Exclusive: Some TV Series Should Not Overstay Their Welcome

When we become engrossed by their stories, television characters can become a part of our lives, and we enjoy letting them into our homes to tell their stories. In past times, one generally had to wait for weekly prime-time visits, although in our binge-streaming era, they can become long weekend guests.

But what happens when the relationship gets frayed? Or you need time apart? Or, hey, you break up?

We recently lived through what could arguably be called the true Golden Age of Television. It felt like there was something for everyone. The streamers went all out on pumping out a lot of new content—even though the use of that word is dubious in terms of artistic merit—and there were more programming possibilities than ever before. Yet, along with this gold rush of television came a lot of fool’s good on both sides—for programmers and viewers.

Fools Gold Rush

Image Credit: Curtis Bonds Baker/Netflix.

What distinguished this bold new zeitgeist beyond the more diverse ideas and historically marginalized groups finding representation was that old norms were tossed aside. Shows no longer need 24 episodes in a season when eight will suffice. Why do episodes need to be nearly the same length? Why release everything like clockwork—why not get new material out when it’s ready?

Those admirable ideals served some streaming shows very well, including Stranger Things, Ozark, and Cobra Kai. Flexible run times and air dates have proved a blessing for them, allowing for new storytelling innovation. Further, writers could jettison a lot of compressed, cliché dialogue that sounds like it’s from a show and exists due to planned commercial breaks.

But this equation has a flip side. Some shows with shorter seasons, akin to mini-series, get dragged out—like movies with padding. Some have a premise that works for one or two seasons but should not run beyond that. Hollywood has also long had a penchant for wringing out every last ounce of creativity from a project. Many shows refuse to die or just go on way too long.

Executives and creators dream of having a series that will just run on and on and on and rake in the cash. The old-school mentality dictated that a series had to have at least four seasons of a network run to guarantee syndication and thus increase future royalties. Some shows even turned their first profit only once they hit syndication. These days, streaming shows, with rare exceptions, do not generally go into syndication. Regardless, they remain archived on the originating service, meaning a new audience can always dive in and try them out.

A lot of classic shows from back in the day—the original Hawaii Five-O, M*A*S*H, Cheers, and others—lasted for more than ten seasons. Seinfeld took an unusual route, ending at nine seasons while at the top of the ratings. It actually added to the legend of the series as some fans still clamor for more, even though they’ll probably never get anything new again.

Trimming the Fat

Image Credit: Universal Television.

Of course, when shows pumped out 22 to 24 episodes per season, not every one was going to be a gem. That is the advantage of shorter seasons—trim the fat and focus on the essentials. That’s worked in many cases. However, in our current paradigm, while streaming series last fewer episodes, some of them occasionally reach feature length.

Many installments of the fourth season of Stranger Things were movies in themselves, running well past the hour mark. Conversely, some shows, despite having shorter episode runs and lengths, only work so far. A recent example is the Groundhog Day-like series Russian Doll—many people adored the first season, but the second season, despite critical acclaim, polarized fans as it veered in a different direction. Conversely, the brilliant Manhunter, after two seasons, simply didn’t attract enough viewership for Netflix to warrant continuing it. At least fans of those shows got two seasons.

Ultimately, not every television series should be an open-ended affair. What’s wrong with having a show that runs for only one, two, or three seasons? What’s wrong with having a show bible that sets out to achieve a certain set of goals and then ends?

For example, The Walking Dead has gone on too long and generated too many spin-offs—11 seasons of the original, eight of Fear The Walking Dead, two of World Beyond, The Ones Who Live mini-series, and the current Dead City and Daryl Dixon shows. (C’mon, it’s not that interesting.) They’re not the only ones. While the first dozen or so seasons of The Simpsons were great, having run for 35 now feels excessive. Writers can only do so much with the same characters.

Internet chatter often posits that a lot of shows hit their peak around their fifth season. Then, around or after that, quality often declines, especially when cast members leave, writers and showrunners change, or the overall arc of the series goes south. That’s obviously not always true, but it’s not off the mark either.

When J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof conceived Lost, Abrams allegedly didn’t think it would go anywhere. ABC quickly greenlit the series, but executives overrode the creators’ original three-season plan to stretch it out. By the fifth of six seasons, it became apparent that Lost would not really lead to anything revelatory. It was a fun ride in the beginning, for sure, but many fans felt cheated at the end because it didn’t offer them the closure that they wanted.

Devolution

Image Credit: Universal Content Productions.

The old adage of quality over quantity actually does stand for something in entertainment, especially at a time when an abundance of programming and movies makes so much of it feel disposable. Streamers obsess over how many hours of time viewers put into their content. That’s why they shove another episode down audiences’ throats as the credits roll. It’s annoying and unnecessary. But it also points to the fact that they don’t really have a master plan, and with the inclusion of ads now, it just simply feels like streaming has regressed to a basic cable model.

If that’s the case, don’t archived shows hold the same weight that network syndication once did? Wouldn’t new subscribers find them?

There are shows that people like to watch more than once, or that find new audiences long after their first run. Industry observers have noted that two big streaming successes in 2023 were Suits (which ended in 2019) and Friends (ended 2004). They’re like comfort food, and at the same time, those will still increase the streamer’s viewing hours. Does it really matter if people watch an old show or a new one? Quality of the programming you’re giving people should matter. That will keep eyes on a service, not just with something new but with something long-lasting and durable.

Perhaps Hollywood needs to reconsider standard development strategies and focus on the adage of less is more. In a world where “content” gets pumped out, alongside decades of older shows to watch, series don’t need to amass huge numbers of episodes. Quality and even re-watchable shows matter more.

Audiences always have fun finding something new and exciting. They also love to find something vintage and exciting. And it’s fun to revisit something that really stirs the soul. Such return visits can still turn a profit for the powers that be, and that longevity is good for everyone. It starts at the beginning.