A shame, it really built up well after a few episodes as the story moved on and deserved a second series at least!
Scarborough Page 4
I thought Scarborough had the potential to be "better" than Benidorm.
The problem is that Derren Litten has always been fond of the sort of humour that was nationally adored before a lot of people were browbeaten into accepting (or at least not openly denying) that certain subjects aren't funny.
It attracted audiences typically of around 2 million which is better than the iconic Peep Show did.
The BBC cannot justifiably cite "low viewing figures" as their reason for the killing off of Scarborough.
I think we're in for some highly sanitised TV as the 21st-century progresses.
God help us! 
Another one series wonder from the Beeb. Are they trying to break records or trying to set an example to sitcom creators to do better? If the latter I applaud them for a change. But it also means something's gone badly wrong with the commissioning process. Should they be hanging on to these highly paid failures or seeking new ones? me ponders. Bring your old theatre poofs back, they knew their stuff. These articulate oxbridge graduates know shite about sitcom. Shite.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 27th November 2019, 7:47 AMThese articulate oxbridge graduates know shite about sitcom. Shite.
What, you mean apart from John 'Fawlty Towers' Cleese and John 'Blackadder' Lloyd. Weren't they both Oxbridge educated?
Quote: chipolata @ 27th November 2019, 11:50 AMWhat, you mean apart from John 'Fawlty Towers' Cleese and John 'Blackadder' Lloyd. Weren't they both Oxbridge educated?
Alfred mentions BBC commissioning people who are failing to commission decent comedy and subsequently refers to them as "these articulate Oxbridge graduates".
I don't think he's suggesting that all Oxbridge graduates are clueless about comedy.
Quote: chipolata @ 27th November 2019, 2:24 PMUnless he knows the educational background of most comedy commissioners it's a lazy statement based not on facts but reverse snobbery.
I think perhaps he was exaggerating for the purposes of rhetorical effect.
I can think of a few people who might reasonably be described as knowing nothing about comedy: it wouldn't be literally true but it would nevertheless be a pretty fair description.
Quote: chipolata @ 27th November 2019, 11:50 AMWhat, you mean apart from John 'Fawlty Towers' Cleese and John 'Blackadder' Lloyd. Weren't they both Oxbridge educated?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 27th November 2019, 7:47 AMThese
is the key word here.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 28th November 2019, 6:48 AMis the key word here.
As you well know, you were talking generally, not specifically. I don't disagree that there's a problem with commissioners now, but I'm not sure you've identified what that problem is, just fallen back on your usual targets with little or no evidence.
I visit a lot of older housebound patients and most of them had been telling me how much they had enjoyed watching Scarborough. I have been really busy, so have only just had time to start watching but three programmes in and I love it- gentle humour, lovely characters and acting....and beautiful scenery. Oh, what a shame there isn't going to be a second series. I feel I would like to speak out on behalf of my many elderly friends (most of whom do not have a computer or smartphone to be able to express their views easily) and say please BBC, reconsider another series. Are programmes these days judged solely by how much attention they get on social media? If so, it is a great shame as all the people I have chatted to who have watched the series have REALLY enjoyed it and were looking forward to another series. Maybe it doesn't appeal as much to younger viewers as they have been brought up with faster-paced productions (has anyone seen Postman Pat recently??!!) but ALL my 'young at heart' ladies and gentleman have been enthralled. TV is such a lifeline for these lovely people and, especially as they are soon likely to be paying for a TV licence, surely their 'silent' voices should be taken into consideration as well.
Quote: chipolata @ 28th November 2019, 9:38 AMAs you well know, you were talking generally, not specifically. I don't disagree that there's a problem with commissioners now, but I'm not sure you've identified what that problem is, just fallen back on your usual targets with little or no evidence.
No I was actually talking about the commissioners and execs, who generally happen to come from the elite unis, according to articles I've read saying the BBC is a top choice for Oxbridge grads. The sitcom writers come mostly from the footlights or Oxford's version and still don't have a great sitcom record against non Footlights sitcom creators but have far less trouble getting shows commissioned these days.
The problem seems to be that a large number of their commissions are being cancelled after one series. In the past this would've been considered a disaster but now it's becoming normalised it happens so much. I doubt it's them cancelling their own commissions but execs above them. Something is going wrong, common things I've noticed about most of the flops is they are not very funny, increasingly Soapy and tend to be non studio based. Would they do better in remedying this I wonder? Morning.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 30th November 2019, 8:23 AMNo I was actually talking about the commissioners and execs, who generally happen to come from the elite unis, according to articles I've read saying the BBC is a top choice for Oxbridge grads. The sitcom writers come mostly from the footlights or Oxford's version and still don't have a great sitcom record against non Footlights sitcom creators but have far less trouble getting shows commissioned these days.
The problem seems to be that a large number of their commissions are being cancelled after one series. In the past this would've been considered a disaster but now it's becoming normalised it happens so much. I doubt it's them cancelling their own commissions but execs above them. Something is going wrong, common things I've noticed about most of the flops is they are not very funny, increasingly Soapy and tend to be non studio based. Would they do better in remedying this I wonder? Morning.
I think television is infinitely more competitive and cut throat than it ever has been before, so if something doesn't find an audience instantly, it's axed. Thirty, forty or fifty years ago things were allowed to grow and develop, partly because there were only three or four channels, so people had bugger all else to do but watch the few things on offer. Nowadays they're bombarded with Netflix and YouTube and Pornhub and WhatsApp and Facebook and Twitter - it's brutal trying to find an audience in that marketplace, and if you don't find one instantly you're cut. And it will get worse.
Quote: chipolata @ 30th November 2019, 10:24 AMI think television is infinitely more competitive and cut throat than it ever has been before, so if something doesn't find an audience instantly, it's axed. Thirty, forty or fifty years ago things were allowed to grow and develop, partly because there were only three or four channels, so people had bugger all else to do but watch the few things on offer. Nowadays they're bombarded with Netflix and YouTube and Pornhub and WhatsApp and Facebook and Twitter - it's brutal trying to find an audience in that marketplace, and if you don't find one instantly you're cut. And it will get worse.
Spot on.
Also, which was the last sitcom canned after just one series? I've had the district impression of the opposite: recommissions irrelevant of quality. And perhaps inversely proportional to.
Well Scarborough is the latest but also from the last 3 or 4 years Warren, Quacks, Home From Home, The Kennedys, Mountain Goats, Sun Trap, Porridge 2016, all prime time BBC 1 or 2 so called sitcoms. Then there's at least three from BBC4 I can think of, two with Ben Miller in.
Quote: chipolata @ 30th November 2019, 10:24 AMI think television is infinitely more competitive and cut throat than it ever has been before, so if something doesn't find an audience instantly, it's axed. Thirty, forty or fifty years ago things were allowed to grow and develop, partly because there were only three or four channels, so people had bugger all else to do but watch the few things on offer. Nowadays they're bombarded with Netflix and YouTube and Pornhub and WhatsApp and Facebook and Twitter - it's brutal trying to find an audience in that marketplace, and if you don't find one instantly you're cut. And it will get worse.
That doesn't explain why some are binned with good audience figures like The Royal Bodyguard not that long ago. Nor does it explain why the Beeb doesn't commission as many as it used to, if it's losing out to other channels then surely you'd think they'd want to make more sitcoms not less. Maybe they actually realise the general quality of modern sitcoms is getting worse and worse and many aren't really sitcoms but comedy dramas or increasingly comedy soaps with not much comedy. Did we really need yet another soap?
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 2nd December 2019, 9:07 AM...many aren't really sitcoms but comedy dramas.
Why does this matter so much to people?
Because I want a sitcom to make me larf and have overblown characters who do stupid things and are shown up to be plonkers. I don't want to tune into another light soap with a few smiles.