The Golden Age of the Streaming Wars is Over

[hepcat]

Honestly, the ads weren't the driving factor for me dropping cable. It was the cost that included crap I had no desire to watch. I was paying for 120 channels of which I watched maybe 6 of them. If adding a small amount of ads to streaming will help drive the cost down a bit at this point, I'm fine with that. Ultimately, it's cost that pushes me away. Most of my services are pretty cheap to begin with or can be found at deep discounts every year at some point, with the exception of Netflix and Max (although the lower tier Max has with ads is decent enough in price).

However, I'm not a fan of services including an ad based tier but then also dropping higher quality in terms of visual and audio fidelity. Max especially pisses me off with that, forcing people to pay almost double the base tier to get 4K with HDR and Atmos in many cases.

[Blackhawk]

Brought over from the Gen V thread.

Not if the goal of said efficiency is to tell a concise and entertaining story without padding it to a specific number set by marketing.

I didn't say that more efficient wasn't good. I said that it can be taken too far. There's a huge difference between 22-26 and 6-8. And before I go on, let me clarify that I'm not advocating returning to 22 episode seasons.

With 6-8, it is more tightly scripted, which is a good thing. However, with so few episodes to work with, every single scene has to serve to further the plot. Every episode has to be focused on advancing the main storyline. Yeah, I know - some people see that as a positive.

But as someone who watches both current and past shows (I just recently did Babylon 5 again, and I've been watching Buffy from time to time), there's something lost.

When there were more episodes, the writers had space to experiment and play around a little. Sometimes this led to some pretty awful monster-of-the-week filler. But other times it was the source of the worldbuilding and character development that made settings seem alive, that let us know the players in the story as people rather than just as pieces of the super-efficient plot. And sometimes it led to some amazing episodes.

I mentioned I've been rewatching Buffy - Hush (considered one of the best episodes of the series) was filler. It's importance to plot development was about 30 seconds in the middle (Willow/Tara), and about 10 seconds at the end (Buffy/Riley/The Initiative.) It was inefficient. And Babylon 5 (aside from the first half of season one, and the first and second halves of season 5) only worked as well as it did because they spent most of the first season and a half in character and world building, introducing us to all of the species, introducing us to the characters and giving them focused episodes that put them in tough situations and let us get to know them, introducing us to the politics of the galaxy. By the time the plot really kicked in with Londo and G'kar partway through season 2 ("What do you want?"), it mattered and had real impact, because we knew the people involved, and we could see the massive implications of what had happened. Had we not had that time in the world and with the characters, had it been 8 episodes per season, they'd have had to explain to us why we should care, and while we might have understood, we wouldn't have really cared. It would have lost its impact.

Too efficient: No time for character development, and time for worldbuilding, leading to a lack of context for events, leading to stories having less impact. Lack of investment. Forgettable shows (because without that investment, we just wave it away and move on.)

Too inefficient: Episodes that were pure filler, clearly written just to fill the quota (as opposed to tell a story about a character), and were generally awful. Bottle shows (episodes using a single set and only a couple of characters.) And worst of all, clip shows ("He's in a coma! Let's sit here and remember his life with flashbacks to previous seasons!") *shudder*

Like I said, I'm not suggesting that we return to forced 22-episode seasons. I just think that we need to loosen it enough to let the writers do their job. Instead of 6-8 or 22-26, why not 14-18, with the showrunners having some say in how many each season has (adding or removing episodes to balance storytelling and budget - like reducing the episode count by 1 rather than making a clip show to pay for the finale.)

[hepcat]

I just think that we need to loosen it enough to let the writers do their job.

Yup....by not dictating how many episodes they have to write to meet a marketing based quota.

[Blackhawk]

One other thing that has occurred to me. I don't know how it will affect the quality of the shows (that's a separate issue), but I wouldn't be surprised if it has a big impact on their format.

I think that one thing that let the super-short seasons (6-8 episodes) work was the eponymous "Golden Age of Streaming."

When it was 22 episodes, they were typically spread out across 36 weeks, with a four to six week hiatus during the holidays, and a few months during the summer before resuming. When streaming took over and they went to shorter seasons, they kept the content flowing by making more shows. There was always a new show coming out right after the previous one finished, across all audiences. An 8 episode season spread out across 8 weeks is going to leave an awful lot of dead airtime if they aren't making as many shows. And nothing is worse than a series that plays four out of eight episodes with a two or three month hiatus before the last few.

I suspect that a 16-episode show is much cheaper than two 8-episode seasons from different shows (you don't need to repeat the early creative process, you don't need to build a second set of sets and props, you can film on-location content back to back to reduce travel costs, etc.) If so, I wouldn't be surprised to see either longer seasons.

They just need to stay away from the contract-mandated length problem.

[Blackhawk]

I just think that we need to loosen it enough to let the writers do their job.

Yup....by not dictating how many episodes they have to write to meet a marketing based quota.

Which is pretty much what the rest of that paragraph said. Practicality dictates that they can't just leave it completely open, or the Zack Snyders of the world will release three episode seasons (in black and white, and filmed upside down.) But a range of episodes with flexibility is much better than a mandated number.

[hepcat]

Always proposed letting the story dictate the length. Never proposed otherwise.

[Blackhawk]

This is one of those times when I'm honestly not certain whether we're agreeing or disagreeing.

Your responses are too efficient.

[hepcat]

This is one of those times when I'm honestly not certain whether we're agreeing or disagreeing.

I was going to write that when you initially replied to my comment. Although it's definitely more than "one of those times". I'm rarely ever sure if you're agreeing with me or not when you reply to things I write. I suspect you often want to elaborate on what I wrote, but then you get side tracked and veer off for a bit.

[Blackhawk]

I'll admit that, yes, sometimes I do veer and go too deeply into analogies (and parenthetical asides (sometimes nested)), but there's a reason for that. You see, I just can't write the same way I used to. But I have my ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. I didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones

[hepcat]

We've all been there at one time or another.

[Blackhawk]

Real answer: Part of it is that, due to my autism, I can't read people in real life very well. In a face-to-face conversation I have no idea if they've understood me unless they straight up repeat my point back to me, so I tend to over-explain in an attempt at clarity. Which, of course, often just confuses the issue and frustrates the other person. That same struggle tends to color my written communications. Sorry.

Here, I'll back off and let someone else say it.

6. Over or under-sharing and explaining.

Related to our use of stories to empathise is the way we often overshare information about ourselves and overexplain where we are coming from. Again, this can be a bonding exercise. It can also be connected to the above mentioned needing the ‘truth’ or the right facts all of the time. There have been many occasions when an autistic person may have told someone things about themselves that might seem inappropriate or ‘too much information’ to other people but to us, once the topic has arisen, we may feel not mentioning it would be like lying by omission…and lying makes many of us extremely uncomfortable. Many autistic people also like to make sure (probably because we are so often misconstrued) that we are being clear so will also overexplain things (the length of this article might be a good example of that – we really would like to make it an awful lot longer!). However, many autistic people have been stung by oversharing/overexplaining or simply aren’t confident enough to do it in the first place and then we often go to the other extreme and undershare or underexplain. All of these can end up making us look untrustworthy to non-autistic people as it can look like we’re justifying or lying when we go on too long or that we’re hiding something if we don’t say enough.

[hepcat]

As I was intimating, no worries.

[Blackhawk]

But... but... if I don't explain, people won't understand!

[Isgrimnur]

I feel you. I've had to stop myself many times from overexplaing things.

[Blackhawk]

You should see my posts before I edit them!

[Unagi]

I can't even begin to tell you all how much of myself I've spared you all from having to endure.

[hitbyambulance]

i actually read the entirety of that while this whole time, i've had that riff from Black Sabbath's "Sweet Leaf" in my head. da dah, DAHDAHDYAAAAAH da dah, DAHDAHDYAAAAAH

[wait, that's a different thread]

[Kraken]

But as someone who watches both current and past shows (I just recently did Babylon 5 again, and I've been watching Buffy from time to time), there's something lost.

When there were more episodes, the writers had space to experiment and play around a little. Sometimes this led to some pretty awful monster-of-the-week filler. But other times it was the source of the worldbuilding and character development that made settings seem alive, that let us know the players in the story as people rather than just as pieces of the super-efficient plot. And sometimes it led to some amazing episodes.

I mentioned I've been rewatching Buffy - Hush (considered one of the best episodes of the series) was filler. It's importance to plot development was about 30 seconds in the middle (Willow/Tara), and about 10 seconds at the end (Buffy/Riley/The Initiative.) It was inefficient. And Babylon 5 (aside from the first half of season one, and the first and second halves of season 5) only worked as well as it did because they spent most of the first season and a half in character and world building, introducing us to all of the species, introducing us to the characters and giving them focused episodes that put them in tough situations and let us get to know them, introducing us to the politics of the galaxy. By the time the plot really kicked in with Londo and G'kar partway through season 2 ("What do you want?"), it mattered and had real impact, because we knew the people involved, and we could see the massive implications of what had happened. Had we not had that time in the world and with the characters, had it been 8 episodes per season, they'd have had to explain to us why we should care, and while we might have understood, we wouldn't have really cared. It would have lost its impact.

Too efficient: No time for character development, and time for worldbuilding, leading to a lack of context for events, leading to stories having less impact. Lack of investment. Forgettable shows (because without that investment, we just wave it away and move on.)

Too inefficient: Episodes that were pure filler, clearly written just to fill the quota (as opposed to tell a story about a character), and were generally awful. Bottle shows (episodes using a single set and only a couple of characters.) And worst of all, clip shows ("He's in a coma! Let's sit here and remember his life with flashbacks to previous seasons!") *shudder*

Like I said, I'm not suggesting that we return to forced 22-episode seasons. I just think that we need to loosen it enough to let the writers do their job. Instead of 6-8 or 22-26, why not 14-18, with the showrunners having some say in how many each season has (adding or removing episodes to balance storytelling and budget - like reducing the episode count by 1 rather than making a clip show to pay for the finale.)

As someone who's just now finishing up Babylon 5 again, and who watched the whole Buffyverse in the past year or two, I fully endorse this post.

I'll just add that one grows more attached to characters and their world after spending 242 hours there (five 22-ep seasons of Angel and six of Buffy, IIRC) than one does after 30-40 hours (five six- or eight-ep seasons) of something modern. The latter might tell a better story, but it's a lot easier to let it go when it's over. In that sense, shows are more disposable now.

[disarm]

In other news... just got an email from Netflix today informing me that the cost of my Premium plan (4K+four streams) is increasing from $19.99 to $22.99/month effective December 14th. Of course I'll just eat the cost because our kids use Netflix constantly, but I'm not happy about it...

[Blackhawk]

Notable, and related to a discussion in another thread: Every Black Friday streaming deal I've seen so far applies only to tiers with ads.

Over the next couple of years, I expect to see a strong push to get people off of the ad-free tiers. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ad-free tiers gradually increase in price while the ad supported tiers barely budge, for the ad supported tiers to get perks, and possibly even exclusives.

Of course, when enough people are on the ad-supported tiers, they'll start to gradually increase the number of ads. They probably won't go as far as YouTube, but we'll be back to shows designed around commercial breaks (ah, the joy of watching old shows on disk/ad-free services and seeing periodic mini-cliffhangers followed by a fade to black for about two seconds...)

[Daehawk]

The only streaming I have is Paramount+ and Im getting that free by paying $6 a month for Walmart+.

[Carpet_pissr]

Im getting that free by paying

[Blackhawk]

Sort of like the free games you get from Amazon, Xbox, or Playstation, but only by subscribing.

But that's not a Daehawk thing, that's an everyone thing. The companies are leveraging the word 'free' to give people the impression that they're not paying for things.

[Unagi]

[Rumpy]

Back in the day, things like that would be considered part of a 'package', rather than something for free.

[Blackhawk]

Yeah, they're one of the services that you're paying for. Anytime something is advertised as free, ask yourself two questions: Can I get it without giving them money? And if I stop paying, will I still get it? If the answer to either is no, it's not free.

Free tire repair! Free monthly games! Fill up a punch card for a free meal! Buy one, get one free! Free roadside service!

And even when something is free, there's usually a catch. Getting in might be free, but actually doing anything inside is more expensive to make up for it. A free trial is really free - but you have to give them payment information first, and they're hoping that you'll forget to cancel in time (which all of us have done at least once.)

There are some things that are free, but they serve a purpose. For instance, when GoG gives away games, they're actually free. But they're free for a reason - they're a hook, designed to get you to look around at whatever else they offer. That's why the button to click is usually partway down the page - you have to scroll and see a few offers. And, of course, you have to have an account to add the game to. That's not nefarious like some of the other stuff above, of course, but it's also not just a 'no strings attached' gift.

And some things we think of as free weren't meant to be free. Thank you, ad blockers and Bypass Paywalls.

True 'free' items exist. Project Gutenberg, for instance, is truly free. The box on the corner that someone wrote 'Free!' on with a magic marker, and the 'buy nothing' groups are usually truly free.

[LordMortis]

But that's not a Daehawk thing, that's an everyone thing. The companies are leveraging the word 'free' to give people the impression that they're not paying for things.

Aye. Amazon Prime costs $15 a month and comes with all these free services I don't want to pay for like a literal billion dollars a year for Thursday night football. I mean finally cut the cord to stop paying for ESPN and Fox news which were free with my $120 a month service.

[gbasden]

Notable, and related to a discussion in another thread: Every Black Friday streaming deal I've seen so far applies only to tiers with ads.

Over the next couple of years, I expect to see a strong push to get people off of the ad-free tiers. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ad-free tiers gradually increase in price while the ad supported tiers barely budge, for the ad supported tiers to get perks, and possibly even exclusives.

Of course, when enough people are on the ad-supported tiers, they'll start to gradually increase the number of ads. They probably won't go as far as YouTube, but we'll be back to shows designed around commercial breaks (ah, the joy of watching old shows on disk/ad-free services and seeing periodic mini-cliffhangers followed by a fade to black for about two seconds...)

I hate this so much. I will continue to subscribe ad free as long as possible, and I will probably just consume less media.

[Reemul]

X-Files springs to mind for me. The first time I watched it all I loved the Moster of the Week Episodes and struggled with the core story. The next time Iw atched it through I loved the core story. Third watch I enjoyed it all. Each of the episode types brought something to teh series and the characters. A lot of that is missing that now.,

As a brit we only ever get 4/6/8 episodes max of any series. the 20+ was a real novelty and many times a tad too much for us. I like 10 ish episodes. Another difference in the UK a lot of our episodes are 1 hour long or 1 hour 15 minutes. The US series are normally 42 minutes. I think 10 1 hour episodes like The Fall of The House of Usher is a good amount. You coudl say 16 40 minute episodes would be similar.

I use Amazon a lot so have them and I also have Netflix as part of my Cable package which is the main way to get spor tin the UK. I get Paramount + free with my cable package currently. If I could get Disney + as part of my cable package ata cut price deal liek Netflix I would take it.

[Blackhawk]

Standard US shows are designed around one-hour slots (30 minutes for most sitcoms/short format shows.) They started off with just about 8 or 9 minutes of ads (~51 minutes shows), then kept adding more and more ads until we were down to the 'standard' 42 minute episode. Almost a full third of our TV time was advertising. It's some of the heaviest advertising in the world. I watched Adam Savage talking about Mythbusters a while back. He said that they filmed it in the European format for those audiences, after which Discovery would edit out 6-8 minutes of footage per episode for the US (he claims that when his jokes/hijinks would fall flat, it usually meant that Discovery had edited out half of the joke.) That's one of the big reason why shows went from 'theme song' intros 20 years ago to a quick logo flash - they were being squeezed so much that they wanted to get back that 60 seconds.

With streaming (sans ads), shows started to increase, 50+ minute shows aren't uncommon now. I fear that with the return of a primarily ad-based model, we're going to go back to 1/3 of the runtime being ads. Not right away, but in the long run.

Of course, when episodes were 42 minutes long, we also had 22 episode seasons. Just imagine - a season of six episodes that are only 42 minutes long. That's not a show, that's a miniseries. Talk about streamlining the plot!

Yeah, there's a bit of a slippery slope in my whole spiel, but when it comes to taking away from the customer to boost profits, US corporations have enough of a reputation that pessimism feels justified.

[Max Peck]

One of the things I've noticed about shows that are created for streaming platforms is that they often don't have have a fixed run time, with some variation from one episode to the next depending on what is required to tell the story. In a way, though, I kind of admire the craftsmanship that goes into writing and producing a show where they have to fit everything into a structure that accommodates the ad timeslots (when it's done well, of course).

[Blackhawk]

Yep. Without having to fit seamlessly into a one-hour time slot, there's no reason beyond tradition to make shows a certain length. And I actually liked the 42-minute show (with flexibility.) A few shows that have done much longer episodes (I know I've seen some that have done an hour and 15 minutes), and I have a harder time watching them. I like to make dinner, watch a show while I eat, and then get back to what I was doing before. I can do the whole shebang in an hour. It's much harder to work in the equivalent of a short movie.

[Blackhawk]

So, here's a question for those who have been using ad-supported tiers for services: How do they work in the commercials?

Do they do it like Paramount+, dropping ads at the beginning?

Do they have ads periodically throughout the show as well? How often?

And if they do have mid-show ads, do they have someone with a brain watch the shows and find good spots to put the ads, or do they do the YouTube thing and stick them in randomly, often in the middle of a conversation or scene?

[Rumpy]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

And , in terms of ad-supported services, or FAST services, Tubi is pretty great and the ads aren't all that intrusive. I also love how it shows exactly the number of ads in the queue before you get to resume your entertainment.

[Kraken]

So, here's a question for those who have been using ad-supported tiers for services: How do they work in the commercials?

Do they do it like Paramount+, dropping ads at the beginning?

Do they have ads periodically throughout the show as well? How often?

And if they do have mid-show ads, do they have someone with a brain watch the shows and find good spots to put the ads, or do they do the YouTube thing and stick them in randomly, often in the middle of a conversation or scene?

Tubi intersperses them. They put a handy little progress indicator in the corner of the screen so you can see how much ad time is left and use your Mute button accordingly. They used to insert them willy-nilly but have gotten better lately about finding natural breaks. Most ad segments don't exceed 1 minute and some are shorter.

[Blackhawk]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings. They're too much to the point now, and are forced to remove much of the context from the stories, making them less impactful and memorable. But again, I don't think that forcing 22 episodes is the answer, either. I still like the idea of giving the creators a range (like a contract for 12-16 episodes, or 14-18, etc), and letting them do what they need to in order to best tell the story.

[Blackhawk]

I keep being reminded about one of the joys of the video rental store: When you went and rented a movie, the biggest perk was that you got to watch it without interruptions.

(The other perk was that it wasn't edited for length or censored. Yippe-kai-yay, melon farmer! )

[hepcat]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings.

No, "filler" is by definition NOT important. If it were important, I (and others) wouldn't call it filler. It would be called story.

1. mass noun
Filler is a substance used for filling cracks or holes, especially in walls, car bodies, or wood.
2. countable noun
You can describe something as a filler when it is being used or done because there is a need for something and nothing better is available.
[informal]

If you wish to say that a good writing team can make 22 episodes a season work, fine. I agree. But let's not try to say that "filler" is not what it is: crap they insert to fulfill a quota. In this case, an episode count. And there is a TON of evidence that writers that can make a 22 episode or more season work are the exception, not the rule.

[Blackhawk]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings.

No, "filler" is by definition NOT important. If it were important, I (and others) wouldn't call it filler. It would be called story.

1. mass noun
Filler is a substance used for filling cracks or holes, especially in walls, car bodies, or wood.
2. countable noun
You can describe something as a filler when it is being used or done because there is a need for something and nothing better is available.
[informal]

That's my point. Filler isn't important, but people are calling everything that isn't core to the central plot 'filler.' It wasn't all filler. Some of it served an important purpose.

It was the exchanges between characters that built their relationships. It was the characters doing something on their own that helped to explain their motivations and rounded them out. It was having an episode here and there that served to teach us how some element of the world worked, teaching us about the groups, politics, 'laws of the universe' if they were different from our own. And when characters we knew got into trouble, or when we knew how the setting worked and some big event happened that had big implications, we understood and cared because of those episodes. With all of that yanked out, we get this hyper-efficient tunnel vision. We keep hearing about how a season felt 'rushed.' We have characters that we don't care about. We watch a show and big things happen... and it doesn't phase us. And when the show is over, we forget about it.

It's basic storytelling. First you let the audience learn about the characters and their world, then you put them into a situation. Now we just get the situation. There's no real build-up, because we never got to see the 'before.' It's all climax and no foreplay. Like I said, in making them as to-the-point and focused as they have, they have eliminated the context from what's happening.

Pure monster-of-the-week episodes, clip shows, and many bottle shows were filler, and yeah - not much is lost by dumping them.

[gilraen]

I have to say, I much prefer shorter seasons of 1-10 episodes to 22 episode seasons. Shows are generally tighter as a result, with no waffling around with filler. They get right to the point.

As I argued on the other page, some of the stuff we think of as 'filler' was actually pretty important to the development of the characters and settings.

No, "filler" is by definition NOT important. If it were important, I (and others) wouldn't call it filler. It would be called story.

I think I'd qualify that somewhat... You can have an episode that some may call "filler" because they don't promote the main story (like "monster of the week" episodes on Buffy or X-Files). But they may be extremely well-made episodes that do contribute immensely to the world building and/or character development. Or the A-story in the episode is stupid and pointless but the B-story introduces an important plot point so it's still not an episode that can be skipped without affecting your understanding of the later episodes.

To me, episodes that are truly "filler" are usually either clip-shows or episodes that focus on a particular character to the detriment of others because the producers are trying to gauge whether the character might justify a spinoff later. Half the main cast may be outright missing from such episode, and any character development may be quietly dropped in later episodes because it never fit with the overall chemistry of the cast. Or, granted, it could be just a random crappy episode that doesn't have any important stories or plot points (usually those appeared in season 1 of network shows when the showrunners were still finding their footing).