Things we noticed from watching tv this week 7 (spoilers)

Two shows that we've previously looked at in this column ended this week. The Cup and Lost in Austen were both largely successful but their finales brought up a couple of points worth examining.

Last week I expressed concern that the lead in The Cup, Terry McConnell, bordered on being so unlikeable, that it was actually affecting the comedy and making it hard to buy into the show. So I was delighted to see three beats, three brief moments, in the final episode that addressed this very point. Early on in the episode, Terry argues with his rival, Steve. Steve makes some derogatory remark about Terry's short lived career and his son, but Terry reacts passionately, telling him that his son is a better player than either of them ever were. And he means it too. He puts his son in front of himself. Later, after Terry and his wife have rowed, and she has made him choose between her and football (the choice every man dreads), and after he has initially chosen football, he turns down the chance to manage the team to watch the game in the stands next to his wife instead. It may sound a small thing when written on the page here, but in context of the show it was a massive moment and choice. Finally, after his son misses a last minute penalty, costing his side the cup, Terry consoles him with genuine, selfless, tenderness. Three brief moments which for me rounded out this character so much that it was then no problem laughing at the usual crap he pulled during the rest of the episode. The finale was then the strongest one of the lot and I hope it returns for a second series.

Amanda Price made it back to present day in Lost in Austen, but only briefly as it turned out. When I first looked at this show I confessed that I loved it, but wondered how long it could last, as this new take on Pride & Prejudice seemed to have a built in limited shelf life. What I didn't realise at the time was that its run was only going to be four episodes! Two shorter than the standard series run in the UK. And with apparently very little avenue available for a second run. Big shame. Not sure whether it was a lack of confidence in the show, a budget issue, or what, but there was surely more scope and fun to be had reworking the famous story of Elizabeth and Darcy. Oh well. As it happened, the final episode was completely bonkers. Amanda found a door back into contemporary London, followed by Darcy, who then found Elizabeth working as a nanny, using all the latest mod cons, but still talking like she was two hundred years old. Then, they all made it back through the key hole, as it were. There was some fast talking to be done, and playing hard and loose with restoring Jane to Bingley because she had married Collins instead. But never mind all that. What everyone wanted to know was who was going to end up with Darcy. My wife, an ardent Pride & Prejudice fan, promptly declared that after loving the series, if Amanda didn't end up with Darcy instead of Elizabeth, she would hate it. And there in lay the challenge. There was a lot of talk of destiny and fate, and Elizabeth seemed resigned to hers with Darcy, even though she clearly preferred 21st Century living. But really, there was only one logical conclusion. Elizabeth would follow her dream, and Amanda would live hers. The series closed as Amanda and Darcy kissed and embraced for the first proper time. It was hard to argue with that... and it made the missus happy too. But the standout moment of the episode, in fact probably the whole series, was when Amanda made Darcy come out of the lake, shirt all wet, and as she put it, "having a very post modern moment." It mimicked Andrew Davies' adaptation and the infamous Colin Firth scene, which of course was never even in the original novel. It was hilarious. And it perfectly summed up what Lost in Austen was all about.

Finally we come to our first look at Merlin. When I heard about this series and how it was going to fill what is now known as the Doctor Who slot, I thought what a great idea. Kind of like Robin Hood with magic. Interestingly, in a forum over at TwelvePoint.com three separate people revealed they also had Merlin projects in various stages of development, now effectively up in smoke. All no doubt had different takes on a classic story. The BBC have, naturally, gone for family friendly, PG, Merlin and Arthur as teenagers. The pilot showed a lot of promise and I really liked it. The young leads meet, clash, and hate each other, unaware that their destiny's lie together. And there was a lot at stake too. In Camelot magic is banned, but an evil sorceress tries to kill young Arthur. Merlin saves him and a mutual respect, if not quite friendship yet, is born. The acting was okay and the special effects not bad (the dragon has come in for a bit of stick but I thought it was fine.) The set seemed a bit monty python to me but they just about got away with it. But for me, and I guess for most of us, story telling is everything. Sometimes a pilot, strangely, is the weakest episode in the show. But when you think about it that's not so surprising. Everything is new, everything has to be established. And they did that well. But the second episode is where I expected things to kick on. But early signs are there will be a heavy story of the week format and very little serial element. Personally I think this is a shame. The second episode had a knight tournament as its main, and only story really. When one considers that Arthur is hardly likely to be killed off in episode two, what was really at stake? Why should we have cared who won or not? Both Doctor Who and Robin Hood were built around a different main story each week, but with distinct series elements. Merlin now needs to introduce something that is going to keep us coming back each week. There needs to be an overarching story, a hook, something at stake for the whole of Camelot or at least the main characters. But I will certainly tune in next week to see more. One thing though. Merlin was deemed to be special in the first episode because he had never studied magic, had been born with the gift, and just had to look at stuff to do it (jedi style.) In the second episode he was uttering spells left, right and centre?? Any old teenage wizard can do that!

This time next week - Heroes is back!!!!

Things we noticed watching tv this week 6 (spoilers)

I've been pretty busy this week getting my Rise Summer Challenge script finished. I'm happy to report it's pretty much done and will go off tomorrow! (I've stopped giving submission envelopes a kiss for luck, really, I have.) But rest assured, I've still managed to catch some TV. Last week, with Red Planet in mind, I looked at three hour long shows on. But don't forget that they will also consider thirty minute formats. So let's look at a couple of those.

When is the protagonist not the protagonist? When you are watching Entourage (ITV2). Season five, following the exploits of movie star Vincent Chase and his boys, has kicked off and it's as good as ever. I really love this show. It's so superbly written, so brilliantly executed, so hilarious, that it's baffling why ITV2 have not made more of a big deal about it and kept messing about with its time slot. But never mind all that. For our purposes, lets look at how the show works. As I mentioned, although Vince is the obvious candidate for protagonist, he is actually the least interesting character in the show. For the first four seasons, he didn't change that much. He was a playboy, a charmer, good hearted, but living life to the full. But not for nothing is the show called Entourage, and not Movie Star. His crew, from manager Eric Murphy, half brother and one hit wonder Johnny Drama, and all round dogsbody Turtle, have been fascinating to watch. They have all come of age in their own right. Not to mention his agent, the irrepressible Ari Gold. Starting as a relatively minor character, he has become one of the linchpins of the show.

I talked a little last week about working with 'unpleasant' characters. I was critical of Mutual Friends for basically not having any characters I could empathise with. But Ari Gold is a brilliant example of a character who is foul mouthed, rude, money orientated and morally debunked - and yet we love him all the more for it. How does this work? I think there are couple of reasons worth noting. One, he's funny. Really funny. And I've often argued that if a character makes us laugh, we will forgive them most things. But also, he is often, ultimately, right. He knows how to play the Hollywood game, and genuinely wants to do the best for his client. The third aspect is his relationship with his family. He loves his children, humiliating himself last season in front of a school principal for the sake of his son. And although he often argues with his wife, he has never cheated on her, despite the obvious opportunities such a man would have in Hollywood. So finally we come back to Vinny Chase. He made a great independent movie, then a blockbuster, and last season saw the release of his latest film. Cleverly, it flopped. Had it been a success there would've been nowhere for the series to go. Now, the focus returns to putting Vince back on the Hollywood map. For the first time, Vince questions where he is and what he is doing with his life. I can't wait to find out what happens next.

The other thirty minute show I'm watching at the moment is The Cup (BBC2). This series about a junior football team in Bolton, and moreover the parents of the players, is filmed as a mockumentary. And for the most part it's funny and works well. But coming back to our discussion about unpleasant characters, the lead here, Terry McConnell, definitely fits into that category. And I do sometimes find it difficult to get on board with his actions. He is socially inept, neglects his wife and is completely insensitive to others. Well, so is Basil Fawlty and David Brent, right? But there are significant differences. Cybil Fawlty is a shrew and we feel sorry for Basil. Terry McConnell's wife is the nicest character in the show. Brent doesn't hurt anyone, only himself. McConnell's antics contributed to the team manager having a heart attack and possibly poisoning the rival boy for his son's position (although we don't know this yet and I seriously hope it will be revealed not to be the case - it would be hard to justify character wise, even in comedy.) He's also casually racist and knows it too, unlike Brent who is just clumsily ignorant. Finally, McConnell claims he does everything to help his talented son become a professional footballer. But we can see that he doesn't really care about his son's wishes, but only lives vicariously through him. In fact, his son loves cooking more than football and would rather become a chef. Most of the time McConnell is oblivious to this and when he is aware of it, dismisses it with dismay. This stuff matters because I think it prevents The Cup from being brilliant. If, for example, the two were in tune, that McConnell was exactly the same, but his son wanted to play for Bolton as much as he did, you could empathise with his actions more. It's possibly the difference between a good show and a great one. If The Cup gets a second series, I wonder whether there will be a shift in McConnell's character, or at the very least his relationship with his family?

Good luck to everyone again with their competition submissions and this slot next week will be taking my first look at Merlin!