Options

Do you prefer shorter seasons for US shows (10-12 episodes)

NailzNailz Posts: 3,054
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I actually prefer watching shows that have a shorter number per series (eg 10 shows). Things like Spartacus,Sons of Anarchy,Hell On Wheels as opposed to 24 episode series.

I see the new Dallas show on TNT has 10 episodes in Season 1 and wondered if this is the way more shows will start to be. Maybe it is cheaper and less of a risk to the studios, and increases the chance of renewal if it does well.

Maybe a few cult shows would have lasted longer this way.

Comments

  • Options
    RorschachRorschach Posts: 10,818
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Personally I do yes, I think it makes the writers keep a tighter control on plot pacing.

    Some of the 22 episode shows (both comedy and drama) tend to meander around a bit mid season, neither advancing the plot or adding anything new to the characters.

    However I also find the common British template of 6 Episodes (or sometimes even 3) to be too short. :p

    Ten to twelve seems about right.
  • Options
    RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes I do. Everything tends to be tighter, the episodes also tend to be packed with data, on first watch this may seem somewhat overwhelming (GOT for example), but it makes subsequent rewatches much more rewarding as you find yourself picking up on details you may have missed earlier.

    Star Trek was terrible at structuring its seasons. You'd have one great episode followed by 5 slow budget saving bores. Even the great B5 had its fair share of misses.
  • Options
    MoreTearsMoreTears Posts: 7,025
    Forum Member
    It is not like there is any change in the US way: The traditional way is network, and network is continuing with long seasons, while cable does shorter seasons and they are basically relatively new players in the series TV business. A few key cable channels are better than the networks in many ways so that probably is going to bias somebody on whatever length of season they do compared to whatever length of season the networks do. I watch a mix of cable and network shows so am rather happy with the varying lengths of seasons. I see no reason why they should be one way or the other exclusively.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    I think the larger budget high concept shows you've listed (Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller shows like Homeland, Game of Thrones, etc.) require shorter seasons, because otherwise they just drag on, cost too much and wear themselves out. Whereas stuff like Law & Order and comedies, work better with full seasons, because you get more episodes and these are the types of shows that enter syndication, so need more episodes or will eventually do a 'Friends' (be repeated to the point they become shit).
  • Options
    petelypetely Posts: 2,994
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, absolutely not. Provided the show has a good team of writers with a strong vision of where they're taking the story, the longer the better. The key is the ability of the writers. If they are good (and bad writers will cock things up no matter how long/short a series), then a longer series length will allow them to spend time fleshing-out the characters, giving them depth and realism. making them assets to the show.

    It also allows the exposition to be done at a more sedate, considered pace. Instead of having to spend the first episode explaining all the back-story and reasons why things are the way they are, more episodes (and we're talking full-length; 40 minutes PLUS here) let this happen naturally without the feeling that you missed something if you look away for a few seconds and getting bored with the "brain dump" when what you want is entertainment - not the feeling you're revising for an exam.

    The key is to have good writers and plenty of them. Not just the one lone scribbler who answers to nobody - that british shows tend to have. They need to be treated as a production team - part of the whole programme making function and not as some sort of genius (they're not) prima-donna (they are) who's every whim, oddity, mistake and failure has to be seen through into the final programme as there's nobody else to provide an alternative, or take the pressure off.

    Good writers: long series runs: excellent TV.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 268
    Forum Member
    Nah, I like a nice long 24 (or so) season to the shorter ones. I'm just getting into Curb Your Enthusiasm, and I think it's a shame that such a wonderfully written comedy only has 10 per season but the other 97% of crap on TV do full Seasons.
  • Options
    StarryNightStarryNight Posts: 7,289
    Forum Member
    I think it really depends on the writing and the plot. Some shows really could have benefited from shorter seasons, Lost for example, because it was quite obvious they were struggling with how much the network wanted from them. But if a show is good and well written, the more the merrier as far as i'm concerned. The problem is the networks; the people who make the shows seem to have very little control of them and all the networks want to do is make money - and if they're not they just axe them half way through of course. Sometimes I do think they could benefit from doing it more Uk-style.
  • Options
    vkmaxvkmax Posts: 3,093
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think high concept shows serve better as half seasons. LOST and HEROES would've been alot better without the filler.

    Sitcoms work fine at 20-24 episodes and I think so do most teen/soapy dramas. Though sitcoms are afraid of adding characters too - HIMYM has bcome the Barney and Robin melodrama because they've run out of steam fr the others, adding a new character (a friend not a romance) will freshen tthe dynamic.

    I think one of the biggest problems the shows have is not knowing when to let a character go. For instance Grey's signing all of the original cast for two more years...why? Get some new blood in. You need to keep it fresh if you're going to sustain it.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It depends on the show, really. Rules of Engagement, for instance, works well with few episodes, but How I Met Your Mother needs more episodes per season to really flesh the storylines out.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    vkmax wrote: »
    I think one of the biggest problems the shows have is not knowing when to let a character go. For instance Grey's signing all of the original cast for two more years...why? Get some new blood in. You need to keep it fresh if you're going to sustain it.

    Trouble is most audiences don't like change, and after the Scrubs fiasco at ABC, I doubt they're willing to risk it either. (For what it's worth, I think Scrubs was a lot funnier once they ditched JD)
  • Options
    Metal MickeyMetal Mickey Posts: 1,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sitcoms are fine over long seasons as long as they have a good team of writers, but dramas really drag.

    An hourlong drama is about 40 minutes of programme time, so one 22-24 episode season clocks in at around 15 hours... that's the equivalent (for instance) of all three Lord Of The Rings films plus all three Matrix movies, and frankly, most series just don't have the storylines to justify that kind of running time.

    I far prefer the cable model (around 9 hours total runtime) which is more manageable, and less of a commitment!
  • Options
    trec123trec123 Posts: 4,419
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the writing suffers from having so many episodes per season - often by the time a show gets to it's 3rd season, the plots are already being repeated, or are too far fetched, or else almost non- existent because the writers have run out of ideas, so they switch the focus to character development (usually making a hash of it!) and end up altering the show beyond recognition.
    It's really sad when a show whic has been great and full of fresh ideas starts getting slated by viewers who feel it's had it's day, but it seems to happen with so many American shows and I'm sure it has a lot to do with the writers being under pressure to churn out so many episodes, season after season.
  • Options
    RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sitcoms are fine over long seasons as long as they have a good team of writers, but dramas really drag.

    An hourlong drama is about 40 minutes of programme time, so one 22-24 episode season clocks in at around 15 hours... that's the equivalent (for instance) of all three Lord Of The Rings films plus all three Matrix movies, and frankly, most series just don't have the storylines to justify that kind of running time.

    I far prefer the cable model (around 9 hours total runtime) which is more manageable, and less of a commitment!

    Some 10/12 episode seasons tend to run 50 to 60 minutes of actual programme.

    So say, a 12 episodes season with an average run time of 55 minutes. That works out at around 11 hours.

    A 20 episode season with an episode run time of 40 minutes works out at just over 13 hours.

    Not that much of difference is there? Yet with the (slightly) shorter season we get tend to get tighter writing and consistent quality.
  • Options
    srhDSsrhDS Posts: 2,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is room for both.
    As people have said the shorter season work well for the heavy arc shows like Dexter. Dragging out these stories is frustrating.
    But shows like NCIS or The Mentalist work fine with longer seasons as their arc tend to be background most of the time and usually only pop up at key moments like season finales.

    Some shows managed to do longer season with arcs. 24 managed it (mostly) although it usually had to have elaborately contrived plot devices to stretch it out for 24 episodes. Generally by having 3 arcs per season a couple of mini bosses and an end of level boss.
    Buffy did quite well with each season having a big bad and monster of the week stories mixed in.

    These days though a lot of people have no patience for monter of the week episodes. Shame as they often develop characters and allow a background arc to build naturally.
    Fringe got a lot of criticism for having monster of the week episodes even though in most of these we learnt more about the characters or the overall story arc.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 89
    Forum Member
    I think this is quite an interesting point. I think it can generally be agreed that the past 12-15 years we've seen the best television ever screened because a) the changing attitutes of our American cousins and b) the rise of cable programming in the US.

    Cable shows work with a 10-13 episode season because simply put cost. They don't have the backing of large networks. Even HBO and Showtime. But this has actually worked out for cable shows. Theres more concentrated storyline allowing for better characterisation and development of themes because to put it simply there is no dilution of plot or character by "filler" episodes. This is certainly a bonus for us TV boxset junkies watching The Sopranos or Mad Men. And we can determine this theory by one cable show Battlestar Galattica, it recieved more episodes in later seasons and as a result filler episodes were introduced.

    However network television in primetime has 30-40 weeks to screen programmes and so require seasons to run 20-25 episodes a year. And as its previously been said that sitcoms and procedurals(cops, doctors, lawyers) usually work to this model and they can do loads of filler episodes with character arcs and plots in the background bringing it forward a few times a season. However other types of show fare badly or don't sustain there audience because they have to fill out there show with filler episodes because they can't stretch there story far enough, look at Lost and Heroes They have the story just it would work better in a smaller episode frame (which is why Lost got considerably better in seasons 5 and 6 because the story was more concentrated and there was no filler like seasons 2 and 3.

    I think Networks need to learn from cable that perhaps commision some shows on a 10-13 episode basis. Allowing for showrunners to develop the ideas they had at the start of the series and not allowing for making up stuff as the go along. Not saying this for all shows Sitcoms and Procedurals can still operate this way but some shows which are perhaps and edgier and out of the box should get a smaller order. We've seen this work already this year with Scandal (ABC) and Smash (NBC) and well even scifi shows such as Terra Nova and Alcatraz (both FOX) failing this but that raises the quality of production, writing and direction as well as audience figures (and that there high concept ideas, like Lost, Fringe, Heroes, Flashforward ect.)

    Lastly, the type of show, idea of the show, where the show is on won't matter, as long as the showrunners, writers, directors and producers keep the shows quality consistant will have no effect on how many episodes are needed, Cable shows Dexter and True Blood are decline in Nature whereas Fringe, The Big Bang Theory, The Vampire Diaries and NCIS continue to get better as each season continues due to a consistancy behind the camera and thats probably what matters more.
  • Options
    paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Rorschach wrote: »
    Personally I do yes, I think it makes the writers keep a tighter control on plot pacing.

    Some of the 22 episode shows (both comedy and drama) tend to meander around a bit mid season, neither advancing the plot or adding anything new to the characters.

    However I also find the common British template of 6 Episodes (or sometimes even 3) to be too short. :p

    Ten to twelve seems about right.

    Wot he said - you can see this by comparing something like Game of Thrones - which is tightly written and sustains itself through a season and say FlashForward - or even Alcatraz. Homeland benefitted form a shorter (12) number of episodes.

    That said it depends; if you are talking about a series then they can last a 'full' season of 20-24 episodes - but series works better as a shorter season.
  • Options
    tigertimtimtigertimtim Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    i think the real problem is the ways shows are disjointed with far to many breaks not the length of the series.
  • Options
    NinjyBearNinjyBear Posts: 8,317
    Forum Member
    Depends on the show. The biggest advantage for 10-13 episode show is that they are shown without having to take a break every few episodes.
Sign In or Register to comment.