Originally Posted by davey_wavey:
“the reason why Sherlock and Jonathan Creek rate so well is because they aren't on very often and their episode runs are very short. It makes each programme feel like 'special event' viewing.”
“the reason why Sherlock and Jonathan Creek rate so well is because they aren't on very often and their episode runs are very short. It makes each programme feel like 'special event' viewing.”
Couldn't agree more. An often overlooked point with the perfectly excellent Sherlock, is that it can hardly be considered a 'series' in the normal sense. It is a high-impact, highly budgeted and highly publicised occasional 'event' mini-series. Its 2 yr gaps are the natural consequence of having two co-stars who are also leading international film stars, and a pair of prestige show-runners with numerous other work commitments.
I also think that having three-parts rather than 8 or 10 can flatter its 'series average' a little - skewing the figure towards the big impact opener. The audience for the last 3-parter declined slowly but steadily over the mini-run. We will never know how well such a concept would do over a longer series stretch - yet it is still measured on a par with other series that must impress for much longer runs.
I think that a variety of different transmission intervals and screening formats on British TV is actually a great thing. It's nice to see specials like Sherlock and Jonathan Creek spice up the schedules. But I do reserve a lot of respect those less critically-lauded shows that can turn in Sherlock audiences, week in and week out, over long series.




They literally just announced that they're launching a new premium channel with a budget of its own for original drama commissions, some of which I guess may be repeated on the main channel later on as well.