The main thing thats bugging me about LTS is whether its meant to be set in real life like the office or extras?
For example, in the office, most if not all of the characters did seem to be normal everyday people that you could believe you were watching in a fly on the wall doc. This gave that show an emotional punch because you could relate to these people and cared about their situations. It also helped that this show (and Extras) were funny as hell IMO.
However, no-one portrayed in LTS seem to be remotely realistic at all. e.g- the girl who films Warwick on her camera phone purely because he's a dwarf. Do people really act like that? I'd be interested to know if this has ever happened to Warwick in real life cos it seems to be a pretty harsh way to portray the general public. All the surrounding characters also just seem to be badly written (Warwicks accountant/Lawyer especially springs to mind)
I suppose what I'm asking is whether this show is meant to be set in real life or an alternative universe where everyone is either thick as shit or a real arsehole?
Anyone care to comment?
The main thing thats bugging me about LTS is whether its meant to be set in real life like the office or extras?
For example, in the office, most if not all of the characters did seem to be normal everyday people that you could believe you were watching in a fly on the wall doc. This gave that show an emotional punch because you could relate to these people and cared about their situations. It also helped that this show (and Extras) were funny as hell IMO.
However, no-one portrayed in LTS seem to be remotely realistic at all. e.g- the girl who films Warwick on her camera phone purely because he's a dwarf. Do people really act like that? I'd be interested to know if this has ever happened to Warwick in real life cos it seems to be a pretty harsh way to portray the general public. All the surrounding characters also just seem to be badly written (Warwicks accountant/Lawyer especially springs to mind)
I suppose what I'm asking is whether this show is meant to be set in real life or an alternative universe where everyone is either thick as shit or a real arsehole?
Anyone care to comment?
Agree - love RG but this just seems lazy and confused with the odd funny line. I can see exactly where Ricky written lines are in the show as well, they are all the ones you could imagine David Brent saying.
Call me pedantic, but the running gag that Willow was a flop that hardly anyone has seen simply isn't true. It was number 14 in the 1988 US Box office chart making over $57 million,
Can't believe Warwick is still only 41, I thought he was a lot older when he made Willow.
Tried to watch the latest ep but his moronic assistant forced me to turn off in disgust very quickly. As much as I liked Extras I always hated when Maggie would blurt out stuff that embarrassed Andy because it was just too stupid to even remotely be considered realistic. This character is like that but ten times worse and her droning voice only compounds the issue. It baffles me that she seems to get a lot of praise, even from those who are otherwise highly critical of the show. She's easily the worst comedy character I've seen in years.
Yeh she impressed in This Is England and people like to say they like "normal" actresses like her.
The main thing thats bugging me about LTS is whether its meant to be set in real life like the office or extras?
For example, in the office, most if not all of the characters did seem to be normal everyday people that you could believe you were watching in a fly on the wall doc. This gave that show an emotional punch because you could relate to these people and cared about their situations. It also helped that this show (and Extras) were funny as hell IMO.
However, no-one portrayed in LTS seem to be remotely realistic at all. e.g- the girl who films Warwick on her camera phone purely because he's a dwarf. Do people really act like that? I'd be interested to know if this has ever happened to Warwick in real life cos it seems to be a pretty harsh way to portray the general public. All the surrounding characters also just seem to be badly written (Warwicks accountant/Lawyer especially springs to mind)
I suppose what I'm asking is whether this show is meant to be set in real life or an alternative universe where everyone is either thick as shit or a real arsehole?
Anyone care to comment?
The 'premise', or confusion over LTS does seem to be an insurmountable issue for a lot of people, and why the comedy is not working for others.
As you say, the 'normal' nature of the 'everyday' characters and situations in The Office are much easier to relate to a wider watching watching public than, perhaps, the life of a dwarf actor, which maybe explains its lack of general appeal. I say that, but it is a fact that the ratings for the first series of The Office were CRAP, and it was quite a long time after the first series was broadcast before the second series was commissioned - so it was not actually as popular at the time as some posters like to make out.
For me, what Gervais and Merchant have clearly done with LTS is to take the situation of a dwarf actor which for 99.99% of people is not an 'everyday' circumstance and to play around with the humour and see what can be created. For me, it has been a highly unusual, absurd comedy - correct me if there has been one previously about a dwarf actor - and has in places been quite thought-provoking. If nothing else, it has certainly generated a lot of opinions, positive and negative, on this thread which I always think is a good thing. A lot of the humour has poked fun at short people in a way that would be extremely controversial if it were to attack most other groups of disadvantaged people.
We live in times where there is a lot of sensitivity about what subjects are 'fair game' for humour and what aren't and why. Why don't you see more short people working television? Is it discrimination? Or is it because short people are just so physically disadvantaged in real life that it would be unrealistic for a dwarf to appear as the lead role in, say, a 'everyday' police procedural - or would nobody take it seriously? Would that actually be funnier than LTS - if so why?! And who would be brave enough in the modern, ratings obsessed television world to try?
All in all, I'm quite enjoying the series, something a bit different, but its not a show that's going to enjoy the wide appeal of The Office - and there's obviously not going to be the 'Johnny-Come-Lately' affect witnessed with The Office as Gervais and Merchant are now very well known. I'm not sure there's enough mileage for a second series - with comedy there rarely is - and there's nothing wrong with 'one-off' series for me, be it comedy or drama.
Just a side point on the ratings, everyone I know who has watched every episode records the programme and watches it on a Friday or Saturday night - why is this and how does this show up and affect the ratings?
I suppose what I'm asking is whether this show is meant to be set in real life or an alternative universe where everyone is either thick as shit or a real arsehole?
Anyone care to comment?
The latter I think. All part of the Comedy of Cruelty.
Trouble with that is that when the activity isn't actually all that funny, just cruel, there is no emotional resonance and sympathy with the characters to keep you watching or more importantly, enjoying (compare and contrast with Rev).
There have been some laugh out loud bits in individual episodes but as a whole I don't think it hangs together.....RG has shown he can do empathy, both David Brent and Andy Millman ultimately have their rather sweet redemptive moments, so for me this is just something of a misfire.
Just a side point on the ratings, everyone I know who has watched every episode records the programme and watches it on a Friday or Saturday night - why is this and how does this show up and affect the ratings?
Maybe your friends are all doing something together on a Thursday night;)
With the fragmentation of distribution and TV shows now on so many platforms the +7 ratings which cover a weeks worth of viewing including catch up are now more of a measure of a shows penetration/success....quite often newspapers will give bragging rights to one show based on the overnights whereas the weekly figures can paint a very different picture.
.............Just a side point on the ratings, everyone I know who has watched every episode records the programme and watches it on a Friday or Saturday night - why is this and how does this show up and affect the ratings?...............
According to BARB FAQ, those viewers who comprise the viewing panel have meters attached to various pieces of equipment, including recorders. Viewers using 'catch-up' facilities are also counted. Provided the recordings are watched within 7 days, then they're included in the FINAL figures published 8 days after the end of the viewing week.
Quote:
VCR, DVDR, PVR playback and "catch-up" VOD services is reported if it takes place within 7 days of the original broadcast. This viewing (known as timeshift) is then added to the live data to produce the final, minute-by-minute consolidated audience, available 8 days after the original transmission
Though some FMs may try to double or triple count them.
Tried to watch The Office and Extras and just couldn't get into them. Decided to give LTS a chance but it's heading down the same route for me, started to run out of steam after the second episode imo.
Some funny moments tonight. Especially when Warwick is left to his own devices. Laughed out loud at him falling off the chair and interviewing for a new religion at the Scientology church.
Why do I think Keith, Les and 'Barry' will get their own show next.
Another terrible episode. What was the replay shot of him falling over all about? Like You've Been Framed. I'd prefer a whole series based around Les Dennis/Barry from Eastenders/Chegwin.
Thought this was terrible tonight, turned off as he fell off the chair in the restaurant. Really obvious and crap, Gervais and Merchant are either treading water or only have the one style of comedy which they've exhausted.
I think Gervais and Merchant have reached their level of incompetence. I have tried to like LTS but there is nothing new in this comedy and worse of all it just isn't funny. Nuff said.
Some funny moments tonight. Especially when Warwick is left to his own devices. Laughed out loud at him falling off the chair and interviewing for a new religion at the Scientology church.
It was a good episode, I think it benefited from the lack of his braindead assistant
My favourite part was when there was a black person and someone said something inappropriate around a black person and then awkwardness ensued, I think Gervais should do more comedy with that sort of scenario.
Comments
Pratfalls are a mark of desperation.
Tumbleweed was blowing round for most of the last episode.
For example, in the office, most if not all of the characters did seem to be normal everyday people that you could believe you were watching in a fly on the wall doc. This gave that show an emotional punch because you could relate to these people and cared about their situations. It also helped that this show (and Extras) were funny as hell IMO.
However, no-one portrayed in LTS seem to be remotely realistic at all. e.g- the girl who films Warwick on her camera phone purely because he's a dwarf. Do people really act like that? I'd be interested to know if this has ever happened to Warwick in real life cos it seems to be a pretty harsh way to portray the general public. All the surrounding characters also just seem to be badly written (Warwicks accountant/Lawyer especially springs to mind)
I suppose what I'm asking is whether this show is meant to be set in real life or an alternative universe where everyone is either thick as shit or a real arsehole?
Anyone care to comment?
Agree - love RG but this just seems lazy and confused with the odd funny line. I can see exactly where Ricky written lines are in the show as well, they are all the ones you could imagine David Brent saying.
That's still a flop really.
Yeh she impressed in This Is England and people like to say they like "normal" actresses like her.
The 'premise', or confusion over LTS does seem to be an insurmountable issue for a lot of people, and why the comedy is not working for others.
As you say, the 'normal' nature of the 'everyday' characters and situations in The Office are much easier to relate to a wider watching watching public than, perhaps, the life of a dwarf actor, which maybe explains its lack of general appeal. I say that, but it is a fact that the ratings for the first series of The Office were CRAP, and it was quite a long time after the first series was broadcast before the second series was commissioned - so it was not actually as popular at the time as some posters like to make out.
For me, what Gervais and Merchant have clearly done with LTS is to take the situation of a dwarf actor which for 99.99% of people is not an 'everyday' circumstance and to play around with the humour and see what can be created. For me, it has been a highly unusual, absurd comedy - correct me if there has been one previously about a dwarf actor - and has in places been quite thought-provoking. If nothing else, it has certainly generated a lot of opinions, positive and negative, on this thread which I always think is a good thing. A lot of the humour has poked fun at short people in a way that would be extremely controversial if it were to attack most other groups of disadvantaged people.
We live in times where there is a lot of sensitivity about what subjects are 'fair game' for humour and what aren't and why. Why don't you see more short people working television? Is it discrimination? Or is it because short people are just so physically disadvantaged in real life that it would be unrealistic for a dwarf to appear as the lead role in, say, a 'everyday' police procedural - or would nobody take it seriously? Would that actually be funnier than LTS - if so why?! And who would be brave enough in the modern, ratings obsessed television world to try?
All in all, I'm quite enjoying the series, something a bit different, but its not a show that's going to enjoy the wide appeal of The Office - and there's obviously not going to be the 'Johnny-Come-Lately' affect witnessed with The Office as Gervais and Merchant are now very well known. I'm not sure there's enough mileage for a second series - with comedy there rarely is - and there's nothing wrong with 'one-off' series for me, be it comedy or drama.
Just a side point on the ratings, everyone I know who has watched every episode records the programme and watches it on a Friday or Saturday night - why is this and how does this show up and affect the ratings?
Those are a few of my thoughts anyway
The latter I think. All part of the Comedy of Cruelty.
Trouble with that is that when the activity isn't actually all that funny, just cruel, there is no emotional resonance and sympathy with the characters to keep you watching or more importantly, enjoying (compare and contrast with Rev).
There have been some laugh out loud bits in individual episodes but as a whole I don't think it hangs together.....RG has shown he can do empathy, both David Brent and Andy Millman ultimately have their rather sweet redemptive moments, so for me this is just something of a misfire.
Maybe your friends are all doing something together on a Thursday night;)
With the fragmentation of distribution and TV shows now on so many platforms the +7 ratings which cover a weeks worth of viewing including catch up are now more of a measure of a shows penetration/success....quite often newspapers will give bragging rights to one show based on the overnights whereas the weekly figures can paint a very different picture.
Well I have been starting to wonder, but they don't all know each other!?
According to BARB FAQ, those viewers who comprise the viewing panel have meters attached to various pieces of equipment, including recorders. Viewers using 'catch-up' facilities are also counted. Provided the recordings are watched within 7 days, then they're included in the FINAL figures published 8 days after the end of the viewing week.
Though some FMs may try to double or triple count them.
It must be hard when you have made an awesome series like The Office as everything you do will be compared to it but this is just poor writing.
PJ
Why do I think Keith, Les and 'Barry' will get their own show next.
I hope so, as this Warwick Davis character just isn't funny unfortunately.
It was a good episode, I think it benefited from the lack of his braindead assistant
I'm not sure why there is so much hate towards it. I know it's hardly up to 'Office' standards, but its still one of the best comedies on recently