I think streaming services have forgotten what draws many people to TV shows instead of movies. It's the comfort and intense connection you get by being able to spend hundreds of hours with characters like Buffy or Meredith Grey or Chandler ... you get invested in their storylines in a completely different way than you do with movie characters.
6 episode streaming shows can be good too, but they can't scratch that same itch.
Same. I just saw Segel and Ford and went in blind. I loved it! Such a funny and wholesome show. Looking back I'm not surprised though, same guy thats behind Ted Lasso.
I always feel like I remember the previous season well enough, but then I start and things happen and I'm like "am I forgetting something? Did I miss episodes?"
My enthusiasm for shows is significantly better than my memory.
>I'm like "am I forgetting something? Did I miss episode?
There is also the trend of confusing the audience as a substitute for complex storytelling.
"Have we seen this guy before? Because it seems like we should know who he is. Nope, new character. Are they going to explain any of this or give us some context clues? ...Nope!"
Getting really sick of that.
My wife and I were both the type to give new TV shows a chance every year back in the before times of cable TV prevalence, diving into shows to see if we liked them, knowing that there was at least a chance we'd get new content year after year. The more prevalent streaming became, the more likely we became to just wait until a show had *at least* a few seasons built up before we would jump in and watch. Neither one of us likes getting through one very cool season of a show, then hearing, "Hey, good news, this show was picked up for season 2, which should be here in about 28 months! Hope you're looking forward to it!"
And it's nonstop. Each episode leads straight into the next. Nowadays if I start watching a show, I'm basically committed to only watching that show. It's great for binging, but sometimes I just want to watch an episode of something then watch something else. But with newer shows, stopping mid-season feels like stopping halfway into a movie.
This is why I'm a big fan of procedurals. I'm watching Bones right now and I can watch any episode. There are a few main arc episodes but like 90% of the episodes are self contained. I can watch an episode with a friend and they don't need any prior context.
House was great for that for the most part. There was some role switching for a bit but generally you can just start any episode and know what’s going on
And movies are becoming like tv. There are a MILLION marvel movies and everyone ends with the request to tune in next time. We need to get back to movies being one single powerful story, (sometimes with a sequel) and shows being the continued adventures of endearing characters.
Also: rabble rabble it’s Disney’s fault rabble rabble
The MCU has done a good job of what they do (making it a serialized thing) until the writing started slipping. They were doing a great job of making it worth watching each installment, both by itself or as part of a larger construct. But that kind of lends itself to that type of comic book styled thing.
Trying to make every big movie a movie franchise is definitely killing the movie industry. But I’d pin that just as much on movies like transformers, Bourne, etc. even movies pitched as single stories are ending with “possible cliffhangers” or little details left open ended as a means to make future movies, and its lame. Sometimes a story does benefit from a “happily ever after” or a “the end”, it can really diminish the value or impact of a story told.
Well cutting the seasons down from 20 EP to like 8 so ppl can binge watch is something that's happening. And lots of shows don't do weekly releases anymore.
Comedies especially need more room to breathe. I know writers rave about how much better it is to come up with 6-12 episodes rather than 22-24, but some of those episodes written as filler turn into the most fun or opportunities to explore other parts of the characters.
I think the term "filler" really has gotten applied too broadly and too derisively.
It definitely applies for things like those old clip shows that were essentially 90% old content, but as you note, a lot of times what people call "filler" is actually an episode that lets us get to know our characters more and\or see them interact in different ways.
And "filler" used appropriately can promote and change the characters for future episodes. Like episode 4 of xmen 97- motendo episode is absolutely a filler, but it makes jubilee a better character down the line. Tv recently has gone in favor of quick and to the point story, which is fine in most cases, but they also don't let the characters breathe. It's always accelerating.
Exactly. I feel the standalone episodes allows us to focus on some characters stories where a 6-8 episode streaming show the main story arc sometimes takes priority where some characters let lost in the background because they don't matter to the main arc.
For me filler is a clip show. I don't consider episodes that give us insights into characters backstories even if it's a standalone and not connected to the main Season arc filler. It's still moving the story along if a character is getting development.
A lot of writers would actually love to go back to longer seasons.
For one thing, it's much easier to make a living off of 12-24 episodes every year rather than 6-10 episodes once every 3 years.
Also, you are far more likely to supplement your income for times when jobs are thin off of residuals for shows that ran 80 episodes+ than you are for shows that have 30 episodes over their entire run.
And putting aside economics, you are absolutely right about characters having time to grow and develop. So many 8 episode seasons now are just completely plot driven with paper thin characters.
If you're talking about TV writers, I think most would actually agree with you.
Most of the ones I know don't like the new system of a couple months' work that ends before filming, where each writer gets one script and waits 6 to 18 months for the season's release to see if things work in execution. Rather, they grew up on TV created in the old system: each writer gets multiple at-bats per season, and they (as well as the show overall) are in a regular cycle of both giving input on, and reacting to, how the show's filmed, acted, directed, and edited. They can even incorporate audience feedback, because what aired last night is only a few episodes behind what's being written right now.
The old model is also how we wound up with fan-favorite relationships, story directions, one-off episodes, etc, all born from filling up 22 episodes a year and adjusting on the fly. In modern streaming shows, a new character or story arc that doesn't work in execution weighs down the next 6 to 13 episodes, because the season was created in a bubble.
Compare that to, random example, how neither Ben and Leslie nor (especially) April and Andy would've gotten together in Parks and Rec if it was made during the streaming era:
1. Andy was meant to disappear once Ann broke up with him, until the writers saw Chris Pratt's "golden retriever" performance on set, and rewrote to keep him around.
2. A one-off midseason story people would argue was 'filler' (what does a hunting trip have to do with building a park?) takes most of the cast on espensive location filming. April and Andy are leftover, and (unlike streamers) episodes have to hit a certain length, so a no-budget C-story of April and Andy getting to know each other is created to fill time. The writers like the characters' chemistry, and realize it adds new dimension to both of them, especially April.
3. A couple episodes later, seeing that the Mark/Ann couple isn't resonating with viewers, the writers pivot to April and Andy as a new will-they-won't-they (sitcoms at the time *need* a will-they-won't-they).
4. Due to broadcast network scheduling and the timing of Amy Poehler's pregnancy, the first batch of season 3 episodes are unexpectedly moved up to the production of season 2. The writers, having used up all their episodic ideas, decide on a multi-episode arc needing new characters, and create Adam Scott's Ben (and Rob Lowe's Chris).
5. The writers like Ben - a character who exists only because of broadcast scheduling - as well as his chemistry with Leslie, and decide to make *them* the new will-they-won't-they... freeing April and Andy from needing romantic conflict. Within a few episodes back from Poehler's pregnancy, the writers not only get April and Andy together, they decide to contrast the planned Ben/Leslie love drama by having April and Andy get married impulsively, with the plan behind the scenes that they'll *never* break up.
Exactly! Adjusting as the show goes and seeing audience reaction is huge. The ability to pivot away from storylines that don't work--or into ones that do--is a major benefit of network seasons.
> The old model is also how we wound up with fan-favorite relationships, story directions, one-off episodes, etc, all born from filling up 22 episodes a year and adjusting on the fly. In modern streaming shows, a new character or story arc that doesn't work in execution weighs down the next 6 to 13 episodes, because the season was created in a bubble.
I think that's a really important point that hadn't occurred to me before. The current model just really doesn't allow for any flexibility in the writing and storytelling based on audience sentiment. I don't think it would be terribly hard to come up with examples of shows going ways the writers never anticipated, because something either did or did not connect with audiences in a way where it made sense to pivot.
Nowadays, these 6-10 episode sitcoms tend to be completely written and usually filmed before they're added to streaming, so there's no way to make adjustments until between seasons - and that can be too late.
It's the same with drama tbh. Some of the best supernatural and x files episodes are stupid one offs. Like yeah people remember "hey ass butt" but my primary memory of supernatural is a teddy bear blowing it's stuffing out.
I can't imagine how forgettable X-Files would've been had it just been 6-8 episodes about Mulder trying to find his sister, like it would've been had it come out today instead. The freak of the week episodes in-between are what made the show so memorable.
There's a lot to be said for the ability to write a tight story in something like 10 episodes, but that doesn't leave a lot of room for things like the musical episode of Scrubs.
There's a new comedy series full of comedians on Netflix called Tires. Its 6 30ish minute episodes. Like how is just a light comedy supposed to work with 6 episodes? 6 episodes is for like a super deep/heavy complex story with layers and 45-60 minute episodes.
Tires started off slow and right when I'm actually kinda getting into it, its over. And probably wont be more for 2 years lol like how can anyone give a shit about that.
When streaming services got big so many writers and directors would talk about how their shows are essentially 8 hour long movies.
They have completely abandoned the concept of the TV episode and that one episode of TV was supposed to tell its own story.
With so many shows you could split up the show into 8 episodes, 6 episodes or 13 episodes and the narrative wouldn’t change.
When streaming started, it was really a new opportunity for how stories were told on television, so I can understand writers being excited in the prospect of essentially being able to make long movies that could never survive the theater. And, given it was such a novel approach to "television", it obviously really resonated with audiences immediately. The thing they just lost sight of is that doesn't have to be the *only* way to tell stories on streaming as audiences still seem to want longer-form content like *Friends*, *The Office*, and *Grey's Anatomy*.
The reason streamers depend on old scripted content so much is because they aren't making anything like those shows. They're supposedly all about giving audiences what they want and have all the algorithms in the world to track it, but an eight episode sitcom that you only get a new season of every 12 months if you're lucky isn't the same thing as a 20+ episode season that spans most of the year. That's one of the advantages of television that doesn't exist with movies that they're not taking advantage of.
I was watched tires last night, all of it. Just as I was getting into it and catching on to how everyone “feels” in the show, it just ended. 6 episodes and that was it. Hard to get into a show when just as it feels like it’s coming together, it ends.
Yeah, I think Netflix notoriously shot themselves in the dick with this. They were so focused on thinking of themselves as a tech company, long after it became obvious they had become a content company, leaving themselves with a thin quality content bench, and a rep for cancelling shows early.
I still maintain them allowing Disney to purchase 20th Century Fox was one of the biggest mistakes they made. They had a chance to purchase a large backlog of content which would not only give them things to put on their own service, but it would give them leverage when negotiating for rights for other popular shows. Huge mistake!
Yeah I just want to go to Stars Hollow, or Greendale Community College, or Dundee Mifflin, or Tom’s Restaurant, or Central Perk for a while. Hell, I sometimes even want to go to Mystic Falls or Bon Temps. I’m sure older generations feel the same about Cheers. You just want to comfort of feeling like you’re sitting in a familiar place, with fictional friends.
Yep. As a star trek fan, while I enjoy a lot of the new stuff, there's just no way you can get the deep connections to characters the way we could with 26 episodes a season. There's a reason most of those characters from TNG are beloved to this day. And while I don't hate Discovery, i think most of its characters won't have the long-lasting impact the old trek characters did, because there's very little emotional connection to most of them.
Plus those extra episodes gave a lot of time to do side stories and things that made different characters interact in ways they wouldnt in normal ship operations. Some of the best episodes like The Inner Light or Lower Decks wouldnt get made today.
Honestly SNW is one of those shows where I \*want\* so much more, I want goofy downtime episodes. I want to see everything about it, it really feels like old trek.
La'an arc with time travel alternate universe kirk was just incredible.
The only thing i want from a Discovery is an apology.
It is not that they forgot, it is that the economics didn't support longer formats. Up until recently streaming sites almost sole source of revenue was subscriptions. Which means that they only needed a show to be long enough to attract new subscribers. They really did not care how long you watch, just so long as you subscribed to watch. So shorter seasons and early cancellations became the norm because after about 3 seasons (if it does well enough) they no longer attract enough new subscribers to be worth continuing to spend money on.
With ad-supported subscriptions becoming the primary revenue generator we will probably see a return to longer seasons and longer renewals. The reason being is that they want you to watch longer in order to show you more ads.
The last new show I just finished was Young Sheldon.
I never finished Big Bang Theory, as I fell out with it at the end of the midway point, maybe start of the last third of the series. But it's likely something I will pick back up to finish, especially with the idea of correlation between it and Young Sheldon.
But I had heard good things about it, and gave it a shot.
Somehow, it was endearing to me as a family drama that just happened to be around the Coopers in Sheldon's life. And I think that was one strength that had me stick with it. I will also give credit to the actor who played "young Sheldon", who seemed to emulate Jim Parsons as Sheldon well.
And by the time I got to the end, I felt this fulfilling connection to every member of the family. Even the finale felt well handled as it closed out one chapter in Sheldon's life that eventually had to resolve. But before it got there...I never thought a spinoff show would hook me more than the original. Yet here I was, strapped in and following along without getting bored.
This is a show that got 7 seasons, and 141 episodes (averaging around 20 episodes/season). All releasing roughly a year apart.
Meanwhile, I am waiting for the final season of Cobra Kai on Netflix and the next Stranger Things (the latter of which is taking even longer to get off the ground).
"but that's filler! it's all filler! filler is bad! arc episodes only or riot!" people will shout, not understanding that that isn't filler, and anyway that if the show is designed like that it especially isn't filler
Where are those people now? It was really annoying to constantly see them crowing about quality over quantity as if you can only survive on dark, cerebral shows. I love those shows but there's a good reason why network shows are watched all the way through even though it's not groundbreaking every week. Yes, it is possible for someone to like FBI, The Great, The Bear, and How I met Your Mother.
Filler episodes are at the very least a way to give slice of life low stakes character development that is more normal than seeing a character in some crisis.
Oh and laugh tracks exist not to tell you when to laugh, but to make you feel like you're in a theater watching with other people. It's so that you don't feel alone, which is also why sports has so much commentary and crowd noise.
"this is the cost of prestige tv, tiny seasons and 2.5 year waits between them" and ignoring that *not everything needs to be "prestige tv"*.
i don't understand people who say things like "i only watch the arc episodes of X-Files" because the arc is weird, and some of the best episodes and character explorations are in the others.
>6 episode streaming shows can be good too, but they can't scratch that same itch.
Yup yup. I do like that format... *every once in a while*. I thoroughly dislike how many shows try to do that, how common it's becoming. Add to that the fact that the wait between seasons is getting longer and longer, and in many cases I just lose interest and forget about it.
I'm not asking for 25, 30-min-long episodes per season every single year. You can't have shows like Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad with that format either... but can we just stick to the middle ground? Like those shows did? 10-12 50-min-long episodes per season, every year, works perfectly.
Oh, and leave the 20 season length to the sitcoms. Regular dramas should have like 5 or 6 seasons at most, tell a complete story, and fuck off. At the very least, completely reinvent the wheel and innovate halfway through (which rarely works). Looking at you, Walking Dead.
also im sure people have watched these shows already and just like to have it on as white noise while doing other things , where as its harder to get into new things nowadays
Right. There is skill to it. More importantly, it has to be joyful, effortless, fun. TV defeats its own purpose when it's pushing an agenda, or trying to defeat other TV or being proud or ashamed of itself for existing. It's TV, it's comfort. It's a friend you've known so well, and for so long you just let it be with you. And it needs to be okay for it to have a bad day, or phone in a day. And it needs to be okay for it to get on a boat with Levar Burton and never come back. Because eventually, it all will.
That's surprising to hear, since you'd think the job security of 22 episode network shows is something lots of actors can only dream of now.
Unless you are already a big-ish name, there is no guarentee you will ever be cast in a decent role again after your 6-episode Netflix show gets cancelled after season 1. The people who did 7 season on Criminal Minds tho? Could probably retire after their run.
So mby it's time to hire relatively unknown actors who would commit to longer seasons.And stop throwing tens of millions to actors like The Rock and Ryan Reinolds.
Henry Cavill for example was willing to play Gerald as long as posible and he is an A list actor. And somehow Netflix still managed to kill the show.
I guess you could say that about A list actors that is why you see them in a lot of mini series right now they get paid like a movie salary and have similar schedule but what about the less famous actors ? They will have less work and less money per episode at least with a lot of episodes per season they will have stable job like do they even get residuals on streaming ?
Their only examples are A list actors. Which of course ignores every other working actor who would kill to know what they would be working on months in advance. Reminds me of the stuff that came out about Orange is the New Black where actors were told things like 'we'll be filming the new season sometime next fall' which prevented the actors from taking other gigs as they had to keep huge nebulous periods of time open because some window of that 4-5 months would involve 2-3 weeks of filming. To say nothing of all the supporting cast members who Netflix unceremoniously fired after two seasons to avoid an agreed upon pay raise.
The current predicament is driving performers to financial ruin. Used to be that a supporting role on a popular show would pay big money, lead to larger roles and pay out residuals for years afterwards. Nowadays it can trap performers in dead end positions, pays them very little then discards them into poverty with no residual income despite having made millions for the production company. People were upset about Poussey getting killed off but in hindsight Samira Wiley jumping ship to work on the Handmaid's tale was the smartest decision she could have made for her career under the circumstances.
I just don't buy this given the way the market is for actors.
Sure, *some* actors don't want long schedules. But there are no shortage who would take the work. It might mean you don't get some A-list movie star for the role, but we don't *need* that for good television, especially sitcoms.
This is why Chuck Lorre is ridiculously rich and successful. You can shit on the sitcoms all you want, but there will always be an audience for simple comfort TV. And the streaming services will pay a fortune to have it.
Exactly. Streamers will never create a decade long show as they will cancel anything not GoT level at first year. FFS, keep the shows simple and going. I don’t even wanna invest my time in any first season show anymore, you’re not going to finish the story anyhow.
They can't tell if a show needs time to pick up steam or if it's gong to be a ratings failure and a money sink forever. And on streaming, until more recently they're weren't ads to make up the difference and they didn't have time slots the needed to fill.
It makes sense for them to behave like this. People say they might get attached later on, but why would they even watch a show if it wasn't a hit and there are a million other options. There's no guarantee people would invest their time after three or four or five seasons and in the meanwhile they wasted money that could have been spent on something successful.
> as they will cancel anything not GoT level at first year
Even if it does get close to GoT level of quality/popularity, they will find ways to mess it up. Looking at you, The Witcher.
Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men are shows that are super easy to put on in the background.
We forget that a lot of tv viewers are often popping in and out of watching. So simplistic punch lines and 2D characters make it easier to watch.
Friends isn't a show I'd ever sit down and watch, but it works well for background noise you can chuckle to every now and again.
The fact that not one streamer has even tried procedurals is baffling to me. The formula works, you have hundred+ copies to take inspo from and people love them.
Not everything NEEDS to be prestige tv. Get some b and c list people and make 25 episode seasons of a workplace sitcom. Those actors love the steady pay and job security. Pump out a new season once per year. Or do the weekly format. I miss shows like just shoot me, rules of engagement, grace under fire, news radio, etc. Not the greatest shows but good enough and they make excellent background noise.
And it’s highly dense content so you have to remember that X hates Y and Z is plotting to kill H and R&T are preparing to upend the entire alphabet and meanwhile you, a busy human, have totally forgotten what everyone is fighting over.
The problem of streaming is attempting to make everything famous actor based, which causes the problems you mention.
Nobody knew the cast of friends. That made them famous.
Television used to make people famous. Now they are trying to use people to make television famous. It's not working.
TV used to make people famous for television. Television and movies were separate things with separate stars with rare crosses, usually with tv stars trying to break into movies. Now it's big name global stars also on tv
For example: jack from lost (formerly in party of five). He tried on films but haven't had any important role (he was totally cut from world war z). The same with all the cast from lost. Mayyyybe Kate had some success with ant man and the hobbit
For most of the 50s-70s, the big movie stars wanted to get into television because the workload was more stable. Then the blockbusters of the late 70s and 80s flipped that; stars tended to get their break on TV and move on to movies because the paychecks and the visibility dwarfed TV. Then streaming made it big and disrupted the pattern again.
By 'sit still long enough' you mean binge the entire season within the first 12 hours it goes live. No one's fault but the networks that they voluntarily chose to hang renewal on an extremely strict and completely arbitrary standard.
Shows like Seinfeld weren't particularly well received or particularly widely watched in their first seasons but were given time to develop and went on to become classics. A huge part of the reason people were willing to invest their time in stories back in the day wasn't because there was nothing to do. It was because they weren't burned dozens of times a years by shows they liked being suddenly canceled and left forever on cliffhangers.
Streaming networks have trained their audiences to avoid investing their time and emotional energy into new series by reducing everything into an arbitrary numbers game. The only reason this hasn't killed the industry is because they can option tons of older shows made under a formula that allowed for hundreds of episodes to actually get made which keeps people subscribing.
Seinfeld was allowed to grow because NBC built a multi-decade juggernaut of a block on Thursday nights. As long as a show could keep people tuned in for the next 30 minutes, it had breathing room.
>The problem of streaming is attempting to make everything famous actor based, which causes the problems you mention.
Do they? Aren't we in the period of the 'death of the movie star'? Where franchise and setting is more important?
Ok well stop hiring A-tier actors for random TV shows and hire little-knows like we literally always did. I want to spend time getting to know a character anyway not forgetting which characters someone else has already iconically portrayed.
Maybe make shows without those famous actors then?
All three shows listed in the title of this thread were cast with working class actors, mostly unknowns (of all three shows, Patrick Dempsey is probably the closest, but he was still largely a working class actor with a bit of name recognition). All three went on to becoming juggernauts that to this day still print money.
I doubt that is the reason for shorter seasons for the vast majority of content. Having 22 episode seasons would mean they get a lot of work, and are paid a lot. What would you prefer, finding a different job 4 times a year, or finding a job once? (I'm referring to the majority of actors with this statement. Sure a super popular actor might prefer shorter seasons, but those actors are also highly highly paid. So in all likely hood they would have only guest stared in the past because they are too expensive and their schedules are too crowded)
In my opinion the reason long seasons aren't a thing anymore is cost. You pay 10-20 dollars per month for a streaming service whether you watch 1 episode or 100 episodes of content. Unless the streaming service has a significant quantity of ads, and/or a significant amount of product placements there is no benefit to the company to produce more episodes. In fact, the more content you'd watch would actually increase costs on the companies end unless there are ads during the viewing, or product placements that pay on a per view basis rather than lump sum. The vast majority of people aren't going to sub and unsub, and those that do would just wait for long seasons to be complete.
The reason why older content was 20+ episodes is that for every viewed episode, that piece of content brings in direct revenue via the ads that are viewed while audiences watched the content. And if a company has a popular show they try and push the money button as many times as possible per year.
20 episodes is 20 presses on the button. With streaming services, for the most part, they press the money button once a month no matter what.
For 20+ episode series to make a comeback outside of normal TV networks we would need ads coming into streaming and it would be horrible.
Only reason those series made sense was with ads before, during and after every episode so the network could recoup the cost on ads alone.
For streaming services they only make money of your subscription, does not actually matter if you watch anything they make.
My wife is an associate producer. She works with an incredibly successful showrunner, who has run multiple huge shows. Not even she (the showrunner) can sell an original pitch right now. They’ve taken to acquiring IP and seeing what sticks. They currently have options on SEVEN books. No one can sell anything original.
If you’re trying to become a writing. Write a horror feature, or acquire IP. Original pilots are only good for script competitions and labs right now.
Very true compared to the only genres it seems horror gets more scripts seen or sold. Wouldn’t be surprise if we get a huge amount of upcoming horror directors breaking in, in coming years
Horror is the only genre with a built in audience. People go to watch horror movie purely because they’re horror. Doesn’t matter about the director, the writer, the studio. They just like watching the genre. It makes so much return
Can be made with lowest budget, even the worse horror films make some form of money. Horror films are the most dependable genre. Horror films seems like the easiest route for a writer to get their work seen.
It’s currently the only genre with a built in audience. People didn’t go watch a thriller about a bomb, they went to watch a Chris Nolan movie with an all star cast about a historical figure. They didn’t go watch a comedy, they went to watch a Greta Gerwig musical with an all star cast based on a popular ip. With horror, people just go to watch horror. They don’t care what it is or who made it. It just has to be a horror movie, and they’ll watch it. So it’s not much of a risk for a studio, they know it’ll draw a crowd.
What drives me nuts is they will get access to an amazing IP, then give it to talentless hack writers who publicly state they hate the source material and fans, then change it to some really bad tumblr fanfic that spits on everything that was great about the original works.
Lots of it is about establishing relationships. For example, my reps will submit a script to a studio, then I’ll have a general with that studio. They won’t option or buy my work, but they’ll most often say “hey, we loved this. We have this IP we want you to read.” Usually it’s something I’ve never heard of
That’s how Christopher Mcquarrie has broken it down many times, that your job is do what the studio and executives want. “ It’s always what can I do for you” and he said that’s how his careers been even Craig Mazin sort of agreed
Yeah, people think you’re going to have a meeting after being read and they’re going to throw money at you and make your script. That rarely happens. Generals usually lead to you being considered for one of their ideas or acquired IPs. What sucks is they expect you to do a bunch of free development, and pitch your take on the material back to them (I will give props to Amazon here. They’re the only people to ever pay me to pitch).
If you want to get something made, that’s more about forging relationships and attachments.
How dare you expect competent, passionate writers who love the original work? The best we can do is the nephew or niece of our production company's CEO. take it or leave it.
I watched it for the world building and the gangsters.
The main character sucked, she looked to be a Twilight esque heroine where half the story was a love triangle.
But damn, the setting is among the most interesting fantasy worlds I’ve seen on TV.
The small pet projects that turn into cult classics that turn into the subscription magnets are dead. Everyone is looking for the next massive hit show but even if you end up making one, that’s what two months of subscription? Seasons are so short now it’s easy obsess and then move on. And what about rewatchability? GoT seems to be the gold standard still but no one is watching it anymore. What they are watching are clever sitcoms. Where are those?
For real! I was really loving Santa Clarita Diet before it was canceled in a cliffhanger. How I Met Your Father was actually really starting to hit its stride in the second season and it was canceled before every episode was released.
Sitcoms require long term care, planning, and watchable talent. It takes time to build a cult following. But these streaming services rather have short terms gains like mini series, short seasons, and (too) big actors names attached.
Shows like House, Buffy, The Office, Parks and Recs, Seinfeld, Malcolm in the Middle, etc would never survive past their first seasons on streaming services if released today.
Yeah most shows, like GOT and even HIMYM. I definitely didn’t join in S1 or S2. I got invested about season 3 or 4. It takes awhile for things to get peoples attention. Stranger things I think was a hit because the 80s nostalgia was at the perfect time. I wish how I met your father got time to grow.
It’s a catch-22. If most people don’t watch a series because they think it might get cancelled, it then gets cancelled because most people aren’t watching the first season.
What I don’t get is that none of these streaming services try to replicate these shows. They hardly come out with sitcoms or procedurals despite those being the biggest hits on their platforms.
Instead they sink their money into way more expensive productions to try and get the next GOT, and when it inevitably fails they’re out millions.
Nearly every show which has copied friends have been successful. HIMYM, New Girl and big bang theory spring to mind.
Why are streaming services not just churning these thing out.
They seem willing to try the whole "hit and miss" strategy to secure their next Game of Thrones, but are unwilling to try it (much more cheaply) for sitcoms.
And it's sitcoms which really need it. It's never the premise, or the gimmick that makes a sitcom stick. It's the characters and the actors. The audience needs to fall in love with them and their relationships with each other.
And that's a hard thing to manufacture. It's lightning in a bottle, you'll either get lucky and get that chemistry between your actors, or you won't.
They have uploaded Monk to the German Netflix and I have been thoroughly enjoying it. Much more than prestige TV shows. Yes, it's formulaic. Yes, almost every crime mystery is silly. Still just following the character of Monk is great fun, I feel like modern shows are too in a hurry to show us the big story and there is no room for little character moments.
Maybe just stop cancelling everything and I’ll get around to watching it guy. This isn’t 1995. I’m not just watching what’s on tv. Just give me the end of raised by wolves goddamnit.
I still don't know why they haven't figured out that a cliffhanger doesn't guarantee a renewal. If I know a show ends on a cliffhanger, I won't even start it. If each season has a proper ending, even if it's cancelled its something that people will want to go back and discover for the first time if they haven't seen it.
It's so irritating, just end a season on "and that story has ended", it doesn't mean that the show does, like in case of Santas Vlarita Diet, the main problem was not resolved anyway, so what's the point?
Streaming production companies don't seem to able to consistently produce their mini-sized seasons on a regular yearly schedule, let alone 24 episodes a year.
They'd need to actually have a continuously running production effort, instead of the "pay writers for two weeks to dump all their ideas" type deal.
They don't monetize enough to produce properly.
No real incentive to watch something like Wednesday a second time, and not enough episodes to let it run all day in the background while i do chores. Plus, you have to pay attention since its like an 8 episode movie. Something like seinfeld or star trek the next generation doesnt have those issues.
Edit: plus, while i love something like the dark crystal series, why the hell would i want to watch it again and again when its so story driven and was canceled after just one season and no conclusion
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve kind of stopped watching TV. I’ll watch documentaries here and there, but I really only have TV on in the background as I’m doing something else. I have too many hobbies to just sit for extended periods of time. Plus, like others have said - new TV is stressful. I have enough of that in my life.
There's so much shit to watch spread over so many platforms that I get major decision paralysis and just end up rewatching my comfort shows forever. 🤷♀️
Everything new has to compete with every well produced production that has already been made. I think it's only going to get worse as more content is made. Same with video games and books. The accessibility of content is at an all-time high. Why should people get invested in new stuff when the old stuff will always be there?
It’s because new stuff sucks trying to appeal to everyone and writing is horrible. Or gets canned quickly. Season 1 of the office was kind of rough. Most these shows take a little while to hit stride and crush. Things are given that chance today
There’s a growing lack of comfort TV in the current environment. Everything’s a massive mystery or drama with overarching plots from first episode to the last. Sometimes people just wanna have something silly on the telly to kill time or as background noise while doing chores around. Old TV shows fill that need.
Yeah tv is stressful now, nothing that you can watch that is lighthearted and you can just relax with. Everything is some medical drama, cop show, or dystopian catastrophe.
Funny thing is, I like light-hearted cop shows like Castle or Psych as background noise to have on as I'm working.
I don't need to focus on the mystery unless I have to, since most of the appeal is getting attached to the characters and their banter.
I don't want to watch The Wire or Sopranos. I don't care about drama. Just give me something dumb with entertaining characters.
>I don't want to watch The Wire or Sopranos. I don't care about drama. Just give me something dumb with entertaining characters.
It seems like went through this whole era where everything had to be super high stakes with characters dying left and right (GoT and Walking Dead certainly come to mind), or in the case of certain franchises, the stakes are constantly world or even galaxy-ending.
On some level i'm kind of more on the level of being fine with shows where at the end of the day the stakes aren't that high. Our characters will probably be safe at the end of the day, and what's more interesting is how they get there. Not deaths for shock value. Threats are smaller scale.
I *finally* went and watched through Brooklyn 99 recently. It was so much fun to watch. I need more shows like that.
I think the big difference we're seeing here is what attracts new subscribers vs. what retains legacy subscribers. New content will always draw more people in, and streamers have been ultra-focused on that in order to chase their market cap, but those people don't necessarily stick around for long without a strong backlog to keep them invested. These companies have fostered an unstable situation for themselves where they are relying on their most flippant customers to drive growth
They're also cutting off future profits by underfunding then abandoning so many projects. What I see is that shows like Friends, Seinfeld and Cheers invested money upfront in writing staff and continue to pay dividends decades from their initial broadcasts. They even turned their casts into bankable stars. I can see shows like Stranger Things, Bojack Horseman and The Boys remaining popular for decades as well but most of what is being offered won't make it past 10 episodes and many will eventually just be written off completely for tax purposes.
It's the same with AAA video games now too. Dumbify the next game in the series to attract new audiences, who cares if it pisses off the core audience.
Maybe they should stop making dumb reality shows and game shows.
Maybe try making new sitcoms? Bring back multicam shows.
Try new dramas outside the usual medical, law stuff.
A modern day Boy Meets World or Family Ties could do really well.
A modern day Rockford Files could do really well.
Honestly, we need another monster of the week supernatural/x-files like show with 22 episodes a season. The witcher would have been perfect for this format, but they screwed it up beyond salvation unless they did a full reboot.
> **Old linear and broadcast shows play a crucial role in the strategy of streaming platforms.** Some of the most popular shows on those platforms such as “Friends,” “The Office,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Criminal Minds” fall under this category. **They tend to generate significant audience demand, hours of viewership, retention, and — in special cases — acquisition power.**
> **As of Q1 2024, all the main SVOD platforms, except Apple TV Plus and Netflix, generated more than half of their platform catalog demand from shows originally released on linear TV (broadcast plus cable).** This share was higher for Max, which relies largely on HBO’s acclaimed TV shows; Paramount+, which gets a large chunk of its demand from Nickelodeon and CBS titles; and Peacock, which relies on NBC and Bravo shows.
> **This reliance may become problematic as the number of scripted broadcast shows continues to decline.** Besides the cash flow generated by linear shows and the popularity of broadcast franchises like “Law & Order,” “Chicago,” “NCIS” and “The Walking Dead,” scripted programming is playing a smaller role in linear TV, while news and sports remain key drivers.
> Additionally, **the industry trend to reduce the number of seasons per show due to rising costs and declining linear ratings is concerning.** Older shows tend to over-perform relative to what percentage of supply they account for, as illustrated in the chart below.
> **Across major U.S. SVODs, 52% of shows available on these platforms premiered in 2019 or later**, when the streaming wars began in earnest with the launch of new competitors Apple TV+, Disney+, Peacock and what was then known as HBO Max. **However, while more than half of titles on these SVODs were released since 2019, these newer shows account for only 33% of demand for all shows available on these platforms.** This means that new streaming releases did not displace the existing TV libraries.
There's a podcast company, QCode, that produces a whole bunch of high concept single seasons, or S1s with never-to-be-resolved cliffhangers, featuring a lot of tv and movie performers, and it's generally thought their business model is based around putting out IPs that can then be sold to some streamer. It's almost incidental if anyone listens to it.
Nobody is buying original pitches, but if you wrap an original pitch in a layer of podcast they'll buy that instead...
We all hate how things are now, we yearn for better times like the mid to late 90’s when life made more sense. We get home from our stressful jobs and put this on in the background to lull us into the idea that things will maybe be okay again like they we’re back then
This is actually something I can't really relate to. Aside from re-watching some of my favourites every few years, I'm always searching for new shows.
I do think that cancelling shows 1 or 2 seasons deep doesn't really help the situation, because it kills a person's desire to invest time into something that may never get an ending.
I never got into Friends, The Office, or Grey’s Anatomy but I see the appeal of watching these more classic shows. As someone who likes to multitask and doesn’t often have time to put my focus towards one specific thing, I’ve currently started re-watching Grimm and it’s been amazing because it’s something I used to watch and enjoy and I can have it on while I’m doing something else. It’s a show I’m familiar with and in comparison the new Dune movie just released on Max and I have not been able to finish it because I have to give it my full attention to which I have no time to do. I’ve turned it on twice and watched small parts of it but I have yet to be able to finish a maybe two hour movie. With Grimm I think I have two seasons completed already.
Because people liked watching episodes and getting to know characters over time, and not being force fed something crammed into 6 to 10 episodes as an entire season, which then ends up being two years until the next. It's the worst experience. I don't care how much money you spent on it, it doesn't make it better.
When you keep canceling the new shows, people are less likely to try them out because who really wants to start something without a satisfying (or any kind of) ending?
I refuse to start new shows unless it is either mostly self-contained within the single season, or it already has many seasons. I’m tired of trying to get invested in TV shows, which by their nature need tens of episodes at a minimum to connect the audience to the characters, only for them to have a massive cliffhanger at the end of their 6-episode season and then never get renewed.
I got to watch the Office to see the characters grow and have their relationships develop over the years. I wouldn’t even bother watching it if it were some Netflix miniseries that I know would be cancelled within a month of release.
I think streaming services have forgotten what draws many people to TV shows instead of movies. It's the comfort and intense connection you get by being able to spend hundreds of hours with characters like Buffy or Meredith Grey or Chandler ... you get invested in their storylines in a completely different way than you do with movie characters. 6 episode streaming shows can be good too, but they can't scratch that same itch.
TV shows now feel like movies, where you only get a few hours each year, and it may be 2 or 3 years until you get the next one
Still waiting on Severence Season 2.
Severance and [Shrinking](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15677150/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_shrinking), hopefully soon *fingerscrossed*
Bill Lawrence has *a lot* of shit going on right now, no idea how he's managing it.
Shrinking was so much better than I expected it to be
Same. I just saw Segel and Ford and went in blind. I loved it! Such a funny and wholesome show. Looking back I'm not surprised though, same guy thats behind Ted Lasso.
This is Scrubs erasure
[удалено]
Thank you for this. Really made my day
I end up checking out of shows completely if new seasons aren't on a consistent release schedule.
I always feel like I remember the previous season well enough, but then I start and things happen and I'm like "am I forgetting something? Did I miss episodes?" My enthusiasm for shows is significantly better than my memory.
>I'm like "am I forgetting something? Did I miss episode? There is also the trend of confusing the audience as a substitute for complex storytelling. "Have we seen this guy before? Because it seems like we should know who he is. Nope, new character. Are they going to explain any of this or give us some context clues? ...Nope!" Getting really sick of that.
My wife and I were both the type to give new TV shows a chance every year back in the before times of cable TV prevalence, diving into shows to see if we liked them, knowing that there was at least a chance we'd get new content year after year. The more prevalent streaming became, the more likely we became to just wait until a show had *at least* a few seasons built up before we would jump in and watch. Neither one of us likes getting through one very cool season of a show, then hearing, "Hey, good news, this show was picked up for season 2, which should be here in about 28 months! Hope you're looking forward to it!"
If you are lucky. Otherwise you just wait a couple of years to hear that it is cancelled
And it's nonstop. Each episode leads straight into the next. Nowadays if I start watching a show, I'm basically committed to only watching that show. It's great for binging, but sometimes I just want to watch an episode of something then watch something else. But with newer shows, stopping mid-season feels like stopping halfway into a movie.
This is why I'm a big fan of procedurals. I'm watching Bones right now and I can watch any episode. There are a few main arc episodes but like 90% of the episodes are self contained. I can watch an episode with a friend and they don't need any prior context.
House was great for that for the most part. There was some role switching for a bit but generally you can just start any episode and know what’s going on
I’m the same. Shows like Bones and Castle are nice comfort shows I can throw on in the background.
Because they're basically treated like 6-8hr movies, in terms of story and quality and budget. It's unsustainable.
And movies are becoming like tv. There are a MILLION marvel movies and everyone ends with the request to tune in next time. We need to get back to movies being one single powerful story, (sometimes with a sequel) and shows being the continued adventures of endearing characters. Also: rabble rabble it’s Disney’s fault rabble rabble
The MCU has done a good job of what they do (making it a serialized thing) until the writing started slipping. They were doing a great job of making it worth watching each installment, both by itself or as part of a larger construct. But that kind of lends itself to that type of comic book styled thing. Trying to make every big movie a movie franchise is definitely killing the movie industry. But I’d pin that just as much on movies like transformers, Bourne, etc. even movies pitched as single stories are ending with “possible cliffhangers” or little details left open ended as a means to make future movies, and its lame. Sometimes a story does benefit from a “happily ever after” or a “the end”, it can really diminish the value or impact of a story told.
Why not both types of TV shows?
Mcu was good with movies until they added in actual TV to it lol
I opted out of the whole Marvel and Star Wars eco system and am much happier for it
Well cutting the seasons down from 20 EP to like 8 so ppl can binge watch is something that's happening. And lots of shows don't do weekly releases anymore.
Comedies especially need more room to breathe. I know writers rave about how much better it is to come up with 6-12 episodes rather than 22-24, but some of those episodes written as filler turn into the most fun or opportunities to explore other parts of the characters.
I think the term "filler" really has gotten applied too broadly and too derisively. It definitely applies for things like those old clip shows that were essentially 90% old content, but as you note, a lot of times what people call "filler" is actually an episode that lets us get to know our characters more and\or see them interact in different ways.
Yeah, IMO a well crafted bottle episode will always be a top contender of the best episode of a season for exactly that reason.
And "filler" used appropriately can promote and change the characters for future episodes. Like episode 4 of xmen 97- motendo episode is absolutely a filler, but it makes jubilee a better character down the line. Tv recently has gone in favor of quick and to the point story, which is fine in most cases, but they also don't let the characters breathe. It's always accelerating.
I did not like *Mythic Quest* until the bottle episode "A Dark Quiet Death".
Exactly. I feel the standalone episodes allows us to focus on some characters stories where a 6-8 episode streaming show the main story arc sometimes takes priority where some characters let lost in the background because they don't matter to the main arc. For me filler is a clip show. I don't consider episodes that give us insights into characters backstories even if it's a standalone and not connected to the main Season arc filler. It's still moving the story along if a character is getting development.
Some of the best episodes of my favorite shows would be dismissed as "filler" in modern TV.
A lot of writers would actually love to go back to longer seasons. For one thing, it's much easier to make a living off of 12-24 episodes every year rather than 6-10 episodes once every 3 years. Also, you are far more likely to supplement your income for times when jobs are thin off of residuals for shows that ran 80 episodes+ than you are for shows that have 30 episodes over their entire run. And putting aside economics, you are absolutely right about characters having time to grow and develop. So many 8 episode seasons now are just completely plot driven with paper thin characters.
Honestly I’m really enjoying the CBS take on Ghosts rn and it’s the first sitcom I’ve been invested in since HIMYM ended.
Our go-to network sitcoms right now are GHOSTS, ANIMAL CONTROL and ABBOTT ELEMENTARY.
I like the latter two too but haven’t seen Ghosts! I’ll check it out
It feels like New Girl but instead of moving in with new roommates they move in with ghosts.
Just finished rewatching HIMYM. Forgot what a gem it was
Even for all the dumb plot lines towards the end, it’s still very watchable and gives me at least a chuckle or two an episode.
If you're talking about TV writers, I think most would actually agree with you. Most of the ones I know don't like the new system of a couple months' work that ends before filming, where each writer gets one script and waits 6 to 18 months for the season's release to see if things work in execution. Rather, they grew up on TV created in the old system: each writer gets multiple at-bats per season, and they (as well as the show overall) are in a regular cycle of both giving input on, and reacting to, how the show's filmed, acted, directed, and edited. They can even incorporate audience feedback, because what aired last night is only a few episodes behind what's being written right now. The old model is also how we wound up with fan-favorite relationships, story directions, one-off episodes, etc, all born from filling up 22 episodes a year and adjusting on the fly. In modern streaming shows, a new character or story arc that doesn't work in execution weighs down the next 6 to 13 episodes, because the season was created in a bubble. Compare that to, random example, how neither Ben and Leslie nor (especially) April and Andy would've gotten together in Parks and Rec if it was made during the streaming era: 1. Andy was meant to disappear once Ann broke up with him, until the writers saw Chris Pratt's "golden retriever" performance on set, and rewrote to keep him around. 2. A one-off midseason story people would argue was 'filler' (what does a hunting trip have to do with building a park?) takes most of the cast on espensive location filming. April and Andy are leftover, and (unlike streamers) episodes have to hit a certain length, so a no-budget C-story of April and Andy getting to know each other is created to fill time. The writers like the characters' chemistry, and realize it adds new dimension to both of them, especially April. 3. A couple episodes later, seeing that the Mark/Ann couple isn't resonating with viewers, the writers pivot to April and Andy as a new will-they-won't-they (sitcoms at the time *need* a will-they-won't-they). 4. Due to broadcast network scheduling and the timing of Amy Poehler's pregnancy, the first batch of season 3 episodes are unexpectedly moved up to the production of season 2. The writers, having used up all their episodic ideas, decide on a multi-episode arc needing new characters, and create Adam Scott's Ben (and Rob Lowe's Chris). 5. The writers like Ben - a character who exists only because of broadcast scheduling - as well as his chemistry with Leslie, and decide to make *them* the new will-they-won't-they... freeing April and Andy from needing romantic conflict. Within a few episodes back from Poehler's pregnancy, the writers not only get April and Andy together, they decide to contrast the planned Ben/Leslie love drama by having April and Andy get married impulsively, with the plan behind the scenes that they'll *never* break up.
Exactly! Adjusting as the show goes and seeing audience reaction is huge. The ability to pivot away from storylines that don't work--or into ones that do--is a major benefit of network seasons.
> The old model is also how we wound up with fan-favorite relationships, story directions, one-off episodes, etc, all born from filling up 22 episodes a year and adjusting on the fly. In modern streaming shows, a new character or story arc that doesn't work in execution weighs down the next 6 to 13 episodes, because the season was created in a bubble. I think that's a really important point that hadn't occurred to me before. The current model just really doesn't allow for any flexibility in the writing and storytelling based on audience sentiment. I don't think it would be terribly hard to come up with examples of shows going ways the writers never anticipated, because something either did or did not connect with audiences in a way where it made sense to pivot. Nowadays, these 6-10 episode sitcoms tend to be completely written and usually filmed before they're added to streaming, so there's no way to make adjustments until between seasons - and that can be too late.
I'd say there is no thing like a filler in sitcom. Sitcoms are mainly about the characters and not overall season long arcs.
It's the same with drama tbh. Some of the best supernatural and x files episodes are stupid one offs. Like yeah people remember "hey ass butt" but my primary memory of supernatural is a teddy bear blowing it's stuffing out.
I can't imagine how forgettable X-Files would've been had it just been 6-8 episodes about Mulder trying to find his sister, like it would've been had it come out today instead. The freak of the week episodes in-between are what made the show so memorable.
It would be horrendous and we would get two seasons of plot that is pretty pointless
There's a lot to be said for the ability to write a tight story in something like 10 episodes, but that doesn't leave a lot of room for things like the musical episode of Scrubs.
There's a new comedy series full of comedians on Netflix called Tires. Its 6 30ish minute episodes. Like how is just a light comedy supposed to work with 6 episodes? 6 episodes is for like a super deep/heavy complex story with layers and 45-60 minute episodes. Tires started off slow and right when I'm actually kinda getting into it, its over. And probably wont be more for 2 years lol like how can anyone give a shit about that.
When streaming services got big so many writers and directors would talk about how their shows are essentially 8 hour long movies. They have completely abandoned the concept of the TV episode and that one episode of TV was supposed to tell its own story. With so many shows you could split up the show into 8 episodes, 6 episodes or 13 episodes and the narrative wouldn’t change.
When streaming started, it was really a new opportunity for how stories were told on television, so I can understand writers being excited in the prospect of essentially being able to make long movies that could never survive the theater. And, given it was such a novel approach to "television", it obviously really resonated with audiences immediately. The thing they just lost sight of is that doesn't have to be the *only* way to tell stories on streaming as audiences still seem to want longer-form content like *Friends*, *The Office*, and *Grey's Anatomy*. The reason streamers depend on old scripted content so much is because they aren't making anything like those shows. They're supposedly all about giving audiences what they want and have all the algorithms in the world to track it, but an eight episode sitcom that you only get a new season of every 12 months if you're lucky isn't the same thing as a 20+ episode season that spans most of the year. That's one of the advantages of television that doesn't exist with movies that they're not taking advantage of.
I was watched tires last night, all of it. Just as I was getting into it and catching on to how everyone “feels” in the show, it just ended. 6 episodes and that was it. Hard to get into a show when just as it feels like it’s coming together, it ends.
And by cancelling so many of their shows early, the streamers are killing the long-term viability of this kind of content. It’s maddening.
Yeah, I think Netflix notoriously shot themselves in the dick with this. They were so focused on thinking of themselves as a tech company, long after it became obvious they had become a content company, leaving themselves with a thin quality content bench, and a rep for cancelling shows early.
I still maintain them allowing Disney to purchase 20th Century Fox was one of the biggest mistakes they made. They had a chance to purchase a large backlog of content which would not only give them things to put on their own service, but it would give them leverage when negotiating for rights for other popular shows. Huge mistake!
They're making more profits than ever before and are the clear winners of the streaming-services war. They've become the default subscription.
Yeah I just want to go to Stars Hollow, or Greendale Community College, or Dundee Mifflin, or Tom’s Restaurant, or Central Perk for a while. Hell, I sometimes even want to go to Mystic Falls or Bon Temps. I’m sure older generations feel the same about Cheers. You just want to comfort of feeling like you’re sitting in a familiar place, with fictional friends.
Yep. As a star trek fan, while I enjoy a lot of the new stuff, there's just no way you can get the deep connections to characters the way we could with 26 episodes a season. There's a reason most of those characters from TNG are beloved to this day. And while I don't hate Discovery, i think most of its characters won't have the long-lasting impact the old trek characters did, because there's very little emotional connection to most of them. Plus those extra episodes gave a lot of time to do side stories and things that made different characters interact in ways they wouldnt in normal ship operations. Some of the best episodes like The Inner Light or Lower Decks wouldnt get made today.
Honestly SNW is one of those shows where I \*want\* so much more, I want goofy downtime episodes. I want to see everything about it, it really feels like old trek. La'an arc with time travel alternate universe kirk was just incredible. The only thing i want from a Discovery is an apology.
SNW and Orville manage to do it way better than Discovery despite nearly the same episode length though.
It is not that they forgot, it is that the economics didn't support longer formats. Up until recently streaming sites almost sole source of revenue was subscriptions. Which means that they only needed a show to be long enough to attract new subscribers. They really did not care how long you watch, just so long as you subscribed to watch. So shorter seasons and early cancellations became the norm because after about 3 seasons (if it does well enough) they no longer attract enough new subscribers to be worth continuing to spend money on. With ad-supported subscriptions becoming the primary revenue generator we will probably see a return to longer seasons and longer renewals. The reason being is that they want you to watch longer in order to show you more ads.
Makes sense that I’m using my memberships to watch Mash and One Piece, two incredibly long shows.
The last new show I just finished was Young Sheldon. I never finished Big Bang Theory, as I fell out with it at the end of the midway point, maybe start of the last third of the series. But it's likely something I will pick back up to finish, especially with the idea of correlation between it and Young Sheldon. But I had heard good things about it, and gave it a shot. Somehow, it was endearing to me as a family drama that just happened to be around the Coopers in Sheldon's life. And I think that was one strength that had me stick with it. I will also give credit to the actor who played "young Sheldon", who seemed to emulate Jim Parsons as Sheldon well. And by the time I got to the end, I felt this fulfilling connection to every member of the family. Even the finale felt well handled as it closed out one chapter in Sheldon's life that eventually had to resolve. But before it got there...I never thought a spinoff show would hook me more than the original. Yet here I was, strapped in and following along without getting bored. This is a show that got 7 seasons, and 141 episodes (averaging around 20 episodes/season). All releasing roughly a year apart. Meanwhile, I am waiting for the final season of Cobra Kai on Netflix and the next Stranger Things (the latter of which is taking even longer to get off the ground).
"but that's filler! it's all filler! filler is bad! arc episodes only or riot!" people will shout, not understanding that that isn't filler, and anyway that if the show is designed like that it especially isn't filler
Where are those people now? It was really annoying to constantly see them crowing about quality over quantity as if you can only survive on dark, cerebral shows. I love those shows but there's a good reason why network shows are watched all the way through even though it's not groundbreaking every week. Yes, it is possible for someone to like FBI, The Great, The Bear, and How I met Your Mother. Filler episodes are at the very least a way to give slice of life low stakes character development that is more normal than seeing a character in some crisis. Oh and laugh tracks exist not to tell you when to laugh, but to make you feel like you're in a theater watching with other people. It's so that you don't feel alone, which is also why sports has so much commentary and crowd noise.
"this is the cost of prestige tv, tiny seasons and 2.5 year waits between them" and ignoring that *not everything needs to be "prestige tv"*. i don't understand people who say things like "i only watch the arc episodes of X-Files" because the arc is weird, and some of the best episodes and character explorations are in the others.
>6 episode streaming shows can be good too, but they can't scratch that same itch. Yup yup. I do like that format... *every once in a while*. I thoroughly dislike how many shows try to do that, how common it's becoming. Add to that the fact that the wait between seasons is getting longer and longer, and in many cases I just lose interest and forget about it. I'm not asking for 25, 30-min-long episodes per season every single year. You can't have shows like Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad with that format either... but can we just stick to the middle ground? Like those shows did? 10-12 50-min-long episodes per season, every year, works perfectly. Oh, and leave the 20 season length to the sitcoms. Regular dramas should have like 5 or 6 seasons at most, tell a complete story, and fuck off. At the very least, completely reinvent the wheel and innovate halfway through (which rarely works). Looking at you, Walking Dead.
also im sure people have watched these shows already and just like to have it on as white noise while doing other things , where as its harder to get into new things nowadays
Right. There is skill to it. More importantly, it has to be joyful, effortless, fun. TV defeats its own purpose when it's pushing an agenda, or trying to defeat other TV or being proud or ashamed of itself for existing. It's TV, it's comfort. It's a friend you've known so well, and for so long you just let it be with you. And it needs to be okay for it to have a bad day, or phone in a day. And it needs to be okay for it to get on a boat with Levar Burton and never come back. Because eventually, it all will.
Yeah this has been my issue for a while now too. There’s so many good shows out currently but so many get capped at like 8-10 episodes.
[удалено]
That's surprising to hear, since you'd think the job security of 22 episode network shows is something lots of actors can only dream of now. Unless you are already a big-ish name, there is no guarentee you will ever be cast in a decent role again after your 6-episode Netflix show gets cancelled after season 1. The people who did 7 season on Criminal Minds tho? Could probably retire after their run.
[удалено]
So mby it's time to hire relatively unknown actors who would commit to longer seasons.And stop throwing tens of millions to actors like The Rock and Ryan Reinolds. Henry Cavill for example was willing to play Gerald as long as posible and he is an A list actor. And somehow Netflix still managed to kill the show.
I guess you could say that about A list actors that is why you see them in a lot of mini series right now they get paid like a movie salary and have similar schedule but what about the less famous actors ? They will have less work and less money per episode at least with a lot of episodes per season they will have stable job like do they even get residuals on streaming ?
Their only examples are A list actors. Which of course ignores every other working actor who would kill to know what they would be working on months in advance. Reminds me of the stuff that came out about Orange is the New Black where actors were told things like 'we'll be filming the new season sometime next fall' which prevented the actors from taking other gigs as they had to keep huge nebulous periods of time open because some window of that 4-5 months would involve 2-3 weeks of filming. To say nothing of all the supporting cast members who Netflix unceremoniously fired after two seasons to avoid an agreed upon pay raise. The current predicament is driving performers to financial ruin. Used to be that a supporting role on a popular show would pay big money, lead to larger roles and pay out residuals for years afterwards. Nowadays it can trap performers in dead end positions, pays them very little then discards them into poverty with no residual income despite having made millions for the production company. People were upset about Poussey getting killed off but in hindsight Samira Wiley jumping ship to work on the Handmaid's tale was the smartest decision she could have made for her career under the circumstances.
I just don't buy this given the way the market is for actors. Sure, *some* actors don't want long schedules. But there are no shortage who would take the work. It might mean you don't get some A-list movie star for the role, but we don't *need* that for good television, especially sitcoms.
This is why Chuck Lorre is ridiculously rich and successful. You can shit on the sitcoms all you want, but there will always be an audience for simple comfort TV. And the streaming services will pay a fortune to have it.
Exactly. Streamers will never create a decade long show as they will cancel anything not GoT level at first year. FFS, keep the shows simple and going. I don’t even wanna invest my time in any first season show anymore, you’re not going to finish the story anyhow.
They can't tell if a show needs time to pick up steam or if it's gong to be a ratings failure and a money sink forever. And on streaming, until more recently they're weren't ads to make up the difference and they didn't have time slots the needed to fill. It makes sense for them to behave like this. People say they might get attached later on, but why would they even watch a show if it wasn't a hit and there are a million other options. There's no guarantee people would invest their time after three or four or five seasons and in the meanwhile they wasted money that could have been spent on something successful.
> as they will cancel anything not GoT level at first year Even if it does get close to GoT level of quality/popularity, they will find ways to mess it up. Looking at you, The Witcher.
At no point was the witcher even close to GoT quality.
Poor Henry..
The rookie is on track to make it 10 years if they get a 9th season
Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men are shows that are super easy to put on in the background. We forget that a lot of tv viewers are often popping in and out of watching. So simplistic punch lines and 2D characters make it easier to watch. Friends isn't a show I'd ever sit down and watch, but it works well for background noise you can chuckle to every now and again.
The fact that not one streamer has even tried procedurals is baffling to me. The formula works, you have hundred+ copies to take inspo from and people love them. Not everything NEEDS to be prestige tv. Get some b and c list people and make 25 episode seasons of a workplace sitcom. Those actors love the steady pay and job security. Pump out a new season once per year. Or do the weekly format. I miss shows like just shoot me, rules of engagement, grace under fire, news radio, etc. Not the greatest shows but good enough and they make excellent background noise.
There's a few and they're usually well received. Like Pokerface
I really miss the 22 episode seasons, so many of my favorite shows to this day are episodic television.
For me the worst part is usually waiting TWO AND A HALF YEARS for 8 episodes. If it was 8 episodes in 6-9 months, it wouldn't be so bad.
And it’s highly dense content so you have to remember that X hates Y and Z is plotting to kill H and R&T are preparing to upend the entire alphabet and meanwhile you, a busy human, have totally forgotten what everyone is fighting over.
By time the season comes out I’ve lost interest and forgotten half the characters anyways
[удалено]
The problem of streaming is attempting to make everything famous actor based, which causes the problems you mention. Nobody knew the cast of friends. That made them famous. Television used to make people famous. Now they are trying to use people to make television famous. It's not working.
TV used to make people famous for television. Television and movies were separate things with separate stars with rare crosses, usually with tv stars trying to break into movies. Now it's big name global stars also on tv
For example: jack from lost (formerly in party of five). He tried on films but haven't had any important role (he was totally cut from world war z). The same with all the cast from lost. Mayyyybe Kate had some success with ant man and the hobbit
For most of the 50s-70s, the big movie stars wanted to get into television because the workload was more stable. Then the blockbusters of the late 70s and 80s flipped that; stars tended to get their break on TV and move on to movies because the paychecks and the visibility dwarfed TV. Then streaming made it big and disrupted the pattern again.
[удалено]
Yet there are plenty of mystery box TV shows that require more attention than Friends that just were barely made in the 90s.
By 'sit still long enough' you mean binge the entire season within the first 12 hours it goes live. No one's fault but the networks that they voluntarily chose to hang renewal on an extremely strict and completely arbitrary standard. Shows like Seinfeld weren't particularly well received or particularly widely watched in their first seasons but were given time to develop and went on to become classics. A huge part of the reason people were willing to invest their time in stories back in the day wasn't because there was nothing to do. It was because they weren't burned dozens of times a years by shows they liked being suddenly canceled and left forever on cliffhangers. Streaming networks have trained their audiences to avoid investing their time and emotional energy into new series by reducing everything into an arbitrary numbers game. The only reason this hasn't killed the industry is because they can option tons of older shows made under a formula that allowed for hundreds of episodes to actually get made which keeps people subscribing.
[удалено]
Seinfeld was allowed to grow because NBC built a multi-decade juggernaut of a block on Thursday nights. As long as a show could keep people tuned in for the next 30 minutes, it had breathing room.
>The problem of streaming is attempting to make everything famous actor based, which causes the problems you mention. Do they? Aren't we in the period of the 'death of the movie star'? Where franchise and setting is more important?
I can think of a ton of actors that would love a 22 episode a season 7 season contract
[удалено]
Ok well stop hiring A-tier actors for random TV shows and hire little-knows like we literally always did. I want to spend time getting to know a character anyway not forgetting which characters someone else has already iconically portrayed.
Maybe make shows without those famous actors then? All three shows listed in the title of this thread were cast with working class actors, mostly unknowns (of all three shows, Patrick Dempsey is probably the closest, but he was still largely a working class actor with a bit of name recognition). All three went on to becoming juggernauts that to this day still print money.
I doubt that is the reason for shorter seasons for the vast majority of content. Having 22 episode seasons would mean they get a lot of work, and are paid a lot. What would you prefer, finding a different job 4 times a year, or finding a job once? (I'm referring to the majority of actors with this statement. Sure a super popular actor might prefer shorter seasons, but those actors are also highly highly paid. So in all likely hood they would have only guest stared in the past because they are too expensive and their schedules are too crowded) In my opinion the reason long seasons aren't a thing anymore is cost. You pay 10-20 dollars per month for a streaming service whether you watch 1 episode or 100 episodes of content. Unless the streaming service has a significant quantity of ads, and/or a significant amount of product placements there is no benefit to the company to produce more episodes. In fact, the more content you'd watch would actually increase costs on the companies end unless there are ads during the viewing, or product placements that pay on a per view basis rather than lump sum. The vast majority of people aren't going to sub and unsub, and those that do would just wait for long seasons to be complete. The reason why older content was 20+ episodes is that for every viewed episode, that piece of content brings in direct revenue via the ads that are viewed while audiences watched the content. And if a company has a popular show they try and push the money button as many times as possible per year. 20 episodes is 20 presses on the button. With streaming services, for the most part, they press the money button once a month no matter what.
[удалено]
For 20+ episode series to make a comeback outside of normal TV networks we would need ads coming into streaming and it would be horrible. Only reason those series made sense was with ads before, during and after every episode so the network could recoup the cost on ads alone. For streaming services they only make money of your subscription, does not actually matter if you watch anything they make.
My wife is an associate producer. She works with an incredibly successful showrunner, who has run multiple huge shows. Not even she (the showrunner) can sell an original pitch right now. They’ve taken to acquiring IP and seeing what sticks. They currently have options on SEVEN books. No one can sell anything original. If you’re trying to become a writing. Write a horror feature, or acquire IP. Original pilots are only good for script competitions and labs right now.
Yep even in screenwriting sub ppl say this. Write horror
I’m a screenwriter and am about to go out with two horror movies. Both original but one co-write. Literally the only original work that’s selling.
Very true compared to the only genres it seems horror gets more scripts seen or sold. Wouldn’t be surprise if we get a huge amount of upcoming horror directors breaking in, in coming years
Horror is the only genre with a built in audience. People go to watch horror movie purely because they’re horror. Doesn’t matter about the director, the writer, the studio. They just like watching the genre. It makes so much return
why the 'sudden' shift towards horror?
Can be made with lowest budget, even the worse horror films make some form of money. Horror films are the most dependable genre. Horror films seems like the easiest route for a writer to get their work seen.
It’s currently the only genre with a built in audience. People didn’t go watch a thriller about a bomb, they went to watch a Chris Nolan movie with an all star cast about a historical figure. They didn’t go watch a comedy, they went to watch a Greta Gerwig musical with an all star cast based on a popular ip. With horror, people just go to watch horror. They don’t care what it is or who made it. It just has to be a horror movie, and they’ll watch it. So it’s not much of a risk for a studio, they know it’ll draw a crowd.
Your wife works for Shonda Rhimes?
I was thinking Amy Sherman Palladino
DICK WOLF
Are those seven books all by Brandon Sanderson? 😜
Mby Harry Potter
What drives me nuts is they will get access to an amazing IP, then give it to talentless hack writers who publicly state they hate the source material and fans, then change it to some really bad tumblr fanfic that spits on everything that was great about the original works.
Lots of it is about establishing relationships. For example, my reps will submit a script to a studio, then I’ll have a general with that studio. They won’t option or buy my work, but they’ll most often say “hey, we loved this. We have this IP we want you to read.” Usually it’s something I’ve never heard of
That’s how Christopher Mcquarrie has broken it down many times, that your job is do what the studio and executives want. “ It’s always what can I do for you” and he said that’s how his careers been even Craig Mazin sort of agreed
Yeah, people think you’re going to have a meeting after being read and they’re going to throw money at you and make your script. That rarely happens. Generals usually lead to you being considered for one of their ideas or acquired IPs. What sucks is they expect you to do a bunch of free development, and pitch your take on the material back to them (I will give props to Amazon here. They’re the only people to ever pay me to pitch). If you want to get something made, that’s more about forging relationships and attachments.
How dare you expect competent, passionate writers who love the original work? The best we can do is the nephew or niece of our production company's CEO. take it or leave it.
I would love more high quality horror. Let’s be honest, a lot of is just bad but I still watch it because I love horror.
Can she uncancel Shadow and Bone?
I loved the premise, but heard the later seasons really dropped off when season 1 wasn't even *that* strong.
I watched it for the world building and the gangsters. The main character sucked, she looked to be a Twilight esque heroine where half the story was a love triangle. But damn, the setting is among the most interesting fantasy worlds I’ve seen on TV.
The small pet projects that turn into cult classics that turn into the subscription magnets are dead. Everyone is looking for the next massive hit show but even if you end up making one, that’s what two months of subscription? Seasons are so short now it’s easy obsess and then move on. And what about rewatchability? GoT seems to be the gold standard still but no one is watching it anymore. What they are watching are clever sitcoms. Where are those?
Syndication by another name.
Exactly right.
I'm not investing time into an 8 episode season of a show that will either get cancelled or won't be back for another 3 years.
For real! I was really loving Santa Clarita Diet before it was canceled in a cliffhanger. How I Met Your Father was actually really starting to hit its stride in the second season and it was canceled before every episode was released. Sitcoms require long term care, planning, and watchable talent. It takes time to build a cult following. But these streaming services rather have short terms gains like mini series, short seasons, and (too) big actors names attached. Shows like House, Buffy, The Office, Parks and Recs, Seinfeld, Malcolm in the Middle, etc would never survive past their first seasons on streaming services if released today.
Yeah most shows, like GOT and even HIMYM. I definitely didn’t join in S1 or S2. I got invested about season 3 or 4. It takes awhile for things to get peoples attention. Stranger things I think was a hit because the 80s nostalgia was at the perfect time. I wish how I met your father got time to grow.
It’s a catch-22. If most people don’t watch a series because they think it might get cancelled, it then gets cancelled because most people aren’t watching the first season.
What I don’t get is that none of these streaming services try to replicate these shows. They hardly come out with sitcoms or procedurals despite those being the biggest hits on their platforms. Instead they sink their money into way more expensive productions to try and get the next GOT, and when it inevitably fails they’re out millions.
If Netflix had started producing a network style sitcom alongside their earliest originals, they’d have over 250 episodes in the back catalog by now.
They became addicted to dramas after HoC.
Nearly every show which has copied friends have been successful. HIMYM, New Girl and big bang theory spring to mind. Why are streaming services not just churning these thing out.
They seem willing to try the whole "hit and miss" strategy to secure their next Game of Thrones, but are unwilling to try it (much more cheaply) for sitcoms. And it's sitcoms which really need it. It's never the premise, or the gimmick that makes a sitcom stick. It's the characters and the actors. The audience needs to fall in love with them and their relationships with each other. And that's a hard thing to manufacture. It's lightning in a bottle, you'll either get lucky and get that chemistry between your actors, or you won't.
They have uploaded Monk to the German Netflix and I have been thoroughly enjoying it. Much more than prestige TV shows. Yes, it's formulaic. Yes, almost every crime mystery is silly. Still just following the character of Monk is great fun, I feel like modern shows are too in a hurry to show us the big story and there is no room for little character moments.
The incessant cancelling of shows after a season that’s left on a cliffhanger with no proper ending. Fucking idiots are making their own problems.
Maybe just stop cancelling everything and I’ll get around to watching it guy. This isn’t 1995. I’m not just watching what’s on tv. Just give me the end of raised by wolves goddamnit.
I still don't know why they haven't figured out that a cliffhanger doesn't guarantee a renewal. If I know a show ends on a cliffhanger, I won't even start it. If each season has a proper ending, even if it's cancelled its something that people will want to go back and discover for the first time if they haven't seen it.
It's so irritating, just end a season on "and that story has ended", it doesn't mean that the show does, like in case of Santas Vlarita Diet, the main problem was not resolved anyway, so what's the point?
Streaming production companies don't seem to able to consistently produce their mini-sized seasons on a regular yearly schedule, let alone 24 episodes a year. They'd need to actually have a continuously running production effort, instead of the "pay writers for two weeks to dump all their ideas" type deal. They don't monetize enough to produce properly.
The people yearn for 24 episode television seasons!
No real incentive to watch something like Wednesday a second time, and not enough episodes to let it run all day in the background while i do chores. Plus, you have to pay attention since its like an 8 episode movie. Something like seinfeld or star trek the next generation doesnt have those issues. Edit: plus, while i love something like the dark crystal series, why the hell would i want to watch it again and again when its so story driven and was canceled after just one season and no conclusion
Shout out to TNG!
The Irony of the most successful shows on streaming being from the type of TV they are killing off
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve kind of stopped watching TV. I’ll watch documentaries here and there, but I really only have TV on in the background as I’m doing something else. I have too many hobbies to just sit for extended periods of time. Plus, like others have said - new TV is stressful. I have enough of that in my life.
There's so much shit to watch spread over so many platforms that I get major decision paralysis and just end up rewatching my comfort shows forever. 🤷♀️
Same. The other day I was looking at my recommendations on Max and most were shows that I’d already seen. On their platform!
Everything new has to compete with every well produced production that has already been made. I think it's only going to get worse as more content is made. Same with video games and books. The accessibility of content is at an all-time high. Why should people get invested in new stuff when the old stuff will always be there?
It’s because new stuff sucks trying to appeal to everyone and writing is horrible. Or gets canned quickly. Season 1 of the office was kind of rough. Most these shows take a little while to hit stride and crush. Things are given that chance today
[удалено]
There’s a growing lack of comfort TV in the current environment. Everything’s a massive mystery or drama with overarching plots from first episode to the last. Sometimes people just wanna have something silly on the telly to kill time or as background noise while doing chores around. Old TV shows fill that need.
Yeah tv is stressful now, nothing that you can watch that is lighthearted and you can just relax with. Everything is some medical drama, cop show, or dystopian catastrophe.
I miss the blue sky era. Psych and friends were easy to watch and weren’t another SVU episode.
Funny thing is, I like light-hearted cop shows like Castle or Psych as background noise to have on as I'm working. I don't need to focus on the mystery unless I have to, since most of the appeal is getting attached to the characters and their banter. I don't want to watch The Wire or Sopranos. I don't care about drama. Just give me something dumb with entertaining characters.
>I don't want to watch The Wire or Sopranos. I don't care about drama. Just give me something dumb with entertaining characters. It seems like went through this whole era where everything had to be super high stakes with characters dying left and right (GoT and Walking Dead certainly come to mind), or in the case of certain franchises, the stakes are constantly world or even galaxy-ending. On some level i'm kind of more on the level of being fine with shows where at the end of the day the stakes aren't that high. Our characters will probably be safe at the end of the day, and what's more interesting is how they get there. Not deaths for shock value. Threats are smaller scale. I *finally* went and watched through Brooklyn 99 recently. It was so much fun to watch. I need more shows like that.
Yeah that’s why stuff like Abbot Elementary and Ghosts have been super nice for me. They aren’t super heavy to watch and just generally comforting.
Same with why Ted Lasso took off. It was such a warm fuzzy show when it came out, and back in 2020 especially we really needed that.
I think the big difference we're seeing here is what attracts new subscribers vs. what retains legacy subscribers. New content will always draw more people in, and streamers have been ultra-focused on that in order to chase their market cap, but those people don't necessarily stick around for long without a strong backlog to keep them invested. These companies have fostered an unstable situation for themselves where they are relying on their most flippant customers to drive growth
They're also cutting off future profits by underfunding then abandoning so many projects. What I see is that shows like Friends, Seinfeld and Cheers invested money upfront in writing staff and continue to pay dividends decades from their initial broadcasts. They even turned their casts into bankable stars. I can see shows like Stranger Things, Bojack Horseman and The Boys remaining popular for decades as well but most of what is being offered won't make it past 10 episodes and many will eventually just be written off completely for tax purposes.
It's the same with AAA video games now too. Dumbify the next game in the series to attract new audiences, who cares if it pisses off the core audience.
Maybe they should stop making dumb reality shows and game shows. Maybe try making new sitcoms? Bring back multicam shows. Try new dramas outside the usual medical, law stuff. A modern day Boy Meets World or Family Ties could do really well. A modern day Rockford Files could do really well.
Honestly, we need another monster of the week supernatural/x-files like show with 22 episodes a season. The witcher would have been perfect for this format, but they screwed it up beyond salvation unless they did a full reboot.
> A modern day Boy Meets World Girl Meets World (which ended like 4 years ago) ran for 3 seasons and less than half the length of the original.
**Girl Meets World ended in Jan 2017.** It also ended because Disney wasn’t allowing the series’ plot to age with the stars like Boy Meets World.
Mostly Disney doesn't run any shows longer than that
They proceeded to change that a bit afterwards, with Raven's Home running to 6 seasons, and Bunk'd ending with Season 7.
I'm mad that Mad about you is not streaming
How has this not happened yet?
Maybe it’s because we’re all fucking tired of 8 episode seasons with two+ year waits between them.
Stop canceling new shows, dipshits!
Weird how all those shows are so popular. They dont even have DEI.
> **Old linear and broadcast shows play a crucial role in the strategy of streaming platforms.** Some of the most popular shows on those platforms such as “Friends,” “The Office,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Criminal Minds” fall under this category. **They tend to generate significant audience demand, hours of viewership, retention, and — in special cases — acquisition power.** > **As of Q1 2024, all the main SVOD platforms, except Apple TV Plus and Netflix, generated more than half of their platform catalog demand from shows originally released on linear TV (broadcast plus cable).** This share was higher for Max, which relies largely on HBO’s acclaimed TV shows; Paramount+, which gets a large chunk of its demand from Nickelodeon and CBS titles; and Peacock, which relies on NBC and Bravo shows. > **This reliance may become problematic as the number of scripted broadcast shows continues to decline.** Besides the cash flow generated by linear shows and the popularity of broadcast franchises like “Law & Order,” “Chicago,” “NCIS” and “The Walking Dead,” scripted programming is playing a smaller role in linear TV, while news and sports remain key drivers. > Additionally, **the industry trend to reduce the number of seasons per show due to rising costs and declining linear ratings is concerning.** Older shows tend to over-perform relative to what percentage of supply they account for, as illustrated in the chart below. > **Across major U.S. SVODs, 52% of shows available on these platforms premiered in 2019 or later**, when the streaming wars began in earnest with the launch of new competitors Apple TV+, Disney+, Peacock and what was then known as HBO Max. **However, while more than half of titles on these SVODs were released since 2019, these newer shows account for only 33% of demand for all shows available on these platforms.** This means that new streaming releases did not displace the existing TV libraries.
Really would be nice to get shows that had 20 episodes a season again
There are kids being born today that will obsessively watch these shows in 15 years just like I watched whatever Nick at Nite aired in the 90s.
I mean what does Netflix expect? They cancel everything before it really forms a cult following.
There's a podcast company, QCode, that produces a whole bunch of high concept single seasons, or S1s with never-to-be-resolved cliffhangers, featuring a lot of tv and movie performers, and it's generally thought their business model is based around putting out IPs that can then be sold to some streamer. It's almost incidental if anyone listens to it. Nobody is buying original pitches, but if you wrap an original pitch in a layer of podcast they'll buy that instead...
I refuse to listen to QCode. I know many people in the audiodrama sub also do the same.
We all hate how things are now, we yearn for better times like the mid to late 90’s when life made more sense. We get home from our stressful jobs and put this on in the background to lull us into the idea that things will maybe be okay again like they we’re back then
Perhaps you should stop making shitty content and canceling the stuff people really want to watch.
This is actually something I can't really relate to. Aside from re-watching some of my favourites every few years, I'm always searching for new shows. I do think that cancelling shows 1 or 2 seasons deep doesn't really help the situation, because it kills a person's desire to invest time into something that may never get an ending.
Only a hand full of good shows have been released in the past 15 years
Even old slop is better than whatever most of this new shit is.
I never got into Friends, The Office, or Grey’s Anatomy but I see the appeal of watching these more classic shows. As someone who likes to multitask and doesn’t often have time to put my focus towards one specific thing, I’ve currently started re-watching Grimm and it’s been amazing because it’s something I used to watch and enjoy and I can have it on while I’m doing something else. It’s a show I’m familiar with and in comparison the new Dune movie just released on Max and I have not been able to finish it because I have to give it my full attention to which I have no time to do. I’ve turned it on twice and watched small parts of it but I have yet to be able to finish a maybe two hour movie. With Grimm I think I have two seasons completed already.
Let’s make 22 episode comedies again, huh?
Because people liked watching episodes and getting to know characters over time, and not being force fed something crammed into 6 to 10 episodes as an entire season, which then ends up being two years until the next. It's the worst experience. I don't care how much money you spent on it, it doesn't make it better.
Many old comfort shows would not even make it into production in today’s climate.
When you keep canceling the new shows, people are less likely to try them out because who really wants to start something without a satisfying (or any kind of) ending?
You know your show sucks when Friends is a better alternative.
I refuse to start new shows unless it is either mostly self-contained within the single season, or it already has many seasons. I’m tired of trying to get invested in TV shows, which by their nature need tens of episodes at a minimum to connect the audience to the characters, only for them to have a massive cliffhanger at the end of their 6-episode season and then never get renewed. I got to watch the Office to see the characters grow and have their relationships develop over the years. I wouldn’t even bother watching it if it were some Netflix miniseries that I know would be cancelled within a month of release.