WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[Mr Terrific]

When people talk about recent years being a peak age for television, they shouldn’t overlook the freedom to have shorter seasons and varying episode lengths. 
There were plenty of quality shows from the 80s on (Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, LA Law) that could’ve been better on the current playing field. 
I didn’t have a good grasp of how writers and other creatives were affected financially by the change over time. I mistakenly assumed it would be good for flexibility to work on more shows or a different schedule. I’m naive to particulars but workers obviously deserve fair pay. 

[MovieMan89]

The 20+ ep TV season has only ever made sense for sitcoms, where it’s a “day in the life” casual sort of thing. It’s never been the format or fitting for dramas and the type of shows that are big in the modern TV age. Not sure why we suddenly shoehorn those kinds of shows into the sitcom format… 

Edited August 13, 2023 by MovieMan89

[Celedhring]

The WGA isn't demanding a return to 20 episode seasons. Just a minimum guaranteed employment to compensate for the shortened seasons. 

 

And the minimums the WGA is demanding (3 weeks per episode) are close to the current average length of employment - but of course the average would go up if you can't go below the current number.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

3 hours ago, The GOAT said:

 

Not all of the current streamers will survive, but not sure how the WGA contract could dictate whether they are ad-free or not. The ad-supported services seem to be growing and some have original programming (Tubi movies, Freevee shows, etc) but at a much lower cost than the originals from the top streamers.

 

Look at how Suits has blown up on streaming now, when it was never this massive show in its original run (unlike Grey's Anatomy or NCIS). It's not this hugely interconnected show but agreeable, so people keep watching. There's been a market for that in TV for decades.

 

Since streamers measure in hours/minutes watched, it's surprising they haven't really cracked the code of an original hit "case of the week" show or sitcom.  Maybe because streaming originals have such short season orders and shows like that often needed a longer runway (8-10 episodes) to hit their stride in the second half of the first season. But in streaming, 6-10 episodes is the season. Fine if it's an attempt to get a Limited Series Emmy, but that shouldn't be the purpose of every narrative series they make.

 

 

[Kon]

2 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

We do not need to go back to shows with 20 episode seasons. 13 episodes should be the absolute limit. 
 

It sure would be nice if physical media made a comeback though. It’s the safest way of ensuring that a show or movie doesn’t become lost media. Plus, the bonus features are always nice. 

 

I don't think physical media is a safe way to preserve lost media. I mean, physical copies are perishable (wear out over time). Not to mention that they are usually sold to a limited amount of people.

 

I understand that many people prefer to physically own the series, but it is not a really effective way to preserve media.

 

[Kon]

1 hour ago, Mr Terrific said:

When people talk about recent years being a peak age for television, they shouldn’t overlook the freedom to have shorter seasons and varying episode lengths. 
There were plenty of quality shows from the 80s on (Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, LA Law) that could’ve been better on the current playing field. 
I didn’t have a good grasp of how writers and other creatives were affected financially by the change over time. I mistakenly assumed it would be good for flexibility to work on more shows or a different schedule. I’m naive to particulars but workers obviously deserve fair pay. 

At first, streaming was good for creatives, because streaming services were investing a lot of money in new series (since they wanted to attract people). So, there was a lot of work.

 

However, streaming services are changing. In the future, many streaming services will likely order less shows.

 

In this context, shorter seasons are a big risk for writers, because they will be hired for less time. There is also many writers, so there isn't guarantee the same writer will be hired for other projects.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Kon

[TwoMisfits]

2 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

I think 16 episodes is a good sweet spot for half hour shows. 12-16 for hour long. Really tired of shows only having 6-10 episodes per season (unless, like Stranger Things, some of those episodes are jumbo)

 

I think it's all about show arcs - and the length of your season needs to have a concept of how much can be accomplished if you don't plan a lot of episodes.

 

Like I just watched the Bear season 2...and while some people like it less than season 1, I absolutely LOVED the season b/c it accomplished what it set out to do in a sensible way.  And it's hour long mid-season climax episode that wrapped all through the later season was the best episode of tv I have seen in a LONG time.  I watched that and said "yes, that is northeast Christmas Eve seven fishes in a semi-dysfunctional extended household - and I've been at one JUST like it."  It was stellar.  It was what a 10 episode streamed season should be.

[ChipDerby]

35 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

I think it's all about show arcs - and the length of your season needs to have a concept of how much can be accomplished if you don't plan a lot of episodes.

 

Like I just watched the Bear season 2...and while some people like it less than season 1, I absolutely LOVED the season b/c it accomplished what it set out to do in a sensible way.  And it's hour long mid-season climax episode that wrapped all through the later season was the best episode of tv I have seen in a LONG time.  I watched that and said "yes, that is northeast Christmas Eve seven fishes in a semi-dysfunctional extended household - and I've been at one JUST like it."  It was stellar.  It was what a 10 episode streamed season should be.

 

Bear season 2 was far superior to 1. But imagine 3 more episodes that were just as great!

[WittyUsername]

1 hour ago, Kon said:

 

I don't think physical media is a safe way to preserve lost media. I mean, physical copies are perishable (wear out over time). Not to mention that they are usually sold to a limited amount of people.

 

I understand that many people prefer to physically own the series, but it is not a really effective way to preserve media.

 

That’s why it’s important that studios keep the copies in print, and continue updating them with newer formats. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than just hoping Bob Iger or David Zaslav don’t pull something from their streaming services for a tax write-off. 

[Dementeleus]

2 hours ago, Mr Terrific said:

When people talk about recent years being a peak age for television, they shouldn’t overlook the freedom to have shorter seasons and varying episode lengths. 
There were plenty of quality shows from the 80s on (Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, LA Law) that could’ve been better on the current playing field. 
I didn’t have a good grasp of how writers and other creatives were affected financially by the change over time. I mistakenly assumed it would be good for flexibility to work on more shows or a different schedule. I’m naive to particulars but workers obviously deserve fair pay. 

Traditionally, shows locked writers onto their series (aside from stuff like pilots) so they’d be able to retain talent when the new season started. That was fine when seasons were 20+ episodes because the writers would work enough months out of the year that a couple of months down time wasn’t brutal. But now, with these super-short seasons (and mini-rooms) they have to scramble to line up multiple shows (without overlapping) just to stay afloat. 
 

Getting rid of mini-rooms, having some staffing minimums, and keeping writers on through production (and even post, for their episodes) would be a good way to help this situation (and it would be better for the shows overall too). 

[TwoMisfits]

1 hour ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Bear season 2 was far superior to 1. But imagine 3 more episodes that were just as great!

 

Could you beat that ending, with the way it tied into the midseason, though?  And could you really stretch even more episodes to not still open the restaurant?  See, I thought 10 episodes, 2 more than season 1 and one double length (so it was really 11) was perfect.  Now, I'm ready for season 3 to open the restaurant.

 

PS - My kids were shocked I immediately identified Ayo Edebiri in TMNT, but I said she sounds EXACTLY the same in both things.

PPS - Please cast Ayo Edebiri and Jeremy Allen White in many more things...like immediately...as long as we keep getting Bear episodes, too!  

 

Okay, tangent over, but you all NEED to watch The Bear!

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwoMisfits

[filmlover]

The average viewer doesn't have much patience for any serialized show that is clearly overstaying its welcome creatively and being kept on the air only because the network just doesn't want to let it go anymore. That's why a series like, say, a Breaking Bad or a Succession tend to have the longest shelf lives: the people involved knew when it was right to end them, instead of allowing the success to drag it out to diminishing returns to the point where by the time it ends, it's less a "farewell" than a "good riddance."

 

In that case, 10 episode seasons seems pretty agreeable in terms of mapping out a series. No one would ever claim creating a successful show doesn't take a lot of work to get it right. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose (but that's the nature of the entertainment biz for ya).

 

That said, we've been seeing shows multiple seasons in getting the axe without a proper conclusion, which just diminishes their value in the long run. Who's gonna go back and check out a show that doesn't have an ending?

 

P.S. yes, The Bear is indeed an incredible show.

[AniNate]

8 hours ago, Kon said:

 

I don't think physical media is a safe way to preserve lost media. I mean, physical copies are perishable (wear out over time). Not to mention that they are usually sold to a limited amount of people.

 

I understand that many people prefer to physically own the series, but it is not a really effective way to preserve media.

 

 

It does require effort on the owner's part to truly preserve media but physical formats at least give them more control compared to a streaming service which can just yank the movie/show without warning for whatever reason they see fit. 

 

Does suck that streaming services don't generally have the same kinds of extensive special features that DVDs/Blu Rays have, though I'm guessing that's beyond the scope of writers and actors concerns. 

[4815162342]

LOST seasons 2/3 showed the issues of having a serialized drama at 22+ episodes a season because they had to drag out storylines several episodes longer than ideal and also started scraping the barrel for character flashbacks (Jack's tattoos anyone?)

[Cappoedameron]

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Cappoedameron

[Cap]

15 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

 

 

In a plot twist worthy of M Night Shyamalan, it's actually gonna be late-stage capitalism that saves us from late-stage capitalism. 

 

 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

36 minutes ago, Cap said:

 

In a plot twist worthy of M Night Shyamalan, it's actually gonna be late-stage capitalism that saves us from late-stage capitalism. 

 

 

Or it's a planted article to get more investors. Maybe I'm cynical, but I just don't see ChatGPT disappearing.

[SchumacherFTW]

2 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Or it's a planted article to get more investors. Maybe I'm cynical, but I just don't see ChatGPT disappearing.

It might, but something else will always take it's place. This stuff is like a hydra. 

[Cap]

33 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:

It might, but something else will always take it's place. This stuff is like a hydra. 

If you read the article, that’s basically what it says. No one’s using their software, because everyone’s developing their own.

[SchumacherFTW]

30 minutes ago, Cap said:

If you read the article, that’s basically what it says. No one’s using their software, because everyone’s developing their own.

Reading?! On the Internet?! What!?