TV Shows are having a hard time in the streaming era - General Discussion Discussion

[–] JoWilli (19964) 3 months ago

no kidding, could you imagine Friends or Seinfeld being 8 to 10 episodes a year and dropped all at once? and most new shows these days barely last 2 seasons.

thanks TikTokers....

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5847) 3 months ago

It has nothing to do with any "TikTok Generation" because it's nothing new!

High-quality cable (and British) shows have long had shorter seasons and Network TV shows still follow the same 20+ episodes/season model as always...

reply

[–] JoWilli (19964) 3 months ago

network and streaming shows are completely different. networks can afford long running shows and series while streaming shows get a limited budget.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

Streaming shows tend to have a much larger budget per episode than network shows though

reply

[–] JoWilli (19964) 3 months ago

the Friends cast was making 1 million per episode by season 9, this would never happen today on a streaming show. thats 41 episodes and 6 cast members.

Law and Order has been on for 24 years. this would never happen today on a streaming show.

streaming shows are short and sweet just like tiktok...

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

>the Friends cast was making 1 million per episode by season 9, this would never happen today on a streaming show. thats 41 episodes and 6 cast members.

I meant in terms of CGI. I suspect the average pay for an actor coming into a new streaming show is way more per episode than a new network show. Friends was massive, and a bit of an outlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GrsdZHQPmg Something like this is not gunna be on CBS.

>Law and Order has been on for 24 years. this would never happen today on a streaming show.

This is true.

reply

[–] capuchin (3187) 3 months ago

This is because the aim of traditional broadcast TV shows (such as Friends) is to last long enough to go into syndication. And they go on until either the audience drifts off or the show gets too expensive to make because cast salaries rise to a point where it's no longer considered economically viable (such as Friends).

I'm not sure that model is a great way guaranteeing continued quality.

reply

[–] Stratego (30510) 3 months ago

Come on, with British shows you sometimes had to wait years for a new episode.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

Most shows aren't 20-35 minutes long though.

They clock in between 40-60 minutes in my experience.

reply

[–] sslssg (34222) 3 months ago

I don't think that's the issue. I've always preferred the shorter seasons of British TV shows. The US model of 24 episodes a season have so many filler episodes, I lose interest. I think the issue is that when we only had like 3 cable networks, we didn't have options, so we watched what was available.

I'm not going to say that there aren't quality tv shows being made, because there certainly are. It's just that when one needs to subscribe to a certain platform to watch one tv show, it's really easy just to skip it.

reply

[–] ColumboKate (5678) 3 months ago

When American shows became more popular in Britain I was always surprised at how long they were.

Most of our long running series have 4-6 episodes a year.

reply

[–] capuchin (3187) 3 months ago

The US model of 24 episodes a season have so many filler episodes

Yes. It also requires more writers -- often in a writers' room model where the personnel changes over the course of a long-running series.

British shows are often written by one or two people which means that they retain the same authorial voice throughout their run.

I can can count the number of 20+ per season US shows running for multiple seasons that I've seen from beginning to end on one hand. I almost always lose interest -- or the quality declines markedly.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4615) 3 months ago

"The US model of 24 episodes a season have so many filler episodes"

That's not an inevitability at all. If a show has "so many filler episodes" merely because there are 24 episodes in a season then it's not a good show to begin with, and cutting it down to 8 episodes per season won't fix it. All of my favorite TV shows have 20-something or even 30-something episodes per season (except for Columbo, because all of those "episodes" were really made-for-TV movies), and none of them have "so many filler episodes," e.g., Magnum, P.I., Seinfeld, Star Trek, Cheers, and others. They wouldn't be among my favorite TV shows if I didn't like the vast majority of the episodes.

Filler episodes are mainly a product of the modern trend of serialization of TV shows. Episodic TV shows don't need filler episodes because all of the story arcs are only one episode long. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a story arc that requires 24 hours of footage to properly flesh out, nor even 8 hours, so you naturally get a lot of filler when you're creating episodes for a series that has season-long story arcs. If they moved the story along at a reasonable pace the story arc would be over in one or two episodes, so they have to move it along at a snail's pace.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

That to me is a form of filler. If a dramatic* show has an episode where the plot starts and resolves within the episode, and nothing carries over (or very little) carries over - it's worthless to me. The episode can be skipped. I simply do not like that type of writing.

*I have more leniency when it comes to sitcoms here.

reply

[–] Mustang (5421) 3 months ago

Yeah the filler eps always bug me especially as they usually interrupt/deviate from the main story arc that is happening. I'd rather have half the amount of eps and a tight season.

I agree that back when there were less options we just watched what was on. Now I actually prefer to not watch TV shows at all and watch Youtube clips a lot. A lot of the TV shows of the last 10 years have no interest for me at all.

reply

[–] roger_dat (1571) 3 months ago

TV is dead and we're paying for it

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

There's still lots of cool TV, you just have to look stuff up more than you may have had to a decade ago.

reply

[–] roger_dat (1571) 3 months ago

Not where I live there's not. And even if there was, I wouldn't watch it on TV.

For decades now, I've only needed internet, TV is as dead as land-line phone for me

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

Oh sorry, by "TV" I also mean streaming services. TV in terms of what you mean is kinda dead

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5847) 3 months ago

Nope on both accounts!

I get lots of cool stuff on my free over-the-air TV just the same as I have been doing since the seventies...

reply

[–] JoWilli (19964) 3 months ago

thats just because you are old like my dad! lol he is still befuddled on how streaming works. I tried to explain it one day and it turned into a "whos on first" routine. the only thing I watch on antenna is the local news. the other 99% is spent on Hulu, Max, etc...

reply

[–] Keelai (34864) 3 months ago

It's the fault of companies which decided to put their best shows on streaming or premium in order to squeeze more money out of customers. Formerly, cable had good shows, but even that's rare now.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4473) 3 months ago

Cinemas and TV arent dead neither are live events

reply

[–] CaptBeefBlower (250) 3 months ago

I'm not sure running time is the issue. I've found that the quality of scripted shows has dropped considerably since Covid, while the hype levels have rocketed. I suspect there's too much content being produced across too many platforms, without enough talented writers or development time to do all the content justice.

I've also noticed that a lot of shows devolve into filler after the third or fourth episode. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that this is usually the number of episodes that critics get to review...

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

What TV shows do you like?

reply

[–] davodikum (6197) 3 months ago

Check out Mr Inbetween. Solid show.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (4423) 3 months ago

I second this. It's excellent.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19964) 3 months ago

House of the Dragon suffered from tons of filler. there was like one good episode and the finale was horrible.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (4423) 3 months ago

My gripe with modern shows, especially the streaming era is that they're billed as an "8 hour movie" or some shit like that.

Basically, they treat it as a long movie rather than an actual show.

Also, they're way too short. I don't wanna go back to the 20+ episode seasons for non-sitcom shows but 6 to 8 episodes is just not enough for most shows.

Most of them just end, abruptly!

reply

[–] 123Guy (7281) 3 months ago

Two things:

1. Things change. Evolve, or go extinct.

B. maybe they shouldn't make tv shows that cost millions of dollars per episode.
WRITE BETTER, be more engaging, less costs for effects or whatever

reply