chainsaw_metal1
Member: Rank 8
Over the years, I have lamented that there were so many British programs that only lasted a few seasons/series, and then disappeared. As I've gotten older, I see some wisdom in this type of format. Often, programs will do only a few series, with about six episodes each. Some shows last for years, others make it only one series. It leaves the viewers wanting more, but I think that's rather brilliant.
Here in America, television programs can last for years, with anywhere from 12-24 episodes. Sometimes the show remains relevant to the audience, and can continue to entertain. Many times, we see shows that stay on the air for a decade or more, with people constantly complaining that the writing has lapsed, the actors are phoning it in, sitcoms are no longer funny, too many cast changes, etc. I understand, there must still be viewers, because shows don't stay on the air without ratings, and without ad revenue.
Personally, I think of shows like Seinfeld, a show that, while I was never a huge fan, seemed like it was just going through the motions by the end, and nowhere near as clever as the first few seasons. Sure, they were still high in the ratings when they finally called it quits, but did it really need to last as long as it did? On the other hand, a sitcom like Fawlty Towers did two series, and didn't grow stale or feel forced, even when Cleese and Booth were going through their divorce.
So here's the question(s), I guess. As some US shows are going more toward the fewer episodes/seasons format, should more go for it? Does a full season feel like there's too much filler, especially if there's a story arc for the whole season? Would taking a break between seasons be good for actors to have time away from the show, or are American audiences really too attention deficit and forget about the show if it didn't come right back in the fall?
Here in America, television programs can last for years, with anywhere from 12-24 episodes. Sometimes the show remains relevant to the audience, and can continue to entertain. Many times, we see shows that stay on the air for a decade or more, with people constantly complaining that the writing has lapsed, the actors are phoning it in, sitcoms are no longer funny, too many cast changes, etc. I understand, there must still be viewers, because shows don't stay on the air without ratings, and without ad revenue.
Personally, I think of shows like Seinfeld, a show that, while I was never a huge fan, seemed like it was just going through the motions by the end, and nowhere near as clever as the first few seasons. Sure, they were still high in the ratings when they finally called it quits, but did it really need to last as long as it did? On the other hand, a sitcom like Fawlty Towers did two series, and didn't grow stale or feel forced, even when Cleese and Booth were going through their divorce.
So here's the question(s), I guess. As some US shows are going more toward the fewer episodes/seasons format, should more go for it? Does a full season feel like there's too much filler, especially if there's a story arc for the whole season? Would taking a break between seasons be good for actors to have time away from the show, or are American audiences really too attention deficit and forget about the show if it didn't come right back in the fall?
