Are You Being Served?

Missed this first time round, caught it by chance when UKTV ran it instead of one of the original episodes. My first thought was how awful it was. Which was also my second thought. Why bother remaking an old favourite if the actors - some of them well known from other shows - simply attempt to impersonate the original cast? Why set it at a time which contradicts the original show's sequel? John Inman's Mr Humphreys was never as camp as Jason Watkins' version. Arthur English's Mr Harman was never as boorish as Arthur Smith's portrayal. Writer Derren Litten appears to have depended entirely upon second-hand memories of the original show for his inspiration rather than going back to the original episodes and seeing how they were put together for himself. And what on Earth is the audience on? Hysterical shrieks of laughter for some mildly amusing aside? God help them if they ever get to see an original episode, there'd be mass coronaries everywhere.

A soulless parody that lacks everything that made the original good. The writing is terrible. I love the original and enjoyed AYBSA spinoff but this reboot is painful to watch.

Initially I was confused as to why the characters were talking about Jimmy Connors and Simple Minds until it was stated that the series is set in 1988.

I thought it was a reboot with new actors playing the role of the familiar characters from Are You Being Served. Its final series was broadcast in 1985. In fact this is a more smuttier continuation from the original series. They even reference the holiday to Spain in 1977 and Mr Lucas.

This was a one off as part of the BBC's classic sitcom revival season although I expected this would be commissioned as a full series. Simply I laughed out loud a few times as well as chuckled regularly as the episode went on.

It is a little bit cruder than the original series which had its own share of innuendo laden humour. Mrs Slocombe went overboard with her pussy comments and there was the interaction between Miss Croft and Mr Rumbold which was straight from a Carry On film.

Of course the main interest is to see how well the new cast do with the roles. John Challis was good as Captain Peacock, Justin Edwards looked like a man with a bald wig as Mr Rumbold. Of course the hardest part goes to Jason Watkins who steps into his mother's shoes in this episode but also has to fill John Inman's.

I met John Inman several times in the Isle of Man when he used to tour with his saucy seaside summer season farces. So I am likely to be biased. Inman's Mr Humphries was more a mummy's boy maybe to reflect a time when homosexuality on television was not deemed to be as acceptable as it is today.

Watkin's Humphries is probably more outwardly camp than Inman's. Watkins also got the biggest audience cheer when he said 'I'm free.'

The one big change is Matthew Horne playing a genuinely young Mr Grace, a yuppie who plans to drag the department store into a modern era. This means trying to get rid off the older staff and bringing some new technology. He even gives Mr Rumbold an Amstrad computer.

I did notice one thing that bridged the gap between both versions of Are You Being Served. John Inman and Roy Barraclough both came from Preston.

Why can't anyone just leave the classics alone? You can't copy them, you can't replace them, you can't.....you can't.....you can't!!!

Although there were SOME funny bits in there, it wasn't the same.

It would have been better to have it modern day, with all new characters.

I'm so sick and tired of classics getting dragged through the mud and corporate greed!

Out of all the billions of books out there, with billions of stories, and billions of scenarios.............movie and show makers just can't stop degrading the classics!

So I think they nailed the remake in terms of writing and set. What I think I found missing was some of the personalities lost in bad casting and/or acting. Mr Humphries seems to have lost his devilish, smarmy smile. That's a huge omission. I also think Humphries could act a little less gay but yet be obvious like Inman did. Mr Peacock I found to be somehow grumpier and less dapper than Thornton. Mrs Slocomb was just ok Miss Brahams as well - just ok Mr Grainger was spot on as well as Mr Rumbold, understanding it's hard to find that Nicolas Smith look The new, actual young Mr Grace could stand to make his annoying self less involved.