Ricky Gervais new comedy- Derek

1404143454677

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 634
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    I was going to post this. You've saved me the bother :D

    I do think that the episodes are being written by numbers.
    Kev is seedy/disgusting. Derek is harmless but does something stupid. Hannah is devoted and obsessed with work. Dougie will have a rant at the end and be the hero.

    Each episode, apart from Kev (character not actor), I have though that Derek and Gervais acting him has been the weak link.

    I agree.
  • jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    Try the Top Gear thread. I haven't ventured into the soaps forums though.

    You're right. I used to watch it many years ago, when it reviewed ordinary cars, which most of the audience could afford.

    I caught an episode a couple of years ago, and it was obvious most of the stunts were staged. There's far too much of the "wasn't it lucky a camera was there, and filming?" rubbish.

    I pointed one or two of the more obvious ones out, and received a load of abuse. Apparently, you're not allowed to criticise any of these m*****.
  • StaunchyStaunchy Posts: 10,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    In Derek I've noticed something that I haven't in Gervais' other mock-docs and because of it things don't quite feel right to me, that is the use of a lot of camera angles. There are times when I'm thinking it doesnt look like a documentary because there seems to be too many cameras and if this was happening in real-time one of them would be in the another's shot. The "frog" scene for example, to me it feels like a normal filmed acting performance, I have trouble believing it was filmed live there and then as it is supposed to have happened which jars against the documentary style of the programme.
  • mr trebusmr trebus Posts: 264
    Forum Member
    Gervais is like marmite you either love him or hate him.

    I like Derek ..its not his best work but still watchable.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    mr trebus wrote: »
    Gervais is like marmite you either love him or hate him.
    I don't mind him. Like some of his stuff. Don't like other.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Staunchy wrote: »
    In Derek I've noticed something that I haven't in Gervais' other mock-docs and because of it things don't quite feel right to me, that is the use of a lot of camera angles. There are times when I'm thinking it doesnt look like a documentary because there seems to be too many cameras and if this was happening in real-time one of them would be in the another's shot. The "frog" scene for example, to me it feels like a normal filmed acting performance, I have trouble believing it was filmed live there and then as it is supposed to have happened which jars against the documentary style of the programme.
    You're not alone. A few of us have made similar points.
    It does jar in some scenes.
    That was the scene which really jarred for me in the current episode.
    We are expected to take this as a mockumentary aren't we? In the same vein as The Office?
    With all the looks to camera and instances where a character may react in a perhaps embarrassed way to what the camera caught, I took it that this is done in the mockumentary style. Is this correct?

    Because in the final scene Hannah and Derek look at the camera a couple of times as they are sat on the toilet floor.
    Then somebody walks in to the toilets and we see from an over the shoulder point of view from this new character at a different angle that there is no camera crew in there there at all.
    We see the space that would be occupied by the camera but there's nothing there. Just the wall.

    Maybe this was deliberate. But if so then why bother even trying to emulate the mockumentary style at all? It just really jarred me that in most scenes they try to make it look like an authentic fly on the wall documentary, then in a scene such as this they just break their own rules. It just makes to look messy and unsure of itself in regards to what it is or what it's trying to appear to be.
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    I agree. It's two shows/styles/formats in one.
    There is Derek talking to the camera then telling the granny to get out of the shot.
    Dougie has his own little peices to camera when he is sat in his cupboard.
    Hannah had a few looks to camera to indicate her thoughts.

    Yet the rest is like the cameras aren't there at all.

    I was trying to work out the same with Modern Family (maybe i'm putting too much thought into it :p).
    There are the obvious parts when the family members are talking directly to the camera. There are points in episodes where you can tell that it is supposed to be a fly on the wall scene. Then it just breaks out into a standard sitcom for a bit.
    catsitter wrote: »
    TV Tropes has a page about that kind of thing:
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FauxDocumentary
  • StaunchyStaunchy Posts: 10,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    You're not alone. A few of us have made similar points.
    It does jar in some scenes.

    Oops I should have looked through the thread and responded to those.:o I can't say I've noticed it in Modern Family though, I recently watched the whole of The Office the change in style is very noticeable, for example last night there was a sort of jump zoom on a characters face (a bit like the ones that were seen a lot in the Inbetweeners) not very documentary-like at all.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    hehe, I didn't mean to come across as you're just reposting previously made points :D

    I like the comparisons to the Inbetweeners and inparticular The Office and as I have never seen them. I did watch Extras and half of Life's Too Short (gave up on it).
  • performingmonkperformingmonk Posts: 20,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    hehe, I didn't mean to come across as you're just reposting previously made points :D

    I like the comparisons to the Inbetweeners and inparticular The Office and as I have never seen them. I did watch Extras and half of Life's Too Short (gave up on it).

    What stuns me is how much better Derek is than the maudling Life's Too Short. Warwick Davies was good, but where it suffered was Gervais and Merchant hitting a brick wall before they'd even got going. They'd already done all of this in Extras, just with Gervais's Andy Millman character instead of Warwick.
  • charliesayscharliesays Posts: 1,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    You're not alone. A few of us have made similar points.
    It does jar in some scenes.

    The mockumentary style rarely resembles a real documentary, it's just a parody at the end of the day. The American Office has always been terrible for forgetting what its licence is, but it makes me laugh and ultimately that's what I watch for.

    I think these things only jar if you really want them to.
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm officially giving up on Derek. Very few actually funny moments and, for me, the message that no-one bothers about the elderly except the people in that home is getting tired. Pan over a few miserable looking old people, Derek does something silly, Hannah proves she's devoted to her job, Karl throws someone out and on to next week for more of the same. I've tried, but its just not for me.

    Come to think of it I just realised that it's 3 episodes in out of 6 and it hasn't really felt like it's developed has it?
    It has its moments, but as you say every episode feels the same as any other episode and you could probably watch the episodes in any order without missing much in terms of a developing story.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,485
    Forum Member
    If this didn't have Gervais in it, everyone would be condemning it as one of the most annoying and unfunny comedies ever. In fact it wouldn't even have gotten made. His involvement and role as lead character makes people think 'it must be sort of good, mustn't it? It's got Ricky Gervais in it'.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 206
    Forum Member
    It's watchable, just... I will continue to watch as I'm such a big fan of Gervais, but Derek is a complete joke when you compare it to the genius of The Office and Extras.
  • Mrs MackintoshMrs Mackintosh Posts: 1,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I never rated him much as an actor but thought he played David Brent and Andy from Extras very well. His portrayal of Derek is just awful. The character is just a series of gurns and ticks, bad clothes and a terrible haircut.
  • CaptMcMallisterCaptMcMallister Posts: 227
    Forum Member
    fred5444 wrote: »
    It's watchable, just... I will continue to watch as I'm such a big fan of Gervais, but Derek is a complete joke when you compare it to the genius of The Office and Extras.

    The Office and Extras were co-written by Stephen Merchant, I've always rated him as the funny one of the two, he is lacking from Derek and you can certainly tell from a comedy aspect.
  • maxingtonmaxington Posts: 56
    Forum Member
    R.Metcalfe wrote: »
    Could of been interesting if they had used the documentary side of the show and asked the producer to show them the footage.

    That's an excellent point.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Come to think of it I just realised that it's 3 episodes in out of 6 and it hasn't really felt like it's developed has it?
    It has its moments, but as you say every episode feels the same as any other episode and you could probably watch the episodes in any order without missing much in terms of a developing story.

    Yes, the only subplot that could indicate any flow would be Hannah and Tom's ongoing relationship.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    diary_room wrote: »
    If this didn't have Gervais in it, everyone would be condemning it as one of the most annoying and unfunny comedies ever. In fact it wouldn't even have gotten made. His involvement and role as lead character makes people think 'it must be sort of good, mustn't it? It's got Ricky Gervais in it'.

    I think Gervais is the worst part of it :D (apart from the Kev character who if required should be in a cameo role)
  • The TerminatorThe Terminator Posts: 5,312
    Forum Member
    So is there anyone still crazy enough to try and argue Derek's not mentally impaired in some way?
  • LastlaughLastlaugh Posts: 3,422
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Watched episode 3 twice already. Loved it. :)
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    I think Gervais is the worst part of it :D (apart from the Kev character who if required should be in a cameo role)

    I agree. I'm watching it despite Gervais being in it, not because he is in it. And Kev adds nothing.

    Saying that, the frog scene did make me chuckle.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm enjoying it so far, but as I've only watched the last two eps (I missed the pilot and ep 1) can someone explain exactly what Derek and Kevin are there for (as in what are they doing in what I presume is an OAP care home, not what do they add to the show)? They've obviously got 'problems', but it doesn't appear to be a mental-health home or anything, but then again, they seem to have some input into how the place is run, so it's not obvious to me what their role is.
  • HeavenlyHeavenly Posts: 31,915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gashead wrote: »
    I'm enjoying it so far, but as I've only watched the last two eps (I missed the pilot and ep 1) can someone explain exactly what Derek and Kevin are there for (as in what are they doing in what I presume is an OAP care home, not what do they add to the show)? They've obviously got 'problems', but it doesn't appear to be a mental-health home or anything, but then again, they seem to have some input into how the place is run, so it's not obvious to me what their role is.

    Thought this might explain it better re Derek, not sure where Kevin came from, no-one else will put up with him I suppose. :o

    Gervais plays 49-year-old Derek Noakes, a care worker in a home for the elderly; he began working there three years ago. He likes watching reality television shows and game shows and is interested in celebrities, fame and YouTube. He is a kind, helpful, selfless man with good intentions. He is vulnerable because of his childlike naiveté and lack of intelligence.

    He is ridiculed and ostracised, as well as being marginalised by mainstream society because of his social awkwardness, unattractiveness and lack of inhibitions. Derek says it is more important to be kind than to be clever or good-looking. Many media sources describe him as autistic] although Gervais himself has always stated that he sees Derek as not being mentally handicapped. The exterior of the care home is the old officers mess at RAF Uxbridge.
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The mockumentary style rarely resembles a real documentary, it's just a parody at the end of the day. The American Office has always been terrible for forgetting what its licence is, but it makes me laugh and ultimately that's what I watch for.

    I think these things only jar if you really want them to.

    Well that doesn't make sense.
    If you want something to jar with you in this context then you were never in the position to be jarred in the first place.

    To be jarred in this example would mean that you'd suspended your disbelief, and then something happened to be shook out of that suspension of disbelief.
    If you buy into a fictional world then you can't want to be jarred from it because you'd be in a different headspace where that thought couldn't occur to you.
  • charliesayscharliesays Posts: 1,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well that doesn't make sense.
    If you want something to jar with you in this context then you were never in the position to be jarred in the first place.

    To be jarred in this example would mean that you'd suspended your disbelief, and then something happened to be shook out of that suspension of disbelief.
    If you buy into a fictional world then you can't want to be jarred from it because you'd be in a different headspace where that thought couldn't occur to you.

    Jesus Christ, all I'm saying is some people watch it specifically to find fault
Sign In or Register to comment.