Wow !
That's a whole years worth of American TV Drama.
OK - 90 min eps vs 45 min US shows so lets call it two years worth.
Still, why so few ?
I'm not asking for quantity over quality but still....just 3 episodes a year
for Foyle or Sherlock ? Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Newsroom, House of Cards all come up with more than that and no one complains of their quality.
Oh this old chestnut...
Lots of reasons, a few are:
1. Often they have a single writer, or co-writers, not a whole raft of them. This is often due to the person who had the idea, or wrote the book, having control over the script-writing or at least the choice as to the writer.
2. Ditto directors
3. Contracts are often on a series basis, or 2 years tops, so they have to renegotiate more often
4. Simple lack of cash unless backed by a US or Australian production company
5 Historically UK actors do a mix of TV, film and stage work, so juggling time can be difficult (think Sherlock with Martin Freeman off Hobbitting in NZ for several months a year vs Ben doing all sorts in Hollywood, vs the writers who are busy also writing other stuff eg: Doctor Who)
6. Period dramas cost far, far, far more than you would imagine possible, and take far longer to film. For example, spreading sawdust down over an entire village to make it authentic pre-Victorian village-y, or transforming the whole area to be war-era authentic. You can't take 12 weeks to film loads of episodes if you're stopping the people who live there driving in and out of their farm, even if you do pay them a fortune. And if you break in filming there will be continuity errors, the spotting of which then becomes a national sport!! ...... Or a single dinner scene in Downton Abbey taking a whole day to film, let alone setting it up.
Thanks for the list explaining why it may be this way. I was also curious about this and why the span between the series are different. The first few years were every year and now it looks like they come out every two years.
I watch them as they show up on Netflix so I don't experience the long lag time. I'm kind of "burnt out" on enjoying shows and having them cancelled (ie. Monk) so I don't even bother watching anything in real time when it shows up on television. Plus, I like the ability to watch as many episodes as I want without waiting week to week or season to season. It's just too random and frustrating what executives will ditch in the middle of a good run.
Get busy living, or get busy dying. Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)
Actually one of the reasons is the delay caused by the idiocy of a former ITV executive who cancelled Foyle's War in 2007. This disrupted script continuity such that storylines pertaining to 1943 and 1944 were dumped. They limped it out to 2008 to get to the end of the war and then canceled it again. Then they looked at the ratings and decided to talk to Anthony Horowitz again about maybe taking the characters past the end of the war. More time wasted. Supposedly three more TV movies were filmed early this year (done in April) but for reasons only God knows they aren't available until next year.
Because really, when you have a popular show and actors who have accommodated all manner of screwy treatment regarding their own schedules, what's the rush? Why air episodes, sell DVDs, any of that? Here's the thing you find all the time with British television programming - they always use tight budgets to justify not making more episodes of this or that, but when it comes to marketing they can't seem to figure out that if they make shows available in all the English speaking countries (at least), they might actually profit from it. Downloads, DVDs, few shows reach us through these outlets. Try to find half of what Robson Green has done, for instance. It's not that Netflix or Amazon or whoever won't carry their stuff, it's that they can't get their hands on it.
Robson Green? Ah, be still, my heart. -:)
shareHaving had Netflix and Amazon for about two years now there is something that struck me about this , as already said, hoary old Chestnut.
UK domestic broadcast TV really does show the best of American TV, such that one can get the impression that the US system does make everything bigger and at least as good.
However..... having been through most of what Netflix / Amazon has top offer now in terms of Drama, right behind the best of the US that is shown on Sky / ITV / BBC is an absolute pile of rubbish, and lots of it. Impossibly beautiful, but minimally talented, actors and actresses trying their very best with some appalling dross.
I think the best of the best stands up against each other. the best of US vs. The best of the UK and their isn't much in it, I may be biased but I think the cream of UK TV does beat the cream of US TV. Partially down to better, more experienced actors. Only my opinion of course.
Then you get this gap where there is nothing from the UK, we run out of money. So the gap is filled by acres of US TV, series of 20-odd episodes at 44 minutes each. yes it would be great to have Sherlock / Foyle / Lewis at 20 episode series but it would lose quality, as the OP says 28 Foyle's over 13 years is a cause of sadness, just imagine 100 episodes of Foyle at the same quality, but I fear that is not what we would get....AND that is what the US give at this mark. If a series is silly or nonsensical or badly made it doesn't matter how many episodes they give it.
So overall I would rather have 28 Foyle's and live with the frustration than 100 episodes and not quite hold it in such esteem.
'tler
[deleted]
I *think* I'm with you on that.
sharebritish tv series on the whole tend to be shorter than American ones. inspector morse and Lewis for instance only had about thirty episodes each. american series often seem to me to go on too long, there is often a decline in quality in later seasons.
share