There's an interesting article online about the networks' attempt to combat the recession. It suggests cutting the number of episodes per season, following the British model for scripted fare.The writer is referring more to the British scripted dramas rather than comedies. In England, comedies are (usually) written by the creator(s). As a result, a British comedy usually has only six episodes per season. This both helps keep costs down and presents no haggling over ownership rights since there are fewer writers.
Reducing an episode order in the United States would reduce costs, and if it resulted in an increase in quality then I doubt people would mind so much. It could also give the networks more broadcast time to experiment with new types of programming. Perhaps we would even see the return of the mini-series.
Since DVD sales represent a huge chunk of the profit of a given series, it would even help DVD profits by reducing related costs. The American public has already had a taste of the reduced season size during the writer's strike. So what do you think? Would you watch a network show if it had 13 episodes instead of 22?
Gone Too Soon: Invasion
Scrubs season nine -- An early look
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1-31-2009 @ 3:11PM
Malren said...
YES. Given the likely increase in quality and the decrease in stretching things out to fill time? YES.
I fully support this idea.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 3:25PM
Jophiel said...
No. That works in other places because they dont cancel tv shows like dates with fugos... Here in america we need those 22 eps so shows can grow.
2-01-2009 @ 3:26PM
rickmiller57 said...
I agree with shorter or limited seasons. Another reason that hasn't been mentioned yet is acting talent. One of the reasons that 'movie' actors don't do television is the open-ended nature and long-term commitment required. The shortened, irregular seasons favored by cable networks allows for 'movie' actors to do episodic television and still remain active in movies. An in-demand actor is also more likely to commit to a series if an end date or finite number of episodes is involved.
1-31-2009 @ 3:12PM
RadioScott said...
Absolutely. I've often that the quality of the shows would go way up, too. The quality shows that have been on cable such as The Shield, Mad Men, and Battlestar Galactica have always had short seasons. If you put all of your energy into 13 episodes per year rather than 22, then of course those 13 are going to be outstanding.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 3:26PM
Ashley Boyd said...
BSG had one short season (excluding the strike interrupted 4th as if it hadn't happened season 4 would have been over ages ago).
Anyway. As a Brit I say no. I prefer seasons longer. Obviously some shows miss but if done correctly 22 (+) episodes can be great fun.
1-31-2009 @ 3:36PM
Paul said...
I would like this if they started airing more shows, and didn't just throw in crappy reality shows or repeats to fill in the space.
The reason I like TV so much, though, is the incredible character development available. If shows still had the same number of seasons, this would mean a lot less of the character development I love. But repeating other people's comments, it would likely weed out all the crap and filler, too.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 3:42PM
Man said...
More ideas to kill TV from the short-attention-span audience.
I prefer longer seasons.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 3:48PM
Joe said...
The point is that it takes alot for studios to get a show off the ground. Once the start up costs of building sets and getting a cast and crew together are all paid, every episode afterwards gets relatively cheaper to make, as it balances out that initial cost. So having fewer shows punching out more episodes is actually cost effective for studios, especially when every season gets them another fifth of the way towards that magic 100-episode syndication mark.
The point of that article appears to be that shorter seasons are just one of the things luring the best people to cable television and networks need to change to bring them all back.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 4:01PM
Man said...
"that magic 100-episode syndication mark."
This no longer exists.
1-31-2009 @ 4:54PM
Joe said...
Sure, there's the odd exception, but see Stargate Atlantis if you're looking for proof this rule is still alive and well. If you'd like to provide any evidence to the contrary, I'll keep an eye on the post.
1-31-2009 @ 6:31PM
Man said...
Sopranos 86 episodes syndicated on five channels , 1 broad cast 4 cable.
Wonderfalls 13 episodes syndicated to Logo among others.
"Fox's request set in motion a review of the rules and a protracted legal battle that led first to a phasing out of the prohibition against the networks producing or holding a financial stake in prime-time programming and ultimately, by the fall of 1995, to the removal of the last of the regulations on network participation in the syndication market"
14 years since the 100(actually75-100) episode rule has been gone.
2-01-2009 @ 12:20AM
Joe said...
I'm not saying it's an actual rule. It's just an approximation of the number that usually makes a show worthwhile to purchase for syndication. As you mentioned, 75-100 is about right and the Sopranos' 86 fits squarely in that. Wonderfalls' syndication is a product of a cult audience and cable channels having to fill their hours.
The point is that with increases in cast and crew salaries and diminishing viewership, the profit margin from the show gets smaller and smaller. However, when there is enough of the show to sell as a package and repeat on television ad infinitum (usually ~100), then a whole new heap of money comes in for those rights and it's a good time to cash out and cancel the show. Studios will sometimes renew a show (see According to Jim) simply to make a mint in syndication.
I believe you may have misunderstood the implication of the quote and the entire article from which it is taken. The point of the article is that despite the removal of these regulations, little has changed.
I think the fact that the 100-episode mark is an approximation of a studio's goal so that they cash out by cancelling and selling rights makes it a valid "rule" for the current state of television.
1-31-2009 @ 3:56PM
jj said...
Possibly would enjoy better, but the DVD profits would surely go down....
Who would pay the same amount for 10 or 13 episodes when for the same price they could choose a show with 22+. So the full season sets would have to charge less.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 3:59PM
Modwild said...
The shorter seasons also seem to come with longer episodes. I doubt they will ever change from 40 watchable minutes to 60 in this scenario, so no.
For being the creators of the golden age of all entertainment, I think greed took over any hope we had to continue onward in a satisfying manner.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 4:16PM
Pierre-Luc Allie said...
Yes. By having only 13 episodes a year, you allow the actors to have a bigger career in movies and guest-starring in other tv show. I think it would be easier to get better actor for tv show.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 4:19PM
Fahad said...
Depends on the show.
24 and Lost need all the season episodes, there no fillers in those shows.
But shows like CSI and stuff yeah I wouldn't care if they cut them too 13 episodes a season.
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 5:37PM
Lars said...
I think it should really be the other way, shows like CSI, House or the likes, should be as long as possible as each episode stands more alone. If you're doing a series with an ongoing storyarc, it would be better to condense the series into thirteen one-hour episodes. Most of the great _quality_ series such as The Wire, The Shield, Sopranos, Mad Men all have gloriuos 12-13 episode seasons and they work great. For series such as The Office, How I Met Your Mother or even Life, a 22+ season works great.
1-31-2009 @ 6:11PM
Dan Buckley said...
I hope that was some sort of joke. LOST got better after they cut back to a 16 episode season. Having and end date also helped. 3 seasons this length is the same as two 24 episode seasons. I'd rather have a shorter season than another one where we find out about the tattoo of someone.
24 is only 24 episodes cause that's part of it's hook. It usually drags in the middle every year and picks up in the end.
Shorter seasons allows for planing of story arcs that can be dealt with in a timely manner. They don't have to pad it with weaker episodes just to fill up the season
1-31-2009 @ 4:23PM
Jason said...
I think it partially depends on the format of the show. If it's a straight-forward procedural (see CBS) it's likely a bit easier to stay long; mostly self-contained stories, and less focus on personal drama overall. Serials and genre fare (see cable) have tended to work better with the tighter seasons. It makes it easier to map out where things will go in advance for one, and it can make it possible to nab bigger-name stars for the shorter production cycle. Lost seems like a case study in how serials should function. After some hefty wheel-spinning during season 2 (and the opening arc of season 3, less so), they found their footing and have had a near-perfect track record since then. It doesn't apply in every single case (Babylon 5 comes to mind) but in general, shorter seasons of around 15 episodes would allow for a more focused approach to storytelling. Serials aren't as likely to be as popular (in the mainstream) or run as long as more generic shows anyway, so the networks would be smart to get the best and most effective ideas into production; a shorter run means less risk/damage to the studio if they decide to cancel after the season runs. It's worked too well on cable to be a fluke. On the other hand, I doubt I'm the only one who remembers the failure of "Day Break" from a couple years ago...
Reply
1-31-2009 @ 4:37PM
Bill said...
Seems like it would reduce costs sorta only in theory. Your pre-production costs, building your main sets, they get spread out over a handful of episodes instead of 22, that drives up the per-episode cost, doesn't it?
And really, the TV business seems to be about building a hit then squeezing all you can get out of it. There's no way a network wants to air fewer episodes of their hit shows.
Reply