BBC Comedy cutbacks Page 2

Avatar

Matthew Stott

  • Thursday 27th January 2011, 10:07pm [Edited]
  • Yemen
  • 19,296 posts
Quote: chipolata @ January 27 2011, 9:58 PM GMT

As Tim said, those type of shows are low-risk and deliver in the ratings. Comedy is far trickier to get right and can stink out the schedules if they get it wrong.


Yeah, but the BBC shouldn't be chasing ratings, should it? I know that's obviously bollocks, but isn't that the idea?

Avatar

chipolata

  • Thursday 27th January 2011, 10:08pm
  • England
  • 29,598 posts
Quote: Leevil @ January 27 2011, 10:03 PM GMT

If they get it right though it's export and merchandise galore!

I agree. He who dares wins!

Avatar

T.W.

  • Thursday 27th January 2011, 10:08pm [Edited]
  • England
  • 15,786 posts
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 27 2011, 10:07 PM GMT

Yeah, but the BBC shouldn't be chasing ratings, should it? I know that's obviously bollocks, but isn't that the idea?


I don't think neither Chip nor myself were saying it's a healthy state of affairs, just that this is the way the wankers running telly think and behave. :)

Avatar

chipolata

  • Thursday 27th January 2011, 10:10pm
  • England
  • 29,598 posts
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 27 2011, 10:07 PM GMT

Yeah, but the BBC shouldn't be chasing ratings, should it?

No, I agree. But alas the BBC isn't as brave as it should be.

Avatar

don rushmore

  • Thursday 27th January 2011, 10:13pm
  • Handsome Boy Modelling School, England
  • 2,941 posts

BBC comedy fans aren't that hard done by, there's certainly more comedy on the Beeb than, say, sport.

Avatar

Aaron

  • Thursday 27th January 2011, 10:25pm
  • Royal Berkshire, England
  • 68,311 posts
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 27 2011, 10:07 PM GMT

Yeah, but the BBC shouldn't be chasing ratings, should it? I know that's obviously bollocks, but isn't that the idea?


There's a difference between wanting something that'll get high ratings, and actively f**king around with your schedule and commissioning process in order to chase them.

Avatar

Rico El Vista

  • Friday 28th January 2011, 8:20am [Edited]
  • Scotland
  • 139 posts

If the BBC are turning down great scripts and performers as they are suggesting, I expect this means they are wilfully accepting second/third-rate talent, which would of course correspond with their 'belt-tightening' outlook. However, this short-sighted, mercenary approach does not bode well in the quality stakes.

Excellent news for 'two-bob' failed actors and (cheap for hire) hack writers, however, whose deserved obscurity may soon be coming to an end.

In fact, this could see a 'Golden Age' being borne if you happen to be a talentless comedy performer or inspiration-free 'comedy writer'.

Avatar

Matthew Stott

  • Friday 28th January 2011, 9:03am
  • Yemen
  • 19,296 posts
Quote: Aaron @ January 27 2011, 10:25 PM GMT

There's a difference between wanting something that'll get high ratings, and actively f**king around with your schedule and commissioning process in order to chase them.


I know.

Quote: don rushmore @ January 27 2011, 10:13 PM GMT

BBC comedy fans aren't that hard done by, there's certainly more comedy on the Beeb than, say, sport.


Yeah, look at all the brand new to air sitcom episodes the BBC has broadcast in the last week. Umm . . .

Avatar

Gerkuman

  • Friday 28th January 2011, 10:23pm
  • England
  • 32 posts

If the BBC are turning down great scripts and performers as they are suggesting, I expect this means they are wilfully accepting second/third-rate talent, which would of course correspond with their 'belt-tightening' outlook.


Except that most of the costs come from production, not the salaries of the stars. If anything, they'll just replace the expensive ideas with cheap ones. More panel shows and less on-location sketch shows or dramadies.

Avatar

Badge

  • Friday 28th January 2011, 10:58pm
  • London, England
  • 9,490 posts

My prediction is that Not Going Out will be axed again and replaced on BBC1 by Miranda. You read it here first. It ticks all their boxes - saves money, maintains a laughcentric slot and promotes the new darling all at once.

Avatar

Marc P

  • Friday 28th January 2011, 11:28pm
  • England
  • 17,698 posts

The BBC isn't the BBC anymore and certainly won't be much longer. It's a shame and it's shameful. But it certainly isn't the public's fault.

Avatar

T.W.

  • Friday 28th January 2011, 11:40pm
  • England
  • 15,786 posts
Quote: Marc P @ January 28 2011, 11:28 PM GMT

The BBC isn't the BBC anymore and certainly won't be much longer. It's a shame and it's shameful. But it certainly isn't the public's fault.


Do you mean this in terms of a change in its programme-making ethos, or simply the way it's become increasingly beholden to government and generally lost its independence?

Avatar

Mark

  • Saturday 29th January 2011, 6:32pm [Edited]
  • Hampshire, England
  • 2,668 posts

I'm sure we can provide the BBC with a list of shows that we won't miss if they're axed ;)

As discussed earlier in the thread, sadly comedy can be much trickier to get right... and even successful comedy gets slagged off much more than a bad drama (Come Fly With Me is a big ratings hit, but has been moaned about in the press over the last six weeks... yet some crappy detective drama with worse ratings and a lower approval index doesn't get touched in the press).

What would you do if you're an under-pressure channel controller? Commission a studio-based sitcom that'll fill three hours of your schedule for about £4m, face some inevitable bad press in the process however good it is, and take the risk it might be a big flop (good names don't guarentee a good sitcom, just look at Lab Rats)... or commission a gameshow that fills two extra hours for half that price, and is much lower risk?

You can see why the easy option is sadly sometimes taken.

Personally I think this is actually one of a number of moves by the BBC to try and move themselves into a position to, a year or two down the line, ask the government for a re-evaluation. If they cut some of what we love, we'll perhaps be more willing to accept a bigger licence fee?!?

(Cutting the hideously over-paid middle managers would be a much easier cost-cut, but they've not gone for that!)