Jez or Mark?

[Ferris]

Why must you demand realism?! One of the greatest episodes of Seinfeld (the most relatable comedy of all time) features Kramer, without explanation, having an unacknowledged one-episode mental breakdown and hosting The Merv Griffin Show from his apartment to an imaginary audience.

They acknowledge it! He finds the set in a dumpster!

[pigamus]

I'm aware I'm in a minority but I really like the Xmas episode and I thought Clive Merrison was perfect as Mark's dad.  Convincingly both a small man and an overbearing ogre.

Me too. "Think what it's doing to the MECHANISM!"

But then Peep Show threads on here always baffle me. There are people who seem to have convinced themselves it started going downhill after the first two episodes or something. I think there are about two genuinely shit episodes in the entire run. Even the silliest episodes with the daftest plots have brilliant bits in them.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

They acknowledge it! He finds the set in a dumpster!

True, but yer man's point about Seinfeld becoming incrementally more frenetic and bizarre remains. If you look at the first couple of series, It's just a bunch of New Yorkers being sassy and sarky to each other, and is all the better for it, I'd say. Peep Show did a very similar thing about getting more mental with each passing series.
Come to think of it, the second series of "Fleabag" went a bit American sitcom getting increasingly manic , did 't it?  With the sister treating her crap haircut as a massive emergency and phoning the eponymous Poshbird to drop everything immediately to come and tend to her, and them both going to confront the hairdresser only for them to be told that's what the sister had actually asked for, so they both slunk off, all deflated and that. Something very Stateside Sitcommy about all that palaver.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

They acknowledge it! He finds the set in a dumpster!

Ok, true, I will grant you that, but I still contend that are a few mental steps missing between "finding beloved TV set" and "hosting nightly talk show in apartment with co-host and full lineup for guests"

[imitationleather]

"finding beloved TV set"

No, no, no. That's Beavis & Butt-head Do America.

[QDRPHNC]

Why must you demand realism?! One of the greatest episodes of Seinfeld (the most relatable comedy of all time) features Kramer, without explanation, having an unacknowledged one-episode mental breakdown and hosting The Merv Griffin Show from his apartment to an imaginary audience.

Isn't that from one of the later, post-Larry David seasons, when Seinfeld was generally considered to have gotten broader and less observational?

It's a funny episode. I just never understand the "why must you demand realism?!" type of argument. One of the things that appealed me about Peep Show initially was that it felt real. As it went on it became broader, to it's detriment. Still funny, just not as good.

And anyway, I'm not necessarily making a pro-realism argument so much as an anti-laziness one. New season, new storyline, new location, oh look, Johnson's his boss again, and Jeff is his nemesis again. Rubbish, sorry.

Me too. "Think what it's doing to the MECHANISM!"

But then Peep Show threads on here always baffle me. There are people who seem to have convinced themselves it started going downhill after the first two episodes or something. I think there are about two genuinely shit episodes in the entire run. Even the silliest episodes with the daftest plots have brilliant bits in them.

Similarly, I can't understand people who can't look at a random series 1 episode against really any episode from series 4 onwards, and not notice a significant decline in almost every facet of the show. I still put on later seasons and laugh at them - but like I said, they're not just as good.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

No, no, no. That's Beavis & Butt-head Do America.

What are you talking about, no it's not. It's Seinfeld from the same two-part episode in which Kramer tries to hijack an airplane as "the Great Kramholio"

[popcorn]

SUPER HANS: Who's got my rental snake? I'm gonna lose my deposit.
JEZ: Wasn't it in the salad spinner?
SUPER HANS: Empty. We need to find him while it's still dizzy because if he gets his shit together he's gonna be pissed off.

I have just watched some clips of this on YouTube at random and this exchange has pleased me enormously.

[nw83]

Yeah, I think I remember Series 4 being regarded as a 'jump the shark' moment at the time. Although maybe that was more out of fear for it was changing into, after one dud episode, which didn't quite come true.

I think Series 1 and 2 are basically perfect, then there's a dip until Season 9 (slightly different tone, hit and miss episodes, uninteresting new characters, but consistently great lines, and occasional great episodes), and Season 9 is another dip (too eager to shoehorn popular characters in, wish they'd not reintroduced the history student, but still good, sometimes very good).

Basically Series 1 and 2 are like Series 1-5 of the Simpsons, and Series 3 to 9 are like Series 6-9 of The Simpsons. That probably doesn't help.

I prefer the later, zanier seasons of Seinfeld too.  Before I knew who Larry David was, I thought everyone preferred the later seasons - The Jerk Store, The Chicken Rooster, Merv Griffin Show, the Maid - Puddy, more Peterman, etc.

Probably more Mark. Bit surprised (and worried) so many people think he's a terrible person,  as opposed to a normal person who has relatable weird thoughts.

[purlieu]

Series 4 in particular had a lot of "where one goes, the other goes", for no particular reason. It became 'the wacky adventures of Mark and Jez', rather than a well-observed sitcom about two neurotic characters and their mundane lives.

On the whole, I don't think the Seinfeld comparison works because, although there are some who prefer the first couple of seasons, on the whole the later ones are sublimely written, hugely complex and inventive episodes that cemented it as arguably the best written sitcom of all time. There's plenty to love in the earlier episodes, but those later ones were an improvement that showed Seinfeld and David finding their forte. With Peep Show, it started strong with a unique format and became broader and less well-written as a result of the lack of realism. Still funny, but jarring in tone and losing what made the show stand out.

Peep Show is full of that though. No matter what happens to Mark and Jez, somehow Hans, Johnson, Sophie and Jeff seem to be there. Big part of what made the later series so poor.

It's a real issue with popular guest stars in sitcoms. One thing I love about the first couple of series of OFAH is that Del is constantly dealing with different people, which made total sense given his job. Later on, no matter what happens, it's always Trigger, Boycie, Denzel and Mike there when he needs someone to rip off or needs a helping hand. The world becomes smaller and, thus, less believable.

[ajsmith2]

It's a real issue with popular guest stars in sitcoms. One thing I love about the first couple of series of OFAH is that Del is constantly dealing with different people, which made total sense given his job. Later on, no matter what happens, it's always Trigger, Boycie, Denzel and Mike there when he needs someone to rip off or needs a helping hand. The world becomes smaller and, thus, less believable.

Simpsons too. In later series the established cast are about the only inhabitants you ever see. Sure, they have a much larger cast of characters than OFAH or Peep Show to draw on, but it's the same principal. There are no 'average' or even 'unknown' people to make the world more open rounded and relatable, it's just wacky self-contained Springfield and it's cast of familiar freaks.

[Icehaven]

Series 4 in particular had a lot of "where one goes, the other goes", for no particular reason.

Not to derail the thread too much but this is a quite a bugbear of mine in anything. I know it's obviously necessary for characters to play off each other and saves having to write different storylines and film in various locations but it still often comes across as poor writing to have one character's Grandma die then contrive reasons why several others who never even met her tag along too. Friends was chronic for it and it was even worse because there's six of them. If there isn't already one I'd like someone to write a sitcom in which several characters never even meet (I've never seen How I Met Your Mother but is that one?)

[nw83]

... those later ones were an improvement that showed Seinfeld and David finding their forte.

I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying.

Being nitpicky, Larry David left Seinfeld after Season 7, and I actually think Series 8 is the best season, and Season 9 not far behind. Among many Seinfeld fans that seems to be sacrilegious, I think not least because of Curb and the perception that David is a comedy genius (and darker, edgier, etc, than Jerry), so how could his departure ever improve something?

I can't think of any other sitcom that has done that thing - changed its tone, got louder, wackier, etc, in later seasons - and got better.

'The wacky adventures of Mark and Jez' is exactly right.

Although I did randomly burst out laughing today remembering Superhans saying "you can't be City and United, can you?" in an episode of Series 9, reminding me the drop in quality is relative.

[Utter Shit]

It's a real issue with popular guest stars in sitcoms. One thing I love about the first couple of series of OFAH is that Del is constantly dealing with different people, which made total sense given his job. Later on, no matter what happens, it's always Trigger, Boycie, Denzel and Mike there when he needs someone to rip off or needs a helping hand. The world becomes smaller and, thus, less believable.

I've never thought of that before, but it's spot on. In the first few series we see Vimmal and Malik, Pauline, Sandra the policewoman, Irene Mackay, Heather and Lord and Lady Ridgemere, all main characters in their episodes. By the end it was really just "what have Del and Rodney got themselves into this week while the women look annoyed?" with a few notable exceptions like Beverley, Don Ochetti and GARY.

[Scrapey Fish]

Was it necessary for Mark to leave JLB Credit? That was the hub that brought most of the key characters together, and it fit Mark's character that he would stay in the same dead end job forever.

[Utter Shit]

I think Series 1 and 2 are basically perfect, then there's a dip until Season 9 (slightly different tone, hit and miss episodes, uninteresting new characters, but consistently great lines, and occasional great episodes), and Season 9 is another dip (too eager to shoehorn popular characters in, wish they'd not reintroduced the history student, but still good, sometimes very good).

This is dead right for me - first two series perfect, then a notable drop from series 3 onwards while still mostly brilliant, then another significant drop towards the end where it's just good. And they never, ever, EVER should have changed the music. In a way I feel like the change of music echos the downturn of the show, as it became more bombastic and less subtle. Still great, but not quite as great as it was before.

Was it necessary for Mark to leave JLB Credit? That was the hub that brought most of the key characters together, and it fit Mark's character that he would stay in the same dead end job forever.

I'd have to check my timelines on this, but without Mark leaving JLB would we ever have heard Johnson's pronunciation of Frankfurt? My answer to your question hinges on this point.

[ajsmith2]

Edit: to add, the Christmas family episode was a bit of a clanger and the ending didn't make sense (why is Mark so happy his dad has stormed off and they've had a shouting match?) but even that had enough little lines that made it watchable.

Mark's happy cos for the first time in his life he's managed to stand up for himself against his tyrannical father, and defend the woman he loves (?) against his judgement. A BIG milestone in Mark's character development, and in a way the greatest Xmas present to himself he could have received. Better than a DVD box set of FlashForward anyway.

I like that Xmas episode. I remember it and series 7 being warmly received in general here way back when, although that near was a decade back and there's been a high turnover in peeps posting here since then.

[ajsmith2]

This is dead right for me - first two series perfect, then a notable drop from series 3 onwards while still mostly brilliant, then another significant drop towards the end where it's just good. And they never, ever, EVER should have changed the music. In a way I feel like the change of music echos the downturn of the showas it became more bombastic and less subtle. , Still great, but not quite as great as it was before.

The original theme music is only used for the first series though, so even the damn near perfect series 2 (the best ever imo) is heralded by the tatrazine warcry of Flagpole Sitta by 90s one hit wonder pop punkers. I know I'm being overly literal here though cos the broad parallel of what you are saying holds true. The original theme says 'furtive subtle secret late night show sneaks into your consciousness' and the second says 'CHECK OUT THESE OUTRAGEOUS 00S HI JINKS ON E4!!!!!!!'

[Icehaven]

Was it necessary for Mark to leave JLB Credit? That was the hub that brought most of the key characters together, and it fit Mark's character that he would stay in the same dead end job forever.

Mark didn't leave, JLB went bust or something and everyone was made redundant. They had a protest party type thing in the pub then went and ransacked the JLB offices. Makes it slightly more believable that three of them (Johnson, Jeff and Mark) would then end up working in the same place later on, finding new jobs through contacts etc., but that's still a little contrived.

[Utter Shit]

Ah right, I must have moved the song change to the start of series 3, possibly to justify my wild claim about it mimicking the change of tone in the show.

[Replies From View]

Ah right, I must have moved the song change to the start of series 3, possibly to justify my wild claim about it mimicking the change of tone in the show.

Distracted by Red Dwarf doing a similar thing, maybe.

[Astronaut Omens]

I can happily watch all of it, but it never really recovered from losing the actressess playing Toni and Nancy. Toni is the hardest character to summarize in the whole thing, and I think if she'd stayed there'd have been a bit less cartoonishness and predictability. And Nancy's  sex + religion thing was a really new idea for a sitcom character, sex versus religion been a bit more common.

[Andy147]

It's a real issue with popular guest stars in sitcoms. One thing I love about the first couple of series of OFAH is that Del is constantly dealing with different people, which made total sense given his job. Later on, no matter what happens, it's always Trigger, Boycie, Denzel and Mike there when he needs someone to rip off or needs a helping hand. The world becomes smaller and, thus, less believable.

Towards the end of OFAH (when it was just a series of Christmas specials) they'd insert all the "old favourite" characters every time to have a line or two of dialogue, which as the "offthetelly" review said "isn't Only Fools and Horses – it's an Only Fools and Horses convention".

[purlieu]

If there isn't already one I'd like someone to write a sitcom in which several characters never even meet (I've never seen How I Met Your Mother but is that one?)

More of a comedy drama, but David Renwick's Love Soup is about exactly that.
But yeah, one of the aspects of my sitcom that I wrote half a series of and then forgot about was that the characters would have a realistic social circle: several people, who all knew each other to varying degrees, including some not at all.

Towards the end of OFAH (when it was just a series of Christmas specials) they'd insert all the "old favourite" characters every time to have a line or two of dialogue, which as the "offthetelly" review said "isn't Only Fools and Horses – it's an Only Fools and Horses convention".

Hah, that's brilliant.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Series 4 in particular had a lot of "where one goes, the other goes", for no particular reason. It became 'the wacky adventures of Mark and Jez', rather than a well-observed sitcom about two neurotic characters and their mundane lives.

However it's important not to conflate change in style with change in quality.

People may disagree, but I think a lot of series 4 (except for the ropey 4.2) is successful in making that shift and compensates reasonably by what was lost in pathos (although bear in mind that was already ebbing away halfway through series 2 and into 3) with more traditional situational/farcical laughs which, if viewed outside of the bitterness of the format changing, work very well.

90% of the episodes I can vividly remember are from Series 1,2 & 4, and some from 3, which doesn't so much suggest the rest was awful, just that it was superfluous.

Shitty Ben was a good character to introduce, and I liked the episodes he was in. I quite like the crystal skull episode, Dobby Club was good. Difficult to pick out much else that was on that high level. And Olivia Colman was bloody awful in everything after series 2.

[Ferris]

Zoot suits was after season 4, and it was silly and great.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Business Secrets of the Pharaohs.

[grassbath]

However it's important not to conflate change in style with change in quality.

People may disagree, but I think a lot of series 4 (except for the ropey 4.2) is successful in making that shift and compensates reasonably by what was lost in pathos (although bear in mind that was already ebbing away halfway through series 2 and into 3) with more traditional situational/farcical laughs which, if viewed outside of the bitterness of the format changing, work very well.

90% of the episodes I can vividly remember are from Series 1,2 & 4, and some from 3, which doesn't so much suggest the rest was awful, just that it was superfluous.

Shitty Ben was a good character to introduce, and I liked the episodes he was in. I quite like the crystal skull episode, Dobby Club was good. Difficult to pick out much else that was on that high level. And Olivia Colman was bloody awful in everything after series 2.

Agreed on series 4 - despite it often being cited as the downturn, I still think it contains some of the show's funniest episodes and the shift to a broader and less realistic show doesn't affect my enjoyment. Whereas a lot of stuff from 5-9, especially the more it goes on, feels annoyingly phoned-in and the writers' control of the characters becomes really flabby and caricaturish, with a lot of lines that could be interchangeable between Mark and Jeremy. I found S9 almost unwatchable.

Olivia Colman awful though? Sophie definitely became a really unpleasant character, but I thought the shift in Mark's view of her in 3 and 4 was really down to how well she portrayed it.

[purlieu]

However it's important not to conflate change in style with change in quality.

True, although the change in quality correlated with the change in style means I find them difficult to separate.

[Blue Jam]

Can't believe anybody thinks that Jez is worse than Mark. I mean Jez is a selfish dick, but Mark is fucking horrible.

"He'll change his tune once I'm the one in charge of the morphine supply"

"She's got the magical combination of beauty and low self-esteem"

"I'll keep her locked down, like Fritzl"

Mark is horrible.