Ongoing series versus limited series (tv show, television, cost, ratings)

[phetaroi]

One of the biggest changes in television programming in the past few years has been the change in thinking that came mostly first from premium cable channels and related services (such as Netflix) -- the idea that a television series doesn't have to be 24 episodes long each year. I guess, in a way, it's a hybrid of the old mini-series concept, but I think it's pretty clear that the trend is here to stay.

I thought we might enjoy chatting about the upsides and downsides of the trend.

I'll start off with the biggest upside (IMHO) -- better scripts than a traditional series since writers are no longer needing to grind them out 24 times a year.

[kab0906]

Upside: Can get big (or almost) name actors for a short time, improving quality.


Downside: Usually long time between seasons so viewer interest falls.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by kab0906

Upside: Can get big (or almost) name actors for a short time, improving quality.


Downside: Usually long time between seasons so viewer interest falls.

Yes, very good points.
It does seem like forever between seasons. Not sure if that means viewer interest falls. I am anxiously awaiting the return of "The Good Fight" in March.

[Mark S.]

The best TV shows of the past 20 years have all been limited series with gaps in between seasons:

THE SOPRANOS
BREAKING BAD
JUSTIFIED
BETTER CALL SAUL
GAME OF THRONES
WESTWORLD

The only truly great ongoing series I can think of in the past 20 years is THE WEST WING, and it kinda crashed after season 4.

[SabresFanInSA]

While I think I understand your point, what you are talking about is not actually a "limited series". Limited series are those that are just 10 or 13 episodes and are done. Usually the networks use that term to describe shows that didnt perform as they would like and were cut to the 10 or 13 episodes. None of them are truly designed to be limited. If their ratings were better they'd get full season orders.

Cable has been using the "13" episode/season formula for years. (some will run as little as 10 and some as much as 15) The biggest reason is that they dont have the revenue to fill a 22 episode season. Instead they air shorter seasons which cost less and over the course of the run get 8 seasons out of what would have cost 4 or 5.

Networks are staring to do it for a myriad of reasons. "The Following" for example. Kevin Bacon would only commit to 15 episodes per season. Other shows are designed to fill in the gaps created by other show hiatuses. Remember the TV season is 36 weeks. If you air 22 weeks of a show you still have 10-14 weeks you have to fill in. Perfect spot for a shorter run show.

So sure there are some quality upsides to it, it is all about dollars. If USA (just to pick one at random) could afford a 22-24 episode season you can bet they would air it.

[kab0906]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

The best TV shows of the past 20 years have all been limited series with gaps in between seasons:

THE SOPRANOS
BREAKING BAD
JUSTIFIED
BETTER CALL SAUL
GAME OF THRONES
WESTWORLD

The only truly great ongoing series I can think of in the past 20 years is THE WEST WING, and it kinda crashed after season 4.

I've never watched any of them.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by kab0906

I've never watched any of them.

Me either. That's what I like about t.v. today -- lots more variety than in the past.

[tamiznluv]

Originally Posted by kab0906

I've never watched any of them.

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Me either. That's what I like about t.v. today -- lots more variety than in the past.

I never watched any of those shows either and they were so popular!!!

[Mircea]

I don't have a problem with limited series. I think they're warranted in some cases. I'd rather watch 8 to 12 high quality episodes than suffer through nonsense for several seasons.

The Long Road Home (with only 8 episodes) is a good example of a limited series.

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by SabresFanInSA

While I think I understand your point, what you are talking about is not actually a "limited series". Limited series are those that are just 10 or 13 episodes and are done. Usually the networks use that term to describe shows that didnt perform as they would like and were cut to the 10 or 13 episodes. None of them are truly designed to be limited. If their ratings were better they'd get full season orders.

Cable has been using the "13" episode/season formula for years. (some will run as little as 10 and some as much as 15) The biggest reason is that they dont have the revenue to fill a 22 episode season. Instead they air shorter seasons which cost less and over the course of the run get 8 seasons out of what would have cost 4 or 5.

Networks are staring to do it for a myriad of reasons. "The Following" for example. Kevin Bacon would only commit to 15 episodes per season. Other shows are designed to fill in the gaps created by other show hiatuses. Remember the TV season is 36 weeks. If you air 22 weeks of a show you still have 10-14 weeks you have to fill in. Perfect spot for a shorter run show.

So sure there are some quality upsides to it, it is all about dollars. If USA (just to pick one at random) could afford a 22-24 episode season you can bet they would air it.

Thank you for posting what I was just about to post. And saying it much better.

Now if we could get the rest of the people who post in this thread to stop calling it "limited series" since that's not what the industry calls it... my life would be complete.