(Don't know if this is a jest post or not, but in case it isn't....)

Maybe because Alias' season started in January.

Plus you don't see Alias re-runs because isn't a ratings powerhouse.

Did you read this thread before posting? Maybe I should repost my explanation:

L8r

How else do you get 22 episodes in a 35+ week season (Sept-May) unless you skip some weeks?

How bout not having a 22 episode season? Have a 16 episode season wait to air it and then air it continously. I mean have breaks but not a fricking month between new episodes.

But then like 3/4 of the year you wouldn't have new episodes at all. I like a season that's spread out a bit with breaks in between.

But then you don't forget what happened between episodes. I barely remember episodes from the first half of the season.

If any event that transpired in a previous episode is important enough to know to enjoy a current episode, odds are that it'll be included in a Previously tag. Television has operated like this for decades. It's not a new concept. With the success of 24 and Alias, we may see more programming of this kind, but the math still has to hold true. If it takes 1.5 weeks to make an episode, and there are 22 episodes in a year, then it will take 33 weeks to produce them all, not counting holiday breaks, etc. When shows premiere, there are usually only a few episodes in the can, so there isn't much lead time at all. They probably shoot a month before it airs.

Unless every network waits to get a whole season in the can before airing it, you'll have to make due with blocks of repeats. The networks aren't going to do that for a new show, unless its season is abbreviated anyway (The Shield, Deadwood, Nip/Tuck, etc.), because to pay upwards of $40 - $50 million upfront and hope for the best is fiscal suicide. It's in the networks' best interest to air a handful of episodes first and hope it catches on. If the ratings merit a continuation, they order more episodes. If not, they cancel the show and lost no more than half the money they would have otherwise.

I know it sucks to sit through repeats, especially with serialized television shows, but it's necessary so there's no use in complaining about it. All the networks can do is try to minimize the number of repeats they show in a row. One month of repeats (4 episodes) is nothing compared to what some shows have to suffer through (6 - 8 episodes).

L8r

It annoys me, but only because I like the show. I watched Battlestar Gallactica over a period of a week. That was nice. I will probably do it again with that show. I wish I had done it with Lost. I kind of wonder if I won't just forget about it and watch all the remaining shows at the same time.

We are certainly spoiled

I've found that I can't watch the repeats of "Lost."

It just completely breaks up the rhythm since this show is part serial and part anthology. It wouldn't surprise me if they put this on a schedule similar to "Alias" or "24" eventually.

This is becoming a trend for me as well that I'm trying to break. I'm annoyed with something I can get for free, so I'll just buy it for my own leisure.

The most annoying thing for me is not being able to keep up with the schedule when the new ones start so I'd program the vcr and get a rerun then think they'll play more straight through and not program it when a new one airs.

The midseason shows do have an advantage playing straight through but that is a lot of lag from sept to jan. i've lost interest on many shows like that, let alone the normal 3 month summer wait. Lost did well starting in September with heavy competition, but it slips with all the reruns and the lack of continuity, That clip show didnt do much to help either.

I think the news about the extra episodes was something I heard way back in the beginning of the year. After New Year's there was a lot of reruns and I read that this happened because they had not ordered enough episodes when the show became a hit. So they ran out very early and were filming for months the new order of 10 episodes. That's where my problems started because the article misstated having reruns all January so I missed one new show the last week of Jan. and then another slew of reruns.


It's nice to have an alloted time for reruns if I dont normally follow a show, I can see if it's any good, as well as one show airs another day of the week or on the weekend so you can always have another chance instead of waiting for a random airing, like they used to show WB shows every Sunday and they would also air Lost on Saturday nights in the beginning of the season.


It would have been so cool to have Lost start in June and air uninterrupted all summer.

Again, a network isn't going to spend $40 - $50 million on a series and then air it and hope it's a hit. They get a few in the can and air it and if it does well they finish out the season. If not, they only lost perhaps $10 - 15 million. Maybe ABC will consider running it all at once now that it's a hit, but I wouldn't bet on it. It's a top ten show and they'll want to use it to springboard other series. When you have a show this hot, you don't use it as a midseason replacement.

I'm sure they'll rerun the entire season over the summer though and have it lead directly into Season 2.

L8r

It is a new annoyance for some of us who recall TV from the 50s/60s. When I was a kid I expected to see a new show every week from September - May and barring pre-emption for some unusual event, I did. Shows commonly aired 30-35+ shows during the "television season". Reruns during the season did NOT happen. Reruns were for the summer.
I have no idea when this changed. My job took me all over the world and there are whole blocks of years I saw no US TV. When I settled back in the US I couldn't understand the attraction to tivo. Now I get it. Tivo is necessary because television scheduling is so completely fucked up a normal human can't follow it without computer assistance. I'ts ironic. Networks bitch and moan about tivo/pvr yet they created the need. Morons. I'm truly amazed that networks have survived.
I completely understand those who want an uninterrupted season. I don't know what the answer is for you. Personally, I built a 500 gig PVR to take back control for myself. I can watch 'em as they come or save them all for the end of the year. No repeats, no disappointments... no commercials

I've really grown to love the 13 or so ep seasons (Deadwood, Battlestar Galactica, etc). Leaves practically no time for filler and no real need for repeats during the first run of the show. It seems like US networks are moving ever so closer to the UK way of airing shows. I would be delighted if there were two main seasons. September - December and Feb -May/June or something where they just ran blocks of shows. The summer season is pretty solid these days (usually being taken up by mini series, cable shows like DeadZone and Monk, and reality shows) that I wouldn't change it.

I now this isn't really feasible since ordering whole runs of shows when they may flop isn't realistic, but a guy can dream.

In the late 1960s, I believe.

I know the first season of the Bob Newhart Show, for example, only had 24 episodes, and that was 1972-73.

Or take a show like Green Acres which had 32 episodes in the first season in 1965-66, 29 episodes in season two in 1966-67, 29 episodes in season three in 1967-68, and was down to 25 episodes in season four in 1968-69 (seasons five and six also contained 25 episodes).

I don't know if Green Acres was representative of all shows, but it seems to be sometime around then that the seasons started getting shorter.

Of course, 25 episodes would be a long season for most shows these days. Twenty-two episodes seems to be the standard season order with a handful that go 24 episodes.

Because this is the WB..no body cares about those shows.

Read a re-cap. There are tons out there.

Or watch the clip show.