I'm beginning to dislike Netflix (re: Archive 81, 1899, Warrior Nun etc cancellations)

[Thomas Shey]

Apparently, the CW is about to make a hard turn, as they've done the sort of market research one would have assumed they were doing all along. It turns out their actual viewers are in their 40s and 50s, rather than teens and early 20s.

While my wife and I fit that age category (older in my case), I'd rather watch what the CW has traditionally supplied than what most places do when they think they're catering to an older demographic, even if it the former could sometimes be a bit eye-rolly.

 

[payn]

One thing I like (potentially) about shows that go from 20-24 episodes per season is that it allows for a larger ensemble cast. With 8-10 episodes, there's only so much character growth that can happen and only to a small number of characters; there just isn't time for anything else. There's nothing necessarily wrong with a show 8-10 episodes long, but I also think it's very self-limiting in the types of stories it can tell and the characters it can show. It's even worse when you're trying to adapt something and have such a limited amount of time to cram everything in.

IDK, ive gone back a few times to watch 20-24 eps seasons of shows and don't find they offer much over the new prestige era. Very few shows took advantage of that run time in the past. Most show the wear of long running seasons, few repetitively used sets, and many toss away episodes that offer little to the whole experience. I do recognize that you too see this as a potential benefit of the format, but I found it to be a rare exception myself.

 

[MGibster]

People are getting WAY too demanding when it comes to special effects. Giant blockbusters have totally spoiled viewers. Star Trek became a classic with plywood decors and deserts out of LA standing in for alien planets. You don't need giant budgets to make good fantasy and sci-fi TV dangit! Ultraman is always reusing monster suits and miniatures with probably a budget for their half-season shows that's lower than a single episode of Game of Thrones, but still manages to create interesting and engaging stories!

Your point isn't lost on me, but plywood sets, foam boulders, and the Vasquez Rocks standing in for the surface of other planets was pretty much what you expected in the 1960s. For a television show made in the late 1960s, Star Trek's special effects were actually pretty good.

I saw an interview with George Romero where he was talking about the computer generated images used to make zombies in his movie City of the Dead. You can obviously tell that the CGI was used and Romero said something like, "So what? Even my grandkids know zombies aren't real." The CGI in City didn't lessen my enjoyment, and I can think of plenty of big budget special effects movies that I never want to see again (Transformers I'm looking at you), so I think you're on to something. Having excellent special effects doesn't make for a good engaging story.

 

[MGibster]

One thing I like (potentially) about shows that go from 20-24 episodes per season is that it allows for a larger ensemble cast. With 8-10 episodes, there's only so much character growth that can happen and only to a small number of characters; there just isn't time for anything else. There's nothing necessarily wrong with a show 8-10 episodes long, but I also think it's very self-limiting in the types of stories it can tell and the characters it can show.

I watched the 10th seasons of The Walking Dead on Netflix and I started getting a bit bored. With the standard 22+ episodes to a season, you end up having a lot of episodes that just aren't very good or where nothing happens. i.e. They have filler episodes or the dreaded flashback episode. When you only have 10-13 episodes a season, the writers tend to get to the point. $%@^ happens and it's the reason I prefer shorter seasons now.

 

[Lidgar]

Their decision to not pull the trigger on a second season of Lockwood & Co., combined with their aggressive password sharing stance with family members, made me drop them.

Not missing 'em a bit.

 

[Ryujin]

Many of what people refer to as "filler" or "throw away" episodes, in longer format shows, are exercises in character development that give a greater depth to the show. A good example of this would be in ST:TOS, "The Galileo Seven", in which a great deal is learnt about Spock. You can have that sort of thing in episodic TV but when you're doing one arc, that covers a whole 10-14 episode season, there's no room for it.

 

[payn]

Your point isn't lost on me, but plywood sets, foam boulders, and the Vasquez Rocks standing in for the surface of other planets was pretty much what you expected in the 1960s. For a television show made in the late 1960s, Star Trek's special effects were actually pretty good.

I saw an interview with George Romero where he was talking about the computer generated images used to make zombies in his movie City of the Dead. You can obviously tell that the CGI was used and Romero said something like, "So what? Even my grandkids know zombies aren't real." The CGI in City didn't lessen my enjoyment, and I can think of plenty of big budget special effects movies that I never want to see again (Transformers I'm looking at you), so I think you're on to something. Having excellent special effects doesn't make for a good engaging story.

I think some of the key is to let it fall in the background. If you highlight bad CGI/effects, its impossible to ignore. I remember a film with Keanu where he is looking at an obviously fake sky line on a balcony. I thought to myself man that looks crappy; but who cares as long as it isnt pointed out? The very next line was, "whoa, look at that beautiful skyline" lol.

 

[payn]

I watched the 10th seasons of The Walking Dead on Netflix and I started getting a bit bored. With the standard 22+ episodes to a season, you end up having a lot of episodes that just aren't very good or where nothing happens. i.e. They have filler episodes or the dreaded flashback episode. When you only have 10-13 episodes a season, the writers tend to get to the point. $%@^ happens and it's the reason I prefer shorter seasons now.

Sometimes... The Marvel series that premiered on Netflix but moved to D+ has a lot of wheel spinning episodes. A lot of that was to push them out to 13 eps. Amazon Prime also has a wheel spinning template they use for many of their series that drives me nuts. Just because its shorter in length doesn't mean they cant fill it with nothin!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shorter seasons are actually better for creators. Not only do you spend more per episode and increase the production value, you don't have to do filler episodes. Plus it's way less stressful to do 12 episodes in a year vs. 20 and you don't have to hire as many writers.

So-called "filler" episodes can also provide valuable character development and worldbuilding, particularly for anyone outside the 1-3 characters that are the only ones many shows care about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Uh I have bad news for you friend

I expected as much. I might watch the animated movie, but I won't touch the re-launch. I can't see how it can possibly be worth it.