How long should a TV series remain on the air?

Assuming it's good and gets popular:

5 years?

7 years?

Until it's clear they're struggling for ideas?

Golden Girls: 7 years, each year is worth it.
Roseanne: 8 years, the final year was shit.
Star Trek TNG: 7 years, kicked the bucket at season 5 and got worse, though it's a miracle season 7 was anything approaching good. A real network would also have canned the show before season 1 ended!

Star Trek DS9, Voyager: Both did 7 years but didn't deserve more than 1.

Enterprise: Why bother, Berman (still around) can't stand the Kirk era so he's not going to bother with continuity unless it benefits TNG...

All in the Family: 8, but should have been cancelled by season 6 when the plots were no longer political but were about the family, ala a typical sitcom we could see anywhere else.

X-files: Personally, season 2 or definitely before the final one when Duchovney quits, thinking he's a real actor, but even fans would get annoyed at 10 seasons when their favorite season slid by - much like I feel when TNG season 4 ends and then there's 3 months of slop before they get back to running season 1 again.

Simpsons: Probably by 5 years ago or when Barney became sober, I don't know - they all of recent seem to be 1 long, continuous goofy joke.

is a good number for syndication

then kill it, before it happens.

I'd like to see more TV series in the british tradition - with a set plan for the show to be only just so many episodes. Too many shows that would make great limited series ended being cancelled (or perhaps not produced at all) or going on way, way too long.

WE'd also get much better endings if series were planned in advance o end at a certain point.

Not all series I'm saying, but it would be johnny rotten cool if America took a cue from our pals over the pond.

And one really cool side effect of that was that a major character could be killed off without warning in any episode.

that whole fiasco between seasons 4 and 5. I'm still bitter at J. Michael about killing off Marcus (gods he was a hottie) and getting rid of Susan.

Darth Velma
"Trust Ivanova, trust yourself, anybody else...shoot 'em"

and the censors.

I'm amazed "All in the Family" ever made the light of day...

I like the British idea of 6 or 13 or 26 episodes per year depending on genre. That way a series can last for years and still seem fresh. (indeed, the 'planned' ending for Blake's 7 didn't happen (though the finale was relegated to a season finale instead), we got an extra year, and that final year's finale was a real jaw-dropper...)

Having series which aren't conventional adds to freshness as well.

As do series containing characters from all over the map. Blake's 7, Spin City, Roseanne, Seinfeld, War of the Worlds season 1, Babylon 5 (from repute, I have never really seen the show, dismissing it as a space opera trek-wannabe and that's odd because the creator of Babylon 5 happens to be a fan of Blake's 7 so why the F haven't I given it a chance then?!) and others show that having a diverse range of characters with character beliefs helps out. Racial diversity is cool as well, especially when mixed with a variety of character types.

The trouble with planning a series to be so-long in advance and such is what could happen inbetween, especially if an actor has to quit or gets fired or dies or something.

A major problem with US television is this notion that a series should stay on as long as it can. This leads to the galactic reset button problem. At the end of every episode the writers must find a way to hit the galactic reset button that returns all the characters to their original state. There is no arch in US programming. There is merely stasis until the popularity dwindles and they have to shake things up.

Tell a freaking story some time. Have the characters develop. In other countries the stories take you places. Main characters can die. You don't know what is going to happen after the first 30 words are spoken in an episode.

Unfortunately the dumbing of America must continue. Our expectations must be lowered. We must be kept complacent. The media will not be happy until they can strap us down and spray paint our eyes with advertisement.

There are a number of books that think would make a great series (1 to 2 years at once a week) but unless it can be an ongoing series or a crappy mini-series no one will touch it.

On one episode of The Simpsons, they joked about this. They didn't call it that, but some very weird stuff happened, and at the end of the episode, they all agreed never to speak of it again, in a very obvious (to point of parody) plot device to hit the Reset button.

Some shows break through this mold. Babylon 5 was one, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was another. Enterprise and ER sort of do this... the episodes mostly are stand-alone, but there is character development, and the actions in one episode generally have repercussions in future episodes, and future episodes recall past ones.

I've noticed that the shows I consider the best generally allow the characters to grow and evolve, and the story is serialised.

Makes me think of all the decent 2-hour TV movies that you like okay, but you know they are going to make a series out of it, and you know it's going to stink because you can see the plot of every show by the time the movie is over.

Since television programming is owned by the networks and supported by ratings, the answer is simple: Until the ratings that bring in the ad dollar no longer support the production costs.

If enough people are convinced a show is no longer worth it, they'll stop watching it.

And, fortunately, many TV show stars know when to call it quits before the network brass does.

There have been NO Star Trek series that has been a ratings giant.

It had grabbed a ton of viewers; most of which promptly tuned out and did not bother to tune in to DS9 when it premiered, nor did they come back for Voyager and were clearly smart enough to forget about Enterprise...

But I see what you mean, though TNG was the most popular it probably did not reach #1 on the charts, it's still sci-fi, a generally ignored niche.

Here's a rundown of the approximate number of homes tuned into Trek from TNG's premier in 1987 to 1999.

Fall 1987 - Spring 1988: 8.55 Million
Fall 1988 - Spring 1989: 9.14 Million
Fall 1989 - Spring 1990: 9.77 Million
Fall 1990 - Spring 1991: 10.58 Million
Fall 1991 - Spring 1992: 11.50 Million
Fall 1992 - Spring 1993: 10.83 Million
Fall 1993 - Spring 1994: 9.78 Million
Fall 1994 - Spring 1995: 7.05 Million
Fall 1995 - Spring 1996: 6.42 Million
Fall 1996 - Spring 1997: 5.03 Million
Fall 1997 - Spring 1998: 4.53 Million
Fall 1998 - Spring 1999: 4.00 Million

Between 1987 and 1994, TNG was airing as a mainstream sci-fi show with very little competition and very good national coverage -- a very different situation than those that surrounded Voyager and DS9. (DS9 NEVER had the amount of affiliate stations TNG had and Voyager, being on UPN, had even LESS national coverage the DS9!)

When TNG premiered in 1987, it was the only first-run syndicated show on television, and one of very few sci-fi shows in general. At the time, there were 4 networks and a handful of cable channels.

As TNG flourished in an atmosphere without competition, it firmly rooted itself in a position that would cause it to grow -- TNG was actually replacing some networks' prime-time lineup in places.

When TNG ended, this seven year downward spiral began, but not because Trek as a whole was getting worse or less-liked, but because each new show was starting in a crowded, competitive environment with many similar shows. As of June, there were 7 networks, dozens of first-run syndicated shows, and over a hundred cable and premium channels. Where TNG had to deal with maybe a dozen competitors, DS9 and Voyager had to contend with around 50 (counting the premiums) and a sci-fi market that's close to being oversaturated.

Where TNG was able to grow some roots before the major onslaught of competition began, DS9 and Voyager grew up in an environment very different from the one TNG grew up in. DS9 had to fight for prime-time slots and Voyager was only seen by as many people as UPN could reach. With Trek's quick fade from the spotlight after the end of TNG, Trek swiftly lost its casual viewership and mainstream support. The number of people viewing Trek has shrunk back to what one would expect from a wildly successful cult TV show. Yes, that number is smaller than it once was, but for what Star Trek is, it's still doing quite well.

The Next Generation was basically a mainstream show that fully intended to be a mainstream show. Good mainstream shows get pretty high ratings as TNG did. DS9 was never a mainstream show and it never wanted to be one. Voyager and Enterprise tried to be a mainstream success but simply couldn't (through no fault of its own) because UPN is such a failure as a network.

The Star Trek franchise may never replicate the mainstream success of TNG, but DS9 and Voyager have thrived even with the handicaps they have. Judging every Trek series against TNG is what is leading people to make grand claims that the Trek series is dying, but despite the fact that both are Trek shows, comparing TNG to DS9 or TNG to Voyager is like comparing Apples to Squash. TNG was born with a silver spoon in its mouth, DS9 and Voyager had to fight their way up. Enterprise is even more victimized by this.

Deep Space Nine spent most of its lifetime as the number one syndicated first-run show on television despite its falling number of viewers. Even when it became a near-serial show (usually, long-term serial shows are ratings disasters -- witness Babylon 5) airing in prime-time in less than 60 percent of the nation, DS9 managed well over a 4.0 average in its final two years. As a general rule, a syndicated show needs to maintain a 3.0 to be successful, DS9 always maintained that despite the strikes against it. Look at the other sci-fi shows similar to DS9: Earth: Final Conflict was regarded as a decent show ratings-wise, staying in the lower 3.0 range and Babylon 5 was the hot potato of science fiction television -- it did so poorly that no one wanted to hold on to it.

As a serial, more cultish television show, DS9 was right behind the X-Files on the all-time list of successes even with extreme disadvantages.

Voyager, on the other hand, has very little that it can brag about. That's not because Voyager was an awful, unpopular show, but because it's on an awful, unpopular network. Voyager can only do as well as UPN because of Voyager's status as a network show. UPN has been losing stations since day one and is now only airing in a little over 60 percent of the nation, meaning that Voyager competed in a very crowded market with both hands tied behind its back. For its disadvantages, Voyager still managed to remain UPN's top show.

However, Voyager was never able to perform near the level of its predecessors (and neither will Enterprise) because they have to drag the carcass of UPN wherever it goes. That's not the sign of viewers losing interest in Trek, it's the sign that viewers aren't interested in UPN.

In short, the ratings *are* down. Less people are watching. The bleeding off of TNG's more casual Trek audience is nearly complete and the shows are losing some of their viewers to competition. What does that mean? Is Star Trek dying? No, Star Trek is not dying, it's just not a mainstream hit anymore. Things have grown far smaller, but smaller isn't necessarily bad as long as a show is maintaining minimum audiences, which so far Enterprise has done. Star Trek may someday stage a mainstream comeback with a TNG-sized hit, it may not. But as long as Star Trek maintains its loyal audience that it currently holds, the franchise will be fine.

- Greg Fuller

before the new Darrin came on!

From the Darrin switch.

which is still my all-time favorite series. The last season was so painful I couldn't watch it.

The third year was really crappy. But then the fourth year was excellent. High hopes going into season five. But it became a mere shadow of what it was.

Don't know the deal with David E. Kelly. He tinkers with success (I guess TRYING to keep if fresh) but ultimately send the shows down the tubes.

Because just about every TV Series that has brought in a baby pretty much has been the "Kiss of Death" or better yet "Jumped the Shark". I know babies ruined "Family Ties" and "Growing Pains" back in their heydey and to be honest, I've lost interest in "Friends". I thought the baby thing would be the death of "Sex and the City" (Season 5 was barely watchable, but then again they had to cut it short because SJP was pregnant in real life), but for some reason, the baby thing is really working this year, especially since it was Cynical Miranda who ended up pregnant. But SATC is playing it smart and ending it this year (just shy of 100 episodes).

Another way to tell the show is overwith is when they have a major cast rehash. Happy Days sucked after Richie Cunningham left and I quit watching Ally McBeal after Georgia and Billy left the show. (By then they had too many casting changes for me to keep up).

Ironically, the Simpsons is one of the few TV shows that has not officially "jumped the shark" according to the Jump the Shark website.

example.. simpsons shoudl have stopped maybe 4 years ago

"As long as its good." When it ceases being "good" in my eyes, I tune out. Eventually, it ceases to be "good" in enough eyes that it gets yanked.

writing or directing or producing the shows.

everything is profit-focused, which leads to a certain blandness in everything, since it caters to a centric, low-brow "Greatest Common Denominator". It's not only in entertainment; think of fast food restaurants, or even chain restaurants; there's not too much out of the ordinary on the menu. If an item doesn't have a high enough margin, it's axed, regardless of how good it is.

This is the plight of north american macrobrewed beer, as well. Britain had a consumer activist group called CAMRA (CAMpaign for Real Ale) which was quite successful in countering the bland, fizzy yellow water that British beer was rapidly becoming.

We could use that here.

...20 years ago. But we now live in a society where over 70% of homes have cable or dish. We have a choice between what you term low-brow and what could be termed "high-brow."

But time and again, the masses choose the "low-brow." And I sure don't want to imply that the masses must have bad taste for choosing what I might consider inferior programming.

But that's just my opinion.

-- Allen

:-)