Powered by i.TV
February 9, 2012
 
CONNECT    

Thank God You're Here: Episodes 1 & 2 (series premiere)

by Richard Keller, posted Apr 10th 2007 10:30AM

Thank God You're Here

(S01E01/S01E02) I'm about to give you fair warning. In addition to being a husband, father, writer at TV Squad, and Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist I have also been in improv for 5 years. So, my review is may be slightly tainted.

That being said, I didn't think Thank God You're Here was an utter disaster. I also didn't think it was a laugh-until-you-pee hit, either. It was interesting to watch and mildly entertaining, even in those scenes where you knew the actors were waaaayyyy out of their element. And there was plenty of that.

In my opinion only three actors really showed what improv acting was all about -- Bryan Cranston, Kevin Nealon, and Edie McClurg. Nealon seemed the most at ease with his role. There was very little hesitation with his answers when the straight actors would push him for lines. Plus, he pulled two of the actors out for a little girl-on-girl CPR. Edie was also extremely confident and I felt her scene (marriage counselor's office) was the best because she was really trying to interact with the other actors (and I'll talk about those 'improv' actors later). It felt like a scene my troupe would do at one of our shows. The one who had the most fun with his scene, and the one that interacted most with the rest of the players, was Bryan Cranston. As soon as he stepped into the scene he was right in the role as a over-pampered rock star.

Wayne Knight was also pretty decent, but I just didn't like the talking-head scene he was in. He did shine though during the slide show presentation. The worst at improv? Well, I'd have to give that to Jennifer Coolidge. She was just not funny and seemed to take a very long time to come up with responses. Mo'nique was also weak and she wasn't listening to any of the suggestions that were given to her. I was surprised that Richard Kind wasn't good in his scene. Out of all of the actors he seemed the most lost with what he was supposed to do.

Now, with that out of the way, let's talk for a moment about the issues I have with this format. First, I don't know if I'd call Thank God You're Here an improv show. I'd probably call it "scriptprov." Sure, the stars were performing without scripts, but the straight actors were definitely working off of something. Everything they said seemed to have been written previously, including the little pushes to get the scriptless actors to come up with something amusing. In addition to that, the straight actors just seemed to be placeholders, rather than really interacting with the stars. To me, it felt very stilted.

Which brings me to my two biggest pet peeves when it comes to improv: questions and denials. There were a ton of these during the two hours that the show was on, and they brought many scenes to a halt. I can think of two scenes where the denials really ticked me off. The first one was with Richard Kind. In the scene, which took place at a morning radio show, the straight actors want to know what Richard's character name is. He yells out 'Steve!' and gets a big laugh. Ten seconds later the straight actors go 'No your name is . . . ' , give him a different name, and ruin the scene for me. The other example was the game show scene with Mo'nique. The host of the game show is askng Mo, who's portraying the Vanna White of the game, what the contestants names are. After she names one contestant the host goes 'No, that person's name is . . .' Aaaarrrggghh!

There was a third scene where the denial was a bit more subtle. It was marriage counselor scene with Edie McClurg. In it the counselor asks Edie if she knew why she was there, and Edie came up with something funny. Then the straight actor playing her husband said something like 'don't you think we're here because of your affair with the gardner?' Now, Edie was able to come back with a quick and funny answer, but it changed the
whole tone of the scene to the one that was probably pre-determined before the show.

TV Squad Ratin 3

As I said at the beginning of this review, I found Thank God You're Here interesting to watch. I'll probably tune in during the upcoming weeks (if it stays on the schedule that long) just to see if the show gets any better or worse. On the scale of 1 to 7 (worst to best) I give this show a 3.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

37 Comments

Filter by:
maya

Does anyone know how to get tickets to be in the audience of "Thank God Your Here?"

May 14 2007 at 12:24 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
mrmanfam

Sorry, but I think this is the worst show on T.V.

April 19 2007 at 5:36 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jacky

I'm just an average TV watcher and so I'm no critic but I thought the show was fun to watch. I was really looking forward to watching it again and I did. I think all of the scenes in the first two episodes were good. The best scenes were when all of the actors were in one scene (superheros & knights). The guy who played the rock star was hilarious in both scenes. The guy from Saturday Night Live was funny in the mountain climber scene. The game show and beauty pagent scenes were funny too. Last night's episode (4-16)was fun but it wasn't as funny as the first two episodes. One of the guest actors was way too good and it seemed that no one else (guest actors or script actors) knew how to respond which is why it wasn't as funny. I hope they keep the show, it's something different and fun to watch for a change.

April 17 2007 at 6:51 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Alicia

I am Australian and haven't seen your eps (pity cos I followed the link but it didn't work). Thank God here is awesome - I am an improv actor and we are all thrilled to see interesting and FUNNY television for a change...

I am disappointed to hear so many comments re the main actors not giving... maybe the format has changed with the US buyout -the Australian cast aren't entirely "yes, and..." but they aren't at all bad.

I hope the producers hear you; It's a great, refreshing, funny concept and I hope the American version can do it justice.

Fingers crossed it improves!

April 15 2007 at 6:39 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Just lurking

Well, this is a shame. TGYH is modelled on a preexisting Australian show of the same name (so it wasn't "pitched" to NBC as such - NBC execs actually flew down to Melbourne, Australia, to see it in production before deciding to go ahead with the pilot), and the original show is as near to flawless in structure and execution as you could hope for, in terms of improv (or faux-improv) TV comedy. So it sounds like NBC must have elected to "restructure" the format until they had it just how they wanted it (i.e. no longer any f**king good). (And boy, does that "no, actually, your name is"... business sound painful! And so unnecessary - that very situation arose in the Australian version, and when the (male) guest actor insisted that the name of his character (also male) was "Tina", his straight actor partner went with it and called him Tina for the rest of the skit - THAT'S how handle it!)

April 13 2007 at 2:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Christian

im live in sweden and so my english isent perfekt... in fakt in whrigting its relly bad... but im ok at speeking and werry good at understanding...

I agree whit you about the fakt that this is not improv... becose in that case the suporting actors whod be intergating whit the stars not (like they are now) directing the stars... in improv there isent right or wrong like it seam to be hear...

I think the swedish thanck god tou are hear (or Tack Gode Gud thate it is cald hear) is better but its struggels whit the same problems...

April 11 2007 at 5:47 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Eklen

Does not remotely compare to whose line, but i suppose its still slightly worth watching. The audience gets annoying though. Its like for this show, they switch the insane contestant so now theres an insane screaming audience. It never did that on whose line, and it seemed like that show had more people if i remember correctly

April 11 2007 at 10:45 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Joe

Sorry, major typo above I apologize, corrected bellow.

I thought for a moment, should I bother troding where so many other commentors have tread, so I figure why not I have all the time in the world hey it's 4.30 in the morning.

I will say that if this show had more good than bad (which it does not), it still would not survive the corporate machine, NBC is going to chuck this into the bin next to Andy Barker, PI, and they wont think twice. Mainstream improv just isn't meant for TV, it sucks, I wish it worked, I wish I could tune in each week to see ASSSCAT but I can't. When I first saw the previews for this show I thought maybe this had a chance. I thought, ohh sets and costumes so the simpletons on the otherside of their cathode ray devices won't have to think, this could work. Unfortunately the execution is rather lacking. If you'd indulge me I would like to make some quick points which I recognized to be the main issues.

The show doesn't know what it wants to be, it's stuck between short and long form. They're looking for the main actors to develop scenes, but everytime they would make a decision 3 seconds later their 'physical' (as in only there in tangibility not playability) scene partners are telling them ever decision they make is wrong. Why not just write scenes if you want things to go a certain way. Humor comes from within a scene it does not simply get injected by some smartass writer who thinks he just wrote the funniest one liner ever; newsflash it is not the funniest one liner ever. Many other tvsquad folk have commented on the fact that most of these actors are script-based actors and not improvisers. I would beg to differ, I'm not saying they're all improvisers but to be part of 'SNL, Seinfeld,' or a christopher guest film you need to know a thing or two. I give some major credit to Mo'nique (did I just spell that right) here. Although I'm not a particular fan of her style/comedy etc, I was impressed with the way she started deflecting blocks in her scene. After 2 minutes of no one listening to a damn word she said she started to use that, I was like 'Whoooa' maybe she dosen't suck that much.

The video segments where funny, why? Because the actors where are actually allowed to improvise. They where allowed to answer the question as they choose not as by previously chosen by a group of writers.

Yes, hosts, awards, points, it all sucks, Grier needs to go. Foley is a great improviser, have him improvising, not stuck behind a Staples Easy button. I though the supporting cast wasn't all that bad, I know they are working off prepared material, but it was SNL calibre. Just let the actors do their thing and you might have some humor on your hands.

Just my two cents, thanks for listening.

April 11 2007 at 4:54 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Joe

I thought for a moment, should I bother troding where so many other commentors have tread, so I figure why not I have all the time in the world hey it's 4.30 in the morning.

I will say that if this show had more good than bad (which it does not), it still would not survive the corporate machine, NBC is going to chuck this into the bin next to Andy Barker, PI, and they wont think twice. Mainstream improv just isn't meant for TV, it sucks, I wish it worked, I wish I could tune in each week to see ASSSCAT but I can't. When I first saw the previews for this show I thought maybe this had a chance. I thought, ohh sets and costumes so the simpletons on the otherside of their cathode ray devices won't have to think, this could work. Unfortunately the execution is rather lacking. If you'd indulge me I would like to make some quick points which I recognized to be the main issues.

The show doesn't know what it wants to be, it's stuck between short and long form. They're looking for the main actors to develop scenes, but everything 3 seconds their 'physical' (as in only there in tangibility not playability) scene partners are telling them ever decision they make is wrong. Humor comes from within a scene it does not simply get injected by some smartass writer who thinks he just wrote the funniest one liner ever; newsflash it is not the funniest one liner ever. Many other tvsquad folk have commented on the fact that most of these actors are script-based actors and not improvisers. I would beg to differ, I'm not saying they're all improvisers but to be part of 'SNL, Seinfeld,' or a christopher guest film you need to know a thing or two. I give some major credit to Mo'nique (did I just spell that right) here. Although I'm not a particular fan of her style/comedy etc, I was impressed with the way she started deflecting blocks in her scene. After 2 minutes of no one listening to a damn word she said she started to use that, I was like 'Whoooa' maybe she dosen't suck that much.

The video segments where funny, why? Because the actors where are actually aloud to improvise. They where allowed to answer the question as they choose not as by previously chosen by a group of writers.

Yes, hosts, awards, points, it all sucks, Grier needs to go. Foley is a great improviser, have him improvise, not stuck behind a Staples Easy button. I though the supporting cast wasn't all that bad, I know they are working off prepared material, but it was SNL calibre. Just let the actors do their thing and you might have some humor on your hands.

Just my two cents, thanks for listening.

April 11 2007 at 4:47 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Stephen Waits

Just awful stuff, this one.

April 11 2007 at 1:01 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners