How many episodes is the right number?

Richard Dower

With Mike Kelly leaving Revenge due to a dispute over the 22 episode network season and the problem of filler episodes, weaker scripts, stretching out plotlines, adding needless/silly subplots etc. one has to ask......

.....how many episodes should there be?, we know there is the network model (22 episodes) and the cable model (normally 13 episodes but can vary from 8-16 episodes).

I dont think there is a set standard, for example lets use a network show like Nikita, 22 episodes is way too much. A very heavily serialised show suffers alot...moreso Nikita is more of a basic cable type show then network.

I think we know the problems of the network model, its hard on cast and crew, it dilutes per episode budgets, it leads to filler episodes, dropped plotpoints, deaths for ratings, a season arc strechted out way too much etc.


Imo i personally would like to see network shows adopt a 16 episode structure...but the crucial point is....NO BREAKS! :mad:

There is nothing that kills momentum and annoys fans more than a hiatus....i mean, Revolution had a 4 month hiatus ffs!, Glee is constantly airing two episodes and taking 4 weeks off.

If they adopted the shorter 13 episodes model....ran the 13 through Sept - Dec and then air a new show from Jan - March and a third show from March - May for example it would allow for alot more content.

Shows doing poorly in the ratings would not get a filler full season orders (Vegas/Nashville etc.)

But the episode order must suit the show, clearly network and cable shows are different, imagine Game Of Thrones with 22 episodes! :eek:
Then you have network shows that are clearly better off on cable - Hannibal/Nikita/Smash etc.

This is moreso a thread about the network model, but to broaden it to cable invites more discussion. Apparently next season CW president is adopting a short run 13 episode structure for this years pickups....we'll see how the experiment goes

don ramo

Richard Dower wrote: »

But the episode order must suit the show, clearly network and cable shows are different, imagine Game Of Thrones with 22 episodes! :eek:

we all wish, the content is there for it, but you get through all the books in about 4 seasons, when there are 2 more books yet to come, GOT is looking like a 9-10 season show on HBO, in fact 10 seasons of 10 episodes would be perfect,

more attention should be paid to how many episodes it takes to tell the story alright, and how long you want the show to run, like Spartacus, which from the beginning was planned to be about 50 episodes, it didnt hit 50 but that wouldnt have been to many,

a show like person of interest shows you can make a 22 episode season work, and there are many other shows that do the same, i generally put it down to the fact that these people actually set out a road map for their shows, unlike some shows where they just make it up as they go along, back in the 90s 26 episode seasons weren't uncommon, and they didn't have 20 minutes of breaks either, comedies had 5 minutes of ads and hour long shows had between 10-15,

16 episode seasons would be ideal, but then your show will have to hit the ground running, a lot of cable shows get off to slow starts, but cable channels can take more of a gamble on a show, wheras the networks wont give you that chance,

also on the networks your still restricted by the PC **** they have to deal with, no swearing or graphic content, like the walking dead would never make it past the censors of network tv, nor would game of thrones, in network tv land people can barely have a proper conversation, granted cable also suffers from that also, but network tv characters are far to well spoken, even in 24 when you know a character like jack bauer would have a colorful grasp on the english language, all he ever said was DAMN IT,

great shows can and have been made under the network model, and the reasons for the drop off in quality go much deeper than the amount of episodes in a series,

Mr E

Doesn't matter as long as the content is good and there are no breaks (like a 2 week gap here, a 3 week gap there - it ruins the continuity of the show and slows momentum).

When 24 changed to mid-season and ran straight through to May with no breaks, it was fantastic. I wish more shows adapted that idea. The viewing numbers could be maintained, advertisers would make more money and everyone wins (apart from networks who may have to add more to their schedule to fill in space before and/or after the show that filled that slot).

At the very least, do long solid blocks of 8-12 episodes, have a nice little cliffhanger to hook people in, and THEN have a break.

Look at this year's Criminal Minds as an example. More schedule holes than swiss cheese.

174 8-12 16/Jan/13
175 8-13 23/Jan/13
176 8-14 06/Feb/13
177 8-15 20/Feb/13
178 8-16 27/Feb/13
179 8-17 20/Mar/13
180 8-18 03/Apr/13
181 8-19 10/Apr/13
182 8-20 01/May/13
183 8-21 08/May/13
184 8-22 15/May/13
185 8-23 22/May/13

mike65

8 weeks. You can keep your "USA USA USA!" yawn inducing 22 episode series, complete with mid series breaks.

expectationlost

bout 16 yeah

hayser

I think 16 would be ideal but as has been said it depends on the programme and TV station. I also think most programmes are ready to go after 4 or 5 seasons.

krudler

Depends on the show tbh, right now I think The Walking Dead has too many, Game of Thrones could do with 2 more per season as it does feel rushed sometimes, whereas TWD is terminally dragged out for stuff that could be wrapped up in a couple of episodes. Sitcoms have far too many, 22 episodes for The Big Bang Theory? way too much especially for something that you can drop in and out of and doesnt really have much in the way of season arcs its more episode to episode based.

Hematocyte

It's depends on the show. Standalone episodic shows can be fine with 22-24 per season, but season arc type shows should have less. Furthermore even good shows with short runs can STILL have too many episodes. For example I enjoy the show Californication and find it fairly entertaining. But at the same time it has too many episodes per season. I'd say a good 2/3rds of everything that happens in it feels incidental or just revisiting old ground. That show could easily be six episodes per series and nothing would be lost.

As for hiatus, I just do what Irish people had to do in the dark ages (aka the pre-download era), which is basically "I wait til there is no wait". So rather than getting stuff as it airs I let the backlog build (often until the entire season is over) and then just watch them as a single unit. It's kind of like trying to not open your xmas presents til xmas day, but I find holding off leads to a better viewing experience in the long run.

TerrorFirmer

One show I was surprised at the length of for a pilot season is Arrow. I prefer live action shows other than comedy to clock in at about 12 episodes, anything more inevitably results in a dismal amount of filler artificially extending the run of the show - just look at the Walking Dead, a bloated carcass itself that dragged a storyline out that could have easily been resolved in half the episodes with no loss of integrity.

JP Liz V1

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

One show I was surprised at the length of for a pilot season is Arrow. I prefer live action shows other than comedy to clock in at about 12 episodes, anything more inevitably results in a dismal amount of filler artificially extending the run of the show - just look at the Walking Dead, a bloated carcass itself that dragged a storyline out that could have easily been resolved in half the episodes with no loss of integrity.

16 would be ideal but I think if the storyline is good and has enough to keep viewers watching then 22 episode seasons is fine but I do hate the damn breaks, Revenge and Arrow being two shows this season that seem to always have them :mad:

Kirby

This is one of the main problems with network tv.

Crews and showrunners get 13 episode orders or 22 episode orders off the back of a pilot and think to themselves, "Okay, now we have to write them". That's what leads to awful filler, poor pacing and schizophrenic shows that are great one week and horrid the next.

You write your story. That has to come first. You plan it, write it, re-write it, edit it, etc. and when it's done and perfect in your own mind you shoot it. A tight show with no fat and no filler. If it winds up being 6 episodes, 12 or 22 then so be it.

The old way of doing things made sense at the time but not anymore. TV has barely evolved when you compare it to other mediums. The technology has but the manner in which it's presented to us is basically the same as it was twenty years ago. We have 30 minute shows and 60 minute shows. We have 3-6 ad breaks. We have "seasons" and "sweeps" and "Nielson Ratings" and other such ridiculous concepts when you analyse them with a modern mind. The same crap we had decades ago.

There should be quality tv all year round. The sooner we move towards a more subscription based service, the better. No more shilling, no ad breaks. You pay for the channels you want and they keep you subscribed by going out and finding quality content. They don't judge success by taking a 0.0001% viewer sample and calling it accurate. They end up judging success by their subscriber base. That tells the true story.

Think of the shows you have watched and loved over the last ten years. How many came from the network and how many from subscription channels? And now think of the few that were on network TV.....how much better would they have been if they weren't?

The internet is slowly changing that which is a good thing.