TV Woes

Things I hate about TV programming:

• Premiering a show on one night, to much fanfare and applause, and then immediately have the first non-pilot episode on a different day at a different time.
• Moving a show's day and time from season to season. I think more people are like me-- wanting things to remain the same and easy to remember-- than those who are willing to follow a show to whatever day/time networks move it to. And, frankly, the fact that when they move a show its ratings go down and the act of moving it is generally a sign of imminent cancellation backs me up.
• The fact that networks don't give shows a half- or full season to catch on with an audience. Some shows have to grow on you, like fungus, over time. These days, Seinfeld would never make it-- people forget that it didn't do well its first season. It wasn't until its third season that it really started to get the big ratings.
  
• A show with a 4-6 rating has a solid base and is more highly rated than most shows on all the various cable channels, yet the big four tend to cancel these shows. Now, I grant that frequently these shows are costing a lot of money and the ad revenues they bring in may not justify the cost, but I think the networks can afford to keep around most shows that are in that ratings range. Shows like Studio 60, Veronica Mars, Firefly, etc. have a loyal audience, but not a blockbuster sized audience.
• That networks overpay their talent and then cancel the show when the ratings dip to less stellar (but still good) ratings. Maybe more networks need to press for a ratings-based incentive plan. Say, for example, on a show like Studio 60, where you have an ensemble of highly respected stars and newbies. Maybe you pay your big stars $25k an episode to start, with ratings-based incentives (if we reach an 8.0, you get a $25k a show bonus, a 10.0 achieves a $50k per show bonus, etc.). That way, it is in everyone's best interest to have a great show, but if the ratings start to fall, the cost to produce the show also falls (to a degree).
  

It seems to me that there are a lot of shows on TV today that shouldn't be serials. Instead, they should be done as mini- or maxi-series events. For example, 24 is arguably more of a maxi-series event piece than something that should air over 24 episodes every fall. And the calls for a loss of quality and repetitive plot lines seems to back that up. While I don't watch the series, I respect that the creators for saying this will be the final season for Battlestar Galactica. In essence, the writers and producers said, "We had an arc we plotted from day one. It will take us X number of seasons to tell that story. We are wrapping up at the end of this season when we have told the story we wanted." Maybe the show will come back in the future after the writers and producers can work out another good arc.

The problem with making non-series type shows into series is that they inevitably fall from good drama or comedy into melodrama and stale, repetitive comedy. With DVD sales what they are now, I would think doing these mini/maxi-series would be even more advantageous.