Miniseries The Mini-Season Trend

[Kenny Coyote]

But should they increase the volume of episodes for no other reason than to limit the time it's not on the air? Many of these new (and very expensive) shows are more focused (storywise) than what we got in the 80s.
I agree with Emelee that "we get what we want" in the sense of that we're not so patient and tolerant anymore. When a popular show does a stinker episode it goes viral. That's not good.

And then there's another thing: streaming services who offer their seasons as a finished product. They don't necessarily have to wait a whole year to release the next season.
And even if you have to wait a whole year, then what's the difference between binge watching 10 episodes in 2 days or 30 episodes in 6 days? There'll still be that 11 months and 4 weeks gap.
Don't expect me to believe that you would have stuck to 1-episode-per-week if they had offered OldDallas seasons as a finished product, ready to be consumed.
We're greedy, we're hungry. We take what we can (how very 80s villain of me!)

I understand that not all of us agree on the merits of a series that runs weekly from fall through spring vs. those of one that lasts 10 weeks. That's fine. I find it interesting to see what other people have to say about it, especially when they describe what they like about it.

BTW, I wasn't being "patient" or "tolerant" when I watched TV in the 80s. If I tried watching a show and I didn't like it, I just didn't watch it. I watch fairly little TV anyway. I watch more movies than TV. It takes a special show to grab my attention and make me want to watch it regularly. Dallas was the only show I watched religiously every week from fall through spring, year after year during the 80s. It was just that good and still to this day the best show I've ever seen.

I've seen a couple of the new mini-season style shows that I think are very good:

Breaking Bad was very good. I don't like the influence they had - way too many shows tried to copy them. Even TNT Dallas had elements of Breaking Bad. Those elements just didn't fit the type of show Dallas is supposed to be. If they're talking about a cartel in Dallas it should be an oil cartel - not a drug cartel. TNT Dallas also tried to use a very fast-paced style and to me it usually seemed rushed, like they were struggling to fit their stories into the short amount of time they had for them.

The innovator is always the best. Bryan Cranston, in the persona of the Walter White we first saw didn't look capable of ever being a dangerous guy. The mild-mannered Walter White's metamorphosis into the persona of Heisenberg was fascinating and so well executed, Bryan Cranston deserved every bit of credit he got for making it look as convincing as he did.

Yellowstone is the best show on TV now. It's excellent. They only have 10 episodes a season and it's like you describe new shows: it looks like it was expensive and I appreciate the HD picture which is something we didn't have in the 80s and 90s. Without the 10 season format they probably wouldn't have gotten the people for it they did to make the show what it is, so I appreciate that. I don't know who else could play John Dutton nearly as well as Kevin Costner does.

Most of the series I've enjoyed a lot have been more of a standard length season. I really enjoy the character development that a longer season makes possible and I like the depth with which they go into on storylines, made possible by having the necessary amount of time to do it.

If you think it's fun to binge-watch, then enjoy it. It just doesn't appeal to me. Remember the post where @Mel O'Drama mentioned "resonance" and "anticipation"? I find that watching a series when it airs, one episode a week allows those two factors to take place in between the episodes. The week in between episodes gives me time to more fully take in what I've seen, appreciate it and wonder about what will happen next. It's fun to look forward to that next Wednesday night!

 

[Willie Oleson]

I really enjoy the character development that a longer season makes possible and I like the depth with which they go into on storylines, made possible by having the necessary amount of time to do it

Yes, I'm sure we could think of quite a few storylines from the 80s soaps that couldn't have happened in just 10 episodes. And there's also a feeling of pay-off, watching all these characters for such a long time.

BTW, I wasn't being "patient" or "tolerant" when I watched TV in the 80s

I think these old series were allowed to be very elaborate, especially the European series, but it never bothered me. Nothing bothered me, I just watched everything. That doesn't mean that it was all great, but you have to see it first before you can decide whether it's good or not. And then it doesn't matter anymore because you've already watched it! We couldn't prepare ourselves and decide beforehand, so yes I definitely think we were more patient and tolerant.

 

[Daniel Avery]

Who Shot JR? came about, I believe, because the network ordered two additional episodes. Even though the creative team had already told the story they wanted to tell for that year before the episodes were ordered. The "let's just shoot the bastard" legend is probably very telling of the desperation, pressure and frustration creative teams can feel when having to conjure up an increasing number of episodes to satisfy networks. Clearly, it's an example that great things can come from that pressure. But I suspect it's the exception.

CBS similarly asked Knots Landing to expand their sixth season after it had already been mapped out and the first two-thirds already written. Since the twins' kidnapping story was set to dominate the season, this was supposedly what inspired them to write the "Val/Verna in Tennessee" subplot, to 'pad things out' a bit.

 

[tommie]

CBS similarly asked Knots Landing to expand their sixth season after it had already been mapped out and the first two-thirds already written. Since the twins' kidnapping story was set to dominate the season, this was supposedly what inspired them to write the "Val/Verna in Tennessee" subplot, to 'pad things out' a bit.

Another aspect with the streaming trend is of course not just the limited episode count, but the fact that they'll film one season in a go, which means that any storylines that might not work out (such as "the boring gay subplot" in What/If) won't be nixed, but also not expand on characters/storylines that might take off with the viewers. This lack of pressure could of course go either way creatively.

 

[Willie Oleson]

This lack of pressure could of course go either way creatively.

Thankfully, CWDynasty has a reliable testing audience!

 

[tommie]

Thankfully, CWDynasty has a reliable testing audience!

 

[Emelee]

Either way you prefer it, we as viewers have had an enormous amount of options when it comes to TV in the past 15 years. Since AMC's Mad Men first came out and really set the trend for how to make good TV, the industry has exploded. We can now choose between long and short seasons, we can choose to watch when it first airs on TV or stream. We can choose when and how often we want to watch. If you still want to watch 22 episodes a year, you still can. There are plenty of those shows around - mostly in the US.

Can anyone answer this: are there UK series with 22 episodes per season?

"Standard length" isn't 22 episodes per year to me. When Swedish TV buys an American series with 22 episodes per season, they never broadcast it the same way here. They tend to wait until the network has broadcasted at least 6 episodes of a new season until they begin broadcasting it here. Then they usually take a longer break mid-season to make it feel like one season is about 10-12 episodes, and have 2 seasons per year. One airing in the spring and one airing in the autumn.

Swedes generally have no definition of what a "standard length season" is. A season could be any number of episodes. Anywhere between 4 and 25. And the daytime soaps are not thought about as having seasons, they are just never-ending but with breaks for the summer months. Sweden's drama series in the 80s and 90s never had a set number of episodes per season. Not even the primetime soap operas, which usually had a little bit more than 22 episodes per year. Like 27-30 episodes per year with a short winter break and a long summer break and made into an autumn season and a spring season.

 

[Emelee]

I'd like to add that while I absolutely can watch daytime soaps and series with a ton of episodes every year, I can't follow more than 2 or 3 of them the same year. So it has to be a series that I really love.

In October, I was looking around on Netflix and decided to check out Jane the Virgin. I liked it and saw a couple of more episodes. Then I decided to check how many episodes there were of the series. 100! I was immediately less keen on continuing watching. 100 hours. Nooooo. I like the series, but I don't love it that much!

I get the same feeling when I see that a series I find interesting has too many episodes. I would love to check out Vikings, The Americans, Suits and a number of other series. But every time I will choose a new series to watch, I tend to choose something with fewer episodes. Either something brand new or something old with no more than 30-40 episodes.

If a brand new series begins that I fall in love with, then I don't mind if it will continue on for the next 15 years. But I can't be already 50+ episodes behind when I start watching something. I can climb a hill, but not Mount Everest.

 

[tommie]

In October, I was looking around on Netflix and decided to check out Jane the Virgin. I liked it and saw a couple of more episodes. Then I decided to check how many episodes there were of the series. 100! I was immediately less keen on continuing watching. 100 hours. Nooooo. I like the series, but I don't love it that much!

Off topic - but I'd definitively say stay with Jane the Virgin. It's a really satisfying journey overall.

I mean, Dallas had 357 episodes plus Early Years plus two reunion movies PLUS another 40 hours of TNTDallas. The creators actually wanted JtV to end at a 100 episodes and the CW were nice enough to comply with their wishes.

 

[Emelee]

Off topic - but I'd definitively say stay with Jane the Virgin. It's a really satisfying journey overall.

You think? Even though I already after 7 episodes don't like Rafael or the pairing Rafael/Jane.

 

[tommie]

You think? Even though I already after 7 episodes don't like Rafael or the pairing Rafael/Jane.

Yes. It was a very satisfying journey.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Swedes generally have no definition of what a "standard length season" is

It's funny that we're dealing with three different types of "season" here. The season that represents the episodes, the TV season that had all the popular shows (national and international) including talk shows and quiz shows, and the time when that TV season took place (october through april, I think).
Many of the American tv series covered most of that period: the soaps, Hart To Hart, Hotel, Murder She Wrote etc etc. so I guess that was considered the standard length season (and that's without all the bizarre breaks between episodes that the Americans got).

 

[tommie]

It's funny that we're dealing with three different types of "season" here. The season that represents the episodes, the TV season that had all the popular shows (national and international) including talk shows and quiz shows, and the time when that TV season took place (october through april, I think).
Many of the American tv series covered most of that period: the soaps, Hart To Hart, Hotel, Murder She Wrote etc etc. so I guess that was considered the standard length season (and that's without all the bizarre breaks between episodes that the Americans got).

What's even funnier - soaps like Dallas and Dynasty never did cover actual seasons - ie, you rarely got Christmas or things like that. Seasons were actually ambigious on these shows.

 

[Daniel Avery]

It helped that three of the big four were set in warm climates (Dynasty being the exception), allowing them to wear the same kinds of clothing all through the season/series and 'ignore' the changing of the (Earth's) seasons. Since a season-ending cliffhanger would air in May/June and the action would pick up in late September, ignoring the Earthly seasonal changes was kind of necessary. KL did Christmas-y episodes a few times and at least one memorable Thanksgiving episode--but I guess filming so far ahead meant never knowing if the holiday-themed episodes would actually air on that holiday.

 

[tommie]

It helped that three of the big four were set in warm climates (Dynasty being the exception), allowing them to wear the same kinds of clothing all through the season/series and 'ignore' the changing of the (Earth's) seasons. Since a season-ending cliffhanger would air in May/June and the action would pick up in late September, ignoring the Earthly seasonal changes was kind of necessary. KL did Christmas-y episodes a few times and at least one memorable Thanksgiving episode--but I guess filming so far ahead meant never knowing if the holiday-themed episodes would actually air on that holiday.

It also helped to sell those shows around the world and into syndication. I'm sure that was more of a thought process rather than "Ewings don't celebrate Thanksgiving".

 

[Emelee]

(and that's without all the bizarre breaks between episodes that the Americans got).

Don't get me started on them!!!! They drive me bonkers. If you plan a season, don't broadcast 3 episodes, take a week's break, air 2 episodes, break for 2 weeks, air 3 episodes, another break etc. etc.

Thank goodness we can skip that problem when the series airs abroad. That's why Swedish TV usually holds off with a season until they are sure they can broadcast without mini-breaks all over. They can therefore begin airing a season of an American series in October/November, take a little winter break but air the 22nd episode in May/June. Much more viewer friendly.

Like with Modern Family. When the US was airing episode 6, the Swedish channel began the season. And we saw the Christmas episode on December 29th. We have officially caught up. Now awaits a winter break for the series in Sweden, approximately 2 months. Then the rest of the season will continue without any breaks. And no one will ever wonder "is there a new episode this week or not?"

 

[Willie Oleson]

Seasons were actually ambigious on these shows

Do the soap stories play in real-time? Does the season always start with autumn episodes? That doesn't make sense when the new season continues from the season finale episode shown in spring.
There is no sense of time in soaps, the story (per season) can be told in a 2 weeks or 6 months time frame, and that makes all those festive days irrelevant. Actually I think they're somewhat annoying, although one single Christmas episode in the show's entire run doesn't hurt, I guess.
It is possible to show different seasons in order to create a time jump, but that rarely works in soap operas.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Do the soap stories play in real-time? Does the season always start with autumn episodes? That doesn't make sense when the new season continues from the season finale episode shown in spring.
There is no sense of time in soaps, the story (per season) can be told in a 2 weeks or 6 months time frame, and that makes all those festive days irrelevant. Actually I think they're somewhat annoying, although one single Christmas episode in the show's entire run doesn't hurt, I guess.
It is possible to show different seasons in order to create a time jump, but that rarely works in soap operas.

The only time jump I remember seeing in a soap is the time jump in One Tree Hill, where they jumped over the years where the kids were in college. I thought that worked well; I liked it. For anyone who saw OTH, did you also like that time jump?