Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulD  Rewatched The League of Gentlemen over December for the first time in about 8 years - the 3 series and the Christmas specials. The first two series are fantastic with a find blend of darkness and humour and great overarching plots. I'm still not too keen on the third series though. I respect the need to keep the show fresh and change the format but I think the lack of a laugh track works against it as the show ends up with a different tone and I always worry that if a comedy show is without a laugh track (and not shot in a fast paced/documentary style) it runs the risk of trying to take itself too seriously as if its almost ashamed of being a comedy show. The contrast between the audience laughter and the often dark and gruesome occurrences gave the first two series a great tone (except for the occasional "ewww" revulsions) which was lacking in the third. I also wasn't too keen on how some of the characters were treated (Pauline and Micky in particular) and didn't think it felt like Royston Vasey in the same way the previous series did and although I did like the way each episode happened concurrently it didn't seem to be for any real reason. The Christmas Special was good fun though. |
Paul - the third series is/was wonderful post-modernist surreal/horror/comedy
By taking a single moment/scene/incident, and showing it from a number of different points-of-view was a masterstroke. Also, don't forget that it was only three people playing all the main characters - both male and female (and those who were neither)!
While I agree that the third series was 'different' to the sit-coms that had been the first two series', I personally think that the dark humour in the third is more in touch with what the league were about, other than the sequences featuring Dean Tavalouris, which took things much too much to the extreme, as far as I (a fan) am concerned
By the way, this is my favourite sketch from the show. It always results in wet knickers. Oh - is that too much info. Curse you vodka!