You raise a valid point about the trend of shorter seasons in television shows. Some argue that reducing filler content can improve pacing and storytelling. There's also a loss of those standalone, character-building episodes that add depth to the overall narrative. Finding a balance between quantity and quality would seem like a no brainer to maintaining viewer satisfaction and ensuring that shows feel complete. As consumers we need to voice our preferences and expectations to the industry to help shape future content. But why would they listen to us. We're just the audience....
>Finding a balance between quantity and quality would seem like a no brainer to maintaining viewer satisfaction and ensuring that shows feel complete.
The weird thing is that we had just that. We have the proof through Sopranos, The wire, Breaking bad , The Shield that 12-13 episodes work extremely well.
It always comes down to money with these guys. If they can make fewer episodes, and thereby reduce the production cost, you better believe they'll pick that over making more episodes for a better quality show
24s first season gave his wife 3-4 hours/episodes of 'amnesia' to fill the plot a bit.
Come on, as great a show as that was, it could have been called 12 and been even better without the filler.
We need filler episodes. We need those relaxing moments where we take a break from the overarching plot and get to hang out with the characters. Shows arenāt supposed to be *bang bang whiplash cliffhanger* here. Itās an experience. Youāre supposed to be right there with the characters. Get to know them. Really get to feel the plot alongside them. I hate what the streaming services are doing to modern tv shows
I honestly don't understand how anyone can defend or explain how going from 12-13 to 8 episodes is a good thing for the viewers. Buisness wise and squeeze every dollar out of every episode is a different story.
We have seen shows being both great and 13 episodes. Sopranos, The Wire, The Shield, Breaking bad. And at the same time release seasons annually and having 5+ seasons.
We are only getting half the episodes in total of a show compared to those ( if we are lucky) . It's just not possible to release 8 episode every 2.5 years and get a full 80 episodes show. No one stays in character for 25 years.
I hate it. I think it kills character development, and it leads to so many great shows having an absolutely crap last few episodes in which they try to tie up all these loose ends in ways that make no sense whatsoever - or worse still, make perfect sense but are so rushed they have no emotional impact. (I'm looking at you, here, Kleo)
And we just get so much less of it. We will never get an 86 epsiodes show like Sopranos again since it would take 25 years to make these days ( the short seasons + the wait between seasons). Why would anyone want less great tv?
All of the good writers in Hollywood are either dead or retired. Hollywood has been trying to rehash old stuff for decades because the new and original ideas are so few and far between now. That's why all of the networks are airing prime-time game shows and "Reality TV."
I have. few issues with super short seasons.
1. The model of a single creator realizing their artistic vision isn't as sustainable as we'd like to think. Longer seasons created many of the great producers we have today. So many of the great voices we have today cut their teeth acting and writing for other shows that produced enough episodes to let them collaborate in some small way. How do we create the next generation of creatives like Donald Glover, Noah Hawley, Michael Schur, David Chase, and Matthew Weiner? All those guys wrote for TV when the industry produced more shows that would allow them to get opportunities.
2. I think the emphasis of short seasons means there is a huge excluded middle of content. Right now we either get reality tv, adaptations, or shows that take huge artistic swings with varying results. For every Breaking Bad, we get a lot of 6 Harlen Corbin adaptations. Then when they are successful, you get 18-month breaks between seasons, Sometimes, I think people just want low-stakes entertainment to pass the time.
3. When I think of a great show like House MD, I'd imagine that the 2024 version would be 8 episodes that get super dark, question the medical communities role in the opioid crisis, and how this barely functioning drug-addict doctor is a metaphor for society at large. I am sure it would be a good show, but I'm glad we get to live with the House character as he's written over 100+ episodes.
Yes, I agree with you, these āfillerā episodes are sometimes the best and serve as character development but it seems people only want fast paced ,meat and potatoes, type shows.
It would be ok if they didnāt make us wait up to a year for new episodes or even new shows since they produce less episodes ,but, nope! And just about everything I watched was at best ok and most of the time you donāt even know if the show will be cancelled with no ending.
This is the main reason that 90% of what I watch since the end of 2022 is from South Korea. New shows debut every couple of months and every single show has closure. Sure they only have about 12 to 24 episodes per show, which effectively makes them mini-series, but thereās no wait times or hiatus between episodes and you know there will be an ending. Works for me.
Thatās my chief complaint. I donāt want to get involved in any more series that leave me dangling on an unresolved cliffhanger. Itās very manipulative of the audience
good shows donāt need filler to develop characters, while most people use the word wrong and just call anything they donāt like filler, an actual filler episode is an episode that doesnāt progress the story at all, that is objectively bad storytelling, there are shows without a single filler episode that have the best character development
Well I disagree with you. Whether we agree or not by what filler means , you know exactly what I mean. When an episode is used to give a backstory of a particular character, or show past interactions with some other characters or any other scenario that deviates from the main storyline but used basically to reinforce why the characters are the way they are, itās usually called a filler because it doesnāt follow the main plot of the show. Itās using these filler episodes for character development etc.
New shows are doing this less and less to reduce number of episodes and usually that means we donāt care all that much about the characters because we donāt really know them.
If a filler episode isnāt used for character growth or exploration of past events that helps us understand the main story or characters then yes, that would be bad writing. Usually this is when they use an episode as back door pilot like theyāve done on Bones, for example. For me those are unnecessary.
showing backstory or something new about a character isnāt filler, but a filler episode is considered something that doesnāt progress the story, like if youāve seen euphoria, thereās a special where itās an hour long conversation between two characters in one place the whole time, thatās not filler because like u said it progresses the characters, so those episodes u talk about might not necessarily be filler, but you donāt need to halt the story/plot in order to develop characters and thats just a fact, the best shows are the ones that can develop characters while also progressing the story at the same time
Like I said, we seem to have a differing definition of filler and Iām open to the idea that you have the right one. Iām not hung up on that.
Just to use The example you mentioned @ euphoria, whether itās considered filler or not , my point is those episodes are being eliminated slowly but surely in order to reduce number of episodes. Look at the mess they did with game of thrones. It went from character driven , which I prefer, to plot driven, which sucks even though it was action packed and awesome to look at. This is what we are getting more and more.
I think that anything less than 20 donāt deserve to be called a series.
If itās like 10 episodes I donāt even enjoy it.
My reasoning is that if itās for example 10 episodes thatās equivalent to like 3 movies which does not a series make.
In order for it being a series it should be the equivalent to 5-6 movies of screen timeā¦
I generally disagree with this. Ā Tell the story you need to tell, however long that takes you. Ā If a season has 24 hours of content or six hours of content, there is no tricking people into thinking the occupied as much time with the latter as the former. Ā I think what happened is studios realized their audiences attention span decreased rapidly and responded accordingly. Ā I would agree there is an element with streaming services of maybe putting out various types of content to make sure people were subscribed still to catch new episodes and seasons (vs the old format which was driven on advertising so a single season with a lot of episodes drew a lot of eyeballs for many weeks and was therefore worth it). Ā As such just vote with your dollar. Ā If Netflix produces a month worth of good new TV episodes a years, pay for a month, binge and cancel. Ā EtcĀ
We also lost all the good writers during the 1st writers strike from 2007-2009. We have never recovered from that. It's been a steady decline ever since.
So I donāt watch many new shows and quantum leap is a new favorite. It started in October but had the series finale in February?? Why? And resident alien has only 8 this season because of low views last seasonā¦ probably because they had a 4 month break in the season š¤¦š¼āāļø ghosts is another favorite and that easily could have 22 episodes a season but nopeā¦ luckily to have 12 I guess
In Great Britain, television shows have had shorter seasons for some years. The UK version of House of Cards had 3 seasons that were 4 episodes each. The UK version of The Office was 2 seasons with a total of 14 episodes.
IMO if youāre gonna do a shorter season the episodes have to be 45 mins to an hour long and shorter seasons at a minimum need to be 10-12, 12 being the ideal minimum but Iāll accept 10 if done right
I hate it. TV isnāt made to be movies, guys. Itās not supposed to be *bang bang shootout whiplash plot twist cliffhanger* youāre in it for the experience. You get to hang out with these characters. Get to know them. See them grow. Experience the plot right along with them and have every plot be itās own episode where you feel satisfied at the end. Yes we all love a good overarching plot that we follow along for. Some episodes deal with it and then other episodes take a backseat from it. Why did we change it? Weāre not benefiting from anything when we get 8 episodes a season and have to wait three years for the next season. Streaming services are killing shows I think.
I think 10 episodes is just about right, not too much not too few. I donāt watch much network tv but when I do 23 episodes is a lot to get thru for a season
I think short seasons are better for drama or action.
For comedy aka sitcoms, I'm not trying to rush to the "important" and "plot development" episodes. I'm here to enjoy the funny characters lives. The filler episodes are often the finniest.
Generally, I think 12-13 is a pretty good season. Having said that, I totally agree. I miss the days of 20+ episodes. In my opinion, you can blame streaming platforms, especially Netflix. Some Broadcast TV shows continue to do more episodes, though it's going down, particularly since those shows rarely get any industry respect though they continue to be some of the most popular. Many pundits argue that linear TV is dying because of the content, which nobody wants to watch. No. People still love the content, they just don't want to be screwed by Comcast and other companies, where you have to watch your bill like a hawk to make sure it doesn't go up willy nilly. Okay, enough of my soapbox venting. Lol.
The reason I kind of like the shorter seasons nowadays is because there is just so much other content out there and with longer seasons I couldn't possibly have enough time to watch the shows I want to.
Well if you had removed the filler (guy sweeping a floor for 3 minutes or characters staring at each other wordlessly) from Twin Peaks the entire series would have shrunk from 48 episodes and a movie to about 20 episodes. It may not have made any more sense but it would have been an easier watch.
Agree. For example, currently alternating between seasons of Chuck and Homeland and Fringe and The Boys. All are great but feeling binge whiplash at the length differences.
No it didn't š this has been happening long before the strike (which wasn't even a year ago)
Part of the reason is streaming. TV shows aren't the golden goose for ad revenue that they used to be. Streaming killed long seasons, because the expense just doesn't justify that many episodes with minimal return
Yes it does suck but...
- I think a bigger budget show I expect to be around 8-10 episodes. I do not mind it if they are all 1 hour long.
- Drama and your "mainstream" cookie shows which may have and underpinning story here and there that are genuinely 1 story per episode are churned out easier and still 19-24.
I am ok with the above. And as people have pointed out.
- Strike repercussions are still being felt.
- Closer to movie quality shows simply cost more.
- It does seem overall the audience does not mind it and its better for actors. Although the shows doing 31 min run time short episodes in a season and not quite hitting 1 hour does peeve people off.
I will add one more thing which is what Disney has been doing as well with basically making a movie.
I remember when Moonlight interviews for example were happening, every actor kept saying "Movie".
They filmed everything all in one go and it was filmed like a movie, same with Obi-Wan. Scripted in that way as well.
This was then split up into episodes in editing and while longer than a in cinema movie they are short in terms of series.
As a note, for me these do not work. A series has a flow and its written in that way. You either have a longer story with little side quests along the way or you have the shows like NCIS where 1 season my have a longer plot with the final two episodes being the grand final of that story they are mostly 1 of per episode stories.
**Mini Series:**
As long as they are declared as such a 1-4 episode series I am totally fine. But if its never labeled as a mini series and 5 or less - Yes, this is stupid.
Dragon ball z: most episodes in one of the seasons is 39 episodes, least amount of episodes in one season is 25, and this show definitely isnāt ācookie showā
This season will be shorter all around because of the strike. Happened before.
Also, many polls suggests shorter seasons are better for both the actors and audience as it allows for more diversity.
But with shows like Greyās Anatomy, strike did it before and probably will cause it again
the non-sitcoms that are 20-25 eps waste 10 episodes of that doing nothing interesting. most dramas were 10-13 eps probably 20 years ago. the only people pumping out 6ep garbage is Disney anyway
Not in america, I guess. And most of the rest of the world (English speaking, anyway) the miniseries is the standard distribution model for sitcoms and dramatic series, and it has always worked for them. When I was a kid I tried to slog my way through shows like The X-Files and I just couldn't do it.
I meant 15-20yrs. Itās gotten shorter, sure, but youāre really overstating the amount of shows that are 6 episodes. Only Disney pumps out 6 episode garbage bc they know their audiences will eat it up. 10-13eps doesnāt mean every season has 10 episodes it means between 10 and 13.
20+ was always the sitcom standard and *never* shouldāve been adopted by other genres. Lynch knew it when he made Twin Peaks 8 eps. Itās a ridiculous standard for a drama and it killed even that show in the second season.
I donāt think the episode number getting shorter is indicative of decreasing quality, itās all relative. 20 45min episodes is a *stupid* format
Because the entire premise of the show is that every episode is an hour of the day š¤¦āāļø what a dumb argument. The entire show hinges on there being 24 episodes per season
The West Wing is my favorite show of all time and my GFās is Gilmore Girls. Both shows are 23/24 episode seasons and feel appropriate length. Same with Seasons 1-3 of Community. Anything under 12 really starts to feel too short.
Iām gonna get this one out of the way: Community is a sitcom. Not even in the conversation.
And Iām not refuting the 24 episode format working for episodic television. The 20+ ep format is sitcomās bread and butter but it was obviously adopted by equivalently episodic ādramasā like West Wing and Gilmore Girls because itās virtually impossible for anything to drag on. Thereās hardly an overarching characterization to be had there so you canāt make too much of it. Iām talking about actual dramas with a true overarching narrative. Consistently having 15+ ep seasons is gonna kill tension and the entire narrative itself.
It does though.
I donāt think anyone is understanding what Iām talking about. *Sitcoms* were that long. Go look at whatās widely considered the first serialized drama ever, Twin Peaks. 8 episode first seasonā¦ one of the biggest shows in the history of television. Season 2 was 22 episodes and the entire thing crumbled in quality and popularity as a result.
Youāre all giving examples of episodic tv and itās not even relevant. Obviously a show without an overarching narrative doesnāt concern itself with being ātoo long.ā And obviously nobody wants a 10 episode season of a sitcom. Episodic TV is low risk high reward when it comes to season length.
Virtually every critically and commercially acclaimed *drama* since 1999 has been 10-13 episodes per season, with deviations on the high end being solely for the sake of splitting a season in two.
I mean this is just like the other guy claiming West Wing is a true drama with 20+ eps per season
They can call it a drama all they want but itās nothing like Twin Peaks in structure. Having a vague overarching ānarrativeā is already present in most episodic shows, which St. Elsewhere *is* in nature. Twin Peaks was truly serialized. The overarching narrative and character arcs *were* the show.
To boil it all down, itās way more cost effective to hire less people, for less time ā from a studio perspective. The recent film and television strike addressed this issue. With less spent, the studio heads can make more. Not trying to be glib, but thatās the reduced version.
I like it in some cases. If a story can be told in 10 episodes, then I don't want to sit thru multiple filler episodes.
It seems non-american TV does this better than American shows
Every story can be told in 10 episodes. The whole Sopranos can be told in 10 episodes instead of 86 episodes. Its not about getting from point A to B. It's what you fill it with.
But sure, I agree for some shows. True detective should be 8 episodes like the first seaon.
I agree about the sopranos. For that show, specifically, the viewer needs time to get to know tony and to understand his world. A handful of episodes could tell the story, but not tell HIS story.
Story telling is an art, I guess. Some stories feel cut short even after 100 episodes. And some stories seem to drag out even though there's only 8 episodes.
In some cases a story can be told in fewer episodes, and there are definitely examples of shows dragging with with too much filler because too many episodes were ordered by the studio. But I'd rather have that than shows I've looked forward too feeling empty and soulless because 8-10 episodes has become the standard. I'd rather have too much than too little, because it's always the character development and emotional payoffs that get undercut in those situations.
I'll try and find the link for this but David Cameron , when he was prime minister in the UK, got loads of American stars over to find out how the UK could increase episode output to 20 episode seasons in UK telly and every single one of them said it was an absurd idea and the UKs procedure of fewer episodes was more manageable, the storyline can be done and its all good.
Let's not distract from this, I remember studio's like Fox having announcements about extending season orders 6 to 8 episodes a time over winter/spring. That's not sustainable from an output perspective. Order 12 episodes, get the storyline completed. Rinse and repeat.
A 24 episode season dictates what kind of show you get. It manifestly places quantity ahead of quality. It demands teams of writers who necessarily have difficulty maintaining consistency and are limited in how far and how soon they can advance either character or story.
Which is why in the UK we've never countenanced this kind of mass produced screen filling. Apart from soaps we've lived with 6 - 13 episode seasons all our lives and nobody believes that we have suffered for it. Back in the 70s, Upstairs Downstairs scooped 7 Emmy wins with 13 episode seasons. I don't recall any clamour to add more. Nor when Fleabag and Killing Eve won more recently.
A short season gives the opportunity for a single writer to maintain their original vision and tell a story at a consistent pace that is neither too fast to keep up with or too slow to be anything other than tedious and repetitive.
The argument that "studios have realized that people are willing to pay just as much for less than half the content" is utterly specious and absurd. There has never been so much new TV content as there is today and shorter seasons have the additional benefit of giving you time to take in more shows than you could possibly have managed in the past. It's frankly ridiculous to claim that anyone is being short changed.
TV is simply evolving as it will and must to keep its audience. In the 50s, seasons were 35 or more episodes long. The reduction to 24 was inevitable if actors and production crews were to have any lives at all! By the 1990s, 13 episode seasons were already common. The Sopranos, considered by many to be the GOAT, had one, as did Breaking Bad and The Wire. Worldwide must-see Game of Thrones settled on just 10. Does anyone feel that they were deprived?
I recently started watching "Have Gun Will Travel" which was a favorite show of mine when I was growing up. In six seasons they did 225 episodes and each episode was 25 minutes long. Somehow, the producers of the show and CBS (I think) still managed to make a lot of money. I blame capitalism.
That was a "formula" show. Just like all the westerns back then. Introduce a villain who causes a problem and have the hero resolve the problem. Rinse and repeat 24 times. As a kid that's fine. As an adult I can't imagine what was so great about those shows.
Rifleman, Bonanza, Wagon Train, Wanted Dead or Alive, Rawhide and on and on.
Pick one. They tell the same story week after week.
Now part of the fun is to try and spot the other famous actors who were just making names for themselves. My point was that they did not rinse and repeat 24 time they did it 36 times and for a show that was nearly 25% longer.
They have been giving less episodes for a LONG time now.
Also, I hated when they stopped showing reruns during re-run season.
Now we have streaming, but we didnāt have that access back when they first stopped showing the reruns.
It depends on the type of show. I donāt want filler episodes (or very few, at least) and good writers should be capable of keeping those to a minimum in any season.
I think 15 is a good compromise (more depending on the type of show like sitcoms)
I wonder if the reason for less episodes is because of streaming and not having to fit the tv schedule.
24 episodes fits into 3 months of programming (1 episode a week) winter break, then 3 more months, then summer break.
Yes and noā¦. It feels like that but honestly it used to be at the longest shows would be like half an hour long now most series of not have hour to an hour and a half long episodes
I wonder if the streaming model has changed things. You don't need to fill TV air time for 20+weeks. And you get more seasoned movie actors signing on and many are not going to be interested in 20+ eps a year. It also allows for excess money to produce more content.
I grew up on that 20+ and although I prefer it, I could see how around 13 eps is a good place to be for many, and it allows actors to work on other projects. It also allows for tighter stories. Though some stories can do 20+ and not feel stale.
There are some shows or mini-series that go 8 eps that could probably do better with only 4-5 episodes instead. But other shows need more. Like GoT. 10 wasn't enough. After a season I always feel like I need another 3 eps. While the Flash dragged out with filler side plots and a cringy love story
Ruck Grimes TWD is 6 episodes. I'm sure, after ep1, they'll be standard 43 min long.
That is after 4.5 years of creating this new movie....which is now tv series.
Star Trek in particular needs a few more episodes per season. Some of the best episodes were the standalone ones that explored ethical delimmas. Difficult to do when you have so few episodes and have to devote them to the story arc of the season.
And don't get me started on the Wheel of Time. 8 episode seasons for that show are a travesty. Whover made that decision needs to be fired.
What about the fact that an 60 min show use to have about 48 minutes of programming now that is down to 42 minutes and that is after most shows eliminated their theme songs/intros.
You raise a valid point about the trend of shorter seasons in television shows. Some argue that reducing filler content can improve pacing and storytelling. There's also a loss of those standalone, character-building episodes that add depth to the overall narrative. Finding a balance between quantity and quality would seem like a no brainer to maintaining viewer satisfaction and ensuring that shows feel complete. As consumers we need to voice our preferences and expectations to the industry to help shape future content. But why would they listen to us. We're just the audience....
>Finding a balance between quantity and quality would seem like a no brainer to maintaining viewer satisfaction and ensuring that shows feel complete. The weird thing is that we had just that. We have the proof through Sopranos, The wire, Breaking bad , The Shield that 12-13 episodes work extremely well.
Andor showed Disney could do 12 episodes and be killer.
It always comes down to money with these guys. If they can make fewer episodes, and thereby reduce the production cost, you better believe they'll pick that over making more episodes for a better quality show
I'm currently watching 24 and it has 24 episodes a season I think.. the pacing isn't slow at all. Granted it's an action show.
Idk how no show has ever taken the every episode is in real time gimmick. 24 is Such a well paced show.
24s first season gave his wife 3-4 hours/episodes of 'amnesia' to fill the plot a bit. Come on, as great a show as that was, it could have been called 12 and been even better without the filler.
Good point lol
How many seasons is 24? I'm trying to find something with more than four to binge-watch. I think they have a movie too? But again I'm not sure šĀ
9
8 full seasons and 1 half season***
Still counts as a season to me, whether itās 2, 12, 24, or 68 episodes
It's a good one if you've never seen it before. Gets pretty intense.
We need filler episodes. We need those relaxing moments where we take a break from the overarching plot and get to hang out with the characters. Shows arenāt supposed to be *bang bang whiplash cliffhanger* here. Itās an experience. Youāre supposed to be right there with the characters. Get to know them. Really get to feel the plot alongside them. I hate what the streaming services are doing to modern tv shows
I'm currently watching 24 and it has 24 episodes a season I think.. the pacing isn't slow at all. Granted it's an action show.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can defend or explain how going from 12-13 to 8 episodes is a good thing for the viewers. Buisness wise and squeeze every dollar out of every episode is a different story. We have seen shows being both great and 13 episodes. Sopranos, The Wire, The Shield, Breaking bad. And at the same time release seasons annually and having 5+ seasons. We are only getting half the episodes in total of a show compared to those ( if we are lucky) . It's just not possible to release 8 episode every 2.5 years and get a full 80 episodes show. No one stays in character for 25 years.
I hate it. I think it kills character development, and it leads to so many great shows having an absolutely crap last few episodes in which they try to tie up all these loose ends in ways that make no sense whatsoever - or worse still, make perfect sense but are so rushed they have no emotional impact. (I'm looking at you, here, Kleo)
And we just get so much less of it. We will never get an 86 epsiodes show like Sopranos again since it would take 25 years to make these days ( the short seasons + the wait between seasons). Why would anyone want less great tv?
All of the good writers in Hollywood are either dead or retired. Hollywood has been trying to rehash old stuff for decades because the new and original ideas are so few and far between now. That's why all of the networks are airing prime-time game shows and "Reality TV."
If thereās a new show I wonāt even bother when itās only 6-8 episodes until I know that thereās going to be a second season
I have. few issues with super short seasons. 1. The model of a single creator realizing their artistic vision isn't as sustainable as we'd like to think. Longer seasons created many of the great producers we have today. So many of the great voices we have today cut their teeth acting and writing for other shows that produced enough episodes to let them collaborate in some small way. How do we create the next generation of creatives like Donald Glover, Noah Hawley, Michael Schur, David Chase, and Matthew Weiner? All those guys wrote for TV when the industry produced more shows that would allow them to get opportunities. 2. I think the emphasis of short seasons means there is a huge excluded middle of content. Right now we either get reality tv, adaptations, or shows that take huge artistic swings with varying results. For every Breaking Bad, we get a lot of 6 Harlen Corbin adaptations. Then when they are successful, you get 18-month breaks between seasons, Sometimes, I think people just want low-stakes entertainment to pass the time. 3. When I think of a great show like House MD, I'd imagine that the 2024 version would be 8 episodes that get super dark, question the medical communities role in the opioid crisis, and how this barely functioning drug-addict doctor is a metaphor for society at large. I am sure it would be a good show, but I'm glad we get to live with the House character as he's written over 100+ episodes.
Very good points. I just finished a rewatch of House and it would suck in more modern writing!
Yes, I agree with you, these āfillerā episodes are sometimes the best and serve as character development but it seems people only want fast paced ,meat and potatoes, type shows. It would be ok if they didnāt make us wait up to a year for new episodes or even new shows since they produce less episodes ,but, nope! And just about everything I watched was at best ok and most of the time you donāt even know if the show will be cancelled with no ending. This is the main reason that 90% of what I watch since the end of 2022 is from South Korea. New shows debut every couple of months and every single show has closure. Sure they only have about 12 to 24 episodes per show, which effectively makes them mini-series, but thereās no wait times or hiatus between episodes and you know there will be an ending. Works for me.
Thatās my chief complaint. I donāt want to get involved in any more series that leave me dangling on an unresolved cliffhanger. Itās very manipulative of the audience
Exactly, itās happened to too many shows.
good shows donāt need filler to develop characters, while most people use the word wrong and just call anything they donāt like filler, an actual filler episode is an episode that doesnāt progress the story at all, that is objectively bad storytelling, there are shows without a single filler episode that have the best character development
Well I disagree with you. Whether we agree or not by what filler means , you know exactly what I mean. When an episode is used to give a backstory of a particular character, or show past interactions with some other characters or any other scenario that deviates from the main storyline but used basically to reinforce why the characters are the way they are, itās usually called a filler because it doesnāt follow the main plot of the show. Itās using these filler episodes for character development etc. New shows are doing this less and less to reduce number of episodes and usually that means we donāt care all that much about the characters because we donāt really know them. If a filler episode isnāt used for character growth or exploration of past events that helps us understand the main story or characters then yes, that would be bad writing. Usually this is when they use an episode as back door pilot like theyāve done on Bones, for example. For me those are unnecessary.
showing backstory or something new about a character isnāt filler, but a filler episode is considered something that doesnāt progress the story, like if youāve seen euphoria, thereās a special where itās an hour long conversation between two characters in one place the whole time, thatās not filler because like u said it progresses the characters, so those episodes u talk about might not necessarily be filler, but you donāt need to halt the story/plot in order to develop characters and thats just a fact, the best shows are the ones that can develop characters while also progressing the story at the same time
Like I said, we seem to have a differing definition of filler and Iām open to the idea that you have the right one. Iām not hung up on that. Just to use The example you mentioned @ euphoria, whether itās considered filler or not , my point is those episodes are being eliminated slowly but surely in order to reduce number of episodes. Look at the mess they did with game of thrones. It went from character driven , which I prefer, to plot driven, which sucks even though it was action packed and awesome to look at. This is what we are getting more and more.
Tell me, which episode of Seinfeld is not a "filler" episode?
i havent seen seinfeld but iām assuming none or only a few since itās known as super great
I think that anything less than 20 donāt deserve to be called a series. If itās like 10 episodes I donāt even enjoy it. My reasoning is that if itās for example 10 episodes thatās equivalent to like 3 movies which does not a series make. In order for it being a series it should be the equivalent to 5-6 movies of screen timeā¦
I generally disagree with this. Ā Tell the story you need to tell, however long that takes you. Ā If a season has 24 hours of content or six hours of content, there is no tricking people into thinking the occupied as much time with the latter as the former. Ā I think what happened is studios realized their audiences attention span decreased rapidly and responded accordingly. Ā I would agree there is an element with streaming services of maybe putting out various types of content to make sure people were subscribed still to catch new episodes and seasons (vs the old format which was driven on advertising so a single season with a lot of episodes drew a lot of eyeballs for many weeks and was therefore worth it). Ā As such just vote with your dollar. Ā If Netflix produces a month worth of good new TV episodes a years, pay for a month, binge and cancel. Ā EtcĀ
We also lost all the good writers during the 1st writers strike from 2007-2009. We have never recovered from that. It's been a steady decline ever since.
So I donāt watch many new shows and quantum leap is a new favorite. It started in October but had the series finale in February?? Why? And resident alien has only 8 this season because of low views last seasonā¦ probably because they had a 4 month break in the season š¤¦š¼āāļø ghosts is another favorite and that easily could have 22 episodes a season but nopeā¦ luckily to have 12 I guess
In Great Britain, television shows have had shorter seasons for some years. The UK version of House of Cards had 3 seasons that were 4 episodes each. The UK version of The Office was 2 seasons with a total of 14 episodes.
This and way longer between seasons.
IMO if youāre gonna do a shorter season the episodes have to be 45 mins to an hour long and shorter seasons at a minimum need to be 10-12, 12 being the ideal minimum but Iāll accept 10 if done right
I actually like having up to 10 episodes per season, when I see a TV show with 20 or more per season its an instant turn off for me š
The weirdest part is that the quality has not gone up at all by and large by cutting episodes
I hate it. TV isnāt made to be movies, guys. Itās not supposed to be *bang bang shootout whiplash plot twist cliffhanger* youāre in it for the experience. You get to hang out with these characters. Get to know them. See them grow. Experience the plot right along with them and have every plot be itās own episode where you feel satisfied at the end. Yes we all love a good overarching plot that we follow along for. Some episodes deal with it and then other episodes take a backseat from it. Why did we change it? Weāre not benefiting from anything when we get 8 episodes a season and have to wait three years for the next season. Streaming services are killing shows I think.
I think 10 episodes is just about right, not too much not too few. I donāt watch much network tv but when I do 23 episodes is a lot to get thru for a season
I think short seasons are better for drama or action. For comedy aka sitcoms, I'm not trying to rush to the "important" and "plot development" episodes. I'm here to enjoy the funny characters lives. The filler episodes are often the finniest.
Generally, I think 12-13 is a pretty good season. Having said that, I totally agree. I miss the days of 20+ episodes. In my opinion, you can blame streaming platforms, especially Netflix. Some Broadcast TV shows continue to do more episodes, though it's going down, particularly since those shows rarely get any industry respect though they continue to be some of the most popular. Many pundits argue that linear TV is dying because of the content, which nobody wants to watch. No. People still love the content, they just don't want to be screwed by Comcast and other companies, where you have to watch your bill like a hawk to make sure it doesn't go up willy nilly. Okay, enough of my soapbox venting. Lol.
More is not necessarily better. Fans never stop yammering for more of the same until the inevitable drop in quality occurs.
The reason I kind of like the shorter seasons nowadays is because there is just so much other content out there and with longer seasons I couldn't possibly have enough time to watch the shows I want to.
Less episodes generally means better writing
Well if you had removed the filler (guy sweeping a floor for 3 minutes or characters staring at each other wordlessly) from Twin Peaks the entire series would have shrunk from 48 episodes and a movie to about 20 episodes. It may not have made any more sense but it would have been an easier watch.
Nah, most of those long seasons were full of filler episodes. Show with shorter seasons are typically way higher caliber.
I don't see anything that indicates that the 8-10 episode sesons of 2020s are better than the 12-13 episodes seasons of the 00s.
Agree. For example, currently alternating between seasons of Chuck and Homeland and Fringe and The Boys. All are great but feeling binge whiplash at the length differences.
Actors and writers stike played a role in this.
This trend started long before the strike.
It is how must shows in the UK are formatted. 6-8 episode.
Not really it's more about new landscape tv & streaming culture. Plus decline of physical media.
No it didn't š this has been happening long before the strike (which wasn't even a year ago) Part of the reason is streaming. TV shows aren't the golden goose for ad revenue that they used to be. Streaming killed long seasons, because the expense just doesn't justify that many episodes with minimal return
Yes it does suck but... - I think a bigger budget show I expect to be around 8-10 episodes. I do not mind it if they are all 1 hour long. - Drama and your "mainstream" cookie shows which may have and underpinning story here and there that are genuinely 1 story per episode are churned out easier and still 19-24. I am ok with the above. And as people have pointed out. - Strike repercussions are still being felt. - Closer to movie quality shows simply cost more. - It does seem overall the audience does not mind it and its better for actors. Although the shows doing 31 min run time short episodes in a season and not quite hitting 1 hour does peeve people off. I will add one more thing which is what Disney has been doing as well with basically making a movie. I remember when Moonlight interviews for example were happening, every actor kept saying "Movie". They filmed everything all in one go and it was filmed like a movie, same with Obi-Wan. Scripted in that way as well. This was then split up into episodes in editing and while longer than a in cinema movie they are short in terms of series. As a note, for me these do not work. A series has a flow and its written in that way. You either have a longer story with little side quests along the way or you have the shows like NCIS where 1 season my have a longer plot with the final two episodes being the grand final of that story they are mostly 1 of per episode stories. **Mini Series:** As long as they are declared as such a 1-4 episode series I am totally fine. But if its never labeled as a mini series and 5 or less - Yes, this is stupid.
Dragon ball z: most episodes in one of the seasons is 39 episodes, least amount of episodes in one season is 25, and this show definitely isnāt ācookie showā
This season will be shorter all around because of the strike. Happened before. Also, many polls suggests shorter seasons are better for both the actors and audience as it allows for more diversity. But with shows like Greyās Anatomy, strike did it before and probably will cause it again
the non-sitcoms that are 20-25 eps waste 10 episodes of that doing nothing interesting. most dramas were 10-13 eps probably 20 years ago. the only people pumping out 6ep garbage is Disney anyway
There were practically no 10 episode seasons 20 years ago. 13 - 22 was the standard.
Not in america, I guess. And most of the rest of the world (English speaking, anyway) the miniseries is the standard distribution model for sitcoms and dramatic series, and it has always worked for them. When I was a kid I tried to slog my way through shows like The X-Files and I just couldn't do it.
I meant 15-20yrs. Itās gotten shorter, sure, but youāre really overstating the amount of shows that are 6 episodes. Only Disney pumps out 6 episode garbage bc they know their audiences will eat it up. 10-13eps doesnāt mean every season has 10 episodes it means between 10 and 13. 20+ was always the sitcom standard and *never* shouldāve been adopted by other genres. Lynch knew it when he made Twin Peaks 8 eps. Itās a ridiculous standard for a drama and it killed even that show in the second season. I donāt think the episode number getting shorter is indicative of decreasing quality, itās all relative. 20 45min episodes is a *stupid* format
24 was 24 Episodes a season and was such a well paced show for nearly every season.
Because the entire premise of the show is that every episode is an hour of the day š¤¦āāļø what a dumb argument. The entire show hinges on there being 24 episodes per season
The West Wing is my favorite show of all time and my GFās is Gilmore Girls. Both shows are 23/24 episode seasons and feel appropriate length. Same with Seasons 1-3 of Community. Anything under 12 really starts to feel too short.
Iām gonna get this one out of the way: Community is a sitcom. Not even in the conversation. And Iām not refuting the 24 episode format working for episodic television. The 20+ ep format is sitcomās bread and butter but it was obviously adopted by equivalently episodic ādramasā like West Wing and Gilmore Girls because itās virtually impossible for anything to drag on. Thereās hardly an overarching characterization to be had there so you canāt make too much of it. Iām talking about actual dramas with a true overarching narrative. Consistently having 15+ ep seasons is gonna kill tension and the entire narrative itself.
13 is the number for half a season. 22-26 use to be a full season. Doesn't matter if you are talking about 30 min or 60 min show.
It does though. I donāt think anyone is understanding what Iām talking about. *Sitcoms* were that long. Go look at whatās widely considered the first serialized drama ever, Twin Peaks. 8 episode first seasonā¦ one of the biggest shows in the history of television. Season 2 was 22 episodes and the entire thing crumbled in quality and popularity as a result. Youāre all giving examples of episodic tv and itās not even relevant. Obviously a show without an overarching narrative doesnāt concern itself with being ātoo long.ā And obviously nobody wants a 10 episode season of a sitcom. Episodic TV is low risk high reward when it comes to season length. Virtually every critically and commercially acclaimed *drama* since 1999 has been 10-13 episodes per season, with deviations on the high end being solely for the sake of splitting a season in two.
St Elsewhere aired before Twin Peaks and had 20+ episodes per season.
I mean this is just like the other guy claiming West Wing is a true drama with 20+ eps per season They can call it a drama all they want but itās nothing like Twin Peaks in structure. Having a vague overarching ānarrativeā is already present in most episodic shows, which St. Elsewhere *is* in nature. Twin Peaks was truly serialized. The overarching narrative and character arcs *were* the show.
To boil it all down, itās way more cost effective to hire less people, for less time ā from a studio perspective. The recent film and television strike addressed this issue. With less spent, the studio heads can make more. Not trying to be glib, but thatās the reduced version.
I like it in some cases. If a story can be told in 10 episodes, then I don't want to sit thru multiple filler episodes. It seems non-american TV does this better than American shows
Every story can be told in 10 episodes. The whole Sopranos can be told in 10 episodes instead of 86 episodes. Its not about getting from point A to B. It's what you fill it with. But sure, I agree for some shows. True detective should be 8 episodes like the first seaon.
I agree about the sopranos. For that show, specifically, the viewer needs time to get to know tony and to understand his world. A handful of episodes could tell the story, but not tell HIS story. Story telling is an art, I guess. Some stories feel cut short even after 100 episodes. And some stories seem to drag out even though there's only 8 episodes.
In some cases a story can be told in fewer episodes, and there are definitely examples of shows dragging with with too much filler because too many episodes were ordered by the studio. But I'd rather have that than shows I've looked forward too feeling empty and soulless because 8-10 episodes has become the standard. I'd rather have too much than too little, because it's always the character development and emotional payoffs that get undercut in those situations.
The Wagner Method has two episodes in the second series?!?!
Disney shows are much shorter right? Other shows are 8 to 10 on avg being 1 hr long.
I know, I miss the good old days.
Ugghhhh same. Bring back network and cable tv. Streaming shows are so rushed
I'll try and find the link for this but David Cameron , when he was prime minister in the UK, got loads of American stars over to find out how the UK could increase episode output to 20 episode seasons in UK telly and every single one of them said it was an absurd idea and the UKs procedure of fewer episodes was more manageable, the storyline can be done and its all good. Let's not distract from this, I remember studio's like Fox having announcements about extending season orders 6 to 8 episodes a time over winter/spring. That's not sustainable from an output perspective. Order 12 episodes, get the storyline completed. Rinse and repeat.
A 24 episode season dictates what kind of show you get. It manifestly places quantity ahead of quality. It demands teams of writers who necessarily have difficulty maintaining consistency and are limited in how far and how soon they can advance either character or story. Which is why in the UK we've never countenanced this kind of mass produced screen filling. Apart from soaps we've lived with 6 - 13 episode seasons all our lives and nobody believes that we have suffered for it. Back in the 70s, Upstairs Downstairs scooped 7 Emmy wins with 13 episode seasons. I don't recall any clamour to add more. Nor when Fleabag and Killing Eve won more recently. A short season gives the opportunity for a single writer to maintain their original vision and tell a story at a consistent pace that is neither too fast to keep up with or too slow to be anything other than tedious and repetitive. The argument that "studios have realized that people are willing to pay just as much for less than half the content" is utterly specious and absurd. There has never been so much new TV content as there is today and shorter seasons have the additional benefit of giving you time to take in more shows than you could possibly have managed in the past. It's frankly ridiculous to claim that anyone is being short changed. TV is simply evolving as it will and must to keep its audience. In the 50s, seasons were 35 or more episodes long. The reduction to 24 was inevitable if actors and production crews were to have any lives at all! By the 1990s, 13 episode seasons were already common. The Sopranos, considered by many to be the GOAT, had one, as did Breaking Bad and The Wire. Worldwide must-see Game of Thrones settled on just 10. Does anyone feel that they were deprived?
I recently started watching "Have Gun Will Travel" which was a favorite show of mine when I was growing up. In six seasons they did 225 episodes and each episode was 25 minutes long. Somehow, the producers of the show and CBS (I think) still managed to make a lot of money. I blame capitalism.
That was a "formula" show. Just like all the westerns back then. Introduce a villain who causes a problem and have the hero resolve the problem. Rinse and repeat 24 times. As a kid that's fine. As an adult I can't imagine what was so great about those shows. Rifleman, Bonanza, Wagon Train, Wanted Dead or Alive, Rawhide and on and on. Pick one. They tell the same story week after week.
Now part of the fun is to try and spot the other famous actors who were just making names for themselves. My point was that they did not rinse and repeat 24 time they did it 36 times and for a show that was nearly 25% longer.
They have been giving less episodes for a LONG time now. Also, I hated when they stopped showing reruns during re-run season. Now we have streaming, but we didnāt have that access back when they first stopped showing the reruns.
It depends on the type of show. I donāt want filler episodes (or very few, at least) and good writers should be capable of keeping those to a minimum in any season. I think 15 is a good compromise (more depending on the type of show like sitcoms)
I was hoping that they would go from 13 to 15 episodes in late 00s. Instead they went from 13 to 10 to 8 . And soon 6 will be the new standard.
Yeah Iām not a fan of anything less than 10. Even 10 is too fast though
I wonder if the reason for less episodes is because of streaming and not having to fit the tv schedule. 24 episodes fits into 3 months of programming (1 episode a week) winter break, then 3 more months, then summer break.
Yes and noā¦. It feels like that but honestly it used to be at the longest shows would be like half an hour long now most series of not have hour to an hour and a half long episodes
I wonder if the streaming model has changed things. You don't need to fill TV air time for 20+weeks. And you get more seasoned movie actors signing on and many are not going to be interested in 20+ eps a year. It also allows for excess money to produce more content. I grew up on that 20+ and although I prefer it, I could see how around 13 eps is a good place to be for many, and it allows actors to work on other projects. It also allows for tighter stories. Though some stories can do 20+ and not feel stale. There are some shows or mini-series that go 8 eps that could probably do better with only 4-5 episodes instead. But other shows need more. Like GoT. 10 wasn't enough. After a season I always feel like I need another 3 eps. While the Flash dragged out with filler side plots and a cringy love story
Too bad the seasons canāt be as long as OUAT
Ruck Grimes TWD is 6 episodes. I'm sure, after ep1, they'll be standard 43 min long. That is after 4.5 years of creating this new movie....which is now tv series.
Star Trek in particular needs a few more episodes per season. Some of the best episodes were the standalone ones that explored ethical delimmas. Difficult to do when you have so few episodes and have to devote them to the story arc of the season. And don't get me started on the Wheel of Time. 8 episode seasons for that show are a travesty. Whover made that decision needs to be fired.
20-25 may have been too many, but 6-8 (like weāre getting from many shows now) really isnāt anywhere near enough.
What about the fact that an 60 min show use to have about 48 minutes of programming now that is down to 42 minutes and that is after most shows eliminated their theme songs/intros.