|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2017 9:07:51 GMT
I gave this two attempts. First at the start, but the premise of a polytechnic group 'taking over' at a BBC studio was a terrible set up for this, spoiling it for me.. Part of what makes 'The Play that Goes Wrong' so good is that it draws on that dodgy amateur production we've all seen where the sets wobble, doors don't stay shut and noone knows their lines. That situation is the perfect setup for the rest of the gag + humour to fall into place, but the premise of the Studio Takeover was laughable - in the unintended way. The first of the gags, the missing clock and the coffin base collapsing were predictable and ruined by the accompanying laugh track. It was at this point I gave up. I watched some Vic & Bob instead and had a much more enjoyable slapstick experience. After 30 minutes I came back to witness one of the ghosts tripping over a kerb and knocking its head. Again the unfitting laugh track made the programme unwatchable.
Peter Pan Goes Wrong shows that this format can work on television however this particular production was a complete and utter fail.
|
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on Dec 31, 2017 10:48:39 GMT
It was OK - but only OK. I love these actors and I laughed a few times, but a lot of the humour fell flat, or was too predictable. Agree that the format this time did not translate well to TV, the performance has to be framed as a theatre show for it to work. And there simply isn’t the immediacy of theatre, where at live Mischief productions I have been laughing uncontrollably, at the gags and the situation, at the same time marvelling at the cleverness of it all. One thing that irritated me, when they were all at the party, why was “Chris” out of character? Nice to see Henry looking so gorgeous, but he wasn’t his usual moustachioed, Basil Fawlty type character.
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Dec 31, 2017 13:58:59 GMT
It was filmed in front of a live studio audience!
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Dec 31, 2017 14:00:07 GMT
Noises Off is still the bench mark for this idea, basically because it is so well constructed; showing how it should be done in the first act, and letting us know the characters and what they have at stake. The second act shows the conflict between on stage and off stage brilliantly, especially as we, the audience, know what should be happening, and act three, whilst being a little redundant, turns the screw even more.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 31, 2017 16:02:06 GMT
It was filmed in front of a live studio audience! You mean that wasn't a laughter track?! I was disappointed and gave up on this, can believe live it would have been funnier and I would have enjoyed more though as somewhat a challenge to get to laugh out loud I may not have been their ideal audience.
|
|
4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 31, 2017 16:14:11 GMT
You're not supposed to spend half an hour after a Goes Wrong show weeping, are you? I just did. I am clearly way to emotionally over-invested in the Cornley characters. {Spoiler - click to view} As soon as it looked like Sandra was going to dump Max I was far too worried about that to be amused by everything else that was going on & I was so relieved when it worked out alright in the end that I started crying & couldn't stop. I think I was also so worked up with the anticipation of the first new Goes Wrong show for 4 years. So really I need to watch it again & be able to concentrate properly but for now some random thoughts: - The BBC really needed to give them longer than 50 minutes. Some of it felt so rushed with cuts every few seconds. There was no time to take things in before it went on to the next thing. I felt like it needed Oscar's pause & rewind buttons (Mischief Movie Night reference, for those that haven't seen it). - I agree with the comments about the lack of jeopardy on TV compared to on stage, especially as at times you could tell that things were being faked for the camera rather than done for real. {Spoiler - click to view} I mean, no-one is going to really drive a car into an actor the age of Derek Jacobi. Whereas on stage you know that they really are taking risks, and they have the injuries to prove it. - In terms of the Going Wrong stuff, my favourite elements were {Spoiler - click to view} Dennis's lines being written all over the place, especially the 1-word-per-grape bit; Nancy Zamit accidentally holding up Matt Cavendish's checkout attendant; the inevitability that once there was a hole in the floorboards someone would fall through it sometime; and Trevor dropping pizza on the model set & always accidentally geting on camera. - Somewhere in the midst of all the Goes Wrong stuff there was some really rather moving acting from Henry Shields, Charlie Russell & Dave Hearn. If only there had been a bit more time for it to register. - Having spent yesterday afternoon between MMN shows speed-reading A Christmas Carol in Foyle's, they did manage to get in a fair amount of Dickens at the start. Obviously not later on when they were charging round what was presumably Salford. - I agree with the previous comments about the laughter. I know it was a studio audience & not canned but it places it felt annoying, especially as, given the premise was that they'd hijacked a BBC drama filming, there was no logical in-story reason for there to be a studio audience there & if there was one they should have been horrified at the serious drama being wrecked, not laughing along. Maybe my expectations were just impossibly high but basically I want them to re-write it as a 2-acter & put it on stage & then I'd be happier!
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 31, 2017 16:29:16 GMT
I've recorded this to watch later - I rather liked 'Peter Pan' on TV last year, but I do wish they'd drop the 'provincial polytechnic' thing. It comes across as so bloody snooty, especially in an era where theatre is looking increasingly like a public school, London upper-middle-class medium.
|
|
639 posts
|
Post by ncbears on Jan 1, 2018 3:56:15 GMT
Thanks to Nick who posted this so we Yankees across the pond could view. It was not the height of mischief but we laughed quite a bit. I found the emphasis on the Cornley actors even a bit touching.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Jan 1, 2018 9:39:43 GMT
It made me smile a lot and laugh a few times, so a success for me !
|
|
341 posts
|
Post by adrianics on Jan 1, 2018 12:45:37 GMT
I sadly have to concur with the majority here; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is one of the most underrated philosophies in this world and I don't quite know what the normally excellent Mischief team were thinking of when they created this concept. It could be that with infinite productions of Play in addition to Bank Robbery and Movie Night they were overstretched?
It started so well; just a normal production of Christmas Carol with bits of set falling apart and actors getting stuck to glue? That's what we came for! That's what's been successful so far! So simple yet so brilliant, don't fix what's not broken!
Sadly once they started the green screen effects they lost me and I only watched it for completion's sake.
|
|
4,995 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jan 1, 2018 20:30:24 GMT
Just terrible. Old jokes used in their other shows. Most of the gags are stock jokes and not character based on the narrative.
|
|
4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 1, 2018 21:41:48 GMT
It started so well; just a normal production of Christmas Carol with bits of set falling apart and actors getting stuck to glue? That's what we came for! That's what's been successful so far! So simple yet so brilliant, don't fix what's not broken! Having watched it a second time today, I do rather agree with this. I found that the scenes that worked best were the ones which could be done on stage, i.e. where the action stayed in 1 location for several minutes & things just Went Wrong. Some of scenes that couldn't be easily translated to stage, especially when they started trapsing round Salford, didn't work so well for me (though the cameos in that section for Matt Cavendish & Bryony Corrigan were nice). On the second viewing I did appreciate more the scene where Scrooge's & Chris's repentance is done simultaneously. I thought Henry Shields acted that very well & was quite moving.
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jan 2, 2018 11:53:10 GMT
Having seen it during the studio recording and then the TV broadcast I can offer a different perspective on things.
In the studio, I was one of those who were laughing a lot at the show - especially on second takes (which is why there was a lot of anticipatory laughs, as often bits were done a second time around - which is the norm with studio comedy). At the time i wondered if the format was going to stifle it, and i feel it probably did.
Watching on TV initially I found it rather flat. I think the immediacy of it didn't come across. I then watched it a second time and found it much funnier (possibly as I wasn't looking for the joins!).
I can also confirm there were a lot of bits cut - there was a lot of Diana Rigg commentary (with Sandra holding up her phone in all kinds of places) which had been lost, and there was also a "it's in the small box on the kitchen table" type line from Sandra asking Diana to (we later find out) bring the ring. Plus some footage of Anne/Dennis running around writing words everywhere and all kinds of other bits.
As I also remarked at the time, having some of the emphasis on the characters rather than the plot may have caused issues for the "casual" viewer - but it is tricky for me to put myself into the shoes of someone who hasn't followed these characters for several years.
I would say they can make the TV format work - they'll reflect on this and learn a lot from it. Just like it took Play a couple of attempts to ground itself and grow, it'll take them a couple of "goes" at TV to make it fully work. Hopefully they do get the TV series they are clamoring for (the fact I learnt about this from the Radio Times in an interview with them suggests it probably is firmly in the pipeline) - as it will allow them the time to get this format right.
As Noises Off shows, it is extremely hard to make farce work when recorded. Noises Off on stage is brilliant, but the film felt incredibly flat - precisely due to the "lack of risk".
The one thing which wasn't ever seen on screen however I enjoyed in the studio was one of the shops being named as "Perkins'" (also a kid in the audience asked during a break if Winston was found and why he wasn't in this show.. the fact this didn't get a reaction suggested most of the studio audience were fairly new to Mischief)
|
|
4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 2, 2018 16:33:35 GMT
I can also confirm there were a lot of bits cut - there was a lot of Diana Rigg commentary (with Sandra holding up her phone in all kinds of places) which had been lost, and there was also a "it's in the small box on the kitchen table" type line from Sandra asking Diana to (we later find out) bring the ring. Plus some footage of Anne/Dennis running around writing words everywhere and all kinds of other bits. I had a feeling that would be the case. It explains why Diana Rigg's part seemed so perfunctory. I found myself wondering why they'd bothered to get in such a big-name actress & then give her almost nothing to do. How much of the filming was done in front of an audience? I'm assuming it would have been the more "Dickens" scenes & not things like the greenscreen or running round Salford scenes. Hopefully they do get the TV series they are clamoring for (the fact I learnt about this from the Radio Times in an interview with them suggests it probably is firmly in the pipeline) - as it will allow them the time to get this format right. Do you remember what exactly the RT said about it? I don't recall reading that particuar interview. I'm torn between loving the idea of a TV series in theory & being slightly worried about how it may come off in practice. (And, selfishly, I like seeing them onstage & a TV series would put the stopper on that for some times.)
|
|
655 posts
|
Post by ptwest on Jan 2, 2018 17:47:03 GMT
Have just watched it and have laughed a lot - especially at the sequence involving the ghost of Christmas yet to come. It was never going to be as funny as being on stage, but for the most part it was easy to imagine it as a stage production. I think it helped being familiar with mischief theatre’s work and how the characters interact.
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jan 2, 2018 22:35:15 GMT
I can also confirm there were a lot of bits cut - there was a lot of Diana Rigg commentary (with Sandra holding up her phone in all kinds of places) which had been lost, and there was also a "it's in the small box on the kitchen table" type line from Sandra asking Diana to (we later find out) bring the ring. Plus some footage of Anne/Dennis running around writing words everywhere and all kinds of other bits. I had a feeling that would be the case. It explains why Diana Rigg's part seemed so perfunctory. I found myself wondering why they'd bothered to get in such a big-name actress & then give her almost nothing to do. How much of the filming was done in front of an audience? I'm assuming it would have been the more "Dickens" scenes & not things like the greenscreen or running round Salford scenes. Hopefully they do get the TV series they are clamoring for (the fact I learnt about this from the Radio Times in an interview with them suggests it probably is firmly in the pipeline) - as it will allow them the time to get this format right. Do you remember what exactly the RT said about it? I don't recall reading that particuar interview. I'm torn between loving the idea of a TV series in theory & being slightly worried about how it may come off in practice. (And, selfishly, I like seeing them onstage & a TV series would put the stopper on that for some times.) www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-12-30/the-christmas-carol-goes-wrong-creators-want-a-proper-tv-series/There's the article I meant Approximately 30 minutes was VT and 25 minutes was recorded in front of the studio audience (then edited). All the stuff in Scrooge's office, the Cratchett's, and most of the street stuff was filmed infront of us. The graveyard was positioned where the audience seating stand stood. There were two large sections of VT, each lasting 10/15 minutes (you can probably figure these bits out relatively easily!). The model street wasn't shown to us, the graphics for the title hadn't been done, and we also lost a bit of the "real BBC" footage in the edit (there was no Trevor continuity announcement for example). And yes, it was Salford which they ran out of. Interesting, when they came back in and spoke to Bryony's receptionist, that was the wrong building entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 8:45:08 GMT
Just terrible. Old jokes used in their other shows. Most of the gags are stock jokes and not character based on the narrative. The success they had with The Play that goes Wrong was well deserved but they have become lazy writers living off one hit and one half decent play.
As I said elsewhere, totally bored with them now.
|
|
838 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 3, 2018 12:59:10 GMT
@wrighty, I don't think it's fair.. they are doing the whole new thing at the moment which is their improvisation show (i know they've done it before bit only as one-off thing) where they cannot rely on anything but their quick wit, comic skills and trust in one another. Bank Robbery was also a move from the usual Goes Wrong shows. I agree though that on telly it comes out not as funny as in live theatre (for whatever reason) but the characters of Cornley Politech they keep seems not a lazy writing to me bit the continuing insider jokes which is a gem for long-time followers and what helps to keep the 'play withon a play' humour concept intact.
|
|
339 posts
|
Post by stuart on Jan 3, 2018 18:51:47 GMT
I think you’ve also got to remember that this was rumoured to be a last minute commission to replace the canned Ed Westwick drama. Hence why it was recorded so close to transmission. Perhaps they didn’t have a lot of time to create the set pieces we saw in Peter Pan.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 3, 2018 19:58:51 GMT
My housemate loved it - and was laughing throughout. I was less impressed. It raised a few smiles but not as much as I had expected. There were a few nice touches - but it wasn't as strong as Peter Pan. I suspect that was because it had not been developed from something that had already worked on stage.
As regards a replacement for the cancelled/postponed Christie - that isn't the case. That was a 2/3 parter - and I think it was either Little Women or The Miniaturist that was brought forward from a previously planned Spring 2018 slot as a late replacement.
|
|
4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 3, 2018 20:16:14 GMT
Thanks. I missed that last week. Approximately 30 minutes was VT and 25 minutes was recorded in front of the studio audience (then edited). All the stuff in Scrooge's office, the Cratchett's, and most of the street stuff was filmed infront of us. The graveyard was positioned where the audience seating stand stood. There were two large sections of VT, each lasting 10/15 minutes (you can probably figure these bits out relatively easily!). Thanks for the confirmation. That was pretty much what I was expecting. I think you’ve also got to remember that this was rumoured to be a last minute commission to replace the canned Ed Westwick drama. Hence why it was recorded so close to transmission. Perhaps they didn’t have a lot of time to create the set pieces we saw in Peter Pan. It couldn't have been that last minute because they were tweeting about a mystery new project back in August/September when they were still in New York which must have been referring to ACCGW because there was a picture of a script & obviously MMN doesn't have one. I agree though that on telly it comes out not as funny as in live theatre (for whatever reason) but the characters of Cornley Politech they keep seems not a lazy writing to me bit the continuing insider jokes which is a gem for long-time followers and what helps to keep the 'play withon a play' humour concept intact. Yes, for me it was finding out what was happening to the Cornley Poly characters that was what I was most excited & nervous about in ACCGW, as it was a 4 year wait. If they do do a series I really hope it's character-driven rather than just everything Going Wrong. It was interesting that, as I think someone's already mentioned somewhere up thread, the Cornley characters seen as themselves in the birthday party videos seem to be rather more "normal" and less exaggerated than their stage counterparts. I wonder if this is deliberate in preparation for a possible series?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2018 20:53:18 GMT
I have a crush on Chris Leask. There, I said it!
|
|