Obviously, the makers of a television series usually want it to be on the air a while and make them some money. Unfortunately, a good premise and a premise that will last for several seasons aren’t always the same thing. SOme that come to mind:
That 70’s Show: It is supposed to be 1978 right now in the show. What happens in 2 years?
The West Wing: Well, the term limits are going to end Martin Sheen’s time in office… what happens then?
Millenium: Well, this would have been a good example had the show lasted until the year 2000… where would they have gone after that?
24: Though I believe it’s only planned as a season-long show, you know Fox would love to milk this if it does well. Would season two be the day after this?
Head of the Class or any show about high school. (I know, I know… they become Saved by the Bell - The College Years.
Any thoughts on the future of some of these short-shelf-life-shows or how some of them dealt with this problem in the past?
“Combat!” lasted for five or six seasons. From D-Day to VE day was less than a year.
The Korean War lasted three years. “Mash” lasted 11.
Ben Gazzara’s character in “Run for Your Life” had a disease that was going to kill him in two years. The show lasted three.
Time in the TV world isn’t quite the same as time in the real world. (And, according to the Relativity Theories, time in the real world isn’t the same everywhere, either–but that’s a discussion for a different forum. . .)
I doubt the West Wing will run for 8 years. It would get too expensive to produce after a while as the cast would demand too much money. They’re already grumbling about their salaries. As long as Bradley Whitford and Allison Janney keep winning Emmies, there will be problems.
It’s also unrealistic to expect a White House staff to stay together that long. Look at the turnover that Reagan and Clinton had during their 8 years. Even George Bush the Elder went through a few Chiefs of Staff in his four years.
Exactly what I wondered when I read somewhere that this is the show’s “first season.” I think they’d be nuts to try going a second season with it. Some stories shouldn’t have sequels.
I loved the show Millenium. I, too, was always wondering what would happen with the show when the year 2000 hit. I figured its last show of 1999 would be a spectacular series-ender. How sad when the show degenerated (killer virus runs through city, Frank and family hide out in woods, Frank’s wife catches virus and dies–next episode, virus is gone, Frank moves back to city–huh?), got cancelled, and ended up as an X-Files episode. What happened to this show?
Take a look at any long-running family sitcom to see how the storyline evolves. My Three Sons and Ozzie and Harriet started out with pre-teenagers who group up, went to college, got married and had kids of their own. Bewitched had first one kid, then two with magical powers. Shows like Cheers and Hill Street Blues kept the same premise, but cycled through supporting characters.Even using exactly the same plot seems different when it happened first to Norm, then to Frasier.
There was a show called James at 15, where the star celebrated his 16th birthday by losing his virginity. The show was then re-named James at 16. However, a couple of episodes after that it became James The Washed Up Teenage Actor.
That’s My Bush! If it hadn’t been canceled a couple of months ago, current events now would surely push it to be canceled.
and then there was one on MTV I believe called Dead at 21 where the main character was going to die when he reached age 21. Don’t know how or whne this ended as I never saw it.
The high school shows will also recycle by substituting students. See “Head of the CLass” (which also changed teachers) and “Saved by the Bell–The New Class” or whatever it was called. Or they all graduate yet contrive to go to the same college. Archetype being 90210.
Murder One was another with a limited premise. It followed a murder case from the murder to the solution. It was cancelled before the end of the season, but A&E showed the complete first season. But what to do for season two? Why, murder someone else, of course!
Another type of limited-premise show is the show that has a central mystery. Once it’s solved, there’s trouble keeping viewership. Twin Peaks being the prime example. Wolf Lake (may it rest in peace) seemed to have been heading down this road until it got hit by the semi-trailer of HIATUS.
I’m really worried about Malcolm in the Middle. It’s such a great show, but I think Dewey is one of the funniest characters, and his character won’t be as entertaining once he starts getting older. Which will probably start happening soon.
“That’s My Bush! If it hadn’t been canceled a couple of months ago, current events now would surely push it to be canceled.”
I had the same thought, but for slightly different reasons, about the syndicated sci-fi show “Seven Days.” (For those who don’t know the premise, a government agency has a time machine that can send one person back in time seven days, and they use it to prevent disasters, assassinations, etcetera.) A show with that premise can’t simply ignore September 11th, but it damned well can’t address it head on either without people condemning it as exploitative.
Why in the world should “TV time” match up with “real time”? I mean, we see what, a half-hour of the characters’ lives every week? What about the 335 other half-hours of their lives? I mean, if you can accept a show that takes place over 24 hours lasting a full season, then what’s wrong with a show about a guy with two years to live being on the air for three?
God, I wish we had more TV shows that were self limiting. B5 is the best example of this sort of thing: when you decide inb advance exactly how long you are going to run the show, you can have permanent developments take place and you don’t have ot keep going over the same grouns. On the most basic, girly level this means that you don’t have to have the same two charecters fall in love, go through many wacky adventures to get together, then break up over a very thin premise because you don’t know what to do with them as a a couple. On a more serious level, this means you can have actual epic developments that matter.
For example, I am an X-files fan, but I an’t help but think that a good show could have been absolutly fantastic is they had decided at hte beginning: “Ok, in five years this is going to come to a big epic conclusion, world wil actually be saved, then we end it.” If after that, they had wanted to start a new five-year story arc, that would have been cool. But the tendency these days seems to be to hold back, to keep from using all oyur creative ideas, because you have to save something for next season, which will hopefully happen.
It is my undrestanding htat in Latin AMerica, soap operas run for 6-12 weeks, complete a story arc, and then start over, with mostlythe same actors playing new roles. I think this makes so much sense.
Same in Japan. All the dramas are written to last 13 episodes, then end. If it turns out to be really popular, a sequel will appear about 6 months later. When U.S. shows get released on video here, the season number is added to the title like a sequel name, so we’re now seeing ER 4, Friends 3 and X-Files 7.
And yeah, it’s nice to now that the show’s storyline is actually going to be resolved at some point.
Oh sure, it’s not like some of the others that have a built in shelf life because kids grow older or circumstances can only be a certain way for a certain period of time. But it was limited nonetheless right from the get go.
This is a show about a guy that gets cursed and has bad things happen to him! I mean, how long can you possibly keep something like this up before the cursed guy gets killed or the gags get really really old? Answer: thirteen episodes.
Half of which were “The Steven Weber Show” anyway, because even the producers realized how little potential a plot device like this would have stretched out over an entire series.
It’s like the writers were brainstorming one day and someone mistook that piece of paper for series that had been given the green light.
