There is a myth that the first series of Black Adder was not up to scratch. It hasn't been repeated as much as the other versions and has been criticised by the writers and cast. When Ben Elton came on board it became more popular but also more childish and less surreal. Personally, I think it is the best series and holds up much better than the subsequent entries.
shareWell, I'm probably one of the people making that myth; I think parts of the first series are superb, but also that parts are painfully awkward.
My biggest problem with the first series is actually Blackadder himself: this is of course a matter of personal taste, but I find Rowan Atkinson much, much funnier when he's playing it smart. I can't stand Mr Bean or any of the variations on his rubber-faced idiocy that Atkinson has done over the years, and I just find the first series' idiotic, gurning Blackadder agonising to watch; surely mugging for laughs, as he does with alarming frequency, is as childish as anything Ben Elton brought to the series?
At any rate, for those of us who dislike the Mr Bean side of Atkinson's comedy, the whole first series is bound to be a little underwhelming: we have to put up with him in every episode. It just makes him irritating to listen to, and since he's the main character, that's a lot of time being irritated.
The series also seems to me to be a little disjointed in a way that's hard to describe (sorry, that's not much help!): as if the cast, particularly the guest cast, don't seem to know quite what's going on or why their lines should be funny, but they're going to say them anyway. It seems either under-rehearsed or sloppily directed to me. As I said, I find it difficult to articulate exactly why that is.
I don't think it's a bad series, by any means, and a lot of it is really hilarious, but to me it feels like a first try rather than something that's fully-matured.
What have cast and writers said about the first series? Do you have any links to interviews?
I have nothing to say, I just love this hat.
I personally liked the first series. It had more of a plot to it. The Blackadder character even though as wield and off as it might have seen was working towards a goal and would have stop at nothing to get to that goal. Which is to become a king.
Even though it wasn't the best among the latter series. I think it has alot of more up sides. It had the advantage of Interior and Exterior shots which I liked the most out of it. Instead of being trapped on stage in a studio. The comedy I liked too.
But, I think it was treated a little unfair. It is a good first attempt for a series and It set the stage for the other three. It could have been worst. It could have been about a group of people stealing bikes in north london.
http://www.chortle.co.uk/TV/tvfeatures/blackadder.html
Here's one in which Atkinson, Richard Curtis and Tony Robinson all slag off the first series!
Having grown up on Mr Bean, it was refreshing to see him play the 'smart guy' for once, frankly. The first series wasn't bad, but I'd seen him play dumb too many times.
shareHaving grown up on Mr Bean, it was refreshing to see him play the 'smart guy' for once, frankly. The first series wasn't bad, but I'd seen him play dumb too many times.
I realise this is a late response, but thanks for the link, houndtang75!
Why'd you say Burma? "I panicked."
Blackadder was like fine wine, it matured with age. I loved the first series, I was about 8 when it was on, none of my pals watched it. It is different from the other series but it is still class, without the original Blackadder we would not have had the greatest moment in TV history, the Last Episode of series 4.
"She is yesterday's news, I'm coming round to you" http://stage.vitaminic.com/summerisle
I completely agree. Series I had its moments, but they were too infrequent. The tone of the series changed completely between I and II, and as someone who has a limited tolerance for physical comedy (and thus finds Mr. Bean unwatchable), I was grateful for it. The writing got smarter (I will always gladly trade a knob joke for an "hilarious" face, whatever people may think of Ben Elton), Blackadder became the incisive, sarcastic bastard we love, and the rest of the brilliant characters fell into place. Replacing Rowan Atkinson with Ben Elton as a writer saved the series.
shareI agree entirely with 'Grapefruit'...
Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me
Funny enough, I don't like Atkinson at all, and I detest Mr Bean. But somehow in the first series he doesn't seem so much stupid as despicable and witty with it.
I found it a lot more off-putting in the second, during the introduction, he seems to have a "soft, dreamy face" while looking at books. Maybe I'm just more comfortable with him being blatantly off-putting than trying to look romantic.
http://informed-cat-care.com/
For me The Blackadder is probably the best of the series - edging out Series 3.
When I first saw Episode One, however, I hated it. This was because I had seen the Blackadders in almost reverse order. I was so used to seeing the confident, sarcastic, smug, smart & scheming Blackadder that we all know so well.
The character of Edmund in series one is probably a shock to many - what with the way he talks and his spineless and cowardly nature. But with several viewings you get used to it, and from then on you can concentrate on the comedy - that is brilliant!
It's set in the Middle Ages, when life was cheap. Because of Blackadder's wimpy and fearful persona - you actually get the sense that his life really is in danger in every episode.
The relationship between Blackadder, Baldrick and Percy is different in this first series. In the others, Percy and Baldrick are usually just the butt of the jokes, mocked and openly loathed by Blackadder.
In The Blackadder, he actually needs their help, and together they go through a series of hilarious and dangerous situations. The character of 'Baldrick' in series one is much better than say the Baldrick of Series 4. For a start he's normal, but smart and 'street-wise' and that's why he genuinely believes he has 'cunning plans' to get Blackadder out of trouble. At times it's Baldrick who sparks off Blackadder's scheming with his subtle insinuations. Baldrick also displays a ruthless side - he hold's a knife to a priest's throat and assaults a Bishop - all in good fun of course!
By series 4, Baldrick was a joke of a character, a figure of fun, an empty vessel - his only purpose was to make Blackadder look clever.
The supporting cast in this first series is also the best: Brian Blessed is brilliant as the menacing King and Blackadder's 'Dad'. Robert East as Prince Harry, Elspet Gray as the Queen. Throw in guest appearances by Peter Cook, Alex Norton as 'McAngus', Frank Finlay as 'The Witchsmeller' and Miriam Margolyes and Jim Broadbent in one of the funniest episodes of all the series - 'The Spanish Infanta's Beard'.
This was the only series that featured outside locations, which made it more 'real'.
My main gripe with Series 2 - was the irritating Queenie and Nursie. The humour in their scenes was very childish and generally unfunny. There was also one very weak episode 5. Baldrick is just slightly disappointing. Blackadder himself though was very good - but just a little too smug.
Series 3 had a couple of slightly weak episodes, the Blackadder character was on a par with that of Series 2 (very intelligent, scheming- but less smug). Great scenes between Blackadder, Prince George and Baldrick. Also loved the 'coffee-shop scenes'. Episodes 2, 3 and 4 are outstanding.
Series 4 - Captain Darling wasn't as good as Percy from Series 1 and 2. Baldrick was a total waste. General Melchett and George - brilliant though. Blackadder for me- was too much of a know-it-all in Series 4 and rarely looks ruffled even when faced with death (total contrast to Series 1). They also over-cooked the 'canned laughter'. All the episodes though were solid.
Series 1 doesn't really have any 'weak' episodes. If I had to pick one weaker episode, it would be episode 5 (Witchsmeller Pursuivant). The final episode 6 - is more story-based and introduces a whole new group of characters - the writers appeared to try and end the series with a bang.
I agree that this series definately isnt crap, although its probably thw worst out of the four. The Archbishop however would be one of my favourite episodes out of all four, and anything with the legend that is Brian Blessed in it is sure to be entertaining.
shareI can never see Brian Blessed without picturing Old Deuteronomy. Needless to say, Old Deuteronomy clomping around in armour waving a sword and roaring his head off made a rather entertaining image.
share[deleted]
i don't think it's 'crap'. I just think it's 'different'. It's a totally different style.
Don't Drop the Wood! It's part of my name!
All of the Blackadder series have their share of slightly unfunny characters and episodes; however, I think that the first series fares better than all the others in that respect, even though the plots aren't as "well rounded and highly polished", as you so eloquently put it.
In short, series one is my favourite.
[deleted]
I could't agree with you more about Brian Blessed. I think the first series had class, the others were just plain old comedy that had me laughing, nothing more. I guess I belong to the minority who thinks that comedy should be more than just funny.
LEF
I really enjoyed The Black Adder, and yes it is different to the others, but I think the first series is at the very least better than Black Adder goes forth. The difference in this first series is that Black Adder is a slightly different character, more weedy and less acerbic. And it allows Rowan to play certain jokes in a way that he can't do in the other series, for example when he challenges McAnnus to a duel and McAnnus shouts "To the death!" and Black Adder says "Oh....all right..." in that beautiful weedy way.
Anyway yeah Ben Elton's addition to the writing team did change things a bit, however Ben created a show in the mid-90's that Rowan starred in called the Thin Blue Line which really didn't work, it just didn't come together in that show.
Keep your eyes peeled for a hilarious sketch show that Ben and Richard Curtis wrote for Rowan in the 80's. It was a stage show and I know they put it on video tape and I actually had it on audio cassette. It was one of the funniest things I've seen, so many classic sketches like The Headmaster Sketch, Rowan as a Vicar in Church talking about Jesus at the wedding in Caanan, the awards acceptance speech sketch (great sketch that Rowan is up for an award, but he loses out to his co-star, so Rowan decides to accept the award and make an acceptance speech on his behalf: "John, unfortunately cannot not be with us tonight, as he is in Hollywood starring in his first major film role. I am however, NOT in Hollywood, not even been offered a minor role in an 8mm pornographic movie. So what is it about Johnny that sets him apart from other actors of his generation? Well I think we all know the answer to that one: syphilis. And what a great and heart warming thing it is that he has already started passing it on to a whole new generation of younger actors.")
I like the third and fourth Blackadders best. I think the first one was all right for a beginning, but I think it's much funnier when Blackadder is the smart, frustrated political climber, rather than a complete idiot. The historical satire in the first one is funny, though.
How can the gods speak to us til we have faces?
C.S. Lewis
Agreed. I think the fourth series was easily the worst, by then it was tired and repetitive, 90% of the script seemingly made up of "Darling", "I have a cunning plan..." or "that's the worst (whatever) since (whatever) (whatevered) in last years' (whatever)".
................
(¯`· ._.» º Jen º «._.·´¯)
I agree that in the later episodes those once funny jokes did become a little tiresome, but series four is better than two. Third is still King, with the original series as the second best.
It's the silly Python-esque humour blended with the Atkinson/Curtis take on Richard III and historical truths of the era that make it so great.
Plus the aray of bloody fine actors and performers putting in appearences - Brian Blessed, the amazing Peter Cook and the second best ever guest appearence in any sitcom anywhere, ever - Frank Finlay as The Witchsmeller Pursuivant.
"I'm inuspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctious to have caused you such pericumbobulations."
When you say second best guest appearance... I hope you are referring to Joan Sanderson as Mrs. Richards in Fawlty Towers as being king!
Fawlty Towers... it's a true masterpiece that makes me proud to be British (in a pig headed snobbish toff like way)... only sitcom in the world better than Blackadder - and that takes some beating!
I agree though, although the First World War series is inspiring and dramatic, Edmund's constant trying to weedle out of the trenches, and the wasted Tim McInnerny as Darling (he was much better off as Percy - why the hell he didn't stick with it I don't know)... it's just too much!
Regency era is by far the best, especially where they burn Dr Johnson's dictionary - magic! First series in second place all the way! As it's the most original, unpredictable, silly and surreal of all the series.
"When you say second best guest appearance... I hope you are referring to Joan Sanderson as Mrs. Richards in Fawlty Towers as being king!"
I love all series of Blackadder and have trouble picking my favourite. I think this series is absolutely fantastic with some hilarious bits in it, different from the later 3 I know but still brilliant. I for one really can't understand haters of this series who like the rest, madness. A friend of mine refused to continue watching this series after the first episode or two, describing it as 'grim'. Again, madness, also you have to watch the entire series before you can make any comment on it as far as I'm concerned.
share“Is this a piece of your brain?”
share"Passport-To-Pimlico"
So you identify yourself as being a passport (or port pass)? A tool to enslave the ignorant travelers..
Also, since when do parts of cities require a passport?
Why would you write an article ("to") with capital first letter?
"I agree that in the later episodes those once funny jokes did become a little tiresome, but series four is better than two. Third is still King, with the original series as the second best."
What a convoluted and overly-compelx way to express your insult to truth.
So in YOU opinion (which no rational human will agree with), the order goes like this:
- Third
- First
- Fourth
- Second
Is this right? Why did you have to say it in such a way, and not in a simple and coherent manner?
Also, the reality is that the ACTUAL order, best to worst, is:
- Fourth (Just GENIUS and flows the best)
- Third (Kinda good, but a little 'meh' compared to the fourth)
- Second (A bit stuffy and annnoying, plus it has too many disgusting elements)
- First (This is just downright boring and problematic)
The first is really problematic, as it doesn't flow well at all, it's visuals look somehow wrong (maybe because they are not perfected in a studio, but filmed on location, with overly bright lights), it has been filmed in the winter, so it's bleak and depressing, and the feel of the show is oddly awful for an early eighties show.
The rest are brighter, easier to digest (and I mean as far as atmosphere and unnecessary visual/action clutter goes), have tighter editing, better flow, better humor, better actors (come on, Brian Blessed is ok, but he is too over-the-top to be taken 'seriously' (whatever that means in a comedy), and you don't even expect him to do anything but shout and murder and pillage - he's just a bad, cartoonish caricature, whereas Stephen Fry has calm moments, and is a very good example of a slightly mad, stubborn and incompetent commander. And yet he has his shouting moments - Brian Blessed almost has nothing else - and think about all the other actors, especially Rik Mayall, and the always brilliant Hugh Laurie. There's a balance between 'cartoonish' and 'realistic', that make certain situations feel very serious and intense, that's missing in the first series)
How can anyone even entertain the idea that the Fourth is not the best? I am often amazed that the lengths that the odd denizens of this curious planet go to, and the depths that they stoop to, but that someone is seriously suggesting this.. madness, I tell ya.
"It's the silly Python-esque humour blended with the Atkinson/Curtis take on Richard III and historical truths of the era that make it so great."
Nothing Python-esque about it. Just wannabe-maybe. It's not good humor, and you'd have to really know specific points about certain historical events to even see any humor in a lot of the stuff in the first one. You don't need as much pre-knowledge for the other ones, because they are better written. It's like if understanding a movie would require you to read some specific book, first. It would be bad writing.
Nothing to praise about bad writing, you know. Historical 'truths' (whatever that means - historians can make up their own truths, because no one ever double checks their 'facts', except other historians - frankly, if you weren't there, or able to esoterically know it, you can't call it a truth. Just an accepted claim, perhaps. Have you no idea how many things historians have actually gotten wrong, and how much of it is just pure guesswork and conclusions based on very flimsy evidence (so the conclusions may be wrong)? Just research the historians' claims about Egypt and then read some interesting facts that counteract those claims, like the book 'The Orion Mystery', for example)) do not make any humor or anything else 'great'.
How could they? No, it's good writing that makes a comedy show great. And the first series does not have good writing (for the most part). It's very sloppy, amateurish, like a badly written play that has its small moments, but not that many of them. And too many bad moments inbetween.
The jokes in the first series are either cliché, unfunny, predictable from a mile away, or over-used stuff that people stopped laughing at in the 1400s.
"Plus the aray of bloody fine actors and performers putting in appearences"
You don't start a sentence with 'plus'.
The word 'array' has two 'R's in it.
The word 'appearances' is written with an 'a', instead of 'e', like you did.
And what 'bloody' fine actors? Are they bloody? Well, the king is made to look quite bloody in some scenes, because he's dead, but other than that, I don't know why you would want to put that horrible word to describe something good.
Those actors may be 'fine', but that's not enough compared to the absolute BRILLIANT actors in the other serieses, like Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, for example.
And what's so special about 'putting in appearances' (whatever that means)?
Doesn't every actor, bad or good, 'appear' in whatever they are in?
" - Brian Blessed, the amazing Peter Cook and the second best ever guest appearence in any sitcom anywhere, ever - Frank Finlay as The Witchsmeller Pursuivant. ""
You again misspelled 'appearance', you wrote 'ever' twice (redundant), and failed to produce any evidence as to why that would be the best 'appearence' (sic) 'second best ever..in any sitcom anywhere, ever'.
You also didn't tell us what you think the absolute best 'appearence' (sic) is.
I have nothing against the actors you mentioned, but they are very over-the-top here, and could have been replaced by a 'vast aray' (sic) of actors, that would've been just as good in those cartoon roles.
And they can't be compared to the brilliance of the actors in the later serieses.
Your post has so much wrong, it could still be dug more, but I think I am not in the mood to stand in the dung heap all day.
My two biggest complaints about the first series is that the pacing of the episodes seems very jerky and uneven, perhaps due to being shot on film versus videotape.
The second is the fact that Blackadder is too snivelling and not as quietly smart and clever. I just don't dig the character. The scene where he is being burned as a witch and he says, "I'm not even comfortable" is part and parcel of very weak writing and staging.
The first season is funny, original and quirky. From then on Black Adder changes style, maybe for the better in terms of popularity.
But, as I get older and my sense of humour evolves, I honestly find the first season more interesting. You're right, it hasn't aged as badly as the others. 2-4 just smack a bit of a cheesy straightforward uk "slightly rude" sitcom style. Coincidently I used to find Ben Elton hilarious when i was 13/14, not so much now.
Since the office, peep show, seinfeld, curb, arrested development, the bar has been raised in terms of originality and the subject matter for humour. Sometimes Black Adder humour can seem a bit "easy" and double entendre riddled. But season 1 ...less so.
Although, all Black Adder is great stuff.
I fail to see the humourous merit of sitcoms such as Seinfeld, The Office (both British and American versions), Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Arrested Development - I haven't seen Peep Show. They just feature copious amounts of inane banter that pathetically attempts to masquerade as wit - over the course of an entire season of Seinfeld you'd have to be hard pressed to recognise more than three witty lines of dialog -, chronically dull characters, hidden PC agendas, and an ardent disdain for any eloquent one-liner that isn't sexual. This comedies work on the assumption that if a comedy isn't a cure for insomnia or tortuously awkward, than it ain't "intellectual".
Why is it that sitcoms such as the above (along with others such as MASH, Cheers, and The Simpsons) are passionately praised by the majority of critics for being witty and original, while shows like 'Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister', 'Fawlty Towers', 'Blackadder (all produced media except series 1)', 'The Good Life', and 'Black Books' are merely praised for being witty. It infuriates me!
"This concept of WUV confuses and infuriates ME!"
I can watch the first season, but it's nowhere near as good as the following three seasons. Even Richard Curtis admits this on the DVD interview.
I have a plan that's so cunning you could brush your teeth with it.
I watch the first series and think of what Blackadder would have said if he was clever like he is in the other series... God he would have so got the best of that Prince Harry and his father King Richard!
-
Shooting Stars [HMC Site] - http://sophie-lou.tripod.com/
the first series is fantastic but it doesnt compare to the last episode on series 3 duel and duality that with stephen fry is the funniest thing i think i have ever seen.
'Of all the things Ive lost i miss my mind the most'
"Congratulations on buying the a64 minin-cannonette (or something) that was so funny :)
"She is yesterday's news, I'm coming round to you" http://stage.vitaminic.com/summerisle
I don't care what anyone says,I loved the first series.When they came out on video,finally,in 1999 I couldn't wait to part with nearly 25 quid for both.Apart from Atkinsons pageboy haircut,there was Blessed as King Richard(IV ?)brilliant guest appearances including Peter Cook,Jim Broadbent,Rik Mayall,Miriam Margolyes and best of all Frank Finlay as the Witchsmeller Pursuivant easily the best episode ever!Also never forget it was orignally billed as a series of medieval situation tragedies.
Look what your brother did to the door!
I would've liked this series had i seen it first, but because it was the last one i saw i was really dissapointed with Baldrick and Blackadders inteligence
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2980273/1/
I think they mean to show Blackadder's intelligence evolve over time, whereas Baldrick seems to get more dumb over time. Blackadder the third is the worst in my opinion.
'Sand is overrated... It's just tiny, little rocks.'