Bad times for the High Concept?

With sitcoms like Lab Rats and Clone not doing as well as expected (to put it politely), does this put a huge question mark over these type of ideas? Why do sitcoms that have a connection with sci-fi, the paranormal or other concepts put production companies off so much?

When I watched the Commedy Connections episode for Red Dwarf I recall Rob Grant, I think, saying that in todays climate Red Dwarf would never have been made. Marks & Gran on the DVD extras for Believe Nothing said that if it wasn't for the success of Birds of a Feather they would never have got Goodnight Sweetheart made either.

On another thread Lee remarked something to the effect that a high concept idea is difficult enough to get off the ground and is virtually impossible for a new writer. Call me naive but why is this?

Lots of questions...

Def.

Maybe they just think that sci-fi comedies have less appeal and therefore it's harder to justify the increased expense in sets, costumes and special effects?

No Heroics was quite high concept...

I bow to Lee's greater knowledge of the industry, but I still would think for a new writer, it's easier to sell a high-concept idea than trying to flog the latest flatshare office-based sitcom etc.

Personally I think you can write high-concept and low-budget. But I suspect budget is not solely behind Lee's reasoning?

James Henry posted a good blog entry related to this. Not to do with sitcom but maybe relevant:

http://jamesandthebluecat.blogspot.com/2009/01/genre-give-up-your-secrets.html

Quote: Mike Greybloke @ January 13 2009, 10:13 PM GMT

James Henry posted a good blog entry related to this. Not to do with sitcom but maybe relevant:

http://jamesandthebluecat.blogspot.com/2009/01/genre-give-up-your-secrets.html

View original

Very interesting stuff.

It's simple enough regarding sci-fi.

For many, it's a way of writing without learning about social history. Look at George Lucas: everything in Star Wars is analogous to things in the real world, but Lucas has no interest or understanding of them in any social or historical context, so he creates his own. Therefore we get the boy on the Tattoine farm doing up a 'speeder', instead of a boy in a rural setting working on a clapped out car. We get the British-accented Empire and the American-accented Rebels instead of the British Army and the American rebels in the war of independence, a real historical event. It's right to be contemptuous of someone who can't be bothered to adequately research a real event, so sets it in a fantasy land instead.

Whilst it is the case there is great writing that is science fiction - I can see three great works of sci-fi from where I'm sitting now, the majority of it is shit, and if someone asked me to read his sci fi novel I'd be far more likely to drop a bollock than if they asked me to read their fishing memoir, even though I have less than zero interest in fishing.

what the f**k's up with this forum? I wrote A n a l o g o u s , not analogueous, which is complete f**king bollocks as a spelling.

Can I ask what those three great works are, Godot?

Sure thing, Mr. B. I had in mind 1984, The war of the worlds and Brave new World, but it could equally be Tiger, Tiger, Ubik and say Flow My Tears the Policemen Said. I'd have to move a few plays and a copy of Razzle to see them though. I'm also playing Fallout 3 at the moment, if it helps.

No way! Really? It's the perfect vehicle for Wogan if you're listening, Mentorn.

Quote: Mike Greybloke @ January 13 2009, 10:13 PM GMT

James Henry posted a good blog entry related to this. Not to do with sitcom but maybe relevant:

http://jamesandthebluecat.blogspot.com/2009/01/genre-give-up-your-secrets.html

View original

Mike that was a really good article. Thanks for posting the link.

Def.

'Tiger Tiger' is brilliant.

But to the original question - it is Bad Times for everything in television.

And 'Consider Phlebas' is brilliant.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 14 2009, 12:37 AM GMT

Whilst it is the case there is great writing that is science fiction - I can see three great works of sci-fi from where I'm sitting now, the majority of it is shit,

View original

You could say a good portion of any genre of writing is ropey. There are just as many bland, shitty detective novels as there are sci-fi.

Quote: Marc P @ January 14 2009, 8:27 AM GMT

And 'Consider Phlebas' is brilliant.

View original

I liked that.

Does 'high concept' necessarily have to equate with science fiction?

I would count the following successful sitcoms as being high concept (either in their central concept or execution):

My Name Is Earl
'Allo 'Allo!
Blackadder
The Larry Sanders Show
The Addams Family
The Munsters
ALF
The Beverly Hillbillies
Peepshow
Extras
Drop The Dead Donkey
Mork & Mindy
How I Met Your Mother
Sean's Show
It's Gary Shandling's Show
Mister Ed
The Monkees
My Favourite Martian
My Hero
Outnumbered
That 70s Show
The Wonder Years
The Worst Week Of My Life
Garth Marenghi's Darkplace
Police Squad!

Most of them are either not science fiction at all or are very traditional sitcoms with very basic science fiction trappings (Mork & Mindy for example).

In movies since the 80s, high concepts have been the norm and, from what I've read, scripts of this type by new writers get picked up all the time (admittedly, the probably get butchered by other writers seconds later, but that's another story).

I like to believe that a good high concept, if applied in a low-budget and manageable way, should be enticing to a commissioner rather than put them off.