British seasons are way, way too short. Six episodes is insanely few. Yet, the last time I looked a couple up on DVD they cost more than most of the 13 episode US cable series.
They don’t suck? (j/k)
I don’t watch enough TV–even enough of these shows–to articulate it. I’m sure that there are good shows on network TV too, but the ones that seem to catch my interest tend to be on cable.
Not to veer off the main topic but American TV has a serious lack of celebrity-only panel shows.
Shows like QI, Would I Lie To You, Nevermind the Buzzcocks and Mock the Week are laugh-out-loud funny. The only shows we have that are remotely close to those are Hollywood Squares (cancelled), The Match Game (cancelled) and Who’s Line Is It Anyway? (cancelled). The first two weren’t the same because they involved non-celeb players and the last is not the same because it’s really just an acting showcase (and existed in the UK first anyway).
I have no idea why we don’t have these sorts of shows in the US. Maybe, possibly, it’s because our quality stars are wrapped up in 13-or-26-episode TV seasons. Or perhaps the American TV audience doesn’t like to laugh at current events or trivia as much as Brits do. Maybe we lack quality presenters. Maybe there’s a US law that says you can’t have a “game show” without a member of the public winning a prize.
Boggles my mind.
HBO is British?
The anime system is that you have two seasons (26 episodes), and there should be a full story arc that plays out in that time period. But, you can then go and recreate the series for a new two-season arc, often with a new director and modified style, and an entirely different story. Sometimes it might not even be the same characters, just the same overall world.
I hate to say anything supporting anime (not really, but I try to be as contrary as I can), but that is an EXTREMELY interesting concept. I now have a good source for anime, and may someday have the money (or can talk my daughters into buying it, or, at least, linking me to it), so do you have any examples?
First let me mention something that drove me insane until I figured it out: What us Americans refer to as a season, i.e. one year’s worth of a TV show, is called a series in the UK. Confusing because in the US the word series always refers to a show in its entirety. I could not understand when I heard UK cast members talking about how, “The fourth series was the best”, because I thought they meant the fourth entirely new show they starred in after the one they were supposed to be talking about.
Anyway, they both have advantages & disadvantages. But there is definitely an issue of quality vs. quantity. What I would consider the best TV comedies are all British: Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, The Young Ones, IMO no US show can really top these. And probably the main reason is they didn’t make very many. Python ran four seasons, but only 13 eps each which are only half seasons in the US. Plus the John Cleese-less season four was definitely a little lacking. And Fawlty Towers and The Young Ones only did about 13 eps total.
The Simpsons is a good comparison. The first 9 or 10 seasons were more or less absolutely stellar. The last ten have more or less, um, really really sucked. The only US comedy shows that I’d compare to the Brit ones would be maybe South Park, which only does about 14 every year or so, and Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim. All of their shows are very low episode count and the quality really shows. Not coincidentally, Adult Swim has also been running some really good Brit shows.
About the only exception I can think of is NBC’s version of The Office. Its both high quality, like the 13 ep Britcom its based on, but they’ve succeeded (so far) in keeping it a great show while still pumping out five full 22 episode seasons.
Try Steven den Beste’s website: [noparse]www.chizumatic.nu[/noparse] (mildly NSFW with NSFW links).
Well it’s not always quite that clearcut. For instance Macross has:
Macross
Macross II
Macross Plus
Macross 7
Macross Zero
Macross Frontier
Each of those will have their own characters and separate storylines that are within the same general world–like Star Trek: TOS, Star Trek: TNG, etc. Some of them are TV series, some are miniseries. There’s a few movies thrown in.
Gundam is similar to Macross with lots of separate series that are non-contiguous with separate styles and directories, characters and stories. Only there’s more of them.
Orguss has a TV series and a miniseries which are widely different.
Tenchi Muyo has a few different retellings of the same overall story with the same characters. The original miniseries is sort of the canonical version, and the movies follow it, while the two TV series are separate interpretations which both start over from scratch.
El Hazard has the original miniseries plus two widely disparate TV series. One recreates everything, while as the other is a sequel to the original miniseries. No movies.
Jumping into the realm of live action, there’s Masked Rider. That has 19 separate TV series. I’ve only seen two of them (Ryuki and 555), but they seemed to mostly ignore the existence of the other series. Each new one recreates the mythos. (And I quite recommend Ryuki.)
One thing that makes me enjoy the British system, witrhout claiming it’s necessarily better, is that it makes the shows more suited to re-watch. The concept of DVD boxes was clearly not in the heads of the team of Fawlty Towers, but Fawlty Towers and other BBC productions are more digestable. When I watch through Sopranos, I’ll undoubtedly have a good time, but I’ll be pretty “full” by the time it’s finished, if you catch my drift.
e Too add, I think there must be some kind of sweet spot even in the American formula. HBO seems to handle it well, I don’t think any show should run over 5-6 seasons if it isn’t truly motivated.
Something I’ve wondered about the British system is the economics of it and how the earnings of English TV show producers/actors compare to those in Hollywood. Are actor paychecks comparable for stars of a high rated show? Do BBC stars and execs make noticeably more than those who work for a completely privately owned company?
I’ve wondered if the creators of- for example- Steptoe & Son- earned more money from Sanford & Son since it was a hugely successful U.S. sitcom that ran 135 eps. instead of the 57 eps off and on over 12 years like it’s British origins. (I’ve no idea if they were paid a flat fee or had a percentage of Sanford & Son, but if it was the latter it stands to reason they would have made more than from the original.) I know that Jeremy Lloyd (Laugh In regular and Are You Being Served? writer/producer) tried several times to get a U.S. version of the series (Paul Lynde was to play the Mr. Humphries character in a pilot when he died) and I’ve wondered if it was because he’s make far more money from a moderate hit here than from the original which was classic.
Of course John Inman only played Mr. Humphries for about 80 episodes over a two decade period and never earned a fraction of what the cast of Friends or Frasier or Mad About You earned and it was announced that he was a multimillionaire (in pounds, Euros or dollars- accounts I read estimated his estate at around $8 million USD) so evidently he did quite alright from his earnings as to my knowledge he wasn’t born rich. But I’m curious how the profits are for a hit Britcom v. hit American sitcom.
The BBC has historically paid less than the commercial networks (indeed, jokes about the lousy BBC fee are something of a cliche), and sometimes you hear about actors, producers and so on going to ITV for the big bucks. These days the BBC has a little more leeway and does compete head on with the commercial networks in some areas. There is an ongoing controversy at the moment about the millions they pay chat show host Jonathan Ross, for example. His salary probably matches what he could get elsewhere.
*Rome *was co-produced with the BBC.
I would like to see more of the American non-comedies adopt a self-contained season. 24 does it, probably a few others that I can’t think of.
I hate getting involved with a drama and then having it canceled with no closure, so I almost never watch non-comedies.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the main reason Lost got better (I wouldn’t know, I honestly lost all interest after the third season) because they forced the network to give them a specific number of remaining episodes? The show’s success meant that the network would milk it indefinitely, forcing the writers to stretch out plot points forever, until its desiccated husk would no longer bring in viewers, at which time the show would get canceled without a chance to wrap up the loose ends. That is the American way (and that’s how you get Capone) and as far as I’m aware the only reason Lost is getting better is because they forcibly bucked it.
The American way is fine for episodic shows, but when you have a real story to tell, it becomes difficult to get it done correctly.
I, too, like the Japanese anime system of TV series. Many anime I’ve watched have a set number of episodes (13, 26, or 52). The entire story arc is planned out within that timeframe, so you don’t have writers making stuff up as they go along or padding episodes to stretch out the plot.
While I don’t mean to be too contrary… Adult Swim has not run a good British anything. That is by far the most godawful tripe to ever cross that channel, and far, far worse than even the worst anime they’ve ever shown. Their “British” stuff is ugly people doing boring things in mind-screwing situations. It’s not funny, it’s not interesting, and I’d rather cut myself than watch it. The sole reason it’s on there is that the execs of Adult Swim like unusually experimental comedy, and they get the quality you’d expect of it.
Oh, I think the British system is objectively superior for the sort of arc-based storytelling that American TV now favors. The American system is OK (not better nor worse) for purely episodic work, which used to dominate over here.
That said, I’m a child of the American form, & can understand the reflexive loyalty to it.
Don’t forget that the often quoted £5 million per annum for Ross isn’t all going on his salary. This payment was for his for production company. Out of that money he has to hire staff and studio space, and pay for the actual production of his programmes.
The new Old Testament based soap opera Kings is one that begs to be presented in the British way. It’s an extremely ambitious series (the story of David told in a modern alterniverse setting for those not familiar) but it simply can’t work as a TV series- the story of David has to be multigenerational as his youth/20s/mid-life-crisis/old age are all central parts of the story. With one season taking him from annointing to the verge of “kinghood”, the next taking him through his early years on the throne, the next into the Bathsheba years, then Absalom, etc., each as a self contained 10 episode or so arc, it could be brilliant.