In that all TV shows are edited, yes it was. Which bit in which ep?

If it's too hard, I can't understand it.

Not sure of the exact point where I noticed it; I'd check on my video but I'm taping Braindead on Channel 4.

I was just wondering if anything had been snipped out of the repeat showing due to sensitive news stories (though I can't think of anything, unless there was a Reggie Kray gag or something). It just seemed to jump from one scene to another as if something had been cut. I'll let you know the exact point tomorrow. It's probably just me paying too much attention.

There have been no topical lurches or "editorial" edits. Sky have left us alone in that respect [viz. the Queen of Hearts stuff]. It's time or shots or something not turning out as funny as one would hope. If I remember rightly that ep was short anyway. We did do it a long time ago.

My big brother Alan.

Thanks for clearing that up - I'm just curious about such things. I suppose I should have more important things to think about, but still...

I'm really enjoying the show, by the way. I wasn't sure about the first episode but it's definitely got better as its gone on. I suppose time will tell if it'll go down as a classic series, but I'm enjoying it so far and it manages to make me smirk when I think about it hours after watching it, a quality that few shows manage.

So there's my unwanted opinion for you.

Sorry- I think it's terribly written, poorly executed and has no joy about it whatsoever. A lesser writer may have been able to pass it off as a "good" piece of work, but not when Richard Herring has done so much better.

I can understand the need to pay off the mortgage, but when stuff as good as South Park and Futurama is being shown on the same channel, surely Herring could have got away with something a lot more wittier.

Also, I don't think the Pub Landlord suits a sitcom. Stick to standup, Al.

Thanks ribbit. I will immediately as of this minute switch back to stand up. I am being sarcastic.

I think this is the best thing Rich has ever done by a country mile. He's a genius.

Wittier than South Park? I like South Park, but I wouldn't call it witty.
I'd love to be able to write something as good as the Simpsons. It is the best written show ever. It takes a team of 20 people 3 months to write each ep.

Stop trying to guess my motivations. You are acting like some kind of twat or journalist. I am taking a year to write this show (despite offers to work with many other top comedians) because I think the character is brilliant and I want to see if I can help it work in a new medium.
I think it is doing. But again Al's stand up act is the result of 5 years work, so it's going to be hard to be as good as that in a month's worth of episodes.
I think we're doing a pretty good job. But would advise you to stop watching if it irritates you so much. There's better things to do with your time.

Al's Landlord standup doesn't transfer that well to a Sitcom, but I think Rich has done it well. I think it's more subtle now than his standup was.

I agree with The Corpses that Al's warmup material is funnier than the actual show that's being recorded, but they're two different things. Standup is often about being spontaneous, or at least reacting well to the audience, and Al does this superbly. That can't really apply when you're doing tightly scripted lines in a sitcom.

The writing is wonderful. The acting is excellent. The show is great, and I look forward to it, which is something I rarely do with TV programmes these days.

But I think I prefer Al the Standup tho.

But how much of that is down to the atmosphere of a live gig and how much of it is my perceived difference of TV Al vs Live Al, I really couldn't say.

A is for ant, B is for bat, etc.

Have Sky not even edited out the "Fact Hunt" game? Or won't they allow you to film it?

....or do they simply not care?

They have realised that there is nothing intrinsically offensive about the word Fact or the word Hunt and so can't touch us. The Fact Hunts

look, do you and Al just want to fuck now?

How do you think I got the job?

Did he show you his lovely belts?

>Thanks ribbit. I will immediately as of this minute switch back to stand up. I am being sarcastic.

Explaining the joke again, eh?

I like the indignity implied in the name "a real Australian".
The thing is everyone in the show is an actor, so whilst Julia is not a real Australian, Al is not a real Landlord and I am not a real postman. Sorry if that has disillusioned you. i agree it would be better if we got people who were exactly the thing they were portraying to be in the show, but it's hard.
We auditioned what seemed like every Australian actor in the country and none of them could do it - soap stars, not ockers.

Also. Al was not explaining the joke, he was quoting from the show. People are forced to explain jokes in the TV show cos they all have such different senses of humour (which is what life is like). It's something I've always liked to do in stuff I write, partly cos I think people's sense of humour (or lack of it) so often defines them.

leave my belts out of this

I think it is the best SKY ONE Production since......well it's their best one upto now.
Episode one was great but the best one was the second with the gay night! Just what is going round in your head Mr Herring.
PURE CLASS. Keep it up - its been a year...

En passant, 'South Park' is heavily-marketed shite for smirking students who really should go and visit the bloody library.

The South Park movie is good, though. I urge you to watch it, even if you hate the show.

Richard & Al. You both score a full 20 points in my Eurovision vote.
Rich :"Any chance of a role on, role off part for Stu?"

or is that role just for fairies

There was but he didn't want to do it. It was as a music journalist called Hugh Uttley, but he thought it implausible and unplayable.

"Implausible"?!?

Unlike some of the other stuff?

I'm not having a go, it just it seems to me the tone of the show is like "Fr. Ted" - a basically realistic situation, but with lots of fantasy/surreal elements drifting by. So why worry too much about whether a character is plausible?

Basically it was a sarcastic man who wore too much black and knew all about bands before they became famous. He seemed to think this beyond the realms of probability.

>Basically it was a sarcastic man who wore too much black and knew all about bands before they became famous. He seemed to think this beyond the realms of probability.




!



I concurr with the earlier poster - The South Park movie was indeed far superior to the TV series. The music (in it's Musical movie style) definately saved it, though the script had it's moments. I gave up on the TV series some time ago (there's only so much humour to be had from a talking poo isn't there, unless you're 14?) but I urge you to see the film if you haven't done so.

<There was but he didn't want to do it. It was as a music journalist called Hugh Uttley, but he thought it implausible and unplayable>

I would have done it! Can I go to your next audition? I do a good one handed Irish ex-navvy, with delusions of ancestoral kingship, who fancies himself as a modern day Ryan's Daughter.

>Basically it was a sarcastic man who wore too much black and knew all about bands before they became famous.

Basically Stu himself then?!

You are all being a bit slow on this one, I have to say.
It was based on Stu. Stu was joking

Why did he turn it down then if it was an obvious joke, probably because he thought it was too much of a stereotype? I must say Time Gentlemen Please really does like its stereotypes, I always though stereotypes were a very lazy unrealistic form of comedy. Then again, what would I know, I'm just a pasty, skinny nerd with no friends...

Do you think situation comedy could exist without the exploitation or creation of sterotypes Steven? If you are having to play gags out in front of a TV audience (massive diversity),it would be an advantage to portray characters that people can understand or have observed themselves in real life.
AL & RICH:
I knew you guys were having a satirical pop at Stu, I just wanted to see if you were clever enough to spot that by feigning knowlege that the character was Stew, I was infact being incredibly funny. Pretend ignorance is funny, that is why Gordon Brown is one of Britain's best stand ups.

Stew was actually going to play the character, but we changed the order of recording and he couldn't make that one. I don't think Stew is a stereotype and as the character would have been essentially him Idon't think the character would have been either.
Maybe we'll use the character in a different show.

I agree Rich. Only larking around mate. Infact I met Stew this year at EDFest after his show and spoke to him for half an hour or so. I realised afterwards I didn't even introduce myself by name.
I have been a fan of you guys since I first saw you on Fist of Fun. I think you are both comic genii. I must say TGP is your & Al's finest hour so far. I have still only seen episode 1 but my mate has been taping them for me. It is a hilarious idea and despite seeing only 1st episode, it is never far from my thoughts. (Obvious as I keep posting here!)

> Do you think situation comedy could exist >without the exploitation or creation of >sterotypes Steven? If you are having to >play gags out in front of a TV audience >(massive diversity),it would be an >advantage to portray characters that people >can understand or have observed themselves >in real life.

Yes it's the "Oh we *all* know one of them, don't we?" syndrome. My message was actually a ironic joke, I dismissed stereotypes as lazy comedy, then end it with a stereotype joke. Maybe it wasn't funny.. but Aaah, then you see why I don't like stereotype jokes, they only really work if your audience are racist biggots mostly. They are funny, but lazy, and Murray and Herring are dressing it up as a satire on biggots, but its not, it is just an excuse to use stereotypes and pretend you're being clever.

> I think you are both comic genii. I must say
> TGP is your & Al's finest hour so far.

The first I might agree with, but the latter definitely not. I think Time Gentlemen Please, at least to the 5th episode has been very weak overall, extremely over acted and sparse in humour, most of the jokes are extremely weak and incredibly predictable. I don't really want to slag this show off, because I respect most of the people involved with it. And I do watch it, but it just seems like something that was written by the writer of Game On during college years, on the back of their folder in a bored lesson of Geography.
Christ, I really hate slagging TGP off but it has to be done. Back when the Corpses wrote their 'open letter' to Lee and Herring about how they thought TGP was crap I was one of the first to leap to the defence, saying not to judge it on 2 episodes. And to give Herring a chance. But now I see they were right all along, maybe not to slag it off after 2 eps, but their formed opinion certainly was correct. I wish I still had that spoof series guide they posted here, it was cracking, a very good satire on the show. Herring, you must of known something was up, you know the Corpses are big fans of yours, and you've said yourself you are very fond of them. Surely their scornful opinion on TGP must of been a tip off something was up. I doubt the Corpses would actually like to give you a load of shit. And doing that comic of Murray throwing a pint of his and Herrings piss over the audience and them lapping it up must of hit you right in the face surely? I really can't write articulatedly what bothers me about this show, but the entire feel of it I just dont like. It just seems like sparse very poor banter between the characters and no real jokes. I honestly get the impression that Murray and Herring know this show isn't as good as it could of been by a country mile, but under all the pressure they are, with Sky etc, they have to sort of grin and bare it. But I think they actually do think it's the best thing they've done. I have no idea why, just all the hard work put into it, and the meagre results. I will shut up now, because I respect the people I'm slagging off, so I don't like doing it one bit. But the fact that everyone seems to be kissing up to the show, maybe they DO like it, and maybe it's just me and corpses who don't, or maybe they only do it because of some sycophantic nature towards comedy celebs being on the board. You have made a mark in comedy history, and ARE great comedians, but I don't like this show so far, I don't expect a reply from Murray or Herring, because I don't think there's anything they can do or say to change my mind, as the show is far into development now, and they are catering it to *their* apparent tastes, (unless sky is changing that) and not to mine. So, I don't really need a reply, as I'm sure this criticism must be very hard to take, if you're so pleased with the end product. But I'm not, and that's all that matters to *me*. I just thought it would be easy to make good comedy, when the competition is so pathetic in these times of commercialisation of music and comedy, but for me, this hasn't worked.
So.. is there a new series of Fist of Fun in the pipeline? No? Uhm.. ok then..

No honestly. I think it's really good and I'm proud of it. I've always been totally honest about what I think.
I can't agree that the show is predictable. And I think we get loads of top gags in and quite intricate plots generally. I agree there is some over acting, but that's true of a lot of comedy.
But you know, it's all opinion. The only thing I object to is you claiming we're lying (as if the TV forum has any influence over Sky - who are delighted with both the series and the viewing figures).
I have always been nothing but honest in my dealings with fans, punters and in this forum. I don't expect everyone to like the show, but I personally do.

The thing sbout Steven's criticisms, and as Rich says opinions are opinions, are there are some core assumptions he's using to justify how he feels about the show which ae simply daft. [Apart from the fact he needs to get over himself].

The first is the basic artistic fossilisation he demands of the people he says he's a fan of. Yes, Fist of Fun was good - [though I'll say it again, it was Rich's plays that made me really want to work with him] - but it was five years ago, and the product of who R & S were back then. To ask them to stick to that is to ask them to commit artistic suicide for the sake of your cosy nostalgia. That's how much you like them. You don't know my work - you've said as much, so you're heaping it on Rich. Grow up.

Secondly, this whole commercialisation thing [and the implication that we're doing this for the money]. You don't know me, you don't know Rich, so you don't know what motivates us. So stop presuming that you do. Furthermore, you have no idea - not the faintest - of the relationship we have with Sky, and couldn't unless you were us, in which case I would take your opinion as worthwhile.

You really need to stop saying how much you respect the people involved, because you've made it perfectly clear that you don't. Or that you need to reconsider what you mean by respect.

What has happened is Rich has done something different to your rigourous nostalgic expectations of him, and poor you, you can't handle it.

Yeah, well as I said, I don't mind you two giving me grief back, because it's understandable. But, if you read what I wrote properly, you will see I never said you were effected by Sky etc, I merely said 'maybe' you were, then would write a counter argument afterward. And I don't want Richard Herring to go back to writing Fist of Fun, it was merely a joke, I just like Fist of Fun a lot better, and it made me laugh, Time Gentlemen Please does not. Therefore I myself would rather hear Fist or Fun or a modern equivelent. I just can't get round how you think it's your best work, I myself can't see this myself at all. If that is your opinions, fine, you're professional comedy writers, you know your trade a lot more than me, and have other stuff under your belt. I just can't understand that, and why other people are also praising it. And Richard does need to explain the situation of the Corpses hating TGP also, because he should know they know what they're talking about. I will be the first to retact my opinions as soon as TGP does pickup thoug, and Mr. Murray, you're making as much assumptions about things as I am, grow up yourself.

Rich doesn't need to explain why the Corpses don't like TGP - they do. You don't like it, and that's that - stop flailing about looking for what must be the reason that other people might like it - it's different to what you like. Don't feel so aggrieved for your slighted nostalgia and don't try to second guess us. You know how annoying that is don't you. And while we're at it, why the anonymity if you're a writer too? Or aren't you prepared to stand by your work?

Well I think it's OK, not blinding, but I can imagine it tigtening up and getting a lot better. I don't think of it as better/worse than other L&H stuff because (1) it's a totally different format, and (2) it's not just an L&H production.

The only thing to compare it with is other sitcoms. It strikes me as the first one to try to follow the style and tone of Fr. Ted, and I think that's great. It certainly isn't a bog-standard sitcom with stereotypes, though I did fear that during the 1st episode. It turned out to be something better than that.

We didn't deliberately try to follow Father Ted. In a way I think we're from a similar school from Linnehan and Matthews (who loved On the Hour- so maybe they were influenced by us - think it cuts both ways)
Just wanted to do a funny sit-com and I'm not afraid to go back to the model of the old classic sit-coms like Steptoe and Hancock (updated).
Al may be wading in a bit strongly, but I essentially agree with him. I take on board the opinions of everyone (including the corpses- who I'd like to like it and am surprised don't like it, but there we go) and I think generally we're heading in the right direction. Of course it's not going to be perfect (my first sit-com, Al's first major TV work, a Hercualean task of 2 people writing 22 episodes in a year- Stew may help us with two or three), but Jon is right that people should be judging it on its own merits, not on mine or al's previous work. It's different.
Yes, I have deliberately tried to set things up slowly. Then the characters can surprise you. Oh I thought the Prof was going to be this, but as it goes on he turns out to be that. That's the beauty of 22 eps. But i can't think of a show with a higher gag rate (British show anyway) whilst still maintaining a fast moving plot (or plots) and that is what I'm proud of.
So far the shows are getting better - the next few you'll see were recorded more recently and I think we've learnt a lot - but go and look at the first series of the Simpsons. They were learning and changing stuff for a good while before they really hit their stride. It's the normal way of things.
I find it hard to believe that people who liked my previous work can't find anything to like in this. And that is why I am suspicious of such opinions. I also think the actors are finding their feet at different rates. They are bound to. They are human beings.
We're doing our best and just saying "might" in front of something which you know nothing about, doesn't stop it being wild and stupid speculation. I know why I am writing this show.I am happy with my motivation. It is not financial - but even if it were it would still make sense to make the show as good as possible, cos the more it gets shown and the more series that get made, the more money I'd make.
And as to comments that maybe the workload is too much. Usually in a year I'd CO-write a series of L&H, a L&H live show, a brand new play and take on 2 or 3 other projects, so it's something I'm used to. But is nonetheless something that I don't think many other people could do.

I'm not being anonymous, this is my name, like a lot of other people on the board using their first name, or a pseudonym. Just because I criticise your show instead of praise it I should be expected to explain to you who I am? As I said, I am not a professional comedy writer, like you two are, so you are quite in your right to disprove me. I know writing comedy is very hard, I've tried writing scripts in my spare time for recreational purposes, just to see what it's like. I'm sure if I sent any of my work to you and you slagged it off, I might be incredibly pissed off also, depending on how you . But you are professional writers, criticism by the press and public come part and parcel with the job. And I do respect the people involved, so do you think just because you respect someone means that you can never criticise them when they do something wrong in your view? Because that is definitely wrong. And I don't think I am second guessing anybody, I write of how it 'appears' to me, I don't say that it is definitely a fact. Sorry I'm being a prick, but I am sure the Corpses don't like TGP and they and I are big fans of Herring's previous work, so to *my* view, he's taken a big step down at the moment. Take that as you please.

I think the point is that the Corpses opinion is still just an opinion. They are more informed than most people, but it isn't an argument to say that cos they don't like something it's not any good.
For example they loved On the Hour and Alan Partridge, but hated "I'm Alan Partridge" which for my money is the best British sit-com of recent years. Maybe they don't like sit-coms. maybe they don't like it when something they discovered on their radios becomes "mainstream".
I agree Al was a bit harsh and possibly misread what you'd said about not being a professional comedy writer, but your argument is not a good one.
Like I say, I'm listening to everyone and making decisions based on what people say (but mainly on what I think. I think I know what 'm doing after all this time. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I only knew waht Iwas doing when I wrote "That's Wiggins Yard" (which also had an Austalian barmaid in it interestingly)

Well yeah, I agree, my argument in itself is quite flawed, if I took some time and write up a proper articulated argument, maybe you could appreciate it more, if I did one using lots of facts. But I can't be bothered as the Corpses did a fairly reasonable one ages ago, and I just want to write how I personally feel, of course that makes a bad argument, because my opinion is subjective. I agree with you that the Corpses are not the end all be all of comedy taste, I liked I'm Alan Partridge a lot, but I can see their argument.. that the series killed the Partridge character by actually exposing him for the pathetic egotistical biggot he was, wheras before he was shielded from it because he was a celeb. And I agree with them it destroyed the character, but as long as it was going to be the last Partridge series then it's a good way to end it. But I heard Coogan may be making another, so I agree with the Corpses that I'm Alan Partridge was a bad move, at least if they want to carry on the character. But as an ending it was very good.

I also agree about the fact that a lot of classic sitcoms start out poorly, and progress to something amazing later on. But a lot of them start off great from day one also. I don't think theres any way of improving the show other than making sure the jokes are a lot better, don't take it personal guys, but the characters are extremely 2d, I could not see people watching the show getting really interested in the characters as being almost real people. Because they just seem to be stage hands, with the exemption of probably the Barmaid who seems to be the main character now, and the Landlord seems to be on her leash, as it were. Murray was using the argument that if you look at the characters, they are exactly like the kind of people you'll find in a pub, I think that's obviously pointing them out as stereotypes though, which is exactly disproving the point of a realistic character. Anyway, if you like I could write a detailed, more factual criticism on the show, but it would be a lot easier for you to just ring up the Corpses and ask their opinion about it, it seemed similar to my feelings.

To be honest your disapproval is registered and I'm not that interested in hearing more. I can't see that Janet is the main character, nor that the characters are 2D. So there you go. Thanks for the comments though

Rich a question :
Is the repetition of Steven's disaproval funny?

No, just annoying.

Yes but its the repetition of the annoyance thats funny.

Steven is unknowingly funny. I've just read through his remarks and found them very amusing indeed. His style of critique is so raw and compelling. I loved the way he asked if Richard Herring would like him to write up a proper review with facts in it.

Hehe..

I hole-heartedly agree with Kinder Surprise.Steve should do a whole fact sheet of criticisims of Al & Rich, complete with a whole P.O Box and everything.Perhaps ,if it got going, he could do a 24 hour critique line offering:-
1) Tabloid TV style journalism
2) Ongoing Belgian beatnick/existstentialists satire.
3) How a "People's Friend Alternative comedy chanteuse" coloumist would do it.
4) Psychic News coloumist "Where will they be five years from now"

"I was never confused!!"

But the point about the Fr. ted style is that the characters act like steroetypes sometimes, but then break out of it unexpectedly.

>..... I can't see that Janet is the main character, nor that the characters are 2D.

SNIP

I'd say the characters are 2D, but if I wanted 3D characters I'd watch a drama series.

I think TGP is the best comedy I've seen on TV since LoG.

While I'm on, does anyone know if there are any tickets left to see the recordings of TGP. I emailed the ticket office on Weds, but I've had no reply.

Yeah, but all this sterotype/2d stuff is bogus to be frank. I mean you could say any comedy character is 2D. look at Basil Fawlty or any of the characters in cheers, or anyone in seinfeld (or any person that you know in real life) They generally act one way and sometimes act another.
Obviously the characters have to be recognisable, (I know a bloke like Terry) but I've tried hard to make them original and surprising. Some of the surprises are on slow release. It's a comedy, the characters are ot meant to be "real" but I certainly care about them and I really don't think the actors we have would be happy portraying characters that were cliched or "2D".
I can't think of any other characters like the Landlord (multi-layered in my opinion, due to 5 years of work on him) or Janet (up front, but flawed, sexually aggressive, but lonely- not just a voice of reason like most female sit-com characters) or Terry (look beyond the farting.) and I think you'll be surprised by the Prof and Old Geezer in coming weeks, Also persceptions of Ms J so far are all based on what the LL says, we'll see the real Ms J the more the series progresses. Greg Thomson, truly nasty in a way most sit-com characters never are.
Anyhoo, gotta dot dot dash

Lindane - did you email Avalon? They take a while to get back, then out of the blue you'll get an email saying you've got priority tickets so you can be very un-english and jump the queue(if you're special like me and my mates!).... only problem with the priority tickts, IS that you are right at the front of the queue... therefore first to be let in.... so in the front row..... right in Mr Al Murray view!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I like to think of myself as a seasoned comedy audience member - so naturally know to SIT WELL AWAY FROM THE COMEDIAN...AND NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, in the front row!!!!!!!! Ahhhhh!

Don't you get priority tickets if you live a certain distance away from the recording? So thata you don't travel a long way not to be let in??

Sorry to shatter your dreams, but you are not special, merely geographically fortunate.

Therefore, the trick must be to give a false address at the other end of the country & then camp outside for several weeks so you can ambush the local postman, thus ensuring a guaranteed front row seat & the hilarity of Al Murray's comic wit directed towards you & your friends all evening. Bliss!

>Sorry to shatter your dreams, but you are not special, merely geographically fortunate.

You do you mean I'm not special?! I was in the special class at school.

*cries pathetically*

You know guys it is really hard to follow 2 TGP threads. I think it would be better if everyone used the TGP strand #94 thread and let this one die.

>Also. Al was not explaining the joke, he was quoting from the show. People are forced to explain jokes in the TV show cos they all have such different senses of humour (which is what life is like). It's something I've always liked to do in stuff I write, partly cos I think people's sense of humour (or lack of it) so often defines them.

And that's you, explaining the joke. Ta, 'cos I didn't get that about the show.

Rich and Al

I'm a long way behind, and I don't have time to go through all my opinions on it, but I've now finally seen the first five TGPs, pretty much one after the other.

I had mixed feelings about the first couple of shows, if I'm being honest. For me, there was a little too much catchphrase-dominated material. (This may of course be the whole point - the Pub Landlord's character is supposed to be utterly rigid in his behaviour at all times, and uttering catchphrases must be part of that routine. That said, I laugh at "Free crisps!" every time.)

But having got to episode 5, I really think it's hit its stride quite well. I'm glad I didn't base all my opinions on the first show - in fact I'm beginning to wonder if people should review the first episode of anything at all on TV.

Anyway, briefly. Stuff I particularly liked:

Graham Fellows' cameo. Is he on again at some point? (btw, noticed he was called Alan Stephens - does this have any relation to the bloke you went on a computer dating date with on Fist Of Fun, Rich?)

Rebecca Front, obviously. Very funny character, and I agree with what Rich said about what a disaster the character could have been in lesser hands. Although RF isn't in it enough. (My partner agrees - up to a point....)

The Specials sign. (Favourite so far: "Chicken In A Basket...In A Basket. Twice The Wicker At No Xtra Cost!")

Terry's line about setting up his Silver Jubilee Mug manufacturing business in 1977, which had a brilliant first year, but....
(This got the biggest laugh of the series so far from our flat.)

Prof. character quite good - reminded me of Alan Twatty Harris from the FOF teachers sketches.

Just like to say that I don't think it's perfect by any means, but it makes me laugh a fair bit, and I'm looking forward to seeing the other shows, and that's really all you can expect from a sitcom. (I realise this now reads like a backhanded compliment, but having also seen bits of the Harry Enfield new show, believe me, you're streets ahead of that.)

Anyway, I liked it. Sorry, my analytical powers are rubbish at this time of night.

Re: Al Murray's claim that anbody who prefers Fist of Fun to TGP is blinded by nostalgia. Doesn't this strangle at birth a few necessary arguments about whether they might be right?

Did he really say that? If he did he's wrong.

I prefer Fist of Fun to TGP because, well, I prefer it. Nostalgia doesn't come into it.

Bravo. You can't accuse TJ of nostalgia. After all, he thinks The La's were better than The Beatles.

Well. I prefer Fist Of Fun as well. Just because it made me laugh more. (And still does, judging from the last time I watched the first series.)

Still like TGP as well.

Anyway, can you compare sketch comedy with a sitcom, other than comparing how many times you laugh? Not sure.

>Re: Al Murray's claim that anbody who prefers Fist of Fun to TGP is blinded by nostalgia. Doesn't this strangle at birth a few necessary arguments about whether they might be right?

Which is not what I said, but never mind. But yes, it does strangle at birth such arguments. Therefore I win.

>>Re: Al Murray's claim that anbody who prefers Fist of Fun to TGP is blinded by nostalgia. Doesn't this strangle at birth a few necessary arguments about whether they might be right?
>
>Which is not what I said, but never mind. But yes, it does strangle at birth such arguments. Therefore I win.


Let me get this straight - are you saying that I _am_ blinkered by nostalgia? I hope not, because if you were, I might have to start wallowing in nostalgia about that time I went to see The Pub Landlord live, and didn't laugh once.

ooh that smarts!

It wasn't supposed to 'smart'. I actually think you're a pretty damn good performer, and I do actually quite enjoy TGP. It's just that when I saw Pub Landlord live, I didn't find it amusing (although I have you say that your performance and timing were technically outstanding).

I didn't want to get personal about it, but you appeared to be accusing me of being someone with my head trapped in a cloud of ignorant nostalgia...

I never said that!! Don't worry about it, please.

I thought I liked TMG untill I poinlessly tried to give it a qualitive rating. I like making lists and my mam dresses me funney. IMHO TGP is the fifth best British sit-com currently in production behind Royle family, Spaced, Black books, and Coupling and with a liberal interpretation of 'currently in production' I could include I'm Alan Patridge. Also with a liberal interpretation of sit-com I could include League of gentlemen and the mockumentries (Phil Kaye, People like us). This makes TMG the eighth best current British sit-com IMHO. I don't know if this means I don't like TGP or I have to stop complaining about the state of British comedy. My only real problem with TGP is Phil Daniel it's hard to believe he used to be an actor and everything.