Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mel O&amp;#039;Drama" data-source="post: 198068" data-attributes="member: 23">If a series is written well - or if it speaks to the viewer in a meaningful way - it doesn&#039;t have to be omnipresent to hold the audience&#039;s attention.From my perspective, the longer the series is off air per year, the more important it becomes. It gains the two key factors of resonance and anticipation. Some of of my most intense and exciting experiences as a TV viewer have happened when a favourite series is off the air. Mulling over what&#039;s happened. Thinking about what might happen next. Looking forward to finding out. It can be quite an interactive experience, really. Yes - a nine month wait can feel like torture. But it&#039;s sweet torture.I can&#039;t get my head round the preoccupation with quantity, or the philosophy that more = better. Our British soaps have suffered greatly from it, in my opinion. Most of them are putting out three times the number of episodes they were thirty years ago. Whether or not they&#039;ve lost or gained in quality is impossible for me to say. The simple fact is that I find the sheer volume, and the level of time commitment watching one of those series would now demand, to be incredibly off-putting. Less is more, I think.My mind immediately sprang to Howards&#039; Way.&nbsp; Thirteen episodes per year for six years. It was lean and punchy. But it also had plenty of breathing room for character to take precedence over plot.I thought with Dallas the number of episodes was down to the network rather than the writers. And it was for financial reasons. Successful series raked in all that cash from advertising, sponsorship and whatnot. So the longer they ran per year, the more money networks made.Who Shot JR? came about, I believe, because the network ordered two additional episodes. Even though the creative team had already told the story they wanted to tell for that year before the episodes were ordered. The &quot;let&#039;s just shoot the bastard&quot; legend is probably very telling of the desperation, pressure and frustration creative teams can feel when having to conjure up an increasing number of episodes to satisfy networks. Clearly, it&#039;s an example that great things can come from that pressure. But I suspect it&#039;s the exception.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mel O'Drama, post: 198068, member: 23"] If a series is written well - or if it speaks to the viewer in a meaningful way - it doesn't have to be omnipresent to hold the audience's attention. From my perspective, the longer the series is off air per year, the more important it becomes. It gains the two key factors of resonance and anticipation. Some of of my most intense and exciting experiences as a TV viewer have happened when a favourite series is off the air. Mulling over what's happened. Thinking about what might happen next. Looking forward to finding out. It can be quite an interactive experience, really. Yes - a nine month wait can feel like torture. But it's sweet torture. I can't get my head round the preoccupation with quantity, or the philosophy that more = better. Our British soaps have suffered greatly from it, in my opinion. Most of them are putting out three times the number of episodes they were thirty years ago. Whether or not they've lost or gained in quality is impossible for me to say. The simple fact is that I find the sheer volume, and the level of time commitment watching one of those series would now demand, to be incredibly off-putting. Less is more, I think. My mind immediately sprang to [I]Howards' Way[/I]. Thirteen episodes per year for six years. It was lean and punchy. But it also had plenty of breathing room for character to take precedence over plot. I thought with [I]Dallas[/I] the number of episodes was down to the network rather than the writers. And it was for financial reasons. Successful series raked in all that cash from advertising, sponsorship and whatnot. So the longer they ran per year, the more money networks made. [I]Who Shot JR?[/I] came about, I believe, because the network ordered two additional episodes. Even though the creative team had already told the story they wanted to tell for that year before the episodes were ordered. The "let's just shoot the bastard" legend is probably very telling of the desperation, pressure and frustration creative teams can feel when having to conjure up an increasing number of episodes to satisfy networks. Clearly, it's an example that great things can come from that pressure. But I suspect it's the exception. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =