Well despite some of the comments here I was a lot happier with this episode compared to last week's sorry affair. This is much more like what I wanted to see.
Thought Pilkington not being there would make things worse than they actually did, think the episode was done well without him being in it as focusing on the other characters like Kev really made up for it.
Kev's an interesting character and I think David Earl plays it really well, am looking forward to him getting a bit more of a focus this series after tonight.
Love Tom's nan popping up with her comments, and I'm curious to know if it's the businessman who got the caretaker job... More of the same next week please.
I like most of what Ricky Gervais does, I'm not sure about Derek. I think he lays it on a bit thick with all the sex jokes, it seemed the first 10 minutes of the show tonight was just same old dirty sex jokes with Kev and for me its been done to death in the first series. I just don't find it that funny anymore. I like how it ended seeing another side to Kev but for me the show has been a bit hit and miss. Lots of miss to be honest.
Also, wish it has a bit more of a plot or story to it, suppose its hard to fit that into 23 minutes or whatever but I'm abit disappointed in it at the moment. Karl was a highlight from the first series but now seems abit flat without him.
Well despite some of the comments here I was a lot happier with this episode compared to last week's sorry affair. This is much more like what I wanted to see.
Thought Pilkington not being there would make things worse than they actually did, think the episode was done well without him being in it as focusing on the other characters like Kev really made up for it.
Kev's an interesting character and I think David Earl plays it really well, am looking forward to him getting a bit more of a focus this series after tonight.
Love Tom's nan popping up with her comments, and I'm curious to know if it's the businessman who got the caretaker job... More of the same next week please.
Unlikely seeing as though he didn't apply for it...
Horrible show once again full of ironic preachy statements by the most arrogant man on television. People sexual harassing staff and then being given job interviews. Residents being wrestled to the ground like dummies. Manager skiving off to have sex with her boyfriend.
And this is about kindness you say? The nerve.
Somebody give David Earl his own comedy. He's a class above this trash.
You have to forget that it is a care home, it is just a setting for some rather bizzare characters, who dont fit in with todays society,
Unfortunately having worked in care I can't. It's almost like a spoof. I agree with Hankshaw. I don't think this show can make up it's mind what it is but generally it's mawkish drivel and simply a platform for it's overrated star who must be laughing all the way to the bank
She will either fall pregnant, and hsve thr baby by some means at the end of series, or we will find out in last ep she is pregnant, and we will find out in series 3 about the baby, or in the one off, whichever Ricky decides
I watched the last episode and the main thing which struck me was how extremely patronising it was to the viewer.
It seems like a succession of set pieces where Ricky Gervais is forcefully preaching some sermons of morality to the viewers through the character of Derek as if we are five year olds. And that Ricky Gervais is somehow an authority on what's morally right, and we all need to be better people like he is.
The bank manager was just another character who drops in who doesn't care about a relative of his in the care home, only cares about material things, and Derek is there to educate him (and us) the error of his (and our) ways. It's another of the show's now well worn cliches.
The character was such a simplistic black and white stereotype who was only there to serve the lines Derek would speak.
There are few surprises. How about a character like a bank manager which challenges Derek's world view, who isn't a cardboard cutout character, who has depth, and has surprisingly good points to make or has views which provide something to think about as they are worthy of consideration?
All we're given are characters which make Derek appear to be utterly perfect in every way. Where is the writing skill in that?
It's just incredibly clunky writing with no finesse to it at all which is so patronizing to the viewer. It seems to assume that we're all selfish uncaring people who are motivated by selfish pursuits, and Ricky is there to teach us how to be good people.
Like we're 5 year old, are at primary school, and Ricky is there at school assembly telling us to be good and not do bad things.
I'm sure that this has its fans and the heavy handed sentimentally strikes a resonance within them. But as far as I'm concerned this is really bad writing which is as clunky as it could possibly be. It doesn't seem to concern itself with the idea that most of the audience will be adults and are intelligent enough to appreciate the subtle elements of story telling, and it certainly doesn't consider that the audience might not be so thick that we need to be battered over the head with sentiments and platitudes like we're being attacked with a sledgehammer.
The best thing about the episode was the end section with Kevin. That was done well I thought. Probably the only thing which wasn't too predictable in its outcome. Which makes me surprised how the rest of it could be so bad.
Anyone else having trouble believing Hanna and her bf? I just don't see any chemistry between them.
I found it completely unbelievable that Hannah would go off and have sex with her boyfriend with everyone there in full knowledge of what they were doing, then come back into the room and carry on as usual.
The show seems to want to put across points and messages for us to take seriously, but I don't see how it is in the position to do that if the characters behave in unrealistic ways.
I found it completely unbelievable that Hannah would go off and have sex with her boyfriend with everyone there in full knowledge of what they were doing, then come back into the room and carry on as usual.
The show seems to want to put across points and messages for us to take seriously, but I don't see how it is in the position to do that if the characters behave in unrealistic ways.
I do sometimes feel as though the show is suffering from an identity crisis. Sentimental drama, crude comedy, putting the two together often comes off as awkward and disjointed.
The whole increase in reliance on Kevs crudity and the constant Hannah and Tom sex thing is ruining this show. Really missing Karl, and Gervais's portrayal of Derek is now more like a daft version of himself.
Such a shame.
I found it completely unbelievable that Hannah would go off and have sex with her boyfriend with everyone there in full knowledge of what they were doing, then come back into the room and carry on as usual.
The show seems to want to put across points and messages for us to take seriously, but I don't see how it is in the position to do that if the characters behave in unrealistic ways.
That's my issue with the whole Hannah thing. I'm not a prude, it's just that I'm thinking "you expect us to believe that?".
I watched the last episode and the main thing which struck me was how extremely patronising it was to the viewer.
It seems like a succession of set pieces where Ricky Gervais is forcefully preaching some sermons of morality to the viewers through the character of Derek as if we are five year olds. And that Ricky Gervais is somehow an authority on what's morally right, and we all need to be better people like he is.
The bank manager was just another character who drops in who doesn't care about a relative of his in the care home, only cares about material things, and Derek is there to educate him (and us) the error of his (and our) ways. It's another of the show's now well worn cliches.
The character was such a simplistic black and white stereotype who was only there to serve the lines Derek would speak.
There are few surprises. How about a character like a bank manager which challenges Derek's world view, who isn't a cardboard cutout character, who has depth, and has surprisingly good points to make or has views which provide something to think about as they are worthy of consideration?
All we're given are characters which make Derek appear to be utterly perfect in every way. Where is the writing skill in that?
It's just incredibly clunky writing with no finesse to it at all which is so patronizing to the viewer. It seems to assume that we're all selfish uncaring people who are motivated by selfish pursuits, and Ricky is there to teach us how to be good people.
Like we're 5 year old, are at primary school, and Ricky is there at school assembly telling us to be good and not do bad things.
I'm sure that this has its fans and the heavy handed sentimentally strikes a resonance within them. But as far as I'm concerned this is really bad writing which is as clunky as it could possibly be. It doesn't seem to concern itself with the idea that most of the audience will be adults and are intelligent enough to appreciate the subtle elements of story telling, and it certainly doesn't consider that the audience might not be so thick that we need to be battered over the head with sentiments and platitudes like we're being attacked with a sledgehammer.
The best thing about the episode was the end section with Kevin. That was done well I thought. Probably the only thing which wasn't too predictable in its outcome. Which makes me surprised how the rest of it could be so bad.
Alrightmate, nice post i totally agree with all of it. Except the very last bit. Kev not getting the job just showed me that ricky's writing is bafflingly strange. If as he claims constantly that the point of the show is that it is about kindness, then why totally throw it off that course by offering up that dissapointment. Surely, the kind thing to do would be for Hannah to offer kev that chance to change by offering him the job. I dont know, but considering all the moralising in the show, i wasn't pleased with that.
I watched the last episode and the main thing which struck me was how extremely patronising it was to the viewer.
It seems like a succession of set pieces where Ricky Gervais is forcefully preaching some sermons of morality to the viewers through the character of Derek as if we are five year olds. And that Ricky Gervais is somehow an authority on what's morally right, and we all need to be better people like he is.
The bank manager was just another character who drops in who doesn't care about a relative of his in the care home, only cares about material things, and Derek is there to educate him (and us) the error of his (and our) ways. It's another of the show's now well worn cliches.
The character was such a simplistic black and white stereotype who was only there to serve the lines Derek would speak.
There are few surprises. How about a character like a bank manager which challenges Derek's world view, who isn't a cardboard cutout character, who has depth, and has surprisingly good points to make or has views which provide something to think about as they are worthy of consideration?
All we're given are characters which make Derek appear to be utterly perfect in every way. Where is the writing skill in that?
It's just incredibly clunky writing with no finesse to it at all which is so patronizing to the viewer. It seems to assume that we're all selfish uncaring people who are motivated by selfish pursuits, and Ricky is there to teach us how to be good people.
Like we're 5 year old, are at primary school, and Ricky is there at school assembly telling us to be good and not do bad things.
I'm sure that this has its fans and the heavy handed sentimentally strikes a resonance within them. But as far as I'm concerned this is really bad writing which is as clunky as it could possibly be. It doesn't seem to concern itself with the idea that most of the audience will be adults and are intelligent enough to appreciate the subtle elements of story telling, and it certainly doesn't consider that the audience might not be so thick that we need to be battered over the head with sentiments and platitudes like we're being attacked with a sledgehammer.
The best thing about the episode was the end section with Kevin. That was done well I thought. Probably the only thing which wasn't too predictable in its outcome. Which makes me surprised how the rest of it could be so bad.
Very good post. This is pretty much where I stand on this episode too.
I've always had a problem with the show's over-moralising, but it seemed to hit a new low this week. Did we really need to have Derek's voice-over telling us that we should be nice to old people, and that we should listen to them more often? It was very condescending. I mean, I agree with the sentiment and everything (who the hell doesn't?), but that level of heavy-handedness just makes me want to reach for the sick bucket, not nod along sagely with an inane grin on my face like Gervais seemingly wants me to.
I also agree with another poster who complained about the weird juxtaposition of the sad piano stuff with Kev's increasingly crude scenes. Now that Karl Pilkington's gone, the Kev scenes are now the show's only real attempt at comedy. And I'm increasingly finding them tiresome. I think they missed a trick by not offering him the caretaker job at the end. Him getting the job would've allowed for greater exploration of his character, as he's clearly been written to be more internally complex than his appearance would suggest. But instead he's presumably going to be sat around the home, drinking Special Brew, and making sexually inappropriate comments for the rest of the series.. as usual.
I thought the first series had a fair bit to like about it. But it seems Gervais has run out of ideas this time around and is just churning out any old shite. It's just not good enough.
Comments
Thought Pilkington not being there would make things worse than they actually did, think the episode was done well without him being in it as focusing on the other characters like Kev really made up for it.
Kev's an interesting character and I think David Earl plays it really well, am looking forward to him getting a bit more of a focus this series after tonight.
Love Tom's nan popping up with her comments, and I'm curious to know if it's the businessman who got the caretaker job... More of the same next week please.
Also, wish it has a bit more of a plot or story to it, suppose its hard to fit that into 23 minutes or whatever but I'm abit disappointed in it at the moment. Karl was a highlight from the first series but now seems abit flat without him.
Unlikely seeing as though he didn't apply for it...
And this is about kindness you say? The nerve.
Somebody give David Earl his own comedy. He's a class above this trash.
And just take it as a setting for people who dont fit into todays society.
I just think I've had enough of the whole them sneaking off for sex thing...
It seems like a succession of set pieces where Ricky Gervais is forcefully preaching some sermons of morality to the viewers through the character of Derek as if we are five year olds. And that Ricky Gervais is somehow an authority on what's morally right, and we all need to be better people like he is.
The bank manager was just another character who drops in who doesn't care about a relative of his in the care home, only cares about material things, and Derek is there to educate him (and us) the error of his (and our) ways. It's another of the show's now well worn cliches.
The character was such a simplistic black and white stereotype who was only there to serve the lines Derek would speak.
There are few surprises. How about a character like a bank manager which challenges Derek's world view, who isn't a cardboard cutout character, who has depth, and has surprisingly good points to make or has views which provide something to think about as they are worthy of consideration?
All we're given are characters which make Derek appear to be utterly perfect in every way. Where is the writing skill in that?
It's just incredibly clunky writing with no finesse to it at all which is so patronizing to the viewer. It seems to assume that we're all selfish uncaring people who are motivated by selfish pursuits, and Ricky is there to teach us how to be good people.
Like we're 5 year old, are at primary school, and Ricky is there at school assembly telling us to be good and not do bad things.
I'm sure that this has its fans and the heavy handed sentimentally strikes a resonance within them. But as far as I'm concerned this is really bad writing which is as clunky as it could possibly be. It doesn't seem to concern itself with the idea that most of the audience will be adults and are intelligent enough to appreciate the subtle elements of story telling, and it certainly doesn't consider that the audience might not be so thick that we need to be battered over the head with sentiments and platitudes like we're being attacked with a sledgehammer.
The best thing about the episode was the end section with Kevin. That was done well I thought. Probably the only thing which wasn't too predictable in its outcome. Which makes me surprised how the rest of it could be so bad.
I found it completely unbelievable that Hannah would go off and have sex with her boyfriend with everyone there in full knowledge of what they were doing, then come back into the room and carry on as usual.
The show seems to want to put across points and messages for us to take seriously, but I don't see how it is in the position to do that if the characters behave in unrealistic ways.
I do sometimes feel as though the show is suffering from an identity crisis. Sentimental drama, crude comedy, putting the two together often comes off as awkward and disjointed.
Such a shame.
That's my issue with the whole Hannah thing. I'm not a prude, it's just that I'm thinking "you expect us to believe that?".
I am tired of gushing sentimentaliy smacking me across the face like a wet fish though.
Alrightmate, nice post i totally agree with all of it. Except the very last bit. Kev not getting the job just showed me that ricky's writing is bafflingly strange. If as he claims constantly that the point of the show is that it is about kindness, then why totally throw it off that course by offering up that dissapointment. Surely, the kind thing to do would be for Hannah to offer kev that chance to change by offering him the job. I dont know, but considering all the moralising in the show, i wasn't pleased with that.
I agree with this.
I didn't enjoy last nights show. To much sex that was not funny plus I really wanted Kev to get the job as I think it would have been a good twist.
Also would develop the character.
Very good post. This is pretty much where I stand on this episode too.
I've always had a problem with the show's over-moralising, but it seemed to hit a new low this week. Did we really need to have Derek's voice-over telling us that we should be nice to old people, and that we should listen to them more often? It was very condescending. I mean, I agree with the sentiment and everything (who the hell doesn't?), but that level of heavy-handedness just makes me want to reach for the sick bucket, not nod along sagely with an inane grin on my face like Gervais seemingly wants me to.
I also agree with another poster who complained about the weird juxtaposition of the sad piano stuff with Kev's increasingly crude scenes. Now that Karl Pilkington's gone, the Kev scenes are now the show's only real attempt at comedy. And I'm increasingly finding them tiresome. I think they missed a trick by not offering him the caretaker job at the end. Him getting the job would've allowed for greater exploration of his character, as he's clearly been written to be more internally complex than his appearance would suggest. But instead he's presumably going to be sat around the home, drinking Special Brew, and making sexually inappropriate comments for the rest of the series.. as usual.
I thought the first series had a fair bit to like about it. But it seems Gervais has run out of ideas this time around and is just churning out any old shite. It's just not good enough.
3am?!
Or...watch it on 4OD at your leisure.