A couple of sitcoms have switched channels in past (as chip says, Men Behaving Badly is probably the most high profile example), but there's no getting away from the fact that Not Going Out is pretty expensive to produce compared to some other sitcoms, so it would be hard to transfer.

Here's a quote from someone in TV I know (who doesn't want to be named). They think NGO has been axed for political reasons:

This is the BBC's way of saying to the big comedy indies like Avalon and Open Mike/Off The Kerb that they can no longer dictate terms. NGO costs a lot because Avalon have been charging top whack for years - because they control so much talent. In these crunching times, all it needs is one relatively big player to 'fail' - and they can use that to show who's boss. I don't know who makes Life Of Riley but I bet they get a fraction of what Avalon got for NGO.

Thanks for all your supportive comments guys. I'm still baffled.

It's true NGO cost more than most sitcoms, and annoyingly, one of the reasons for that was because it invested heavily in writing. I was lucky enough to be one of the names that whizzed by on the credits this series, and although we weren't exactly in the Fred Goodwin bracket we did get paid and there were plenty of us.

Also to my knowledge no other sitcom performs a rehearsed read-through of each episode, one more very effective way of sharpening the script but almost certainly not a cheap one.

'My Family' was the first successful attempt to create a sitcom using methods borrowed from the States. NGO felt to me like another attempt that was well on the way to succeeding.

My only theory for the BBCs current (de-)commissioning process is that they are removing shows not because of their quality, but to help lazy journalists write headlines such as Pulling Pulling and Not Going Out Not Going Out.

Dave Cohen

Dave, it's all very confusing, given the previously stated aims of the Beeb to produce more studio based sitcoms.

Yes I'm still trying to get my head round that one. Not only that, but the axing of 'After You've Gone' was supposed to send a message that the pre-watershed family sitcom was finished. So even regardless of how it fared or how it was received, why bring back 'Life Of Riley'?

Actually thinking aloud, 'After You've Gone' was modelled on 'My Family' and also team written - ie more expensive than the average sitcom. So maybe the real message is 'no more expensive team-written sitcoms'.

Dave

Honestly not sure what the BBC wants from its comedy shows (if indeed it wants any comedy on the channel at all). I hope I don't hear any BBC execs spouting off about needing to find "new British comedy" in the near future. What's the point if they're just going to can it anyway?

I've even written to the Radio Times to express outrage over this one...

Quote: Mark @ March 31 2009, 12:51 PM BST

A couple of sitcoms have switched channels in past (as chip says, Men Behaving Badly is probably the most high profile example), but there's no getting away from the fact that Not Going Out is pretty expensive to produce compared to some other sitcoms, so it would be hard to transfer.

Here's a quote from someone in TV I know (who doesn't want to be named). They think NGO has been axed for political reasons:

View original

I hope your friend "in TV" is wrong, Mark!

Quote: chipolata @ March 31 2009, 10:37 AM BST

The truth is very few shows actually find new homes. Men Behaving Badly is about the only one I can think of.

View original

Is It Legal? moved from ITV to Channel 4.

Quote: Mark @ March 31 2009, 12:51 PM BST

A couple of sitcoms have switched channels in past (as chip says, Men Behaving Badly is probably the most high profile example), but there's no getting away from the fact that Not Going Out is pretty expensive to produce compared to some other sitcoms, so it would be hard to transfer.

Here's a quote from someone in TV I know (who doesn't want to be named). They think NGO has been axed for political reasons:

"This is the BBC's way of saying to the big comedy indies like Avalon and Open Mike/Off The Kerb that they can no longer dictate terms. NGO costs a lot because Avalon have been charging top whack for years - because they control so much talent. In these crunching times, all it needs is one relatively big player to 'fail' - and they can use that to show who's boss. I don't know who makes Life Of Riley but I bet they get a fraction of what Avalon got for NGO."

View original

Well that's a load of stinky old shit then. Why couldn't they make the point with another show? NGO's the only Avalon show on the BBC that I can think of at the moment, but did it have to be them this time?

Not flipping amused.

Quote: Maurice Minor @ March 31 2009, 9:55 AM BST

Pulling wasn't picked up by another channel and the Beeb still made some cash by flogging the repeats to Dave..

View original

I don't follow. We're talking about moving for a NEW SERIES, not repeats..?

Quote: Andrew Collins @ March 31 2009, 2:50 PM BST

I hope your friend "in TV" is wrong, Mark!

View original

Absolutely. As a license payer, I would like to think that the Beeb aren't basing their decision on what amounts to little more than a pissing competition.

Unfortunately, it's that phrase 'as a license payer'. Which is nowadays being used by commercial rivals - sorry, morally outraged newspapers - to bash the BBC and urge them to make huge cuts.

I've just seen this petition on the Not Going Out Appreciation Society on facebook and thought I would let you all know about it. I'm not sure how much use it will be but here it is if you're interested!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/bring-back-not-going-out/signatures.html

Quote: Anorak @ March 31 2009, 3:14 PM BST

Unfortunately, it's that phrase 'as a license payer'. Which is nowadays being used by commercial rivals - sorry, morally outraged newspapers - to bash the BBC and urge them to make huge cuts.

View original

Indeed. Very frustrating as a viewer to have absolutely No Say in these matters, other than a stiffly worded letter to the Radio Times!

Quote: john lucas 101 @ March 31 2009, 3:03 PM BST

Absolutely. As a license payer, I would like to think that the Beeb aren't basing their decision on what amounts to little more than a pissing competition.

View original

That's exactly the problem - if Mark's contact is to be believed, then this is about spending LESS of your licence fee on any single programme, and spreading it to get (one would hope) better quality across the board.

Quote: Aaron @ March 31 2009, 3:29 PM BST

That's exactly the problem - if Mark's contact is to be believed, then this is about spending LESS of your licence fee on any single programme, and spreading it to get (one would hope) better quality across the board.

View original

Shame there has to be collateral damage as good as NGO, if this is the case.

I quite agree.

Quote: Aaron @ March 31 2009, 3:29 PM BST

That's exactly the problem - if Mark's contact is to be believed, then this is about spending LESS of your licence fee on any single programme, and spreading it to get (one would hope) better quality across the board.

View original

So a better quality of dancing/skating/singing shows for the predominantly-stupid masses then?

Dan