The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: JepMasta on December 20, 2010, 12:25:00 AM
-
Hey guys, Just wondering something and wanted to see what you guys think of it.
I happen to really love UK Deal or no Deal, and I know a lot of you do as well. I think part of what makes it so great is it's length. It is 45 minutes long with adverts (which comes out to around 35 Minutes of actual show time.) I think this is the ideal length of the show. If it was an hour it would drag too long. half hour, it would seem too rushed. Here's the thing though, if a UK Style Deal was to be attempted in America (yeah I am aware it's a pipe dream), do you think we yanks could get away with airing a 45-minute TV show? Maybe bookended in syndie with a 15-minute news report.
I am just looking for your opinions
Thanks and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Brian~
-
[quote name=\'JepMasta\' post=\'252837\' date=\'Dec 19 2010, 09:25 PM\']It is 45 minutes long with adverts (which comes out to around 35 Minutes of actual show time.)
...
Here's the thing though, if a UK Style Deal was to be attempted in America (yeah I am aware it's a pipe dream), do you think we yanks could get away with airing a 45-minute TV show?[/quote]
Since an hour-long US show is usually 38 minutes or so of content anymore after commercials, I don't think it matters.
-
The problem is two-fold. Firstly, America had their chance to do Deal right, and fouled it up both times. The syndicated version managed to bungle the pacing of episodes to a laughable degree. The other is that you can't come to affiliates and say "We're going to sell an hour of content, three-fourths of which will be this game show and the other fifteen minutes a newscast." If you had a network newscast at the half hour and perhaps the headlines at :55, that might work.
That sort of thing could work better on a network, and there's precedent for it, with 90 minute episodes of Duel, and 70 and 80 episodes of Fear Factor, coupled with extended versions of comedies or Sneak Peeks at upcoming programs. But I don't have the patience to watch a 45 minute episode of a game that has yet to be produced competently in this country.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'252842\' date=\'Dec 19 2010, 09:38 PM\']But I don't have the patience to watch a 45 minute episode of a game that has yet to be produced competently in this country.[/quote]
I think Brian's supposition (and the one I based my reply on) is that Noel Edmonds, sealed boxes, that phone with the goofy cord, and enough gravitas to put the studio monitors into geosynchronous orbit around the stage, are flown wholesale over to this shore and produced and aired on US television. He himself admits that's a complete pipe dream, and he's right. But the question of competent production doesn't enter into it.
My point was that the question is completely moot *unless* the paradigm of US commercial television shifts such that a 45-minute show with only 10 minutes of ad breaks is feasible. Don't see that happening.
-
"Let's Make a Deal or No Deal" might be a good 90 min. daytime block for CBS. ABC had a couple of daytime soaps with 45 minute lengths for a couple of years in the late '70's, so it has happened before.
-
Actually, as it turns out, UK Deal is going to an hour long format in the new year, if what I've read is correct. They've also changed their taping schedule to crank out four-a-day instead of three-a-day in the dream factory in Bristol.
R.
-
I really wonder if they might be forced into shows with unusual lengths here in North America. When you take an average half-hour syndicated show, it runs roughly 20 minutes with close to 10 minutes commercials. I can't believe how bad it's gotten over the years. If this keeps up, in a few years it might be more like 15-15. Would it still be feasable to do half-hour shows if this were to occur? Talk about lack of content.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'252863\' date=\'Dec 20 2010, 01:45 PM\']I really wonder if they might be forced into shows with unusual lengths here in North America. When you take an average half-hour syndicated show, it runs roughly 20 minutes with close to 10 minutes commercials. I can't believe how bad it's gotten over the years. If this keeps up, in a few years it might be more like 15-15. Would it still be feasable to do half-hour shows if this were to occur? Talk about lack of content.[/quote]
About 10 years ago, I came up with a concept that could work with content and could still amount to a traditional three-hour primetime block, but I'm not sure what it would do for ratings...
Half hour slots (21 or so minutes of content) would be bumped to 40 or 45-minute slots, the latter being similar to NBC's "Super Sized" sitcom episodes. An hour-long show would be bumped to 75 or 90 minutes. I'd probably suggest going with 45/90 because a sitcom starting at 8:40 or 9:20 pm could get a little confusing to viewers, not that 8:45 is any easier.
8:00 - sitcom
8:45 - sitcom
9:30 - drama
OR
Since NBC and ABC are getting back into having sitcoms in the 10pm hour, 8:00/8:45/9:30/10:15 on some nights, then do the aforementioned on nights where you want a drama. It might be a little tougher for FOX, seeing as they have 10:00 news.
All in all, I don't see the current networks sacrificing a possible show just to give remaining shows more time. Someone would have to probably take a chance on a new network, which I also don't see happening.
-
Which leads me to something I've always wondered regarding the 11:35 PM EST start time of Leno/Letterman/Kimmel: Do most of the local affiliates actually sell 5 extra minutes of commercial time within their 11:00 newscasts (or whatever they air in that slot)?
-
All in all, I don't see the current networks sacrificing a possible show just to give remaining shows more time. Someone would have to probably take a chance on a new network, which I also don't see happening.
Considering all the failures launched each fall, I don't see why they wouldn't consider this idea. Wouldn't it save them a bit of money not to risk additional shows cancelled in just 3 episodes because they have to fill the slot with something? They could then concentrate more on other shows and maybe try to make them better quality.
There was an article in the paper a while back about The Mary Tyler Moore Show. They stated that with around 25 minutes, they could build more character development within each episode. Now, with 21 or 22, it's just do the story and get out. It makes a difference.
-
Well a lot of programs here go an extra minute or two over the half hour, so they can use the previous shows audience to go onto the next program before they change channels.
And I think the DOND UK extension was because they wanted to add another commercial break, and they aren't allowed to do that unless the show gets expanded to an hour because of broadcast regulations.
-
Which leads me to something I've always wondered regarding the 11:35 PM EST start time of Leno/Letterman/Kimmel: Do most of the local affiliates actually sell 5 extra minutes of commercial time within their 11:00 newscasts (or whatever they air in that slot)?
I had always wondered where and why this started. I first noticed it in a Denver TVGuide from 1983. I wondered why the late newscasts ran 35 min - on each station. Nobody else that I know of was doing it at that time. Over the years, it spread around and now everybody's doing it.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'252872\' date=\'Dec 20 2010, 04:06 PM\']Considering all the failures launched each fall, I don't see why they wouldn't consider this idea. Wouldn't it save them a bit of money not to risk additional shows cancelled in just 3 episodes because they have to fill the slot with something? They could then concentrate more on other shows and maybe try to make them better quality.
There was an article in the paper a while back about The Mary Tyler Moore Show. They stated that with around 25 minutes, they could build more character development within each episode. Now, with 21 or 22, it's just do the story and get out. It makes a difference.[/quote]
Great points. Not only do networks save money on not having to order as many shows and risk canceling one within three weeks, but writers get to breathe easier with character and plot development. With the increased time, you may even be able to see more shows go back to using traditional theme songs or a minute or so. Of course, in the case of a game show, that could also mean more gratuitous padding. :-P
For the record, the most recent "Saturday Night Live" ran for 53 minutes and change, about the same length of an HBO drama. I could see that translating to a network drama, with a 9:30-11pm slot.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'252875\' date=\'Dec 20 2010, 04:47 PM\']For the record, the most recent "Saturday Night Live" ran for 53 minutes and change too long[/quote]
FTFY.
-
All these ideas may sound good on paper, but they really screw up syndication.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'252874\' date=\'Dec 20 2010, 01:08 PM\']I had always wondered where and why this started. I first noticed it in a Denver TVGuide from 1983. I wondered why the late newscasts ran 35 min - on each station. Nobody else that I know of was doing it at that time. Over the years, it spread around and now everybody's doing it.[/quote]
Mountain time zone stations could do that in 1983 because they were doing their own recording of the Eastern/Central network feeds and then playing them back an hour later (or, in that case, 65 minutes later).
On a network-wide basis, NBC officially bumped "The Tonight Show" back by 5 minutes in the fall of 1991, ABC moved "Nightline" back at some point in 1993, and CBS gave their affiliates the extra 5 minutes when "Late Show with David Letterman" premiered.
I actually remember taking a stopwatch to the 11:00 news on WFLA in Tampa when the "Tonight Show" start time changed, and if I recall correctly, Monday's 35-minute news time slot had 2 minutes more commercial time than Friday's 30-minute news. (Most noticeably, they put a commercial break between the end of the news and the start of "The Tonight Show," rather than going straight from one to the other, as they'd done previously.)
-
As for the reason why it started, didn't it have to do with the networks wanting their own individual listing in the TV guide (generic, not just the magazine) back in the days when they all had lists instead of grids? Rather than having Channels 6, 10, 13, and 17 all beginning their late shows at 11:30 PM, three of them would be in a listing at 11:30, and one would get its own listing at 11:35, in theory making it stand out more.
I recall reading that somewhere, although I'm sure a bunch of people will point out how horribly wrong this is. And of course now that every listings service is grid-based, starting at a different time won't do anything to make your program stand out. Never mind, of course, that all that late shows now begin at 11:35. :-)
(OT: Which online TV guide do you folks use? I liked Titan TV, except that they keep insisting on adding random channels to my favorites lineup, and there's no convenient way to get rid of them; instead you have to go to the clunky all channels interface.)
-
All these ideas may sound good on paper, but they really screw up syndication.
What was done to the super-sized Friends episodes in syndication? I suppose if the timing was right, they could syndicate them as two-part episodes, since there are more commercials in syndication anyway.
With the ever increasing commercial time, would it ever be feasable to stop with the traditional :00 and :30 start times? In places like England they've been doing this for decades - sometimes shows will start at 8:05, or 9:20. Maybe since things have changed, things should change. I think we're getting to a time where it's no longer possible to fit a 30-minute show into a 30-minute time slot and still have any substance.
-
ABC tried it in 1969 or 1970, with two 45-minute shows target at the young audience: "Music Scene" and "The Now People." Both flopped.
-
ABC tried it in 1969 or 1970, with two 45-minute shows target at the young audience: "Music Scene" and "The Now People." Both flopped.
Point taken. However, that was a long time ago and things have changed since then.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'252863\' date=\'Dec 20 2010, 12:45 PM\']I really wonder if they might be forced into shows with unusual lengths here in North America. When you take an average half-hour syndicated show, it runs roughly 20 minutes with close to 10 minutes commercials. I can't believe how bad it's gotten over the years. If this keeps up, in a few years it might be more like 15-15. Would it still be feasable to do half-hour shows if this were to occur? Talk about lack of content.[/quote]
And how much of this "content" is really content anyway? Previews of what's going to happen after the break and rehashes of what happened before the break are not exactly meaningful. Game shows aren't the worst offenders at this I admit, that "honor" goes to, in a multi-way tie, any number of shows on History, Discovery, A&E, et al, for example, Mythbusters.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'252929\' date=\'Dec 21 2010, 08:53 AM\']
All these ideas may sound good on paper, but they really screw up syndication.
What was done to the super-sized Friends episodes in syndication? I suppose if the timing was right, they could syndicate them as two-part episodes, since there are more commercials in syndication anyway.
[/quote]
IIRC, they were still trimmed down to 22-minute episodes. I'm thinking a 40-minute episode is about 27-28 mins. of content, so some jokes might still get lost in the shuffle, just to get down to 22. Seems like it would be a labor similar to what TV Land does to fit 70s sitcoms (25 or so minutes) to the same length.
The other issue I see...what would it do for first-run syndication i.e. game and talk shows, and the local news? All in all, I still like the primetime idea, but it would have to be done across the board to fit daytime schedules as well...
How long did 45-minute soaps last in the 70s?
-
Seems like it would be a labor similar to what TV Land does to fit 70s sitcoms (25 or so minutes) to the same length.
It's getting harder and harder to rerun those old '60s and '70s shows now isn't it, with the amount that has to be chopped out of them.
How long did 45-minute soaps last in the 70s?
IIRC, I believe they lasted a couple of years. Thinking back, it's surprising ABC tried it back then. Why not just expand one to 60 min, then the other somewhere down the line?
Maybe we should be thankful though...it cost us the great Break the Bank, but if they'd gone for 60-minute versions back then instead of 45, it would be meant another game show would have gone bye-bye way too soon.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'252963\' date=\'Dec 21 2010, 03:02 PM\']
Seems like it would be a labor similar to what TV Land does to fit 70s sitcoms (25 or so minutes) to the same length.
It's getting harder and harder to rerun those old '60s and '70s shows now isn't it, with the amount that has to be chopped out of them.
[/quote]
I love The Golden Girls, but it's increasingly difficult to watch in syndication due to the chopping. It's not that I'm aware there's material missing, it's the obviousness with which they pick up a scene 20 seconds into it.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'252963\' date=\'Dec 21 2010, 03:02 PM\']
Seems like it would be a labor similar to what TV Land does to fit 70s sitcoms (25 or so minutes) to the same length.
It's getting harder and harder to rerun those old '60s and '70s shows now isn't it, with the amount that has to be chopped out of them.[/quote]
You'd think cable channels could just run them as is with longer commercial breaks in a 35 or 40-minute slot, and not have shows begin at the half hour. After all, they don't have to have programming time out for the local news or network prime time lineup. I think somebody said earlier in the thread that it would also mean having to pay rights fees for fewer programs, so it ought to be cheaper for them.
-
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'252877\' date=\'Dec 20 2010, 02:52 PM\']All these ideas may sound good on paper, but they really screw up syndication.[/quote]
True, it would screw up syndication, but on the flip side, it's a boon to those responsible for putting the shows into a DVD season "x" collection or those online internet sites, like Hulu, that run the uncut version of TV episodes. Being able to promote TV Shows of the past by promoting them as "Original, Uncut" episodes definitely works in either's favor.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'252972\' date=\'Dec 21 2010, 02:18 PM\']You'd think cable channels could just run them as is with longer commercial breaks in a 35 or 40-minute slot, and not have shows begin at the half hour.[/quote]
BBC America used to do this (e.g., they'd have the BBC's half-hour sitcoms in a 40-minute slot), but I don't see that anymore on a quick check of their schedule.
-
How many BBC shows is BBC America airing these days? It seems every time I look at the box guide as though the prime time line-up leads off with ST:TNG.
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' post=\'253120\' date=\'Dec 22 2010, 09:46 PM\'][quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'252972\' date=\'Dec 21 2010, 02:18 PM\']You'd think cable channels could just run them as is with longer commercial breaks in a 35 or 40-minute slot, and not have shows begin at the half hour.[/quote]
BBC America used to do this (e.g., they'd have the BBC's half-hour sitcoms in a 40-minute slot), but I don't see that anymore on a quick check of their schedule.
[/quote]
This year's Doctor Who Christmas Special is airing in an 80-minute slot. It's the first time I've seen them schedule anything other than an even hour/half-hour for a while.