The name of the foriegn country in the remake ie Qumranistan is very similar to Qumran the name of a Middle East country that featured in an episode of Yes Minister
The original actors played the characters like they didn't know it was a comedy - it was acted like a drama that just happened to have very funny dialogue.
The new actors are playing it like its a pantomime.
That's the difference for me, if that makes sense.
I always loved the episodes when Hacker won...I also loved things like the dig at the newspapers,
the arts funding and the reason why you can't put Ambassadors in alphabetical order at state events...
As a long time fan of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister (still watching the repeats on Gold/Dave wherever), I have now caught up with the remake series to date, having series-recorded it.
Sadly, I am becoming increasingly disappointed with it, and many of the reasons have already been mentioned in this thread. I think the main prob lem is that the situations in which the characters find themselves seem to be unrealistically extreme and overtly fake - as do the characters, especially Jim Hacker - but all of them to some extent. The beauty of the original was its believeability, but this is missing from the remake, the comedy seems forced and does not flow naturally. Setting it at Chequers doesn't work for me, either.
As an aside, a minor 'technical' irritation is the Gold on-screen logo at top left - it is large, poorly placed, and characters' faces are from time to time completely obscured by it. Considering that the remake was produced for Gold, that is inexcusable.
All in all I'd say that I will watch it next week but if it doesn't improve, that will be the last time (whether or not there are to be any further episodes). I had hoped for better, I am disappointed in what seems to have mutated from a high quality sitcom into a bit of a Brian Rix farce (e.g. all that call-girl stuff), which fails because it falls between the two.
i dont have UK gold so iv not seen it but i think people were hoping it wouldnt be as good as the original and have got what they wanted.if that makes sense.either way its never a good idea to tamper with the crown jewels
I hated episode one.
Managed tepid but trying for episode two.
Have lost track of where it is now but hated tonight's repeat.
I have on my V+ box at the moment the episode where Hacker's present interlocutor is in the habit of defining himself by the perpendicular pronoun. I can watch it weekly and cry with laughter every time, and marvel at the subtlety of Nigel Hawthorne's facial expressions, where one can see a man visualize his career come crashing to an ignominious end by the fractional alteration of a smile.
Certainly in comparison this new thing falls very flat, and even as a stand-alone, I think it pretty dire.
Well, for better or for worse, that's it. I thought the final three episodes were vastly superior to the first three, but the series is still riddled with problems, ranging from the canned laughter to Henry Goodman's portrayal of Sir Humphrey, which I just cannot warm to at all.
I suspect we won't be seeing this again. The ratings essentially halved between episodes 1 and 4, to the point where repeats of Come Fly With Me were pushing it down to number two on Gold. When cheap repeats outgun expensive original programming, the writing is surely on the wall.
And, ultimately, it just isn't a patch on the original. Some things are best left untouched and undefiled.
I've penned a quick review of the series - link below. I'd be interested to know people's thoughts if anyone feels like popping by to say hello.
I thought the final three episodes were vastly superior to the first three.
I felt the second half of the series was not as good as the first due to the lack of plot progression.
Overall, I rather liked the programme (including the actors). It may be overacted but I feel this is how Gold wanted it to be due to other comedy programmes featuring overacting performers. I even liked the canned laughter which makes a programme seem to be more amusing than it really is, to put it another way, the laughing makes me laugh, ridiculous I know.
One problem, for me, is the set. The bookcase is obviously two dimensional and is thus, rather distracting. Other than this and the lack of plot progression in the last three episodes (plus the lack of scenes with Sir Humphrey (who is there only when needed before being away again)) the series was, in my opinion, brilliant.
I may even watch the original series to see if it is even better, which I am sure it is.
I felt the second half of the series was not as good as the first due to the lack of plot progression.
Overall, I rather liked the programme (including the actors). It may be overacted but I feel this is how Gold wanted it to be due to other comedy programmes featuring overacting performers. I even liked the canned laughter which makes a programme seem to be more amusing than it really is, to put it another way, the laughing makes me laugh, ridiculous I know.
One problem, for me, is the set. The bookcase is obviously two dimensional and is thus, rather distracting. Other than this and the lack of plot progression in the last three episodes (plus the lack of scenes with Sir Humphrey (who is there only when needed before being away again)) the series was, in my opinion, brilliant.
I may even watch the original series to see if it is even better, which I am sure it is.
Interesting observations. I wonder if there is a difference between fans of the old series and those who have only watched the new one. For me the open-endedness of the ongoing plot in the first three episodes was annoying, but I can see your point of view too. I do agree that there wasn't enough Humphrey in the closing episodes, but at the same time I really didn't like Goodman's performance when compared to Nigel Hawthorne's.
If it gets recommissioned I'll watch it again, but it's some way from being at the top of my favourites list, I'm afraid. Ah well.
.. Henry Goodman's portrayal of Sir Humphrey, which I just cannot warm to at all.
..
I felt he was playing him as if he were John Le Mesurier .
With Nigel Hawthorn you always felt there was a true menace beneath the smooth operator - an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Along with the buffoonish Bernard the whole idea of the civil service running rings around the politicos was lost - a clever comedy was just reduced to a farce.
I must admit that as a farce on stage it was probably great fun to see live, but not a patch on what we were led to expect from an updated classic TV comedy.
I may even watch the original series to see if it is even better, which I am sure it is.
If you've never actually seen the original YM and YPM then you are in for a treat. It will be interesting to see if your opinion on the new version changes after watching the old ones. If you thought this was "brilliant" then I'm not sure English has a word to describe the originals.
I felt he was playing him as if he were John Le Mesurier .
With Nigel Hawthorn you always felt there was a true menace beneath the smooth operator - an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Along with the buffoonish Bernard the whole idea of the civil service running rings around the politicos was lost - a clever comedy was just reduced to a farce.
I must admit that as a farce on stage it was probably great fun to see live, but not a patch on what we were led to expect from an updated classic TV comedy.
That's a good shout about JLM.
I think you've probably hit the nail on the head. What works well on stage - where characters and performances have to be a bit larger than life - doesn't necessarily work well on the small screen and in the confines of an episodic format.
Much though Jay (or was it Lynn?) railed at the BBC for requesting a pilot before commissioning the series, you have to say the Beeb were probably right to be cautious given the end result. It was OK - but it could have been amazing.
I suspect we won't be seeing this again. The ratings essentially halved between episodes 1 and 4, to the point where repeats of Come Fly With Me were pushing it down to number two on Gold. When cheap repeats outgun expensive original programming, the writing is surely on the wall.
Gold wanted to have a new version of a sitcom classic, but their first choice fell through for unclear reasons, so that could have been a stroke of very good fortune for Lynn and Jay, as I don't know if there was the money for Gold to do both sitcoms.
The first choice was apparently due to have ten episodes, so they might have been able to squeeze both projects out, but I'm not convinced.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_places_in_Yes_Minister#Qumran
I'll second that!
Becouse the PM keeps trying to govern the country, whilst Humphrey thinks thats his job;)
I am puzzled as to why Humphrey is so keen on the EU - surely any transfer of power to Brussels diminishes his own powerbase?
the arts funding and the reason why you can't put Ambassadors in alphabetical order at state events...
Sadly, I am becoming increasingly disappointed with it, and many of the reasons have already been mentioned in this thread. I think the main prob lem is that the situations in which the characters find themselves seem to be unrealistically extreme and overtly fake - as do the characters, especially Jim Hacker - but all of them to some extent. The beauty of the original was its believeability, but this is missing from the remake, the comedy seems forced and does not flow naturally. Setting it at Chequers doesn't work for me, either.
As an aside, a minor 'technical' irritation is the Gold on-screen logo at top left - it is large, poorly placed, and characters' faces are from time to time completely obscured by it. Considering that the remake was produced for Gold, that is inexcusable.
All in all I'd say that I will watch it next week but if it doesn't improve, that will be the last time (whether or not there are to be any further episodes). I had hoped for better, I am disappointed in what seems to have mutated from a high quality sitcom into a bit of a Brian Rix farce (e.g. all that call-girl stuff), which fails because it falls between the two.
I hated episode one.
Managed tepid but trying for episode two.
Have lost track of where it is now but hated tonight's repeat.
I have on my V+ box at the moment the episode where Hacker's present interlocutor is in the habit of defining himself by the perpendicular pronoun. I can watch it weekly and cry with laughter every time, and marvel at the subtlety of Nigel Hawthorne's facial expressions, where one can see a man visualize his career come crashing to an ignominious end by the fractional alteration of a smile.
Certainly in comparison this new thing falls very flat, and even as a stand-alone, I think it pretty dire.
I suspect we won't be seeing this again. The ratings essentially halved between episodes 1 and 4, to the point where repeats of Come Fly With Me were pushing it down to number two on Gold. When cheap repeats outgun expensive original programming, the writing is surely on the wall.
And, ultimately, it just isn't a patch on the original. Some things are best left untouched and undefiled.
I've penned a quick review of the series - link below. I'd be interested to know people's thoughts if anyone feels like popping by to say hello.
http://slouchingtowardstv.com/2013/02/20/yes-prime-minister-season-1-review/
I felt the second half of the series was not as good as the first due to the lack of plot progression.
Overall, I rather liked the programme (including the actors). It may be overacted but I feel this is how Gold wanted it to be due to other comedy programmes featuring overacting performers. I even liked the canned laughter which makes a programme seem to be more amusing than it really is, to put it another way, the laughing makes me laugh, ridiculous I know.
One problem, for me, is the set. The bookcase is obviously two dimensional and is thus, rather distracting. Other than this and the lack of plot progression in the last three episodes (plus the lack of scenes with Sir Humphrey (who is there only when needed before being away again)) the series was, in my opinion, brilliant.
I may even watch the original series to see if it is even better, which I am sure it is.
If it gets recommissioned I'll watch it again, but it's some way from being at the top of my favourites list, I'm afraid. Ah well.
the set looked identical to the stage set, which gave it the rather outdated look of televising a stage play
I felt he was playing him as if he were John Le Mesurier
With Nigel Hawthorn you always felt there was a true menace beneath the smooth operator - an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Along with the buffoonish Bernard the whole idea of the civil service running rings around the politicos was lost - a clever comedy was just reduced to a farce.
I must admit that as a farce on stage it was probably great fun to see live, but not a patch on what we were led to expect from an updated classic TV comedy.
If you've never actually seen the original YM and YPM then you are in for a treat. It will be interesting to see if your opinion on the new version changes after watching the old ones. If you thought this was "brilliant" then I'm not sure English has a word to describe the originals.
I think you've probably hit the nail on the head. What works well on stage - where characters and performances have to be a bit larger than life - doesn't necessarily work well on the small screen and in the confines of an episodic format.
Much though Jay (or was it Lynn?) railed at the BBC for requesting a pilot before commissioning the series, you have to say the Beeb were probably right to be cautious given the end result. It was OK - but it could have been amazing.
The first choice was apparently due to have ten episodes, so they might have been able to squeeze both projects out, but I'm not convinced.