3 ms·

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 Simpson

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.

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.