If TV shows came with shelf lifes?

Mark Hamill

Would it make them better?
I mean if tv shows that have a single multi-episode story arc that drives the show, like Lost and Prison Break, had said when they first came out that they would be X seasons long and at the end the show would be resolved.
ie: you would no longer have to worry about shows getting milked by greedy producers and then either getting cancelled before the story is finished or going on forever never to end.

Personally, I hate tv shows that are so obviously being milked, the worst offenders are:
Lost, which should have been 1 season IMO, may now be up to 7 seasons long (and all they do is add some new unknown group at the start of each damn season to pique interest, while barely moving the overall story along),
Prison Break, which should have 2 seasons: one in prison, one on the run, is now up to 4 with possibly a spin off on the cards,
Heroes, while still young, I feel will go on for ages only to peter out when everyone stops watching it because no resolution will ever come to its main villain (come on, it cant, Sylar is by far the best character on the show, if they get rid of them, they'll have to finish the show because no villain after him will live up to his memory, and they wont finish the show while its popular because it makes too much money).

Don't get me wrong, I really liked each of these shows during their first seasons, but by the second season I saw that each of these (and there are many mored) are ruined by the makers afraid to move onto new things.

ArmaniJeanss

The problem is that the initial cost of making these shows is so massive that, no matter how successful the first season, they don't actually start to turn a profit until around season 3.

Also in order to be considered a serious cash cow, they must generally get to the 100 episode mark which is considered the minimum that the syndication channels (the US equivalents of UKGold, TV6, E4, the stations that show the episodes on a continuous repeat cycle ad naseum) will work with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_episodes

dulpit

I don't particularly mind long running series, provided when the time comes for them to finish that they finish properly, with a decent finale, and not mid-season due to a cancellation or something...

Mark Hamill

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The problem is that the initial cost of making these shows is so massive that, no matter how successful the first season, they don't actually start to turn a profit until around season 3.

Also in order to be considered a serious cash cow, they must generally get to the 100 episode mark which is considered the minimum that the syndication channels (the US equivalents of UKGold, TV6, E4, the stations that show the episodes on a continuous repeat cycle ad naseum) will work with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_episodes

Fair enough, but how would that stop TV show makers announcing how long they expect a TV show to go on for? Most (book) writers nowadays will announce a new series and mention how long its expected to be (I've seen many brand new books that are advertised as being part one of a new trilogy etc).
Also, if it takes 3 seasons to make a profit, how do mini-series make money? (eg Tin-Man was only 3x2hr episodes).

Mark Hamill

dulpit wrote: »

I don't particularly mind long running series, provided when the time comes for them to finish that they finish properly, with a decent finale, and not mid-season due to a cancellation or something...

I'm not against long running TV shows per se, but I am against shows that really only work as 1 or 2 seasons being stretched out to 5 or 6 or more just for the sake of money (and then being cancelled or something like you said).
Some shows need to be pretty long to be told well, eg if they where to make a Tv show of "The Wheel of Time" (a 12 book series, averaging about 750 pages a book) it would need to be long.

ArmaniJeanss

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, if it takes 3 seasons to make a profit, how do mini-series make money? (eg Tin-Man was only 3x2hr episodes).

Fair point. I don't really know the answer to this.

TinMan was SciFi Channel, i think?. Maybe the finances work different there then on ABC/NBC networks.
Perhaps the SciFi channel doesn't need to do big advertising campaigns as their core audience is going to know about the program anyway, whereas NBC/ABC are trying to get an audience from the multitudes of station-flickers and thus needs to do billboards/TVGuides etc.
Perhaps the networks look at it that every success like Lost/Housewives has to cover a failure like BlackDonnellys or Jericho, and thats why they need 3+ series to make money.

I'm no expert (I'm an unqualified guesser in this thread to be honest ), I'd be interested if anyone has genuine information about how it operates.

elshambo

only fools and horses, a good show killed series on series
Allo Allo, first series is actually funny
load of old bbc comedies
The Simpsons
ALL soap operas

Saw an interview with someone involved with Lost a couple of years ago where they admitted they didnt know where the show was going, saw a bit of it the other day, looks like right old tosh, the whole "is it purgatory" bit at start was good, dont watch many series type things because of this kinda nonsense

Mark Hamill

elshambo wrote: »

only fools and horses, a good show killed series on series
Allo Allo, first series is actually funny
load of old bbc comedies
The Simpsons

I think that sitcoms can get away with being on for longer because they work more by the humour than by an overall storyline. Generally sitcoms, or shows that work by an episode to episode basis can go on for a long time without grating too much as long as they are well written (eg CSI works, even after so many seasons, because you can just jump in at any episode, the story lines are mostly self-contained).

Of course, this only applies if the writers can keep up the good level of writing, some [cough]The Simpsons[/cough] are long past being finished, the writing isn't really up to par any more.

ixoy

I'd love to see more shows come out with a set plan in mind and go for exactly the number of seasons required to tell the story they had in mind. Offhand, I can only think of two - 'The Wire' being one most recently, where they had the five different areas they wanted to explore.

The most prominent example to me is 'Babylon 5' where they had mapped out the show before it began and pretty much stuck it (yes, there were hiccups in the final season but that was somewhat beyond their control). It worked in a way that events in a first season would only often come into play two years on - but in a natural "ahhhh" way, rather than ever seeing forced.

Too many shows go by their sell by date while there's still money in them. "Simpsons" is an obvious one but I'd also point to "The X-Files" which is often seen as the classic genre show that went on too long and has been used as almost a cautionary tale since. Many others though took it too far but there's too much profit often in it and the chance at the golden 100 for syndication. It's a shame that there's the balance between creativity, artistic expression and corporate needs and that the latter often wins out.

Ivan

If they could find a way to end Seinfeld then they'll find a way to end Lost.

A cash cow of a series is one thing, but cast members dont want to get locked into the same thing day in and day out. All good things must come to an end eventually and thankfully, All bad things must come to an end even sooner.

kevmy

Well I wouldn't say you can't have a long running succesful series but there is a shelf life.

I would say no more than 7 seasons. Look at the amount of shows which finished after 7 seasons.

Having said that it's difficult to tell a proper drama story in less than 3 full length seasons (20-24 eps). It's different with shorter episode runs like HBO or Showtime (13 eps). Here I would say you would need 4 seasons anyway but keeping in mind each episode is a good 10 minutes longer than a network episode.

So having said all that the optimum amount of episodes is between 60 and 160 episodes depending on the type of show you write and whether you hit the road running

Mr E

I think Lost started off not knowing its own shelf life, but now they have a finite story in motion, and it will come to a conclusion in 2010.

Pigman II

Good thread.

I think shows should have a shelf-life, or at least a limited number of episodes. No show needs to have 200+ episodes and personally I can't think of any shows that remained consistently good past about 5 seasons.

Elmo

TV Drama should have a life of 5 - 10 seasons.

Those shows such as Lost, Hereos and Prison Break with the main plot running through out several different seasons should end after about 5 seasons (and even at that they are milking it).

24 has a similar problem but overcomes this by refusing to link each season together with a main plot line but depends on those links to come from characters and smaller plot lines. 24 also answers many of the questions it raises by the end of each season. However after 6 seasons 24 is milking it and should really have ended at season 5. 24 will now span from 2001 to 2010 with 8 seasons and a possible movie (milking it totally).

Other serials such as ER, Desprate Housewives, House, The Closer, CSI, Waking the Dead (token British series) and The Clinic (token Irish series) have a life span of 7 to 10 seasons, ER has milked it as it is now into its 14th season (???) CSI seems to be heading that way espically with the spin offs.

Soap operas can go on for ever but should not be shown during Prime Time. They are better suited to daytime television.

Comedies should let go around season 3 or 4 at the most e.g. Faulty Towers and Father Ted. American Sit Coms suffer from a 10 year run e.g. Friends, Cheers, Fraiser etc.