MovieChat Forums > Game-On (1995) Discussion > should they have cut it short?

should they have cut it short?


i really enjoyed the 2nd series (and to a lesser degree the 3rd) but the 1st series really stands out as being pure class.

i wonder, as much as i enjoyed the neil stuke years whether they should have just cancelled when ben chaplin left? maybe more peeps would remember this series then - the whole left wanting more sort of thing?

anyhow just waxing lyrical, please don't get offended... but let me know what you think....

TEA Martin!

reply

At first, i thought the show would suffer without Ben Chaplin and maybe inwardly i distanced myself from Neil Stuke's performance.
However, i think that Stuke brought a freshness to the character, if he'd tried to be too much like Ben Chaplin, the fans & critics would have torn him to shreds. He brings a little more manicness to Matthew that we wouldnt have had with Chaplin ( can you see Ben Chaplin giving Mandy's teddy bear good lovin' ). Where Chaplin played it cool, Stuke plays with energy.

Jesus, i sound like a friggin' media studies student ( a northern student at that)

:-)

BTW, i dont think Samantha Janus could BE more voluptuous. That woman OOZES.

" In the hand "

" you forgot to stir "

XX mojo XX

reply

Yep, Ben Chaplin MADE the show... !






I'm sorry, I don't speak monkey...

reply

Oh yes!. The show should have been cut short. The first series is pure class. The comedy, the cast, everything!. I have seen season one like fifty million times and it never gets old. The rest feels like it's trying too hard to capture the essence of the first series, but fails in doing so. Think Guns n Roses of old (Matt 1) compared to the Guns n Roses of today (Matt 2). The second form is so inferiour in every way.

"You better quest the answers before you place the blame."

reply