free counter with statistics If We're Thanking God for You Being Here, Does He Also Take the Blame? | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

thankG.jpg

If We’re Thanking God for You Being Here, Does He Also Take the Blame?

“Thank God You’re Here” / The TV Whore
Apr. 9, 2007

TV Reviews | April 9, 2007 | Comments (48)


“Thank God You’re Here” pretty much met my every expectation. Unfortunately, my expectations were decidedly low, and while the show met them, it did not exceed them. The hour-long show — which premieres tonight at 9 p.m. on NBC (with a second episode immediately following) — is based around an old improvisational comedy game. When performed on stage, the game works like this — several folks are in a room, and they’re given some predetermined situation. Someone else then comes from offstage, entering this room “blindly” (knowing nothing about the setup), and that person then has to improv their way through the scene with the others, dealing with whatever punches are tossed his or her way. “Thank God You’re Here” is a pseudo-competition based around this concept, hosted by David Alan Grier (and I don’t know why, but when he walked out, it really shocked me to see that his hair is going quite white) and judged by Dave Foley.

Now I don’t know if Foley or Grier have any formal improv experience, but it makes sense to have them involved anyway. Both are probably best known, even so many years after the fact, for their sketch-comedy shows (Foley was, of course, in “Kids in the Hall,” while Grier was part of “In Living Color”). And sketch comedy shares quite a bit in common with the art of improv, and sketches often grow out of improv exercises (this is one of the main reasons that “Saturday Night Live” and “Mad TV” employ so many former members of The Groundlings and Second City, the two best-known improv geroups in the country). But the comedic talents of both Foley and Grier (and both can be hysterical in the right setting) go wasted here, as they’re basically forced into schticky roles as the “wacky” host and the “ha-ha” judge.

In any event, the way the show works is that there are four celebrity guests who play the “blind” folks coming into the rooms. Tonight’s premiere, for example, features Wayne Knight (“Newmaaan!”), Brian Cranston (“Malcolm in the Middle”), Jennifer Cooldige (Stifler’s mom), and Joel McHale (host of “The Soup,” on E!). All they know, before going through the door, is whatever they can figure out from the costume they’ve been given — for example, Knight was put into doctor’s garb, while Cranston was in rocker attire (complete with long-haired wig). There’s a minute of worthless shtick-talk between the guest, Grier and Foley, and then the guest is shoved into the room, where every scene begins with someone who’s already in the room saying, “Thank god you’re here.” These scenes then work like the stage version I described in the beginning, except that it’s all dressed up — so the guest and everyone else are in appropriate costumes, and the stage itself is dressed as a particular scene (for example, Knight’s doctor finds himself on the set of a morning talk show). The scene then carries on until Foley plays a goofy clown-horn noise, indicating that they can all stop — ostensibly, he does so when he has seen enough or when he’s “afraid” that everything is about to fall apart, but the truth is obviously that he does so when the director whispers “time for commercial” into his ear. After the stupid horn noise, some more schtick follows, Foley gives his “critique,” and we head to commercial. This is then repeated four more times — once more for each guest, and then with a final “head-to-head” scene where all four guests are tossed into one skit together. The only other content on the show is the occasional pre-taped video of edited-together clips from improv warm-up exercises the guests did before the show’s filming.

I will grant you that, on paper (or on computer monitor, in this instance), this sounds utterly boring and insipid. Most improv games sound boring and stupid in concept, however, and improv really lives or dies by the quality of the setup and the performers. Unfortunately, “Thank God You’re Here” is a bit lacking in this department. Now to be fair, it’s not dreadful. Although I never laughed out loud, I did chuckle a few times, and the whole thing was amusing enough (though not nearly as funny as the studio audience — which is annoyingly cut to far too often — appears to have found it). And the four guests were all somewhere on the scale between quite funny and decent enough. But the other component to this show is the four “unknowns” who make up the ensemble cast that appears in each of the sketches, and they pretty much, for lack of a better word, blow. The two guys are dreadful — stilted and unfunny. The two women fare a little better, because they’re not nearly as stilted, but they’re also mostly unfunny. However, in all fairness to these four actors, I’m not sure how much is due to them simply being bad and how much of this is due to the one glaring problem with this show which, for me, winds up being its fatal flaw.

Now before I can talk about this fatal flaw, I have to be self-indulgent and talk a little about improv comedy in general. If you don’t care about my thoughts on the nature of improv, fair enough — you can skip the rest of this review, and I’ll leave you with this assessment of the show: “Thank God You’re Here” is a cute enough diversion, and if you enjoy the lightweight fluff of “Deal or No Deal,” you’ll probably be fine leaving the channel on NBC. But I suspect that you’ll be hard pressed to tune in again, week after week (and actually, I’m not even sure where this moves to on NBC’s schedule in two weeks, when “Heroes” returns). But if you are looking for anything of real substance, or good comedy, you’d do well to change the station and look somewhere else. Try “24,” over on Fox — it also lacks substance, but the unintentional comedy this season has been through the roof.

OK, so on with the improv talk. One’s experiences, as we know, necessarily affect and inform their opinions. I started doing improv as part of my theater activities in high school (as I’ve said in previous columns, I was a total theater fag), and I also took an improv class in college as part of my never-completed theater minor. But, most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, I took several improv courses with the Groundlings when I was living in Los Angeles and, particularly because of those classes, I may be looking at this show with a more critical eye to the improv elements than many others would. But looking at “Thank God You’re Here” with such a critical eye, it’s painfully obvious that the necessary elements of a good improv piece have been stripped from this show. For one thing, the four ensemble actors I mentioned above don’t seem to be terribly good improv actors. One of the first rules of improv is that you have to listen to what the other folks say on stage, and then use that information to move the scene forward (in fact, the very first exercise we did in my first Groundlings class was something called “yes, and,” which is specifically geared towards honing one’s skill in this fundamental aspect of improv). And this is the beauty of good improvised comedy — where someone throws out some entirely unexpected thing, and everyone begins riffing on it, taking the scene off into a brilliant space that you might never be able to script on paper. But these ensemble actors don’t seem to get it. Sure, they’re listening in the purest sense of the word, and some of them do seem to try to integrate things the “guest” says into the skit. But for the most part, not so much. This is partially the fault of the actors themselves but it also stems directly from the problem I said I’d come back to, the thing that I think is the show’s fatal flaw.

And that flaw is this: The producers of this show decided to give the ensemble actors a script to work with. This kills every possible good thing that improv can do. First, the script generally consists of a bunch of question or commands (e.g., “what do you call this,” or “I heard you know how to read hieroglyphics — read these and tell us what they say”). Such a thing may be a fine in the very beginning of the skit, to get things moving. But the ensemble continually falls back to the questions in their script. So the guest actor may give some great response, but instead of riffing off of whatever has just been said, allowing the skit to develop naturally, the ensemble actors immediately go to whatever the next scripted question is. The skits therefore end up lacking any natural flow, everything the ensemble actors do feels entirely forced, and the comedic potential of improv is all but ground to a halt.

Now I understand, to some extent, why the show chose to go in this direction. It’s because good improv is hard. And many of the guests probably have little or no improv training. So without these questions or commands to guide them, they might flop. And not in the way the show’s producers would love, where the guest simply says something stupid or breaks character for a minute, but in a way that would be truly embarrassing and possibly painful to watch, where the actor becomes utterly flummoxed or, worse yet, moves into the background and fails to really do anything. But that won’t happen with the question/command approach, because this basically feeds a setup to the guest, who can then simply try to use their general comedy talents to pull out a punchline.

And on that level, the show is, as I mentioned above, amusing enough. And I realize that this may be enough for some, that my indulgent nitpicking about the improv failings of this show may not matter to many viewers. But I couldn’t help but notice it throughout the show. And it’s a shame too, because with at least some of the guest actors, there was some potential for really great improv. Brian Cranston was particularly committed to what was going on (granted, he was given a fun/easy setup) and he really could have shone in a truly natural improvisational skit. Jennifer Coolidge, meanwhile, was particularly disappointing, given her prior improv work with the Groundlings and in the Christopher Guest movies (which are largely improvised). But it’s hard to say whether her obvious discomfort on stage was her fault or whether it stemmed from the fact that she was stuck in the most straightforward Q&A skit of the night, something that surely worked against all of her improv instincts, forcing her to simply try to come up with one liners.

What’s funny here is that the one “improv nerd” thing the show seems to get right is also rendered worthless. When Foley offers critiques at the end of each skit, it is readily apparent that he has some real insight into the art. However, because these are celebrities, his comments necessarily skew positive, and because it’s on TV, his comments are obviously edited down to just one or two quick things. I would actually love to see a more lengthy and candid critique from him, addressing the scene as a whole. But that’s not what this show is. Like those pieces of Foley’s critiques we actually get to see, the show is a drained and over-simplified version of something good.


theTVwhore.jpg

Seth Freilich is Pajiba’s television columnist. When pressed to quickly come up with something funny to type here, he floundered and stuttered, and all he could give us was, “umm … er … well … I like to … watch TV.” Those Groundlings classes paid off in spades.


Grindhouse | Pajiba Love 04/09/07



Comments

A scripted improv show. I never...

Well, I guess this should've been expected, considering the advent of "reality" programming, which is just about the furthest you can get from reality.

Sad really. There's a niche market for good improv, and NBC couldn't capitalize on it. Big suprise.

Posted by: Smokin at April 9, 2007 12:44 PM

"I took several improv courses with the Groundlings when I was living in Los Angeles."

You and Tobias Bluth, huh? ;)

Posted by: Ranylt at April 9, 2007 12:53 PM

Wow, I used to love David Alan Grier on In Living Color. I still have fond memories of Blaine & Antoine Merryweather from Men on Film.
I agree, Seth, his hair turning white shocks me too. He must be older than I thought.
This show sounds dumb, though. I'll skip it.

Posted by: Brie at April 9, 2007 1:26 PM

So, how long before we see copies of this show on other networks?
Or more possibly...how long before Fox "creates" 'American Improv'?

Posted by: Diggs at April 9, 2007 1:33 PM

Oh, Dave Foley... You never fail to push the envelope as to what stupid project you'll whore yourself out to. Of course, Dave Foley on a bad day is still light years away from Kevin McDonald on a good day...

Posted by: litelysalted at April 9, 2007 1:34 PM

But Jennifer Coolidge is so much more than Stifler's Mom! I think she's best known for the Christopher Guest movies, which she's awesome in. And wasn't she in The Groundlings? I was planning on watching just for her.

Posted by: megbon at April 9, 2007 1:42 PM

Is there any purpose in drawing a comparison between this show and "Who's Line?"

Posted by: Amanda at April 9, 2007 3:01 PM

I've seen the teasers for this, and all I can think is, "Man, I sure do miss the British version of 'Who's Line is it Anyway?'" *That* was some good improv.

Posted by: Kathleen at April 9, 2007 3:02 PM

Tobias FUNKE.

Posted by: CN at April 9, 2007 3:39 PM

It makes me sad when I see any of the Kids In The Hall guys doing shit like this... how the mighty have fallen. But then, I suppose it's no worse than how far the In Living Color folks have fallen.

And HEY! Ms. Salted! Don't you knock Kevin McDonald. He was in -

(pause while I do some quick IMDB'ing)

Oh, shit. Forget it. That read like a cinematic bloodbath.

It seems like every time I read one of Seth's pieces, I'm reminded of why I don't watch television anymore.

Posted by: TK at April 9, 2007 3:55 PM

Amen, Kathleen. That was some funny shit, especially when Josie or Mike would sing. Drew Carey's totally unnecessary American version doesn't even come close (although I do love most of the regular improvers on it, Brad Sherwood excluded).

Excellent points about improv, Seth. I can't imagine anything more stifling than a Q&A improv game that never goes anywhere else. Damn, if they were going with unknowns for the rest of the cast anyway, why not go with ones who can actually improv in the first place?

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 4:11 PM

TK- Hee!!! Cinematic bloodbath!!!

If you're into masochism try renting The Godson from netflix. It's a Godfather spoof vehicle for Kevin McDonald and Rodney Dangerfield. Guess what Rodney's character's name is? C'mon, guess!! The Rodfather. I am not making this up.

Oh and Dave Foley has his own piece of snuff comedy called The Wrong Guy which is slightly more watchable and slightly less asinine. Also it was filmed before Dave Foley started looking like my dad... (shudder)... So it's got that going for it.

Posted by: litelysalted at April 9, 2007 4:11 PM

So is this show brand new, then? Because the Australian version has been going for more than two years, and usually we steal everything from you guys. :)
I would LOVE to see your cast in action though. What a fantastic pile of comedians! Especially Jennifer Coolidge and David Cross.

Posted by: Loob at April 9, 2007 4:12 PM

"Tobias FUNKE."

Yes, that would be the one...

(sob)

Posted by: Ranylt at April 9, 2007 4:51 PM

Yeah I saw a promo for this show and groaned. I think televised improv is overall a bad idea, as being there and being an audience participant is part of the experience. Thusly, with the exception of Wayne Brady, "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" is also a bust. But this? Even moreso, it seems. My guess is that this set of actors either do not come from improv backgrounds or comedy in general. They're reading a script just like a regular actor. I've also done improv- but not in any notable groups.

Posted by: Tawdry Audrey at April 9, 2007 5:32 PM

Tobias Funke
Analrapist

Best business card....ever

Posted by: pehokee at April 9, 2007 5:55 PM

"The scene then carries on until Foley plays a goofy clown-horn noise, indicating that they can all stop -- ostensibly, he does so when he has seen enough or when he's "afraid" that everything is about to fall apart..."

Humphrey Lyttleton wants his schtick back.

Posted by: vic at April 9, 2007 7:02 PM

Definately agree on how having improv exp could ruin viewing a mediocre show. That said, no one's mentioned the short lived 'Green Screen' on Comedy Central. Seems it could have been really neat once the 1st season kinks were wrinkled out. Also it had awesome music. Also, also, I miss the cute/scary young guy who always wore a suit. Okay, I'm done.

Posted by: mango.miasma at April 9, 2007 7:08 PM

Question from a curious Aussie: Was there any mention that TGYH was from Australia? Shame that the US version isn't that great, the 2 seasons we've had here so far have been pretty good overall.

Posted by: Kerry at April 9, 2007 7:13 PM

Amanda -- no, there is absolutely no purpose in drawing comparisons to "Whose Line Is It Anyway," either the great British version or the inferior (but still amusing enough, sometimes) American version.

Kerry and others -- I didn't mention that this was an Australian import because, truthfully, I didn't know that until after my review had been published. My bad.

And sadly, my performance abilities could never hold a candle to those of the late, great Tobias Fünke.

Posted by: TV Whore at April 9, 2007 7:20 PM

From what I've heard and read of this new U.S version, the problem seems to stem from the scripted actors unable to break from script and improvise themselves.

The simple beauty of the Australian original is that whatever the guest blurts out, that becomes the new reality. The ensemble in the scene must move in the direction the guest wants to take them, while also staying in character and trying to derail proceedings with random questions.

Seems the problem here is that the American ensemble is way too inflexible.

Posted by: sarz at April 9, 2007 7:35 PM

yeah, i'm not a big fan of the aussie version but i have to give the ensemble cast credit- they truly carry the show in a very funny way.

Posted by: raya at April 9, 2007 8:01 PM

Oh dear. Why do people continue to mess up Who's vs. Whose, even when it is in the name of a freaking show? I mean, it's already there, the right one, and people still use the wrong one.

/end English teacher rant (also see it's vs. its)

Posted by: Melissa at April 9, 2007 8:20 PM

Yeah, I'm another Aussie and I will admitt that from what I've read here it does sound like our ensemble cast is definitely more flexible.

And another problem with this show is that its all up to the guests, some of them can be absolutely hilarious (Hamish Blake for the Aussies out there) but others can be a little painful to watch.

While I understand you not really loving the show, if I were you I'd probably give it a few more shots just to see if they try to let the whole show flow a bit more freely. I'm really only saying this because I know how hilarious the Ausie show can be on occasion.

Posted by: Nalliac at April 9, 2007 9:15 PM

Michael, you are not quite the ladies man I had pictured. Hopefully, we will remedy that when we are in the spa spreading body chocolate on each other.

Posted by: superedna at April 9, 2007 10:36 PM

I'm a fan of the aussie version, but even I can see that it does depend on the guest. They've been some incredibly bad ones here as well, but luckily they are usually redeemed by a decent skit from Hamish/Matt Newton (on occasion)/someone else decent enough to make up for the bad radio host.

I worried when I heard this was going to the US, because the sense of humour between here and there differs somewhat. But I agree with Nalliac - give it another go, hopefully they get some better guests.

Posted by: rach at April 9, 2007 10:36 PM

Nallic and rach - the problem with the show isn't the guests. It's everything else. In fact, the only good moments are when a good guest is given a chance to riff, but that then screeches to a halt when the regulars bring things back "on script."

And I just tried watching the second episode, in fact, which is still airing as I type this. Couldn't bare it - even more painful to watch than the first episode - and I had to turn it off. Although, it was interesting to see David Alan Grier walk out this time with his hair nicely dyed a deep black. Probably the best part of the episode for me.

Posted by: TV Whore at April 9, 2007 10:47 PM

this is the most long winded review ever.
in the spirit of improv....riiight?

Posted by: jules at April 9, 2007 11:04 PM

Unlike Seth, I thought the second episode was better then the first.
But the glaring flaw that he mentioned became even more apparent during Monique's skit, where they had her as the gamshow sidekick. But everytime they did there "ask/answer next question" they went back to their original script, and refused to roll with her, which brought any possible momentum to a screeching halt. When you have 1 person improving, and 4 deadlocked into a script, the contrast between the two is so painfully obvious
that the ensemble comes off much worse then they probably are. I will say that the guests by and large were brilliant with what they were given, it could have been so much better with a more free-flowing ensemble.

Posted by: Peter at April 9, 2007 11:14 PM

Well all the other Aussies beat me to it - I didn't know there were so many of us here :)

Posted by: eiluj at April 10, 2007 2:04 AM

Oh Dave... we love you... come back to the light :(

Posted by: nova at April 10, 2007 5:16 AM

The show was painful to watch - seemed way to contrived, all the fault of the scripted "actors" who have no business pretending to be on an improv show. The premise would work best if all actors were asked to improvise and were allowed to swear. The obvious "G" rating platform is killing the humor.

Posted by: Courtney at April 10, 2007 8:22 AM

Thank you, TV Whore, for putting into words what I was feeling. I tried to watch this last night and I just found it really boring. But you're right... every time someone tried to get a little funny, the other actors would come back to the "questions."

The worst was the game show with Monique (I think) in the second episode where she would try to give a funny answer and they would actually CORRECT her. "No, the contestant's name is really Jane." I started getting angry. Even Monique said afterwards "I was getting all the answers wrong."

I thought the point of improv is that there are no right or wrong answers... just funny or unfunny ones.

Posted by: Samantha Baker at April 10, 2007 11:21 AM

The show appears to be a televised "MAD LIBS" more than anything else and for that I am disappointed. The fill in the blank format grew very tiresome. I was surprised how funny (and fat) Wayne Knight is.

DAG's white hair also surprised but it was obviously powder for his participation in one of the sketches. Even that was bad.

Worst elements: the forced banter between DAG and DF, the judging (wink wink), the commentary by DF, and the constant, annoying shots of near hysterical audience members howling at half-funny lines. Looks like an infomercial or AFV.

Posted by: David at April 10, 2007 11:59 AM

Improv shows--so not my cuppa. Am I the only one who runs screaming from the likes of "Whose line..." et al? It could be residue from my theatre school days--I'm not sure, but it's like I came out with a completely different disposition from Seth's about this stuff.

Now, improv in filmed comedies is another matter entirely, for me. I love and admire it in work like "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and the Christopher Guest spoofs, where it loses that scent of... whatever I smell in pure improv onstage set-ups.

Posted by: Ranylt at April 10, 2007 12:21 PM

Oh, I so wanted to take those four stock actors off that stage and teach them Meisner "working off" skills. Get rid of the scripts, let Dave Foley onstage and let it rip!!

And WTF was with Brian Cranston reverting to a faux-gay role each time he was on stage? Isn't he a professional actor with training to find deeper characters? Come on.

I have to say I was most impressed with Ferris Beuller's high school secretary. She was actually funny. Genuinely funny. Too bad I can never remember her name.

This show will last another 2 weeks - I'm placing my bets. And I agree Australia improv and sketch comedies are WAY funnier than ours. Been there. Seen it. They take real risks which is what makes for GOOD improv.

- Signed,
A recovering actor/director of the stage

Posted by: travelingirl73 at April 10, 2007 3:52 PM

I sure miss Whose Line-- I would argue that it was an extremely succesful exploitation of televised improv. So sad that it no longer exists, really!

I found this new show positively unbearable, for all the reasons people have mentioned above. Barf. The only somewhat funny bits for me were the warm-up clips; probably because it gave the actors a bit more freedom.
If they don't loosen up the format of the show, it'll be cancelle within a month.

Posted by: Brenda at April 10, 2007 4:05 PM

Dave Foley. Dave Foley could sit at a table in an empty room for half an hour, picking his nose and wiping his finger on the underside, and have it televised on Fox, and he still couldn't use up all the goodwill I have for him from Kids and Newsradio.
Even so, I do wish he'd do something more worthy.

Years ago I remember seeing "Whose Line--" the British version. It was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen. The American version fell flat. Fact is, the British seem to have a knack for acting. I think they take the acting itself very seriously whereas in America, its the celebrity that takes precedence. (I know, gross over generalizations)
In America, actors seem to wait for laughs on these improv shows, whereas elsewhere, the actors don't care whether people are lauging or not. They plow on, they commit. There are no weighty pauses like you could see in the commercials for the Jason Alexander skit, which just made me shake my head and turn away.
It's not that I don't love people like Jennifer Coolidge, but I think it's as this review said-- the show is set up poorly.

Posted by: Ari at April 10, 2007 5:39 PM

travelingirl73:

Her name is Edie McClurg.

Posted by: M at April 11, 2007 11:56 AM

"the problem with the show isn't the guests. It's everything else."

You're absolutely right. I did improv for 11 years and that is exactly it. The ensemble actors basically toss "setup/punch" lines for the celebrity to respond to with "something funny". I just watched the second episode with Mo'Nique. She was on a game show and she says, basically, "here's how this part is played". And then the host says "Actually, here is how it's played."

Then Richard kind is on a "radio show" and says his name is steve. Then the ensemble actor says "but his real name is dave-o!"

Then what is the damn point?! If they can't even change the guys name from dave-o to steve, or adapt in the slightest, then they might as well just make it a sketch comedy show with celebrity guest stars.

I had such medium-high hopes for this show, but they've totally sanitized the concept just to be sure the comedy is always totally safe. That's improv, Jeff Zucker style.

Sorry for the rant, I'm an improv nerd too.

Posted by: Noel at April 11, 2007 11:20 PM

"I'm a fan of the aussie version, but even I can see that it does depend on the guest."

But ideally, the beauty of the ensemble is that they can make the guest look good. It's like in Whose Line if they had someone from the audience who sucked or was quiet, they could still turn it in to gold. This ensemble doesn't know how to do that...or is told to stick to the script.

And I totally agree that the TV-PG rating is killing the comedy. It's not that you have to swear to be funny, you just need to take chances in improv.

Did I mention I coached improv too? Ok sorry, last comment. No foolsies.

Posted by: Noel at April 11, 2007 11:24 PM

And what you're referring to, where the ensemble basically goes back to the script after the celebrity takes it a different direction, is called "blocking".

Dammit! Ok, for realsies. Sorry.

Posted by: Noel at April 11, 2007 11:31 PM

It's a giant pimp show. The celebrities are brought on and pimped out by the stock actors who aren't deviating from the script. I believe they're directed to do just what they're doing. I don't think they're awful actors and they may not be awful improvisors, but we'll never know. They're job is to set up the celebrity to see if they can be funny or not. I agree with the review, it's cute. I may watch if there's someone on that I like. I laugh easy and I like to laugh.

Edie McClurg did well. Very clean, well listened, well acted scene.

Oh, and as far as G and PG TV killing comedy...seriously? That's absurd. To say PG TV limits the chances you can take in improv strips the whole philosophy of "taking chance" of it's power. It may exclude some language and challenge you to tread lightly in certain subject matters, but that shouldn't prevent any performer for taking chances and to blame that is plain excuse making.

Posted by: doitforfree at April 12, 2007 4:12 PM

Firstly, do we know where this show REALLY originated? The Aussie version ran last year and is being repeated this year (for the Aussies who think they're seeing new stuff!). I suspect this is a British 'invention' which has been quietly adapted to Australia and then franchised to the US.

The ensemble cast is vital. The Aussie cast were only acknowledged in the season finale which I thought incredibly rude, since they had carried 90% of the improv burden throughout. Every one of them ought to have been given the chance as the star, THEN we'd have seen some real improv.

Though completely biased (British born) it is true that the Brits have a way with comedy (and satire) that the Aussies almost achieve and the Americans just seem to fall short of. I think it is the conservative mind-set that we, outsiders, perceive in the American psyche that just holds them back just that teeny bit more ...

Absolutely Fabulous is a perfect example. It just didn't work because the people making decisions couldn't allow the actors to say and do what their characters were scripted to do and it all fell very, very, flat and was very, very, short-lived.

Posted by: pandymonium at April 19, 2007 2:28 AM

When I heard "Thank God You're Here" was bought by an American company, I just assumed it was the Australian series being shown over there.

pandymonium- The Chaser's War on Everything? Excellent episode last night...but maybe I'm just biased (wearing a Chaser t-shirt).

Posted by: Chantelle at April 19, 2007 4:20 AM

I agree with your review wholeheartedly. I have watched 3 episodes now with my boyfriend. He works in science, and I'm an actor with an extensive background in improv. My biggest complaint has always been that none of the guests thus far seem to "go with it", which is what improv is all about. I knew the whole scripted questions set-up was messing it up, but it never occurred to me that it might be the main issue at hand.

Thus far of 12 guests the only person who had me laughing out loud was Mo'Nique, who I have a deep suspicious has the LEAST background in improv of any of them! Though she fell back on her traditional schtick of "assertive black lady making jokes about being tubby and how she hates skinny girls," she didn't blink an eye and went with (almost) every curve ball they threw her (including the bit where the whole ensemble did a dance that she obviously didn't know the steps to - that had me guffawing!!!)

Everyone seems to completely REJECT the things they are being fed by the ensemble, which is essentially the OPPOSITE of improv. Wayne Knight made it work in his favor - almost all of his responses negated the direction he was being moved towards, but he held it together. But with everyone else it usually goes like this: "And you were (something) when suddenly..." and they respond "I don't care, and here's my funny joke in substitution of taking your set-up and making it funny."

Tonight George Takei from Star Trek was on, and I was embarassed watching him. The whole set-up was obviously meant to have something to do with being a foot doctor - with foot x-rays on the wall and everything - and the ensemble kept TRYING to lead him back in that direction, and he kept stopping them at every turn. To his credit he made a decision (that he was a doctor dealing with neck-up only) and he STUCK with it, but when it is so obvious that EVERYONE ELSE ON STAGE is trying to move you in a different direction, you need to find a way back on that path (He could have said "Oh my, my concussion from my recent ski accident made me forget that I am, in fact, a foot doctor!)

The worst part is that the shows are getting worse
and worse due in part to casting. Why in the HELL did they cast Shannon Elisabeth?!? She's not even a comedian, she's just a chick who got famous by taking off her top in a T&A movie!

I had high hopes for this show but as soon as I saw Jennifer Coolidge's performance I knew it was going downhill.

Posted by: Jaybee at April 19, 2007 4:57 AM

Yes, Chantelle, "The Chaser's War on Everything" is a fine show but it is under-grad humour: a bunch of boys getting in the face of 'the man' and 'attacking' taboo subjects. Just see how funny they are when they sell out to one of the commercial channels ... yawn.

Posted by: pandymonium at April 23, 2007 8:52 PM

I caught the tail-end of last week's show with Tom Green, George Takai, Shannon Elizabeth and some blonde chick from Oxygen (at least that's what my sister told me). I caught Tom Green's skit, which was just terrible. Then again, Tom Green is just terrible, so what was I expecting?

I agree with The TV Whore about the flow (or lack thereof) of the improv- it's awkward and clunky. The only reason I'd keep watching was for Dave Foley, but since we have "NewsRadio" on DVD, I am spared the experience of having to sit through another episode of TGYH.

God, why can't "Arrested Development" come back? I miss it more and more each day, and especially at times when I find myself watching a terrible new show (cough-October Road-cough) that could be on the air for YEARS. The injustice of it all!

Posted by: Kristi at April 25, 2007 10:28 AM