In Russia, the time zones deal with you.

Yeah, I know that Central and Mountain have offset schedules, I should have mentioned that, but I was thinking mainly about base schedules. The central zone for instance is just the East coast in real-time, whatever that time happens to be in Central (-one hour). This also means prime time ends earlier (relatively speaking). They could probably adjust the time zone for their own schedules, but is the reason they don't simply one of population density? The East and West coasts have huge populations, but I don't know how they break down exactly as a percentage of the whole US.

Anyway, we need at least 12 episodes of the IT Crowd, stat.

I'd rather have 6 good episodes of a show than 12 crap ones. Of the few US shows that I do watch, it's been quite easy to spot the 'filler' episodes.

It still boggles my mind that while Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant can convey the everything they needed to in 14 episodes of the Office, the US version has been going on for over 100 episodes.

..and don't even get me started on McSpaced....

quantity != quality

This bit of Wikipedia kind of answers the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_the_Soviet_Union#Soviet_satellite_services

I was curious, and found this from 2006. For the continental US only, the percentages are:
Eastern: 48.1% (141.6m)
Central: 29% (85.4m)
Mountain: 6.4% (18.7m)
Pacific: 16.6% (48.7m)
Total: 294.5m

With the occasional exception, I find that the limited number of episodes in British TV shows limits the exploration of characters. I tend to find that characters, especially in comedies, are little beyond caricatures, and the jokes are usually just jokes. This works really well for some things, like Fawlty Towers, and is a detriment to others, like Coupling.

So, no, quantity does not equal quality, but sometimes you need a decent amount of something to tell. You don't drink 5 mL of wine.

I'm sure some of the cultural confusion is rooted in pub/bar hours. By my understanding, it was illegal to sell alcohol after 11PM until 2005, whereas bars even in the backwaters of the US had regularly been open until 2AM for decades.

WTF?

"Limited number of episodes" ???????????????

Letmesee... Coronation Street, anyone?
A Touch of Frost ?
House ?
Top Gear ?
And those are just the (extremely few) that a non-TV addict from the colonies such as myself is familiar with.

But even ignoring their longevity.. it's quality not quantity that matters most.

-ml

The majority of British TV shows produce less than ten episodes per series, and there are seldom more than two series a year, and usually only one, if that.

Coronation Street is a soap opera and plays by different rules, but, for the majority of its run, aired only two or three episodes per week, while US soap operas aired five a week. As far as raw numbers go, Coronation Street has aired about 7250 episodes, while General Hospital, for example, has aired about 11750, despite being well over two years younger. Regardless, this would fall under "occasional exception".

Top Gear is hardly a typical example, either. I have no US show to compare it to, but it still only makes, on average, about 13 episodes a year, and that's two series per year.

Unless there's another one that I'm not familiar with, House is a US production, despite having a British lead and an Australian cast member. It's pretty typical in producing 22-24 episodes per year.

A Touch of Frost, however, is a great example of what I'm talking about. In seventeen years, it produced forty-two episodes, or just under 2.5 episodes per year. Looking at it another way, Monk produced forty-five episodes in three years, and it's underproduced for a typical US show.

Of course it's about quality over quantity. But I'd rather have a greater quantity of quality shows. Limited quantity hasn't exactly kept British programming uniformly quality, though. (Footballers' Wives, I'm looking at you.) My complaint is that British shows are (often) almost over before they've started.

I think that just isn't possible though, it is the nature of the beast that there is a limit to how many quality episodes you can make before you start doing slight variations of the same stuff over and over again (or start having to kill of major characters to inject interest).

Even the quality US shows have long bad patches, thanks to the problem of just trying to churn out so much material each year.

Can you imagine how bad things like Green Wing would be when forced to produce 22 episodes a year for at least five years ?

The converse problem to this in US programmes, which I think House suffers from and Heroes was ruined by, is that of characters changing wildly in motivation and philosophy, with no in-story reason, from one episode to the next -- which I can only suspect is connected to the practice of generating the huge amount of screenwriting needed for a 22-episode series, by giving each individual episode to one writer from a large pool. (And, I suppose, by not having a powerful-enough script editor.) On most British 6-episode series, the same team of writers works together on each episode.

And where the lurches in characterisation aren't sudden enough to make the patchwork effect obvious, I'm sure it's easy to mistake them for an intentional character arc. As TS Eliot wrote, more people think it a work of art because they found it interesting, than find it interesting because it is a work of art. And he was writing about Hamlet, which, even if you televised the full text, gets all its character arcs done in much less time than a season of House.

Peter

Quality and Quantity aren't mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up one for more of the other. I'm not talking about making unlimited or an unreasonable amount of episodes. I'm talking about what Bitt mentioned, which is to give a series the opportunity to explore some additional avenues, including expanding some story lines and better developing some characters (this isn't always a problem, I'd argue the players in IT Crowd work well as characterizations).

IT Crowd which I used as an example originally, could have done a stellar 12 episode series. I find that in each of the three series, I've felt the production was cut artificially short. There has always been a case of wanting to see a bit more about some tangent they touched.

While doing a long run, such as 22 episodes you may get some stinkers, I'd rather have a 12 episode series with 10 great episodes and 2 mediocre ones than simply 6. Having a small number doesn't guarantee success nor quality either, especially when it's a program that doesn't necessarily tell an arced story.

The US Office past the first season really didn't (doesn't) have anything to do with the UK version. And where one might consider that the UK version told a story in X number of episodes that the US hasn't been able in XX, that's not the point IMO. The show is still doing very well and it's the type of program that allows for plenty of variety without producing too many dull episodes.

Anyway, I'm not picking quantity over quality, I just want more quality episodes. And if history has shown us, that's something achievable. I don't know how budgets and revenues are doing for UK based programming right now, but it strikes me that the main reason for short series is tradition.

Heroes in the US hasn't faltered or failed because of its yearly episode count. It's simply a complete lack of direction and foresight coupled with bad scripts, including plot lines, on the parts of the showrunner and writers. They could have been producing 6 bad episodes a year. At least with trying for 20 they may have a chance for 6 decent ones in there somewhere.

I'd rather watch 6 good episodes that have to see the 2 (or more) bad ones.

But in UK TV you don't necessarily get 6 great episodes. You just get 6 episodes. The same as you'll get 12 or 18 or 20 or 22 in the US. Even of the shows that I quite like, I cannot for a second convince myself that all 6 episodes have been equally good. It just doesn't happen often enough to be a factor. Certainly not often enough to be turned into an argument for purposefully producing less (6 instead of 12 as an example).

If this argument held water, every movie, at least every "first" movie if a series ends up being born, should be great. Or at least good. After all, there's only a single one to be made. Should be easy to come up with a one-off story.

Many shows simply need a few more episodes to elevate the entire show. Having more room can make every episode better, not necessarily worse. I guess I'm a glass half-full type of person.

Clearly, I watch a lot of TV, and I know I've seen some pretty bad episodes of many shows, but I can't agree more with Bitt and [surprisingly] Bruno

But they've pretty much said everything I would on the subject. I very much agree that quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive.

And please, don't use Heroes as an example of this. That show would be terrible at any length.

This thread is clearly off topic now.

The other issue I have with some UK programming is the scattered or irregular production schedules. You don't necessarily get the new series of a show coming back around at the same time its previous series did. Nor do you necessarily get the new series within a year. This may have something to do with broadcast schedules as well if not solely attributable to production.

This doesn't knock the quality, but it's a PITA for impatient sods like myself looking for a fix.

I have a wonderful counter example of quantity and quality. Not the best, but just something recent. The Tudors, which is a co-production, featured only 8 episodes this past series/season. That's the smallest one of the past three, and IMO, the overall weakest. Yes, you can argue that the historical elements fueling the story lines weren't as captivating as those previous, but that's not wholly responsible. It's really just felt like the show has lost a lot of steam. The recent series/season did end rather abruptly as well, completely surprising me that there wasn't to be at least another one or to episodes coming.

As much as I love plenty of shows with 22-24 episodes, I can concede that 12 episodes really is a very good length. That seems to be the length that most cable TV shows are aiming for, and I think it works well. As much as I crave a new episode of Dexter right now, I know how incredible its 12 episode arc was this past season.

While I crave new Dexter, I crave a new season. I don't mind that seasons are only 12 episodes, since the story is generally well developed within those episodes. But I'd love to have two seasons every year. You know, instead of seeing multiple seasons of Dancing with the Stars every year.

You (USA-ians) do realize that a lot of the British shows don't leave Britain?

And that an "hour long" show (eg. Top Gear) is frequently more like 65-70 minutes long, with ZERO commerical breaks?

Which means a 14 episode "year" of Top Gear is about the same time length as a 20 episode USA show, which has only 40 minutes or so of content per broadcast hour?

-ml

I was talking about the sit-com style shows that are about 24 minutes (including opening logos/animations and credits) and 6 episodes per series. I also do realize a number of shows in the UK feature longer series (8 to 14 episodes), including reality-based programs like Top Gear and The F Word for instance. But those shows don't help me with my IT Crowd fix.

I guess my thought is that, ultimately, if you limit yourself to only what's "needed", you miss out on some tangential stories that often end up being some of the best. Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose again comes to mind. Imagine if The X-Files had been produced in Britain with 8 episodes a series. That episode would never have been made, or even considered.

The recent episode of Fringe centering on the Watcher is in the same category.

That said, there are notable exceptions to my claim. The one that comes immediately to mind is The Girl in the Fireplace, from the first David Tennant series of Doctor Who. Also, Blink, from the following season. (Notably, both Steven Moffat episodes.) That said, Doctor Who shoots 13 episodes a series, which is probably a good compromise between the two extremes.

Also, consider seasons two through four of Babylon 5, which shot 22-ish episodes per season. Which of those episodes were useless filler? Given, a couple, but no more than two a season, and I'm pretty sure they were there intentionally in order to provide some comic relief.

And again, I just love that episode.

Another, more silly example: The Zeppo

As far as I know there are two reason for short seasons:

1) The writer having time to write the show. Typically for UK comedies (and possibly most other non-soaps) they are written by one writer, or a pair working togther, whereas US programmes are written either by committee or by different writers.

2) Getting the cast available for that amount of time (and crew, since some are considered essential to writers/producers).

3) UK seasons are booked and often completely made before broadcast, so possibly committing to a long run is not attractive.

A third reason: Incompetent, moronic network executives who cancel the best TV series ever run halfway through its first season after changing the sequence of the episodes, changing the time slot, and failing to promote the program.

I was astonished that Joss Whedon gave Fox another chance after that debacle.

tanstaafl.

Well, I think he was referring to the short seasons of UK TV, which is what we've been arguing over, rather than shortened seasons, which is what we get from good shows in the US

As for Joss, I believe the latest news is that he might do a show for FX. Maybe Fox doesn't have him under contract anymore...

I think it's fair to say that in the UK significantly changing a timeslot for a show (other than a one-off for a sporting event say) is pretty rare. A show has to pretty much get a confirmed zero viewers before stuff like that happens. There have been a couple of shows in recent memory I think, but it's still seems pretty rare.

Even rarer is a series being cancelled mid-showing. Usually if a series is unpopular it's simply not renewed at the end of it's run. The only example I can think of off the top of my head was a show called Bugs. It barely survived the chop at the end of it's third series (each one weighing in a massive 10 ep's each). But in the last season it got canned with 3 ep's to go and the remainder didn't Tx until a year later.

Making Waves was another fairly recently.

I recall that the extras (who were Navy people) had a whip-round to underwrite the DVD pressing because it was the only way they would ever get to see it! Wikipedia mentions that it was exclusively sold through the Navy News website which seems to tie up.

From what I read there, half of the 6-episode £5m series was never shown on TV!

*sigh*

And here in the US, even popular shows frequently get time changes and even get moved to other days of the week! I'll never figure it out.

One particularly popular trick by the studio execs is to air a new show just after an already popular show for a season, then move it to another night of their choosing to see how it does. House, for example, aired after American Idol, and fortunately did pretty well after the move to another night (I think it's moved twice, actually - wasn't it on Tuesdays a couple seasons ago before moving to Mondays?).

But other shows just get moved for no reason. Some do okay after the move, others don't. The timeslot of death, though, is generally considered to be Friday evenings. Some shows develop there an do fine. Smallville, however, I think will not last long after this season's move to Friday.

It pretty much depends on the demographics of the show. If it's older folks, it generally does fine on Friday. If it's younger folks, who are far more likely to go out on Friday nights, it does less well.

True, though the latter is the popular demographic for advertisers (though that never made sense to me, as the older demo is the one with the money...).

I'm sure younger people spend more of their disposable income.