It's been announced that Miranda will be back for Series 3. I enjoyed first two series very much. However, I fear that she will get negative press about the show, whatever the third series is like, as she received plenty of praise from the press for her second series.
They will surely now do what they always do and create a backlash.
Whatever happens, hope the third series is the last. She doesn't want to kill the idea.
I always find that a silly idea. If it's still good, keep making more, I say. All this 'only do three series no matter what' stuff is bizarre.
If I was her, I wouldn't even do a third.
It's okay, I've just seen your post about Phoneshop. I now know you've taken leave of every last one of your senses. 
A very strange and arbitrary attitude. If you, as writer, have ideas to keep a show going at the same standard, then by all means keep making more series. When it's as funny as Miranda it's very much welcome.
But what a lot of supporters of keeping a sitcom running and running always fail to address is the usual decline in standard of sitcoms that reach several series. Records reveal it is very hard, unless the writing team is as gifted as a Galton & Simpson or Croft & Perry, to keep the episodes as entertaining in the 8th series as they were in the 1st and 2nd.
And then you have the factor of viewers just getting bored with seeing the sitcom all the time and this detracts often from the overall status of the show. I'd say Only Fools and Horses suffered this way, some people were glad to see the back of a show they once loved. This really does have an effect on viewers' attitudes to sitcoms and should not be so readily dismissed as silly.
Some very big names have pulled their mega big sitcom creations at the very height of their success mainly for this reason, so they have told us. Yes, they were influenced by having plenty of offers for other work on the table, I acknowledge this, but they could have coined in easy millions on continuing sitcoms like The Office or FT. These were gold mines that only the integrity and artistic conscience of their creators saved from being mined to death, in the worst case scenario.
I applaud such bold moves against intense commercial pressure on them to carry on, and it has indeed saved some shows from ever being accused of losing their sparkle and punch. And it has done wonders for the crediblity of British TV Sitcom that two or three ended suddenly on a high like this, it knocks the Americans flat, because they have no such artistic control over theirs - if a sitcom is a star there then it will almost always be run way beyond its natural life, treated like a global product, a brand! Well done to those Brits who've dared to treat their beloved creations like a work of art instead, against intense commercial pressure not to!
Imo, Miranda can happily carry on till eternity if it wants to because it has never been a classic or even a very good original creation and so it has no great reputation to squander. It was a highly commercial confection from the very start and so it belongs to this highly commercial model of milking every last drop out of the thing.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ January 13 2011, 3:27 PM GMTBut what a lot of supporters of keeping a sitcom running and running always fail to address is the usual decline in standard of sitcoms that reach several series. Records reveal it is very hard, unless the writing team is as gifted as a Galton & Simpson or Croft & Perry, to keep the episodes as entertaining in the 8th series as they were in the 1st and 2nd.
There is a happy medium between the two. Porridge, Father Ted and The Thick Of It are just three examples of sitcoms that have gone on longer than the arbitrary two-series cut-off you seem to favour. And that's before we even talk about Peep Show, which has maintained it's quality for seven series, with two more at least to come.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ January 13 2011, 3:27 PM GMTAnd it has done wonders for the crediblity of British TV Sitcom that two or three ended suddenly on a high like this, it knocks the Americans flat, because they have no such artistic control over theirs - if a sitcom is a star there then it will almost always be run way beyond its natural life, treated like a global product, a brand! Well done to those Brits who've dared to treat their beloved creations like a work of art instead, against intense commercial pressure not to!
Nice that you're so patriotic Kipper, but both Larry Sanders and Seinfeld were ended by their creators despite the networks and advertisers wanting more and offering colossal sums for them to continue. And both the aforementioned shows are the equal of Fawlty Towers and The Office in terms of quality.
I'm looking forward to it; the last series was great. It's the kinda show I can watch with my family and have a good laugh.
As for Mr. Kippers wall of text; I have to say the only reason British Sitcoms have any extra credibility here in the States is due to everything being filtered before being shown here. Lots of my friends have seen The Office (UK) or Fawlty Towers... none of them have seen Big Top or Hyperdrive. I actually just had this conversation with a friend while watching Marion and Geoff on DVD... I'm not going to waste our time watching rubbish the same way PBS isn't going to broadcast Loved By You.
Quote: chipolata @ January 13 2011, 6:11 PM GMTThere is a happy medium between the two. Porridge, Father Ted and The Thick Of It are just three examples of sitcoms that have gone on longer than the arbitrary two-series cut-off you seem to favour. And that's before we even talk about Peep Show, which has maintained it's quality for seven series, with two more at least to come.
Yes it doesn't have to be exactly two series, but I would reckon in The Office and FT's case this was about right, but we'll never know this for sure, it may have been the case that they would create another classic series had they gone on. I just have my doubts they would have, with the kind of very full and detailed narratives they both had. Cleese says the creative process for FT was exhausting, and watching it, it looks like it was.
Many very good sitcoms have gone beyond two series but I wouldn't say many at all have kept quite the same high standard or made the same impact as those two. So I understand the fears of the creators of great shows not wanting to chance it.
FT was such a celebrated sitcom that this two series legend has largely grown around it, I would say. I definitely think this legendary thing affected Gervais' decision, in fact he said as much at the time. I don't rate The Office as high as FT though; about the same level as Porridge, maybe just. Porridge, for me, did tail off in quality its third series, although it was still better than most sitcoms around.
I'm afraid my knowledge of US sitcoms isn't great, if they took those decisions then I applaud them for that too. I may one day get round to watching Seinfeld, having heard so much about it on here. I'll be expecting lots though.
Quote: Aaron @ January 13 2011, 2:26 PM GMTA very strange and arbitrary attitude. If you, as writer, have ideas to keep a show going at the same standard, then by all means keep making more series. When it's as funny as Miranda it's very much welcome.
That's just it though. If a third series of Miranda is as good, or better than the first and second series then fine. I will hold my hands up and say that they were justified in doing it.
However, some writers and actors do more episodes based on the fact that they will get much more money for it.
Going beyond a second series should be based only on whether it will be as good, or better, than what has gone before. If it's not, what's the point?!
Yes, but you've just said you would only want them to make it after you've seen it and declared it as good or better. Which is utterly nonsensical.
Who do you think sets out to make a new series worse than their previous ones?
I don't think anyone sets out to make a series worse than what they've already done, I think that some do a third series when the ideas are not there to make it better than what's gone before i.e. Gavin & Stacey.
If the writers of Miranda have ideas that they feel is as good, or better, than series 1 and 2 then yes they should do it. However, if it's being done because Miranda Hart is a ratings hit right now, and the money increases, but the material isn't as good, why bother.
This two-series good, three-series bad rule is idiotic. Lots of shows have had succesful third and fourth series. If writers and actors have enough ideas they should go on. Just like they did with Yes Minister, Lead Balloon, etc. There are precious few succsesful sitcoms so we should be thankful that the people involved are willing to carry on with them past some random cut-off point.
I guess with Miranda because she's received so much praise, deservedly so, I think the British press will do what they always do, and pan the next series, whether it's funny or not.
The two series - yes, three series - no, rule isn't a rule. It's just that very very very few shows have as much success beyond the second series. The shows you mentioned are good examples of shows that have been good beyond a second series.
The Inbetweeners Series 3, Benidorm Series 3, Gavin & Stacey Series 3, Are You Being Served? Series 3 onwards, 'Allo 'Allo! Series 3 onwards, are just some examples of shows I think dipped after series 2.
Shows like Peep Show have gone on to have 4 top class series. However, from Series 5 onwards, it's not been to the same standard. Why feel the need to do shows to death? Or why not just have a break from doing the show for a few years and come back fresher?
Quote: Lord Meldrum @ January 17 2011, 1:41 PM GMTI guess with Miranda because she's received so much praise, deservedly so, I think the British press will do what they always do, and pan the next series, whether it's funny or not.
Yes, quite possibly.
Which will be verrry annoying.
