TV Seasons?

[Jetfire]

There was a time when shows got 26 eps and then it went down to 22 eps...should shows only get 11-13 eps? I mean most of a 22 ep season has a few good eps and then there is filler...but should we get the best? I mean 11-13 eps of the best the shows can offer. I also hate the way the season is split...I mean waiting over a month for eps in between a single season...twice! Wouldn't it be better to do a single season in the Fall and second season in the Spring?

I admit I don't know much about how this stuff works...so if you are gonna give me a lecture...whatever...but I don't see the point of shows getting a season of 22 eps if it is gonna be chopped up anyway...I really like how LOST did its 20+ eps all at once Starting in Jan/Feb and finished in Late May...I know some people like the breaks...but I would rather see the season straight.

If they are gonna do 20+ eps then do them straight through or just do a season of 11-13 eps...most new shows will get only 11-13 eps anyway...The Cape only got 10.

Thoughts on how TV seasons are constructed?

 

[Jax]

With DVR penetration becoming higher and higher especially during spring time, I feel that making the seasons shorter would be a good thing in the long run.

Friday shows in particular should look at 16-18 episodes because its a low rated night the most of the time and other nights I think may be looking at 18-20 in the future with production costs seemingly going up but audiences going down.

Lets be frank though on quality alone, shows are generally much better with 10-15 episode seasons that are seen on Cable.

 

[Sheep]

I'm a fan of 13 episode seasons. Typical British seasons of 6-8 episodes are too short and typical American network seasons of 22-24 episodes almost inevitably lead to a bunch of subpar filler episodes.

 

[backstept]

I like how Syfy does 20 ep seasons split into 10 episode halves

 

[startrekwatcher]

Back in the 80s and 90s when writers were competent and capable of sustaining 26 episode seasons that was fine but anymore these days they struggle to put out 13 decent episodes a season so shorter tighter seasons are definitely the way to go. I'd also argue that studios and writers should look at doing shorter runs of the series themselves since most shows jump the shark after 4 or five seasons--decide to do say 3 seasons and that's it.

The only show in the last few years I can recall of doing a near perfect 24 episode season was Heroes first year, LOST S1. The better seasons were always shorter-Lost S4/5, BSG S1

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I don't really care about TV seasons, and the whole thing is a jumble now anyway. TV seasons are an artifact of the olden days when everyone went on vacation in the summer and then the networks needed a lot of fodder in the fall, when the auto industry trotted out new models and bought a lot of air time. Now there are new shows in summer, in January, and around the first of April (the upcoming debuts of Chaos, The Killing, The Borgias and Camelot represent a more promising crop than the crap that debuted last Sept.)

No matter how you slice it, the TV biz has a problem: 52 weeks in the year, but no show has the resources to cover all that time adequately. It doesn't matter if you have 13 episodes or 30, you still have to choose your poison: run them all together and then get forgotten during the long hiatus, or dole them out over the year in dribs and drabs, and lose the narrative flow of the story?

The biggest correlation in quality is not number of episodes per year but: the show's premise (there have been a lot of sci fi shows lately like FlashForward and The Event, that are sunk by stupid, unworkable premises); casting (V, for instance, had some bad casting in key roles); and writing (SG:U and The Event were written intolerably badly, and it wasn't because they were trying to do too many episodes per year - one episode was one too many).

Premium cable shows do better on all these factors because they are more carefully written and produced, due to having the luxury provided by the guaranteed revenue stream of subscriptions rather than having to scramble for Neilsens. It's not because they only do 13 episodes per year. If they doubled that number, they'd still have better shows than broadcast, where it's difficult to even find a single show worth bothering with.

Broadcast networks could start doing 13 episode seasons, but it would be 13 episodes of the same stupid crap as ever - cop shows, doctor shows, lawyer shows, sitcoms and badly manged sci fi shows with insipid writing and stupid premises. The only advantage there would be that you'd have 13 episodes to avoid rather than 26.

Broadcast cannot imitate cable's success because it has a different financial model and must go after an audience that is too broad based to support any show that is actually interesting or innovative in any way.

The only show in the last few years I can recall of doing a near perfect 24 episode season was Heroes first year, LOST S1.

If Heroes could put out a serialized season of 24 above-average episodes, then why is it that they couldn't keep it up? Why can't other broadcast shows do the same?

 

[Jetfire]

I think 7 seasons is good for a top notch TV show and at 13 eps...a show would reach it's 100th in season 7. I also think bigger shows could do more with 13 eps...how many filler eps were the budget is a concern with shows? Too many. I think having a Fall season and a Spring season and then the Summer season would bring more shows in for viewers...again...I have no clue how the business works...I am just expressing my opinion...and I think a show with 13 eps could be approached more like a mini-series or movie than a week to week thing like how most 22 ep shows work. Again...I am no expert so if this makes no sense...ignore me.

[edit] I mean right now there is the Sept-May TV season and then the crap in June-Aug...with a few replacements coming in Jan, Feb & March.

 

[bigdaddy]

Depends on the show.

Stargate couldn't handle 20 episodes later one. L&O can probably handle 26.

 

[milo bloom]

Back in the 80s and 90s when writers were competent and capable of sustaining 26 episode seasons that was fine but anymore these days they struggle to put out 13 decent episodes a season so shorter tighter seasons are definitely the way to go. I'd also argue that studios and writers should look at doing shorter runs of the series themselves since most shows jump the shark after 4 or five seasons--decide to do say 3 seasons and that's it.

Even during Voyager's run I was aware of how British shows used shorter seasons and I felt Voyager would benefit from cutting the chaff/filler episodes and just concentrating on a good solid, though shorter, run of stories.

I really thought BSG was great when it was doing short season runs and I also think the whole idea of splitting a season is just stupid. Call each chunk a season and let the writers end them properly in case they don't come back.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'm a fan of the thirteen episode structure as well. British and North American shows though are structured differently. It seems to me that the North American series are developed with "sweeps" periods in mind and the 22 episodes are spread out over the course of six months with the "sweeps" periods as high points. HBO and AMC seem to have gone the British way with 13 episodes and don't really care about the sweeps periods. The 13 episodes also provide less of a chance of "filler" episodes of course.

 

[Starbreaker]

Lost never aired 20+ episodes in a row. They had September to May seasons for the first three years, then had a month long hiatus in season 4, and a week long one in season 5. Season 6 was the first time there weren't any interruptions.

TNG, DS9, and VOY all had several 26 episode seasons, but I can't find many other shows from the time period that did. 26 seems like a lot.

And the notion that writers have all suddenly become incompetent since the 80s/90s is stupid. There was just as much crap on television then.

 

[Lonemagpie]

In the UK, seasons have always - with a few exceptions like original Dr Who - tended to be 6 or 13 episodes...

 

[Jetfire]

@Starbreaker
You might want to quote people when you reply. Cause you are also responding to what someone else said.

And my bad. Not the point.

 

[Starbreaker]

Just saying...

 

[Jax]

I like how Syfy does 20 ep seasons split into 10 episode halves

You are in the minorty I believe...personally I hate that option taken by SYFY because the long gap can really hurt some shows though lucky back in the day SG had a very loyal dedicated fanbase.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I felt Voyager would benefit from cutting the chaff/filler episodes and just concentrating on a good solid, though shorter, run of stories.

They'd have to cut all their episodes, only then it would be an improvement.

Shows are either good or they stink. Filler episodes in good shows are far better than regular episodes in stinky ones. I'll take as many episodes of good shows as I can get. I know that the odds are, whatever replaces it in its timeslot will not be worth watching, so I'm just screwing myself over by "demanding" fewer episodes of good shows. As for the bad ones, if I had my way, I'd reduce them down to zero.

The premise determines how many episodes a show should run for. Chuck shouldn't have run as long as it has; properly managed, Heroes could have gone on for much longer than it did.

If a show premise has 100 episodes in it, I don't care if that's 100 episodes in one year, or 10 episodes a year for 10 years. It will be the same in the end: 100 good episodes. Or 50 good and 50 not as good but watchable episodes, vs 100 of some other show that I wouldn't have watched one millisecond of.

Well okay, I'd rather have maybe 40 episodes per year if I had the choice of how to dole them out. That gives me some time off per year but not too much time.

And the notion that writers have all suddenly become incompetent since the 80s/90s is stupid. There was just as much crap on television then.

Overall, writers are better now, or seem that way, because there are cable outlets where better writing is possible. The actual level of talent probably has not changed at all.

It's the audience that's changed. Suddenly everyone hates 26 episode seasons. But if some bad show with 26 episodes were cut down to 13, it would be 13 bad episodes. And if you cut down a good 26-episode show, you're losing 13 episodes that may not be as good as the other 13 but are better than the crap that would replace it, given that 90% of shows are crap. So you're not gaining, you're losing.

Why are people agitating for fewer episodes of good shows?

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Why are people agitating for fewer episodes of good shows?

Because they see it as a direct co-relation.

But you're absolutely right, if the writers of Mad Men (Or pick your favourite series that you feel has a constant level of quality) were tasked with 40 episodes a season, that would be 40 episodes of quality! (I exaggerate, but I mostly stand by that thinking)

Heck, I'm thinking of my favourite seasons of TNG or DS9 and having to pick half of them to get rid of in order to "prove" this theory is tough! Sure, 2 or 3, but to get rid of 12-13 of a solid season would suck.

PLUS, in hindsight, it's easy to pick the weaker episodes of a season and say "See! Look how much better it would be!" But who's to say, when writing it, that some of those weaker episodes would have been one of the 12?

 

[Jetfire]

@Temis the Vorta
People's tastes are different...even the shows I enjoy with 22 eps...like 5 eps are pure filler and then there are a handful of mediocre eps and then like 10-13 great eps. I am not sure about a "good" show having 22 great eps...the writing is never on all the time and then shows have to take their budget into consideration and that limits what they can do or when to have a big guest star on. Again whats good to you isn't good to everyone else and not even to the people who are fans of the same show you are. Another problem as I pointed out in the OP is the season being chopped up a show may have 22 or more eps but there is a huge break in winter and another big break in spring...shows are bound to lose their momentum with these huge breaks in the season...personally for me...as I already pointed out I would rather watch the season straight through...be it 13 eps or 20 eps or 22 eps. JMO though.

 

[Warp Coil]

This topic is a difficult one to nail down, because there are many variables to consider. If networks only produced 13 episodes for a particular series, then it means they would need to produce a higher number of programs (which is a risk) and it would also mean more shifts in their schedule and more risks to their ratings. For instance, NCIS is a huge hit for CBS. The show scores massive ratings each week. From the network's point of view, they'd probably rather air more episodes of that series than limit it down to 13 and then gamble with another series airing in its timeslot later in the season.

I think that it can also depend on the type of series. Some shows (like, again, NCIS or CSI) do well in reruns, whereas more serialized programs tend to do poorly. When you've got a 22-episode order, there are going to be breaks and gaps in the schedule where reruns will go, and those reruns may not generate decent numbers. Limiting some shows to shorter seasons and airing them without a break means fewer to no repeats. This would also prevent audience erosion. A perfect example of this is what happened with Lost. The decision to air the show in the spring meant far fewer repeats and interruptions, which could help with viewer retention.

Personally, I would be fine with shorter, 13-episode seasons if they air without breaks or pre-emptions and are scheduled consistently from year to year. Viewers seem to be adjusting to this type of scheduling. American Idol, for instance, airs in the spring. Everyone knows it. Everyone expects it. No one seems annoyed that it doesn't premiere in the fall and then stretch out until the spring. Fox keeps it consistent from year to year and the show still lures in huge numbers. Cable networks, like HBO and Showtime, seem to follow predictable patterns in scheduling. True Blood always airs in the summer. Dexter always airs in the fall. The viewers seem to know this, and they always manage to tune in for the new season. The shorter episode order, and airing the series straight through without breaks, also makes the writing on these types of shows tighter and the story flows much better.

 

[scotpens]

There was a time when shows got 26 eps and then it went down to 22 eps...should shows only get 11-13 eps?

You’re probably too young to remember the 1950s and early ’60s, when TV series typically had 39 episodes per season. Thirteen of those would be re-broadcast as summer reruns, unless there was a summer replacement series.

And the quality-to-crap ratio was the same then as it is now. Remember Sturgeon’s Law.