I think TV executives should be clear with us. Lowly and loyal viewers of TV series are some of the most ravenous consumers alive: consider the number of people who rush home from dinner dates to meet up with a group of pals to regularly watch a specific show. These folks aren't exaggerating their addiction - they must catch every episode of their favourite program. So when a popular show goes on 'hiatus' or 'takes a break' for months (or in some cases half a year!), it can be quite jarring.
I know what you're thinking: if someone's that addicted to a show, it's good for them to be away from it for a while. I don't necessarily disagree with that. My main beef is the bowlfuls of tripe dished out by the networks. They claim it's just the natural progression of shows or that the actors need a break or the producers/directors need some time to regenerate creative juices - all those reasons are ridiculous. That's what summer vacation is for! And don't even get me started on the writer's strike.
Let's take the example of Heroes. The fan favourite hasn't been seen for months, and the last new episode was broadcast on December 3, 2007. The break caused so much confusion that a friend of mine asked if the show was cancelled.
Then there's the underground smash hit Battlestar Galactica, which is on its second ridiculously-long break. It played the same card in its third season, when there were no new episodes for nearly a year. Now in the middle of its fourth season, it has ended new episodes in June and won't restart until January 2009.
Both of these shows blame the writer's strike for the hiatuses, but here are two reasons why I don't believe them. One, there was no writer's strike to speak of for BSG's first break, and two, Heroes, while it may have a powerhouse cast and a lot of big egos to appease, has no reason to break for so long - cutting the season in half is pretty drastic.
I think the networks know what they're doing; it's a stall tactic at its best. A lot of previous series burned out too quickly, cramming all the goods into one season with the rest suffering as a result. Also, let's not avoid the gigantic elephant in the room: reality shows. It's a lot cheaper to cast a reality show - no salaries! - and fans who normally flock to serial shows like Heroes and BSG have no choice but to flip the channel to soothe their need for new material. So the stalling thing is also a money-saver.
Despite all my bitching, I know I'm going to tune in when those series return, so I acknowledge my hypocrisy [Soraya's peanut gallery comment: Editors reserve the right to be hypocrites!]. But there's no getting rid of the bad taste in my mouth, no matter how much scantily clad Katee Sackhoff you feed me.
FEED
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1. I agree completely. As I see that some of my favorite shows are coming back in September, I am saying to myself, " Well, they better dad gum be coming back in September instead of their usual ridiculous OCTOBER DEBUTS. I am sickened by how few episodes of our favorite shows we get as consumers . Do they think that we're doing them a FAVOR watching their shows? Good grief. With the money these people (staff included) we deserve better! Get with it, networks. We're sick and tired of your antics for ratings.
Posted at 12:12PM on Aug 8th 2008 by Roxanne Johnson
2. I also agree. Shows used to be on from September to April or May. Now, we're lucky if we get 10 weeks or so, it's rediculous!
Posted at 9:23AM on Aug 11th 2008 by Cindy
3. I fully agree. But, I also believe it is stupid when they change the night of the week for one or two shows. I tape a lot of my shows due to my work schedule. I have missed important shows this way. I have lost interest in a few shows, like Grey's Anatomy and Lost just because of the long breaks.
Posted at 9:13AM on Aug 12th 2008 by Lynn
4. The major networks need to get their act together because they are slowly being outclassed by the cable networks like HBO, Showtime, FX and AMC. While you have to pay to get those channels, it's a small price to pay to get a consistant schedule and a full season from start to finish with no reruns with zero mid-season breaks. There might be long breaks between seasons, but you'll never see this between season break crap.
The quality of the shows are top knotch, proven by the fact that these channels gobbled up about 50% of the emmy nominations this year. The fact is you will not find a single show on the four major networks that hold a candle to Mad Men, In Treatment or Dexter. None. Period. If you want to get away from the 'breaks' the networks seem too eager to dish out, go to the cable networks and enjoy what they have to offer. It's worth every penny...
Posted at 9:14AM on Aug 12th 2008 by Peter Lowry
5. I'm SICK OF REALITY SHOWS and have NEVER watched one. Nobody I know has, but now, thanks to you I know why they exist. Like you said - cheap TV, no salaries to pay out. Come on Networks, give the paying public some decent stuff to watch on TV instead of screwing us by throwing 'JUNK' our way. And shows like "MEDIUM" that were really popular from it's first season (I think it had 3 seasons, 2 for sure), it never started until Jan. 2008!!!! That's riduluous! Many shows didn't start until WELL into 2008, even later than Jan. And why are the networks over-welming the viewers on Monday night?? We watch 1 thing, tape another, but yet there are still 2 other things we would like to see, but can't. It's like all the networks have taken their best shows and squeezed them into Monday night. What about the rest of the week? Do they think that people ONLY watch TV on Monday's?? And people with children, they are not 'out' Friday & Saturday nights and have nothing to watch?? And Sunday - there isn't ONE WHOLESOME SHOW that a whole family can sit down and watch together! Like the good old days with "The Wonderful World of Disney", "Carol Burnett Show" and others I can't remember. I'm getting sick of the Networks not recognizing the NEEDS OF THE VIEWERS: SINGLE OR FAMILIES. And if they cater to people in their 20's, their in debt!! People in their late 30's and up have liquid money to spend. They are not going after the right demographics.
Posted at 7:08PM on Sep 11th 2008 by Donna`
6. "fans who normally flock to serial shows like Heroes and BSG have no choice but to flip the channel"
READ A BOOK!
Posted at 11:15AM on Aug 12th 2008 by amber
7. "fans who normally flock to serial shows like Heroes and BSG have no choice but to flip the channel"
READ A BOOK
Posted at 11:53AM on Aug 12th 2008 by amber
8. I think you missed one important thing that the studios are all probably slavering over. I think they are all eagerly awaiting cheap CGI, so that they won't need to pay high salaries to actors, just pay a few writers and graphic design guys and support a bank of computers to create shows. No need for insurance policies on actors, no set designers and construction crews, no location shoots, just a simple set of desks for a handful of people to create entertqainment.
Not that far off.
Posted at 9:28AM on Aug 18th 2008 by L. Mansfield
9. That wouldn't be the worst thing either, would it?. Think "s1m0ne" with Al Pacino. It shows that it could work, although of course they did use an actor to play s1m0ne.
Or Final Fantasy Advent Children. That's quality CGI right there, forget about the Pixar children crap.
If there were shows - not only movies - done mainly or entirely in CGI, who would miss the actors? They can still do movies. It's an overrun business anyways. I could even imagine stars like Al Pacino to let themselves be digitalized by a 3d scanner and have their digital counterpart play their roles for the right price. That way we still would have our charismatic actors, but can use them even when they lost their looks, die from old age or get too addicted to drugs to perform well on screen.
Now, to be honest, I am a CGI/3D Artist, so I'm kinda biased. The technology isn't entirely up to the task right now, but we're definitely getting there. A few more improvements on automated animation and you could make an entire show by creating characters for a year or so, then just produce content by directors and a few 3D Artists who assist them, but the main staff can go on and produce other shows or new characters. Sound would still have to be recorded thanks to missing programs capable of creating a realistic voice by script.
In the end, given some more tools and enough machines to hi-res render quickly enough, the workflow seen in the above-mentioned Al Pacino movie could very well replace today's television bullcrap.
Posted at 10:35AM on Sep 11th 2008 by Jonas
10. I totally agree, i`m getting sick of all the great shows being on hold for enourmus amounts of time.
Posted at 7:27AM on Sep 27th 2008 by billybob joe