We try to ring too much out of our shows. South Park just finished it's [i/]fourteenth[/i] season and is moving on to fifteen. Besides, live action British TV is just better.
Hello America, one question. Why do you ruin all your best television shows?
- Thread starter Daystar Clarion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Scrubs is one of the worst offenders. It was pretty bad past season 6, then when they finshed, they decided to carry on a for another season. One terrible season, and then when that finished they decided to go for one more season, this time, cutting 90% of the original cast and introducing new characters that nobody liked.googleback said:
Why Scrubs! WHYYYY!
I've said it before and I'll say it again... television in america has to be as simple and easy to follow as possible. Most people who run their TVs day in and day out aren't actually just watching the TV, they're either taking care of screaming kids, cooking, or cleaning. Those who are actually watching consistently tend to be either fat sports fans who live vicariously through the sports they watch, or fat housewives who live vicariously through soap opera stars (or, more recently, reality TV "stars"). So basically, unless the show ships (and then focuses on) relationships between beautiful people, those housewives aren't interested.
Anything well written will find itself cancelled, put on DVD, and will develop a cult following of people who work for a living.
Anything well written will find itself cancelled, put on DVD, and will develop a cult following of people who work for a living.
This is about the only reason why I'm glad that Firefly was cancelled, it never had the chance to be dragged on until it was crappified. But yeah, one of my favourite comedies, Red Dwarf, only had 6 series and I will ignore anyone who says that there were 8. Its not an American series, but then its not a completely American trait to run a series into the ground.
I don't know wether that was some kind of passive-agressive dig at TV outside of America, so let me assure you. There are plenty of great shows outside of America, hell, a lot of the Canadian and American members here on the escapist can atest to the quality of British TV alone.newfoundsky said:
Breaking bad already has a set time of execution. They already have the story arc planned out, and have said many times that they will end the show, regardless of whether we want more or not.Crazy_Dude said:
AMC, I love you.
Series to check out:Atmos Duality said:
Dexter
Firefly
The first season of 24
Supernatural (really. It starts out cheesy as hell, but the characters get surprisingly fleshed out and enjoyable after a while. I'd never have believed it looking at their doll faces.)
Arrested Development. Seriously the Banana stand is enough to warrant this series a viewing.
Burn Notice (Bruce Campbell is in it!)
TV is actually maybe better than ever, you just have to sift through the shit.
Well, everything comes down to opinion. Generally speaking if a show continues to run after numerous seasons it means that it has a solid fanbase. Your always going to have people complaining about shows, especially long running ones, especially seeing as the shows get longer maintaining continuity can become increasingly difficult. Truthfully I think shows like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" could have gone on to become as big an institution as "Stargate" or "Doctor Who" had Joss Whedon not have gotten himself into fights with the network. But then again I suspect it was that potential that got the networks on his case to begin with and had he gone along with them it would have been ruined anyway, a victim of it's own success so to speak.
Honestly though, I don't think the UK has much room to talk having produced things like "Doctor Who" which last time I checked was the longest running series of all time. Also to be fair, most American shows don't make it past 3 or 4 seasons either. You see more exceptions in the US simply because we produce more TV overall.
Perceptions among fans can also be quite differant from a show's actual performance as well. Not to mention the influance an international audience can have. Things like "Friends" and "Melrose Place" became defining parts of global culture and did a lot to spread american culture and values throughout the world.
A lot also has to do with talent and sponsors as well. See, the whole point of shows is not just to entertain the audience, but to attract advertisers and sponsors to buy time during it to sell products. Not to mention the simple fact that when popular actors, actresses, and writers are working for you, you can oftentimes keep them under contract to prevent them from going to the competition. When looking at things like the show "2 1/2 Men" the show has varied in quality, but keeping it going also meant that they didn't have to worry about Charlie Sheen doing another show regularly for another network, after all he was a big draw. This can have a surprising amount of effect on programming, and every once in a while in retrospectives you'll have celebrities who are asked why the stuck into something that was run into the ground, and you'll find out there were contracts involved, with terms like them sticking around until the network decided to cancel the show themselves. A mediocre show can be worthwhile if it prevents a competitor for getting talent to launch a blockbuster show which will draw viewers away from you in another time slot.
There is a lot behind it, and opinions are going to vary. Also to be honest I think there is a flip side to the "star" equasion in of the fact that I think a lot of other countries with TV production who criticize the US, are jealous because they can't really produce very many shows that are as enduring. In part because of the costs involved, and the amount of money people who know they have a successful show can demand under a lot of circumstances. After all, the bottom line isn't so much viewership but advertisers, and if a network has tons of people lined up for commercials and product placement for a given show, the guys producing the show if not under a set contract are going to demand increasingly large cuts of what action.
It can be complicated and involve a lot of contridictory "what if" scenarios. But the bottom line there is a LOT that influances what sticks around for a large number of years, what dies instantly, and what comes in somewhere between the extremes.
Oh yes, and especially with sit coms, politics and conditions in New York City can have a profound effect as well. New York is where a lot of American TV is made, and one of the big reasons why so many things are set in that sity (they are right there). There have apparently been cases where shows have gotten nuked largely due to losing access to needed locations, or due to slotting people off and having permits pulled and whatever. I don't know all the details but apparently TV is far more easily affected by the enviroment than the movie studios are.
Honestly though, I don't think the UK has much room to talk having produced things like "Doctor Who" which last time I checked was the longest running series of all time. Also to be fair, most American shows don't make it past 3 or 4 seasons either. You see more exceptions in the US simply because we produce more TV overall.
Perceptions among fans can also be quite differant from a show's actual performance as well. Not to mention the influance an international audience can have. Things like "Friends" and "Melrose Place" became defining parts of global culture and did a lot to spread american culture and values throughout the world.
A lot also has to do with talent and sponsors as well. See, the whole point of shows is not just to entertain the audience, but to attract advertisers and sponsors to buy time during it to sell products. Not to mention the simple fact that when popular actors, actresses, and writers are working for you, you can oftentimes keep them under contract to prevent them from going to the competition. When looking at things like the show "2 1/2 Men" the show has varied in quality, but keeping it going also meant that they didn't have to worry about Charlie Sheen doing another show regularly for another network, after all he was a big draw. This can have a surprising amount of effect on programming, and every once in a while in retrospectives you'll have celebrities who are asked why the stuck into something that was run into the ground, and you'll find out there were contracts involved, with terms like them sticking around until the network decided to cancel the show themselves. A mediocre show can be worthwhile if it prevents a competitor for getting talent to launch a blockbuster show which will draw viewers away from you in another time slot.
There is a lot behind it, and opinions are going to vary. Also to be honest I think there is a flip side to the "star" equasion in of the fact that I think a lot of other countries with TV production who criticize the US, are jealous because they can't really produce very many shows that are as enduring. In part because of the costs involved, and the amount of money people who know they have a successful show can demand under a lot of circumstances. After all, the bottom line isn't so much viewership but advertisers, and if a network has tons of people lined up for commercials and product placement for a given show, the guys producing the show if not under a set contract are going to demand increasingly large cuts of what action.
It can be complicated and involve a lot of contridictory "what if" scenarios. But the bottom line there is a LOT that influances what sticks around for a large number of years, what dies instantly, and what comes in somewhere between the extremes.
Oh yes, and especially with sit coms, politics and conditions in New York City can have a profound effect as well. New York is where a lot of American TV is made, and one of the big reasons why so many things are set in that sity (they are right there). There have apparently been cases where shows have gotten nuked largely due to losing access to needed locations, or due to slotting people off and having permits pulled and whatever. I don't know all the details but apparently TV is far more easily affected by the enviroment than the movie studios are.
Fawlty Towers only had 12 episodes total.Daystar Clarion said:
But in deference to your claim:
And Doctor Who is on its 213th story - just coming up to 777 episodes.
Because dipshits still watch them. It doesn't matter how bad or overdone a tv show is, people are gonna watch it. Same reason they remake the same video game every few years, cuz people are gonna buy it.
I am very glad to hear that do you by any chance know how many season they will make? I am sure that Season 4 is coming checking IMDB says they are almost started with filming for S4. However I do not know if that will be the last season or if there will be a season 5.AccursedTheory said:
I could see a Season 5 happening but more then that will probably ruin the show for me. Even though it just seems keep getting better. "The bigger they are the harder they fall"
All of those are not offered on general public access. I would have to purchase cable or satellite to watch those where I live.tzimize said:
Though I have seen Serenity and several episodes of Burn Notice at my friend's.
12 episodes, yes, but it was split into 2 seasons.The_root_of_all_evil said:Fawlty Towers only had 12 episodes total.Daystar Clarion said:
But in deference to your claim:
Also, I agree, House is the best thing on American TV at the moment.
American TV pays better. I assure you neither Fawlty Towers nor Blackadder were pulling in millions of dollars per episode or dishing out millions in salaries. Actors and writers stay on because they get paid shit tonnes more than in other countries.
Also a lot of the time when the shows go down hill is when they lose most of their writing staff and just replace them, usually with fans of the show.
Also a lot of the time when the shows go down hill is when they lose most of their writing staff and just replace them, usually with fans of the show.
Because America understands TV is a business?
Here's a return question, why do you care what America does with its own Television shows? no one's forcing you to watch.
Here's a return question, why do you care what America does with its own Television shows? no one's forcing you to watch.
It's probably the British guy playing an American asshole that makes it so good.Daystar Clarion said:12 episodes, yes, but it was split into 2 season.The_root_of_all_evil said:Fawlty Towers only had 12 episodes total.Daystar Clarion said:
But in deference to your claim:
Also, I agree, House is the best thing on American TV at the moment.
I think the biggest issue is that if you want to be pessimistic, you can pick out a lot of examples, because there is a LOT of TV shows out there. Are you worried about TV shows that get bad after 2-3 seasons? Well, for shows that I am watching currently, there is Fringe, Californication, House, 30 Rock, Bones, Chuck, The Big Bang Theory, Family Guy, The Office, SNL, and Mad Men. If your talking about a problem with a lack of new and interesting ideas, well im currently watching the following shows that are on there 3rd or lower season: Castle, Archer, Community, and Parks and Recreation. I'm waiting for more Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Weeds...I never considered myself a TV watcher, took a rather pessimistic view of TV in general. But there is a huge amount of good stuff out there, and it's usually not ruined. Its just that when it is, by god do people remember.