View Poll Results: Should Network TV adopt a short season format?
Yes, all shows should
3
21.43%
Yes, but only some shows
5
35.71%
No, in fact I wish HBO and Shield were longer
5
35.71%
Who cares about network TV?
1
7.14%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
Should Network TV go to a shorter season (ala HBO?)
01-14-04, 08:42 AM
#1
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Should Network TV go to a shorter season (ala HBO?)
With the great success of the short season format (about 13 episodes) of such shows as The Shield and the HBO shows (Sopranos, Wire, etc), do you think "regular" network programming should consider such a format?
Many shows seem to struggle with storylines to fill entire 24 (or so) episode season. Of course, a big problem with this idea is "sweeps" which occurs in both Nov and May. Also, the networks would have to fill more programming slots during a time when program quality is a big issue.
Still, I think shows like NYPD Blue, Line of Fire, ER and West Wing could benefit from some tightening up of story lines. The other benefit would maybe be that shows may not get yanked from the schedule so quickly, since they would have more slots to fill.
Many shows seem to struggle with storylines to fill entire 24 (or so) episode season. Of course, a big problem with this idea is "sweeps" which occurs in both Nov and May. Also, the networks would have to fill more programming slots during a time when program quality is a big issue.
Still, I think shows like NYPD Blue, Line of Fire, ER and West Wing could benefit from some tightening up of story lines. The other benefit would maybe be that shows may not get yanked from the schedule so quickly, since they would have more slots to fill.
01-14-04, 08:56 AM
#2
DVD Talk Hero
The concept of sweeps (which is also Feb and July, btw) is outdated, abused, and irrelevant. Hell, so is Nielsen. Still, until the cable networks get together and realize that they're getting royally screwed, I guess they're all still slaves to it.
IMO, the success of HBO's and FX's programming is only partially due to the short-season format, but is more directly related to a lack of creative interference from above. Sure, they have influence, but by and large, they let the creative people do what they were hired to do ... create. Broadcast network programming more often has a bunch of assclowns tweaking every last aspect of the show to dumb it down to some generic demographic and in the process kill the show. In such cases, fewer episodes won't do much.
Anyway, I think we're already somewhat moving in that direction. There are all sorts of "short" seasons airing now, and not just during the Summer months like in the past. Personally, I think a show should run just as long as is necessary. If it only takes 6 episodes to do the best job, then do it. If you need 24, go for it. I do agree that it would be nice to give other shows a chance instead of airing an extra 10 stale episodes of some "hit" show since it's a safe bet. Looking at the way networks like NBC have acted in the last 5 years, though, I wouldn't get my hopes up ... there's a part of me that still expects to see Friends on the air in 2005.
das
IMO, the success of HBO's and FX's programming is only partially due to the short-season format, but is more directly related to a lack of creative interference from above. Sure, they have influence, but by and large, they let the creative people do what they were hired to do ... create. Broadcast network programming more often has a bunch of assclowns tweaking every last aspect of the show to dumb it down to some generic demographic and in the process kill the show. In such cases, fewer episodes won't do much.
Anyway, I think we're already somewhat moving in that direction. There are all sorts of "short" seasons airing now, and not just during the Summer months like in the past. Personally, I think a show should run just as long as is necessary. If it only takes 6 episodes to do the best job, then do it. If you need 24, go for it. I do agree that it would be nice to give other shows a chance instead of airing an extra 10 stale episodes of some "hit" show since it's a safe bet. Looking at the way networks like NBC have acted in the last 5 years, though, I wouldn't get my hopes up ... there's a part of me that still expects to see Friends on the air in 2005.
das
01-14-04, 09:54 AM
#3
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Some network shows already do have the short seasons--Watching Ellie and Big Fat Greek Life had a what, two-week season?
And yet American Idol has got a 3-day opening episode.
I agree with dM, part of the problem is the suits' tendency to either give something about three minutes to become a hit, or if it is a hit, milk the hell out of it, regardless of any sharkjumping. Very few programs can continue with originality and creativity for the length of time some of these shows are running. If it's dead, kill it.
Also, the bandwagon aspect--once one network has a program like X that's a hit, all the other networks try to clone it, then shove it down our throat for weeks with 'encore presentations' [a-hem, in my part of town, we call that a 'rerun'] and 'double shots' while it's still considered a 'hit.'
Some of the shows I've enjoyed most have been the made-for-cable short time shows [Six Feet Under, Dead Like Me], but also one of my favorite shows is definitely not short term [The Simpsons]. I guess it comes down to, how long can the show stay interesting, engaging, entertaining, before riding on its own coattails? Also the weekly-format that a lot of the premium channels do helps with the 'waiting' aspect--in a way, we are getting spoiled by having the same show on every night, or Mon-Thurs, or S1-3 on DVD, etc. There's definitely something tantalizing about 'Next week on XXXX.'
And yet American Idol has got a 3-day opening episode.
I agree with dM, part of the problem is the suits' tendency to either give something about three minutes to become a hit, or if it is a hit, milk the hell out of it, regardless of any sharkjumping. Very few programs can continue with originality and creativity for the length of time some of these shows are running. If it's dead, kill it.
Also, the bandwagon aspect--once one network has a program like X that's a hit, all the other networks try to clone it, then shove it down our throat for weeks with 'encore presentations' [a-hem, in my part of town, we call that a 'rerun'] and 'double shots' while it's still considered a 'hit.'
Some of the shows I've enjoyed most have been the made-for-cable short time shows [Six Feet Under, Dead Like Me], but also one of my favorite shows is definitely not short term [The Simpsons]. I guess it comes down to, how long can the show stay interesting, engaging, entertaining, before riding on its own coattails? Also the weekly-format that a lot of the premium channels do helps with the 'waiting' aspect--in a way, we are getting spoiled by having the same show on every night, or Mon-Thurs, or S1-3 on DVD, etc. There's definitely something tantalizing about 'Next week on XXXX.'
01-14-04, 10:55 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Beautiful So. Oregon
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If quality can be increased I would support a shorter season. In the UK, for example, some of the very best shows only have a 6 episode season, but the results are spectacular because more time was taken inthe writing and production of the show.
Don't get me started on Nielsen, especially for cable networks. It's archaic and needs to go; I'm convinced it's still around because tv execs are too lazy to do anything different.
Don't get me started on Nielsen, especially for cable networks. It's archaic and needs to go; I'm convinced it's still around because tv execs are too lazy to do anything different.
