I only watched two episodes, and I can't watch it anymore, so I won't rate it. These two episodes gave me some inspiration.
The main reason I can't stand it is that this creative joke still relies on surprises and bad luck of the characters. The characters in the play often shout exaggeratedly, resulting in unreasonably violent conflicts. The characters are often unlucky and laugh when they are unlucky. These two points may have been funny in the past, but now I really can't laugh when I see them. The Mr. Bean I watched when I was a child was also in this direction, and I couldn't laugh. Now the more advanced comedies will not do this anymore, and neither will the new works of the two main creators. I think there are certain era limitations.
The other is that I've noticed some changes in morality. Now the generally accepted concept in the West is to help the weak. But obviously not in the play. The weak people in it are either extremely stupid or bullied, and they like to take things the size of sesame and mung bean very important. Although the strong are not a good image, they often have the advantage and live a very happy life. Now in the play, this kind of dominant powerhouse is often no longer considered a comedy element, they will not be so smooth in the play, and there is no happy ending in the end. (It’s also possible that I didn’t watch it, and they will be unlucky later? No spoilers, I may continue to watch it.) Now the West is also against animal cruelty, but in the two episodes I watched, each episode had the killing of dogs and cruelty to animals. Plot of dogs. Apparently in the 20th century West, being against animal cruelty was not so certain. The concept of how to treat the weak and animals has gradually changed in the past two decades, and it has gradually evolved into the current values.
Anyway, I originally wanted to watch a happy comedy, but it doesn't seem to be what I want at present.
View more about The League of Gentlemen reviews
