TV Tuesday: A Good Thing?

[yourlibrarian]

Given it’s the most watched (original) series ever on Netflix, Stranger Things was a must-view for many. It was also a show whose story was dragged out for so long that its characters aged into adulthood. Is it great when a favorite gets extended into many seasons? Or is the lure of a potential franchise something that ruins what was once enjoyable? Does the type of story being told matter?

Comments

[jo]

I don't think the issue is a series lasting a long time, it's more the time it takes now between series/seasons of a show. If you look at network TV series that ran a long time, they produced new seasons annually. So you take, for example, The Waltons, which ran 9 seasons and starred a boatload of kids -- the kids aged and got married/started their own families as the series went on. I never watched Stranger Things beyond season 2, so I don't know if the timeline from one season to the next is supposed to be rather continuous or if it incorporated the massive gaps between series to explain why the kids aren't kids anymore? But if each series of it is supposed to take place immediately following the events of the previous one, then yeah, that becomes a bit of an issue if you're dealing with kid actors and taking an eternity to produce new series of it.

Shows like M*A*S*H*, which ran 11 years but was supposedly about the Korean War which lasted 2 years -- obviously the big issue is the stars looking much older after 11 years than they would have if the show had lasted only as long as the actual war. But the quality of the show actually got better and better as the show went on, so as long as it remained excellent, no one was going to complain about how long it had been on the air.

If a show maintains its excellence, I don't think it matters how many seasons it lasts. But if it's a show that involves kids, and is set within a specific, narrow time-frame, then you either make it a one or 2 season thing, or produce your seasons annually, or else you rethink the approach so your characters can age realistically along with the actors playing them.

[yourlibrarian]

It wasn't starting immediately after the events, but the story had to be stretched out some to account for the rapid change in the kids. The final season they're supposed to be in their senior year of high school though they're now playing younger.

I agree that it depends what your show is supposed to be. For example, a family sitcom where all the kids become adults is a different thing than when there was a variety of ages (or your central character is a nanny...)

[naushika]

I really miss when TV shows aired a season per year. I completely understand that pumping out a 22+ episode season every year is hard on everyone (cast and crew alike), expensive, and being phased out. But I think 10 episodes every 2-3 years is too harsh of a rebound. It's that loooong period between seasons that's so detrimental. It doesn't really matter what kind of show it is, it's just those periods of nothing that are damaging.

I feel like a healthy compromise is a season of 15 episodes, and one season a year. I'm hoping TV creators come around because IDK how much longer I can do this. I lost interest in Stranger Things a long time ago, and I also forgot about it so when I heard the final season was happening my only response was, "oh, that's still on?"

[yourlibrarian]

I could do with 10 episodes, but I agree that an annual season seems long enough for planning purposes. And more shows could be a limited series so that it's just one and done.

[rogueslayer452]

It's less that a show goes on for so long, but more that there's an extended wait period between seasons that. With Stranger Things it basically ten years for five seasons, and that's....not good, honestly. This is an issue with the streaming model in general, though. Not only that, seasons aren't even that long anyway. Having six episodes per season and a prolonged wait time in between seasons isn't ideal, it doesn't give a lasting impression for the most part, and in fact many either lose interest entirely or don't bother starting a new show because they know that it'll take years before the next season to arrive. While traditional network television had its own fair share of issues, at least it had a set schedule.

Now, if we're going by shows from before, that also was kind of a mixed bag. We often bemoan prematurely cancelled shows, but there are also shows that go far beyond its desired expiration date. The general consensus seems to be five or six seasons (with 22+ episodes per season) is ideal in most cases, although it truly depends on the show and the story being told. Some require more seasons, some less, it's about the story the creator is trying to tell.

[yourlibrarian]

That last issue is the key one, I think. In the past there often was no particular story that showrunners wanted to tell. It was just a matter of coming up with something to fill airtime for 6 months. And if enough people watched it would go on until ratings didn't justify production costs anymore (or else cast left and ratings dropped).

I've been listening to a con appearance by the Buffy/Angel writers, and they talked about how different the show was than any other they'd worked on. Part of that is that each episode had specific character arcs, and there was always a plan where the season would end up. They said a lot of other shows focused on an idea for an episode, not a plan for what it meant for a character or the season's development.

[lokifan]

I've been listening to a con appearance by the Buffy/Angel writers, and they talked about how different the show was than any other they'd worked on. Part of that is that each episode had specific character arcs, and there was always a plan where the season would end up. They said a lot of other shows focused on an idea for an episode, not a plan for what it meant for a character or the season's development.

Interesting! And totally makes sense. Series 2 and 3 of BtVS in particular, I'd say (though every season to differing extents) are so very much focused on their themes, with every MotW reflecting them.

[yourlibrarian]

Yes, I think there was always a metaphor, and sometimes a reason why it was coming up in that season.

[delphi]

I'm also definitely in the "the type of story matters" camp. Something heavily serialized, where the age of the protagonists in relation to the timeline matters, with short seasons and long breaks between them is really hard to pull off, whereas I don't think anyone bats an eye at an episodic procedural that goes that long.

I do find myself craving more episodic shows these days - the kind where the length can create more depth and more interesting ongoing storylines, as opposed to something heavily serialized where the length can start dragging it down.

[yourlibrarian]

Telling a set story is always dicey. Shows that are popular suffer from the tendency to extend them well past where they should have ended. Not surprising that procedurals can have long lives.

[china_shop]

There are definitely shows where I feel like the creator had finished telling the story they had to tell, but the studio/streaming service demanded more, and the subsequent seasons have felt like diminishing returns. More isn't always a good thing.

One of the things I really like about Korean dramas is that most of them (in the genres I watch, at least) are complete stories in one season, no sequels.

[yourlibrarian]

Yes, let a limited series be limited! It's also easier to know what to do with it in your watchlist. This evening I'm looking up several shows I've seen because I've no idea if they will continue or not. (If it was prior to 2024 I'm assuming not, but many are recent).

[shadowkat]

Is it great when a favorite gets extended into many seasons?

Depends on a lot of factors.

* how quickly they produce and develop and air the seasons
* if there's enough story for multiple seasons
* if the characters work over an arc
* availability of actors/cast, and whether the characters they are playing can age realistically like the actors will

The difficulty is - that writers and actors tend to be nomadic and like to play or write new things, and not commit to just one thing for a long period of time. In other words - television writers and actors get burned out - particularly if there's long hours, and it's a tough series to shoot. And, a lot of actors are nomadic by nature.

So unless the series is open to a kind of revolving door for actors and writers (see Grey's Anatomy, ER, Law & Order, CSI, Bridgerton) - it's not going to work for long. Sooner or later they'll want out. It's rare the lead actors and writers will stick. Usually the head show-runner burns out first.
(See Vamp Diaries and Supernatural, where someone else took over halfway through, same thing happened with Buffy and Angel actually).


Now if it's a series based on a series of books (Vamp Diaries, Harry Potter, Outlander, Depart Q, Bridgerton...) - then yes, you can extend it without too much trouble. Although after a certain point, shows like Harry Potter and Vamp Diaries will run into the actors aging faster than the characters are supposed to.

Or is the lure of a potential franchise something that ruins what was once enjoyable?

* Depends on the series? But yes, sometimes. I've been known to not watch series that are franchises, and have lost interest or felt a series was enjoyable until they tried to make it more than it should be (this happens a lot with medical procedurals, actually).

Usually though - it's not an issue. I liked Soaps that spun off Soaps, and Vamp Diaries - I didn't care if they spun off a franchise, also I liked both Buffy and Angel. So it does depend on the format of the series. For the most part, I'm ambivalent?


Does the type of story being told matter?

See above. But yes, I think it matters in regards to the first questions, kind of murky on the second.

Oh, I like questions that allow me to analyze television too death. One of my favorite hobbies is analyzing the television and film industries. So, thank you.

[yourlibrarian]

Yes, a long running show will inevitably have a lot of changes, even if the lead character remains with the show. And that's true that something based on a series of books will generally have a lot to work with.

[shadowkat]

Series of books also provides a lot of world building and a character bible - readily accessible. It's why Vamp Diaries had better world-building and to a degree plotting than Buffy or Angel did - because it was based on a series of novels. It didn't have to make stuff up. Same is true of Outlander and Bridgerton.