19 ms·

Personal opinion from a brit: US series are too long. It is a psychological thing I guess - sitting down and perusing netflix, see something you like but then

Personal opinion from a brit: US series are too long. It is a psychological thing I guess - sitting down and perusing netflix, see something you like but then realise it is 24 hour-long episodes just in the first season. It is a turn off - I can't commit upfront to that amount of time to something entirely unknown to me. Especially since in a lot of series I've watched, they often lose their way and 99 times out 100 the last 2 or 3 seasons inevitably decay into a "will-they-wont-they" thing about two characters falling in love or whatever, and the rest of the cast and whatever made the series good originally is mostly ignored. Then they're cancelled. So e.g. Lost, US Office, that 70s show and many more all went on way too long while dancing around with romance between two characters etc etc while ignoring what made the first season or two appealing. Don't get me wrong, I love binge watching something good and I am disappointed when I run out of episodes or whatever, but it is good for people to know when to end a show and leave people with good memories, rather than turning it into a death march where people are relieved to just have finished the show. Give me 8 to 10 good episodes per season, and please don't string it out for 7, 8, 9 seasons when there is only enough ideas for 2 or maybe rarely 3 seasons's worth of episodes.

ghaff 6y ago
I totally agree with you. I have a friend who is entirely the opposite. She's really into Masterpiece Treater type stuff and she's constantly complaining about 5 episode seasons and series that only last a few of those seasons. >please don't string it out for 7, 8, 9 seasons Especially historically on broadcast TV, there were a lot of incentives all around to continue to milk a cash cow with a core audience who would watch it for the next 20 years given the opportunity. In addition to the networks, I'm sure many of the actors and others involved in a long-running show realize they'll probably never have as good a meal ticket again. So screw artistic vision.
golemotron 6y ago
It's acclimation. Since the 70s, the BBC has produced series for a particular number of episodes and then dropped them. There are some exceptions, like Doctor Who, but that has been the practice. In the US, historically, we just keep running until the ratings tell us to quit.
jguimont 6y ago
To be honest your examples were aired on TV some time ago where the normal season was 24 episodes (about 40-45 min long for seasons like Lost) and a half season 10 or 12. Most of the new shows are between 8 and 12 episodes about an hour long.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  I think you just stopped watching as many major network shows, as a quick look at NBC's current lineup still shows 15+ episode seasons is the norm.
  - duhi88 6y ago
    but shorter due to commercial breaks.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      I can't find any links for this off-hand, but I think the last time commercial time was increased was in the 1980s. "One-hour" shows have been 42 minutes long on US TV for decades now.
      - lkbm 6y ago
        I recall it changing when Star Trek: Voyager was on the air -- at least for Voyager. Looking at Amazon Prime, seems the episode length changed from 46 minutes to 44 minutes going from Season 5 (1999) to Season 6 (2000). (What I was remembering was 47 to 45, but this is a vague memory of a Usenet post I read twenty years ago.) EDIT: Also, I should note that Voyager was on Fox. If you're talking about NBC specifically, I have no data.
        pwinnski 6y ago
        Good point, it's likely different for different networks.
        deleted 6y ago
gowld 6y ago
The point of LOST was to dangle more and more plot twists to create cliffhanger suspense every episode, not tell a story.
- addicted 6y ago
  This is actually the exact opposite of what the LOST writers did. After season 1 or so, the show focused a lot more on relationships and the growth of its characters. This ended up being the largest source of complaints about the show. Most of the original viewers watched it because they enjoyed the mysteries and cliffhangers and wanted them answered. However, the show moved completely away from that which led to so many of the complaints that the original questions were not being answered.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Writing about the finale, the NYT's (or may have been Time magazine at the time) TV critic wrote that people who watched the show through the lens of relationships between characters were generally fine with the way the show finished up. While those watching the show for the mysteries hated it, in part for the reason you say.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
As an American, I generally agree. Something I appreciate about some foreign TV is the idea that a season of a show (series in UK-speak) is a self-contained entity, and sometimes each season changes something significant about the show which keeps things interesting.
alistairSH 6y ago
Agreed on the length of seasons for network prime-time shows. However, that's not really what the article is about. The shows mentioned are 8-10 episodes per season (both the canceled shows and Stranger Things). This is more about Netflix throwing shows against the wall so fast they never get to see if any of them stick. Which is silly - many of the best shows out there took a few seasons to hit their stride. Look at season rankings for Seinfeld or GoT - few people rank the first season of either as the best.
- treis 6y ago
  >This is more about Netflix throwing shows against the wall so fast they never get to see if any of them stick If they're good enough it will stick. See stranger things, house of cards, and orange is the new black for examples. The problem is that Netflix isn't very good at picking winners. They pay way more than anyone else for content and the results aren't there.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Haven't been able to get into Stranger Things but the other two shows started very strong. In fact, with House of Cards in particular, it was almost certainly never stronger than it was at the beginning. I think it's just a reality that in the era of streaming very few people are going to stick out a mediocre series in the hopes that it has enough good bones that the showrunners will eventually do something with them. Netflix made a lot of promises about what data would enable. There's very little indication it's helped Netflix to develop better shows.
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      Stranger Things is ironically a show that should have been just its first season.
      - andoriyu 6y ago
        It should have, but that show generates revenue outside of screen.
sails 6y ago
[removed]
- machello13 6y ago
  The UK version only lasted 2 seasons for a total of 14 episodes. It's very good, but I would argue the first 14 episodes of the US office are just as good. It's the later seasons that devolve into feel-good ho-hum sitcommery.
  - sails 6y ago
    Apparently that is the case. I've not watched the US version, but I was jokingly referring to the most common axis of comparison that parent post falls along that I've experienced.
racl101 6y ago
So true. I don't get why American TV shows always need to be ran to the ground. Like Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory are shows that should've gone past their 8th season. The Office should've never had those abysmal last two-three seasons. That '70s show should've never had those abysmal last three seasons. I always like it when creators and producers recognize when a show has run its course. This is why we have good memories of Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld stood to make something crazy like 5 million per episode if they had done a 10th season but he knew the show had run its course and ended it on a high note (something, btw, that was a plot point on an earlier episode). Same with Breaking Bad, they knew that they had a story to tell and that it didn't need to drag on and they delivered some of the finest 5 seasons of television drama that one could ever ask for.
- risorect 6y ago
  The old-school American network way of making (more) money was to run TV shows into the ground so that they had more episodes for syndication. HBO, Netflix, etc do not have that motivation.
  - JansjoFromIkea 6y ago
    Netflix payed $500m for the rights to steam seinfeld last year, HBO paid even more the Big Bang Theory. If you make a show that people will mindlessly put on for hundreds of hours, that's still worth an utterly insane amount of money for a very long time.
  - matthewowen 6y ago
    More color on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_episodes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_episodes
- pwinnski 6y ago
  So you're complaining about shows that shouldn't have lasted beyond season 8, and holding up as a good example a show that ran 5 seasons, while the article is about Netflix canceling shows after one or two seasons. Seems like there's a gap there.
judge2020 6y ago
To recommend some good shows, Mr. Robot seemed to play out its episodes in a good amount of time (only had 4 seasons, 2 wasn't amazing but served its purpose). Another is Ozark, which has been pretty entertaining, and the show's Bateman has said the upcoming season 4 will be its last, so it's not going to be strung too long either.
dcchambers 6y ago
> US series are too long. I generally agree with you. However, the main issue with Netflix is that they are cancelling shows without letting them wrap things up. Letting shows die on cliffhangers or when the cast and writers are finally getting into a groove. This does nothing but cause turmoil amongst the fan base and some of Netflix's most dedicated, paying customers. If they set out from the start to wrap things up in 2-3 seasons and let the writers plan for that, it would be fine. As of right now, they let writers build up massive plots in the first two seasons only to pull out the rug right when things are getting interesting.
- michaelbrave 6y ago
  100% this, even if they did a 1-2 episode wrap up on cancellation it would alleviate most of the problems.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    The problem with this is that the per-episode cost of a 1-2 show terminal microseason is much higher than the normal per episode cost, because you've got to pay people to come back for it and give up the opportunity for other work (or work around their replacement work, which also has costs.)
    - simias 6y ago
      That's a good point, but I wonder what's the cost of leaving shows completely unfinished in the long run. I know that I'm very unlikely to start watching a show if I know that it never reaches a satisfying conclusion. This in turn might create some "dead inventory" for Netflix, shows that people are reluctant to start watching because they're unfinished. Although there's cliffhanger and cliffhanger. Santa Clarita Diet for instance technically ends on a cliffhanger, but it's a last minute event that's supposed to introduce what they thought would be the next season. If you ignore the last scene basically every important plot thread up until that point is either wrapped up or at a status quo, so it's not such a terrible place to end a show. An other recent example is The Boys: while the show did get renewed for a third season the ending of season 2 could easily be a show final, you'd just have to get rid of the last couple of scenes introducing a cliffhanger for season 3. Conversely you have shows that clearly couldn't wrap their storyline in a satisfactory way before they were canceled. GLOW is unfortunately in this boat.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Series being too long isn't really related to the topic of discussion. And don't you sit there on your British Islands and tell me that The Misfits couldn't have enjoyed 2 or more seasons (provided that they show Rudy the door, that bloody bell knob).
recursive 6y ago
It could be a difference in assumptions. When I start watching a show, I generally don't imagine that I would have any reason to watch every single episode of every season. Rarely, I do. But more often I watch just an episode or two.
kossTKR 6y ago
Miniseries would make a lot of things better. Keep the same budget, polish more and make a beautifully intense plot-line. Afterwards you feel fulfilled and have a sense of accomplishment. It's the same with a lot of computer games. I remember i loved to binge when i was younger but when you are older than say mid twenties 50-70 hour games just annoy me. A good example of this is a game like Witcher 3, pretty cool game but just completely endless - frustrating for a person who also has a lot of work, family, friends etc. You never feel accomplished, its a stale feeling, and you don't remember half the plot because you don't have time to play 10 hours a day.
- aglavine 6y ago
  I liked in that sense Unbelievable. Great miniseries.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Miniseries are very expensive. Once you have your sets and art assets and actors and costumes you can crank out 2-10x as many hours of content at a much lower marginal cost.
fiftyacorn 6y ago
Totally agree. I end up watching BBC shows and think why the hell am I paying for neflix
Touche 6y ago
TV, especially broadcast TV, is not some high art form. It's a way to pass the hour or two before bed in exchange for watching some ads. People like the shows to keep going because it's not the storylines that pull them in, it's getting to live in this world that they like. So those seasons don't get replayed as much on streaming; so what.
- comeonseriously 6y ago
  You're describing a show like Modern Family. There's room for those types of shows. But something like The Capture is best left at 6 episodes and at best a couple seasons.
NoOneNew 6y ago
I think the biggest issue: there's more money behind "successful" US series compared to "successful" British. When a show gets big, more money is dumped on it. The issue with that goes beyond the standard creative problems that occur, it's also the management. When a show starts having budgets in the millions upon millions per episode, there are more eyes and thus, voices involved in the process that originally ignored said show when it was a "nobody". Eyes and voices that any logical person knows should be blind folded and gagged from having any sort of creative to artistic opinion. But, because their signatures are on the cheques, their word becomes law. From what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), that doesn't happen all that much with British shows as there's such a finite overall production budget and personnel to that market demographic compared to the US. There's budget increases to good shows, but it's no where near as drastic as what may happen to an American one.
- Pet_Ant 6y ago
  I think that is what made Schitt's Creek work. Small creative circle close to the project.
wolco2 6y ago
Shows like the walking dead grew into amazing shows but it took until 4th season. Short series/seasons can limit what you can do. Which means by show 8, you know there will be a falling out that reaches climax at show 10.. cliff hanger. Shows like glee hung on too long but it gave them space to make unexpected story lines... split the season in two..
- gherkinnn 6y ago
  I have to disagree. TWD after S01 consisted entirely of a soap opera cast eternally getting lost in the same acre of forest. You could slip episodes and not miss a thing. Maybe the writers attempted to tackle the now worn-out zombie theme by turning the show itself in to one. A meta-zombie, if you will.
  - sidlls 6y ago
    It wasn’t really quite that bad. Seasons 1-4 each had quite distinct “survive zombies” scenarios. The season with Terminus was when it started to get dicey: it was quite close to season 2 in terms of theme (“survive zombies while lost in the wild”). Around the end of the first season with Alexandria (6?) is when it effectively stopped being (mainly) about surviving a zombie apocalypse and more about humans fighting each other with some love drama tossed in, oh and some zombies here and there.
comeonseriously 6y ago
As an American, I agree. I would love to see more forethought go into the planning of series in the US. Plot it out for 1, 2 or 3 seasons of, say, 4 - 6 episodes and then just stop.
pwinnski 6y ago
I completely agree with you! In theory. In practice, I note that the UK version of The Office was 2 6-episode series plus 2 Christmas specials, for 14 episodes total, while the US remake ran for 201 episodes, and it's the US version that people seem to re-watch endlessly around the world, despite its very rough start.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  To be fair there are outliers in the UK too. The Doctor Who series has been going on since 1968 with 861 episodes too. It’s probably worth ignoring the outliers here and focusing on the median show.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    In the UK, Doctor Who is clearly an outlier. The other really long-running shows are soap operas like Eastenders or comedy panel shows. But in the US, there seem to be an awful lot of outliers, and it's on the strength of those series that Netflix initially established their following: Friends, The Office, Park and Rec, Seinfeld, Community, The Walking Dead, The Blacklist, Gilmore Girls, Grey's Anatomy, West Wing, That 70's Show, Supernatural, Criminal Minds, and I could keep going, honestly, for quite a while. So yes, there's an extent to which 5 or 8 seasons is less common, but the goal for US shows has been 100 episodes for decades now, which is usually 5 seasons of 20+ episodes each. If Netflix is adopting a more UK-like approach, that might result in better TV eventually, but it would be nice for creators to know they have to tell their story in 16 episodes rather than 100.
- toyg 6y ago
  > t's the US version that people seem to re-watch endlessly That's probably in no small part due to the fact that the US version is markedly more upbeat than the UK one. I honestly cannot watch the original anymore - despite being undoubtedly better written and better produced, it's just too bleak.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Probably because British actors don't want to commit to a 5 year contract.
brnt 6y ago
> US series are too long. My goto example for this: House of Cards. The original is so much less long-winded.
formercoder 6y ago
On the other hand, I feel like modern TV shows aren’t long enough. By that I mean they cover ground too quickly and lack depth. I miss Battlestar Galactica which would hint and lead you on and develop things slowly over years.
wonderwonder 6y ago
I agree with this. I really like the way European shows often allow each season to be standalone, if it ends on that season the story is fully wrapped up. Broadchurch is a good example of this. If the show ended after season 1 it was great, season 2 was good as well and if there is no season 3, then its not an issue, no dangling plotlines. Bodyguard was like this too. Nobel, a Norwegian show was like this as well, 1 season and it was great, no more was needed. If there is another season awesome but nothing is lost plotwise. These are all shows I found via netflix.
gumby 6y ago
You can just stop. I have watched a couple of shows with a good premise that then settled into a formula. So I just stopped watching after an enjoyable two or three episodes, or two seasons.
vaccinator 6y ago
They dont force you to watch new seasons... I usually stop after 5 seasons for series that I like quite a bit.
nelaboras 6y ago
I like that Netflix has a few 'limited series'. 8-10 episodes and the plot is complete. Great! There was one about an amazon murder/tribes/... Thing for which this just works perfectly. More story than a movie, no cliffhangers and no "monster of the week".
untog 6y ago
As a fellow Brit: what you're saying definitely applies to US network TV shows, but really not to the vast majority of what Netflix does. I'm not actually sure Netflix has any shows with the 22-24 episode seasons you'd see on US sitcoms.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Except, of course, that they've paid quite a lot of money to show popular US sitcoms with 22-24 episode seasons, since people tend to watch them over and over and over. That's really the gap, I guess: They're benefitting from broadcast networks letting shows run 100+ episodes, but not creating additional shows with more than 16-20 episodes. It seems reductive.
chongli 6y ago
I can't commit upfront to that amount of time to something entirely unknown to me. Why do you have to commit? Watch an episode or two. See if you like it. If not, move on.
crazygringo 6y ago
Hard disagree. First of all, most streaming shows are 10 episodes per season, 12 at most. But as for the number of seasons, what's amazing about television is how deep and intimate your knowledge of the characters becomes. The kind of emotional depth and resonance you get with characters in the 4th and 5th season of a show is simply unparalleled -- we know their life histories, and the smallest of scenes can shake us with the amount of meaning they convey. If you think of Mad Men or The Sopranos or The Americans or Breaking Bad -- my god, each season is better than the last because it's like they approach infinite richness. The last seasons get to levels none of the first seasons were able to. Also, it's a huge rarity for shows to make it to 7–9 seasons. The ones that do are because they're hugely popular and people want to watch them. If Game of Thrones had still had books to work off of, I think pretty much everybody would have loved 3 or 4 more seasons.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  I agree with your disagreement. If the goal is just to make an extended film around a single idea, then yes it has a high likelihood of burning out after 10-20 hours. If the goal is to set up a world that can act as a vehicle for commentary on the real world as it develops, then the only limiting factor is how long folks want to continue working on the show, as long as the audience is there. It's perfectly fine for something like a sitcom or sketch comedy show to have both long plot arcs as well as topical treatment of current events. And of course new storylines can be thought up over the course of a few years, as well as individual episodes that take creative detours. Also we have to remember that until very recently, series were consumed one episode at a time, in day/week intervals, or even longer. This I think also added to the deep emotional experience you mention for long-running series: we've lost the anticipation factor, and as the cliché goes, the anticipation of something is often better than the thing itself. It was like this for decades; Netflix streaming was introduced only about 13 years ago, it's first in-house series, House of Cards, came out 7 years ago. I think it'll still take a while for the industry–both creatively and logistically–to catch up to the cultural change we've undergone with binge watching streaming series.
halflings 6y ago
Notable exception: The Wire. 5 seasons, each covering a specific topic (politics, drug dealing, media) beyond telling the story, and when they ran out of topics and told the entire story they had, they just wrapped it up... they could've easily milked it and made 5 more meaningless seasons but luckily didn't.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Season 5 was already becoming somewhat shaky on The Wire though (at least in my opinion, the serial killer plot was a bit too much). Still one of my favorite shows of all time.
kerng 6y ago
Agreed about the length. 70s show and how I met your mother are good examples - they should have been at least 2-3 seasons shorter. Its painful to watch in the end.
fredophile 6y ago
I don't think US series are too long. I think they're just badly planned. I prefer the approach you see in anime were a show is usually contained in a single season. If the show does really well they make another show that is effectively the next season. If it does poorly any fans it did get aren't left with an unfinished product. For a planned multi season story arc Babylon 5 is the best example I can think of. The story arc was planned from the beginning and they stuck to the plan. The temptation to keep piling on more content to a successful show is huge. For multi season story arcs I think it's important for Netflix or whoever is making the show to commit to the whole thing regardless of early ratings. I'm far more likely to take a chance on a new show if I know the story line will be completed. I don't want to start watching a show only to find out they cancelled it in the middle of the story.
- corobo 6y ago
  I'd like to back up your theory with Breaking Bad. Perfect execution there too
MisterTea 6y ago
Counter point: British television shows are too short! My two all time favorite TV shows are Fawlty Towers and The Young Ones. Each consist of two 6 episode seasons. I really wish there were more. (though honestly, they did exactly what they set out to do, mic dropped, and the rest is history)
likeabbas 6y ago
Am I the only one who misses the 25 episode long seasons for shows like the X-Files? Sure it would have a string of episodes that weren’t great, but it gave more depth to the show than can be achieved with shorter seasons.
- omnibrain 6y ago
  No. While you can tell a tighter story in the shorter format a TV series for me is not only about the main Plot. It is also about building a rich world. Getting to know the characters besides the main plot, getting to know the side characters.
- olyjohn 6y ago
  Yes, I have been watching Star Trek DS9. I'm noticing how the show started off in traditional Trek format, with 100% individual episodes that were geared for syndication. A few seasons in, you start to get the big story arcs, like the Dominion War... and that's when things really start to get good. BUT, it was cool every once in a while to have a side story that wasn't part of the arc. It gave a lot of variety and depth to the show. It kind of makes you feel like there's really a whole Trek universe. That not everybody was involved in the war, and that people still were trying to live their lives despite the war.
mongol 6y ago
So true. Generally I prefer a single season. Something with a conclusion and without open ends.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
everdrive 6y ago
100% agreed here. If a show only has 2-4 seasons, that's a selling point for me. Usually, around season 5, you can see the quality seriously drop as the writers have exhausted all their best ideas. Or else, new events must ever-escalate in intensity, and so the old seasons were sort of grounded and realistic, and the new seasons are zany adventures that don't fit at all.
throwaway894345 6y ago
I think the “devolving into will they / won’t they” is orthogonal you the number of seasons. Many American shows are often set up around this plot line from the beginning—it’s a reflection of the vapid quality of American television in general (I blame the LA monoculture in particular). It’s not inherently a devolution; it’s just a “safe” plot line that most shows are unwilling to stray from. I have no doubt that a talented writer (who is willing to step outside of the Hollywood cookie cutter) could make a good show that lasts many seasons with many episodes per season provided the studio affords them the freedom to stray from the mold.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
C1sc0cat 6y ago
I am from the UK and think the opposite Your just used to the slower pace of the Uk media industry and to be blunt the gifted amateur pov. There is no actual reason that Dr Who could not do longer seasons for example they had to commit to hiring better writers and to develop them.
croes 6y ago
Netflix original series have 8 to 10 episodes. Series with more are just on syndication on Netflix. But the main problem is Netflix kills shows after one or two seasons, leaving you with a cliffhanger.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I often feel shows that have a clean arc ending around season 4 or 5 are just about perfect length. I generally dislike 7-10 episode seasons though, I feel they're way to short. And yeah, the biggest issue is that Netflix is giving shows only one season, and usually a cliffhanger. It also kills off a lot of shows before they have a chance to get good: Star Trek is notorious for getting good around season 3 of any given series. A lot of iconic television wouldn't have ever existed if it was cut off because of the quality of their first season.
corobo 6y ago
From another Brit to balance out that anecdata - no they're not and I disagree. I will grant though that when they try to replace main characters it can go to crap (Scrubs, sort of The Office, personally I also grew tired of Game of Thrones early on) but I'd much rather have more of a good thing than less
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  :) Turns out consumers have lots of diverse preferences. I, for one, think shows are actually far too reluctant to remove main characters.
  - corobo 6y ago
    Absolutely. I just didn't want "seasons are too long" to come off as a nationwide feeling here. I can speak for myself :)
shanecleveland 6y ago
Agreed. My favorite series of all time is the original, British version of The Office. While I believe it also did not have a planned, proper ending, it was only a few seasons. I never enjoyed the US version as much and lost interest after a few seasons. Despite incredible earlier seasons, have also failed to finish many others, including 24, House of Cards, Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, etc. Just end it!
mixmastamyk 6y ago
This reminds me of a similar idea I came to a few years back. I noticed that 10-13 episode/year shows tended to be better than average, while 22-26 episode/year tended to be worse on average and have large numbers of garbage episodes. The second group is how traditional US shows were done in the days of classic TV, to be shown twice in a 52 week year. It came to me a few years back after watching the remastered Star Trek TNG, later an early season of Game of Thrones. Even though TNG was given plenty of time to hit its stride and had some incredible episodes, another half were just crap. Meanwhile early GOT season would have ten decent episodes in a row. The difference in average quality was striking. Of course, GOT had the benefit of being mostly written beforehand, similar to Babylon 5, one of the first series to break episodic containment. TL;DR: TV show law - A dozen or so episodes per season is the limit of a writing team. Produce any more than that and they are guaranteed to be phoned-in filler.

ghaff 6y ago

I totally agree with you. I have a friend who is entirely the opposite. She's really into Masterpiece Treater type stuff and she's constantly complaining about 5 episode seasons and series that only last a few of those seasons. >please don't string it out for 7, 8, 9 seasons Especially historically on broadcast TV, there were a lot of incentives all around to continue to milk a cash cow with a core audience who would watch it for the next 20 years given the opportunity. In addition to the networks, I'm sure many of the actors and others involved in a long-running show realize they'll probably never have as good a meal ticket again. So screw artistic vision.

golemotron 6y ago

It's acclimation. Since the 70s, the BBC has produced series for a particular number of episodes and then dropped them. There are some exceptions, like Doctor Who, but that has been the practice. In the US, historically, we just keep running until the ratings tell us to quit.

jguimont 6y ago

To be honest your examples were aired on TV some time ago where the normal season was 24 episodes (about 40-45 min long for seasons like Lost) and a half season 10 or 12. Most of the new shows are between 8 and 12 episodes about an hour long.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
I think you just stopped watching as many major network shows, as a quick look at NBC's current lineup still shows 15+ episode seasons is the norm.
- duhi88 6y ago
  but shorter due to commercial breaks.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    I can't find any links for this off-hand, but I think the last time commercial time was increased was in the 1980s. "One-hour" shows have been 42 minutes long on US TV for decades now.
    - lkbm 6y ago
      I recall it changing when Star Trek: Voyager was on the air -- at least for Voyager. Looking at Amazon Prime, seems the episode length changed from 46 minutes to 44 minutes going from Season 5 (1999) to Season 6 (2000). (What I was remembering was 47 to 45, but this is a vague memory of a Usenet post I read twenty years ago.) EDIT: Also, I should note that Voyager was on Fox. If you're talking about NBC specifically, I have no data.
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        Good point, it's likely different for different networks.
      - deleted 6y ago

gowld 6y ago

The point of LOST was to dangle more and more plot twists to create cliffhanger suspense every episode, not tell a story.

addicted 6y ago
This is actually the exact opposite of what the LOST writers did. After season 1 or so, the show focused a lot more on relationships and the growth of its characters. This ended up being the largest source of complaints about the show. Most of the original viewers watched it because they enjoyed the mysteries and cliffhangers and wanted them answered. However, the show moved completely away from that which led to so many of the complaints that the original questions were not being answered.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Writing about the finale, the NYT's (or may have been Time magazine at the time) TV critic wrote that people who watched the show through the lens of relationships between characters were generally fine with the way the show finished up. While those watching the show for the mysteries hated it, in part for the reason you say.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

As an American, I generally agree. Something I appreciate about some foreign TV is the idea that a season of a show (series in UK-speak) is a self-contained entity, and sometimes each season changes something significant about the show which keeps things interesting.

alistairSH 6y ago

Agreed on the length of seasons for network prime-time shows. However, that's not really what the article is about. The shows mentioned are 8-10 episodes per season (both the canceled shows and Stranger Things). This is more about Netflix throwing shows against the wall so fast they never get to see if any of them stick. Which is silly - many of the best shows out there took a few seasons to hit their stride. Look at season rankings for Seinfeld or GoT - few people rank the first season of either as the best.

treis 6y ago
>This is more about Netflix throwing shows against the wall so fast they never get to see if any of them stick If they're good enough it will stick. See stranger things, house of cards, and orange is the new black for examples. The problem is that Netflix isn't very good at picking winners. They pay way more than anyone else for content and the results aren't there.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Haven't been able to get into Stranger Things but the other two shows started very strong. In fact, with House of Cards in particular, it was almost certainly never stronger than it was at the beginning. I think it's just a reality that in the era of streaming very few people are going to stick out a mediocre series in the hopes that it has enough good bones that the showrunners will eventually do something with them. Netflix made a lot of promises about what data would enable. There's very little indication it's helped Netflix to develop better shows.
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    Stranger Things is ironically a show that should have been just its first season.
    - andoriyu 6y ago
      It should have, but that show generates revenue outside of screen.

sails 6y ago

[removed]

machello13 6y ago
The UK version only lasted 2 seasons for a total of 14 episodes. It's very good, but I would argue the first 14 episodes of the US office are just as good. It's the later seasons that devolve into feel-good ho-hum sitcommery.
- sails 6y ago
  Apparently that is the case. I've not watched the US version, but I was jokingly referring to the most common axis of comparison that parent post falls along that I've experienced.

racl101 6y ago

So true. I don't get why American TV shows always need to be ran to the ground. Like Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory are shows that should've gone past their 8th season. The Office should've never had those abysmal last two-three seasons. That '70s show should've never had those abysmal last three seasons. I always like it when creators and producers recognize when a show has run its course. This is why we have good memories of Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld stood to make something crazy like 5 million per episode if they had done a 10th season but he knew the show had run its course and ended it on a high note (something, btw, that was a plot point on an earlier episode). Same with Breaking Bad, they knew that they had a story to tell and that it didn't need to drag on and they delivered some of the finest 5 seasons of television drama that one could ever ask for.

risorect 6y ago
The old-school American network way of making (more) money was to run TV shows into the ground so that they had more episodes for syndication. HBO, Netflix, etc do not have that motivation.
- JansjoFromIkea 6y ago
  Netflix payed $500m for the rights to steam seinfeld last year, HBO paid even more the Big Bang Theory. If you make a show that people will mindlessly put on for hundreds of hours, that's still worth an utterly insane amount of money for a very long time.
- matthewowen 6y ago
  More color on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_episodes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_episodes
pwinnski 6y ago
So you're complaining about shows that shouldn't have lasted beyond season 8, and holding up as a good example a show that ran 5 seasons, while the article is about Netflix canceling shows after one or two seasons. Seems like there's a gap there.

judge2020 6y ago

To recommend some good shows, Mr. Robot seemed to play out its episodes in a good amount of time (only had 4 seasons, 2 wasn't amazing but served its purpose). Another is Ozark, which has been pretty entertaining, and the show's Bateman has said the upcoming season 4 will be its last, so it's not going to be strung too long either.

dcchambers 6y ago

> US series are too long. I generally agree with you. However, the main issue with Netflix is that they are cancelling shows without letting them wrap things up. Letting shows die on cliffhangers or when the cast and writers are finally getting into a groove. This does nothing but cause turmoil amongst the fan base and some of Netflix's most dedicated, paying customers. If they set out from the start to wrap things up in 2-3 seasons and let the writers plan for that, it would be fine. As of right now, they let writers build up massive plots in the first two seasons only to pull out the rug right when things are getting interesting.

michaelbrave 6y ago
100% this, even if they did a 1-2 episode wrap up on cancellation it would alleviate most of the problems.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The problem with this is that the per-episode cost of a 1-2 show terminal microseason is much higher than the normal per episode cost, because you've got to pay people to come back for it and give up the opportunity for other work (or work around their replacement work, which also has costs.)
  - simias 6y ago
    That's a good point, but I wonder what's the cost of leaving shows completely unfinished in the long run. I know that I'm very unlikely to start watching a show if I know that it never reaches a satisfying conclusion. This in turn might create some "dead inventory" for Netflix, shows that people are reluctant to start watching because they're unfinished. Although there's cliffhanger and cliffhanger. Santa Clarita Diet for instance technically ends on a cliffhanger, but it's a last minute event that's supposed to introduce what they thought would be the next season. If you ignore the last scene basically every important plot thread up until that point is either wrapped up or at a status quo, so it's not such a terrible place to end a show. An other recent example is The Boys: while the show did get renewed for a third season the ending of season 2 could easily be a show final, you'd just have to get rid of the last couple of scenes introducing a cliffhanger for season 3. Conversely you have shows that clearly couldn't wrap their storyline in a satisfactory way before they were canceled. GLOW is unfortunately in this boat.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

Series being too long isn't really related to the topic of discussion. And don't you sit there on your British Islands and tell me that The Misfits couldn't have enjoyed 2 or more seasons (provided that they show Rudy the door, that bloody bell knob).

recursive 6y ago

It could be a difference in assumptions. When I start watching a show, I generally don't imagine that I would have any reason to watch every single episode of every season. Rarely, I do. But more often I watch just an episode or two.

kossTKR 6y ago

Miniseries would make a lot of things better. Keep the same budget, polish more and make a beautifully intense plot-line. Afterwards you feel fulfilled and have a sense of accomplishment. It's the same with a lot of computer games. I remember i loved to binge when i was younger but when you are older than say mid twenties 50-70 hour games just annoy me. A good example of this is a game like Witcher 3, pretty cool game but just completely endless - frustrating for a person who also has a lot of work, family, friends etc. You never feel accomplished, its a stale feeling, and you don't remember half the plot because you don't have time to play 10 hours a day.

aglavine 6y ago
I liked in that sense Unbelievable. Great miniseries.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Miniseries are very expensive. Once you have your sets and art assets and actors and costumes you can crank out 2-10x as many hours of content at a much lower marginal cost.

fiftyacorn 6y ago

Totally agree. I end up watching BBC shows and think why the hell am I paying for neflix

Touche 6y ago

TV, especially broadcast TV, is not some high art form. It's a way to pass the hour or two before bed in exchange for watching some ads. People like the shows to keep going because it's not the storylines that pull them in, it's getting to live in this world that they like. So those seasons don't get replayed as much on streaming; so what.

comeonseriously 6y ago
You're describing a show like Modern Family. There's room for those types of shows. But something like The Capture is best left at 6 episodes and at best a couple seasons.

NoOneNew 6y ago

I think the biggest issue: there's more money behind "successful" US series compared to "successful" British. When a show gets big, more money is dumped on it. The issue with that goes beyond the standard creative problems that occur, it's also the management. When a show starts having budgets in the millions upon millions per episode, there are more eyes and thus, voices involved in the process that originally ignored said show when it was a "nobody". Eyes and voices that any logical person knows should be blind folded and gagged from having any sort of creative to artistic opinion. But, because their signatures are on the cheques, their word becomes law. From what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), that doesn't happen all that much with British shows as there's such a finite overall production budget and personnel to that market demographic compared to the US. There's budget increases to good shows, but it's no where near as drastic as what may happen to an American one.

Pet_Ant 6y ago
I think that is what made Schitt's Creek work. Small creative circle close to the project.

wolco2 6y ago

Shows like the walking dead grew into amazing shows but it took until 4th season. Short series/seasons can limit what you can do. Which means by show 8, you know there will be a falling out that reaches climax at show 10.. cliff hanger. Shows like glee hung on too long but it gave them space to make unexpected story lines... split the season in two..

gherkinnn 6y ago
I have to disagree. TWD after S01 consisted entirely of a soap opera cast eternally getting lost in the same acre of forest. You could slip episodes and not miss a thing. Maybe the writers attempted to tackle the now worn-out zombie theme by turning the show itself in to one. A meta-zombie, if you will.
- sidlls 6y ago
  It wasn’t really quite that bad. Seasons 1-4 each had quite distinct “survive zombies” scenarios. The season with Terminus was when it started to get dicey: it was quite close to season 2 in terms of theme (“survive zombies while lost in the wild”). Around the end of the first season with Alexandria (6?) is when it effectively stopped being (mainly) about surviving a zombie apocalypse and more about humans fighting each other with some love drama tossed in, oh and some zombies here and there.

comeonseriously 6y ago

As an American, I agree. I would love to see more forethought go into the planning of series in the US. Plot it out for 1, 2 or 3 seasons of, say, 4 - 6 episodes and then just stop.

pwinnski 6y ago

I completely agree with you! In theory. In practice, I note that the UK version of The Office was 2 6-episode series plus 2 Christmas specials, for 14 episodes total, while the US remake ran for 201 episodes, and it's the US version that people seem to re-watch endlessly around the world, despite its very rough start.

ashtonkem 6y ago
To be fair there are outliers in the UK too. The Doctor Who series has been going on since 1968 with 861 episodes too. It’s probably worth ignoring the outliers here and focusing on the median show.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  In the UK, Doctor Who is clearly an outlier. The other really long-running shows are soap operas like Eastenders or comedy panel shows. But in the US, there seem to be an awful lot of outliers, and it's on the strength of those series that Netflix initially established their following: Friends, The Office, Park and Rec, Seinfeld, Community, The Walking Dead, The Blacklist, Gilmore Girls, Grey's Anatomy, West Wing, That 70's Show, Supernatural, Criminal Minds, and I could keep going, honestly, for quite a while. So yes, there's an extent to which 5 or 8 seasons is less common, but the goal for US shows has been 100 episodes for decades now, which is usually 5 seasons of 20+ episodes each. If Netflix is adopting a more UK-like approach, that might result in better TV eventually, but it would be nice for creators to know they have to tell their story in 16 episodes rather than 100.
toyg 6y ago
> t's the US version that people seem to re-watch endlessly That's probably in no small part due to the fact that the US version is markedly more upbeat than the UK one. I honestly cannot watch the original anymore - despite being undoubtedly better written and better produced, it's just too bleak.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
Probably because British actors don't want to commit to a 5 year contract.

brnt 6y ago

> US series are too long. My goto example for this: House of Cards. The original is so much less long-winded.

formercoder 6y ago

On the other hand, I feel like modern TV shows aren’t long enough. By that I mean they cover ground too quickly and lack depth. I miss Battlestar Galactica which would hint and lead you on and develop things slowly over years.

wonderwonder 6y ago

I agree with this. I really like the way European shows often allow each season to be standalone, if it ends on that season the story is fully wrapped up. Broadchurch is a good example of this. If the show ended after season 1 it was great, season 2 was good as well and if there is no season 3, then its not an issue, no dangling plotlines. Bodyguard was like this too. Nobel, a Norwegian show was like this as well, 1 season and it was great, no more was needed. If there is another season awesome but nothing is lost plotwise. These are all shows I found via netflix.

gumby 6y ago

You can just stop. I have watched a couple of shows with a good premise that then settled into a formula. So I just stopped watching after an enjoyable two or three episodes, or two seasons.

vaccinator 6y ago

They dont force you to watch new seasons... I usually stop after 5 seasons for series that I like quite a bit.

nelaboras 6y ago

I like that Netflix has a few 'limited series'. 8-10 episodes and the plot is complete. Great! There was one about an amazon murder/tribes/... Thing for which this just works perfectly. More story than a movie, no cliffhangers and no "monster of the week".

untog 6y ago

As a fellow Brit: what you're saying definitely applies to US network TV shows, but really not to the vast majority of what Netflix does. I'm not actually sure Netflix has any shows with the 22-24 episode seasons you'd see on US sitcoms.

pwinnski 6y ago
Except, of course, that they've paid quite a lot of money to show popular US sitcoms with 22-24 episode seasons, since people tend to watch them over and over and over. That's really the gap, I guess: They're benefitting from broadcast networks letting shows run 100+ episodes, but not creating additional shows with more than 16-20 episodes. It seems reductive.

chongli 6y ago

I can't commit upfront to that amount of time to something entirely unknown to me. Why do you have to commit? Watch an episode or two. See if you like it. If not, move on.

crazygringo 6y ago

Hard disagree. First of all, most streaming shows are 10 episodes per season, 12 at most. But as for the number of seasons, what's amazing about television is how deep and intimate your knowledge of the characters becomes. The kind of emotional depth and resonance you get with characters in the 4th and 5th season of a show is simply unparalleled -- we know their life histories, and the smallest of scenes can shake us with the amount of meaning they convey. If you think of Mad Men or The Sopranos or The Americans or Breaking Bad -- my god, each season is better than the last because it's like they approach infinite richness. The last seasons get to levels none of the first seasons were able to. Also, it's a huge rarity for shows to make it to 7–9 seasons. The ones that do are because they're hugely popular and people want to watch them. If Game of Thrones had still had books to work off of, I think pretty much everybody would have loved 3 or 4 more seasons.

sixstringtheory 6y ago
I agree with your disagreement. If the goal is just to make an extended film around a single idea, then yes it has a high likelihood of burning out after 10-20 hours. If the goal is to set up a world that can act as a vehicle for commentary on the real world as it develops, then the only limiting factor is how long folks want to continue working on the show, as long as the audience is there. It's perfectly fine for something like a sitcom or sketch comedy show to have both long plot arcs as well as topical treatment of current events. And of course new storylines can be thought up over the course of a few years, as well as individual episodes that take creative detours. Also we have to remember that until very recently, series were consumed one episode at a time, in day/week intervals, or even longer. This I think also added to the deep emotional experience you mention for long-running series: we've lost the anticipation factor, and as the cliché goes, the anticipation of something is often better than the thing itself. It was like this for decades; Netflix streaming was introduced only about 13 years ago, it's first in-house series, House of Cards, came out 7 years ago. I think it'll still take a while for the industry–both creatively and logistically–to catch up to the cultural change we've undergone with binge watching streaming series.

halflings 6y ago

Notable exception: The Wire. 5 seasons, each covering a specific topic (politics, drug dealing, media) beyond telling the story, and when they ran out of topics and told the entire story they had, they just wrapped it up... they could've easily milked it and made 5 more meaningless seasons but luckily didn't.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Season 5 was already becoming somewhat shaky on The Wire though (at least in my opinion, the serial killer plot was a bit too much). Still one of my favorite shows of all time.

kerng 6y ago

Agreed about the length. 70s show and how I met your mother are good examples - they should have been at least 2-3 seasons shorter. Its painful to watch in the end.

fredophile 6y ago

I don't think US series are too long. I think they're just badly planned. I prefer the approach you see in anime were a show is usually contained in a single season. If the show does really well they make another show that is effectively the next season. If it does poorly any fans it did get aren't left with an unfinished product. For a planned multi season story arc Babylon 5 is the best example I can think of. The story arc was planned from the beginning and they stuck to the plan. The temptation to keep piling on more content to a successful show is huge. For multi season story arcs I think it's important for Netflix or whoever is making the show to commit to the whole thing regardless of early ratings. I'm far more likely to take a chance on a new show if I know the story line will be completed. I don't want to start watching a show only to find out they cancelled it in the middle of the story.

corobo 6y ago
I'd like to back up your theory with Breaking Bad. Perfect execution there too

MisterTea 6y ago

Counter point: British television shows are too short! My two all time favorite TV shows are Fawlty Towers and The Young Ones. Each consist of two 6 episode seasons. I really wish there were more. (though honestly, they did exactly what they set out to do, mic dropped, and the rest is history)

likeabbas 6y ago

Am I the only one who misses the 25 episode long seasons for shows like the X-Files? Sure it would have a string of episodes that weren’t great, but it gave more depth to the show than can be achieved with shorter seasons.

omnibrain 6y ago
No. While you can tell a tighter story in the shorter format a TV series for me is not only about the main Plot. It is also about building a rich world. Getting to know the characters besides the main plot, getting to know the side characters.
olyjohn 6y ago
Yes, I have been watching Star Trek DS9. I'm noticing how the show started off in traditional Trek format, with 100% individual episodes that were geared for syndication. A few seasons in, you start to get the big story arcs, like the Dominion War... and that's when things really start to get good. BUT, it was cool every once in a while to have a side story that wasn't part of the arc. It gave a lot of variety and depth to the show. It kind of makes you feel like there's really a whole Trek universe. That not everybody was involved in the war, and that people still were trying to live their lives despite the war.

mongol 6y ago

So true. Generally I prefer a single season. Something with a conclusion and without open ends.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

everdrive 6y ago

100% agreed here. If a show only has 2-4 seasons, that's a selling point for me. Usually, around season 5, you can see the quality seriously drop as the writers have exhausted all their best ideas. Or else, new events must ever-escalate in intensity, and so the old seasons were sort of grounded and realistic, and the new seasons are zany adventures that don't fit at all.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I think the “devolving into will they / won’t they” is orthogonal you the number of seasons. Many American shows are often set up around this plot line from the beginning—it’s a reflection of the vapid quality of American television in general (I blame the LA monoculture in particular). It’s not inherently a devolution; it’s just a “safe” plot line that most shows are unwilling to stray from. I have no doubt that a talented writer (who is willing to step outside of the Hollywood cookie cutter) could make a good show that lasts many seasons with many episodes per season provided the studio affords them the freedom to stray from the mold.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

C1sc0cat 6y ago

I am from the UK and think the opposite Your just used to the slower pace of the Uk media industry and to be blunt the gifted amateur pov. There is no actual reason that Dr Who could not do longer seasons for example they had to commit to hiring better writers and to develop them.

croes 6y ago

Netflix original series have 8 to 10 episodes. Series with more are just on syndication on Netflix. But the main problem is Netflix kills shows after one or two seasons, leaving you with a cliffhanger.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

I often feel shows that have a clean arc ending around season 4 or 5 are just about perfect length. I generally dislike 7-10 episode seasons though, I feel they're way to short. And yeah, the biggest issue is that Netflix is giving shows only one season, and usually a cliffhanger. It also kills off a lot of shows before they have a chance to get good: Star Trek is notorious for getting good around season 3 of any given series. A lot of iconic television wouldn't have ever existed if it was cut off because of the quality of their first season.

corobo 6y ago

From another Brit to balance out that anecdata - no they're not and I disagree. I will grant though that when they try to replace main characters it can go to crap (Scrubs, sort of The Office, personally I also grew tired of Game of Thrones early on) but I'd much rather have more of a good thing than less

whimsicalism 6y ago
:) Turns out consumers have lots of diverse preferences. I, for one, think shows are actually far too reluctant to remove main characters.
- corobo 6y ago
  Absolutely. I just didn't want "seasons are too long" to come off as a nationwide feeling here. I can speak for myself :)

shanecleveland 6y ago

Agreed. My favorite series of all time is the original, British version of The Office. While I believe it also did not have a planned, proper ending, it was only a few seasons. I never enjoyed the US version as much and lost interest after a few seasons. Despite incredible earlier seasons, have also failed to finish many others, including 24, House of Cards, Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, etc. Just end it!

mixmastamyk 6y ago

This reminds me of a similar idea I came to a few years back. I noticed that 10-13 episode/year shows tended to be better than average, while 22-26 episode/year tended to be worse on average and have large numbers of garbage episodes. The second group is how traditional US shows were done in the days of classic TV, to be shown twice in a 52 week year. It came to me a few years back after watching the remastered Star Trek TNG, later an early season of Game of Thrones. Even though TNG was given plenty of time to hit its stride and had some incredible episodes, another half were just crap. Meanwhile early GOT season would have ten decent episodes in a row. The difference in average quality was striking. Of course, GOT had the benefit of being mostly written beforehand, similar to Babylon 5, one of the first series to break episodic containment. TL;DR: TV show law - A dozen or so episodes per season is the limit of a writing team. Produce any more than that and they are guaranteed to be phoned-in filler.