That's not true. Some shows get 3 feature length episodes or whatever but that's not standard. 6 is a standard number but we see all sorts of different amounts of episodes, Skins gets 8-10 episodes, Misfits started with 6, then 7 now 8, Being Human started 6 and shifted to 8, Shameless started at 6 has moved up to 8 then 10 then 12 then 22. And the reason for the 3 part Red Dwarf was 2 things, Doug Naylor wanted to do a special event and Dave were testing the waters for bringing back the series. Which gave them their highest ever rating, they even beat 2 networks, so have given the order for a full 6 episode series, with the possibility of more.
vexed (3 episodes) Sherlock (3 episodes) The great outdoors (3 episodes) Upstairs Downstairs (3 episodes) Zen (3 episodes) Wallander (3 episodes per season) Yes. 6 is standard, but they're experimenting with 3 "Sometimes". And if they're starting to get too comfortable with this new alternative model? We're fucked.
I don't know about all of them but Vexed, Zen and Wallander were all shows they were taking a risk on and 2 were cancelled. Wallander continues in the format but is 2 hours per episode which is the same as 6 episodes and has a budget of £7m per series, so it's a special case. Sherlock was supposed to be a one off and was increased to 3 feature length episodes. So again equal to 6 episodes. Not sure about Upstairs Downstairs but I believe that also started out as a Christmas Special, was increased to 3 feature length episodes then renewed for a second run. But then you have Exile 3 parter, The Shadow Line 7 parter, The Crimson Petal and the White 4 parter, Page Eight a One Off, there's a lot of variety, which is a good thing.
I just remember when the Autobots finally got back to Cyberton after 3 million years and the frakking planet was overrun with Minicons. Transformers the size of human beings who could survive for months on a few drips of energon.
Actually, the more I consider it, the more I realize the shorter seasons seem to work better. Too many American shows go on for too long and turn into sad versions of themselves. Take The Office which I am really not enjoying, aside from a decent episode or two here and there. Is it really better to have 22 episodes of this with some okay, some poor, and a handful that are really good than to have 6 solid episodes (or, at least 5 solid and one clunker)? Anyway, I came into this thread to say that I saw Bridesmaids last night and wasn't really all that impressed. I think it's a case of the hype raising my expectations to the point where I was expecting something much better. The best thing about the movie was, by far, Chris O'Dowd. I wasn't expecting to see him, but was glad he was in it.
The Beverly hillbillies and Bewitched were routinely doing 36 episodes a season. I shat a biscuit when Walking Dead finished after 6 episodes last year.
Personally I wish more shows would do the amount they can sustain and do well, rather than just doing a regimented amount per year.
Amen to that, I've liked so many US shows over the years that have either gone down the pan or I've gone off simply because they have to make so many episodes a year (Which lets face it is never down to story reasons) Give me 6 or 13 quality eps a year rather than 22 where half are mere filler.
Does any given Producer know when they're making shit? Any given producer who doesn't know which 6 episodes out of the 22 they produce of any given dross are not shit, is a problem to me. If they are so clueless and untrustworthy not to have some sort of barely functional shit filter, how can we be sure that they won't make 6 shitty episodes? Far better to up the order, for these hypothetical producers to create 44 episodes a year so we can sit back and enjoy 12 of them. It's almost like they make good, entertainingly watchable media by accident.
^The problem isn't knowing which 6 will be good and which 12 will be shit and 4 will be alright. It's having the time and ability to make 22 good episodes in 9 months. Even with a roomful of writers and a 4 Executive Producers can't often make up for lack of time to do things properly.
It's a staffing issue true. They need twice as many writers and directors to make twice the number of shows in the same amount of time. But levels of competency and genius can't be assured as they hire untested staff while exhausting existing staff. Conversely... Halving the order means that they have to fire half their staff. And what if the Executive Producer fires the wrong half!? The producer keeps senior staff, or his friends over the actual writers/directors who make good media? And even when you stack the deck like that, good writers/producers can still roll a snake eyes now and then, but if it's only a 6 episode order. There's no padding to allow for bounceback, that 2 shitty episodes can sink the entire season. Last season of the IT Crowd was shit.
Was it? I seem to remember it was fine but couldn't say for certain, I've watched older ones on DVD since and may be mixing them up. As you say there are different levels of competency, so you get shit shows with 6 episodes and brilliant ones with 22, but more often than not the longer the episode count the harder it is to keep up quality. So, as I've said, I wish more shows were made where they could keep the episode count to a count they can manage well. They maybe can't tell which episodes will stink and which episodes will be the best ever made, but you can make sure even the bad ones are done well so they don't suck quite so much, you can have time to polish your turds if necessary.
The House always wins. By the way. baker Boys (Comdrama with Eve Myles) 3 episodes for season one and two. Getting On 3 episodes season one, 6 episodes season 2. The It Crowd is held to a higher standard. A shit season for the It Crowd is like if a season of Friends had been written by Oscar Wilde starring Abbott and Costello.
I'd say the last series of the IT crowd wasn't quite as good as before, still some very funny episodes but a couple which fell very flat for me. Tis easy to get them mixed up however.