Short and sweet, or deep and meaningful?

[Polynikes]

As a British TV watcher, my opinion is that the best British drama and comedy programmes have an optimum of 12 episodes or thereabouts. Anything more tends to dilute the quality. For example, John Cleese deliberately ended Fawlty Towers after 12 episodes because he knew that he could not sustain the level for any more episodes. Similarly, Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay stopped writing Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister for the same reason - they felt that they were in danger of exhausting the same line of humour. Our drama series too tend to be shorter (e.g. Survivors which is now finishing its second (and probably final) series. Yet US shows seem to take on a life of their own, often to the detriment of the overall quality. I remember watching a series of Lost, one of Heroes and also 24 before giving up, because the novelty paled and each of these ventures appeared to me to be becoming narcissistic and even existential - they caried on merely to be there, not to improve. Even excellent quality comedy such as Cheers and Frasier seemed to me to suffer from the repetition of the same running jokes. After several years of Frasier[b][/b], I could honestly say that I could not have cared less whether Daphne and Niles ended up together, and the constant joke became an irritation. Yet British friends of mine disagree, preferring the American style of creating something long-running, and suggesting that this leads to greater depth of character and greater audience empathy with the protagonists.

I am not suggesting that British writing is better than American writing - good writing is to be found on both sides of the Atlantic. What I am pondering is why US series tend to spawn multiple and long-running series (seasons). Is it a genuine desire to create a much broader canvas for a story or a comedy? Or, is it (to be cynical) an opportunity for professionals (writers, producers, directors and distributors) to milk a cash cow, even if this means diluting the purity of the milk (as Alan Partridge might have said)?

[Dimwitted]

Part of it is money, part of it is culture.

The US system was brought up on 24 episodic seasons. That allowed some depth but it also means that there's a lot of filler to sustain it. The properties reflect that. Multiple character arcs and stories. Hopefully a renewal comes and this thing keeps going with the objective to get to 100 episodes and syndication. Money train!
The Brits have these short, intense bursts. 6-12 episodes that allow for intensive subjects with only a few story arcs or in some cases only one. Until the advent of tapes and particularly dvd, none of these properties went outside of their producer's vaults. Only a very few properties were exported and did well, Dr. Who, Benny Hill and Monty Python in particular. All ended up in long running series very much like the US model.
As the "Network" model has died in the US and the great god of syndication grasping anything to show, these models are dying. Independent productions are looking more like the British model, short, intense and efficient.

[mkiker2089]

Part of it is also in finding an audience. In the US in particular shows are paid for during their run with ad money. They don't have time to become cult classics. In the UK shows are funded largely from tax revenue on television owners and other grants. Shows in the US need to run to guarantee a profitable timeslot for the network. They new Sienfeld would make money but they didn't know about the separate spin off shows planned. The logical thing is to keep the show going.

What's the survival rate of new shows, not high I suspect on both nations.

this is just my take on it but I think the UK shows often get more praise than they deserve as well. In the US we get the cream of the crop already filtered out for us. Even then the shows are simpler in nature. Take Star Trek Voyager versus Doctor Who. Star Trek had two plot points per episode with many larger character arcs. Growth of the doctor, reclaiming Seven, Kess's evolution and leaving the ship, reforming Tom etc. Doctor Who keeps falling back on the same premise season after season with the hot female lead and the doctor almost falling in love but not quite. Even the villains are starting to get redundant. How many times can you finally kill of the Daleks for good. Yet they are once again on the poster for the next season. How many times will the Cybermen return etc.. Will he ever have a male companion? A female that he doesn't have sexual tension with? Will we see new villains? How about a show without a true villain?

Don't get me wrong. Doctor Who is a great show and great fun. But it's a different game also and I think it's because of the truncated runs. Instead of that being a criticism though I recognize it as part of why the show works. I just wish they'd embrace it more and let the Daleks go. Doctor Who works best as a new adventure every week. Monster of the week if you will.

[mkiker2089]

As the "Network" model has died in the US and the great god of syndication grasping anything to show, these models are dying. Independent productions are looking more like the British model, short, intense and efficient.

Looking at things like Dexter it's almost a hybrid. Bigger budget, almost to a movie scale on some of them, shorter season, yet more seasons. To me it seems more like they are taking the old US idea of "tv movies" and adopting it to a more stable schedule. Kind of like how Columbo kept getting movies after his real seasons were over. Perry Mason, Murder She Wrote, and a couple others did it as well but my memory is fuzzy. Anyway, that's what I see as the future. Less filler and demanding more from each episode. The future is nice.

[HGervais]

You may not want to say it but I will, the Brits are just funnier than we are. Their TV is generally more mature and better structured than ours is. The model they use of shorter episode runs produces less filler and better storytelling.

[Dimwitted]

You may not want to say it but I will, the Brits are just funnier than we are. Their TV is generally more mature and better structured than ours is. The model they use of shorter episode runs produces less filler and better storytelling.

I don't think that's it. It's more like with the Brits they go "here's 3 million pounds, bring me back a show" and the US it's "here's 6 million dollars development money, if I like it I'll give you some more to make more shows". As to funny, it can translate over the pond but it can stiff too. The most successful are like mkiker says, the cream. We don't see the stiffs very often, either the comedys or the dramas.

[HGervais]

I actually watch more Brit TV via region-free DVD & eztv than I do American TV, so I'm pretty confident when I say I think they are funnier then we are. Our TV is generally slicker looking & better produced so our lower rung stuff looks better than their lower rung but from a material standpoint, their writing, even on lesser series, is, for the most part, way ahead of ours. Plus they are willing to build series around characters & material that most American TV would never touch. Stuff like The Mighty Boosh, The League of Gentlemen, Snuff Box, Ideal, Catterick, Psychoville, Nighty Night, Cyderdelic, Misfits, Peep Show, Funland, Shameless, Getting On, Fun At The Funeral Parlour, Look Around You, Saxondale, The Thick Of It, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace and Time Trumpet are all comedies that I simply can't imagine being attempted here in the US....although there is a Showtime version of Shameless on the way with William H. Macy in the lead. And that is just the comedies. The cool thing about the Brits and thier comedy shows is how they can be so abstract and yet be so specific in what they are going after. Like I noted, I think their model of shorter runs of episodes combined with their willingess to end a series once they run out of ideas naturally is going to produce a better chance for quality.

[Polynikes]

Many successful British TV comedies begin life as radio shows on BBC Radio 4 (for non-British readers, this is a publicly funded radio station with a mix of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, plays, discussion programmes and comedy; highly recommended listening if you can obtain it). BBC Radio is advert free, apart from the annoying trailers for other BBC programmes, so there is no direct commercial imperative. Much as I dislike paying taxes, and much as some programmes make me reach for the "off" switch, Radio 4 is a powerful argument in favour of publicly funded radio - although I would not say the same for large parts of the BBC.

For those who have not seen it overseas, I strongly recommend trying to get hold of a TV comedy called Outnumbered. I am hard to please when it comes to television, particularly comedy, and I don't think much of many very popular programmes, but I would put Outnumbered in my all-time favourite lists. I would be interested in hearing an American opinion on it, as it has been described as "quintessentially British humour", but I think it would fare well in the USA.

Doctor Who keeps falling back on the same premise season after season with the hot female lead and the doctor almost falling in love but not quite. Even the villains are starting to get redundant. How many times can you finally kill of the Daleks for good. Yet they are once again on the poster for the next season. How many times will the Cybermen return etc.. Will he ever have a male companion? A female that he doesn't have sexual tension with? Will we see new villains? How about a show without a true villain?

Don't get me wrong. Doctor Who is a great show and great fun. But it's a different game also and I think it's because of the truncated runs. Instead of that being a criticism though I recognize it as part of why the show works. I just wish they'd embrace it more and let the Daleks go. Doctor Who works best as a new adventure every week. Monster of the week if you will.

I agree. The best episodes in recent series are the ones with novelty (e.g. the shadows in the library, the weeping angels, the unknown entity taking over the woman called Sky etc.) But perhaps this should be discussed further in the Doctor Who thread.

[HGervais]

Doctor Who keeps falling back on the same premise season after season with the hot female lead and the doctor almost falling in love but not quite. Even the villains are starting to get redundant. How many times can you finally kill of the Daleks for good. Yet they are once again on the poster for the next season. How many times will the Cybermen return etc.. Will he ever have a male companion? A female that he doesn't have sexual tension with? Will we see new villains? How about a show without a true villain?

Don't get me wrong. Doctor Who is a great show and great fun. But it's a different game also and I think it's because of the truncated runs. Instead of that being a criticism though I recognize it as part of why the show works. I just wish they'd embrace it more and let the Daleks go. Doctor Who works best as a new adventure every week. Monster of the week if you will.

I agree. The best episodes in recent series are the ones with novelty (e.g. the shadows in the library, the weeping angels, the unknown entity taking over the woman called Sky etc.) But perhaps this should be discussed further in the Doctor Who thread.

To be fair Doctor Who addressed that with series four. There was no romance or sexual tension between The Doctor & Donna. RTD had the Doctor say how he just wanted a mate to travel with. The Doctor/Rose dynamic was something different in the show's history and the Doctor/Martha dynamic which followed probably seemed like a logical idea at the time but I think it is something the show's creators realized was a mistake halfway through.
From what I have read Moffat agrees with you about the Daleks but they are taking the route the show has felt it needed to with almost every new Doctor that it introduced, which is people like the Daleks and to help get people watching a new Doctor the Daleks are usually close behind to help generate interest. So yeah, we will get the Daleks with episode of two of the new series but I'm willing to bet that is all we will see of them for a series or two. I'd lay money on no Cybermen for quite some time as well. Weeping Angels I'm down with though. Still, things become popular for a reason. People respond to them and you can't blame a show for giving the audience what it wants to see.
I still think the best Dalek show was the first one the new series did.

[Kenneth Morgan]

Doctor Who keeps falling back on the same premise season after season with the hot female lead and the doctor almost falling in love but not quite. Even the villains are starting to get redundant. How many times can you finally kill of the Daleks for good. Yet they are once again on the poster for the next season. How many times will the Cybermen return etc.. Will he ever have a male companion? A female that he doesn't have sexual tension with? Will we see new villains? How about a show without a true villain?

Don't get me wrong. Doctor Who is a great show and great fun. But it's a different game also and I think it's because of the truncated runs. Instead of that being a criticism though I recognize it as part of why the show works. I just wish they'd embrace it more and let the Daleks go. Doctor Who works best as a new adventure every week. Monster of the week if you will.

I agree. The best episodes in recent series are the ones with novelty (e.g. the shadows in the library, the weeping angels, the unknown entity taking over the woman called Sky etc.) But perhaps this should be discussed further in the Doctor Who thread.

To be fair Doctor Who addressed that with series four. There was no romance or sexual tension between The Doctor & Donna. RTD had the Doctor say how he just wanted a mate to travel with. The Doctor/Rose dynamic was something different in the show's history and the Doctor/Martha dynamic which followed probably seemed like a logical idea at the time but I think it is something the show's creators realized was a mistake halfway through.
From what I have read Moffat agrees with you about the Daleks but they are taking the route the show has felt it needed to with almost every new Doctor that it introduced, which is people like the Daleks and to help get people watching a new Doctor the Daleks are usually close behind to help generate interest. So yeah, we will get the Daleks with episode of two of the new series but I'm willing to bet that is all we will see of them for a series or two. I'd lay money on no Cybermen for quite some time as well. Weeping Angels I'm down with though. Still, things become popular for a reason. People respond to them and you can't blame a show for giving the audience what it wants to see.
I still think the best Dalek show was the first one the new series did.

Well, re: the Doctor & Donna, it would've worked better if they hadn't given Rose more comeback attempts than Muhammad Ali. As for the Daleks, popular or not, they've been seriously overused. It's gotten to the point that the reaction to the Doctor's try at wiping them out in the Time War has gone from, "Whoa! I can't believe he'd go that far!" to William Hurt's line in A History of Violence: "How do you f*** that up?!"

As for British TV vs. American TV, I read a nice point in a book about Brit-Coms: you have to remember that American audiences really only see a fraction of UK shows, and only the better ones, at that. If you factor in all of them, things pretty much average out.

[HGervais]

Well, re: the Doctor & Donna, it would've worked better if they hadn't given Rose more comeback attempts than Muhammad Ali. As for the Daleks, popular or not, they've been seriously overused. It's gotten to the point that the reaction to the Doctor's try at wiping them out in the Time War has gone from, "Whoa! I can't believe he'd go that far!" to William Hurt's line in A History of Violence: "How do you f*** that up?!"

I'm not arguing that the Daleks were not overused...they were. Moffat pretty much agress with that which is why that early appearance will probably be their only one for some time. That said, it is tradition that a new Doctor usually has to battle a lot of the classic baddies from the show's history as he starts out. The irony being that with new Who very often it was the newish monsters that were creatively more successful. I have high hopes for Moffat produced Whio if for no other reason that I think he is a much more talented writer that was RTD and he created the most memorable new bad guys of the new series.