Why are British series (6 eps) on average so much shorter than

>>86187795
> smaller crew
> smaller budget
>restraint

>>86187795
Fawlty Towers is one of the greatest TV shows ever made and they managed it in 12 episodes.

>>86187915
I just mean are Brits happy with that much? I always feel like eight episodes or even ten would be loads better

>>86188045
I felt Spaced and Black Books in particular didn't quite have enough time to figure things out, like they weren't properly in the swing of it. Though maybe they would've done better with more series

Peep Show didn't suffer from this but I do wish it had actually began earlier and Jeremy Wooding directed more series. I like the style of the S1

File: serveimage.gif (495KB, 400x226px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 400x226px

>>86187915
>smaller budget

Britbong tv is literally funded by tax money

>>86188079
Yes it's enough, do you remember every episode of a 25 episode season of American TV.

Quality > quantity

>>86188450
stop watching it if you dont like it
yanks always criticise our tv I dont with your big bang theory shite

File: dukat doing nothing wrong.webm (961KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 640x427px

>>86188494
>do you remember every episode of a 25 episode season of American TV.
Ask me literally anything about star trek.

>>86188710
star trek fans are famously autistic so that's not really fair

File: 1390973006882.gif (3MB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x187px

>>86188753
You can't move those goalposts now anon.

>>86188450
Only the BBC

It's a good quality filter, if the show is crap it only has the one series and they've only spent 6 episodes worth of money. If it's good then the show keeps going with new series then you can get 20-30 episodes.
Also unlike american shows with dozens of writers and changing writers between series most of the smaller british shows are written by one guy maybe a pair and when they're done then the shows done

>>86187795
>8-10
it's not tv, it's HBO

>>86188450
It isn't.

>>86187795

6-8 episodes in a season is too short
20-25 episodes in a season is too long

10-13 episodes is that sweet spot

>>86188450
Because expensive TV shows are the main priority when it comes to tax money right?

>>86187795
>British series
>American seasons
I couldn't tell you why, but this has always annoyed the shit out of me.

>>86188797
Even the BBC isn't all funded by taxes, it makes a profit from selling shows to other countries and its international channel BBC America funds itself through adverts

HBO shows only have 10 episodes a season. It's just the shitty cheap network tv stuff that goes on for 20+ episodes a year.

>>86187795
I think a big difference is the number of writers. Go look up the writing credits for a British show you like, generally it will be like 1-4 people, even for a big-time show. Then go look at how many people write a similar American show. The Office is a good example.

>>86189087
I much prefer that length. I wish we could get a scifi series that didn't have to have 75% filler episodes

>>86189078
BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO PAY YOUR TELLY LICENSE!

>>86189010
it depends. When they have a good organization and general idea how to make a season it is possible to make a great tv show in every setting.

star trek, x files, stargate were great with 20- something episodes

they were also great shows with 6-8 like Top of the lake for example

Because like most things america does it makes a ton of something shitty instead of a little of something great.

>>86189282
Stargate had at least one episode that was mostly strung together flashbacks of other episodes per season

>>86188450
>literally funded by tax money
So yeah, smaller budget.

>>86189282
TNG and DS9 were produced independently and the syndication rights were sold to whoever was buying it. It meant they weren't beholden to network execs and ratings. Compare that to Voyager and ENT which had to answer for their ratings with dipshit executives forcing "creative" decisions.
X-Files was one of Fox's first big hits after Married w/ Children and the Simpsons, and fox, being the new network on the block had to take a lot of risks to carve out their niche, so they let chris carter do pretty much whatever he wanted because it was one of the few draws for fox.
Stargate was a show that was canceled 3 times and revived on new networks. It started on showtime, then went to fox or FX, then to the sci fi channel. I can't think of another show that's moved around that much.
Those three are some really weird outliers.

>>86189344
it wasn't because they lacked ideas for episode

>>86188782
I have this feeling like it's the same guy who uses this 'goalposts' word every single time I see it used on this website.

>>86187795
12 is objectively ideal.

(pls assume this is /pol/ and I'm behind a Japanese proxy)

>>86187795
Most British tv is funded by taxes, so they don't have much of an incentive to drag it out. Imagine if the last 3 seasons of the Office were all taxpayer funded, people would be pretty annoyed.

>>86187795
Because nobody else watches them

File: my god its full of bane.png (1MB, 1022x574px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1022x574px

>>86190099
Literally all me.
There's no one here but (you) and me big guy. ;^)

>>86187795
Is there an actual reason behind this phenomenon? Is there some weird ancient british law that you can't make more episodes in a season than the queen has toes?
I always assumed with american tv it was because they make money by selling advertising. 24 episodes a season, aired weekly, means you can run two full seasons of a show in the same time slot over the course of a year with a buffer for holidays and shit like that. But I'm literally pulling that out of my ass.

If it takes you more than 6 episodes to tell one part of your story properly, you need to get someone better at telling it.

Doctor Who is the only British show I know of that gets extended seasons because it's a cashcow.

One thing no one has mentioned is that when you take out all the ad breaks from your average US show its probably about 3 minutes long.

You poor bastards have ads halfway through the credits for Christ's sake

>>86191104
Commercial creep is a thing that comes and goes. Figure 7-10 minutes of a 30 minute time slot are for commercials.
The FCC also legally requires a station identification, so you have to break from the program anyways, might as well slide some commercials in there.
They also tend to heavily edit shows for syndication, especially older shows that only lost 3-5 minutes every 30 minutes to commercials. So they cut bits out, play the show at like 1.15x, or condense the opening and ending credits so they can sell more advertising time.
I remember Seinfeld being pretty bad about cutting out entire jokes from re-runs, and before I knew what was really going on I thought I was going fucking crazy because I could have sworn I remembered the scene going on for longer.

>>86187795
Straight and to the point. No useless filler, and actors aren't signed on and paid massive cheques.

The entire story of Breaking Bad could've been told in 20 episodes, and you know it.

>>86191655
Wasn't it only supposed to be three seasons originally?

>>86191032
They get 13 episodes at most

Our networks are cheap as fuck. Still can't believe they had the gall to call TWO episodes of Luther a "series".

>>86187795
British television is basically the opposite of Hollywood. There is no concept of syndication deals over there. Also, most British shows seem to be written/directed entirely by the show creators as opposed to a rotating staff that works on American television.

>>86190381

Wrong, most Brit tv is funded by ads, only the BBC is funded by tax (but not completely).

>>86191527
>actors aren't signed on and paid massive cheques

This is a key point. British actors don't have the same incentive to stick with a show for a decade.

>>86187795
Quality > quantity, something amerilards will never understand.

>>86192665
I agree with this to an extent but like >>86192564 says, you sometimes get bullshit like that.