Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Chips

[Carlito]

Arguably the greatest British sitcom of all time is about to join its American counterpart (Seinfeld) in adding a new chapter to its canon:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8290293.stm

Unfortunately unlike Seinfeld, which is returning within the storyline of the superb Curb Your Enthusiasm, I have much lower expectations for the latest addition to the Only Fools and Horses story… pretty much based on the fact that John Sullivan hasn’t written anything truly great since 1996, and (in my view) hasn’t produced anything of high quality outside of Fools for nearly 30 years… Okay, some people will say they liked Just Good Friends or Dear John… hell, some would even argue the merits of Roger Roger, but since the end of Citizen Smith, the only Sullivan show that has entertained me is the all-time classic Fools.

So I’m worried. I’m a bit worried about the casting too. I just cannot see James Buckley pulling off Del Boy (I hope I’m wrong) and that fucking awful actor Phil Daniels playing Grandad?? Ergh.

Topic

[Tarka Dal]

> It?s a ?T-Bag? thing.

Exactly she was bloody awesome in T-Bag. It was T-Shirt who was the annoying one.

[Carlito]

Who’s old enough to remember the original T-Bag?

EDIT: Seems Kellie Bright was in the show WITH the original T-Bag. So I guess some of you, indeed, are.

[si]

>It was T-Shirt who was the annoying one.

Where’s he now?

[Tarka Dal]

A multi-billionaire jetset playboy tycoon who struck gold over patenting those ‘All I got was this lousy T-Shirt’ designs.

[Carlito]

Well… it’s on in five minutes! Anyone else watching?

[Dessie]

I’ll watch it on iplayer at some point. I hope it’s good i think the actors they’ve got in look the part. Wether the material will be good enough is the real problem.

[Pete Part Three]

Well, that was a wholly pointless exercise.

The problem with prequels is that 9 times out of 10, they’re just not necessary. If the events of the prequel are genuinely worth telling, that should be where you start the original story. If they’re not, it’s just backstory that doesn’t need to be wheeled out 30 years later when the writer has ran out of other ideas.

This told me nothing new (or groundbreaking) that we hadn’t already gleaned from The Frog’s Legacy. The continuity references weren’t too bad and didn’t feel too overt, but it just left me with one lasting question: “So what?”.

I’m also puzzled as to why this was a comedy drama. Surely a lot of the people who’d be interested in seeing this, would be expecting a sitcom. Oh hang on, I completely understand why this was a comedy drama. It wasn’t remotely amusing. But, to be honest, it wasn’t particularly dramatic either.

Would this have been made if not for the OFAH link? Of course not. The story was mininmal and the characters (with the exception of Joan) thinly drawn. The relentless Heartbeat-esque soundtrack grated too.

Lousy.

[genericnerdyusername]

There were a few good bits in it, like the nylon carpet gag. I am writing this while practically asleep though, so I may have dreamed that one.

[ori-STUDFARM]

There was one good bit in it. And that was the surname being called out wrong at the clinic…Minge!

Apart from that, I couldn’t see the point or the humour

[Pete Part Three]

>There was one good bit in it. And that was the surname being called out wrong at the clinic?Minge!

I thought that was awful and horribly contrived.

Sullivan also ripped off himself, when an item (in this case a hotdog, previously a suitcase) was thrown out of a window, only for it to later be revealed to have landed on another character. Weak here, rather good in “The Jolly Boy’s Outing”.

[Carlito]

It was cosy, the back references were neat and well researched/remembered, but like P3 said it said nothing new. Reminded me a bit of A Small Summer Party (prequel to Marion and Geoff). If you’d already heard these events referred to or inferred, then all you’re getting is a show acting out the subtext from previous shows. You know where its going and for the most part it all looked that much better in your imagination.

Nevertheless it was enjoyable enough, the performances were good and it’s basically new Only Fools, which is cool with me.

[Kris ‘Drivaaar’ Carter]

I liked it, although it was not needed at all. As said above, the story had already been laid bare with no surprise or dramtic interest because of Only Fools… so many years ago, but there was still fun to be had with the performances of younger actors as established characters. The young Del Boy, although visually very different from his elder incarnation, was very believable. Phil Daniels as Grandad was spot on, absolutely spot on. And the various continuity nods and references were handled well. It wasn’t laugh out loud funny, but had some neat gags (the carpet, the false names, death by coffee etc). Wasn’t as touching as older Only Fools stuff, but I did get a fairly strong and surprising twinge of sadness when Grandad ribs Reg about only owning one nice suit, and Reg says it’s Grandads funeral… which we know he’ll never attend.

[Kris ‘Drivaaar’ Carter]

Oh! And the return of Gary Sparrow (in looks at least!)

[Andrew]

Haven’t seen it yet. Dreading it now.

> I?m also puzzled as to why this was a comedy drama.

There seems to be a real perception problem in commissioning now. If you’re planning to do dramatic elements among the punchlines, you’re a drama. End of. I can’t imagine turning up with an OFAH script from the ’50 minute episodes’ era and the channel (ANY channel) understanding that it’s still intended for a live audience. “But…but he’s talking about a miscarriage!”

More and more only things like My Family and The Persuasionists- big lights, unexceptional sets, loud delivery and a heavy-handed audio mix – are apparently entitled to shoot as audience sitcoms. It’s a ghastly narrowing of the genre.

[ChrisM]

I liked it.

It wasn’t that funny but they seemed to be going for sixties period drama with some humour rather than sitcom, and in that vein I think it worked fairly well. I.e. it wasn’t lots of bad jokes. There just weren’t that many jokes. The few there were were amusing though although not all laugh out loud funny as has been said.

[Pete Part Three]

>and it?s basically new Only Fools

Is it? OFAH was a studio-audience sitcom set from the 80’s to the 00’s. This was a comedy drama set in the 60’s with only one of the cast returning. This didn’t feel particularly similar in tone.

I was almost bored by it as it just didn’t seem to be aimed at me, which was a little odd as I’m fond of OFAH. It was perfectly scheduled, mind, in that it was typical Sunday night fare. It wasn’t particularly gritty (we barely saw the nasty side of Reg), it was just middle-of-the-road bland.

The weirdest thing was that there was no real resolution to the plot. I assumed we’d get a bit of drama with Reg leaving…but no. And, curiously, if you want to know what happens to Freddy, you have to watch “The Frog’s Legacy”. And, since that, tells you everything else that happened here, it makes this all the more redundant.

Bah, I postponed the 24 double-bill for this?

[Carlito]

>and it?s basically new Only Fools

>Is it?

I mean, it’s a new addition to the Fools canon. At least it feels like it, unlike The Green Green Crap.

[ChrisM]

>The weirdest thing was that there was no real resolution to the plot.

From what I’ve read elsewhere it’s a pilot. So there might be a whole series for that resolution to take place. As for Reg and Freddy, I imagine they’d want more mileage out of the characters before Reg leaves and Freddy joins the mile high club.

[John Hoare]

There seems to be a real perception problem in commissioning now. If you?re planning to do dramatic elements among the punchlines, you?re a drama. End of. I can?t imagine turning up with an OFAH script from the ?50 minute episodes? era and the channel (ANY channel) understanding that it?s still intended for a live audience. ?But?but he?s talking about a miscarriage!?

More and more only things like My Family and The Persuasionists- big lights, unexceptional sets, loud delivery and a heavy-handed audio mix – are apparently entitled to shoot as audience sitcoms. It?s a ghastly narrowing of the genre.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with every single word of this.

Odd things going on with Rock and Chips, anyway – the BBC One broadcast had a film effect, and the BBC HD version didn’t. Which is weird – if you’re shooting HD these days, you generally shoot at 25 frames natively, so a “video look” version never exists. Wonder if they meant to show the whole thing to an audience at some point, so wanted it to look more like a trad sitcom, and then changed their minds.

As to why two different versions were broadcast… beats me. Cock-up, presumably, but it’s a pretty big one when it looks SO different.

[pfm]

I thought it was all right. Kellie Bright was especially great (she will always be the daughter from The Upper Hand to me, one of my 12-year-old-self’s crushes). Good to see Nicholas Lyndhurst being able to do some proper acting in parts of it, and James Buckley good as always.

I’m not a big OFAH fan but I still enjoyed this, and indeed the two episodes that were on earlier. It’s better than a smack in the teeth FFS. They should leave it at this special though and not go ahead with a series.

[Carlito]

I would genuinely much rather see a full new series of OFAH than a full series of R&C, despite the risks involved. They already killed the perfect ending of 1996. Having undone the good work, they may as well make some more. Even if it’s not as great as it once was, the performances will still raise plenty of laughs (even the not-so-great noughties specials raised a fair number of laughs).

And I do believe at one point it was confirmed that R&C would have an audience track, so they must have changed their minds on that one. Probably because there weren’t enough gags in quick enough succession to make it worthwhile having audience reaction. That’s not a knock, the show clearly wasn’t written in that traditional sitcom style (even the 50-min Fools style) and didn’t lend itself to a laugh track.

[pfm]

Surely John Sullivan never envisaged this with audience laughter?? Maybe someone just assumed it would have it and put that in an article somewhere.

[Ben Paddon]

I’ll watch this tomorrow. I’m not particularly enthusiastic, and OFAH was never one of my favourite shows (growing up it was almost all UK Gold aired in the evenings, which bugged the Hell out of me), but my dad is a huge OFAH fan so I’ll watch this with him and get his feedback.

Keep in mind he has terrible taste. He thought the first “Hulk” movie was better than the reboot, and he really liked “The Golden Compass”. He also watches So You Think You Can Dance of his own free will.

[Pete Part Three]

>From what I?ve read elsewhere it?s a pilot.

Ah. I didn’t know this, I assumed this was a one-off.

Kellie Bright was probably the best thing about this. Phil Daniels was awful, Shaun Dingwall underused, James Buckley passable. Nick Lyndhurst has never really convinced me as anything aside from Rodney in his twenties in the early years of Only Fools.

>I would genuinely much rather see a full new series of OFAH than a full series of R&C, despite the risks involved.

I’m not sure there’s much mileage in either but I think I’d prefer more R&C, simply because I wouldn’t feel inclined to watch it. I can just ignore it exists, much like The Green, Green Grass.

[Andrew]

> He thought the first ?Hulk? movie was better than the reboot,

It is.

> and he really liked ?The Golden Compass?.

Yeah, okay, for that one he’s pretty much damned to hell…

[Somebody]

Teh Hoare> As to why two different versions were broadcast… beats me. Cock-up, presumably, but it’s a pretty big one when it looks SO different

Apparently, BBC HD have a ban on filmised material (to go with their bans on 16mm film, and more than… I think it’s 20%… upscaled material in a programme). Ergo, if you shoot videolook, it’s going to go out videolook.

[Somebody]

Oh, and the BBC1 showing of R&C apparently got 7.5m viewers (27.8%) on overnight ratings, if anyone cares.

[Pete Part Three]

Seems to have got a generally good response too.

[Muzzy]

7.5 mil? That’s the series confirmed then.

[pfm]

> if you?re shooting HD these days, you generally shoot at 25 frames natively, so a ?video look? version never exists.

Yeah, but to achieve that you’ve got to have people in your employ who know what they’re doing and have at least some of the sense they were born with. It makes one wonder whether anyone working for this bloody corporation, outside of BBC Wales, meets those requirements…

>> He thought the first ?Hulk? movie was better than the reboot,

> It is.

*giggles*

[ori-STUDFARM]

With the lack of comedy, I’d have thought it would be more emotional and pulling at the old heartstrings. It didn’t make me laugh much and it didn’t invoke any kind of emotional stiring.

It was “meh” at best and reminded me of the Eastenders Pat and Moe tale that was set in the 60’s. Except the Pat & Moe tale was done better!

[Carlito]

Would people have preferred the studio audience sitcom style for this? I’m fairly confident that’s where John Sullivan thrives, although his non-Fools sitcom work post-1996 has been fairly poor (Heartburn Hotel, Green Green Grass) and even the Fools comeback was underwhelming.

Still, I would be interested to see how Rock & Chips would work in front of an audience (obviously with the writing tailored to suit this). Now that they are in Nelson Mandela House, it would be fairly easy to morph what we saw last night into a studio sitcom for a full series, even though that would affect the style they opted for with the pilot.

For the record, I don’t think this will actually happen, I just think it ought to be considered.

[Pete Part Three]

>Would people have preferred the studio audience sitcom style for this?

My confusion of it not being a studio audience sitcom is partly that this is what people would have been expecting when it was first announced, but mainly that there’s no reason why the story couldn’t have been tailored to the sitcom style. It does, after all, contain many of the same characters and relationships as a sitcom and there was nothing overly gritty about this.

But then I recall the few comedy moments and think it’s probably best this was pitched as a comedy drama. The banshee wails of laughter that would have greeted “I’m looking for a Minge” would have had me reaching for the remote in exasperation. John Sullivan hasn’t made me laugh in 14 years, so it’s probably best he goes for more straight-laced stuff in between the occasional, supposedly humorous, comedy moments.

[Seb Patrick]

And then Trigger made a face.

[John Hoare]

Apparently, BBC HD have a ban on filmised material (to go with their bans on 16mm film, and more than? I think it?s 20%? upscaled material in a programme). Ergo, if you shoot videolook, it?s going to go out videolook.

You know, now you say it, that rings a bell.

Still, the question remains as to why didn’t they shoot it 25p in the first place. I think I recall rumours of a laugh track as well… so it seems likely that they shot it with the intention of adding one and making it look like a normal sitcom, and then once they changed their mind, slapped a film effect over the top for the BBC One broadcast.

[Jonathan Capps]

That definitely seems the most likely reason, but it does beg the question why they even bothered with the effect on the SD broadcast. It looked much nicer without it (and not just because it was HD.)

[John Hoare]

Well, I wasn’t going to be the first to say it…

[pfm]

It definitely works well without the film effect, though it’s not a surprise that they wanted it slapped on. I mean, it’s not like BBC1 broadcasts 4 episodes of interlaced drama every week, or anything… The audience wouldn’t know what hit them!

[Nick R]

John Hoare:
> Odd things going on with Rock and Chips, anyway – the BBC One broadcast had a film effect, and the BBC HD version didn?t.

I caught a bit of the BBC1 signed repeat in the early hours of this morning, and that didn’t have the film effect.

[John Hoare]

Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery odd.

Last-minute decision to apply the film effect, perhaps, and they just didn’t re-version the signed repeat?

[pfm]

It’ll be interesting to see if the full series, if it goes ahead, has the film effect or not. Maybe they know they’ll shoot it progressively so they’ve added the effect to the pilot so they match. Presumably the BBC HD policy of no filmized material won’t apply to BBC Blu-ray releases.

[Carlito]

Anyone catch the new episode? I thought it was a bit stronger on the humour front, probably because of the larger focus on Del, but still utterly pointless.

[ori-STUDFARM]

New one?…..I thought they were just repeating the last one!!

[ChrisM]

>.I thought they were just repeating the last one!!

That’s what I thought when I came across it.

Apparently they’re doing two more. The Christmas one they just showed and one over Easter.

I largely enjoyed it although I think I preferred the first.

That French joke was very saucy. My French isn’t good, but I understood that! Hee, hee.

[Pete Part Three]

It meandered and didn’t really go anywhere. You could say the same for a lot of sitcom episodes, but since Rock and Chips seems to have different aspirations it did seem rather redundant. Like most prequels, then.

[ChrisM]

I think the first was relevant in that it did fill in a few gaps, albeit it was history we largely know from the episodes. I agree the second was largely redundant though although, as I said, I liked it.

I wonder if the Easter episode is meant to be the last of a trilogy or they plan to do more should it be successful? If it’s the former, I’d imagine that one would be rather dramatic*, which might explain the more meandering feel of this transitional episode.

*Again we know what happens but again, there are plenty of gaps to fill.

[ori-STUDFARM]

Nahh. There’s plenty of flogging left in that dead horse!

[ori-STUDFARM]

Nahh. There’s plenty of flogging left in that dead horse!

[ChrisM]

That one too, eh? Heh.

[pfm]

The Easter episode should end with a fade to Nicholas Lyndhurst standing by Joan’s grave. We think it’s Freddie, because he’s dressed very similar, but then Del (David Jason) steps into shot, pats him on the shoulder. ‘Come on, Rodders…don’t want the chips to go cold, do we?’ and they walk away. Or not…lol.

[Author]

Replies