'Then came the years of Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Jason Sudekis, Seth Meyers, Will Forte, Bill Hader, etc. and it was effortlessly funny again.'

It being SNL is the problem not that it's a transitional series. It's awful and has been for many many years.

1 set of friends with a brain damaged kid is a statistical anomaly, it's really rare, 2 is just odd.

But Bill Hicks isn't that challenging. He was very funny and at the time he was a pioneer his material isn't edgy or challenging. Quite a lot of what he was on about was stupid/wrong and at times he was even a bit hack. Not all of it, and he was clearly very good at what he did and was unique at the time but comedy…

I for one am worried people are still taking Lars Von Trier seriously instead of seeing him for what he actually is.

I think that is wrong I think most of Partridge is scripted. I think Partridge on things like this has always been scripted very tightly although much of the dialogue is worked out with Coogan in character - the writers talk about having to live with Alan for 6 months. Then they play about on the day after they've got…

The actor who plays Simon is Tim Key. He is brilliant in basically everything he does. He is the main character in the first episode of Inside No.9 (and anthology comedy series on the BBC by two of the League of Gentlemen, it is one of the best things made this season) and is just wonderful and he is so perfect in it.

Coogan has talked about this being deliberate and conscious choice because he has got older, matured and moved somewhat with the times.

"Yet to the degree that the new film thrives for satire, such an outdated issue suits its semi-absurdist character study"

I think the problem is twofold.

I find it very disappointing that Bob Saget was left out of the finale completely. I know Radnor had to deliver lines as an old man and was understandable that maybe the last few scenes any voice over comes from Radnor as he is in it as an old person but to not even have him opening it is fundamentally disappointing.

While often hilarious I don't think the pilot or even the first series is wholly inspired in terms of what it does. The interesting stuff from an emotional/dramatic perspective comes later and it gets funnier from then on as well.

'is preparing a live-action/CGI hybrid ' - and I'm out.

He's a deeply flawed historian, very engaging writer. Citizen's exemplifies this problem, he has pretty much an active contempt for the French Revolution so despite being able to spin a good yarn what he looks at and how he looks at it is fundamentally flawed because it ignores so much of what is important.

Clash isn't an onomatopoeic word.

Poor Holly, if Walt Jnr screws her over she'll get nothing. You'd have thought half would have gone to her.

He is a co-star of Plebs which is one of, maybe the, the best new sitcoms of the last year. Probably hasn't been on US tv but is really worth searching out online.

I'd say the whole set up was probably worth it for the jab at the Catholic church, That was a decent payoff

Isn't it just that Tolkien couldn't write, plot or pace very well and was a bit too much friddly bong of the hingy fojng whereas Martin basically has all of those down and is much better at doing something engaging (and that's not a factor of the time, many writers before and at the time of Tolkien were doing fantasy,…

Scottish accent, ya tin eared yank.