Chew

After reading several posts claiming "filler" and "running out of steam", I wanted to see what others think.

I personally think shows like Dead Zone and The Shield that only run 13 episodes per season pack at least as much story into them as a show running 24+

Buffy has had a lot of filler this season.
24 has Kim--that's all filler right there.
Last night, Angel spent an hour telling a story that could've taken 20 minutes.

The list goes on.

I know everyone is going to say, "the more episodes the better" for their favorite show. But, I'd rather have 13 episodes of pure story over 24 episodes with plenty of filler

Thoughts?

Red Dog

I think 26 would be ideal - that is exactly half a year. Start in mid-September and go straight through (except for T-Giving week) to the week before x-mas. That is 13 weeks right there. Then start up again in mid-January and go straight through for 13 more weeks ending in mid-April.

Adam Tyner

I'll join you in the minority, then.

Patman

Kim probably makes up for 18 hours of filler on "24".

TheMadMonk

Well, I'd prefer the majority of shows on right now have 0 episodes!

adamblast

In theory, I'd like as many great epsodes as I can get, of course... I'd peg the ideal number of eps per season in the 15-20 range...

But in practice, I think 26 episodes is too many for a season arc... Even the best writers fall into the trap of having a great opening and closing, but enough arc material for only half the season... They need to plan better or have fewer eps...

movieking

HBO series have convinced me that 12 - 15 is the way to go. It is better to have fewer quality episodes than more, diluted ones, IMO.

Copenhagen

I tend to agree with that. Eventhough the wait for the next season is tremedously long, it is worth it once the shows start up again.

Red Dog

The problem is that you have to wait forever for the next season with HBO shows.. We probably won't season 5 of Sopranos for at least 12 months.

movieking

Agreed. Too bad there can't be a happy medium. Since these shows produce fewer episodes, it is too bad that they can't come back a little earlier with new episodes, matching the time off of other shows. However, since everything revolves around ratings and sweeps, that ain't gonna happen...

Red Dog

I don't think sweeps are relevant to HBO. I thought sweeps were only used for advertisers, which obviously is not an issue with HBO.

sherm42

I think it depends on how strong the writing staff is. Even The Sopranos last season seemed like mostly filler and they had only 13 episodes. It really depends on the direction that the show wants to take.

Tuan Jim

Farscape was kinda interesting in that they had 22 episodes. Except for season 1 -- kinda a starter season, all the other seasons IIRC have had one multipart story in the middle, a 3 episode ending - with a one episode followup cliffhanger ep to finish off the season. All the other stories vary between character focus and random adventures. There has definitely been filler stuff in there as well, but I think it's been very interesting to go back to older episodes after watching newer ones and see how much material that originally seemed to be filler actually turned out to have a deeper significance or connection to the newer/current episodes.

Just remembered -- B5 also had about 22 eps/season. Worked pretty well.

wendersfan

I'd rather have fewer episodes that I can watch over and over again than a lot of episodes I regret having seen once.

HBO has shown me the light. I don't mind the wait at all.

PixyJunket

Agre with the 12-15 people here. Waiting is fine, I have plenty of DVDs and games to keep me plenty occupied.

B.A.

I would like to see 26 episodes per show - for network tv at least. Then I would like to see the shows aired consecutively w/ out reruns prolonging the season. When the season is over, they can air the season's re-runs in order until the next season starts. That way people can watch the shows in order if they missed a majority of the season when it originally aired. Just show the same season back-to-back and complete your 52-week schedule, and don't throw in older episodes when you show the season's re-runs - that's what syndication is for.

Red Dog

Obviously I agree. It is the most consistent way to do it. For instance, there were a few weeks of West Wing and Law & Order repeats in late March. Then a new one last week. Then last night, repeats again. Network schedules are so horribly inconsistent. Then I see that next Thursday at 10 NBC is running a new Law & Order (instead of ER) yet next Wednesday's is a repeat. WTF is up with that.

People do make a valid point that HBO does it right (by running them in a row with no repeats) but you know that networks would never do this.

raKim

I also think that a lot of the 1 hour shows could be cut down to 30 min shows and maybe have more episodes that way. That may help too. I hate it when an show feels it needs to have 45 minutes of show when they have trouble filling it.

Jimmy James

I really don't think there is an ideal length -- I just wish that networks would allow the creators to tailor the length of each season to the story being tackled (or the number of strong stories that can be told for shows that don't require much in the way of continuity).

I would have to guess that for most shows, we would end up with between 15 and 18 episodes if that happened. It seems to me that most of the short-run series could easily add a few interesting episodes to their run by doing more with secondary characters. At the same time, the 22 episode shows could tighten things up by getting rid of the fluff.

nny

I know this would annoy most viewers and could never happen, but I think seasons should be about 13 episodes and episode length should be able to vary throughout the season. Depending on the story you want to tell, different episodes could be 30 min, 45 min, 1 hour,... all the way to 3 hours.

I remember on the Oz commentary, the writer said the greatest freedom HBO gives them isn't nudity, language, or subject matter, but instead that they could vary their episode length every show. Maybe to make this feasible we could have series that are released only on dvd like some of the anime in Japan.

the narrator

i think about 18-20 is a good number for comedies... around 15-18 is a good number for hour long dramas. once you get past the 20s it seems you are getting more and more just filler episodes

Wizdar

Fifty-friggin-two!!

OK. Seriously. Given the quality of TV these days, it doesn’t matter. If you love a show, naturally you want to see more of it. And, I agree, that if it’s a really good show you might make allowances if their schedule is less than the 22-week norm. But I think that’s crap and will lead to shorter and shorter first-run seasons down the road. There are shows, good shows, that are doing that now, and when the lame ones follow suit…

Remember, about 10-15 years ago, there was a writers’ (or something) strike that shortened the season. Now, instead of 26 episodes/year, it’s 22. TV execs will do stuff like that.

Think about what the future will look like. 13 new shows/year give a 26-week hole to fill. Your favorite show could go for 3 weeks, have 3 weeks of crap filler, 3 weeks of reruns, then 3 weeks of new episodes. [Repeat until pissed.] And sill have room to rerun the original 13 later.





How ‘bout this: start with a 26-week schedule. A show has to make “x” rating standard to be allowed to show, let’s say, 10 episodes. If you can make “y” (higher ratings), you get to show, say 15… If you don’t make standards, the show goes in the dumper.

minifigg

50-52

mini

danol

Since the 17 minutes has changed to 20 minutes per hour, I won't watch any TV series! I have both HBO and Cinemax all the channels they carry which are commercial free movies. I used to watch the X-Files and ST:TNG after they started carrying the too much spam and not enough content I rebelled. I have yet to watch a spam filled special or series spot since.

I use the internet seen on my my big 4" feet away RCA F38310 HDTV and DVD or Vcr movies, I don't miss spam filled TV series at all. I have some series complete like all "Banacek" from the Monday night Movie with all of the 5 minute of commercials out and a 55 minute show.

Jlbkwrm

As many as it takes to tell the story, ideally.

However, for the number of episodes that should be in a network season, I lean towards 20+, topping out somewhere around 24. 24 episodes can be run twice in a year, with room for 4 weeks of replacement programming (miniseries, awards shows, whatever).

Since the writing staff knows how many episodes they have to tell the story going in to a season, it should be their responsibility to make sure they have enough story to last the whole season. The Kim-arc on 24 doesn't sit around taking up space to pad the show out to 24 episodes a season. It's around to pad the per-episode airtime. The overpowering filler on Buffy this season isn't because the writers didn't think they had 22 episodes worth of show in them--Whedon has given interviews saying that writing the final few episodes is going to be difficult, because he's got to cram a whole bunch of stuff in there.

It's unfair to blame poor pacing on the number of episodes in a season. That's an issue with the creative team behind the show. If they've got a 13 episode arc in mind, and have 9 episodes left to fill, what's saying they can't do something whacky like have a 9 episode arc? If the series is coming back next year, it stands to reason that there are more stories out there to tell.