Marshall Fine Movies for Smart People Hollywood and Fine
 
Home        Reviews        Interviews        Commentary        My Books        Bio        Mission Statement
 
 
Marshall Fine Blog
 
 

November 3, 2008

A modest proposal (to end TV as we know it)

 

Entertainment Weekly recently ran a cover story about the series, “Heroes” (about which its editors seem even more obsessed than “Gossip Girl” or “Lost”), in which they asked, Can this series be saved?

 

But that’s the wrong question. Like so many other TV series on American networks, “Heroes” had a great freshman season, followed by a sophomore slump. It’s been scrambling ever since to figure out what it should be.

 

But what if “Heroes” had made the choice to end after the first season? What if, instead of tacking on scenes that opened the door to the second season’s plots in that first season finale, it had called it quits after a single season?

 

Imagine how it would stand out in memory. Imagine the DVD sales.

 

Or consider this: What if “Mad Men” had ended after its first season? Or even after this final episode of its second?

 

How great would that have been?

 

Sure, fans would immediately be jones-ing for new episodes but … tough. Move on. And remember it as the great moment in TV that it was.

 

Yes, it’s a radical idea but American television could only improve if the networks changed their model to create more worthwhile event television and less appointment TV. Why keep pounding out episodes until a show wears out its welcome and douses its own creative spark?

 

I understand that the economic model for American TV series is such that they don’t really earn back their expenses unless they stay on the air for a looong time. You’ll occasionally read about a party thrown by that fortunate series that lasted to its 100th episode, the magical number at which syndication becomes a much greater possibility because the show can run five nights a week for 4 months without repeating an episode.

 

But I have two words for you: “The Office.” And one more: “Extras.” Both of Ricky Gervais’ original British TV series ran for two six-episode seasons (followed by a special). The end.

 

Brilliant, as the Brits say.

 

The British seem to do that with regularity: create a series meant to run for a single season of episodes. Period. Think about “Prime Suspect,” for example, the incredibly complex and compelling show in which Helen Mirren played a police inspector battling the old-boy network as well as her own personal demons.

 

It ran as a limited series in 1991 – and, yes, it came back six more times (“Prime Suspect: The Final Act” aired in 2006), but never two seasons in a row. And even then, each series rarely ran for more than four hours – total. It only seemed to resurface when they’d fashioned a plot that was worthy of DCI Jane Tennison’s time – and ours.

 

Or consider “Rome,” which ran for a concise but rich two seasons on HBO (again, with a British pedigree). But those were two incredibly dense, action-packed, melodrama-dripping seasons full of memorable characters tethered in fascinating ways to history.

 

Americans, however, are addicted to success – and, in TV, that means series that run far beyond their expiration date. When actors sign on to do a pilot for an American network, the contract generally binds them to the show for seven seasons. But it’s the rare series that a) lasts seven seasons or b) maintains its quality if it does last seven seasons.

 

Unfortunately, the idea of a limited series will never fly with American networks for a couple of reasons.

 

First, as mentioned, there’s no way to immediately cash in; that comes later, with DVD or on-demand sales. The risk – that it will bomb and never recoup – is huge.

 

And second, it brings to mind the dreaded, unspeakable term: “mini-series.”

 

The American networks essentially squeezed all the juice out of that lemon by yoking the form to weighty, often dreadful novels by authors like Herman Wouk (“Winds of War” – gaaak!) and John Jakes (“North and South” – double gaaak!).

 

Granted, two of my favorite mini-series from the form’s 1970s/80s heyday were soap-operatic in the extreme: “Rich Man, Poor Man,” based on an Irwin Shaw novel; and “The Thorn Birds,” from Colleen McCullough’s best-seller. But it just goes to show that shlocky source material can still make engrossing TV.

 

Even when the mini-series was still a viable form, it was the rare American effort that blossomed from original material. More often, the networks followed the “Masterpiece Theater” model – except, instead of literary masterpieces, they spent huge sums on trash like the novels of Judith Krantz or on gassy dreadnoughts like “War and Remembrance,” which ran for a coma-inducing 1,620 minutes (not including commercial breaks).

 

It would take more strength of mind – and will – than American networks have but here’s an idea. The next time someone like J.J. Abrams or Steven Bochco or David Kelley or David Milch or David Chase comes up with a series idea that seems bold, risky and adventurous, consider trying this:

 

Create enough episodes for a single season. Cast them with the best actors you can. Pour the kind of production values into it that you would for a feature film.

 

And then stop. Wrap it up with a satisfying conclusion in 13 or 22 episodes – or leave it open-ended and walk away.

 

But leave it at that.

 

Period.

 

Brilliant.

 

So brilliant it will never happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Print This Post Print This Post

 

Share

 


7 Responses to “A modest proposal (to end TV as we know it)”

  1. clarkman Says:

    FYI: CBS is giving this a try with a mid-season show called HARPER’S ISLAND. It’s a stand-alone 13-episode thriller that is definitely not designed for a second season. Look for it sometime in 2009.

  2. Forrest Says:

    You raise a valid and interesting point, but I don’t think you should dismiss the long-form storytelling of television out of hand. Shows like “Lost” and “The Wire,” among others, have shown how rich, engrossing stories can take advantage of the medium. I think there’s a lot that can be done with a story that spans 100 episodes…it doesn’t happen often, but I hope more TV writers start thinking along those lines, as well as considering more concise, closed stories. There’s a place for both.

  3. Esteban Says:

    Marshall, yer right these guys are war criminals and should be tried and treated as such…they were so far outside the constitution that they make Reagan, Oliver North et al and their cabal secret government look like an 8th grade civics project.

    A new broom sweeps clean baby…

  4. Jamie Says:

    “The Wire” is actually a good example of what this proposal would allow for– just think of season 1 of “The Wire” as a novel with four sequels. The structure of “The Wire” would ONLY be possible in the limited (13 episodes per season) time frame that the show had. 13 hours is a huge chunk of time– big enough to a long form serialized drama– but it’s not so big that the arch of a season gets lost. Each season of the show works as a unit. If you think about it, a season of “The Wire” is basically a miniseries.

    Most of the great achievements of recent television owe something to that structure. “Deadwood’s” seasons are basically more rambly and recursive versions of the kind of structure “The Wire” has. (Each season works as a miniseries, or novel, if you want a more respectable term.) The British “Office” basically functions the same way. Even though the sitcom format meant that each episode had a stand alone story, there were cumulative plots that ran throughout the season. While “The Office” LOOKS unstructured, at the end of a season, it is quite clear that the show uses carefully pre-planned narrative archs. If you stick in an “Office” DVD and watch it straight through it’s like almost like watching a long movie.

    Think about the mixed success of great recent American shows that KINDA used this miniseries format. “Friday Night Lights” and “Battlestar Galactica” at their best are as good as “The Wire,” but there are plenty of episodes that don’t live up to the shows’ promise. Generally, these episodes are the “between” episodes that don’t serve the larger stories very well. Again, thinking of a SEASON as the fundamental unit for a T.V. show is better than thinking of an episode as the fundamental unit.

    Brit T.V. calls a batch of episodes of a T.V. show “series” rather than “seasons” which pretty much explains their approach, which is pretty much the approach Marshal is advocating. This is why so many British shows have cult audiences over here. There is a model over there for creating a T.V. show that is designed as a unit. This is an infinitely better structure for quality than the American model of trying to milk a formula until it’s dry. (Not that there aren’t popular British shows that survived far past their usefulness.)

  5. goolloog Says:

    Excellent blog! Interesting article and very informative! I will necessarily subscribe for this blog. http://hiptop.ru/map.html

  6. Hollywood and Fine - Marshall Fine Blog » Blog Archive » A modest … · TV SeRiES Says:

    [...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

  7. Frank Says:

    I think that there are too many repeats of programmes and commercial breaks on tv nowadays

Leave a Reply

 

 

Subscribe via RSS

Subscribe to
Marshalls Blog via Email



 

 
 
© 2013 - hollywoodandfine.com - All Rights Reserved -  - Legal - Site Map - designed by FirstCrescent