Why don't TV shows make more episodes each season??

[Free4Life11]

Is there some law or something?? I wish Lost would make a few more episodes. I don't get why they can't make anymore than 24 episodes.... Too expensive maybe??

 

[RyMickey]

Fans of Lost should be happy since most hour-long dramas only do 22 hours of tv a season. It has to be a cost thing. Plus, I think that the number of episodes help spread the creativity out over several years since the true profits come from syndication (which begins at 100 episodes, I think). Then again, with the tv-on-dvd concept, I'm sure that's really where the profit lies nowadays.

 

[Planogirl]

I dislike the way the Lost people spread out the episodes personally. I much prefer 24's approach where they show them back to back without interruption.

 

[bicker]

That was actually luck, on 24's part. Fox realized that it basically destroyed its own audience for its own shows by interrupting them for the month of October with baseball. So they let 24 try this "Start in January" approach. The problem for other networks is what do they show September through December? The reality is that television viewers aren't a very loyal group of people, in general. They watch only some of the time. No sense in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars or more producing an episode only to have no one watch it.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

Free4Life, I can't answer your question, but I do agree with you concerning Lost. Drives me bananas.

 

[Chattyaholic]

I can remember when re-runs were only during June, July and August. The "new TV season" started early in September and ran until the end of May. No "repeats" during the "season". No shows were "cancelled." They all ran their course until the end of the season. Now, if a show "doesn't do well in the ratings" it can be cancelled after just a couple episodes. They don't give shows time to find an audience sometimes. It's frustrating. And now the cost, per episode, is getting more and more expensive. Just like "Friends", all of the actors demanded big salaries so they could only afford to do a certain number of shows. And commercials are even getting ridiculously expensive. It's insane. Millions of dollars for a 30-second commercial sometimes. Wow.

 

[agnes!]

I agree about networks running re-runs in the middle of a series' "year" as a pet peeve, plus the number of episodes keeps on shrinking.

In a related tangent, many members of the public are not aware of this, but series' regulars usually aren't on "easy street". Most series' actors that are in re-runs from years past get little or *NO* residuals, so IMO *good* for the Friends' cast! They are getting their money up front. The series' producers didn't HAVE to pay them more.
This list of "no residuals" series includes "The Honeymooners" (except for the estates of Jayne Meadows and Jackie Gleason), "Leave it to Beaver", "Star Trek"(original), "Andy Griffith" and many more from TV's so-called "Golden Age". The networks and the production companies reap millions off of most series. Nobody realized(not even the production companies or networks - it was just dumb luck on their part) that there would be so much syndication money, but that is the way these old contracts were written. Like most old-time rock 'n' roll/blues/jazz performers, these actors are getting *NOTHING* from the fruits of their labors, while others get to reap the rewards.

For instance... You might have seen all those infomercials for the "Dean Martin Variety Hour" or for his "Celebrity Roast". *NONE* of those performers were getting any money from the sale of these shows. Recently, a 1 million dollar judgement was won against the folks who own the rights to the series, because they were selling these episodes without compensating the performers. I'm sure the only reason that the performers got any money in the Dean Martin case is because future sales of the episodes were not covered in their contracts.
(In another sales situation, in this case concerning a Disney movie, songwriter/performer Peggy Lee sued Disney because they sold VHS tapes of "Lady & the Tramp" without paying her additional compensation. Disney infringed on her rights as the composer. She won.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is please don't lay most of the blame for fewer epsodes at the actors' or performers' feet.

agnes!

 

[Servants of Evan]

Additionally, there needs to be an understanding of production time. When I was working for HGTV, our show maintained an average of 1 hour in the field for each minute of finished video. So, if you had a 22 minute show it would take (on average) 22 hours in the field to shoot. We had the luxury of working predominantly indoors -- something many productions don't have and there are always delays due to weather, etc. This is just for shooting the video, let alone the time it takes in editing, makeup, ADR sessions, etc. Additionally, let's not forget the writers! It takes time to write (and rewrite) these shows! When you watch a show and see all those names go flying by at the end keep in mind the of the number of people and the huge number of hours it takes to create a single show...

When I started with our show, we shot 26 half-hour episodes a year. Later the network increased us to 39 half-hour episodes a year. Candidly, we thought they were trying to kill us! It was all we could do to stay on schedule and on target. After three years of that, we all needed a break.

 

[cardaway]

If you were to look at the full season sets of shows that are decades old you will find that the number of episodes per season hasn't changed in decades.

In the past however, there was fewer shows like Lost where all the episodes tie into one another. Showing Murder Shw Wrote out of order, or with gaps, had little to no effect on the series.

The only thing I think they could do better is fill the gaps with quality material. Every year there are plenty of shows that never get their full run shown because they are cancelled. Why not show them during the down time of other shows? They are starting to do this during the summer, but why only during the summer?

 

[pearlieq]

I think it's a combination of cost and the actors/production staff needing a break. It's exhausing to put on a 1hr drama every week. These people need to recharge!

Plus, I think it would cause the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" syndrome where you're not as interested anymore when it's on all the time. Having less to see makes each episode more compelling.

 

[RadioNate]

I'm sure Lost costs a fourtune to produce. There are how many series regulars? How many sets in multiple locations? The outdoor beach stuff is in Hawaii but they do a lot of the flashback stuff in LA. Plus the writing time and production time.

What I'd love to see is more shows in general. Have 2, 24 week seasons. The other 4 weeks can be special programming. I'd also like networks to commit to shows rather than cancel them after 1 or 2 airings.

ABC canceled Jake in Progress and Emily's Reason's Why Not both after 1 episode aired. How can you know after one episode? I didn't watch either show but a few other million people did. Shows like Friends and Cheers were not blockbuster hits right out the gate. CBS canceled Love Monkey after 3 episoded, yes it was getting KILLED by American Idol but what doesn't get beat by AI? It still had 7 or 8 million viewers.

Of course having to produce 2 sets of shows would cost $$$ and the networks aren't willing to lower profets so we'd end up with shows with cheap production like reality tv. And I definately don't think we need any more reality TV.

 

[bicker]

This is a good point. The quantum shift was completed by 1970. All in the Family, for example, started out with only 24 episodes per season (after its abbreviated 15 episode first season). Long-running hit M*A*S*H had 240 epsiodes during its first 10 seasons, an average of 24 episodes per year. (It ended with an abbreviated season of 15 episodes.)

 

[agnes!]

Saying "Reality Show" is just another way for production companies to say

"YAY! We get to run these episodes rent-free FOREVER ! We don't have to pay any performers more money! We'll air and sell these episodes like madmen because the performers signed away all rights for nominal moneys up front and for a bit of the resulting notoriety. "

Yeah, I *know* the production companies take all the risk, etc but they do end up with (I'm pretty sure)all of any resuting sales(syndication, DVDs). Just my opinion, but maybe the Reality Show bubble is starting to fizzle out? Other than "American Idol" *right now*, what shows are grabbing most of the attention, during most of the year? (And more importantly, I wonder which of the most well-known shows charges the most for a commercial-time buy?) Grey's Anatomy, LOST, the Law & Order universe, the CSI monolith...

agnes!

 

[bicker]

Survivor is as popular as it has ever been. And Amazing Race is experiencing a resurgence this season. Reality shows are a permanent fixture. The "bubble" was for BAD reality shows... those are hopefully on the decline.

 

[sha_lyn]

Shows like Friends and Cheers were not blockbuster hits right out the gate.

My fav "failure" is JAG. The origional network that had it cancelled after 2 seasons. CBS picked it up and it became a hit and lasted for 5 more seasons. Would have gone longers but the actors were ready to move on.

What really gets me is not the number of episodes, but how much time goes to comercials now. I believe the average in the 70's was 7 min per hour, not it is almost 3X that.

 

[MrsKreamer]

I already have too much I want to watch, I can't take anymore episodes per season! I rely way too much on TiVo now! There are so many sucessful cable tv shows now in competetion with the major networks.

 

[Planogirl]

It's just like any popular genre, everyone has to jump on the bandwagon for a while. Once the newness wears off, the production companies will move on to something else.

Personally, I would like to see a resurgence in good comedies, emphasis on "good".

 

[DVC-Don]

If you were to look at the full season sets of shows that are decades old you will find that the number of episodes per season hasn't changed in decades.
..........................?

I recently purchase the five seasons of the TV show Combat that first aired in 1962 or 1963. There were 34 episodes per season and the shows run about 50 - 52 minutes each. The 5th season there was less episodes, I think about 28.


Nowadays you are lucky to have 24 (more likely 22) episodes per season and they might run 44 minutes each.

 

[bicker]

Yup, but c'mon -- Combat? 1962? That's before I was born! So, "Nowadays" means "after 1970" to you?

 

[Planogirl]

Combat may have been on before you were born but plenty of people are purchasing DVD's of classic series. Many of the older ones had 30-40 episodes per season.