Why do modern UK comedies/sitcoms cater to such a narrow demograpic? Page 2

Quote: Aaron @ 2nd September 2024, 9:57 PM

All of these have some linear element, but they're largely series-by-series, dealing with cast coming-and-going, and some long-term changes in characters' circumstances. They're ultimately episodic and can be dipped in and out of like The Simpsons or Porridge, not needing to be followed closely, in order, like a soap or drama.

Broadly speaking, the key difference really is that they all follow characters, exploring their world and seeing how they react and the troubles they get into day-to-day; whereas the new wave tends to focus much more on stories. I believe that's also why the classics remain so, and will remain so, whilst much of the modern will fade into obscurity: by leading with character the writer/producer/actor is forced to make that character identifiable or recognisable in some form. To a greater or lesser extent they hit upon archetypes that are true to the human condition and to our national culture, which is why they're still so endearing and enduring, all these decades on.

View original

Thanks, eloquently put.That is what I've been trying to get at.
Now if we can only get you to spread the message to the commissioning cabal!

Re modern shows telling specific stories rather than focusing on characters, this news today about Alma's Not Normal is incredibly pertinent:

https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/news/8033/almas-not-normal-to-end/

This rather confirms my long-held feeling that the changing landscape is as much about the writers desires for their own work to be always moving forward as much as it is about (insult goes here) commissioners.

Quote: Lazzard @ 3rd September 2024, 4:47 PM

This rather confirms my long-held feeling that the changing landscape is as much about the writers desires for their own work to be always moving forward as much as it is about (insult goes here) commissioners.

View original

Partly, but it's also another aspect in which the commissioning trend is self-perpetuating. We (BCG) hear from many writers, both newer talent and acclaimed, established professionals, who've given up, retired, and/or moved to other genres, because they are not getting their work commissioned, or they are not seeing the kind of show on screen that they'd ideally like to write, so aren't bothering. So it's then not developed to be put in front of commissioners in order to be, well, commissioned.

The obvious question then is when and why did the industry climb aboard that particular hamster wheel in the first place? A myriad of reasons I don't pretend to understand all of, but I rather suspect that the BBC's Birtian managerialism is no small contributor. There has been a definite pattern of executives and commissioners alike who have little or no successful creative experience themselves, and who certainly don't have the courage of their convictions, and/or the ability to read a script and see its potential. Combined with rising costs of production and a similar self-defeating belief that everything needs to look and feel as crisp, real and high-end as a Hollywood blockbuster, they can't afford - financially or otherwise - to give anything a try, so resort to things they deem tried-and-tested audience-winners. This is a large part of why there's been such a run of stand-ups being plucked to write and star in TV comedies, often autobiographical, and often adapted from live shows, rather than writers writing new comedies.

Interesting stuff.
Food for thought.

The autobiographical stuff is probably a reflection of the fragmentation of media. A comedian's USP is themself.

Quote: Aaron @ 3rd September 2024, 4:20 PM

Re modern shows telling specific stories rather than focusing on characters, this news today about Alma's Not Normal is incredibly pertinent:

https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/news/8033/almas-not-normal-to-end/

View original

Well that was sad.
I liked the start of Alma but once it devolved into the "Pretty Woman" tropes I lost almost all interest in it.
If she had had better writers it could've been a new Shameless with her playing the Frank role
Her throwing around of intersectionality terms and her casual dismissive attitude toward what makes a great sitcom doesn't bode well for her future work.
I mean witches again....Navel gazing indeed

Better writers?
She was the sole writer wasn't she?
I think it's a bit harsh to blame writers for writing what they want to write, rather than what you want them to write.
Your beef is with commissioners, not writers, surely?

Well we are all discussing our opinions here,no?
But once again the viewing numbers on Alma's Not Normal don't match the over hyped critical praise.

Alma struggled to average a million viewers per episode for Series 1.
Benidorm averaged in some series 8 million and was cancelled still pulling in over 5 million viewers per episode
The public plainly is not that interested in her story.

But if you judged it solely by the critical praise you'd think it was the greatest thing since...

Not a show that barely anyone watched.

So the industry/commissioners are trapped in a hype loop for shows with ever decreasing viewership and relevance.
And we're to wonder why the state of UK comedy is so dire?

It's the writers and the content creators' fault as well as the commissioners hence why I blame her too.

Like governments, local councils & other large organisations, the writers & commissioners are intent on giving their constituents/customers/audience what they think they should have rather than what they actually want.

The best sitcom of this century that didn't really happen but I like to think it did in a Walter Mitty way is When The Wwhistle Blows. You 'avin' a laff? Clearly by the dictated agenda of current wokey commissioners right now, we are not. Give the public what they want: that's why That's TV channels are doing so well, banging out non-PC classics and some not-classics like No Place Like Home and the dreaded After Henry. Classic sitcoms are rarely born, they have to grow over time and find their devoted audience and place in time. They are not instantly made because you are told look here is someone's fixed narrative and story that's going to be forced on you for the next 30 minutes, now find it funny.

It's interesting to consider how Peep Show (2003-2015) and The Inbetweeners (2008-2010) fit into all this. They didn't necessarily get massive ratings (around a million or less I think), but had strong devoted cult followings, loads of positive reviews, and were considered worth being recommissioned for several series (well, 9 series of Peep Show and 3 series of The Inbetweeners). Two of the funniest modern sitcoms IMO, and certainly not 'PC'/ 'woke' (though those terms are a bit naff IMO).

Interesting point but honestly Peep Show was rather hit and miss with low viewing figures but Inbetweeners regularly averaged over 2 million viewers.
Personal preferences aside I can see why both were cancelled.
Both had pretty much worn out their welcome

Quote: tenbeersbold @ 7th September 2024, 6:43 PM

Interesting point but honestly Peep Show was rather hit and miss with low viewing figures but Inbetweeners regularly averaged over 2 million viewers.
Personal preferences aside I can see why both were cancelled.
Both had pretty much worn out their welcome

View original

Was Peep Show cancelled? I thought the creators chose to end it? I may be wrong.
Peep Show is certainly ageing better than Inbetweeners.

Nine series over 12 years (not unlike Dad's Army)
Not too shabby, I would say.
And, according to David & Robert it was they who bought it to a close - with the writer already working on their next collaboration.