MovieChat Forums > Nighty Night (2004) Discussion > awful awful series

awful awful series

posted 18 years ago by melodyalice
23 replies | jump to latest

Just finished watching all of series 1, and I have to say it was just awful! There were some funny bits, but it could of been so much funnier. It would have been funnier if it was more subtle, but it was too stupid and ott to be funny. Julia Davies was brilliant when she worked with Steve Coogan on the Man Who Thinks he's it tour, but she was sh it in this! Such bad acting! Her voice and accent just didn't work!! The other characters were rediculous as well! Why did her husband not do something when he saw his grave stone?? Why did Cath and Don let her move in?? Why did people put up with it?? Too stupid to be funny!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] s1ashs-snakepit 17 years ago

if you thought the first series wasnt subtle then the second would probably induce an angina

[–] acetremendous 17 years ago

Methinks you are missing the point....

Often, in life, a ridiculously pushy and manipulative person can get away with ALOT before anyone stands up to them. Think about how vague and wimpy Don and Cath are - they are totally ill-equipped to deal with the wild typhoon that is Jill at this stage of her life.

It's clear from the way Terry interacts with her that she has always been a b*tch but she's never gone this far before. She's been frustrated for years, watching tv and reading bad romance, and now she thinks this is how she's going to get control of her life and get what she wants. She's like a big kid in a way. Think about two reasonable adults trying to talk about this crazy person who just lost her husband and keeps "trying to help"...you'd feel insane saying "she is plotting to take Don away." Just like her customers in the salon, they keep thinking that it can't possibly be as bad as it seems - until it's too late and she's gotten her way.

I agree that there are some weak plot points. For example, there is NO way that Terry could have wound up in hospice w/out some kind of medical referral. But don't you have to swallow a certain amount of plot convenience in every comedy?

The whole thing is over the top, of course. I guess I just don't like realistic comedy very much. I favor things like Alan Partridge, League of Gentlemen, Monty Python, and AbFab. I like outrageous comedy that makes a serious and realistic point by pushing those boundaries and putting characters into bizarre situations.

*********************************************
* "We may be stupid, but we're not clever!" *

[–] ginda2000 17 years ago

This is all very true. The reason why the whole idea of this show being re-made in the US is such a nightmare is because the bare bones of the format are about good old British manners and attitudes. Jill is loopy and everyone around her is too nice and polite to tell her to naff off!

Ultimately the show is about lying. One lie Jill tells about Terry dying (because she is angry with him) escalates into this mountain of deceipt which gets more and more outragious.

Series One is a very cleverly constructed parody of middle england and a type of woman who I am sure we have all come across in our lives (she was the girl at school who says her Mum is seriously ill to get out of P.E or the woman who implies an Ex hit her to get people in the office to feel sorry for her). Her lies grow and grow with each episode and the only way she can get herself out of the whole is if Terry died - at the end of the series the big irony is he is one of the few who is still alive!!

Series Two (from a critical point of view) is probably the biggest pile of dross the BBC have ever transmitted. I found it incredibly funny, but in a wrong (let's all get drunk and laugh at toilet humour) type way. It has no structure to it, it's a bad storyline and unlike Series One it has no purpose or direction to it.

[–] acetremendous 17 years ago

ginda - I am sad to hear that about S2. I've only seen a few clips on YouTube and they do look horrifyingly vulgar of course, but so do isolated clips of S1. It's the overriding theme of S1 that justifies it and pulls it all together.

Is Ruth Brown still wonderfully funny, at least? I adore her.

*********************************************
* "We may be stupid, but we're not clever!" *

[–] MOQ 17 years ago

i agree ginda2000, series one was very odd but very funny also, but alas, series two just fell off the rails completely, especially near the end. i was glad when it finished.

[–] acetremendous 17 years ago

Well, it's official (for me anyway).

Now that I've seen it, I can say for sure that series two is HORRID.

There's a world of difference between a few little plot holes and an entirely slipshod and senseless approach to half-baked storylines. No one makes any sense anymore, nothing particularly interesting happens, and none of it is funny.

On the (very small) plus side, both Rebecca Front and Mark Gatiss do their best to make their poorly-written parts believeable; I actually felt quite sympathetic for Kath a few times.

But overall - oh, I could yammer on all day about what is wrong with this thing. Even the continuity is bad. What happened? Julia Davis seems so bright and talented, series one is so smart and she is fantastic in shows like Big Train and Jam, her performances have such an intelligent edge to them.

*heavy sigh* I suppose it's ready to be remade in America now....
(I'm an American, so I can say that.)

*********************************************
* "We may be stupid, but we're not clever!" *

[–] jagheterjack00 17 years ago

America has not come close to doing a decent job of remaking a british comedy. The British have never needed a team of 40 writers to make a show good or funny like the yanks do. Nighty Night was written and performed by one woman. I admit series 2 may have is flaws but its better than any season of "Friends" or "Ellen" or "Everybody Loves *beep* Raymond"

A LIST OF POOR US REMAKES:

The Office
Fawlty Towers
Alfie
The Italian Job
Get Carter
The Wicker Man
Don't Look now
The Ring

[–] acetremendous 17 years ago

It's not an America VS UK thing...there has never been a good remake of anything, ever. Remakes
are strictly for chumps and losers who like forking over ad revenue to TV or film execs that are too lazy to come up with their own ideas. I was just making the remake comment to point out how excruciatingly poor and stupid s2 is, and therefore how fit for a remake it is.

Jag - you forgot "Bedazzled".

Saying s2 of Nighty Night is better than Friends is like saying that water from the toilet is fresher than water in the sewer; I certainly don't plan to drink either one.

*********************************************
* "We may be stupid, but we're not clever!" *

[–] Jamie_C 17 years ago

I thought season 2 was great!

[–] acetremendous 16 years ago

I have to admit that I'm glad that some people like S2 of NN, because I just like Julia Davis so much in general that I want to see her succeed and not get snowed under by a failure. I've seen it again myself, trying to give it a new chance, but I simply can't get into it. I'd like to think that I'm missing subtlety but I have not been able to detect it in these shows. At least she's trying.

As far as "The Office" USA - it's just such a poor idea. If Ricky Gervais, a sometimes very talented writer, wants to do a take on the American business scene, I'm all for it! The point is that if he actually had any real/fresh ideas along those lines, it didn't need to be called "The Office" with a recycled basic premise. He had enough clout at the time to do a real project instead of a retread if he really wanted to. The fact that he went for the retread means it was a money-grab, not an actual project that he felt the need to do. That is true for all remakes that have ever been done.

Remakes are always for profit, never for art.

*********************************************
* "We may be stupid, but we're not clever!" *

[–] youpeeinthesea 17 years ago

--you forgot "Coupling" .

I totally disagree with you concerning the American version The Office.
First of all, it is also written by Ricky Gervais His talent is there. It is also very well adapted to the American style. The take is totally different because the American personality and office habits and rules are different. The series is also intended to be long running and not the more self-contained with-an-ending-planned British series. Each one has its advantages. Both are superior entertainment. But they are different. I really love both shows.
I feel sorry for anyone who is so bitter about other American poorly redones that they can't allow themselves to enjoy the American "The Office"!

[–] looker7 17 years ago

I accidentally stumbled across this series on BBC Three -- a channel that transmits predominantly substandard material -- and couldn't believe my eyes. It was often terrible, but had some humorous moments (if a little controversial). Has to be the most bizzare comedy series I have ever set eyes upon.

[–] Kellymariekitty (158) 6 years ago

Oh dear god no, rickygervais is talentless. I hate the guy, he’s just awful and I don’t think I’ve ever laughed at him, ever.

[–] tra1n_n_va1n 14 years ago

@jagheter:

then of course you've forgotten All In The Family, Dear John, Too Close For Comfort, Three's Company, Sanford & Son, and my personal favorite Queer As Folk. But way to pick and choose to seem correct.

You better understand I'm in love with myself Myself My beautiful self

[–] MOQ 17 years ago

this is , after all, a black comedy and black comedies aren't supposed to be particularly funny, just weird.

[–] youpeeinthesea 17 years ago

Black comedy is funny when done well. Not haha funny. Funny. Nighty Night is scary and disgusting AND INSANE. And funny. I can't get enough of it. The actors are amazingly good.
GOD BLESS THE BBC.

[–] Daft_Munks 17 years ago

This show is actually funny no matter how bloody unsuttle it all is

[–] youpeeinthesea 17 years ago

The U.S. version of "The Office" is extremely "sutttle" ;) (in the U.S. we spell it subtle). You are missing at least 40% of the humor (humour)! lol

[–] Richmond_superking 16 years ago

I thought the second series seemed to be going for shock value a lot of the time. That with putting the sheet up inside her and claiming the 12 year old son raped her and such. Plus the last epeisode seemed really The League Of Gentlemanish cos of Glens scabby face and how he's dressed up as a black sailor and eating the raw rabbit and the way she's giveing birth in the toilet. It just all seemed so...daft. It's always been daft. But this was too daft.

Knickers, Knackers, Knockers

BOOBS!

[–] cadgemeister 16 years ago

I've only seen the first series, so I'm not going to speculate about the second series until I've seen it.

The first series is a darkly humours comedy of manners set in (what I would assume) is a stereotypical middle-class English suburb.

Naturally there is a lot of material that is ridiculous and surreal, but these are exagerrations of themes that can be related to.

The character of Jill is an exagerration of people that exist in real life.

I would also argue against it being wholly unsubtle, as I've said there is a large ammount of surreal and ridiculous events and interactions, but their is a lot of subtle humour as well, which perhaps many missed.

[–] smut_husky 16 years ago

I agree, there are people like the cast of characters that do exist, and although things have been warped for the screen, people do behave like that, albeit in lesser doses.

Cath for example strikes me as being someone who could exist. She's too passive and nice for her own good, allows people to do terrible things around her and to her without saying anything to make life easier. Even when she tries to argue or put Jill in her place, she does it in such a calm and passive way, it's quickly rebuffed and Jill uses this to walk all over her.

[–] FootOfDavros (8702) 4 years ago

Watched this years ago and thought it was excellent rather than awful!

Going to rewatch now that it seems to be on the iPlayer...