Vivaldi had four seasons, can't LA have two?
There is a rigidness that I don't like about television. The strict seasonal aspect, with pilots at a certain time each year, then "mid season replacements", then nothing in the summer. It's gotten a little bit better in recent years, the whole "mid season replacement" idea is actually pretty new, and the major networks have taken to trying out new shows in the summer sometimes. The cable networks, of course, don't really subscribe to the "season" that the broadcast networks do and in the past 3-5 years the cable networks have been busy filling their schedules with original programming. It's getting better, and now the president of NBC has vowed to abolish the traditional pilot development season, but there still exists this weird sense that television is somehow bound and beholden to the season.
The recent writers strike is, in part to thank for the NBC decision to eliminate pilot season, but it also has served to highlight the bizarre and seemingly random television season. Production has restarted on most shows in the last couple weeks, but many are altering story lines, and working at a frantic pace, and still planning to only put out a fraction of the number of episodes they would have had it not been for the strike. It seems to me that while the strike made any orders for certain numbers of episodes void it would be in the best interest of the companies that produce these shows, and the networks that air them, to put on a full "season" even if it meant airing new episodes well into the summer (which is normally a barren wasteland of re-runs and the occasional reality show).
I read today on Huffington Post that the planned storyline for Josh Jackson on Grey's Anatomy had to be scrapped due to the strike. My love of Josh Jackson and the characters he plays is well documented so it should come as no suprise that I was really looking forward to seeing what the Grey's writers had in store for him. Now I'll never know. The Office has scrapped what was supposedly a hilarious Christmas Episode because of the strike. Part of that is that they, like all shows, are trying to condense their season to finish at least close to the same time they would have had there not been a strike and a Christmas episode would logically be easy to cut since it would now be airing in April instead of December. Perhaps some of their actors also have other gigs lined up for the summer hiatus already, but I think the majority of the reason these shows are trying to condense is that they don't know how many episodes the networks would be willing to take.
All the highest paid members of the casts and crews of these shows (i.e. the stars, and show-running writers) who likely had enough in the bank to hold them through the strike feel terribly for their lesser paid colleagues, especially the non-union crew members or those who belong to other unions that weren't on strike (like teamsters). Many people were put out of work and had no union strike fund to help them through three months of unemployment. So, if the networks said they'd like these shows to complete their full 22 (or however many) episode seasons, I suspect that everyone involved (be it writers, actors, crew members, etc) would jump at the chance to do that (barring other things they're already committed to). Sure it might leave them with a cliffhanger in mid-July which people will only have to wait two months (instead of three) to find out the conclusion of, but I can't imagine that would matter to many people.
I can't imagine why the networks wouldn't just put these shows on the air well into June or July in order to finish out the story arcs they had in the works. Viewers will be happier with completed story lines. I suppose there are nuances regarding the advertising (which was largely paid for "up front") and possibly summer schedules (of crappy reality tv) that the networks may already be committed to, but it seems to me like the networks are hanging on to a broken system out of, I can only assume, pure nostalgia.
It seems like advertisers would be happier (and therefore pay more money for air time) if there was new original programming on year round, with no breaks (people don't stop buying in the summertime). If advertisers were happier, and paying more money for air time, that would make the network execs happy as well. If they had to fill twice as much time with original programming that would also make producers, actors, writers, agents, etc. (everyone else who makes their living off of television) happy as well. They could still have a full season be 22-24 episodes giving the creative workers several months off to work on film projects (or take vacations). Just run one show in a given time-slot from September thru February and a different one from March thru August.
Television fans would also be happy because there would be more content for them to choose from. It also might mean that shows with rabid fan bases that end up getting cut, might be given a longer chance to gain an audience because the networks would have a lot more time to fill and might not be so willing to cut great shows just because they were under performing right out of the gate.
We've all heard the Seinfeld story. It originally aired in the summer (premiered July 5, 1989) because the network didn't have a lot of confidence in it. It didn't get huge ratings at first and was shelved. NBC brought it back in 1991 as a mid-season replacement and it went on to become the highest rated sit-com in history. Both of Seinfeld's chances came at times that were non-traditional. Obviously the network executives had taken a personal liking to it, enough that they were willing to give it a second chance, but not enough to risk their television "season" on it. Aren't we all glad they gave it those chances? Even if they were in the summer and then the "mid-season"? Should I get into a list of wildly popular shows that premiered at mid-season because the networks didn't trust them to launch the season with (Grey's Anatomy, for example). Or I could list some great shows that didn't make it but might have if they'd been given a chance to build an audience rather than being cancelled after half a season or less (like Firefly and Kitchen Confidential).
I know it's sometimes hard to tell in LA but there really is more than one season. According to Vivaldi there are four, but I'll settle for two.
The recent writers strike is, in part to thank for the NBC decision to eliminate pilot season, but it also has served to highlight the bizarre and seemingly random television season. Production has restarted on most shows in the last couple weeks, but many are altering story lines, and working at a frantic pace, and still planning to only put out a fraction of the number of episodes they would have had it not been for the strike. It seems to me that while the strike made any orders for certain numbers of episodes void it would be in the best interest of the companies that produce these shows, and the networks that air them, to put on a full "season" even if it meant airing new episodes well into the summer (which is normally a barren wasteland of re-runs and the occasional reality show).
I read today on Huffington Post that the planned storyline for Josh Jackson on Grey's Anatomy had to be scrapped due to the strike. My love of Josh Jackson and the characters he plays is well documented so it should come as no suprise that I was really looking forward to seeing what the Grey's writers had in store for him. Now I'll never know. The Office has scrapped what was supposedly a hilarious Christmas Episode because of the strike. Part of that is that they, like all shows, are trying to condense their season to finish at least close to the same time they would have had there not been a strike and a Christmas episode would logically be easy to cut since it would now be airing in April instead of December. Perhaps some of their actors also have other gigs lined up for the summer hiatus already, but I think the majority of the reason these shows are trying to condense is that they don't know how many episodes the networks would be willing to take.
All the highest paid members of the casts and crews of these shows (i.e. the stars, and show-running writers) who likely had enough in the bank to hold them through the strike feel terribly for their lesser paid colleagues, especially the non-union crew members or those who belong to other unions that weren't on strike (like teamsters). Many people were put out of work and had no union strike fund to help them through three months of unemployment. So, if the networks said they'd like these shows to complete their full 22 (or however many) episode seasons, I suspect that everyone involved (be it writers, actors, crew members, etc) would jump at the chance to do that (barring other things they're already committed to). Sure it might leave them with a cliffhanger in mid-July which people will only have to wait two months (instead of three) to find out the conclusion of, but I can't imagine that would matter to many people.
I can't imagine why the networks wouldn't just put these shows on the air well into June or July in order to finish out the story arcs they had in the works. Viewers will be happier with completed story lines. I suppose there are nuances regarding the advertising (which was largely paid for "up front") and possibly summer schedules (of crappy reality tv) that the networks may already be committed to, but it seems to me like the networks are hanging on to a broken system out of, I can only assume, pure nostalgia.
It seems like advertisers would be happier (and therefore pay more money for air time) if there was new original programming on year round, with no breaks (people don't stop buying in the summertime). If advertisers were happier, and paying more money for air time, that would make the network execs happy as well. If they had to fill twice as much time with original programming that would also make producers, actors, writers, agents, etc. (everyone else who makes their living off of television) happy as well. They could still have a full season be 22-24 episodes giving the creative workers several months off to work on film projects (or take vacations). Just run one show in a given time-slot from September thru February and a different one from March thru August.
Television fans would also be happy because there would be more content for them to choose from. It also might mean that shows with rabid fan bases that end up getting cut, might be given a longer chance to gain an audience because the networks would have a lot more time to fill and might not be so willing to cut great shows just because they were under performing right out of the gate.
We've all heard the Seinfeld story. It originally aired in the summer (premiered July 5, 1989) because the network didn't have a lot of confidence in it. It didn't get huge ratings at first and was shelved. NBC brought it back in 1991 as a mid-season replacement and it went on to become the highest rated sit-com in history. Both of Seinfeld's chances came at times that were non-traditional. Obviously the network executives had taken a personal liking to it, enough that they were willing to give it a second chance, but not enough to risk their television "season" on it. Aren't we all glad they gave it those chances? Even if they were in the summer and then the "mid-season"? Should I get into a list of wildly popular shows that premiered at mid-season because the networks didn't trust them to launch the season with (Grey's Anatomy, for example). Or I could list some great shows that didn't make it but might have if they'd been given a chance to build an audience rather than being cancelled after half a season or less (like Firefly and Kitchen Confidential).
I know it's sometimes hard to tell in LA but there really is more than one season. According to Vivaldi there are four, but I'll settle for two.
posted by Beth at
10:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home