thought the plot was just a little too simple and some of the jokes could have been shaper. I think the reason for this is the enormous workload Richard Herring took on. I can't even begin to imagine the strain Richard Herring must be under writing Twenty-two shows - I couldn't do it. I'm trying to write a sitcom myself but I like to take long breaks, 8 hours on Napster, one hour writing. I won't get to see the show but I hope it's a success.

Good, but i agree with some of the negativ comments - a bit obvious, and Al's manic character could begin to grate after a whil (a couple of episodes) - thought it was well-paced though, or perhaps that was from watching enfield befoe, which went on and on.
Richard Herring was there of course - did you spot him.
Oh, and the woman being Al's new boss - just slightly too obvious, i feel.
More later. Probably

<and some of the jokes could have been shaper.

Or sharper even!

Mistakes, eh? Who'd make those..?

Watched TGP last night, and thought there's basically one adjective to describe it: hysterical. In both meanings of the word. Lots of good jokes; kept me entertained throughout; but Al Murray's performance was just too manic for me, and left me feeling that at some point the show needs to calm down. Also, you get the feeling that he's quickly using up a lot of his stand-up material -- there was a load of it in this show. Nice character touches though -- 'it's been a year', 'I was never confused', making Jason Freeman dress up like his kid for six months, etc. Only character I couldn't stand was Terry: a bloke who farts a lot and tries to shag everything. Not terribly innovative. The rest of it I warmed to, and it looks like it could really be a grower. Good throw-away background jokes too, like the sign for 'Today's Specail - Soup in a Basket'; makes you feel some care has gone into the production.

Here's an interesting fact: Jason Freeman's character is called Steve Crosby, which is Freeman's real name. So I suppose Herring wrote the part for him.

Question: Does anyone know the name of the guy who played The Professor? He used to be in odd plays in Edinburgh with a bunch of ex-Oxford people (Stewart Lee, Dan O'Brien, Ben Moor, Dave Green etc.).

Oh, and finally, Harry Enfield's show was pretty dire. Laughed at Paxman though. Always appreciate the use of the phrase 'cock custard'. Childish, as I am.

The Professor appeared on TMWRNJ series 2, as a vivisectionist. Dunno his name though.

Call me thick, but was J.Freeman the barman who got sacked, then?

>Oh, and finally, Harry Enfield's show was pretty dire. Laughed at Paxman though. Always appreciate the use of the phrase 'cock custard'.

Scarily, that was the only line a laughed at as well. I appear to agree with almost everything you say. That is obviously wrong, i must develop unique oppinion now.

Jon, yes that was the barman, but he got his job back ,didn't he?

Where was herring?

I pretty sure he was the voice on the phone - it sounded like him to me - anyne else think so? (correct answer = yes)

> Only character I couldn't stand was Terry: a bloke who farts a lot and tries to shag everything. Not terribly innovative.

Agreed. But a very likely character that you'd meet in a run down pub like that. The whole scenario so far is very plausible.

I haven't laughed so much at a TV show in a long time.

I will also add my name to the list of people who laughed (well, grinned) only once through Harry Enfield, at the "cock custard" line.

I meant to buy The Sun today to see what there erstwhile TV critic thought of Enfield and Murray. Anyone want to admit to being a reader and let us know, via the anonymity of this forum?

<Question: Does anyone know the name of the guy who played The Professor? He used to be in odd plays in Edinburgh with a bunch of ex-Oxford people (Stewart Lee, Dan O'Brien, Ben Moor, Dave Green etc.).



The Professor was played by Andrew Mackay.

The programme I was given when I watched the show says: ANDREW MACKAY has appeared on 'Fist Of Fun' and 'This Morning With Richard and not Judy'...He has worked extensively in the Theatre in such productions as 'The Gambler'.

The Gambler was the Russian (? author?) play he did in Edinburgh about four (?) years ago, while also appearing in, I think, Richard Herring Is All Man (had Boney M/Oliver/Stalin stuff in it), and also War of the Worlds (with Dan O'Brien and Dave Green) and Milligan's The Bed-Sitting Room (I think) at the Pleasance.

Of course I could be wrong. But generally I think I'm there.

PJ, you're right. You should get your own opinion. Oh no! Argh.

Unofficial TGP review.

The shaven head, the catchphrases, the movements, why it's Harry Hill! - oh, hang on, it's Al Murray. That aside, Murray does his rants well, and there is no complaints about his performance. As a first episode it unsurprisingly concentrated on the background and introducing the characters - and I have no criticisms of that either.

So, did I enjoy it?

Well, I'm on the fence for now, as some of it made me smile, and other parts seemed a bit flaky. I'm definitely of the opinion that the Corpses were misguided in their initial attack on TGP, but I'll list my opinions below. (This is a review thread after all...)

One thing I did find irritating was that the camera shots and angles gave the look and impression that Murray, Daniels and in one sequence Swalhala (never get her soddin' name right) were glancing directly at camera (as if reading from an autocue), or playing to the gallery. That is either the fault of poor direction or editing. Also, because of the *success* of Murray's stage show, the audience seemed to know the lines on cue and cheered accordingly - not much help to newcomers viewing the Landlord character for the first time and detracted from the performances of the others involved.

As for the acting, well, it was sort of variable. Murray already knew his part, and had no problems. The others seemed to be suffering from first show nerves, although I cringed at Swalaha-Swalhalla-oh her, her dreadful cod feminist Aussie, when she first arrived. Still, fingers crossed that as the show develops everything will settle down.

The sets and lighting were very good, (I did notice the touches such as the board with *Soup in a Basket* scrawled on it) - It does look every bit a hell hole of a bar, and I leapt out of my chair in joy that there was no background muzak between scenes or used as a device in absence of script. Even better was the fact that the makers chose to use straightforward captions rather than extended opening titles or fancy graphics (which seemed to nod at Fraiser).

However, it is only one episode, which can be no reliable guide to how a whole series will turn out - but I will follow it.......

The Gambler was by Dostoevsky

Of course the Guardian hated both of them:

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,3604,367355,00.html

"The main problem with the show isn't the boorish, infantile and unsophisticated nature of Murray's writing..."

That'll be Richard Herring's fault then.

"...although you'd think someone - the script editor, say..."

That'll be Stewert Lee's fault then.

"...Nor is it the feeling that Julia Sawalha is completely mortified at appearing in such an appalling show."

That'll be Herring agian then. So now you know who to blame the terrible state of comedy on.

I can't believe they thought Enfield's show was better than TGP? Did they even watch it...? etc

FACT The Guardian's TV writers know nothing about television and care even less.

FACT The Guardian's writers know nothing about anything and care even less.

Apart from Jeremy Hardy, he's good.

Not keen on Hardy's stuff. Freedland is pretty good, and Toynbee (as long as she's writing about politics - her RT stuff is (was?) terrible.

It says The League of Gentlemen was an example of a program that pushes back the boundries of Sketch Comedy.. oh I never knew it was a sketch show, how silly of me not to notice...

By the way the chalkboard said 'Soop in a basket'

Also the thing with the woman who ends up being Murrays boss was so mind numbingly obvious I was expecting it for quite a while, but when the immortal words of "But YOUR A WOMAN!" and her "I was last time i looked" were directly ripped from that Editors In-Joke episode guide from Steven Coogan's management that the corpses stuck up on SOTCAA, which was an example of the incredibly lazy jokes Coogan does with Partrdige, and now Murray/Herring/whoever is actually stealing intentionally bad in-jokes.. hmm.

I can imagine the scene:

It's 11.05 p.m. at the Guardian office. Their tv reviewer has had a few drinks and is desperately trying to do review two new shows which have just finished on sky one in time for the first deadline.....

Did any one else notice it was suprisingly smoke free for a boozer? Good though.

Well, it only had 5 customers.

I'd wager my Grandmother's hind-leg that all five of them would be sucking up Woodbines like there was no tomorrow in a real boozer.

But the smoke would still dissipate in the space of the pub, thus the 'smoke-free' appearnce you noted would still arise.

Tish, fip and flush. Thats a poor excuse and you know it.
It was just an observation, I know its not real.

No real pub would have an entire wall removed to create a seated auditorium for a "studio audience".

You've obviously never been in the "Pie and Crevice" in Whalley Range.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a TV station called The Pub Channel, that showed coverage of the goings-on in pubs, which could be shown on special screens at sports centres and stadiums around the land?

"And now live coverage of that cribbage match at the Rat And Parrot..."

>FACT The Guardian's writers know nothing about anything and care even less.
>
>Apart from Jeremy Hardy, he's good.

And what about Charlie Brooker?