4 ms·

It sounds like American networks are flirting with the British way of writing TV. The British version of The Office only ran for 14 episodes and was wholly wri

It sounds like American networks are flirting with the British way of writing TV. The British version of The Office only ran for 14 episodes and was wholly written by two people, versus 201 episodes and 40 credited writers for the American version. The original House of Cards only ran for four episodes. Even long-running series tend to be produced in much smaller quantities, because the norm is six episodes per season rather than 22. You can try out a much wider range of ideas if you just make less of each thing. It isn't as immediately profitable, but some of those ideas will become export hits. Not every programme needs to be mass produced.

ghaff 8y ago
The traditional American model has been the 20 episodes per season and as many seasons as you can get renewals for. In a lot of ways, I prefer shorter and fewer seasons for a lot of shows. At least for me a lot of shows outlive their welcome. Although that sentiment probably differs from that of a lot of fans.
- mynameishere 8y ago
  I mean, what are the ways? If an American show fails, you'll get your beloved 1 season run. If it's popular, it keeps going. What's the problem? The Simpsons and The Office and South Park and Seinfeld all hit their stride at season 3 or so.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    The incentives for writers and commissioners are totally different. In the American studio model, a one-season run is a failure. The process starts with the expectation that successful shows run for dozens or hundreds of episodes. In the British model, you can try out a lot of ideas that just aren't possible in that framework. You can have more meaningful character and plot development, because you're not worried about dragging things out. The American sitcom trope of everything resetting to normal at the end of an episode just isn't necessary. Nobody at the network is going to tell you that you can't write out a major character half way through the first series. You can write tight, self-contained dramas that resolve within the course of a series without any cliffhangers. You can experiment with ideas that have merit, but don't have any obvious potential to sustain a long-running series.
    - paulryanrogers 8y ago
      Syndication may pay a role too. IIRC, the threshold was like 70 episodes. And once it goes into reruns it may air indefinitely.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        It’s 100 episodes.
  - Adverblessly 8y ago
    The first problem is that these shows follow the Peter Principle. A show will continue to run until it becomes bad enough to be canceled. This means that many shows will have a bad, disappointing ending rather than a thrilling/touching/moving/memorable climax. The second problem is that given that the story may or may not have to continue for another season, how can the main characters get any form of meaningful character growth? How can they get closure or a conclusion when the next season is around the corner and either a new problem has to be invented for them or the existing one has to be reopened/continued? This is similar to the problem that "villain of the week" shows suffer from, just on a seasonal rather than episodic basis. This affects 1-season shows as well since: 1. If they only get one season it may be because they are bad. 2. The 1 season still needs to be written to allow for the possibility of a 2nd season, thus potentially making it less interesting. Of course, for some shows those things don't really matter, since no one watches The Simpsons, The Office, South Park or Seinfeld for the character growth. That isn't to say it is impossible to make a good plot-driven show with this format, just harder (and it is the reason why I rarely watch American TV shows).
    - jon-wood 8y ago
      I increasingly see this in films as well, with fewer films properly wrapping things up so that there’s space left for a sequel or twelve.
- learc83 8y ago
  The main thing I like about the British style is that they tend to make a season (series in British English) more self contained--they are less likely to end on a cliff hanger in the event the show doesn't come back.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Mitigating possible failure or betting on success... that's the key difference right there between the UK and the US. :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jon-wood 8y ago
I find the British model of 6-8 episode series, with a low possibility of renewal, leads to much better TV in my opinion. If you have to produce 20+ episodes of a series then your core story ends up being dragged out in 5 minute doses across all those episodes, and you inevitably end up with slow episodes where nothing much happens. Compare for example Line of Duty with The Shield. Both on the surface dramas about corrupt police officers, but Line of Duty is relentless in its plot development - there’s barely a sentence that doesn’t lead somewhere, whereas The Shield has whole episodes with nothing much of consequence.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Id disagree with the British model having a small number of writers or just one can lead to some very poor scripts getting made - where a collective writers room would have either fixed or killed and bad script. Also concentrating power in that way can lead to bullying eg why Christopher Ecclestone left Dr who or Russel Davis suiciding torch wood.
  - jon-wood 8y ago
    Sure, that’s the trade off, and for me I’d rather take the risk of a few really bad series or writers burning everything to ground. The alternative I see is a sea of highly polished but ultimately bland TV. For every Doctor Who, being slowly driven into the ground by hubris, you’re going to get something like Detectorists, where the writing team had the good sense (and because theirs only really two of them, the power) to decide to end while it was good.
  - renjimen 8y ago
    >> small number of writers or just one can lead to some very poor scripts getting made You're right, but on the flip side it allows for new ideas, which are what the best TV shows have. I'll take a wide distribution of quality over everything clumped around the mean.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Having a writers room doesn't stop new ideas getting made in the UK inertia and prejudice against "genre" fiction pay a bigger part.
megablast 8y ago
So 2 people for 7 hours, or 40 people for 100 hours. Not much difference really, and those 40 weren't working all the time on that one show.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Nine women can't give birth to a baby in one month. There are inherent compromises involved in the writers' room division of labour. It's extremely difficult for 40 people to share a coherent artistic vision.

ghaff 8y ago

The traditional American model has been the 20 episodes per season and as many seasons as you can get renewals for. In a lot of ways, I prefer shorter and fewer seasons for a lot of shows. At least for me a lot of shows outlive their welcome. Although that sentiment probably differs from that of a lot of fans.

mynameishere 8y ago
I mean, what are the ways? If an American show fails, you'll get your beloved 1 season run. If it's popular, it keeps going. What's the problem? The Simpsons and The Office and South Park and Seinfeld all hit their stride at season 3 or so.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  The incentives for writers and commissioners are totally different. In the American studio model, a one-season run is a failure. The process starts with the expectation that successful shows run for dozens or hundreds of episodes. In the British model, you can try out a lot of ideas that just aren't possible in that framework. You can have more meaningful character and plot development, because you're not worried about dragging things out. The American sitcom trope of everything resetting to normal at the end of an episode just isn't necessary. Nobody at the network is going to tell you that you can't write out a major character half way through the first series. You can write tight, self-contained dramas that resolve within the course of a series without any cliffhangers. You can experiment with ideas that have merit, but don't have any obvious potential to sustain a long-running series.
  - paulryanrogers 8y ago
    Syndication may pay a role too. IIRC, the threshold was like 70 episodes. And once it goes into reruns it may air indefinitely.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      It’s 100 episodes.
- Adverblessly 8y ago
  The first problem is that these shows follow the Peter Principle. A show will continue to run until it becomes bad enough to be canceled. This means that many shows will have a bad, disappointing ending rather than a thrilling/touching/moving/memorable climax. The second problem is that given that the story may or may not have to continue for another season, how can the main characters get any form of meaningful character growth? How can they get closure or a conclusion when the next season is around the corner and either a new problem has to be invented for them or the existing one has to be reopened/continued? This is similar to the problem that "villain of the week" shows suffer from, just on a seasonal rather than episodic basis. This affects 1-season shows as well since: 1. If they only get one season it may be because they are bad. 2. The 1 season still needs to be written to allow for the possibility of a 2nd season, thus potentially making it less interesting. Of course, for some shows those things don't really matter, since no one watches The Simpsons, The Office, South Park or Seinfeld for the character growth. That isn't to say it is impossible to make a good plot-driven show with this format, just harder (and it is the reason why I rarely watch American TV shows).
  - jon-wood 8y ago
    I increasingly see this in films as well, with fewer films properly wrapping things up so that there’s space left for a sequel or twelve.
learc83 8y ago
The main thing I like about the British style is that they tend to make a season (series in British English) more self contained--they are less likely to end on a cliff hanger in the event the show doesn't come back.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Mitigating possible failure or betting on success... that's the key difference right there between the UK and the US. :)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jon-wood 8y ago

I find the British model of 6-8 episode series, with a low possibility of renewal, leads to much better TV in my opinion. If you have to produce 20+ episodes of a series then your core story ends up being dragged out in 5 minute doses across all those episodes, and you inevitably end up with slow episodes where nothing much happens. Compare for example Line of Duty with The Shield. Both on the surface dramas about corrupt police officers, but Line of Duty is relentless in its plot development - there’s barely a sentence that doesn’t lead somewhere, whereas The Shield has whole episodes with nothing much of consequence.

walshemj 8y ago
Id disagree with the British model having a small number of writers or just one can lead to some very poor scripts getting made - where a collective writers room would have either fixed or killed and bad script. Also concentrating power in that way can lead to bullying eg why Christopher Ecclestone left Dr who or Russel Davis suiciding torch wood.
- jon-wood 8y ago
  Sure, that’s the trade off, and for me I’d rather take the risk of a few really bad series or writers burning everything to ground. The alternative I see is a sea of highly polished but ultimately bland TV. For every Doctor Who, being slowly driven into the ground by hubris, you’re going to get something like Detectorists, where the writing team had the good sense (and because theirs only really two of them, the power) to decide to end while it was good.
- renjimen 8y ago
  >> small number of writers or just one can lead to some very poor scripts getting made You're right, but on the flip side it allows for new ideas, which are what the best TV shows have. I'll take a wide distribution of quality over everything clumped around the mean.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Having a writers room doesn't stop new ideas getting made in the UK inertia and prejudice against "genre" fiction pay a bigger part.

megablast 8y ago

So 2 people for 7 hours, or 40 people for 100 hours. Not much difference really, and those 40 weren't working all the time on that one show.

jdietrich 8y ago
Nine women can't give birth to a baby in one month. There are inherent compromises involved in the writers' room division of labour. It's extremely difficult for 40 people to share a coherent artistic vision.