4 ms·

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

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.
    - renjimen 8y ago
      I still expect to see better, more original scripts from individuals compared with collaborative efforts. That's my experience from science fiction at least, where many good authors have paired up to write a book and it is nearly never as good their individual works. You could be right about prejudices holding back the UK TV industry. I don't know much about that.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  The variance is bigger. You get some absolute crap, but you also get idiosyncratic works of singular genius. British TV is often much weirder, for better and for worse. I think it's no coincidence that many American hits were devised by British writers - our scattershot approach is the TV equivalent of Y Combinator. Channel 4 decided to broadcast Chris Morris's Jam. It wasn't an accident. They meant to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ods9xtuox8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ods9xtuox8
speedplane 8y ago
Most modern high production value American TV follows a very simple and predictable format: - first 2-3 minutes are an exciting blast of action or plot development - 45 minutes of slow paced character development where nothing happens but you learn the nuances of the the shows world - 10 minutes of a build up of tension - 1 or 2 to setup a cliffhanger - the next episode starts with action again and resolved the cliffhanger in a relatively unsatisfactory way that basically leaves the plot where it was Some people enjoy this format, but I personally don’t. It feels like the entire purpose of an episode is just to get you to watch the next episode. To me, it feels manipulative and I refuse to watch the next episode when faced with a cliffhanger. The cynic in me also feels that this is entirely intentional to attract eyeballs. That said, I know plenty of people who love the comfort of getting to know characters meander through a story-line, but these people love tv generally.

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.
  - renjimen 8y ago
    I still expect to see better, more original scripts from individuals compared with collaborative efforts. That's my experience from science fiction at least, where many good authors have paired up to write a book and it is nearly never as good their individual works. You could be right about prejudices holding back the UK TV industry. I don't know much about that.
jdietrich 8y ago
The variance is bigger. You get some absolute crap, but you also get idiosyncratic works of singular genius. British TV is often much weirder, for better and for worse. I think it's no coincidence that many American hits were devised by British writers - our scattershot approach is the TV equivalent of Y Combinator. Channel 4 decided to broadcast Chris Morris's Jam. It wasn't an accident. They meant to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ods9xtuox8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ods9xtuox8

speedplane 8y ago

Most modern high production value American TV follows a very simple and predictable format: - first 2-3 minutes are an exciting blast of action or plot development - 45 minutes of slow paced character development where nothing happens but you learn the nuances of the the shows world - 10 minutes of a build up of tension - 1 or 2 to setup a cliffhanger - the next episode starts with action again and resolved the cliffhanger in a relatively unsatisfactory way that basically leaves the plot where it was Some people enjoy this format, but I personally don’t. It feels like the entire purpose of an episode is just to get you to watch the next episode. To me, it feels manipulative and I refuse to watch the next episode when faced with a cliffhanger. The cynic in me also feels that this is entirely intentional to attract eyeballs. That said, I know plenty of people who love the comfort of getting to know characters meander through a story-line, but these people love tv generally.