Part of the process of developing a programme idea is an endless series of conversations about what "works". Does it work to set the whole series in a coffin? Does it work to tell the whole story in flashbacks? Or (in my case) does it work to have a lead character who only speaks Bulgarian?
The problem is, to paraphrase , no one has a clue what works until the programme gets made. To remind myself of this I find it sort of therapeutic to think of successful TV programmes of the past and list the reasons why they could never possibly work:
THE OFFICE. No one wants to come home from a boring office job and watch other people do boring office jobs on television. It won't work.
FRASIER. The two main characters are a pompous intellectual psychiatrist and his brother, who is also a pompous intellectual psychiatrist. There is no conflict. Therefore it won't work.
THE WEST WING. It's people talking far too quickly about details of the US legislative process. It is impossible to follow. It won't work.
SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. It is about a sponge. It won't work.
If anyone raised those objections at the time, they've shut up about them now. A few years ago, I was on a train and overheard a conversation between two electricians about a TV drama they were working on. The drama was about a policeman who is hit by a car and wakes up in 1973, not knowing whether he is dreaming or not. I thought it was pretty much the stupidest idea I had ever heard.