![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunRemember when a full season for a television series consisted of 26 episodes? If you're old enough to remember watching the original Star Trek in its initial NBC run, you should. But oh, how times have changed...and not for the better, from a viewer's standpoint.
Bad enough that over decades, cost-conscious networks began cutting back their full-season orders for shows to 24 episodes, then 22, and filling the gaps with reruns and specials. And then came "reality" competition shows like Survivor and American Idol and Big Brother, whose structure could not be carried for a whole traditional season, and cable-channel original series like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under lasting only half an old-style broadcast show's season, to further confuse the issue. And let's not forget those endless, excruciating "hiatus" breaks of weeks or even months in mid-season between new episodes, no doubt partially inspired by the practices of such shows as Stargate: SG-1 and the new Battlestar Galactica on Sci Fi.
Now comes an announcement from ABC that its hit show Lost, one of the few bona fide successes it can claim in a season otherwise littered with failures (bear in mind, 90 percent or more of all networks' new fall shows fail), will not begin its fourth season until February of 2008, five months after the 2007-08 season begins for most other returning shows. 2008!! This means that, following this Wednesday's third-season finale, fans of the show must wait a full eight months before seeing any more new episodes. I'm not a Lostie myself, but if the same thing happened with a show I love—say, NBC's Heroes—someone at 30 Rockefeller Center in NYC would get hurt. Bad.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if I'm ABC head honcho Bob Iger or some other high-up network muckety-muck, and I've got a hit on my hands, don't I have every economic incentive to get that puppy back on the air as soon as humanly possible after the summer break? And to get as many episodes of it on as my schedule and budget will allow?
Where's the outrage from viewers over the ever-diminishing returns on their time invested watching shows (and putting up with the commercials, superimposed promos, squeeze teasers over end credits and all the other annoyances of watching commercial TV)? Why aren't we standing up for a full-fledged season every year for ALL shows, not just ones starring Kiefer Sutherland and named 24?
Bad enough that over decades, cost-conscious networks began cutting back their full-season orders for shows to 24 episodes, then 22, and filling the gaps with reruns and specials. And then came "reality" competition shows like Survivor and American Idol and Big Brother, whose structure could not be carried for a whole traditional season, and cable-channel original series like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under lasting only half an old-style broadcast show's season, to further confuse the issue. And let's not forget those endless, excruciating "hiatus" breaks of weeks or even months in mid-season between new episodes, no doubt partially inspired by the practices of such shows as Stargate: SG-1 and the new Battlestar Galactica on Sci Fi.
Now comes an announcement from ABC that its hit show Lost, one of the few bona fide successes it can claim in a season otherwise littered with failures (bear in mind, 90 percent or more of all networks' new fall shows fail), will not begin its fourth season until February of 2008, five months after the 2007-08 season begins for most other returning shows. 2008!! This means that, following this Wednesday's third-season finale, fans of the show must wait a full eight months before seeing any more new episodes. I'm not a Lostie myself, but if the same thing happened with a show I love—say, NBC's Heroes—someone at 30 Rockefeller Center in NYC would get hurt. Bad.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if I'm ABC head honcho Bob Iger or some other high-up network muckety-muck, and I've got a hit on my hands, don't I have every economic incentive to get that puppy back on the air as soon as humanly possible after the summer break? And to get as many episodes of it on as my schedule and budget will allow?
Where's the outrage from viewers over the ever-diminishing returns on their time invested watching shows (and putting up with the commercials, superimposed promos, squeeze teasers over end credits and all the other annoyances of watching commercial TV)? Why aren't we standing up for a full-fledged season every year for ALL shows, not just ones starring Kiefer Sutherland and named 24?
