Which do you prefer? Seasons that last 22 to 24 episodes, seasons that last 13 episodes or less, or seasons that last between 13 episodes and 22 episodes? Why?
22 episodes vs. 13 episodes
- Thread starter Joe Washington
- Start date
Depends on the show format.
If its a story arc show then i think a 13 episode season is better because there's less filler and the writers have to move briskly and keep the pace going because they need to finish the arc by the 13th episode and not pad it out needlessly.
If it's a story of the week show then 22 is fine or whatever number you want.
If its a story arc show then i think a 13 episode season is better because there's less filler and the writers have to move briskly and keep the pace going because they need to finish the arc by the 13th episode and not pad it out needlessly.
If it's a story of the week show then 22 is fine or whatever number you want.
No format is inherently better. It depends entirely on what kind of show you're running, what sort of stories you plan to tell, etc. If you can keep the quality up, I obviously prefer more to less.
This.
I want as many episodes as they can do a good job on. If they can produce 13 good episodes per year, double their staff and product 26 good episodes per year. There's no excuse for "filler" on any show - just hire the right people and enough of them to do a quality job.
The much bigger issue is, how many good episodes can you get out of a given premise? 50? 150? That's the real gating factor. How they choose to air those episodes, all in the same year or spread out over 10 years, isn't that big of a deal (except that too-slow distribution is annoying because then you forget what the plotline was).
Of course, this is a good argument for waiting for DVD to watch a series. I can easily watch 100 episodes in a single year.
The much bigger issue is, how many good episodes can you get out of a given premise? 50? 150? That's the real gating factor. How they choose to air those episodes, all in the same year or spread out over 10 years, isn't that big of a deal (except that too-slow distribution is annoying because then you forget what the plotline was).
Of course, this is a good argument for waiting for DVD to watch a series. I can easily watch 100 episodes in a single year.
I'd say it depends on the story, more then anything, some stories work for 13, some can work for 22-26 or so. The writing staff should be consistent, to many and things tend to get diluted (wherein continuity issues and other things start to arise). As for 'filler' I don't consider stand alones a 'filler' if they are damn good.
Also, just because a production can make 13 good episodes, doesn't mean they can make 26, doubled staff or not (doubled staff, see above), Like I said, it depends on the story for the amount of episodes, certain premises that get to many episodes and things could be stretched out.
So again, my thought is "it depends on the story" what would be easier to tell the story? I am in the same boat, mind you, that I'd like as much episodes as possible, but I'd rather get 13 excellent episodes, rather then 26 subpar ones, for the sake of having 26 episodes.
Also, just because a production can make 13 good episodes, doesn't mean they can make 26, doubled staff or not (doubled staff, see above), Like I said, it depends on the story for the amount of episodes, certain premises that get to many episodes and things could be stretched out.
So again, my thought is "it depends on the story" what would be easier to tell the story? I am in the same boat, mind you, that I'd like as much episodes as possible, but I'd rather get 13 excellent episodes, rather then 26 subpar ones, for the sake of having 26 episodes.
13-15 episodes seems about right to me.
As many as I can get. 20-26 for a mainstream series. 13 for a summer series though honestly the wait is too long for those series. I have no idea how the UK lives with series that are only like 6 or 7 episodes. 13 is the bare minimum is set up any kind of coherent plot.
A 22-episode season can be just as strong as a 13-episode season, depending on the quality of writing and types of stories being told. Having said that, it is often true that a 22-episode season will end up dragging on a bit slow, or having a few "filler" episodes that aren't necessary. A show like "Lost", for example, seems to have really improved its pacing and quality once they cut the episode order from 24 down to 16-18 episodes.
I don't know if show format is a factor so much as story 'thinness' for lack of a better term. I'd rather have short seasons with no filler or longer seasons that take all the time needed. Unfortunately, we often get the scary inbetween. Some shows like Merlin I don't think go deep enough in 12 45 minute eps and I wish they could do maybe a super sized opening or closing ep or two parter. Then again, American seasons are usually far too long and have the crap in the middle.
MI-5 is good at 10 eps, it's so intense it would burn out were there more episodes. When The Tudors had only an 8 episode season, there was still a lot of quality material thanks to it being allowed 50 plus minutes. Maybe that is the question. Can't we go back to longer episodes. I hate how reruns and syndications get time shaved off coming or going to commercials. F commercials!
For the record, I wish there could be a medium number, not only 6 or 8 and 10, but not 26 like there used to be. What's wrong with 14, 16, or 18 episode seasons?
MI-5 is good at 10 eps, it's so intense it would burn out were there more episodes. When The Tudors had only an 8 episode season, there was still a lot of quality material thanks to it being allowed 50 plus minutes. Maybe that is the question. Can't we go back to longer episodes. I hate how reruns and syndications get time shaved off coming or going to commercials. F commercials!
For the record, I wish there could be a medium number, not only 6 or 8 and 10, but not 26 like there used to be. What's wrong with 14, 16, or 18 episode seasons?
Yeah, and you've got Torchwood whose 3rd season was only 5 episodes, and it was fantastic.
I really don't think there should be a set number. I think the writers of a show should decide how many episodes they require for a season and leave it at that. If every season ends up being a different length, so be it.
J
Jetfire
Guest
Based on this post 22. I would try and get 11 to run in the fall, Sept-Dec and then 11 for the spring, Feb-May. One break in between is good enough.
All the 13 episodes shows I've seen have been vastly better than 99% of the 22+ episodes shows I've seen.
That is because the shows with 13 episodes are based on a totally serialized format where meaningful things actually happen. Whereas in most TV shows, which are 22+ episodes, nothing meaningful ever happens, and if it does on a rare occassion, it only happens in the season finale.
However, I do not agree with the idea that others and implicitly, even the thread title, are/is putting forward: that writers have to write filler to fill 22+ episodes. There is no reason why a show where meaningful things happen in every episode cannot be 22+ episodes.
They should go back to the old days of TV where episodes were 39 per season, and make meaningful things happen in every single one of those 39 episodes.
Bottomline: episode number is irrelevant to the the problem; lazy or incompetent writing, and/or stupid, antiquated 'episodic' formats is the problem.
That is because the shows with 13 episodes are based on a totally serialized format where meaningful things actually happen. Whereas in most TV shows, which are 22+ episodes, nothing meaningful ever happens, and if it does on a rare occassion, it only happens in the season finale.
However, I do not agree with the idea that others and implicitly, even the thread title, are/is putting forward: that writers have to write filler to fill 22+ episodes. There is no reason why a show where meaningful things happen in every episode cannot be 22+ episodes.
They should go back to the old days of TV where episodes were 39 per season, and make meaningful things happen in every single one of those 39 episodes.
Bottomline: episode number is irrelevant to the the problem; lazy or incompetent writing, and/or stupid, antiquated 'episodic' formats is the problem.
I always thought Galactica should have stayed at 13 episodes myself. They were able to tell a much tighter story that way. 20 episodes led to more filler and story details coming apart.
I noticed the story seemed to start spiraling out timeline wise in season two, at episode eleven or so.
