Should TV shows be free to take long hiatuses between seasons?

[WhiteNachos]

If you don't keep up with Game of Thrones you might not know that it's looking increasingly likely that the TV shows will catch up to and 'overtake' the unfinished novel series its based on.

That got me thinking the author is under no expectation to complete one book per year but the TV show is expected to keep going, but should it be that way?

On one hand it could mean less filler, more time to complete long stories and no rush to think of something.

On the other hand there's a unique challenge in live action media, in that while a TV show is in between seasons the cast doesn't stop aging so if you wait too long this could be a problem. Especially with child actors.

Still on the second hand, I still haven't read (or seen movie versions of) any of the Harry Potter books past book 4. Because the wait between 4 and 5 was so long that I picked up another series that I liked better and haven't bothered to go back.

What do you guys think?

 

[tippy2k2]

Of course they CAN and they are free to do so but it is not a very good idea.

Think of all the shows that have been canceled and then renewed (therefore they had a long hiatus): Futurama, Arrested Development, Family Guy....uh....there's probably more. What do these shows all have in common?

Most people agree that the old stuff was better. Whether that is actually true or nostalgia-tinted glasses coloring their view doesn't really matter; shows that take time off generally just don't do as well. New and interesting shows replace them and by the time they have come back, people have moved on.

You also have the practical problems that you touched on; schedules change, actors age, writers move on, props/sets have to be rebuilt or stored somewhere; there's a lot of money being lost by having your property sit.

 

[Zontar]

Of course they CAN and they are free to do so but it is not a very good idea.

Think of all the shows that have been canceled and then renewed (therefore they had a long hiatus): Futurama, Arrested Development, Family Guy....uh....there's probably more. What do these shows all have in common?

Most people agree that the old stuff was better. Whether that is actually true or nostalgia-tinted glasses coloring their view doesn't really matter; shows that take time off generally just don't do as well. New and interesting shows replace them and by the time they have come back, people have moved on.

You also have the practical problems that you touched on; schedules change, actors age, writers move on, props/sets have to be rebuilt or stored somewhere; there's a lot of money being lost by having your property sit.

What about Doctor Who? A fair number of people feel the returned series (or the first five years of it anyway) was better then the first run, and most fans have never even watched those old episodes despite them still being part of the story.

And what about anime, where it's common for new seasons to be years apart due to the odd nature of the industry?

 

[tippy2k2]

Of course they CAN and they are free to do so but it is not a very good idea.

Think of all the shows that have been canceled and then renewed (therefore they had a long hiatus): Futurama, Arrested Development, Family Guy....uh....there's probably more. What do these shows all have in common?

Most people agree that the old stuff was better. Whether that is actually true or nostalgia-tinted glasses coloring their view doesn't really matter; shows that take time off generally just don't do as well. New and interesting shows replace them and by the time they have come back, people have moved on.

You also have the practical problems that you touched on; schedules change, actors age, writers move on, props/sets have to be rebuilt or stored somewhere; there's a lot of money being lost by having your property sit.

What about Doctor Who? A fair number of people feel the returned series (or the first five years of it anyway) was better then the first run, and most fans have never even watched those old episodes despite them still being part of the story.

And what about anime, where it's common for new seasons to be years apart due to the odd nature of the industry?

I am not familiar with Doctor Who but isn't each Doctor almost a reboot each time? It's not a reboot but it kind of is...if that makes sense? Similar to James Bond?

As for anime, I feel like you answered your own question; it's standard in the anime industry for that to happen. Fans are used to that and have no problem waiting on their shows in that case.

 

[Zontar]

I am not familiar with Doctor Who but isn't each Doctor almost a reboot each time? It's not a reboot but it kind of is...if that makes sense? Similar to James Bond?

Only if you subscribe to the theory that all James Bond movies are part of a single series.

Each Doctor is essentially a new character, a new personality who always uses their first appearance to establish themselves and often have a new tone set for their run. But it isn't really a reboot as events of previous iterations still happened and are often brought up in the series, especially when Sarah Jones is involved (though this particular case is likely going to stop as the actress has sadly passed away).

Each iteration tends to be more then a new Doctor, they often tend to also include new showrunners as well, but I wouldn't say each doctor is a reboot since the term implies a great many things which they are not, not the least of which being that what came before them never happened, while for both the old and returned series this is not the case, though the degree differers (the first three doctors of the returned series, for example, have a much heavier and more interwoven continuity then they have with the doctors right before and after them).

 

[tippy2k2]

I am not familiar with Doctor Who but isn't each Doctor almost a reboot each time? It's not a reboot but it kind of is...if that makes sense? Similar to James Bond?

Only if you subscribe to the theory that all James Bond movies are part of a single series.

Each Doctor is essentially a new character, a new personality who always uses their first appearance to establish themselves and often have a new tone set for their run. But it isn't really a reboot as events of previous iterations still happened and are often brought up in the series, especially when Sarah Jones is involved (though this particular case is likely going to stop as the actress has sadly passed away).

Each iteration tends to be more then a new Doctor, they often tend to also include new showrunners as well, but I wouldn't say each doctor is a reboot since the term implies a great many things which they are not, not the least of which being that what came before them never happened, while for both the old and returned series this is not the case, though the degree differers (the first three doctors of the returned series, for example, have a much heavier and more interwoven continuity then they have with the doctors right before and after them).

Fair enough (I really do need to watch that show; I bet Doctor Who would be right up my alley).

It's certainly not impossible for shows to pull it off but your show needs one HELL of a following for that to work and even then, that may not be enough if you don't live up to the high bar that you've now set yourself up for with a return. Frankly, it seems like a big risk for no real payout (unless you're forced to take the risk like you got canceled and need to line something new up).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Think of all the shows that have been canceled and then renewed (therefore they had a long hiatus): Futurama, Arrested Development, Family Guy....uh....there's probably more. What do these shows all have in common?

Most people agree that the old stuff was better. Whether that is actually true or nostalgia-tinted glasses coloring their view doesn't really matter; shows that take time off generally just don't do as well. New and interesting shows replace them and by the time they have come back, people have moved on.

Correlation =/= causation. All the shows you mentioned took a hiatus fairly far along into their runs, and all of them were showing signs of creative fatigue. There are only so many stories you can explore in a given universe before the quality starts to slough off. Even the best shows in the history of the medium like The Sopranos or The Wire started to lose some steam after ~4 seasons.

 

[tippy2k2]

Correlation =/= causation. All the shows you mentioned took a hiatus fairly far along into their runs, and all of them were showing signs of creative fatigue. There are only so many stories you can explore in a given universe before the quality starts to slough off. Even the best shows in the history of the medium like The Sopranos or The Wire started to lose some steam after ~4 seasons.

That's true but I don't see any real benefit to taking time off and I see a lot of negatives to it. Like the example of Doctor Who above, it's certainly possible to pull it off; I just don't see any pros to doing taking time off and a lot of risk.

Granted, there are not a lot of examples of this succeeding or failing so maybe it could work if it was a conscious effort.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Well, I've noticed that the quality of series with a shorter season tends to be higher than those with a longer season, but a lot of that probably has to do with the extra time the show has to fine-tune scripts or the like.

Giving a show a long hiatus, particularly one with an ongoing story, is pretty dangerous, though. From a production standpoint, an extra season off runs the risk of losing a good portion of your cast to other projects and shows. After all, actors need to keep a roof over their heads, so they have to keep working - and, acting is one of those professions where you're never sure when ongoing work will come, so as soon as you have it, you take it.

From an audience standpoint, every year you take off is a year that your viewers are not consuming the product, and their overall investment drops as time away from it goes on. The hardcore fans will not care about the hiatus, but most of the viewership - and thus the revenue stream - will not be the hardcore fans. You don't want to lose overall audience interest.

This is why Russell T. Davies' approach to restarting Doctor Who was so smart - he didn't pick up where the series left off...he started it as a brand new series, made to introduce the characters and universe to a brand new audience, and filled in the older continuity as time went on. If he had just started it off where the old series had left off, there's a good chance it would not have succeeded.

 

[Ishal]

Think of all the shows that have been canceled and then renewed (therefore they had a long hiatus): Futurama, Arrested Development, Family Guy....uh....there's probably more. What do these shows all have in common?

Most people agree that the old stuff was better. Whether that is actually true or nostalgia-tinted glasses coloring their view doesn't really matter; shows that take time off generally just don't do as well. New and interesting shows replace them and by the time they have come back, people have moved on.

Correlation =/= causation. All the shows you mentioned took a hiatus fairly far along into their runs, and all of them were showing signs of creative fatigue. There are only so many stories you can explore in a given universe before the quality starts to slough off. Even the best shows in the history of the medium like The Sopranos or The Wire started to lose some steam after ~4 seasons.

I think this is true, but it tends to vary with genre.

A show with a different format, say, a Sitcom, can go on for an extremely long period of time. If it's well written, and has a large cast of varied characters, the decline won't happen nearly as quickly.

Which reminds me. I need to watch Community. I hear it's basically MLP with real actors instead of kids cartoon.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Which reminds me. I need to watch Community. I hear it's basically MLP with real actors instead of kids cartoon.

Community is a fantastic show (and a love letter to geek culture), but suffers a precipitous quality decline after the third season (one of the most catastrophic drop-offs I can recall, actually, Season 4 is almost unwatchable). Watch seasons 1-3, and consider the show ended.

 

[Ishal]

Which reminds me. I need to watch Community. I hear it's basically MLP with real actors instead of kids cartoon.

Community is a fantastic show (and a love letter to geek culture), but suffers a precipitous quality decline after the third season (one of the most catastrophic drop-offs I can recall, actually, Season 4 is almost unwatchable). Watch seasons 1-3, and consider the show ended.

That sounds a lot like Babylon 5's ordeal. I heard Community was cancelled but then it came back from the ashes.

I'll watch it soon. The biggest challenge is going to be stomaching Joel Mchale. If I can do that, it should be a good time.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'll watch it soon. The biggest challenge is going to be stomaching Joel Mchale. If I can do that, it should be a good time.

McHale properly channels his smarmy douchebag personality into playing a smarmy douchebag character. It works out famously.

 

[Aerosteam]

The less filler episodes the better. As someone who pretty much only binge watches TV shows that are finished, I don't notice hiatuses within seasons anyway.

 

[Albino Boo]

This is why Russell T. Davies' approach to restarting Doctor Who was so smart - he didn't pick up where the series left off...he started it as a brand new series, made to introduce the characters and universe to a brand new audience, and filled in the older continuity as time went on. If he had just started it off where the old series had left off, there's a good chance it would not have succeeded.

RDT also had the advantage of the fact there is no such thing as cannon with Dr Who. The tradition is that what the DR can and can't do can change according to the needs of the story. He wasn't burdened with god knows how many 1000s of words of lore to deal with.

Personally I'm not a fan RTD's work in general and Dr Who in particular. Its to frenetic for me but I'm not 7 even more and you get the kids hooked you get the parents and grandparents. I grew up watching Tom Baker in the 70s with the shorter episodes but longer stories and prefer the slower bruns. As you say RTD got the restart going and built foundations for Moffat to slowly take back towards the more traditional Who.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

This is why Russell T. Davies' approach to restarting Doctor Who was so smart - he didn't pick up where the series left off...he started it as a brand new series, made to introduce the characters and universe to a brand new audience, and filled in the older continuity as time went on. If he had just started it off where the old series had left off, there's a good chance it would not have succeeded.

RDT also had the advantage of the fact there is no such thing as cannon with Dr Who. The tradition is that what the DR can and can't do can change according to the needs of the story. He wasn't burdened with god knows how many 1000s of words of lore to deal with.

Personally I'm not a fan RTD's work in general and Dr Who in particular. Its to frenetic for me but I'm not 7 even more and you get the kids hooked you get the parents and grandparents. I grew up watching Tom Baker in the 70s with the shorter episodes but longer stories and prefer the slower bruns. As you say RTD got the restart going and built foundations for Moffat to slowly take back towards the more traditional Who.

That's not actually true, though - Doctor Who did have canon. What it didn't do was care that much about it (so, I have read interviews about the producers basically using fans to help them keep the canon straight). So, if you watch through the series, you will see them try to keep the canon more or less straight as they build it, but also maintain a complete willingness to toss canon out the window if it will make for a better story.

That's actually a bit like the original Star Trek - Star Trek didn't really start keeping track of canon until the movies and The Next Generation. When you watch the original series, it's actually kind of amazing how fast and loose they are with previous continuity. Even what the ships phasers do...and where in the ship they are...varies from episode to episode (and in the original series, the Romulans are the honourable warrior race, and the Klingons are the treacherous Soviet stand-ins).

 

[gigastar]

What about Doctor Who? A fair number of people feel the returned series (or the first five years of it anyway) was better then the first run, and most fans have never even watched those old episodes despite them still being part of the story.

Well you said it youself here. Most of the viewers now havent seen the old show, and thus have no basis to compare the old and new Who on.

And what about anime, where it's common for new seasons to be years apart due to the odd nature of the industry?

Thats because most anime is adaptations of either manga or light novels. And in the majority of cases an adaptation is halted/terminated due to running out of source material to adapt.

 

[Queen Michael]

No. No. They should not be allowed to do that. If they do then I will take a stick and I will hit them with it. And then they will say, no, don't hit us with the stick, but I'll still hit them with my stick.

 

[Zontar]

What about Doctor Who? A fair number of people feel the returned series (or the first five years of it anyway) was better then the first run, and most fans have never even watched those old episodes despite them still being part of the story.

Well you said it youself here. Most of the viewers now havent seen the old show, and thus have no basis to compare the old and new Who on.

Yes but my statement was being applied to those who have seen the old and new Who, like myself and most of the showrunners since the return.