Quote: chipolata @ June 9 2009, 3:01 PM BSTI hate to disagree with myself, but that John Adams thing was pretty good. And I believe that was HBO.
So it was. And on at Saturday tea-time to boot.
Who killed the sitcom? Page 4
Quote: Tim Walker @ June 9 2009, 2:59 PM BSTThe point is that the BBC is to a major degree fire-proofed during economic downturns. When commercial broadcasters are finding it hard to fund programming, the BBC should actually take more risks and pay even less attention to ratings.
Totally agree.
here here!
I blame John Humphries.
Much as I admire the BBC News department('s) anti-government stance, they have rather shot themselves in the foot with their constant antagonistic attitude to the government of the day.
In short they have really pissed the Govt off and are now constantly in the firing line.
One little slip - in any of the BBC Departments - and they're in trouble.
Consequently the Sword of Damaclese is constantly hovering over their heads, with the threat of removal of some or all of the licence fee.
The result - a play-safe mentality and an obsession with ratings.
If the BBC had a guarenteed revenue - ideally increased - for the next 10 years and were relieved of the need to chase ratings (sadly, watching a top model eating bugs will always win that battle) we might see an improvement.
Having said that - there was no Golden Age.
So we're in a recession, and the BBC's playing safe...
Following on from my last post, why aren't we seeing more British writers strike out on their own? These should be times of innovation, where writers no longer wait for the gatekeepers to open doors.
And they were during the WGA strike last spring, some of the best film and TV writers in the States, unable to get work commissioned by the networks, took the initiative to set up Strike.tv. Created on tiny budgets, online sitcoms are proving excellent testing grounds for audiences. Studios are increasingly looking to see what works online, in view of adapting the series for TV. But they're also balancing that with the understanding that the web allows writers to capture the imaginations of niche audiences, and not always have to cater for the mainstream. Surely that's an exciting thing?
My question is why we're not seeing similarly exciting work from the UK?
Great writing isn't just a question of money (sorry, Tim, I beg to differ on this point). Of course money buys established talent, teams of writers, and experienced development execs, but there are always new talented writers coming up. And for them, the web is the perfect testing ground.
If we're going to learn from the US, let's also learn from their go-getter spirit. Considering sitcoms as a comedic form that exists only on TV is outdated. A significant number of major production companies are now looking at creating digital arms.
Where are the British (online) sitcom writers to fill their slates?
The sitcom isn't dead; it's being reinvented online
Quote: Veronica @ June 10 2009, 5:13 PM BSTGreat writing isn't just a question of money (sorry, Tim, I beg to differ on this point). Of course money buys established talent, teams of writers, and experienced development execs, but there are always new talented writers coming up. And for them, the web is the perfect testing ground.
I wasn't talking about money in terms of writing, I'm talking about the whole package needing money. I'm not saying you can buy a great comedy (far from it) but you do need investment in development. (Probably in America they are far more hard-nosed and realistic about this as they attempt online sitcom.)
I'm sorry, but as a (hopefully) up-and-coming writer I want my work on the telly, so I will continue along the road I have started to travel. If any of the companies I was working with wanted to truly invest in online sitcom/comedy then I would consider it. Not trying to sound deluded or snobbish, no-one's stopping comedy writers from exploring the possibilities online. Not for me, that's all. If I was in a hurry to get my work produced I wouldn't have started down this road to begin with. 
Who killed the sitcom?
His name is Ricky Gervais.
Quote: Aaron @ May 12 2009, 11:51 PM BSTRicky Gervais.
Quote: Dave @ June 11 2009, 12:05 AM BSTWho killed the sitcom?
His name is Ricky Gervais.
Ha ha! You are so funny - and original!
Quote: Chappers @ June 11 2009, 5:46 PM BSTHa ha! You are so funny - and original!
And right!
BBC Three
I really think it comes down to a "Win or Die" mentality. Not a lot of new things get a chance - and if they put a foot wrong, then they're instantly dismissed. It's true - television is a business - but comedy is a creative business. There is little room for growth and development now. Remember in the eighties - a little show called "The Black Adder" came along with some great ideas but serious flaws in execution. If it had come along today, that series might have been its last. Before this frenzy took hold, however, the people involved had the opportunity to rework the show - salvaging the great ideas at its heart. The result - one of the all time greats.
How many things that have the potential to be origianl, well executed and appealing are lost now? Either they don't get a chance because no one will take a risk on them, or they are pulled off as soon as they are not an instant success.
I don't think the "cooler, crueller" sitcoms, their creators or fans are responsible. They only contribute to revivifying the form. Sometimes, yes, they desensitise the palate to anything warmer - and I have to confess that I suffer a little of this. The eighties may have not made a lot of great sitcoms, but the good ones it made were excellent and it launched the careers of ridiculously talented and inventive comedians who have dominated the comedy scene for close to three decades.
After watching their stuff - I must confess, I could not watch "Dad's Army", "The Good Life" or "Are You Being Served?" without a bit of groaning. the current hand-held, gritty, unsentimental sitcoms are just the next wave in this trend - and it helps find new audiences.
Marks and Gran themselves proved very versatile - from the sweet and sentimental "Birds of a Feather" and "Goodnight Sweetheart" (which I can't really enjoy) to the cool, cruel, dark and satirical "The New Statesman" and "Believe Nothing" (which I like).
It is hard to get comedy on these days and to get something original to take off. When this happens, we should support it!
Sort of a typical article from the Mail (and an old one- I realise this is an old thread, but felt compelled to comment)- harking back to some sort of sepia-toned "good old days".
A lot of good comedies were written years ago, a lot of good comedies are being written now. A lot awful comedies were produced years ago too (Come Back Mrs Noah, anyone?), and a lot of awful comedies are being made now. The only difference is, is that you have to sift through all the crap now to find the good stuff. History has taken care of that when it comes to older sitcoms.
It's the same with music- in 1973, the year Dark Side of the Moon was released, the biggest selling record in the UK was "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree". You don't see many Tony Orlando posters or tribute acts around these days.
As for newer comedies being too cynical... it's called progression. Nothing to do with slipping standards, just some innovative writers pushing boundaries and changing the medium. If that didn't happen, we'd still be watching Are You Being Served? and tittering at the "edgy" jokes about Mrs Slocombe's pussy. 
Mrs Slocome's pussy has held up well. I still titter at jokes about it.
Quote: Mr Krinkle @ March 23 2011, 12:40 AM GMTA lot of good comedies were written years ago, a lot of good comedies are being written now. A lot awful comedies were produced years ago too (Come Back Mrs Noah, anyone?), and a lot of awful comedies are being made now. The only difference is, is that you have to sift through all the crap now to find the good stuff. History has taken care of that when it comes to older sitcoms.
There was a lot of dross in the good old days, but back in the early seventies you would expect to sit down to a decent sitcom three or four times a week, with sitcom writers being star names in their own right. Writers in their prime included Galton & Simpson, Speight, Croft & Perry, Mortimer & Cooke, Chappell, Lane, Esmond & Larbey, Tilbury, Bird & Fortune, Nobbs, Cleese & Booth, Sykes, Clarke, Lynn & Jay, Sullivan, and my own favourites, Clement & La Frenais. Even shows I detested, such Are You Being Served? got good audiences by the standard of the day. The TV companies have stopped making sitcoms in the same numbers, because they are more expensive than panel games and harder to get right, particularly in a multiple channel environment where you cannot count on an audience while the show beds in. Whether it is a cause or an effect of declining production, but the talent pool is not there (I suspect it is a bit of both). Increasingly where sitcoms are successful it is in terms of niche appeal, rather than capturing a broad audience. This is not a necessary effect of the fragmenting market, there are still, occasionally, good mass audience dramas, and there is no reason why the broad appeal of a Porridge or a Steptoe & Son would not work today; Outnumbered probably comes closest, but again that is written by Hamilton & Jenkin, who came up on the tails of the Seventies sitcom boom.