What a shame...I wanted this to be good. I bought the complete box set of the original show recently and enjoyed it a lot. A few (good) additional series wouldn't have hurt.
Yes, Prime Minister (2013) Page 2
Quote: Aaron @ January 16 2013, 3:26 PM GMTA 25 year absence and a hugely popular, West End and nationally touring stage play, proving they're still more than competent writers? Yeah, very arrogant indeed...
Well, it does reek a bit of a sense of entitlement. I can understand the BBC's caution. In recent years they've had at least two sitcoms (The Royal Bodyguard and Life's Too Short) that looked great on paper but in reality were anything but.
Quote: chipolata @ January 17 2013, 2:37 PM GMTWell, it does reek a bit of a sense of entitlement.
Does it? I don't see how? If they'd gone straight to the BBC having done nothing whatsoever since 1988, then certainly that would seem to be a sense of entitlement that's not really justified. But again, with a critically acclaimed, very successful stage production proving that they can still write comedy and that the concept of a sitcom set amidst the inner workings of Downing Street can be a hit with the public, what else can a pilot do? It's not the writers' fault if the contemporary BBC is stuffed with idiots who have no sense of imagination for commissioning beyond what is shoved in front of their faces.
Anyway.
I've now had time to watch the whole first episode through. Starts a little on the slow side, but picks up well and IMHO is a perfect updating of the format to a contemporary setting and political backdrop. I still think it's a massive mistake of them to produce a series-long narrative arc rather than stand-alone episodes, however.
Aaron, if the BBC only commissioned what was shoved under their faces then they have agreed to do a this revival of Yes, Prime Minister without a second thought.
Your insinuation that a successful stage play proves that they will be fine to make a TV version is off the mark, producing a nostalgia based stage show is far different than a TV series. And if the stage show being successful meant a TV series transition should be no problem then why was the first episode disappointing, surely it should have been fine tuned already and of a better quality? Something that a pilot would have helped in this case.
I fundamentally disagree on almost every point you make, not least the implication that the BBC should never take a calculated risk and give a comedy a chance without the interference of dozens of executives. And, frustratingly, I've other far more compelling examples of the idiocy of the current commissioning process, but am not at liberty to divulge them publicly. So we'll have to agree to differ. Good day. 
Watched the first ep now. Bit disappointed really. Casting/performance may have let writing down but not sure really.. David H excellent but has no relevance to contemporary politics so a bit out of time. Humphrey's continual grinning didn't work for me. The killing understatement in the original was brilliant. The power behind the throne. Jeeves behind Wooster. I guess with a lot of these things it is chemistry between the leads.
Quote: Aaron @ January 17 2013, 8:48 PM GMTI fundamentally disagree on almost every point you make, not least the implication that the BBC should never take a calculated risk and give a comedy a chance without the interference of dozens of executives. And, frustratingly, I've other far more compelling examples of the idiocy of the current commissioning process, but am not at liberty to divulge them publicly. So we'll have to agree to differ. Good day.
I didn't say or imply anything remotely near that the BBC shouldn't be taking calculated risks and I don't know where the dozens of executives have come from?!
I don't doubt that you have several stories but in this case, I'm not sure how the BBC be out of line by asking for a pilot when money for sitcoms is in very short supply, the writers have done no TV comedy for years and recent sitcoms from writers with recent hits have flopped badly.
Quote: dennispennis123 @ January 18 2013, 1:11 AM GMTI didn't say or imply anything remotely near that the BBC shouldn't be taking calculated risks and I don't know where the dozens of executives have come from?!
Sorry, my poor wording there. It's the involvement of umpteen execs and commissioners, and the need to satisfy all of them, that is a not inconsiderable part of why they now demand pilots. No longer is there a single Bill Cotton-esque figure who can simply say "Yes, I like that idea, have 6 episodes" and give us an Only Fools And Horses or a TW3 (it's late and I don't actually recall if either show had a pilot or not, but a big successful programme, is my point). But that's another discussion, which I'm sure has been touched on in the past.
Quote: dennispennis123 @ January 18 2013, 1:11 AM GMTrecent sitcoms from writers with recent hits have flopped badly.
A fair point, but for me that comes back to the notion of a calculated risk. The BBC - indeed, any channel - takes very few anymore, which is why we end up with such a large array of beige, samey, uninspiring offerings. But that's probably veering into another discussion as well.
Quote: Aaron @ January 18 2013, 1:20 AM GMTSorry, my poor wording there. It's the involvement of umpteen execs and commissioners, and the need to satisfy all of them, that is a not inconsiderable part of why they now demand pilots. No longer is there a single Bill Cotton-esque figure who can simply say "Yes, I like that idea, have 6 episodes" and give us an Only Fools And Horses or a TW3 (it's late and I don't actually recall if either show had a pilot or not, but a big successful programme, is my point). But that's another discussion, which I'm sure has been touched on in the past.
A fair point, but for me that comes back to the notion of a calculated risk. The BBC - indeed, any channel - takes very few anymore, which is why we end up with such a large array of beige, samey, uninspiring offerings. But that's probably veering into another discussion as well.
But the BBC can't really win. There are so many people out there nowadays ready to beat it with a stick at the first opportunity. If they had commissioned the revival and it turned out to be a massive flop which is looking very possible, you would have had people saying it serves the Beeb right for trying to cash in on a cheap, remake of a classic, why aren't they spending their resources on new sitcom ideas with new, young talent, saying it looks dated and poor compared to TTOI and saying why didn't they pilot it before!
So I can understand the need for the Beeb to be careful and take precautions but I also get where your coming from with the umpteen execs all sticking their noses in and making the process a real drag. However, I hardly would say producing a revival of a classic sitcom with the same writers and same characters is innovative, quite the opposite.
But, this all kicked off with us differing on whether a stage show was a good form os seeing if the show was ready for a TV adaptation. I don't think we are going to move from our opinion on that...
Re the BBC and its critics, you are spot on. They can't win. They'll be criticised whatever they do by whichever section of the audience dislikes any given programme. And they dammed well need to grow some bollocks and ignore and stand up to the likes of the Daily Mail.
Quote: Aaron @ January 18 2013, 1:20 AM GMTA fair point, but for me that comes back to the notion of a calculated risk. The BBC - indeed, any channel - takes very few anymore, which is why we end up with such a large array of beige, samey, uninspiring offerings. But that's probably veering into another discussion as well.
How would more episodes of a gentle 1980s comedy constitute a "risk" and avoid being a "samey, uninspiring offering"? Short of commissioning another series by Victoria Wood it's hard to imagine a more risk-averse proposal. I doubt the commissioning editor wanted a pilot to see if it would work; they more likely wanted a pilot to see if it had any benefit over just re-running the originals, which would be far cheaper.
I was wondering who'd be the first to miss that distinction.
The 'risk' is the difference between giving a show a chance based on a proven track record, and of needing to be fed a brand new pilot in order to make any kind of decision. The difference between utilising one's imagination and havnig a very literal example of what the end product would be like.
There is indeed relatively little risk in a new series of such a comedy; but there's even less once you've calculated to the nth degree with a pilot.
Quote: Aaron @ January 18 2013, 10:11 PM GMTI was wondering who'd be the first to miss that distinction.
The 'risk' is the difference between giving a show a chance based on a proven track record, and of needing to be fed a brand new pilot in order to make any kind of decision. The difference between utilising one's imagination and havnig a very literal example of what the end product would be like.
There is indeed relatively little risk in a new series of such a comedy; but there's even less once you've calculated to the nth degree with a pilot.
Do you have some undeclared connection with the new Yes, Prime Minister or its makers? Only you seem remarkably vexed by the idea that the BBC asked them for a pilot. I can think of far worse crimes.
Absolutely none whatsoever. It's just a prominent example of what I see as a deeply flawed commissioning system.
Quote: Aaron @ January 18 2013, 10:45 PM GMTAbsolutely none whatsoever. It's just a prominent example of what I see as a deeply flawed commissioning system.
The BBC as was, is doomed and has been for a while. Frazer saw it coming.