rawlinson
Posts: 40184
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
|
I don't really care about his arrogant persona, but I think he really needs someone to tell him when something doesn't work. Take Extras for an example, Gervais makes his contempt for formulaic sitcoms clear with his 'When The Whistle Blows' parody, so why is Extras so inept in so many ways? It obviously aspires to be The Larry Sanders Show. But Shandling and his writers understood that their guest stars needed to be more than a one-dimensional cameo.
Extras seems to consist of 'get a big celeb in so they can act like a prick for ten minutes'. How often do they actually do something interesting with the actors in that show, like create a character for them? Ross Kemp springs to mind, but that's about it. Ben Stiller, Kate Winslet, Patrick Stewart, Orlando Bloom, David Bowie, Daniel Radcliffe, Stephen Fry, Robert Lindsay, Clive Owen... all wasted because of the unrealistic writing. Does anyone really believe that Kate Winslet would start ranting to a couple of extras about how she hasn't won an Oscar? Or Daniel Radcliffe would carry a condom around and show it to people to prove he has sex? The way the guest stars are handled is on the level of the type of show that Gervais mocks.
It's not even that the actors portray themselves as pricks. It's that it's so badly handled. Compare the writing for any guest star in Extras to any guest star in Larry Sanders and the difference in quality is incredible. Compare Bruno Kirby and Jeffrey Tambor arguing over The Godfather films to... well, absolutely anything in Extras. Shandling and his writers understood celebrities and egotism, Gervais just wants everyone to go as over the top as possible. As such, it's an incredibly safe way for a celebrity to show they have a sense of humour. They can play themselves as wankers, safe in the knowledge that the writing is so extreme than no-one would ever mistake them for the fictional version of them in the show.
That shouldn't actually matter, and it wouldn't if Gervais didn't set up the show within a show as the embodiment of everything he hates in comedy. You can't attack other comedians for being lazy while writing a show that's every bit as lazy. Take the Baftas episode for the extreme example.
Problem 1: When The Whistle Blows is hated by critics. So how did it manage a Bafta nomination in the first place?
Problem 2: The first series is still filming while it's being aired. Incredibly unrealistic for a sitcom and Gervais knows it. It's bad enough when that goes unacknowledged in the show as a whole. But in the Bafta episode, the show gets nominated for a Bafta while still in the middle of being made/shown. Something that is pretty much impossible.
Problem 3: The homophobia in the Stephen Fry scene. Gervais has said in interviews that Millman isn't a jerk, in fact he's supposed to be an 'everyman' character who just happens to have things go wrong for him. If that's the case, how are we supposed to accept the lazy homophobic comment about Oscar Wilde in that scene? If Gervais thinks that Millman is an everyman, does that mean he thinks that homophobia is acceptable? This goes to an even greater extreme in the Ian McKellan episode, an episode where the lazy writing is every bit as evident as the Bafta episode.
Problem 4: The scene where Gervais, Merchant and Ronnie Corbett are busted by Bafta staff for using drugs. Does anyone really believe that something like that could happen?
None of these things would be problems if the show was an old-fashioned over the top sitcom, but for the type of show that Gervais wants Extras to be it's shockingly lazy writing. The thing is, the idea for Extras is good, and some of the stuff in it works. But there was only 2 series and a Christmas special. The quality of the writing should not be that varied for a show that run for so few episodes.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: matty_b
I would plough my way through MonsterCat 
quote:
ORIGINAL: matty_b
I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.
|
Printable Version
ricky gervais one trick pony? - 
) hence by representing himself as being a dickhead in pretty much all his public appearances for over a year people will start to see him as that dickhead and start to avoid him. It is not that big a step to comprehend. I personally do not find him that appealing a figure due to the fact that the persona he represented as being his in public for so long was the arrogant dickhead hence although I am aware that he may not be this figure in reality I am expecting it to be the persona I will see on his public appearances (whether on a conscious or unconscious level) and as such avoid his appearances because I do not wish to see that character. By utilising this character for so long he has basically conditioned me to not like him. In the same manner an actor who in reality is a nasty individual can gain support by acting as a nice person in public but behind closed doors kicks puppies for fun. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread