Game On

[somersetchris]

There's a thread on the movie board of Movie Stars That Never Were that Chaplin definitely fits into.

Sometimes a talented, friendly, handsome actor seems all set for stardom and then... nothing.

Ben's that guy.

He's basically an English Paul Rudd - impossibly good-looking in a way that makes you suspicious he's probably an arse, but in the end, nice.

But Rudd was around for ages before he became the nation's sweetheart it was about 15 years between Clueless and Ant Man, so there's still time!

[somersetchris]

I saw TTACAD at the cinema. The whole premise seemed to be that all men are far more attracted to dull, good-looking types (Uma Thurman played a deliberately dull but conventionally attractive character) rather than the supposedly less attractive characters like Janeanne Garafalo's. The big flaw here was that Garafalo's character was a) funny, intelligent and likeable and b) genuinely very attractive physically anyway.

The Truth About Cats and Dogs is great and I WILL die on that hill. Of course, it is a victim of Hollywood, that in casting its 'ugly' characters it just puts glasses on an attractive person - Janeane Garafolo is obviously attractive, the same way that Drew Barrymore was the lead in a film called Never Been Kissed.

She is the more likeable person (although watch it again, Uma Thurman isn't dull, it's just that nobody she meets is interested in her beyond her appearance), however Chaplin's character doesn't know that, because he doesn't meet her in person. It comes down to *her* insecurities, that she feels unattractive, she is unconventionally attractive in some ways, especially when stood next to Uma Thurman. He doesn't get to decide whether he likes her or not because she hides herself away from him. So it does say something about impossible beauty standards and how that leads to insecurities, even if the person who is expressing that is attractive by most standards. I have met loads of people who are incredibly attractive who had dysmorphia or eating disorders, they can affect anyone.

[Ignatius_S]

There's a thread on the movie board of Movie Stars That Never Were that Chaplin definitely fits into.

Sometimes a talented, friendly, handsome actor seems all set for stardom and then... nothing.

Ben's that guy.

Had Chaplin taken the roles he turned down because he didn't want to be typecast and things didn't work out, then that thread would be relevant. However, he didn't want to go down the rom-com route and in various interviews, sounds like he's happy with his career - which isn't too shabby.

There was a Guardian interview recently where the writer commented that Chaplin's Hollywood career didn't go the way that many assumed it would go. That's part and parcel of these type of discussions - it's often what someone feels makes someone else is a success (or not) that's what's actually being revealed, rather than what the person in question has actually done or how they assess their own career.

[somersetchris]

There was a Guardian interview recently where the writer commented that Chaplin's Hollywood career didn't go the way that many assumed it would go. That's part and parcel of these type of discussions - it's often what someone feels makes someone else is a success (or not) that's what's actually being revealed, rather than what the person in question has actually done or how they assess their own career.

Yes what the public deems success or failure may not be the same as the actor. I'm sure there are plenty of actors who would rather take lower key roles that are more interesting than by typecast for more money. Robert Pattinson has clearly shown this with his decisions, as has Daniel Radcliffe, and fair play to them for that. You would assume that with very good looking actors they would be happy to take 'leading man' roles but you forget that Robert Pattinson is also a human being who might want to be more than just the pretty boy in every film - Chaplin may be the same.

Kevin Smith is a similar example as a director - he could have been a director for hire, but after directing Cop Out realised that he hated it. He would rather make small independent films that nobody watches (and spend 90% of his life podcasting) than direct people like Bruce Willis filming someone else's scripts. Fair play to him for making that choice, as he's probably earning a lot less than he could just being a hired gun, but he didn't want to be Brett Ratner.

[dead-ced-dead]

This was everything to do with projection on my part. I sort of just assume that every actor wants the same thing, because I find myself wanting things for actors that they didn't want themselves.

I'd love to live in the alternate universe, for example, where Lee Evans became the next Jim Carrey after Mousehunt and There's Something About Mary, but he absolutely hated Hollywood. So fair play to Evans and Chaplin for going after the careers they actually wanted and not the ones that studio systems dictated they should want.

[checkoutgirl]

but you forget that Robert Pattinson is also a human being who might want to be more than just the pretty boy in every film

Johnny Depp famously broke away from the matinee idol career with Edward Scissorhands and collaborating with Tim Burton. It's a well worn path to be a heart throb when younger and then get sick of it and long for being taken more seriously. John Waters said that during filming Crybaby there were girls trying to get access to the sewage tank in Depp's trailer. That sounds like a version of hell to me.

I love when people say such and such actor went to Hollywood and then nothing. You're basically suggesting their whole career amounted to nothing which is pretty offensive. He did dozens of TV shows, a load of films with big directors and actors, a few plays and made millions of dollars. Probably has a house in London and a holiday home in Malibu. If that's nothing sign me up.

[checkoutgirl]

Fair play to him for making that choice,

I've seen Cop Out, I'm not entirely convinced it was his choice. 19% on Rotten Tomatoes, barely made it's money back despite Willis being a big star then and he didn't get on well with Willis either.

Same thing happened with Zack and Miri. Poor reviews, low box office despite a big star in the lead. Smith had a bad track record at that time.

And that's coming from a fan of Smith.

[Sonny_Jim]

Just finished watching season 1 and I broadly agree about Mandy (Sam Janus character).  Yes she likes to sleep around but you don't really have any of the main characters looking down their noses at her, thinking she's a slag or what not. Their reactions are more based around jealousy and envy, it's not Mandy having lots of sex that irritates Matt and Martin, it's the fact she isn't have lots of sex with them. 

The 90s was that strange time where we had 'girl power' and foolishly thought that sexism and racism had been defeated, so there's a couple of jokes here and there that just seem a bit nasty.  I thought Matt being scared of the big black man was a bit 'hmmm', but I guess he was a boxer so 'hummph'.  Seem to remember there's a touch of 'gay panic' in one episode, along with Mandy dropping a few jokes when Matt and Martin are 'wrestling'.  Nothing outrageous though.

Do they always say the phrase 'Game on' in every episode?  Or is that just the first series?

[Virgo76]

But Rudd was around for ages before he became the nation's sweetheart it was about 15 years between Clueless and Ant Man, so there's still time!

More like twenty years. Was Ant Man a hit anyway? I'm going off topic here...

[Replies From View]

It's relative. He'd definitely be the movie star in his immediate family but maybe less so compared to Brad Pitt. I would call him a Hollywood actor. It must be a bit annoying for every good looking actor being compared to Tom Cruise or George Clooney when statistically reaching that level is such a long shot.

Game On is definitely better than 2 Pints and I think whoever said that admitted they were unfamiliar with Game On, which makes sense. It's definitely a cut or two above 2 Pints but definitely a notch below Spaced.

I quite like Game On but it's not perfect. I can imagine people cringing when Mandy starts into a mini monologue about having lots of sex and still being unhappy. As for the Ben Chaplin question, I think Stuke brought a more broad energy to the role and that fitted with the evolution of the show. How many more episodes of Ben Chaplin's sexy, brooding sulk would have gone over? Not many for me, and I think Stukes puppy dog energy actually helped the show overall.

Not a popular opinion there I'm sure.

I haven't seen Game On since it was first broadcast and I remember it diving off a cliff with Stukes' version of the character.

I might revisit it by watching Stukes' episodes first.  I got more pleasure watching the second series of Flight of the Conchords when I hadn't seen the first series only a few days before.

[checkoutgirl]

Seem to remember there's a touch of 'gay panic' in one episode,

There's an entire series of an arc dedicated to Stuke being desired by a gay guy while he's completely oblivious. By today's standards I'm sure you could make your way through the entire show picking politically incorrect things to have a problem with if that's your thing. Personally I tend to just shrug my shoulders and quickly move on. It can be interesting to wonder if it was just of its time or if it was indeed politically incorrect even for the time.

You would have to admit, it's not necessarily the most subtle comedy ever.

[checkoutgirl]

I haven't seen Game On since it was first broadcast and I remember it diving off a cliff with Stukes' version of the character.

There's definitely a case to be made for the quality dipping after the first series, it's just I didn't think it was Stuke's fault even if the quality did dip. There's a posh love interest for Mandy that I wasn't mad about for instance, and the actor's real name is Crispin Bonham Carter. Possibly the poshest name in existence.

[The Culture Bunker]

There's a posh love interest for Mandy that I wasn't mad about for instance, and the actor's real name is Crispin Bonham Carter. Possibly the poshest name in existence.

It's good, but I would counter with ex-Southampton and Plymouth footballer Forbes Phillipson-Masters.

[somersetchris]

It can be interesting to wonder if it was just of its time or if it was indeed politically incorrect even for the time.

I haven't re-watched Game On but in the 90's we did know what sexism, racism and homophobia were so we probably could have spotted them. For example for me all of the transphobic stuff about Chandler's dad in Friends was pretty rum even then. All this stuff about 'it was a different time' is mostly bollocks if you're talking about the 90's. It was written to be 'edgy' by someone who didn't know what edgy was, so critics and older generations probably would have thought it was gross, and it probably didn't really speak to the audience it was written for (late teens early 20's), so I don't think comparisons to 2 Pints are completely unfair. It has some weirdness that 2 Pints doesn't, so fans of weirdness might like it. Personally I watched it because it was on; there were only four channels and not many sitcoms on that weren't 2.4 Children, Keeping Up Appearances etc.

[somersetchris]

I've seen Cop Out, I'm not entirely convinced it was his choice. 19% on Rotten Tomatoes, barely made it's money back despite Willis being a big star then and he didn't get on well with Willis either.

Same thing happened with Zack and Miri. Poor reviews, low box office despite a big star in the lead. Smith had a bad track record at that time.

And that's coming from a fan of Smith.

I dunno, making a series of shit films isn't usually a barrier to making more of them, I give you Uwe Boll.

Take a look at the career of Simon Kinberg, he has written some shocking rubbish, he wrote X Men Last Stand, a film so bad it killed the franchise for several years and had its entire plot retconned by later films (and was directed by Brett Ratner, another grifter), was then brought back to write X Men Apocalypse, another colossal piece of shit that put the series on its arse, and was rewarded for these continued lumps of absolute arse gravy by being made director of X Men Dark Phoenix, a story he already fucked up once! The first film he ever directed in his life, as a reward for writing a series of shit films (not just X Men, but stuff like Jumper and Mr & Mrs Smith as well).

I know it's a bit off topic but it really staggers me when you look back at some people's careers and see there are people in Hollywood who have never made a single decent film but continue to get high profile work, because giving jobs to the same people is easier than finding someone new who might be good. I think David S Goyer is another one, he's written a load of superhero films, most of them rubbish (not that I'm shitting on superhero films, but he's written stuff like Batman v Superman and Terminator Dark Fate - not the good ones!), but not only is he still working but he seems to be the first person people call when they're making a big franchise film, he has fingers in a lot of pies.

Whether Smith had the chance to continue being a director for hire I don't know (probably, he does a lot of TV now), but he definitely made a conscious choice to make stuff like Yoga Hosers and Tusk rather than have to direct people like Bruce Willis again.

[checkoutgirl]

I dunno, making a series of shit films isn't usually a barrier to making more of them

I think it kind of is. I'm not in the industry so don't know for sure but there might be many director who can't get a gig while Uwe Bol is happy getting paid. I'm sure making poorly reviewed films with relatively low box office despite a big star is not a recipe for a queue of executives with their cheque book out.

[checkoutgirl]

Batman v Superman

Made about a billion quid so yeah. He'll probably get more work.

[Sonny_Jim]

I always thought the Uwe Boll thing was due to him exploiting a loophole in the German tax system or something:

But crucially, the bizarre tax laws in Germany mean that any wealthy Germans who invest in a movie can write-off the production cost, delay paying their taxes and generally reduce their tax burden. When you disseminate all the boring legal business law surrounding it the bottom line is this – the German investors in a movie only pay tax on any RETURNS the movie makes, their investment is 100% deductible, so the minute the movie makes a profit, said investor has to start paying tax. Plus the investors can actually borrow money to put towards investment and write that off too. Assuming you're a sharp enough businessman you have a potential goldmine in the making; a way to make money from investing in bad movies...

Source

Anyway, back on topic.  Sat down to watch an episode with Neil Stuke and I couldn't finish it.  Turns out I need lovely Ben Chaplin with my side of 90's desolation for it to be palatable.

[dead-ced-dead]

I always thought the Uwe Boll thing was due to him exploiting a loophole in the German tax system or something:

Source

Anyway, back on topic.  Sat down to watch an episode with Neil Stuke and I couldn't finish it.  Turns out I need lovely Ben Chaplin with my side of 90's desolation for it to be palatable.

This is taking things off topic, but I think that loophole was closed, which is reflected in the size of films Bill made/makes.

Going from making Alone in the Dark, Bloodrayne, Dungeon Seige with a cast chock full of B and C listers with budgets in the 20-60 mil range

To the kinds of films he makes now: trash films almost all exclusively starring that bloke from Prison Break.

[Replies From View]

There's definitely a case to be made for the quality dipping after the first series, it's just I didn't think it was Stuke's fault even if the quality did dip. There's a posh love interest for Mandy that I wasn't mad about for instance, and the actor's real name is Crispin Bonham Carter. Possibly the poshest name in existence.

Hmm I wonder who he could be related to

[Sonny_Jim]

He's obviously the heir to the Norwegian 'Crisp n Dry' fortune.

[Replies From View]

There's an entire series of an arc dedicated to Stuke being desired by a gay guy while he's completely oblivious. By today's standards I'm sure you could make your way through the entire show picking politically incorrect things to have a problem with if that's your thing. Personally I tend to just shrug my shoulders and quickly move on. It can be interesting to wonder if it was just of its time or if it was indeed politically incorrect even for the time.

You would have to admit, it's not necessarily the most subtle comedy ever.

I disagree; it is the most tremendously subtle comedy on all of this entire earth.

[Replies From View]

Personally I watched it because it was on; there were only four channels and not many sitcoms on that weren't 2.4 Children, Keeping Up Appearances etc.

Is that the beginning of a list that is all sitcoms apart from Game On?

Brilliant.

[H-O-W-L]

When did Game On air? Was it post-pub telly much like Two Pints was?

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

" Game On" was broadcast No later than 9:30 for its first series If memory serves, prime-time viewing for yer teens n twenties types.

Which is why I continue to be surprised that one of the co- writers was pushing 60 ( I assume the other one was a bit younger). Mind you, that other writer was Andrew Davies, and he had form in writing dark, slightly surreal comedy ( "Educating Marmalade", with roles for both John Bird and John Fortune, and, as previously stated, Brian Glover and Dudley Sutton as nuns, part of a team of sadistic nuns running an all girls school. One of the nuns blatantly had a moustache. It remains one of the most subversive and entertaining children's programmes ever broadcast. Featured one of Lynda La Plante's final acting roles as Marmalade's constantly pissed- up mum. I could happily sit down as a 54 year old man and watch this series all over again) and " A Very Peculiar Practise "( this also had the background feature of two nuns behaving all non- nunny, if I may use a phrase that may attract the interest of any Finnish readers we may have. No nuns were featured in " Game On", as it was probably reasoned that Samantha Janus wouldnae have made a very convincing nun).

The later series were broadcast at 10:45 , just before " Newsnight" I think.

[Shaky]

I disagree; it is the most tremendously subtle comedy on all of this entire earth.

Is that the beginning of a list that is all sitcoms apart from Game On?

Brilliant.

Alright, sarky.

[Replies From View]

I think the list of everything (two items plus "etc") was genuinely good.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

" Keeping Up Appearances" is shit, cheers.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

" Keeping Up Appearances" is shit

New Fast Automatic Daffodils consider rewrite actually, I think I'll just leave that, might have done something similar before.

[petril]

Game On was midweek 9

When did Game On air? Was it post-pub telly much like Two Pints was?

not quite, it was in the 9-10.30 weeknight slot, where pretty much all the good 90s comedy went