Author Topic: Ghosts (BBC1)  (Read 6170 times)

Captain Z

  • Oh yeah my cholesterol's going down
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #60 on: April 28, 2019, 11:10:23 AM »
And the MP pushed Charlotte Ritchie (Alison) out of the window, as he's the only one who can touch things.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #61 on: April 28, 2019, 03:02:59 PM »
Watched the first couple of episodes and IMO it's both over and under written.

My main criticism is that after 2 episodes I can't actually name any of the characters. And, apart from Charlotte Ritchie and her partner, they all exist as broad caricatures usually defined by their deaths.

I'd agree they're caricatures (helpful scoutmaster, impractical romantic poet, smarmy MP, self-important military man etc), but not that they're defined by their deaths (with a few obvious exceptions like "headless man" and "plague girl"). I don't think we even know how Robin (caveman), Kitty or the Captain died, and we've just seen the wound for Thomas and the arrow for Pat, without it being of any real significance. Even for the others, where their death has been part of the plot, it's not really been part of their caricature.

I also agree that (so far) a family show timeslot would seem more appropriate. The first two episodes were fun, but I'm not sure where it's going to go now.

Incidentally, the house used in the show belongs (or possibly belonged) to Bamber Gascoigne (who, like Alison in the show, inherited it unexpectedly from a distant relative who died aged 99).

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #62 on: April 28, 2019, 03:26:07 PM »
And the MP pushed Charlotte Ritchie (Alison) out of the window, as he's the only one who can touch things.

I think she fell, but he wanted them to think he did it to make his powers seem greater.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #63 on: April 28, 2019, 04:42:24 PM »
They've clearly had fun coming up with funny lines and their heart is in the right place. But this is really thin stuff that belongs on a Sunday afternoon instead of post watershed Monday evenings.

kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #64 on: April 28, 2019, 06:04:54 PM »
They've clearly had fun coming up with funny lines and their heart is in the right place. But this is really thin stuff that belongs on a Sunday afternoon instead of post watershed Monday evenings.
Yes, we need more swearing!

Or tits?

Maybe make it like Warren?

What defines a post watershed show? (Other than time of transmission?)

j_u_d_a_s

  • Enjoy the weekend, you'll be dead on Monday!
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #65 on: April 29, 2019, 12:01:09 AM »
Yes, we need more swearing!

Or tits?

Maybe make it like Warren?

What defines a post watershed show? (Other than time of transmission?)

Definitely one that isn't a bunch of half baked whimsy.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #66 on: April 29, 2019, 11:55:23 AM »
Mat Baynton has said they initially wanted to do a post-watershed show.

BBC said actually, can you do a pre-watershed one.

So that's what they wrote.

Then at some point in the filming/editing, BBC said the spookier aspects were too strong for family teatime so it reverted back to post-watershed slot with barely any changes to script.

Hence language unlikely to get stronger than an isolated prick and such and smut confined mainly on the MP's sex shame and the aforementioned threesome.

In summary then: it's ended up falling between various stools while still being perfectly fine for most robust kids who've watched/read Doctor Who, Harry Potter etc.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #67 on: April 29, 2019, 12:27:07 PM »
BBC said the spookier aspects were too strong for family teatime

The fuck? We used to watch stuff like Children of the Stones at teatime when I was a kid. Are they calling this spookier than that?

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #68 on: April 29, 2019, 12:32:35 PM »
In the iPlayer age, pre/post watershed doesn't really make any difference, does it?

Malcy

  • This is a Post Office isn't it?
    • Twitter
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #69 on: April 29, 2019, 01:05:32 PM »
If Paul Chuckle can get away with tickling a leprechaun's balls pre-watershed then anything's possible.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #70 on: April 29, 2019, 02:05:42 PM »
The fuck? We used to watch stuff like Children of the Stones at teatime when I was a kid. Are they calling this spookier than that?

Children of the Stones scared the bejaysus out of me for one but then again I was at a very impressionable age.

As far as Ghosts goes it does strike me as something of a grown up Rentaghost and, so far at least, is decidedly watchable.

What I fail to understand though is why the Horrible History team feel the need to branch into adult comedy. They were/are doing a first rate job for Children's TV. So it got me thinking about how many performers have made a successful transition from Kids stuff to the grown up world as opposed to tried same and failed. For the former I can think of Ant n Dec, whilst the latter brings to mind Timmy Mallet.       

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #71 on: April 29, 2019, 04:53:52 PM »
their comedy heroes are Monty Python and Blackadder (and League of Gentlemen) so perhaps initially thought they might strive to achieve something fit to tuck at their coat-tails in a 'mainstream BBC1 but for grown ups' show?

Norton Canes

  • The leper heart will see you for what you are
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #72 on: April 29, 2019, 05:02:07 PM »
What I fail to understand though is why the Horrible History team feel the need to branch into adult comedy

So they can broaden the scope of their subject matter, I guess, and also be a little more risque. Perhaps their show gets a bigger budget this way too.

kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #73 on: April 29, 2019, 06:53:44 PM »
What I fail to understand though is why the Horrible History team feel the need to branch into adult comedy. They were/are doing a first rate job for Children's TV. So it got me thinking about how many performers have made a successful transition from Kids stuff to the grown up world as opposed to tried same and failed. For the former I can think of Ant n Dec, whilst the latter brings to mind Timmy Mallet.       
Do Not Adjust Your Set was a precursor to Python.

Crabwalk

  • Member
  • **
  • I behaved like a skinhead.
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #74 on: April 29, 2019, 07:00:27 PM »
They’ve all written and performed comedy aimed at adults anyway, so I’ve no idea why this should be an issue.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #75 on: April 29, 2019, 10:14:27 PM »
"That's a lot of creators," my housemate commented, on seeing the "Created by" credits in tonight's episode.

"It shows," I replied.

Norton Canes

  • The leper heart will see you for what you are
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #76 on: April 29, 2019, 11:07:55 PM »
How so?

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #77 on: April 30, 2019, 10:59:56 AM »
How so?

Quite unfocused; too many characters competing for screen time; too many storylines competing for screen time; doesn't feel like there's a single coherent vision holding it together.

Norton Canes

  • The leper heart will see you for what you are
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #78 on: April 30, 2019, 11:43:03 AM »
Seems focused enough to me. The couple have inherited a house, which they're attempting to renovate. The first couple of episodes set this concept up very clearly. Yes, there are eight principle ghosts characters but they all seem to combine pretty well; what's lost with a couple of them perhaps being sidelined in some episodes is gained by the variety of the ensemble cast. The storylines are running sensibly, aren't they? Scoutmaster Pat was in the spotlight this week, lovelorn Thomas provided the sub-plot, the ongoing stuff with the builders was slotted in-between. Is that too much?

As for a coherent vision - they're ghosts, all together, in a house. It never threatens to turn into, don't know, Airwolf or whatever.

I would never attempt to persuade anyone a show was enjoyable is they find it not so, but I don't think the ensemble cast nature of Ghosts is a significant drawback.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #79 on: April 30, 2019, 12:21:40 PM »
They’ve all written and performed comedy aimed at adults by the time I've finished with them.

Sorry.

Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #80 on: April 30, 2019, 08:54:06 PM »
Seems focused enough to me. The couple have inherited a house, which they're attempting to renovate. The first couple of episodes set this concept up very clearly. Yes, there are eight principle ghosts characters but they all seem to combine pretty well; what's lost with a couple of them perhaps being sidelined in some episodes is gained by the variety of the ensemble cast. The storylines are running sensibly, aren't they? Scoutmaster Pat was in the spotlight this week, lovelorn Thomas provided the sub-plot, the ongoing stuff with the builders was slotted in-between. Is that too much?

There was also "Kitty wants to know how babies are made", which definitely was too much. And the bit with Mary and swans felt like an excuse to give her a few lines in this episode as much as anything.

neveragain

  • like those swamp tar pits that bubble and go Gloop
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #81 on: April 30, 2019, 09:30:21 PM »
Too much for what though? I'd only consider a plot cluttered if it was impossible to keep up with everything. Giving everyone a few lines isn't necessarily bad.

To be fair, I don't think it's a masterful display of television but quite enjoyable.

Ballad of Ballard Berkley

  • a hopeless vanity... a stupefyingly futile conceit
    • Me Twitter
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2019, 09:38:12 PM »
This is a nice enough show, it's quite charming, but I don't find it particularly funny. Great cast, but we already knew that. I don't really care about any of the characters or their predicament. That wouldn't matter so much if it was packed full of great gags, but it isn't.

Crabwalk

  • Member
  • **
  • I behaved like a skinhead.
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #83 on: April 30, 2019, 10:46:55 PM »
Yes, the third episode was almost entirely laugh-free. As noted, it’s so fragmented due to the large cast that the plots don’t have any weight and the jokes aren’t sharp enough for that not to matter. Steve Oram was completely wasted too.

j_u_d_a_s

  • Enjoy the weekend, you'll be dead on Monday!
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #84 on: May 01, 2019, 12:34:36 AM »
I don't really care about any of the characters or their predicament. That wouldn't matter so much if it was packed full of great gags, but it isn't.

This is exactly it isn't it. So many characters but none of them are memorable beyond their appearance. So many gags but none of them great. And now Charlotte Richie is suddenly pally with the ghosts, on episode 3, halfway through the series (if it's 6 episodes). It's taken 2 episodes to get her to a place where she's comfortable with the ghosts, so already there's a disconnect with previous episodes here. Why wasn't that in episode 1? The deathday stuff with Pat the scoutmaster reminds me of Graham Linehan's hamfisted attempts to inject pathos into Count Arthur (there's even a sad piano ffs!) but it falls flat for the same reason as it did in Count Arthur, there's no character to get invested in, he's just a funny supporting cast member.

I mean, yeah. It's "fine" in that it isn't objectively terrible or rage inducing. But it's so frustrating seeing experienced writers and performers given a decent budget coming up with something so fundamentally flawed and thinly written.

j_u_d_a_s

  • Enjoy the weekend, you'll be dead on Monday!
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #85 on: May 01, 2019, 12:37:44 AM »
Yes, we need more swearing!

Or tits?

Maybe make it like Warren?

What defines a post watershed show? (Other than time of transmission?)

Oh and just to come back to this post, I dunno. Maybe something relatable to adult life, a show with something to say about the time it's written in, characters we can get invested in, something with a bit of vision to it.

icehaven

  • I will be in the bar, with my head on the bar
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #86 on: May 01, 2019, 10:04:14 AM »
I watched the first 3 last night and yeah it's alright but agree with the comments that it's a bit flat in places. Tonally it really reminded me of Maid Marian and her Merry Men, which was definitely considered a kid's show, but I think if you're doing cartoonish live action stuff ostensibly aimed at adults then the funniness needs to be the main event to compensate for the basic characterisation and thin, fast moving plot etc which is quite difficult to pull off. Nothing wrong at all with a show for adults being light and daft and inconsequential though of course, in fact it makes a change when so much else takes itself so seriously, but the jokes could do with being better as they're pretty much all there is to it.

I liked the ghosts being scared of the girl ghost though.

neveragain

  • like those swamp tar pits that bubble and go Gloop
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #87 on: May 01, 2019, 04:53:13 PM »
Oh and just to come back to this post, I dunno. Maybe something relatable to adult life, a show with something to say about the time it's written in, characters we can get invested in, something with a bit of vision to it.

That's nothing to do with the watershed though. Good episodes of Doctor Who (RTD-period) can have all of that.

kalowski

  • Sooner or later
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #88 on: May 02, 2019, 09:49:02 PM »
Oh and just to come back to this post, I dunno. Maybe something relatable to adult life, a show with something to say about the time it's written in, characters we can get invested in, something with a bit of vision to it.
Why does any of that have to be post 9 o'clock?

The watershed is an arbitrary line beyond which more adult material can be shown, but it doesn't have to be more adult.

MojoJojo

  • Member
  • **
  • Between a cow college and a MetaLab.
Re: Ghosts (BBC1)
« Reply #89 on: May 03, 2019, 10:55:57 AM »
I presume they want it to be post watershed because they want to distance themselves from their childrens TV work. Because there is more money in adult TV.