This topic contains 89 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by 
Timewave Part Two 3 days, 23 hours ago.
-
Posts
-
JawscvmcdiaAlso, how would the show have differed depending on which ITV company had produced the first few series (i.e. how would the Tyne Tees’ version have compared to it being produced by say Thames/Carlton)?
Discuss.
Timewave Part TwoInstead of the BBC logo we’d see the ITV logo
bloodtellerwell the episodes would be shorter because ITV has ad breaks, doesn’t it?
International DebrisObviously there’d be lots of Benny Hill style chase sequences. Kochanski would be a regular and played by a busty blonde in a short skirt.
clemJohn would have written End of Part One articles for every series.
Flap JackThe pink policeman in Timewave would have been played by Al Murray instead of Johnny Vegas.
flanl3He’d have done a better job, too.
Taiwan TonyThe only Paul Jackson produced sitcom for ITV that I can think of is Holding the Baby with Nick Hancock.
So. Judging by that, it would have been shit.
Ben PaddonI suspect it wouldn’t still be on the air. ITV sitcoms aren’t known for their long shelf lives.
Taiwan Tony>I suspect it wouldn’t still be on the air. ITV sitcoms aren’t known for their long shelf lives.
About the same as BBC, I’d say. Some have longevity; some don’t.
What they definitely aren’t known for, though, is their quality.
Pete Part ThreeWe’d be currently commenting on a Jawscvmcdia thread in a parallel universe called “What if the BBC had produced Red Dwarf instead of ITV?’
DaveThe BBC is no longer interested in the audience ITV used to attract.
Flap Jack– Can’t Smeg, Won’t Smeg, Red Dwarf Night, Remastered, and VHS cross-promotions with Doctor Who would never have happened.
– Craig Charles would have presented Gladiators instead of Robot Wars, and he would have had a regular role in EastEnders rather than Coronation Street.
– Danny John-Jules wouldn’t have been in The Story Makers and M.I. High, he would have been in… I don’t know, My Parents Are Aliens or something.
– They wouldn’t have been able to fudge the filming schedule to redo The End, meaning The Original Assembly would now be the canon (and only) version of that episode.
Also Red Dwarf would have been cancelled after the first series, because The End: The Original Assembly is Not Very Good.
flanl3The End is not very good, either. It does its job, but it’s pretty weak. From experience, people barely give half a passing shit if you only show them The End.
Piplup2003>From experience, people barely give half a passing shit if you only show them The End.
I’ve had this experience too. Luckily, I broke from showing it to friends in chronological order and showed them Quarantine and Cured.
Also, we probably wouldn’t have as good DVD extras with ITV.
DaveKochanski would use the AR machine to visit Downton Abbey world instead of Jane Austen world.
Ian SymesG&T Admin The only Paul Jackson produced sitcom for ITV that I can think of is Holding the Baby with Nick Hancock.
There’s also Girls On Top and Benidorm.
Taiwan TonyI haven’t watched much of Benidorm. I felt like I saw enough, and could be wrong about it, but I didn’t like it.
But Girls On Top – I’m very fond of that. If only for Dawn and Jennifer.
Hamish> But Girls On Top – I’m very fond of that.
More than we needed to know.
Timewave Part Two>From experience, people barely give half a passing shit if you only show them The End.
I’ve been wondering about this too, I got my mom to watch the entire show chronologically which is how I got into the show too.
But I’ve been meaning to get my friends into it tho I know for damn sure their attention spans are smaller than last census taken for Antarctica; so I’ll probably use an episode like Demons & Angels or Psirens to get their attention whenever I get around to it.
Ben PaddonOne of my roommates wanted to watch Red Dwarf. He’s heard people singing its praises but knew nothing about the show. So, naturally, we started with “The End”. He was genuinely shocked by the crew being wiped out, and immediately wanted to watch the next episode.
“The End” can be an effective episode. It’s compelling, it establishes characters, it has some solid gags. It’s only a weak episode if you know what happens, which of course we all do.
bloodtellerThe End is brilliant if you don’t know everyone’s going to die
Taiwan TonyThe End is brilliant.
DaveYeah, The End is great. Even if you know where it’s going (how many of us watched it as our first episode? Not that many, I bet) it works really well. I loved it when I first saw it. In fact I think the fact that you got a glimpse of the ship pre-accident was part of the appeal.
International DebrisYeah, my girlfriend really liked The End when I introduced her to the show chronologically.
Flap JackTrue story: I only watched Red Dwarf for the first time because my best friend showed me the videos. He had been introduced to it by his parents (we were teens/pre-teens at the time).
We only watched Series 1-2, but we watched them chronologically, starting with The End. As you can see, it put me off completely and I never watched Red Dwarf ever again!
I remember when I first heard the name of the show, I assumed it was an epic fantasy series.
Timewave Part TwoI started with The End, I was so disgusted after first-viewing my fist flew through the television screen. After two months of wearing a cast later, I tried it again and it was ok.
Ben SaundersMy earliest memory of Dwarf is watching an episode with a Holly monologue at the start before school, leading me tok believe it was Waiting for God due to how the VHS bytes and our off-air recordings are structured. I’m still here.
DaveI started with the Inquisitor, and was about to call my lawyer when something happened that made me laugh.
bloodtelleri started with Demons And Angels, because i was watching a load of old VHS tapes i had found. didn’t really understand much of it as i was only about 7 at the time and they don’t really re-introduce the characters every episode. after seeing it i often wondered why the man called “rimmaire” had a H on his head and why he inexplicably didn’t need oxygen.
bloodtellermy next experience with Red Dwarf was the IWCD novel which i found a couple years later in the bottom of a cupboard. found the novel to be excellent and i read it all on a long car journey but i must have got a bit too wrapped up in it because by the time the journey was over i felt a bit carsick
DaveThe Inquisitor and Dimension Jump were the two first episodes I saw, I think, and they both open in ways that make it quite hard to get a handle on the show and the characters if you’re not already familiar with them.
But I obviously liked it enough to continue…
Timewave Part TwoOpening with Dimension Jump would be quite odd I imagine, if it were me I’d probably think Ace Rimmer was the main character
Pete Part ThreeI started with Future Echoes, so I’d like to think that I’d have enjoyed The End instantly too (but I didn’t see it until a few weeks later).
I’d definitely heard of the show before I watched it, as there were a couple of people in my form at school who were obsessed with it. They also spoiled Out of Time for me when I was still watching Series 1. I don’t recall being upset by spoilers, and recall visualize how that episode would work with the imagery of the first series. (The idea of Rimmer saving the day with a big gun was pretty baffling).
WarbodogI caught a couple of scenes on one of the epic post-VI repeat runs (curry monster and his head bursting), but no proper episodes until the final stretch with Legion to Out of Time, then I saw only those five episodes repeated again a while later, so that was specifically what Red Dwarf was for a while until VII and videos expanded it.
I didn’t know if the Red Dwarf of the title had ever been in it (presumably in episode 1), but hoped they’d eventually get there and not be cancelled abruptly like The Pirates of Dark Water when they never collected all the treasures and just left us hanging.
International DebrisI caught the second half of Terrorform first – specifically from the bit where Rimmer was being oiled – and remember catching Back to Reality a couple of weeks later. Saw all of VI on first broadcast and then taped a repeat run some time after (with Dimension Jump replacing Rimmerworld, the latter of which I’d only ever seen once when the DVD came out, so it was practically a new episode for me at the time, which was really exciting). My mum’s friend lent me some I and II videos which sat very vaguely in my head until the remastered versions came out a few years later. Taped VII and VIII when they were first broadcast, IV during a repeat run and a friend taped V for me a few years later.
After watching them on repeat for a few years, I became really obsessed with the actual ship itself, and wanted to see the original model – the only footage I had consisted of the few distant shots in Dimension Jump, and the last couple of seconds of Nanarchy.
KatydidI was watching Pete Part 2, and I was about to phone my lawyer when something didn’t make me laugh. Then about 20 minutes later a single funny thing happened. I’ve been hooked on Pete Part 2 ever since.
Timewave Part Two“I was watching Pete Part 2, and I was about to phone my lawyer when something didn’t make me laugh. Then about 20 minutes later a single funny thing happened. I’ve been hooked on Pete Part 2 ever since.” – Steven Spielberg, 1999
tombowthe boys would be stranded in Benidorm and have to beat Jonny Vegas in a pub quiz.
Shoes Have SolesI geninuely can’t name a decent ITV sitcom that I have ever watch. I suppose Hardwire was ok- and it lasted 1 series. ITV had men behaving badly and then gave it to the beeb and it then became one of teh biggest british sitcoms of the 90s. RD would have been shown in a graveyard time and ditched after 1 series.
If Channel 4 had produced it on the other hand would be a different story……
Shoes Have SolesI geninuely can’t name a decent ITV sitcom that I have ever watched. I suppose Hardwire was ok- and it lasted 1 series. ITV had men behaving badly and then gave it to the beeb and it then became one of teh biggest british sitcoms of the 90s. RD would have been shown in a graveyard time and ditched after 1 series.
If Channel 4 had produced it on the other hand would be a different story……
Ben SaundersWhat if Red Dwarf was on Sky One sponsored by Dominoes Pizza?
Taiwan TonyI thought Hardware had two series.
Is It Legal by the same writer was class.
The New Statesman was mostly good.
flanl3What if Virgin Media had produced Red Dwarf?
Lily>I genuinely can’t name a decent ITV sitcom that I have ever watched.
Don’t know what you’re talking about!
https://www.britishclassiccomedy.co.uk/another-rare-gem-from-itv
tombowI always thought Rising Damp was ITV’s only really classic comedy. That and one of those racism sitcoms (the one that is similar to Alf Garnett but not as good)
Timewave Part TwoI genuinely can’t name a decent ITV sitcom that I have ever watched.
You didn’t like Mr. Bean?
tombowI remember at one point in the early 90s my Dad started complaining that Mr Bean had gotton too nasty. We’d been huge fans but he felt Bean was becoming more cruel and selfish in his antics.
WarbodogWas he confused about why Mr Bean was now wearing historical fancy dress as well?
Ben SaundersThat movie where Mr Bean had a gun and went on some spy mission was really weird
DaveMr Bean isn’t a sitcom.
Pete Part ThreeSo what is it?
DaveISWYDT.
But it’s a sketch show really, isn’t it. An adaptation of a lot of the physical/silent comedy stuff Atkinson was already doing in his one-man shows, just doing it all with the same character.
There aren’t really plots, storylines, a regular supporting cast, or even a ‘situation’ of the kind that I’d expect from a sitcom.
Timewave Part TwoThat movie where Mr Bean had a gun and went on some spy mission was really weird
I thought for a sec you were referring to that scene in Bean where he pretended to have a gun at an airport, but then I realized you were talking about Johnny English and I hit myself over the head.
Mr Bean isn’t a sitcom.
Checkmate, atheist
DaveDefeated by the infallible source that is…
*squints*
…Wikipedia?
Ben SaundersWikipedia is actually a lot more credible than people give it credit for, due to the fact that almost every statement has to be backed up by at least one source. Universities will tell you to go get a book out of the library instead, but what’s to say the writer of the book wasn’t misinformed, making it up, got his information from a bad source or the information isn’t outdated? Wikipedia is kept fairly up to date and has a team of people working to ensure accuracy.
That said, any statement on Wikipedia not backed up by a source is questionable, but so is any and every other source you come across ever, or at least it should be.
“Mr. Bean is a sitcom” isn’t sourced, however, fwiw. Sick embed, though.
DaveThe truth is that there isn’t a universal objective definition for ‘sitcom’ so if you think Mr Bean is one then you can definitely make the argument.
It doesn’t feel like one to me, though. It feels more like a series of one-off sketch shows based around the same character.
Ben SaundersI would say it’s a sketch show as well, it’s definitely not a traditional sitcom
Flap JackIf you don’t count Mr. Bean as a sitcom, then I have no idea what definition of “sitcom” you’re using.
It’s not a sketch show for sure, because the defining feature of a sketch show is that its episodes are comprised of many short segments which are mostly unrelated to each other and feature different characters and settings. Every episode of Mr. Bean is, from beginning to end, about the same guy, bumbling his way through his everyday life, to humourous effect. It’s a sitcom.
There aren’t even really any other sub-genres of TV comedy you could fit it into. Who here dares to make the argument that Mr. Bean is really a mockumentary? A comedy drama? Panel game? Stand up? Political satire?
On another note, reading that Wikipedia article taught me that Mr. Bean was first broadcast over 6 years, but only had 15 episodes – and one of those was a Best Of compilation.
So, was Mr. Bean the ’90s equivalent of a prestige drama, or did they film it in stop-motion?
Ian SymesG&T Admin I’d lump Mr Bean in with The League of Gentlemen as being the perfect hybrid of sketch show and sitcom. Best of both worlds, if you get it right, as both shows largely did.
DaveIt was made and shown as single episodes rather than series, in a non-regular timeslot.
Just like all the other sitcoms on TV.
But that didn’t matter because there weren’t really any through-lines that you had to follow, no ongoing storylines or even recurring situations, and virtually no regular supporting cast. In fact, even within each episode there often wasn’t any kind of story linking the different segments.
Just like all those other sitcoms that do that.
DaveLeague of Gentlemen is a great comparison. I’d call that a sketch show too.
But like I said about Mr Bean earlier, I can see how you’d make the sitcom argument.
Pete Part Three>no ongoing storylines or even recurring situations
I dunno, I was waiting to see whether Bean would get lucky with Irma.
Ian SymesG&T Admin And whether he’d end up killing the Reliant Robin driver.
Flap JackThe League of Gentlemen is a unique prospect for sure. I’d say Mr. Bean is less ambiguously a sitcom in how it focuses on just one character.
It seems odd to bring up Mr. Bean’s sporadic broadcast schedule as an argument against it being a sitcom. I’m pretty sure expectations about series orders apply to most of television – including sketch shows – not just sitcoms!
But, eh. Genre definitions are vague and subjective anyway. Mr. Bean certainly has some very sketchy (so to speak) elements. I just saw that it easily fit the common definition of a sitcom and didn’t fit the common definition of a sketch show.
DaveI’m pretty sure expectations about series orders apply to most of television – including sketch shows – not just sitcoms!
Nah, one-offs are a lot more common in other genres. Dramas are an obvious one (not that I’m arguing Bean is a drama).
I think the sporadic scheduling is definitely part of what made Bean feel like something other than a standard sitcom. Although obviously people watching it today won’t be affected by that.
Taiwan TonyFrank Skinner’s Shane.
Frank Skinner’s Shame.
Pete Part Three>I think the sporadic scheduling is definitely part of what made Bean feel like something other than a standard sitcom.
Not sure the scheduling is a defining factor on how you define genre. Only Fools and Horses after Series 7 was sporadic and irregular, for example.
Plastic PercyI remember as part of my degree we studied comedy, and we actually had it put to us by a lecturer if the character of Mr. Bean was a comedy character or if he was a clown in the traditional sense of Commedia Dell’Arte.
DaveI don’t think of any of these elements as ‘defining factors’. It’s a combination of things that make Bean not feel like a sitcom to me.
He’s definitely more of a clown character. I think in sitcoms a lot of the humour comes from the characters’ personalities, whereas Bean doesn’t really have one beyond being naive and lacking empathy, and any attempts to develop him beyond that fairly blank slate tend to fall flat.
International DebrisI never really thought of Mr. Bean as a sitcom. It certainly doesn’t feel like one. It’s just a comedy.
Someone I used to live with had a very strict definition of sitcom, and classed a lot of stuff – Spaced, Peep Show and others – as not being sitcom, because they don’t reset at the end of each episode, but instead having a plot arc more akin to a drama. I should probably have asked her what that made ‘Allo ‘Allo.
Toxteth O-GradyMaybe not *TV* per se, but Mr Bean is very much in the same vein as the film comedy shorts of Chaplin, Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, Three Stooges, etc.
You wouldn’t call Laurel & Hardy’s short films a “sitcom” (but then they weren’t made for television), they’re defined as ‘short films’. Mr Bean is the same thing, just made specifically for television and not cinema (excluding the two movies, of course).
I’d therefore class Mr Bean as “a series of comedy shorts made for television”. Not a catchy term, I’ll admit, but much more accurate than calling it a sitcom.
Toxteth O-Grady*Sigh*
For clarity, I was trying to quote Flap Jack’s comment “There aren’t even really any other sub-genres of TV comedy you could fit it into”.
Flap JackHTML, you smeghead!
I genuinely think that if one of those Laurel and Hardy films had been a TV series instead, it would be regarded as a sitcom. “Sitcom” is an incredibly broad church. That’s all I’m saying really.
bloodtellerThis reminds me of those people who call stage plays “films”. They’re not films
Pete Part Three>“Sitcom” is an incredibly broad church.
Broadchurch isn’t a sitcom.
DaveIt is because there are funny bits.
Ben Saunders>This reminds me of those people who call stage plays “films”.
Who the fuck
Flap JackBroadchurch isn’t a sitcom.
Not really relevant to the discussion, but nonetheless a fun fact to know. Use it to break the ice at parties!
bloodteller>Who the fuck
I’ve heard people say that because sometimes on stage plays they have the cameras on and record the stage play, which you can later buy on DVD, that means they have been filmed and therefore makes them films. They also called individual episodes of televison shows “films”. Utterly bizarre logic
flanl3It’s like people calling any good film “pornography”.
Flap JackIf you ever meet one of these “anything that’s filmed is a film” wankers out in the wild, just say “would you like a bag of crisps?”, and then hand them a bag of burnt paper.
flanl3Ah, yes, the bags of burnt paper I regularly keep on my person.
Flap JackLook, flanl3, if you’re not willing to wear a utility belt full of various sarcastic props at all times, then you’re not truly committed to the cause of pedantry.
Plastic PercyI knew some prick who said she would never say she’s “been to London” as she’s not been to every part of it. I’d said in a conversation that I’d been “all over the UK” and she was trying to pick that apart for some reason by trying to find a place I’d not been to in the UK (which was never my point). I said “well hang on, you’ve never been to Brixton but you’d still say you’ve been to London”. And she came back with saying “I would never say I’ve been to London, I would say I’ve been to parts of/a part of London”.
A complete thief of oxygen.
International DebrisYou can boil that right down, too. “You can’t say you’ve been to Leeds if you haven’t been to the whole city. Have you been to Headingley?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Headingley unless you’ve visited every street. Have you been to Canterbury Road?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Canterbury Road unless you’ve visited every house. Have you visited number 17?”
etc.
HamishWell, have you?
quinn_drummer<block quote> You can boil that right down, too. “You can’t say you’ve been to Leeds if you haven’t been to the whole city. Have you been to Headingley?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Headingley unless you’ve visited every street. Have you been to Canterbury Road?”
“You can’t say you’ve been to Canterbury Road unless you’ve visited every house. Have you visited number 17?”
etc. </block quote>So really the only person to have been to London then would be Charles Booth. And that was 130 years ago.
quinn_drummerCan we all just pretend I did that quote properly and move on please
Timewave Part TwoNo
Jump to top / Jump to 'Recent Replies'
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.