Miami Vice had more episodes than most other great shows.

[RedDragon86]

The greatness of the show is generally the first 3 seasons and yet considering the amount of episodes in a season compared to "The Sopranos" or "Breaking Bad" GOT which is considerably more, almost double. If the producers formatted in to 10,  12 , 13 episodes a season we would be talking about 5 great seasons.
The series had action packed storylines that consisted of numerous locations, boats, car chases, not to mention the amount of extras they had to hire for scenes. I would say this was the most hardworking show ever! I like "The Sopranos" it is well written but all Chase and Winter had to do was get a bunch of mob guys shooting the s**t from episodes to episode in the bada bing or in their fancy houses.

The Sopranos first 3 seasons - 39 episodes

Miami Vice first 3 seasons - 68 episodes

Just an example.

Edited April 16, 2021 by RedDragon86

[pahonu]

Good points.  This is perhaps the biggest difference in television production today compared to when the networks controlled prime time programming.  If you look at shows from the 50’s to early 60’s the standard was 26 episodes, which were rerun once making a whole year of programming. It dropped to 22 episodes after that, which is still often the network standard today, though they seem more flexible about it.  Original cable programming changed all this, and then streaming further blurred the once very clear requirements of series production.

I’ve watched several shows on HBO like the recent Perry Mason and Penny Dreadful: City of Angels, that are advertised as TV series.  They would likely have been marketed as mini-series in the 70’s and 80’s.  The only difference being they are shown once a week rather than successive nights. Just like those mini-series of the past, they have just a handful of episodes, with higher production values than typical series, and each installment runs longer than a 60 minute time slot.  It’s a changing media landscape for certain and comparing series across decades is a little more challenging because of it, I think.

[RedDragon86]

12 minutes ago, pahonu said:

Good points.  This is perhaps the biggest difference in television production today compared to when the networks controlled prime time programming.  If you look at shows from the 50’s to early 60’s the standard was 26 episodes, which were rerun once making a whole year of programming. It dropped to 22 episodes after that, which is still often the network standard today, though they seem more flexible about it.  Original cable programming changed all this, and then streaming further blurred the once very clear requirements of series production.

I’ve watched several shows on HBO like the recent Perry Mason and Penny Dreadful: City of Angels, that are advertised as TV series.  They would likely have been marketed as mini-series in the 70’s and 80’s.  The only difference being they are shown once a week rather than successive nights. Just like those mini-series of the past, they have just a handful of episodes, with higher production values than typical series, and each installment runs longer than a 60 minute time slot.  It’s a changing media landscape for certain and comparing series across decades is a little more challenging because of it, I think.

The show you love "The Rockford Files" and me too had similar amount of episodes as Vice and the work load such a car chases and various locations. Very hardworking show also.

Shows today don't put in half the hours and effort as shows like these. 

The Game of Thrones is only 10 ep per season.

Edited April 16, 2021 by RedDragon86

[Tom]

vor 1 Minute schrieb pahonu:

I’ve watched several shows on HBO like the recent Perry Mason and Penny Dreadful: City of Angels, that are advertised as TV series.  They would likely have been marketed as mini-series in the 70’s and 80’s.  The only difference being they are shown once a week rather than successive nights. Just like those mini-series of the past, they have just a handful of episodes, with higher production values than typical series, and each installment runs longer than a 60 minute time slot.  It’s a changing media landscape for certain and comparing series across decades is a little more challenging because of it, I think.

I agree. With Amazon and others TV in general was raised onto the same level as movies before, especially production value and money involved. In the 80s many movie stars did not want to do TV. Now all stars love to do it and it gives them more flexibility with a 10 episode season than doing 22 episodes in a treadmill or a 2.5 hr movie with 6 month prep time for it.

What I am really surprised with is the high level of production value with many current series. especially those with foreign locations (e.g. Six, Jack Ryan or Widow). They all use real remote locations around the world looking very authentic (e.g. Kongo in Africa really looks like Kongo) and not just cheap "let´s LA pose as Miami or Casablanca". Some series are not good content-wise of course, but all LOOK much more professional AND through the fact that they can afford to travel to distant places without limits by budget and tricks in studio stories are more diverse and interesting.

And, in general, competition of many series led to more selection for consumers. I can´t remember having seen that many different series 20-30 years ago compared to now. And the format of shorter seasons, with 10 instead of 22 episodes, is often a good choice too. Especially for procedurals without closed chapter episodes that would become artificially prolongated and unrealistic in many cases plus hard to follow over time.

 

 

[pahonu]

2 hours ago, RedDragon86 said:

The show you love "The Rockford Files" and me too had similar amount of episodes as Vice and the work load such a car chases and various locations. Very hardworking show also.

Shows today don't put in half the hours and effort as shows like these. 

The Game of Thrones is only 10 ep per season.

The Rockford Files is my absolute favorite, but I must admit the production values are not to the same level as many shows today.  That was also made much easier by being set in LA where all the resources are.  If you look carefully at the credits for location series like Miami Vice, Magnum pi, or Streets of San Francisco, they have different teams of producers.  Most of the pre and post production was still done in Hollywood, so there was lots of extra communication and transportation necessary. 

Rockford really succeeded on very clever writing and a lead actor that was pretty exceptional.  Garner was one of the few actors of that generation to actually go back and forth between feature films and television.  Still, the grind of television in that era is what ended the show, with his resulting health problems.

[pahonu]

3 hours ago, Tom said:

I agree. With Amazon and others TV in general was raised onto the same level as movies before, especially production value and money involved. In the 80s many movie stars did not want to do TV. Now all stars love to do it and it gives them more flexibility with a 10 episode season than doing 22 episodes in a treadmill or a 2.5 hr movie with 6 month prep time for it.

What I am really surprised with is the high level of production value with many current series. especially those with foreign locations (e.g. Six, Jack Ryan or Widow). They all use real remote locations around the world looking very authentic (e.g. Kongo in Africa really looks like Kongo) and not just cheap "let´s LA pose as Miami or Casablanca". Some series are not good content-wise of course, but all LOOK much more professional AND through the fact that they can afford to travel to distant places without limits by budget and tricks in studio stories are more diverse and interesting.

And, in general, competition of many series led to more selection for consumers. I can´t remember having seen that many different series 20-30 years ago compared to now. And the format of shorter seasons, with 10 instead of 22 episodes, is often a good choice too. Especially for procedurals without closed chapter episodes that would become artificially prolongated and unrealistic in many cases plus hard to follow over time.

 

 

Very true, that’s why so many are referring to now as the second golden age of television.

[ViceFanMan]

8 hours ago, RedDragon86 said:

The greatness of the show is generally the first 3 seasons and yet considering the amount of episodes in a season compared to "The Sopranos" or "Breaking Bad" GOT which is considerably more, almost double. If the producers formatted in to 10,  12 , 13 episodes a season we would be talking about 5 great seasons.
The series had action packed storylines that consisted of numerous locations, boats, car chases, not to mention the amount of extras they had to hire for scenes. I would say this was the most hardworking show ever! I like "The Sopranos" it is well written but all Chase and Winter had to do was get a bunch of mob guys shooting the s**t from episodes to episode in the bada bing or in their fancy houses.

The Sopranos first 3 seasons - 39 episodes

Miami Vice first 3 seasons - 68 episodes

Just an example.

 

5 hours ago, pahonu said:

Good points.  This is perhaps the biggest difference in television production today compared to when the networks controlled prime time programming.  If you look at shows from the 50’s to early 60’s the standard was 26 episodes, which were rerun once making a whole year of programming. It dropped to 22 episodes after that, which is still often the network standard today, though they seem more flexible about it.  Original cable programming changed all this, and then streaming further blurred the once very clear requirements of series production.

I’ve watched several shows on HBO like the recent Perry Mason and Penny Dreadful: City of Angels, that are advertised as TV series.  They would likely have been marketed as mini-series in the 70’s and 80’s.  The only difference being they are shown once a week rather than successive nights. Just like those mini-series of the past, they have just a handful of episodes, with higher production values than typical series, and each installment runs longer than a 60 minute time slot.  It’s a changing media landscape for certain and comparing series across decades is a little more challenging because of it, I think.

Well, in the 50s-early 60s TV shows used to have almost double what more modern shows do now. The original Perry Mason had almost 40 episodes a season, in the first 1-3 seasons...whereas by even the early 70s most shows, and still true today, had/have only 20-24. 

However, that’s referring to shows on regular or original networks (NBC/CBS/ABC). Probably starting in the late 90s/early 2000s, more current cable & online shows usually only had/have half of that...with only around 10-12 episodes a season. 

So, as awesome and captivating the MV episodes are (especially the first three seasons)...the “number” of episodes a season was/is actually normal or average for a regular network show.

I prefer the longer & more episodes a season...I don’t like the little short half-crap that most cable or streaming shows do now...I’m like, if you’re gonna do a show, then give me a “real” season!! 

Edited April 16, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

The Brits have been doing "series" production like this for years, packaging three or four episodes of something as a season.

You also have to consider the proliferation of outlets. Of course there are more series offerings now than there were 20 or 30 years ago...because there are maybe ten times as many outlets.

[Ferrariman]

Back when I was a kid TV shows had roughly 26 episodes per season. The new season always began right after Labor Day. They would show 26 episodes and 26 reruns with the occasional special or cancellation for important news.   Shows weren't cancelled after a few weeks like they are today.  Only after running the full season would a show be cancelled if ratings were low.   The one exception was a 60's show called "Turn On"  it was made by the producers of "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" and was so bad it was cancelled after 1 episode!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-On

I have to say I like the current 6 or 10 episode seasons.  Partly because they won't be cancelled and partly because there is just too much good TV to watch!  Back in the days before cable we had channels 2,4,5,7,9,11 &13.    5,9 &11 showed reruns and 13 was PBS, a public access channel.   On the flip side, I rarely get hooked into shows like "Manifest" or "Under the Dome" because sometimes they are cancelled and after investing a season or 2 they leave you hanging.

Also there was no way to ever see the old shows again unlike today where you can buy DVDs of any show you want.   Which leads me to a trivia question.

What was the 1st TV show to offer full seasons on DVD?

[wolfie1996]

1 hour ago, Robbie C. said:

The Brits have been doing "series" production like this for years, packaging three or four episodes of something as a season.

You also have to consider the proliferation of outlets. Of course there are more series offerings now than there were 20 or 30 years ago...because there are maybe ten times as many outlets.

Which British ones had you in mind, Robbie? Three or four seems pretty  short to me. Mind you the flavour of the month here is Line of Duty, virtually a religion  at present, and it has only been 5 series of 6 episodes followed by season 6 which is to have  seven. I have to say though, what quality. It proves short can be good, though always leaves you hungry for more.

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, Ferrariman said:

Back when I was a kid TV shows had roughly 26 episodes per season. The new season always began right after Labor Day. They would show 26 episodes and 26 reruns with the occasional special or cancellation for important news.   Shows weren't cancelled after a few weeks like they are today.  Only after running the full season would a show be cancelled if ratings were low.   The one exception was a 60's show called "Turn On"  it was made by the producers of "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" and was so bad it was cancelled after 1 episode!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-On

I have to say I like the current 6 or 10 episode seasons.  Partly because they won't be cancelled and partly because there is just too much good TV to watch!  Back in the days before cable we had channels 2,4,5,7,9,11 &13.    5,9 &11 showed reruns and 13 was PBS, a public access channel.   On the flip side, I rarely get hooked into shows like "Manifest" or "Under the Dome" because sometimes they are cancelled and after investing a season or 2 they leave you hanging.

Also there was no way to ever see the old shows again unlike today where you can buy DVDs of any show you want.   Which leads me to a trivia question.

What was the 1st TV show to offer full seasons on DVD?

I actually don’t care for short, half-seasons...and those too can be cancelled & leave you hanging. But shows today are canceled all the time...I miss the days when they would give shows a chance! 

I cheated...I had my own guesses, but I looked it up to be sure. I would not have guessed this, but according to what I found it was the X-Files that had the first complete season released on DVD clear back in 2000! 

[Robbie C.]

29 minutes ago, wolfie1996 said:

Which British ones had you in mind, Robbie? Three or four seems pretty  short to me. Mind you the flavour of the month here is Line of Duty, virtually a religion  at present, and it has only been 5 series of 6 episodes followed by season 6 which is to have  seven. I have to say though, what quality. It proves short can be good, though always leaves you hungry for more.

Sherlock is one example. Endeavor is another. And even Line of Duty is quite short by US standards (non-streaming standards, that is). Going back further, The Young Ones is another example.

Personally, I think there's a good balance, but it's struck by limiting the number of seasons a show runs. Both The Shield and Justified were strong, well-written shows, but were conceived with a defined number of seasons to run (coincidentally, both were on FX). The Shield ran for seven, and Justified was five if I remember right. Then you didn't have the "running for eons" feel of a Dick Wolf production, but there's enough space for serious quality.

[RedDragon86]

Is the greatness of a show really measured by episodes or seasons? seasons are just a single number and that is deceiving. 

 

[ViceFanMan]

23 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

Is the greatness of a show really measured by episodes or seasons? seasons are just a single number and that is deceiving. 

 

By all means the greatness of a show is usually measured by the plots & quality of the episodes, rather than the number. But, sometimes popular shows are canceled before they have that many seasons under their belts. 

[wolfie1996]

7 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

Sherlock is one example. Endeavor is another. And even Line of Duty is quite short by US standards (non-streaming standards, that is). Going back further, The Young Ones is another example.

Personally, I think there's a good balance, but it's struck by limiting the number of seasons a show runs. Both The Shield and Justified were strong, well-written shows, but were conceived with a defined number of seasons to run (coincidentally, both were on FX). The Shield ran for seven, and Justified was five if I remember right. Then you didn't have the "running for eons" feel of a Dick Wolf production, but there's enough space for serious quality.

I'd forgotten about Sherlock, which I really liked despite not being a Benedict Cumberbatch fan. That was good and I wished they had done more. I don't watch much TV and haven't watched Endeavour (though I've read the original Colin  Dexter Morse books). I agree that it's better to end a show  before its  level of excellence drops and some stories have a natural conclusion- I think Line of Duty comes into that category (haven't reached it yet though and if you haven't seen it, I recommend you do when you can, it's absolutely edge of the seat stuff and I virtually never say that about any TV programme.)

[wolfie1996]

7 hours ago, RedDragon86 said:

Is the greatness of a show really measured by episodes or seasons? seasons are just a single number and that is deceiving. 

 

No of course not. Some memorable ones have had short seasons. As long as it lives "its natural life" I think is the thing, and as I said to Robbie, some stories have one. However it's a shame when good stuff is cut off prematurely. I could have watched a couple more series of say, Angel, following its abrupt end  and certainly could have watched a couple more of MV, needless to say. With better writers and a better attitude on the part of some involved, I think this could have been achieved.

[Ferrariman]

13 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

I actually don’t care for short, half-seasons...and those too can be cancelled & leave you hanging. But shows today are canceled all the time...I miss the days when they would give shows a chance! 

I cheated...I had my own guesses, but I looked it up to be sure. I would not have guessed this, but according to what I found it was the X-Files that had the first complete season released on DVD clear back in 2000! 

Correct!    Also, on the topic of giving shows a chance.  FOX was a fairly new network at the time and had a very limited amount of programming.  I always said that if "The X-Files" had debuted on one of the big 3 networks, it would've been cancelled.  FOX gave it a chance and look what happened! 

[Robbie C.]

7 minutes ago, Ferrariman said:

Correct!    Also, on the topic of giving shows a chance.  FOX was a fairly new network at the time and had a very limited amount of programming.  I always said that if "The X-Files" had debuted on one of the big 3 networks, it would've been cancelled.  FOX gave it a chance and look what happened! 

The same thing applies to The Shield and FX. I think at least one of the big three passed on it, and the show ended up basically ‘making’ FX. 

[Ferrariman]

2 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

The same thing applies to The Shield and FX. I think at least one of the big three passed on it, and the show ended up basically ‘making’ FX. 

Another great show! 

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, Ferrariman said:

Correct!    Also, on the topic of giving shows a chance.  FOX was a fairly new network at the time and had a very limited amount of programming.  I always said that if "The X-Files" had debuted on one of the big 3 networks, it would've been cancelled.  FOX gave it a chance and look what happened! 

True! And there were a few shows that were given chances back in the-day...Cheers had some of the worst ratings in TV history during its first season...but the network gave it another chance, tweaked it some, and it became one of the most popular sitcoms in TV history, while it was on!

Another 80s cop drama that started the same year as MV, was Hunter. It too had some pretty low ratings during its first season. But the network recognized its potential, changed some things—including the night it was going to air, and it too became one of the most popular crime & cop dramas during the years it was on!