…by having shorter seasons (or series)? Intentionally, that is, not shows that were killed off early.
When I think of all my favorite British shows, few have run longer than 50 or so episodes while my favorite American shows can run into the hundreds.
Which would you’d rather see:
- A great show that runs 20-30 episodes and all of them are very good to fantastic
or
- A good show that runs 200-300 episodes where only 10-20% are very good to fantastic and the rest are good to awful?
Example:
I’m a big Star Trek fan, but I would have rather seen a handful of great story arcs rather than all those episodes that sucked (yes, I know I didn’t have to watch them all).
The problem is when series like Faulty Towers or The Office go two seasons and they only have 12 shows total. I’ve also heard from some in Britain that the British way historically led to very repetitive TV ;).
Frankly, I’d prefer a Seinfeld to a Blackadder in terms of what you’ve asked. Though perhaps a middle ground may work (12 episodes a season?). That is what it seems like HBO does (the middle ground).
Like almost every living American, I’d rather see 200 episodes of a show I liked. There isn’t even an argument for the other side. British shows go bad at the same rate as American shows - think of the last season of Monty Python or Red Dwarf or Coupling - but you get so much less before then.
The question is why haven’t the British followed the example of American television?