Nicholas Lyndhurst says Only Fools & Horses would never be made today

[TopGun]

Lyndhurst reckons that TV companies are not prepared to let programmes develop of their own accord so they don't get the chance to be a success.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23753200

 

Personally I find the early episodes of OFAH far more amusing than the later ones which have a bloated cast and stale scripts IMO.

[Batman]

some of the earlier ones were very politically NOT-correct by todays standards

[Whitey Grandad]

I remember a series of 30-minute plays called Comedy Playhouse which gave writers the chance to try various formats.many classics started with one of these. I thought there were only a couple of series but apparently not:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_Playhouse

[pap]

The major issue Lyndhurst is talking about is scripted vs non-scripted television.

 

Basically, it turns out that pointing a camera at a load of untalented morons is a lot cheaper than having professionals write and star in scripted TV shows. He's wrong, though. There are plenty of new shows out there that are just as off-beam as Only Fools and Horses. They're just all over the shop now. Channel 4 probably shows the best scripted stuff on TV, although the Beeb remains very good for comedy.

[JackFrost]

Lyndhurst reckons that TV companies are not prepared to let programmes develop of their own accord so they don't get the chance to be a success.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23753200

 

Personally I find the early episodes of OFAH far more amusing than the later ones which have a bloated cast and stale scripts IMO.

 

He's right,

 

Nowadays programmes are made for the cheapest price to generate the highest viewing figures and it's given birth to X-Factor/BGT/SCD culture. They rehash the same show format over and over again, call it something different because it's the best formula for low costs and high viewing figures, and this has destroyed general programming quality.

 

OFAH should have ended in 1996 when they became millionaires. It had reached the end of its shelf life then and they should never have brought it back in the early '00s. Unfortunately they bowed to pressure to continue because it was a "classic sitcom" even though they'd clearly run out of ideas and were having to 'resuscitate' it.

 

some of the earlier ones were very politically NOT-correct by todays standards

 

Yeah but they were completely different times.

 

In the mid '80s it was far more socially accepted to see Del sticking two fingers up at Rodney or Del giving a kid 50p to spend down the "paki shop" before the watershed. If you compare the recent BBC1 repeats of the older shows with the DVD series you'll notice quite a few subtle edits going on.

[Verbal]

The major issue Lyndhurst is talking about is scripted vs non-scripted television.

 

Basically, it turns out that pointing a camera at a load of untalented morons is a lot cheaper than having professionals write and star in scripted TV shows. He's wrong, though. There are plenty of new shows out there that are just as off-beam as Only Fools and Horses. They're just all over the shop now. Channel 4 probably shows the best scripted stuff on TV, although the Beeb remains very good for comedy.

 

That's only a subsidiary point. His main one, which seems incontrovertible, is that television comedy series have much less time to develop today than they did twenty or more years ago. Scripted TV is only part of this, but actually the main problem is with comedy executives needing instant rewards - not least because their jobs and reputations depend on their 'hit' rate. In this sense, British TV comedy has moved closer to the American network model of thrive or die. In practice, this has meant a reliance on established stars or writers, even on more 'adventurous' channels (as C4 once was).

 

But there's no inevitability to this. The startling success of high-quality, original short drama series, both in the US and Europe, has shown that there are places on network television where experimentation and risk are rewarded. It's just that there is a dearth of really good comedy executives in Britain right now - not one of them on the big channels in the UK has the heft to set agendas, and they are all hoping for the next 'fix' of an instant-hit series without the courage to back something they know is good, even if it starts with less than impressive ratings.

[pap]

That's only a subsidiary point. His main one, which seems incontrovertible, is that television comedy series have much less time to develop today than they did twenty or more years ago. Scripted TV is only part of this, but actually the main problem is with comedy executives needing instant rewards - not least because their jobs and reputations depend on their 'hit' rate. In this sense, British TV comedy has moved closer to the American network model of thrive or die. In practice, this has meant a reliance on established stars or writers, even on more 'adventurous' channels (as C4 once was).

 

He's still wrong, particularly in this country. Thanks to the Beeb, comedy has had time to develop in this country for decades. Used to be the case that it'd develop on BBC2, and that still happens. The Beeb have since widened their pool of potential incubators by starting a lot of new comedy on BBC3 in addition to the traditional BBC2 home. We haven't even discussed the role of Radio 4 in developing new shows. Most of what you see on the screen arrives at least partially developed from another format. Examples would include The Day Today ( On The Hour ), Alan Partridge ( KMKY ) and the more recent Mr Khan ( Down The Line ).

 

Switch over to Channel 4, and there has been plenty of decent comedy coming from that channel too.

 

It's why I have difficulty accepting your suggestion that commissioning is a short-term decision. Many of the characters that hit our screens have been in development for years. By the time they transfer format, certain characters are fully-formed, representing an educated bet rather than a wild punt to please the masses. Besides, there have been plenty of shows since that have been far funnier.

 

But there's no inevitability to this. The startling success of high-quality, original short drama series, both in the US and Europe, has shown that there are places on network television where experimentation and risk are rewarded. It's just that there is a dearth of really good comedy executives in Britain right now - not one of them on the big channels in the UK has the heft to set agendas, and they are all hoping for the next 'fix' of an instant-hit series without the courage to back something they know is good, even if it starts with less than impressive ratings.

 

On what basis are you making your decisions?

 

In recent years, we've had The Office, The Thick Of It, Extras, Peep Show, The Mighty Boosh, Inbetweeners, How Do You Want Me, Spaced or Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle. Those are just good shows off the top of my head. Most of these shows had fairly low ratings when they started. Most of them are either still being commissioned or have ended because the creative talent have buggered off to do other projects.

 

Are there casualties? Sure. I happened to love a BBC3 show called Cyderdelic a few years ago, which showcased the excellent comedic talents of Marc Wooton ( gone on to bigger things, thankfully ) which lasted precisely six episodes. However, it's a nonsense to suggest that we can't or don't develop comedy in this country anymore. It's one of the few exports we have left.

[stu0x]

Pap most of your examples are over a decade old. The Office is from 2001. Spaced is 1999. The Day Today is from 94! When you use historical examples to prove that comedy of today is just as good and successful, you're essentially making the point for the other side.

[pap]

Pap most of your examples are over a decade old. The Office is from 2001. Spaced is 1999. The Day Today is from 94! When you use historical examples to prove that comedy of today is just as good and successful, you're essentially making the point for the other side.

 

Spaced is a great example. It may be from 1999, but its comedy has continued to be developed in movie form. The most recent example of this is World's End, in cinema's now.

 

The Day Today is one of Ianucci's projects, someone who is still a massive influence on British (and American) comedy today. It also led to Chris Morris' Brass Eye and Blue Jam, both extremely innovative shows that took the format further.

 

Peep Show is still running. The Mighty Boosh is a prime example of something that on paper, should never have gotten near a TV screen. Ran for three series. Actually got one of those shows wrong. I meant "How Not To Live Your Life", not "How Do You Want Me" ( both shows excellent, btw ) - which is far more recent. Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle has been commissioned for two more series.

[Sheaf Saint]

Spaced is a great example. It may be from 1999, but its comedy has continued to be developed in movie form. The most recent example of this is World's End, in cinema's now.

 

But this also discredits your argument. I went to see this film the other week and while it was certainly amusing, it was not a patch on the earlier big-screen efforts from Pegg, Wright & Frost. Spaced remains one of my all-time favourite comedy series, but if they tried to revive it now (which will thankfully never happen because Simon Pegg and Jessica Hines have fallen out big-time) it would inevitably be a mere shadow of how good it was.

 

Of all your other examples, the only one that (to my mind anyway) is still as funny as it ever was is Peep Show.

[pap]

But this also discredits your argument. I went to see this film the other week and while it was certainly amusing, it was not a patch on the earlier big-screen efforts from Pegg, Wright & Frost. Spaced remains one of my all-time favourite comedy series, but if they tried to revive it now (which will thankfully never happen because Simon Pegg and Jessica Hines have fallen out big-time) it would inevitably be a mere shadow of how good it was.

 

Of all your other examples, the only one that (to my mind anyway) is still as funny as it ever was is Peep Show.

 

Comedy is a very subjective thing. People loved "My Family", FFS. I don't think Only Fools and Horses is that funny. One Foot In The Grave still pips it for me as a mainstream BBC thing.

 

My general point is that comedy, particularly situation comedy, is still being made and is still incredibly successful. There's little that is short-term about that process.

 

Now if we're at the point where you're saying "pap, you're right, but I don't find these shows funny", then my point still stands.

 

Lyndhurst's moan is, when you boil it down, is that TV companies won't allow a comedy show to be on telly for a couple of years without being funny. Fair enough, IMO.

[Verbal]

He's still wrong, particularly in this country. Thanks to the Beeb, comedy has had time to develop in this country for decades. Used to be the case that it'd develop on BBC2, and that still happens. The Beeb have since widened their pool of potential incubators by starting a lot of new comedy on BBC3 in addition to the traditional BBC2 home. We haven't even discussed the role of Radio 4 in developing new shows. Most of what you see on the screen arrives at least partially developed from another format. Examples would include The Day Today ( On The Hour ), Alan Partridge ( KMKY ) and the more recent Mr Khan ( Down The Line ).

 

Switch over to Channel 4, and there has been plenty of decent comedy coming from that channel too.

 

It's why I have difficulty accepting your suggestion that commissioning is a short-term decision. Many of the characters that hit our screens have been in development for years. By the time they transfer format, certain characters are fully-formed, representing an educated bet rather than a wild punt to please the masses. Besides, there have been plenty of shows since that have been far funnier.

 

 

 

On what basis are you making your decisions?

 

In recent years, we've had The Office, The Thick Of It, Extras, Peep Show, The Mighty Boosh, Inbetweeners, How Do You Want Me, Spaced or Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle. Those are just good shows off the top of my head. Most of these shows had fairly low ratings when they started. Most of them are either still being commissioned or have ended because the creative talent have buggered off to do other projects.

 

Are there casualties? Sure. I happened to love a BBC3 show called Cyderdelic a few years ago, which showcased the excellent comedic talents of Marc Wooton ( gone on to bigger things, thankfully ) which lasted precisely six episodes. However, it's a nonsense to suggest that we can't or don't develop comedy in this country anymore. It's one of the few exports we have left.

 

You're accidentally making my case for me. The BBC in the mainstream doesn't "incubate" comedy - it translates an already proven success from one platform to another, whether it's R4, BBC3 or bought in from a commercial rival. (There's plenty of stuff which doesn't get much past the starting blocks in its original version - and none of these will you see on BBC1.)

 

The reason it does this is precisely that the result is more of a sure thing. (The MB, Thick Of It, etc., were all sure things before they reached the main channels) Sometimes it does this without realising (The history of The Office, and its rocky path to broadcast, would tell you this). Extras is a good example of what happens when you 'package" comedy (and I speak as someone who quite enjoyed the series). It's a sure thing because of Gervais. Similarly 'Derek' was in effect C4 poaching Gervais because he was a known quantity developing difficult material. (Even with Gervais's imprimatur, though, I doubt that Derek will ever see the light again. Why? Bad ratings.)

 

Comedy commissioners are among the most vulnerable in television. They are hired and fired at an astonishingly fast rate these days. This is the reason they will grasp for the perceived certainty of Gervais, to take just one example. Even with a show like The Inbetweeners, the 'sure thing' was that the writers had made Peep Show and had themselves been comedy commissioners at C4. Even so, it would have been canned after the first series had it not performed in the ratings. And this is true of all successful shows you list: they had all built their audiences before the end of their first run.

 

You could see this as the result of the changed landscape of television. There are simply more channels now, and it makes commercial sense to develop what might become sure things a little off the radar on smaller channels or radio. The result, though, is more caution, and, by definition, less risk-taking, even if the outcome of this can be brilliant shows. The role of the comedy commissioning editor these days is not the 'nurturing of talent' but, rather like a Hollywood agent, the packaging and re-packaging of pre-existing successes.

[pap]

You're accidentally making my case for me. The BBC in the mainstream doesn't "incubate" comedy - it translates an already proven success from one platform to another, whether it's R4, BBC3 or bought in from a commercial rival. (There's plenty of stuff which doesn't get much past the starting blocks in its original version - and none of these will you see on BBC1.)

 

The reason it does this is precisely that the result is more of a sure thing. (The MB, Thick Of It, etc., were all sure things before they reached the main channels) Sometimes it does this without realising (The history of The Office, and its rocky path to broadcast, would tell you this). Extras is a good example of what happens when you 'package" comedy (and I speak as someone who quite enjoyed the series). It's a sure thing because of Gervais. Similarly 'Derek' was in effect C4 poaching Gervais because he was a known quantity developing difficult material. (Even with Gervais's imprimatur, though, I doubt that Derek will ever see the light again. Why? Bad ratings.)

 

Comedy commissioners are among the most vulnerable in television. They are hired and fired at an astonishingly fast rate these days. This is the reason they will grasp for the perceived certainty of Gervais, to take just one example. Even with a show like The Inbetweeners, the 'sure thing' was that the writers had made Peep Show and had themselves been comedy commissioners at C4. Even so, it would have been canned after the first series had it not performed in the ratings. And this is true of all successful shows you list: they had all built their audiences before the end of their first run.

 

You could see this as the result of the changed landscape of television. There are simply more channels now, and it makes commercial sense to develop what might become sure things a little off the radar on smaller channels or radio. The result, though, is more caution, and, by definition, less risk-taking, even if the outcome of this can be brilliant shows. The role of the comedy commissioning editor these days is not the 'nurturing of talent' but, rather like a Hollywood agent, the packaging and re-packaging of pre-existing successes.

 

Your point was about executives craving instant rewards. My point was that there's nothing instant about it. I also feel that you're splitting hairs a little when you're saying that mainstream BBC doesn't incubate comedy because the likes of R4 or BBC2 do. There have been numerous examples of shows being allowed to develop on smaller channels, finding an audience and shifting over to BBC1. Their initial success might not have been paid for directly out of the BBC1 budget, but it was paid for (either directly or indirectly) by the BBC. The BBC incubates comedy, and I'd argue as a beneficiary of niche programmes that go big, BBC1 has an interest in making sure shows find their feet.

 

It's not like Only Fools And Horses even represents a shift from today. John Sullivan already had Citizen Smith to his name and was knocking out Just Good Friends at the same time, David Jason was an established comedic performer after his stint on Open All Hours. The BBC were not taking a huge risk with this show. BBC One was a mainstream channel making a mainstream decision; using mostly proven quantities to put out a prime-time comedy show. I accept that Only Fools and Horses occupies a special place in many people's hearts. I'll certainly watch it it's on, but even the thing it did best - the slow build-up to true hilarity, has been bettered since, and on mainstream BBC1 too. Lyndhurst in particular has been a beneficiary of this commissioning strategy himself. He spent six years cashing cheques for Goodnight Sweetheart. He's the last one to talk.

 

Essentially though, it sounds like you're saying won't let just anyone onto their flagship channel. Lyndhurst reckons that a show like Only Fools and Horses would never get made. In order to fully assess his complaint, we need to define what sort of show Only Fools and Horses is. For the benefit of Lyndhurst's argument, I'd classify it as a situation comedy that allowed the social issues of the day to seep into its scripts, written by a recognised comedy writer, that started on BBC1. Not saying it's the same show, but you could just as easily place Outnumbered in that category.

Edited 20 August, 2013 by pap

[Turkish]

Only Fools and Horses is comedy gold. Fawlty Towers too, can you imagine them making a comedy these days which takes the p*ss out of Germans about the war, people hard of hearing etc. It wouldn't get made and if it were to ever slip through the net all the soppy tarts would be spamming the BBC to express their "outrage"

[Verbal]

Your point was about executives craving instant rewards. My point was that there's nothing instant about it. I also feel that you're splitting hairs a little when you're saying that mainstream BBC doesn't incubate comedy because the likes of R4 or BBC2 do. There have been numerous examples of shows being allowed to develop on smaller channels, finding an audience and shifting over to BBC1. Their initial success might not have been paid for directly out of the BBC1 budget, but it was paid for (either directly or indirectly) by the BBC. The BBC incubates comedy, and I'd argue as a beneficiary of niche programmes that go big, BBC1 has an interest in making sure shows find their feet.

 

It's not like Only Fools And Horses even represents a shift from today. John Sullivan already had Citizen Smith to his name and was knocking out Just Good Friends at the same time, David Jason was an established comedic performer after his stint on Open All Hours. The BBC were not taking a huge risk with this show. BBC One was a mainstream channel making a mainstream decision; using mostly proven quantities to put out a prime-time comedy show. I accept that Only Fools and Horses occupies a special place in many people's hearts. I'll certainly watch it it's on, but even the thing it did best - the slow build-up to true hilarity, has been bettered since, and on mainstream BBC1 too. Lyndhurst in particular has been a beneficiary of this commissioning strategy himself. He spent six years cashing cheques for Goodnight Sweetheart. He's the last one to talk.

 

Essentially though, it sounds like you're saying won't let just anyone onto their flagship channel. Lyndhurst reckons that a show like Only Fools and Horses would never get made. In order to fully assess his complaint, we need to define what sort of show Only Fools and Horses is. For the benefit of Lyndhurst's argument, I'd classify it as a situation comedy that allowed the social issues of the day to seep into its scripts, written by a recognised comedy writer, that started on BBC1. Not saying it's the same show, but you could just as easily place Outnumbered in that category.

 

Sorry, you completely lost me at the comparison of OFAH with Outnumbered. One a reworking of the writer's tough (and for that reason comedic) working-class background in south London, the other a slightly amusing, comfy middle-class riff on the dubious wonders of children.

 

Anyway, just to give you some real clue as to how hard it is, here is tonight's peak-time schedule on C4's comedy 'incubator', E4:

 

 

14:00 Scrubs

14:35 Scrubs

15:00 Charmed

16:00 Rules of Engagement

16:30 Rules of Engagement

17:00 How I Met Your Mother

17:35 How I Met Your Mother

18:00 Big Bang Theory

18:30 Big Bang Theory

19:00 Hollyoaks

19:30 How I Met Your Mother

20:00 How I Met Your Mother

20:30 Big Bang Theory

21:00 New Girl

21:30 The Mindy Project

22:00 Happy Endings

22:30 The Cleveland Show

23:00 8 Out of 10 Cats

 

See much innovation there? Virtually everything has two things in common: it's American; and it's therefore been through the ruthlessly Darwinian commissioning pattern of Hollywood-produced sitcom.

 

Believe it or not, this is not how those who set up E4 saw it going!

[pap]

Sorry, you completely lost me at the comparison of OFAH with Outnumbered. One a reworking of the writer's tough (and for that reason comedic) working-class background in south London, the other a slightly amusing, comfy middle-class riff on the dubious wonders of children.

 

I already said they weren't the same show. Superficially, they have a lot in common, both in terms of how they came to be made and their perceived appeal. I doubt anyone watching OFAH thought "I simply must tune into Fools and Horses for its authentic depiction of working class London". They tuned in for the lols, mate.

 

Anyway, just to give you some real clue as to how hard it is, here is tonight's peak-time schedule on C4's comedy 'incubator', E4:

See much innovation there? Virtually everything has two things in common: it's American; and it's therefore been through the ruthlessly Darwinian commissioning pattern of Hollywood-produced sitcom.

Believe it or not, this is not how those who set up E4 saw it going!

 

Who said E4 was a comedy incubator apart from you?

 

Digital TV channel shows loads of American imports shocker Not sure what you're trying to prove here.

[pap]

Only Fools and Horses is comedy gold. Fawlty Towers too, can you imagine them making a comedy these days which takes the p*ss out of Germans about the war, people hard of hearing etc. It wouldn't get made and if it were to ever slip through the net all the soppy tarts would be spamming the BBC to express their "outrage"

 

It all still happens, Turks. Alan Partridge and his attitudes to well, almost anyone, are an example. The entire last series of Little Britain was pretty spicy on the race front. Comedians of today pull the same trick today as Cleese did back then. Cleese never had a go at the Germans, but Fawlty did. You should also check out the US animated shows, or Always Sunny In Philadelphia - which revel in their characters tripping up over their own racism, misogyny etc.

 

However, if you're looking for an example of something in Fawlty Towers that wouldn't make the grade today, look no further than the Major's mechanism of delineating people from the West Indies and those from the Indian subcontinent.

[benjii]

"I took her to see India.... at the Oval!"

 

Classic scene that would get the "swear" filter on here buzzing into action.

 

Anyway, the Major was alright. 'Ampshire fan, mush.

[Window Cleaner]

Marty Feldman...football sketch now there's one that wouldn't be politically correct today. Trouble is you just can't call a spade a spade any more. Free speech yes but only if it doesn't (or might theoretically) offend anyone in the whole wide world;

[pap]

Marty Feldman...football sketch now there's one that wouldn't be politically correct today. Trouble is you just can't call a spade a spade any more. Free speech yes but only if it doesn't (or might theoretically) offend anyone in the whole wide world;

 

There's a brilliant sight gag in The Young Ones, in the "Boring" episode.

 

A copper with a pair of dark sunglasses on accosts a house-caller, giving him a torrent of racial abuse using words that are fairly taboo. This was in the wake of the Scarman enquiry, and despite the language, was having a go at the OB, not the ethnic minorities the copper was slurring. I've seen that episode repeated without that segment in it, probs because people do get far too upset about almost everything, but perhaps because stripped of the context, it could be construed as being racist.

 

Comedians still address issues of race. The difference is, it's racist attitudes that are laughed at these days, not those with a different ethnic background.

[Hockey_saint]

To be fair, I think you're all missing part of his point anyhow....the reason being that the first 3 series of Only Fools and Horses bombed.

[SuperMikey]

Reminds me of an article I saw online yesterday on the Mail site, bemoaning "trendy" modern comedy and frustratedly rubbing its Fools and Horses-inspired semi against Hyacinth Bucket's back.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2395233/Big-School-review-David-Walliams-comedy-masterclass-says-Christopher-Stevens.html

 

(Btw, Big School was sh!t)

[The9]

FWIW, I regard Inbetweeners, Gavin and Stacey and Outnumbered as pretty much the only 3 British terrestrial comedies worth watching in the past... what, 8 years ? And I haven't been amused by Only Fools and Horses since Uncle Albert replaced Grandad.

 

Does Episodes count as British ? That's funny in places too. I may have forgotten some, but I haven't seen them listed. Oh, yeah, Trollied is pretty funny, as was Moone Boy, both on Sky One.

 

The first episode of this season of PhoneShop was pretty funny too, not sure why I was watching it, but the rest of it has been... the usual.

Edited 20 August, 2013 by The9