That's Art!
BBC Four 'Dropping Comedy & Drama' Page 3
Hehe. It's not very ladylike is it? Bad zooo.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ June 6 2011, 7:40 PM BSTThis is true. Though obviously the Beeb shouldn't be all about ratings chasing like the commercial channels. Though obviously this isn't really true in reality.
No, they shouldn't, I agree. But ratings are indicative (particularly on a slightly backwater channel like Three or Four, as opposied to the mainstream One or Two) of a show's popularity, and its level of success in appealing to its target audience. Some of the most popular shows of all time have had shitty initial critical reception, but kept going because they got high viewing numbers and/or great appreciation scores.
Quote: Aaron @ June 6 2011, 11:53 PM BSTNo, they shouldn't, I agree. But ratings are indicative (particularly on a slightly backwater channel like Three or Four, as opposied to the mainstream One or Two) of a show's popularity, and its level of success in appealing to its target audience. Some of the most popular shows of all time have had shitty initial critical reception, but kept going because they got high viewing numbers and/or great appreciation scores.
The phrase "target audience" tells you exactly what's wrong with modern television. Why can't a show just be aimed at people who like good comedy or drama?
Quote: chipolata @ June 7 2011, 6:42 AM BSTThe phrase "target audience" tells you exactly what's wrong with modern television. Why can't a show just be aimed at people who like good comedy or drama?
I totally agree. But I fear that's no longer entirely practical, for one reason: multi-channel digital television.
(Not that shows weren't always clearly targeted in some respect or another, of course. But yes, it's far more definitive now, certainly.)
The days when you had one independent channel and then the state funded ones are so long.
I mean in the 60s you watched what was on the telly, or you went down the pub and played skittles.
But in radio you had actual pirate radio station, to feed the hunger for an alternative to the mother knows best BBC,
But now there are so many at it that a big big company like ITV is really struggling to stay afloat, I believe. Okay there is total fair competition now, like in the real world. But what happens in the real world? When one cafe opens in the high street, it's doing very very well. When the 50th cafe opens up, then guess what, it's no longer doing quite so well. TV has gone this way. 
Another factor is how cheap the technology has got.
Last summer there were atleast 3 or 4 big action movies made for a tenth of a usual blockbuster. More and more YouTube stuff is professional quality, more companies for adverts just hold a YouTube contest.
It's not so much stuff is changing, more we're standing on the edge of a massive revoloution. Of almost entirely user generated content.
Quote: Badge @ June 6 2011, 11:25 PM BSTI wouldn't pay too much attention to an article that seems to be based on an interpretation of an opening summary of a BBC document. Or one that says the "clear direction of travel" ... "going forward" is anything at all (though it does sound very BBC).
That sounds plausible; throw a few ideas around and find out who the most vociferous complainers are. Last year they found out that 6music listeners were louder and more organised than fans of the Asian network. I would imagine BBC4 fans are a pretty media savvy bunch.
Quote: sootyj @ June 7 2011, 9:05 AM BSTAnother factor is how cheap the technology has got. Last summer there were atleast 3 or 4 big action movies made for a tenth of a usual blockbuster. More and more YouTube stuff is professional quality, more companies for adverts just hold a YouTube contest. It's not so much stuff is changing, more we're standing on the edge of a massive revoloution. Of almost entirely user generated content.
If there's a more chilling phrase than "user generated content" I've yet to hear it.
Doesn't have to be.
The gap is skills these days.
You may be able to make a show with the same technology as Doctor Who, you just couldn't write anything that good.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ June 6 2011, 7:32 PM BSTThe most obvious place to me to cut a couple of comedy spots would be BBC Three. They seem to make a lot of shows, with a pretty poor hit rate overall.
Didn't I read something about Zai Bennett wanting to up the demographic of BBC Three or have I made that up? If this is true, then maybe the comedy output would be of a slightly 'more sophisticated' standard (for want of a better description).
And I was under the impression that The Killing was, like, the most watched thing ever on BBC Four. Something like 500,000 viewers an episode or something which is *ridiculous* for BBC Four (if true). That said, I agree with the fact it would be shown late, probably 11:20pm at the earliest and more likely Saturday night after midnight for two hours. I doubt Spiral and Wallander would get an airing unless BBC Two are having a major change of policy (ie. "Tuesdays from 1am is foreign stuff night!") though weren't BBC Two going to lose a lot of programming from the same budget cuts and broadcast just news all day? I'm sure Sky will jump in and buy subsequent series of The Killing anyway, as it's a success.
As for the comedy on BBC Four, I too doubt Getting On would get commissioned. And it's dubious about The Thick Of It. The amount of swearing in TTOI would probably have stopped it being shown at prime-time on BBC Two and pretty much the *only* thing I can think to say it would have been made is the involvement of Armando Iannucci. The fact that he made three episodes from the budget for a single pilot by BBC Four (ie. practically no money whatsoever anyway!) is still astonishing.
And, to agree with Aaron once again (some say that's careless!), but Freezing is arguably the best of all the BBC Four sitcoms and should have been recommissioned many, many times. Given the writing team is pretty much the bunch who made Rev, there's probably an argument to suggest that Rev would never have been made if Freezing wasn't commissioned, though that may be tenuous.
Wow. That was more than I thought I was going to say...
Dan
Quote: chipolata @ June 7 2011, 9:20 AM BSTIf there's a more chilling phrase than "user generated content" I've yet to hear it.
CRITIQUE
Quote: sootyj @ June 7 2011, 9:26 AM BSTDoesn't have to be.
The gap is skills these days.
You may be able to make a show with the same technology as Doctor Who, you just couldn't write anything that good.
Quote: swerytd @ June 7 2011, 9:29 AM BSTDidn't I read something about Zai Bennett wanting to up the demographic of BBC Three or have I made that up? If this is true, then maybe the comedy output would be of a slightly 'more sophisticated' standard (for want of a better description).
I don't think he's been quite as upfront in saying he wants to change BBC Three's audience (after all, it's a massively successful channel that's fought off stuff like Trouble and Bravo to survive), although I don't doubt that hopeful media commentators have made that speculation. What he has said he wants is to take more risks in the programming - and that could be read either way.
Quote: swerytd @ June 7 2011, 9:29 AM BSTAnd, to agree with Aaron once again (some say that's careless!), but Freezing is arguably the best of all the BBC Four sitcoms and should have been recommissioned many, many times. Given the writing team is pretty much the bunch who made Rev, there's probably an argument to suggest that Rev would never have been made if Freezing wasn't commissioned, though that may be tenuous.
As much as I enjoy Rev, that's a sacrifice I'd be more than willing to make.
Quote: Aaron @ June 7 2011, 9:50 AM BSTAs much as I enjoy Rev, that's a sacrifice I'd be more than willing to make.
My point was more Rev might not have been made, were it not for Freezing's prior commission by BBC4, but I agree with you (again!), despite my fawning over the brilliance of Rev at every available opportunity.
Hollander's Adam is most excellent but not a patch on his Leon!
Dan