I don't know if you remember that famous story that went around when Hugh Laurie supposedly auditioned for House and the director or casting director goes "we need a good all-American actor" and Hugh Laurie did the voice he did on House and the director was like "finally, an all American actor".
I'm calling it that that story is bullcrap.
- He does what all British actors do when they try to do an American accent....they sort of mumble talk. See Idris Elba in the Wire for example.
That's all Hugh Laurie did throughout that show, is talk in this voice that doesn't project or speak boldly, but do this low sort of grumble voice. It's like a person who can't hit certain notes in singing so sort of half does it at those parts of the song.
-
No one talks like the director or casting director in that story. "Finally, an all American midwestern type actor"
-
No one was aware of Hugh Laurie? I know he wasn't a star or well known over here, but these were Hollywood people and not one person on the set goes "hey, that's a guy who was co-star in a fairly popular British TV show and someone who appeared in other popular British TV shows.
You're telling me no one at all knew who he was or was a watcher of British TV...in Hollywood?!? I could understand if this was some random small town, but this was a Hollywood production. I've worked at regular jobs where Americans are really into British TV shows and culture, much less Hollywood.
Anyways, I have just wanted to get that off my chest. That's one of those things that makes for a good story, but seems like such bullcrap on any analysis. It's like those "and then everyone clapped" stories.
Just curious, how would you rate it from best to least good?
As I'd put Blackadder goes forth the best, then 3, 2 then 1. It was one of the rare series that got better with each season.
The last season was the best.
I find the very first one, set in medieval times, to be barely watchable. It worked much better as they shifted Blackadder to being smarter and Baldric to being dumber.
Rowan just had the sharper wit and attitude for it plus it was better instead of being the dumb noble being the one just underneath the ones in power so he could both try to profit/survive.
And Tony was a lot better playing the dim-witted character than the smart servant.
Probably the same way I'd rate it. The chars changed a lot from s1 to 2. Especially baldrick
I'd probably go 2-4 co-equal, then 3 and 1. I liked the extra edge that the Elizabethan Blackadder character had.
Plus the Tom Baker episode. "You have a woman's <x>!"
Nothing against your choice, but has you co equal got anything to do with the fact they where ther series with Rik Mayall lol
1 is basically a different show.
4,2,3,1
1 was a different show.
It was filmed on location in a castle with a single camera. It had large casts, lots of extras and animals. It was more like a movie production. Rowan said they were specifically trying to get away from the standard sitcom production and that they bit off more than they could chew.
2-4 were filmed on a 3-stage set. Blackadder's quarters, the queen's/prince's/general's quarters, and the set of the week. It had no extras or animals, was shot on multiple cameras, and was filmed in front of a live audience. It became a standard sitcom setup.
Also, as a bit of trivia: in the title scene for series 4, Melchik and Darling were supposed to be on horses, but Stephen Fry's horse kept panicking when the band started playing. They tried multiple times but the horse bolted every time the horns started. So they stood on that little box instead.