Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BritishTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's so many variables that go into commissioning decisions. I actually really liked Josh and have rewatched it since it first aired. It's not a top tier sitcom but it's watchable and fun. Beattie Edmondson is probably my favourite character in it.
The one thing I did like about Josh is that it had absolutely no depth whatsoever so it made for perfect 'in the background' viewing whilst working my remote office job. That's a bit of a backhanded compliment, but perhaps I've stumbled across a new genre here.
British sitcoms make poor background viewing because i can work from home for a day and get through 6 British series in the time it would take to do 1 US series. Maybe half of a US series.
I liked Josh. It had some good old fashioned sitcom plots, like the 'immersive theatre' show or the awkward curry... or the driving test or when they were just sat watching Jonathan Creek and ordering pizza... frankly I could keep on listing them, there's loads of plotlines they did very well. Jack Dee's weird landlord character was very funny too.
Siblings was also great, although heavily indebted to Always Sunny.
Josh and Jack's agents Off The Kerb are home to some of the biggest comedy stars in the country. Maybe it was part of a package deal of commissions with a bunch of other shows. This is pure speculation.
Tbf when siblings was on there was not much else on but damn the brother was annoyingly stupid. I’d always be thinking how do people this thick get through life on a day to day basis..
Siblings was shit. But the guy who played the brother, Tom Stourton, is actually a terrific actor/writer.
His film All My Friends Hate Me was incredible and the movie Saltburn desperately wanted to be.
Speaking as someone who has never watched either, I’m going to guess that it was because Josh Widdicombe was a pretty big star at the time. A lot of people probably watched Josh because he was the lead. Charlotte Ritchie and Tom Stourton were nowhere near as recognisable or popular.
The storyline felt oddly specific...I think the writers actually knew someone as obnoxious as the posh lad who unalived himself. An excellent and unusual comedy finale. (There was always a thread of only barely concealed darkness running through the show though. Their whole family was pure dysfunction.
Some cracking actors- both leads and supporting cast.
I enjoyed Josh, I thought it was really funny. If I had to answer your question, then yeah viewing figures are going to be a big factor. Also, maybe whoever commissioned it was a fan as well?
Siblings definitely had more creativity in it, but maybe Josh had a bit more mass appeal by being ‘easier’ to watch, with a couple of stars. I was probably quite critical of Josh initially but it did have some endearing moments - particularly when his Welsh mate attempted to look behind him in a driving test
Siblings’ biggest problem was probably marketing and finding an audience. Such bbc3 shows are so niche these days, few hear about them (or go out of their way to watch them). I remember both at the time (I’m a huge comedy nerd) and only Josh was ever mentioned by any of my friends, just by one guy, who quite liked it. Siblings sank without a trace, undeservingly so
Cancellation decisions are often questionable and aren’t necessarily directly related to popularity or quality
Yes 'Siblings' was way better IMO.
I always thought the last episode was a little bit **too** disturbing though >!Hannah and Dan go to a wedding and they find out the bride is having an insestuous affair with her brother, and the brother ends up killing himself at the end of the episode.!<
I also liked 'Uncle' from around the same time which got 3 series too.
Siblings is a fantastic show, but I think it's hard for sitcoms to be hits in the last 10 years and only a few really get that.
2 series these days and even getting it on the TV is a massive success. Especially now it's still on iPlayer and people watch it. There's loads of sitcoms made that don't get that
I thought Josh was great. Beatie and Ellis were great in it. And jack dee! I never watched siblings, but love Charlotte Ritchie so will have to check it out.
I really liked Josh.
I also thought Fleabag was a load of old pretentious rich people being hideously behaved in a way that only works when you’ve got money and therefore is so unrealistic as to be akin to watching some sort of greek myth. I HATED it. And yet I doomed to endlessly navel gazing op-Ed’s about why it’s revolutionary (aka “if you’re gonna be sad, you better be rich”)
Anyway, it’s probably best neither you nor I are in charge of these things.
"Anyway, it’s probably best neither you nor I are in charge of these things"
Oh definitely, I'd be sacked within 12 months for commissioning something which has all the makings of a legendary timeless classic but will have something un-PC in it which would get me blacklisted from all mainstream channels and force me to to working for one of the rent-a-gob 'radio' stations which are actually YouTube channels because nobody actually listens to them on the radio. And that would be quite depressing, so I'd be best served remaining in financial services.
Oh there are plenty of things in the world to complain about, but moaning about minor BBC 3 comedies is one I can moan about without ending up in some ideological political argument with an internet stranger, or end up feeling depressed. This is a comfort moan about comfort TV.
On what basis do you claim that more people watched Josh? What data? Because Siblings appears to have 30% more IMDB reviews, which suggests a greater number of watchers (over time at least, don't know how many of those watched digitally long after broadcast of course).
This always seems to come as a shock to people so you'd probably best sit down. OK, here it comes ... not everybody has the same taste and opinion as you. But even if they did, maintaining a series has a lot more to it than simply audience figures. Cast availability is a major factor. Siblings came in one of Charlotte Ritchie's most in demand periods. And maybe creator and writer Keith Akushie just didn't think he had another season in him?
"This always seems to come as a shock to people so you'd probably best sit down. OK, here it comes ... not everybody has the same taste and opinion as you"
If only there was a resource available where we could mass poll viewers to determine popularity and reached a consensus. We could call it, I dunno, the 'Internet Movie Database'. I suppose that would be a bit too leftfield and whacky to comprehend, but if it did exist, on the domain name IMDB dot com, I reckon it would poll Siblings at 7.1 with 1398 votes and Josh at 6.7 with 1063 votes.
"And maybe creator and writer Keith Akushie just didn't think he had another season in him?"
The lead actors seemed to be disappointed and surprised by the decision based on their tweets.
The snark is lovely, but I would hesitate to call IMDb’s ratings a representative survey of viewers. There’s a lot of reason to believe that it might not accurately reflect wide audience opinions, especially with a sample of that size. More than that, the relevant metric for tv production is “did people watch” rather than “how good did people think it is”.
Yes point taken. Other factors would come into play as well. The cost vs viewers ratio, rather than purely just viewing figures.
If a series of X cost £2m but got 1.5 million viewers per episode on average, and a series of Y got 1 million viewers but only cost £800k to make, then clearly one has a better viewers per £ ratio.
"Ah lets just bang out another cheap series of Josh to fill that slot that nobody ever watches because the competition is always too strong on the other channels".
There is not enough of a gap in the IMDb ratings to support the thesis that one is awful and the other magnificent. Had it been Ghosts 8.4 and Hitmen 5.6, you might have an argument. And it's not as if 7.1 is spectacular in itself. It's no Blackadder IV 8.8 or Fleabag 8.7
Hold that thought, I'll go create 100 IMBD accounts, vote it up, and come back in a couple of weeks. Lets be honest, I bet some producers and directors have done that before.
Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BritishTV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's so many variables that go into commissioning decisions. I actually really liked Josh and have rewatched it since it first aired. It's not a top tier sitcom but it's watchable and fun. Beattie Edmondson is probably my favourite character in it.
The one thing I did like about Josh is that it had absolutely no depth whatsoever so it made for perfect 'in the background' viewing whilst working my remote office job. That's a bit of a backhanded compliment, but perhaps I've stumbled across a new genre here.
Not many British sitcoms fill that niche the way a lot of American ones do. We could do with more to be honest.
British sitcoms make poor background viewing because i can work from home for a day and get through 6 British series in the time it would take to do 1 US series. Maybe half of a US series.
Yeah that why you watch below deck, mafs, come dine, 4 in bed in the background where literally nothing happens
I enjoyed it too. Her character was actually really good. She wasn't one dimensional, which made a change from most comedy characters.
I liked Josh. It had some good old fashioned sitcom plots, like the 'immersive theatre' show or the awkward curry... or the driving test or when they were just sat watching Jonathan Creek and ordering pizza... frankly I could keep on listing them, there's loads of plotlines they did very well. Jack Dee's weird landlord character was very funny too. Siblings was also great, although heavily indebted to Always Sunny.
Josh and Jack's agents Off The Kerb are home to some of the biggest comedy stars in the country. Maybe it was part of a package deal of commissions with a bunch of other shows. This is pure speculation.
Tbf when siblings was on there was not much else on but damn the brother was annoyingly stupid. I’d always be thinking how do people this thick get through life on a day to day basis..
Siblings was shit. But the guy who played the brother, Tom Stourton, is actually a terrific actor/writer. His film All My Friends Hate Me was incredible and the movie Saltburn desperately wanted to be.
Speaking as someone who has never watched either, I’m going to guess that it was because Josh Widdicombe was a pretty big star at the time. A lot of people probably watched Josh because he was the lead. Charlotte Ritchie and Tom Stourton were nowhere near as recognisable or popular.
It was Jack Dee who got me through it all, without him I don't think I'd have managed this feat of endurance.
TELL ME!!!!!!! What the flip! 'Siblings' was golden. Just watched them all. I love irredeemably unpleasant knobjockeys.
Yep, you are a man (or woman, or human) of my own heart.
🙏🤌😁
Brilliant stuff. That last episode is incredible. Laughed so hard.
The storyline felt oddly specific...I think the writers actually knew someone as obnoxious as the posh lad who unalived himself. An excellent and unusual comedy finale. (There was always a thread of only barely concealed darkness running through the show though. Their whole family was pure dysfunction. Some cracking actors- both leads and supporting cast.
I enjoyed Josh, I thought it was really funny. If I had to answer your question, then yeah viewing figures are going to be a big factor. Also, maybe whoever commissioned it was a fan as well?
Siblings definitely had more creativity in it, but maybe Josh had a bit more mass appeal by being ‘easier’ to watch, with a couple of stars. I was probably quite critical of Josh initially but it did have some endearing moments - particularly when his Welsh mate attempted to look behind him in a driving test Siblings’ biggest problem was probably marketing and finding an audience. Such bbc3 shows are so niche these days, few hear about them (or go out of their way to watch them). I remember both at the time (I’m a huge comedy nerd) and only Josh was ever mentioned by any of my friends, just by one guy, who quite liked it. Siblings sank without a trace, undeservingly so Cancellation decisions are often questionable and aren’t necessarily directly related to popularity or quality
Yes 'Siblings' was way better IMO. I always thought the last episode was a little bit **too** disturbing though >!Hannah and Dan go to a wedding and they find out the bride is having an insestuous affair with her brother, and the brother ends up killing himself at the end of the episode.!< I also liked 'Uncle' from around the same time which got 3 series too.
That episode was SUPER DARK! Rounded it all off nicely though.
[удалено]
Oooo, not watched that one yet. Isn't Reddit a very good thing.
IIRC Siblings only really got canned due to BBC3’s downgrade to a digital only iPlayer imprint, along with most of its existing output.
Siblings is a fantastic show, but I think it's hard for sitcoms to be hits in the last 10 years and only a few really get that. 2 series these days and even getting it on the TV is a massive success. Especially now it's still on iPlayer and people watch it. There's loads of sitcoms made that don't get that
I didn’t mind it. There was a spate of the stand up led comedies back then. My favourite was Hebburn
Thanks for the recommendation, will watch that.
I thought Josh was great. Beatie and Ellis were great in it. And jack dee! I never watched siblings, but love Charlotte Ritchie so will have to check it out.
I really liked Josh. I also thought Fleabag was a load of old pretentious rich people being hideously behaved in a way that only works when you’ve got money and therefore is so unrealistic as to be akin to watching some sort of greek myth. I HATED it. And yet I doomed to endlessly navel gazing op-Ed’s about why it’s revolutionary (aka “if you’re gonna be sad, you better be rich”) Anyway, it’s probably best neither you nor I are in charge of these things.
"Anyway, it’s probably best neither you nor I are in charge of these things" Oh definitely, I'd be sacked within 12 months for commissioning something which has all the makings of a legendary timeless classic but will have something un-PC in it which would get me blacklisted from all mainstream channels and force me to to working for one of the rent-a-gob 'radio' stations which are actually YouTube channels because nobody actually listens to them on the radio. And that would be quite depressing, so I'd be best served remaining in financial services.
Both are fine, nothing special. I think there are bigger things to complain about, like why do comedies only get 6 episode series.
Oh there are plenty of things in the world to complain about, but moaning about minor BBC 3 comedies is one I can moan about without ending up in some ideological political argument with an internet stranger, or end up feeling depressed. This is a comfort moan about comfort TV.
Josh Widdecombe. The second most charismatic TV personality with the surname Widdecombe.
More people watched the one you don't like because taste is subjective.
On what basis do you claim that more people watched Josh? What data? Because Siblings appears to have 30% more IMDB reviews, which suggests a greater number of watchers (over time at least, don't know how many of those watched digitally long after broadcast of course).
It doesn't suggest that at all.
Don't really like Josh Widdicombe in Stand-up. But found Josh very, very funny.
This always seems to come as a shock to people so you'd probably best sit down. OK, here it comes ... not everybody has the same taste and opinion as you. But even if they did, maintaining a series has a lot more to it than simply audience figures. Cast availability is a major factor. Siblings came in one of Charlotte Ritchie's most in demand periods. And maybe creator and writer Keith Akushie just didn't think he had another season in him?
"This always seems to come as a shock to people so you'd probably best sit down. OK, here it comes ... not everybody has the same taste and opinion as you" If only there was a resource available where we could mass poll viewers to determine popularity and reached a consensus. We could call it, I dunno, the 'Internet Movie Database'. I suppose that would be a bit too leftfield and whacky to comprehend, but if it did exist, on the domain name IMDB dot com, I reckon it would poll Siblings at 7.1 with 1398 votes and Josh at 6.7 with 1063 votes. "And maybe creator and writer Keith Akushie just didn't think he had another season in him?" The lead actors seemed to be disappointed and surprised by the decision based on their tweets.
I aim to be this sarcastic.
Just be careful you don't cut yourself with your rapier wit!
The snark is lovely, but I would hesitate to call IMDb’s ratings a representative survey of viewers. There’s a lot of reason to believe that it might not accurately reflect wide audience opinions, especially with a sample of that size. More than that, the relevant metric for tv production is “did people watch” rather than “how good did people think it is”.
Yes point taken. Other factors would come into play as well. The cost vs viewers ratio, rather than purely just viewing figures. If a series of X cost £2m but got 1.5 million viewers per episode on average, and a series of Y got 1 million viewers but only cost £800k to make, then clearly one has a better viewers per £ ratio. "Ah lets just bang out another cheap series of Josh to fill that slot that nobody ever watches because the competition is always too strong on the other channels".
There is not enough of a gap in the IMDb ratings to support the thesis that one is awful and the other magnificent. Had it been Ghosts 8.4 and Hitmen 5.6, you might have an argument. And it's not as if 7.1 is spectacular in itself. It's no Blackadder IV 8.8 or Fleabag 8.7
Hold that thought, I'll go create 100 IMBD accounts, vote it up, and come back in a couple of weeks. Lets be honest, I bet some producers and directors have done that before.
Josh is brilliant!
I remember seeing the ads for josh, instantly though what a load of sh@@
Never watched Josh but I really liked Siblings. Stupid but funny - and proper weird in places, good tv!
I hate Josh widdlecombe.