Talk:Peep Show (British TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeremy[edit]

Someone can put this in the right place and update the page, but for what its worth, its spelt 'Uzbourne'

CAN YOU DESCRIBE JEREMY IN THREE WORDS?

"[Robert Webb] It's. Spelt. Usborne." http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/nov/20/peep-show-mitchell-webb

-cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.232.178 (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically raped[edit]

I removed the word 'technically' from the season 5 description when refering to Mark being 'raped' by the daughter of Jez's mums boyfriend. A women cant rape a man, so he wasnt 'technically' raped at all. Rape requires penetration of the rapee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.163 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A man can two be raped. The line "technically raped" should contain speech marks around it if certain readers feel other wise. Ever way, the line "technically raped" is used by Mark so it is a quote, not a statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.247.216 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A man can be raped but not by a women , get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.213.80 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode, Mark was raped by a women. He describes it as being "technically raped". It is a quote, not a statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.183.38 (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women can rape men. Rape does not require penetration. Read up on what constitutes as rape. --81.111.216.56 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I award you all for most ignorant comments, or worst grammar? Either way, you're a winner. 24.98.14.73 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Women have been sent to jail for rape. So yes women raping men is true. Genjix (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has aged marvelously 100.38.68.115 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Character descriptions[edit]

I'm going through the character profiles and editing them. I'm trying to keep them describing the characters themselves, not events in the series', but some events are worth mentioning (e.g. Super Hans becoming addicted to crack) and so I'll keep those on for now anyway. The description parts should be about the characters personalities and traits, not what the do within the show - that should be within the series descriptions.

Also, every series is mentioned either as Series three, season three, or series 3. Can we clarify which is appropriate and keep the page standardised? The Hurball Company 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Done the section as well as I can, some characters information had to be started over, as it was just a rundown of things that happened in the show. Anyone think the spoiler tag can be removed from that section now, as there are only two or three very minor plot points revealed in it? The Hurball Company 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis describes the two main characters as guys in their late twenties, and then Mark's Bio says he's a "middle-aged man." Middle age typically means someone quite older than late twenties. Is his character's age ever explicitly referenced in the show? --J.Rai 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says "Loan manager Mark Corrigan is a middle-aged man in a twentysomething's body" ChrisTheDude 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

Why was my information about what university they met at deleted? Andy86 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the section you added it to is meant to be a two-paragraph summary of the entire series, explaining who the characters are - the name of the university they met at is a very, very minor aspect of the show, and needn't be a part of the synopsis. Dartmouth university is already mentioned in both of the character's profiles further down the page. --McGeddon 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dartmouth is actually quite a good university. Shtove 08:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Episode guide[edit]

I've done series 3 on the episode guide page. Might need some trimming, especially episode 1. It's surprisingly tough to be informative enough, as the episodes are really fast paced in the later series! Someone needs to do series 2 at some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielCrouch (talk • contribs)

Big Suze[edit]

Who is that Big Suze chick with the great arse in the jogging in the park scene? What's her name? She's beautiful.

She is isn't she! Her name is Sophie Winkleman http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1258830/

I think you might prefer THIS page... PICS OF THE LADY Yyem 09:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Suze is NOT Jeremy's ex-girlfriend as is insinuated all over this page.
In the first episode of season three, Jez makes out that he's her ex and she says clearly that she's not. They were flatmates and he was in love with her. That's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firenze419 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 April 2007
No, she's evasive in the presence of her current boyfriend - she's hardly going to big-up her relationship with Jez when he's around, is she? Nick Cooper 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to double check, but I'm sure she says "don't be stupid" which sounds to me like they weren't. She's even a bit funny when he mentions them living together. And as Stu the monk later says he's not bothered about Jez's current feelings, there's no reason for her to be evasive at all. Either way it's at least inconclusive whether or not they were dating so I think the article should be modified. 77.44.50.57 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the relevent DVD commentaries in the process, as I'm pretty certain Armstrong & Bain refer to Suze as Jez's "Ex". To be honest, there is far too much circumstantial and indirect evidence that they were a couple (e.g. Jez refers to their joint home as "The Loveshack"), and very little to suggest that it was "all in his mind"! Nick Cooper 12:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I have checked again and during the initial meeting between big suze, jez, and stu the monk, when he says he's her ex she says "Oh jez, don't be stupid, We were never really...". She also refers to "the loveshack" as that weird little flat.

They may have had some kind of relationship but I don't think it was proper boyfriend-girlfriend, and I think Jez bigged it up quite a bit. Unfortunately, my dvd was scratched during a drunken evening and the commentary doesn't play properly so I can't comment on what Armstrong & Bain may or may not have said. To be honest, big Suze seems like one of those ridiculously posh girls who doesn't really understand boundaries and can behave in ways that one might think are romantic but really don't mean anything at all.Firenze419 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

The summaries need expanded upon, i need to rewatch series one and two if i'm going to do it justice. Anyone else fancy a pop in the meantime? Logan1138 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do per-episode summaries a while back, but i just couldnt be bothered to watch all the serieses again, and/or watch the current series and jot down what happens... i'll add a bit to the series three section after each episode though, if you like. ---- jeffthejiff (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, im never actually in when its on Channel 4. Ah well, i might watch the first two series again sometime. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latest additions[edit]

Personally I think the new stuff, particularly the characters section, is unnecessasary, repetitive, and under-realised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.70 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 December 2005

I think its OK to have a character section, although some of it is repeated in the Synopsis section, yes. Such stuff should be moved and modified to the corresponding character. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in Characters section[edit]

If I had not yet watched series three but had read the Characters section of this article, I would have been very disappointed to read that Sophie was eventually Mark's girlfriend. A large part of the first two series is of a will-they-won't-they nature. I think either the Characters section should have spoiler marks around it, or (preferably) made spoiler-free. Pelago 11:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be there as it is a crucial part of the story. Spoiler tags are there now, anyway. I personally never doubted that they'd shack up together... I think many are the same.--Untruth 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peep Show: Series 1[edit]

It appears that series 1 is no longer available on DVD in the UK, I have no idea why. --82.152.138.225 23:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now available again - it's been re-released with a new cover, matching the style of the series two cover (a similar design will presumably be used for the third). Seb Patrick 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The character profiles...[edit]

...just seem to list random events from the series rather than describe the charators. Very odd. SaltyWater 22:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of fixing that, some profiles (especially Nancy's) were just lists of what she did in each series, and huge spoilers were in there that weren't at all necessary. Hopefully the characters all read much better now. The Hurball Company 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Corrigan[edit]

I've deleted

He likes to refer to Dambusters and Das Boot in his conversations with others

as it isn't really supported by the show. Both subjects only receive one mention each throughout three series. I've also added a comment about Mark seeming to want to do an Ancient History degree but being forced to do Business Studies, recall:

"I'm doing it dad! I'm sudying Acient History and there's nothing you can do about it."

--Adzz 01:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - he wanted to study Ancient History at university but he was forced to do Business Studies. When he followed Amber to her university, she happened to be studying Ancient History and he followed her into the class, thus finally getting to "study" it - hence his statement you quoted above. SaltyWater 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what Adzz said? HornetMike 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been drunk when I wrote that. SaltyWater 09:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he does talk about the battle of Stalingrad alot, usually he bases his attempts to get wemen on it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Johnson[edit]

who deleted the bit about how he was meant to kill himself in the oraigal draft but was change to to poor testing== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redwinevito (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

POV[edit]

I added a brief note to the effect that we often actually see events from the perspective of other characters, rather than just Jez and Mark. I also wanted to point out that there isn't a single camera shot in any of the series that isn't from a character's POV, but I couldn't confirm this from memory. Does anyone know for certain that this is a fact? Seb Patrick 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's one possible one. When you look up at Mark and Sophie from the ground as the former panics about doing the bunjee jump. Although that could easily be from the eyes of various people seen on the ground. HornetMike 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one more likely than that in the last episode of series 3, when Mark and Jeremy are lost on the hills. There's a long shot of them despite the fact that there's supposesly no-one else around. KLC --82.45.118.87 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Even if there aren't any others in the entirety of the series, that one example is enough to debunk the entire point! ;-) Seb Patrick 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think there are others on top of that which 82.45.118.87 says. If I remember correctly, most of them seem to occur in Series 3, as well (in my opinion, a series which kind of waters down the original aspects of the show, making it a little more like other ones). It will be interesting to see if a similar thing happens in the next series.
Should someone go about adding a POV dispute notice to the article? :P--Dreaded Walrus 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Well, if there are no "external" shots in either one or two, but there are some in three, then I think that's probably something that's worth commenting on in the article... worth checking the prior series for them at some point, anyway (or perhaps there's been fan discussion about the fact online, I'm not sure). Seb Patrick 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I haven't seen series 3 since it's broadcast, I can't be sure exactly what happens regarding camera shots on the hills. However, I've watched both series 1 and 2 many times over and don't think there is an isssue witn non POV shots. Also, 82.45.118.87, are you simply recalling from memory or have you actually watched it recently and spotted the error? I'm just surprised that such a mistake would be made, and that I didn't spot it myself. Regardless, maybe the incident will get a mention on the series 3 commentary when it comes out. --Colossus 86 08:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak on behalf of 82.45.118.87, though I myself watched that particular episode for the first time just yesterday. There is a shot where Mark and Jeremy are walking through a valley-style area, alone, and the camera is looking down at them, as if from one of the sides of valley. This "person" (assuming, for a moment, that it is a POV shot) is not referred to at all during the rest of the scene, either by being shown from the viewpoint of one of the two, or being mentioned by either of the pair. It is also heavily implied that they are alone in the valley, apart from that one shot.--Dreaded Walrus 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that sounds pretty conclusive, I guess it should be mentioned, in passing anyway. Perhaps if the creators were pushed, thay might try to write it off as an animal or some sort observing, or maybe tracking Mark's secret Twix (jk). I doubt it was accidental, they probably had no other way to satisfactorally get across the fact that the protagonists are lost and totally isolated on the hills. They could have done it better... or maybe it was just a flub.--Colossus 86 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 82.45.118.87 here. I watched the episode for the first time just before I visited this page. That one shot in particular looked wrong compared to the rest of the episode. I've just re-watched it and the camera is in a fixed position. Almost all other shots in Peep Show have at least some camera movement, giving the impression that the character whose eyes you're seeing through is moving, breathing etc. Having said that, the shot is very high up, suggesting that the camera was attached to some sort of crane. You would have thought that the show's directors would have been very aware that the format of the show doesn't allow them to do that, especially as the shot added little to the scene other than confirming that there is nothing around them. Oh, and call me KLC, it's catchier. KLC 80.193.16.199 21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ho guys. In episode four, season one, towards the very end there is a scene in which Jeremy recalls the Bad Thing that happened one night prior, which is of course the oral sex that he and Super Hans performed on each other. The actual shot of SH going down on Jez, complete with the latter's horrified reaction, is from a clearly non-POV angle as there is nobody else in the room.
So there you have it.

Well that's definetaly one, I had a look myself, well spotted anon. I've gone ahead and made changes in the article to this effect, edit away fellow wikipedians. --Colossus 86 09:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent addition Colossus 86. Come to think of it, that angle for that particular scene might have been necessary, as a first-person camera zooming into an erect penis might be a bit unsavoury for TV, perhaps. :P --Dreaded Walrus 11:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Mark had put it earlier in the episode, "That's too rich for me". Thanks for complimenting my efforts, it's nice to be appreciated. --Colossus 86 12:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to non POV there is at least 4 non POV shots per episode – the establishing shots of the tower block, JLB credit & any other location—Preceding unsigned comment added by DjU06 (talk • contribs)
That's actually a very good point, as far as I am concerned. Although please sign your comments in future. :)--Dreaded Walrus 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "bad thing" moments in series 1, episode 4 abandon the usual first-person POV. Given that this is a deliberate stylistic decision, I'd suggest that the hill shot from series 3, episode 6 is a better example of an exception to the rule. Personally I think the exceptions are rare enough to ignore for the purposes of this article - "seen almost exclusively from their own POV" is probably enough. Echidnaboy 20:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the season 1 episode 4 scenes of "The Bad Thing", I believe this was a stylistic decision. Those scenes are drunken flashbacks - in a regular 3rd person TV show, these might well be in the first person. Because this is the general format for Peep Show, they had to differenciate somehow - and they do so by using the 3rd person. I for one found that to be a nice little "in joke" for that episode.

On further reflection, even the view of the hillside in series 3, episode 6 is just an establishing shot. It's only unusual in that it shows Mark and Jez in their surroundings. I can't think of any occasions where the show has significantly strayed from the first-person POV, so I'm going to make some small changes. Echidnaboy 10:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After watching the commentary for Season 3- Episode 6, the actors claim that the view point from the hillside shot of Mark and Jez was from a cow. I think they're only joking around, though.- LTP

Is it worth noting that the original title of the show was POV? But Bain and Armstrong decided against it for fear it would confuse people. GreenSalad82

The fact that POV was a working title for the show is already in the article ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the scenes in the first floor choir stalls at the church at the end of series 3 are shot from the doorway, looking at the opair of them, when there is noone else up there with them 83.105.70.75 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

It says that when one's luck is up, the other's is down. I really haven't noticed that in the series. The two characters so often both experience the same kind of luck that I don't know why it's there and I think it should be taken down. Somatomy 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Certainly, for example, in the episode where Mark has his nervous breakdown and they end up pepper spraying each other, you couldn't say that either of them are having good luck (in the same episode, Jez gets fired from his new job and loses Toni to Super Hans). Seb Patrick 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes from something David Mitchell says in the DVD commentary for Episode 6 of Series 1, but it sounded more like a general observation than a strictly adhered-to device... thing.128.240.229.65 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usbourne / Osborne[edit]

Jeremy's surname is actually spelt Usbourne as seen in his jury letter in series 3 episode 5. I believe the name is normally spelt like this anyway. Just thought I'd explain that to the reverter because I left it out of the edit summary. Iae 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've renamed the Jeremy Osborne article as well. A quick check on Google shows that Amazon, IMDB and every other source on the Internet uses "Osborne", while one MySpace page and one forum posting favour "Usbourne" - even if a prop in one episode does give a different spelling, I'm not sure this should take precedence over all other sources (whether you choose to regard it as a set designer making a typo, or the fictional-world jury computer getting it wrong). --McGeddon 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you find any other official sources? I could only find the prop, and my DVD cases don't seem to mention anything. All those results suggest is that 'Osborne' (surely that should be Osbourne anyway) is a more familiar phonetic rendering than 'Usbourne' to people who don't know either way. Iae 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with McGeddon, although for me the Google results for "Jeremy Usbourne is one forum post on "e-tones.co.uk" repeated on multiple pages, and one page on bebo.com, so I feel that someone should probably move Jeremy Usbourne back to Jeremy Osborne, and if necessary, create a redirect from the former. I would do it, but I don't know how to do page moves. --Dreaded Walrus 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've moved it back for now but you still haven't explained how the results suggest anything other than that 'Osborne' is a more familiar phonetic rendering than 'Usbourne' to people who don't know either way. Obviously it's not a massive deal but I still think the article should stick to facts rather than just whatever is most prominent on Google. Imagine if all verification was done that way? It even sounds like he's saying Usbourne as opposed to Osborne when he does say it (if i remember correctly). Iae 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, facts are more important than mere popular opinion, but I doubt this is down to people not spelling it correctly, because as you suggest, "surely that should be Osbourne anyway", a Google search for Jeremy Osbourne has very few results for the Peep Show character, and those are only on the Canadian Amazon forums and Myspace. As has been mentioned before, IMDB, Amazon, and most other sites on the internet spell it Osborne, even though as you suggest, Osbourne perhaps makes more sense, phonetically. However, if you can find citations proving that Usbourne is the correct spelling, other than the prop (which may well have been a typo, or an intentional misspelling, as mentioned previously), then feel free to use them. --Dreaded Walrus 18:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't watch right now but if anyone has Jeremy's Big Brother audition on DVD I'm fairly sure he says his name in that. Subtitling could show how it's spelt (I have no idea how official that would be). Also if you look past the first page, unless I'm misunderstanding you, very few sites spell it 'Osborne' either. If you remove Wikipedia and its mirrors then the count seems fairly even. Also I've messed up moving the page back so I had to put an admin request up. Sorry! Iae 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. A YouTube video of Jez's job interview has his surname being clearly pronounced as Usbourne (within the opening few seconds). I suppose all the Amazon and IMDB type sources have taken the same blurb from a DVD press release that wasn't checked, and it's just leaked from there. Good catch, apologies for being a bit knee-jerk about the original edit. --McGeddon 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... So are we going to change this, or are there other canonical sources that have it as "Osborne"? --McGeddon 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this has been here long enough for people to object so it depends what you and Dreaded Walrus think now really. Someone else posted the same issue on Jez's talk page the other day, as well. I will have a go at moving it back later on (or anyone else can try, it's just that I messed up moving it back somehow so it might not be a simple move.) as long as noone seriously objects in the meantime. Iae 12:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally have any objections to a move, as long as the current article is kept as a redirect. --Dreaded Walrus 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this change and move. I personally were err on the side of a props goof rather than taking it as a canonatonical spelling. Robert Webb is credited as Jeremy Osborne on the IMDb, BBC Comedy guide, Guardian Newspaper, British sitcom Guide, every online store I searched. I will take a final check at the subtitles later but i am near 99.9% sure its Osborne. I think its crazy that the article has been moved to Usbourne despite all the evidense that suggests otherwise. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a props goof, we've got a scene where an actress very clearly pronounces his name as "Usbourne" - the YouTube link above is dead, but the same video's been reposted. I'm sure there are other examples in the series, which it'd be good to check; that was just the only one I could find online, and I haven't rewatched the series since then.
If there are no other examples and the subtitles end up disagreeing with the dialogue, I'd be in favour of sticking with the filmed dialogue, as it's the version most likely to have been checked by the writers. From what I remember of Google research on this last year, pretty much every mention of "Jeremy Osbourne" was in the same quoted paragraph of blurb, perhaps stemming from a single mistyped press release that the writers had nothing to do with. --McGeddon 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theres also plenty of examples of mispronounced names in TV shows. Saul Tigh (in Battlestar galactica) constantly switched from Gay-ta to Gai-ta early on in the series to refer to the charachter of Felix Gaeta. The evidence so far for Usbourne isnt convincing me. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just checked Jeremy's Big Brother audition tape on the first series DVD. He very clearly pronounces his surname as starting with a "U", although the subtitles read "Usborne." Coupled with Barbara pronouncing it in exactly the same way in series 1 episode 2, and the jury duty letter, I think that's pretty conclusive. The only arguement is whether it is "Usborne" or "Usbourne" and I'd favour the latter, as that's how it is on the jury letter. Nick Cooper 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD of Season Three contains two postcards, one each for Mark & Jez with a mugshot on one side and a character overview (written by the characters themselves) containing name, age, marital status, star sign, occupation and what the characters want to be when they 'grow up'. Jez's surname is spelt 'Usborne'. Leave a message at my user page if you want a scan of these postcards. Mthastings25 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. The S3 DVD I got has a door-hanger, not postcards! Nick Cooper 08:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which one it is, but on the channle 4 web site it says Osborne. Have a look. http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/P/peep_show/jez.html

Actually that page uses both spellings, one in the heading and one in the body text, so it doesn't answer the question at all.... ChrisTheDude 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 4 Books have just published "Peep Show: The Scripts and More", written by Armstrong and Bain, in which his surname, on the few occasions it's mentioned, is spelt "Usbourne". However, the book also contains what is supposed to be Jeremy's school report, and here the writers have muddied the waters a bit (possibly on purpose) with a teacher's comment that says something like "I think this is Usbourne's report, but we also have a boy called Jeremy Osbourne and I always get them mixed up"! MFlet1 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the same book there's also a letter that Jeremy wrote to his bank. At the top of the letter he has written his name as 'Jeremy Usbourne'. Surely he knows how to spell his own name? ;) Aenimiac (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this vid: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a2616b324d/peep-show-jeremys-big-brother-audition-tape-from-peepshowfan?rel=player

Jeremy says "Uz-bourne" himself. not osbourne. Google for "Peep Show - Jeremy's Big Brother Audition Tape" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superhans said Moorish[edit]

In Season 2, when Superhans takes to smoking crack during social events, he describes the crack he's smoking, as a comment on it's quality, as MOORISH. Which is to say, in the manner of the moor, or in modern parlance, the blacks. MOORISH, not "moreish". What on earth does that mean, especially in the context of crack, anyways?

People, please. You can't write if you can't relate. Be less bold.

Wikipedia is starting to depress me these days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.24.150.28 (talk • contribs) .

It's perhaps a British term, but means "so good that you want more" and is usually applied to food. This is what makes it a joke. --McGeddon 08:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(note, this was written before McGeddon's contribution, but submitted after, therefore creating an edit conflict - everything in this post will be with regards to the anon's post.)
I can honestly say I disagree with you there. I am almost certain he is saying "moreish". As for "what on earth does it mean?", I would probably guess the writers decided that it would be a good joke to make, given how some people say that something is "moreish" as a way of suggesting that it has subtle addictive qualities. I could also ask what suggesting crack was moorish means, I suppose. Are you suggesting that it makes more sense, and has more comedic value to say that crack is "of the blacks"? Also, a quick Google search for crack + moreish includes many quotes related to crack being moreish. However, doing another search for crack + moorish might yield more results, but the majority of them are with regards to the "Moorish Regulares", the "Moorish Nation", and people with Moorish in their name/online name.
Also, with regards to your suggestion that we Be less bold, may I refer you to Wikipedia:Be bold?--Dreaded Walrus 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure it's moreish. See http://www.allwords.com/word-moreish.html, for example. It's always sad when you have to explain a joke. Iae 12:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add, when you put the subtitles on it's written 'moreish', so I think that settles it. Charlie MacKenzie 22:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This joke was stolen from Harry Hill's 'First Class Scamp' in which he says, "the problem with heroin is, it's a bit moreish". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drumnbach (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Word usage[edit]

Sorry about that. I accidentally edited a slightly old version of the page when I was changing "that" to "who." My fault. Jeremy Peter Green 21:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem. I assume the changing of the release date was for a similar reason in that case and will put it back to what it was. Correct me if I'm wrong! --Iae 21:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I thought that 'that' might be wrong, but I just wasn't sure, and it sounded okay at the time. Charlie MacKenzie 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's so polite! It makes a nice change. :D --Dreaded Walrus 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Hans - merits a warning?[edit]

Super Hans seems to be regularly and erroneously changed to "Super Hands" - perhaps this merits a note next to/at the end of his character synopsis to the effect that "Hans" is correct and shouldn't be changed?! Nick Cooper 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, done. HornetMike 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the IPs that were doing it all had pretty similar editing patterns and the IPs themselves were pretty similar. I would probably assume it was just one misguided person, who genuinely thought he was correct.--Dreaded Walrus 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its definately Hans. Mark refers to him once as Hans mentioned in one of the episodes that he has twins in germany, so that would make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of character section[edit]

I think the layout in the character section should be changed because it looks quite messy to me. The alignment of the images means that subsequent character names and the next section title ("Plot summary") wrap around the images. Perhaps a table format would work better? I'll leave it up to someone else to do the hard work ;) just wanted to point out the bad look. [EDIT: may not be noticable if you have screen resolution width of 1024 or less] Scott 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to sort this out, all the images are now aligned to the left and the text should line up fine for most people using common resolutions. Perhaps a table would be better, but I'm not the best at creating them on here, and it'll have to be someone else to make one... The Hurball Company 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points[edit]

  1. "In series three Sophie is starting to spread her wings, and her latent desire to find something more in life than a job in a loans company and a ready meal with Mark starts to put a strain on their relationship." - this doesn't relate to anything specifically said in the series and therefore seems like an editor's OR interpretation of events. I think it should be reworded/removed....
  2. Jeremy....found himself homeless until a chance meeting with Mark, who agreed to let him rent his spare room. - I don't recall any dialogue anywhere in the series which mentions this - can anyone clarify.....?
  3. Where is Jeff's surname given as Heaney....?

ChrisTheDude 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. - sounds suspiciously like something out of the Radio Times when Series 3 started airing.
  2. - Me neither. It's clear from Series 1, Episode 1 that Jeremy has only just broken up with Big Suze (e.g. his thought on her "toilet seat regime"), and presumably that was what led to his sudden homlessness.
  3. - I'm pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere in the series, but not specifically. IMDB has it.
Nick Cooper 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's a fair assessment of the character, but I agree it's WP:OR.
  2. I've heard that a lot. Is it on a commentary anywhere?
  3. Dunno...
HornetMike 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to edit the bits covered by points 1 and 2, but I'll endeavour to find some time to watch the DVDs with commentary on (which I've not bothered to do to date), and if Jez being homeless is mentioned anywhere on there, I'll put it back in. Does that sound fair.....? ChrisTheDude 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it's on the commentaries it would count. I'll check the Radio Time for Series 3 for #1, as I suspect it something Alison Graham said, but even so I don't think it's really necessary (Ms Graham is notorious for her "mis-reading" of various programmes). Nick Cooper 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of my original point number 1, the only scene I can think of that's anywhere near the original description is the one where Sophie wants to go clubbing but Mark has rented some DVDs of films they already saw at the cinema. But I don't think it's necessary to refer to something so specific in such a short pen picture, so I've reworded it in more general terms..... ChrisTheDude 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark's mate Daryl says "special delivery for Jeff Heaney" when he throws the rock in episode 2-2 - at least, that's how it's transcribed in the DVD subtitles. He might be saying "Jeffini", but I suppose that's a long shot. In 2-1 Sophie's computer displays an email from "Jeff Sherriff", which I thought might be him, but it's also the name of the show's production designer, so my guess is that's just a dummy email to fill up the screen. Heaney is probably right. BTW, nice work on those recent edits, Chris. Echidnaboy 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peep Show's page on the channel 4 website has a character section where it lists Jeff's surname as Heaney Davidbhoy2805 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Davybhoy2805 18:22, 6/12/08[reply]

American pilot[edit]

You only have to look on IMDB to see who they cast as Mark to predict that it would die a death, but presumably worth a mention here. Nick Cooper 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans seem to be notoriously bad as casting pilots based on UK shows. Shame. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US pilot is mentioned in a commentary on the Series 3 DVD. Apparently it more-or-less abandoned the POV style. Sigh... Echidnaboy 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you abandon the POV style at the centre of the bloddy programme! Why do Americans have to do this remake business anyhow, when the original is open for them to take? It's sort of like Museo Reina Sofia giving away Guernica and thinking, 'mm, I like that picture, I'm going to make a doodle of it.' --It's-is-not-a-genitive 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New remake news here! HornetMike 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created by....?[edit]

While reverting some changes which an anon editor had made which had messed up the infobox, I noticed that they had changed the "created by" field to show Armstrong and Bain rather than Mitchell and Webb. As A and B are the scriptwriters it did actually kinda seem more likely to me but if it's the case then I'm surprised it's not been challenged before. Does anyone have a source which confirms who actually created the show....? ChrisTheDude 08:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me. My source is the credits at the end of every episode.

I've got a much on M and W sources, from massively improving David Mitchell's page. From what I remember it was a joint venture between the four, I'll dig out a good source. Gran2 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series 4 plot summary[edit]

We're now two episodes into series 4 and already the plot summary is longer than the whole of series 2 and 3 put together. Can we try and rein it in a bit and try not to add a detailed summary of every episode right after it finishes.....? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisTheDude (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Or maybe it should be moved to "List of Peep Show Episodes" and then everyhting should be expanded? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 09:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought.....[edit]

Couldn't we move Jez' article to Jeremy (Peep Show character) or something similar until such time as we have a 100% definitive answer to what his surname is? That's avoid all the edit warring that's been going on of late..... ChrisTheDude 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good argument for removing his surname entirely, actually, if we haven't got a reliable source for it. --McGeddon 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing the surname entirely is a reasonable idea but I'm just not really sure how much it will help. There will probably still be a similar number of people editing the page to append 'Osbourne' onto his name as there are people changing 'Usbourne' to 'Osbourne'. The writers of Peep Show seem to have deliberately intended his name to begin with a 'U' (thus either Usbourne or Usborne - the subtitles conflict), so we could just make a mention of this in Jeremy's section on the page? Presumeably this would clarify to editors the reason why it is Usbourne in the article. --Iae 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forenames only would probably solve a lot of problems, and would in fact be in line with how he's actually credited on screen. Nick Cooper 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've set up a move request on the talk page of Jeremy's article. If it is approved, we could then always put hidden messages (or whatever the technical term is!) onto the page asking people not to add either surname, and mention in the article something like "his surname is either Usbourne or Osbourne, but it is unclear which" ChrisTheDude 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames?!?[edit]

On the Channel 4 site, Mark's and Jeremy's surnames both show as Corrigan [1]Yyem 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an error by whoever coded the page, methinks..... ChrisTheDude 10:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual ep pages[edit]

Just a thought now, but would it be a good idea if we create a page for each episode? I mean, some would just be synopsis, and I'm sure that someone will feel the need for a trivia section. But some, like Quantocking, which have a DVD commentary will be able to have a production secton, and a reception section wouldn't be to hard to knock up. I've had highest sucess rate with getting high quality episode articles on the whole of Wikipedia (behind Scorpion0422), having got 11 Simpsons episodes to GA, two more on GAC and the moment, and one other (Homer's Phobia) to FA. Anyway, it could be a problem for the first two seasons, as the don't have titles. Although we could just call them "Episode 1 (Peep Show)" through to "Episode 12 (Peep Show)". Anyway, as said, just an idea. Gran2 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. I've only got series 1 on DVD, but I'd cast an eye over them. HornetMike 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get started when I get home, I'll create them using basic shell templates, and the current synopsis and images they have on the episode list. Which was partly the reason for me suggesting this, as we will have to remove all of the images from that list, following the new regulations. Gran2 11:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, here's the basic frame that I will be used for them all, User:Gran2/Sandbox, I will use this for them for now, and then expand them at some other point. Gran2 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also with the first to two seasons I will be calling them Episodes 1-12, rather than having to have "Episode 2 (Peep Show, series 2)" for the double ups, series 3 is now done. Gran2 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we can always move them, if there is agreement another way is better. Gran2 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right every page is now done, the synopsis for them all are just the same ones as from the episode lists and so really need expanding. I will add production and reception to those where that's possible when I have the chance. Gran2 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations ?[edit]

Some other entries on TV series (eg The Sopranos) have a section on the locations where the series was filmed. It might be interesting to start such a section here. For example: live.com Zodiac Court is their block of flats in Croydon. Cod 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unrotunately, while many locations will be identifiable by Londoners (e.g. the original title sequence was shot in Crouch End), most of it would be original research. Nick Cooper 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com lists a good few locations on their 'Theatrical Release Information' blurb for the US DVD release, I thought it might have been taken from the sleeve notes. Cod 16:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

Anybody know what the Reggae music is that they listen to in series 2 episode 1? AJUK Talk!! 19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea, although I do know what the music they dance to at Rainbow Rhythms is, that's Afro-Celt Sound System.... ChrisTheDude 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images[edit]

There may be too many images in this article. I can't find the exact page, but there is a Wikipedia guideline which covers images of characters in TV shows. Generally, having a non-free image for each character is regarded as too many and difficult to justify under fair use criteria. Images which depict more than one character are preferred, or only images of the main characters could be used. I also noticed that each image has a fair use rationale for its use on the performer's article page, but no rationale for use on this page. --carelesshx talk 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that by the very unusual nature of the way the series is shot, there are very rarely shots with more than one character in them. Nick Cooper 10:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would go as far to say that I've never seen a pic on the interweb with more than three of them in together. A brief search on Google confirms this too. Tphi (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure at least one of the DVD releases has a photo on the back cover of Mark, Jez and Sophie together. I think it's a publicity shot rather than a scene from the programme. MFlet1 (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This shot has four of the main characters in, that's the best I could find although admittedly it isn't a great image....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit links[edit]

These all seem to be broken. The one to edit Toni's box redirects to Nancy's box, for example. I'd fix them myself but I don't know how. Shinigami27 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - it looks like titles have to be on a line of their own for the edit links to connect properly. --McGeddon 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peep Show episodes for featured list[edit]

The list of episodes is currently a candidate for featured list. Not many people have commented on it so far, so if you can do so, please review it. Thanks. 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The list has been successfully promoted! Thanks to everyone who has helped to make it. ISD (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Series five update[edit]

Hi there, noticed the update tag in the series five section, and seeing that sure enough, the info was way out of date, I threw in a quick synopsis covering the episodes so far, in what, at 2am, seem roughly like intelligible sentences. Please, do go ahead and edit, rephrase, or delete whatever you like of it to start with - I don't know if it's too long or too short, given we've only had three episodes so far, so if you think any of it's excessive, do go ahead and axe it. If anybody particularly wants to rewrite it altogether, I won't be offended, but I hope it can form a reasonable starting point. VWOzone (Talk) 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Appreciated, thanks for the update Matt Zero (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems[edit]

First & foremost, the Peep Show articles suffer heavily from viewers' POV interpretations. Case in point:

[Super Hans] "is said to be back at work 'on the rig' suggesting that he is spending time in prison ('working on the rig' is a term often used as an excuse to explain a prolonged absence, and his drug addictions and overall attitude support this)"

I have never heard 'working on the rig' used in this way to explain a prolonged absense, & even if there is such an expression, this does not support the assumption that he must be in prison. If the individual viewer chooses to imagine that the fictional character Super Hans may spend time in prison, so be it, but this is not explicit in show. I had understood from this comment of Jeremy's, as I believe most sentient viewers would, that Super Hans works on an offshore oil rig, an occupation which is in keeping with his role in the stories, since he would be away at sea for long periods, then at home on shore leave & not working for long periods. I am writing this into the article in place of the prison comment which is not at all justified.

Secondly, there's far too much anecdotal detail about minor jokes & comments within the show. Case in point:

Over time, Jeremy's lust for Toni grows, and he contemplates the opportunity of having a "next-door fuckbuddy", including having intercourse through the wall.

The wall thing was a blink-&-you-miss-it two-second comment in Jeremy's mental dialogue during episode 1. Putting it in the Wikipedia series synopsis as an "over time" thing is misleading - it implies that this fantasy of Jeremy's was a significant theme. So I am removing this sentence.

These are just a couple of examples but there are others. Generally I believe there is too much detail, here & on the List of Peep Show episodes, about specific incidents, individual episode plots in excessive detail, and one-off minor comments by characters, all of which is debasing the quality of the article. There is a general in-universe treatment of the subject & fan-site tone to the article which is not appropriate to Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I would like to overhaul this article, & the episode guides one, & remove a lot of this incidental stuff, but will seek consensus before taking action. Please discuss. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a partial clean-up, removing those two examples & a couple of other details that stood out for the same reasons (e.g. Jeff's alleged seat-sniffing, mentioned once in passing by Mark). There's a lot more I think needs removing or rewriting, if there is support for it. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Peep Show is a major offender on "writing about fiction" grounds, although there is a lot of that sort of material relative to the amount of third-party-sourced stuff. As for "on the rig", it went through a few changes about Feb '07 - someone suggested it's something to do with the music industry then an IP user put "anyone with any nous knows that the term 'on the rig' is commonly used by chavs as an excuse for a partner's long spell in jail". Personally, I thought "the rig" referred to his drug equipment and he was too far gone with that for Jez to talk to. The rules on primary sources say "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge", which I don't think allows for any explanation where there is clearly doubt about the meaning.Billwilson5060 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no writer's commentary on that episode, so I don't think the "rig" question will ever be decisively settled. However, I think that Occam's razor applies here - the most straightforward & least convoluted explanation is likely to be correct (I.E. that Hans works on an oil rig). Certainly, I've never heard the 'in prison' meaning of the phrase & a Google search for "on the rig" only brings up sites about oil rigs. It should only be mentioned if there is an unrelated citation for "on the rig" meaning 'in prison'. Another possibility is to just remove all mention of "on the rig" from the article, since it is only mentioned once in the series & seems to be only to interpretation & misinterpretation. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought the most obvious interpretation of "rig" was "DJing equipment". What was the context of the original quote? Does it really try to explain his absence for the whole series, or is it just someone asking where Super Hans is, in one scene? --McGeddon (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy calls Mark at work because he is bored and lonely since Nancy is in America "and Super Hans in back on the rig". He is in the episodes before and after.Billwilson5060 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest not mentioning anything, although there is a difference in the image being built up of a crackhead and someone who works on an oil rig, so if that interpretation is accepted, it would probably be noteworthy. A couple of other things from the current article - the "gay dads" plan is mentioned as if it were more certain than it seemed from the episode, and I can't remember Dobbie being called Debbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwilson5060 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my major problem with this & the other Peep Show articles: people have picked up odd little specks of dialogue, which may have been funny in the context of the show, & written them out-of-context into the article as if they are significant plot points. This isn't good encyclopedia content. I think it should really be cut down to: * Synopsis of long-term plot (not detailed plot of every episode). * Short & objective character synopses. * Some discussion of the public & critical reception. * Extra insight from the writers (e.g. in director's commentary). Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS In her first appearance Dobbie mentioned that her actual name was Debbie but that everyone called her Dobbie....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it's agreed that some of the material has to go. There doesn't really seem to be any in-depth advice on the in-universe rules, but it does seem as if they were created to deal with obsessive accounts of things like fictional technology - the equivalent would be something like "JLB credit is a fictional consumer credit business...". The minor characters' profiles could certainly do with some trimming e.g. where they quote "kill and knob" and "insured out of my arse". The major characters' pages could do with some sourced insights, including from the many interviews Mitchell and Webb have given (although a big part of this may come down to "is Mark based on David?". The section headlined "plot summary" could be merged with the episode list article. That list has been featured, and it would be unusual for a major series not to have at least some account of what happens. For series 1-3, these seem to be giving the premise rather than the plot - I think the latter is supposed to be preferred. If there are any notable perspectives on the show (positive or negative) or reliable accounts of production, they could be added as they come to light.Billwilson5060 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a clean-up / rewrite of the character section. Removed some bits of minor trivia & POV comments by editors, and rephrased some of it in a more appropriate style. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usbourne - a source![edit]

I spotted this book on the shelves of Waterstones on Monday. It gives Jeremy's name as Usbourne. I'd say that was pretty definitive? At last, the conflict is over! HornetMike (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! We've now got the C4 website which uses both, the in-show letter which said "Usbourne", and now a third, very recent one, which also uses Usbourne. I'd say that pretty much settles it. Do you remember the page number so we can use {{cite book}}? If not, I could probably pop into town tomorrow to see if we've got it in the Waterstones in my town. Page number obviously isn't essential, so if you don't remember it, we can just add in that little detail tomorrow. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 11:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't offhand, unfortunately. Probably should have taken a mental note! But yeah, I'm sure someone can find it in their local bookshop! HornetMike (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look on Friday. Annoyingly only the scripts have numbers, the cite for Usbourne (or at least the one that's easy to spot, there may be one in the actual script) is a school report thing. So in the book it goes 52-53, school report-school report, school report-school report, school report-school report (cite), 54-55. HornetMike (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, interesting. Do you think that given the circumstances, citing the book without the page number should suffice? Dreaded Walrus t c 02:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine yeah, unless other regular editors want to keep him at his present location to stop the inevitable changes back to Osbourne? Doubt it, though. HornetMike (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it should have the correct spelling in the dialogue of the episode where Jez goes for the job interview at Mark's office? Nick Cooper (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, could be. Someone else will have to find it though, as I'm off to Australia tomorrow. Good luck with this! HornetMike (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Channel 4 have now purged the "Osborne" spelling from their website. However, they now appear to be unsure whether his name is spelt "Usbourne" or "Usborne"! MFlet1 (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Era[edit]

The article does not state what decade or era the series is set in. If I am not mistaken one of the characters in series two mentions it is the 1980s. Also the computers on the show do look of the vintage. Also some discussion of the props and how the production team got hold of these old computers and made them appear to work would be interesting background. TorontoFever (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The show is clearly set in the modern day, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. A major plot point in one episode is Mark trying to hack into Sophie's email at work. Email didn't exist in the 1980s. The last episode of series 5 had a scene centred around MMORPGs, which have only really been around for the last couple of years or so. In the first episode of series 2 the music at the dance class is by Afro Celt Sound System, taken from an album released in 1996. I don't know of any episodes in which antique computers (or anything else which would suggest an earlier decade) are shown -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chris - the series is firmly contemporary with its making. Music, technology, political, and cultural references all confirm/reinforce that. Are you not misinterpreting Toni's sarcastic fax machine-related comments in one episode?! Nick Cooper (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From series 4: "She’s good for me, Jez, she’s dragging me into the twenty-first century with its meaningless logos and ironic veneration of tyrants." MFlet1 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the final episode of series 5 also has various references to High definition television, such as 'I am so ready for HD' and Mark's protests that 'It's HD! It's HD!' When super Hans threatens to break his new television set. not got a username sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.217.86 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
its set NOW because when JLB credit goes bust in it, and mark gets made redundant, Johnson blames it on the current "Credit Crunch".81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In series 3 episode Quantocking, first shown in 2005, Mark talks to Sophie about The Apprentice, which began the same year. Hence we know it is set in the present. Jim Michael (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC America[edit]

Out of curiousity, how were the ratings on BBC America? From what I recall, they only aired the first series and only the first series is on Region 1 DVD.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series 6 and DVD release[edit]

I noticed that Amazon and Play are advertising the DVD release date as 7th September and have added this information to the article, but I wasn't sure about the rules on citing a retailer as a source. Given the lack of information so far on season six, I any update was worth mentioning. DeuceBigalowMD (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think retailers are not considered reliable, especially for future products. We don't even know when season six will air, so how do they know when its going to be released? Gran2 08:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This source may be more reliable. It is from the British Comedy Guide. ISD (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series 6 is not going to be aired until the autumn and hasn't even been filmed yet. Sources are David Mitchell and Robert Webb themselves via their personal Twitter pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.74.213 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series 8?[edit]

The article says that Series 8 has already been commissioned - even though Series 6 is still being recorded - and that it will be the final series. Is there a source on the internet for this? I haven't been able to find one. MFlet1 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series 6 is over. Series 7 is nearly totallty finished and will show in 2010. Series 6 and 7 were comissioned after series 5 was over, so its fair to say that 8 has probably been comissioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mark and Jeremy's articles[edit]

I think Mark and Jeremy's separate articles should be merged here. I think they have no real notability apart from this show and all of the important plot/character information can be replicated here. Gran2 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been two weeks with no objections here, so I'm going to just re-direct them here, as all of the useful content is here already. Gran2 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of show's name[edit]

What was the thinking behind the series name ? I saw a documentary about a group of lunatic academics in California called Esalen who brought a group of black panthers out to their compound to see if they could use their confrontational therapies to neutralise the Panthers fury. The Panthers went to town on them with a process they reserved for white pseudo-liberals called Peeping with unintentionally hilarious results. The doucumentary's screening was legendary and as Peep Show does something similar to its characters and it would be interesting to know if there was a link. Esalen decided to move on to an easier subject group next, Nuns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.0.85 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth is a real university[edit]

In the states at least: http://www.dartmouth.edu/ Did they not meet there but at a different Dartmouth that is fake? I just came here to learn about the show but that sentence in the into seemed quite odd... Jscg (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link is the website of Dartmouth College, which is in Hanover, New Hampshire, United States. Dartmouth University in the show is in Dartmouth, Devon, a small town in South West England which does not actually have a university. Peep Show is set entirely in England. Hence the Dartmouth University featured in the show is fictional. Jim Michael (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very belated response but....season 2 episode 4 shows Mark and Jeremy visiting "their" Dartmouth University, which is clearly stated to be in the vicinity of the south coast of England and most definitely not in the USA -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character section[edit]

The character section does not name the actors that play them. This needs to be fixed. Vember94 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peep Show (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peep Show (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peep Show (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo House[edit]

This article (to be precise, an image caption) claims that the filming location for Jeremy and Mark's flat was Zodiac Court, Croydon, "called Apollo House in the series". The article on the actual Apollo House (Croydon) claims that that building was "used as a principal location for ... Peep Show, as the home of main characters Mark and Jeremy. It was used both as an establishing shot as well as scenes filmed inside the building." Looks like something needs to be fixed. GrindtXX (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources confirm this article is right, Apollo House article is (was) wrong. I have now deleted the offending paragraph. GrindtXX (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't get why it's called Peep Show[edit]

That description of it being a POV style of filming and therefore it's called Peep Show doesn't really stand up. That would be a good reason to call it POV Show. As far as I know, a peep show is a form of entertainment where (typically) a male will pay money and see either a recorded or live sexual display of some kind. That would be either a machine that you put your eyes up close to and would show a film or in more modern times a live person in some kind of booth. So how are the two connected? Voyeuring of "sexy times" (as Borat would put it), and a POV camera style of a sitcom. Weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:51FE:2B01:552E:6754:2020:1852 (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When it began being made, it was going to be called Point of View, before it was decided to rename it Peep Show. Many people, including David Mitchell, have said that they dislike the name & that it's misleading because people will understandably wrongly assume that it's about peep shows. There should be info in the article about its original name, when & why it was changed & who made that decision. Jim Michael (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peep_Show_(British_TV_series)&oldid=1207999963"