If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   Apple: You paid for season 5 of Breaking Bad ... but this is season 5.5, PAY UP   (consumerist.com) divider line 91
    More: Dumbass, Apple TV  
•       •       •

5311 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Aug 2013 at 7:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-12 07:36:20 PM
FTA: "Last year, he bought season 5 of "Breaking Bad" on iTunes, which means  he inferred meantthat the fresh episodes should show up on his Apple TV at the same time they air on cable. "

/FTFTA
//Read the fine print, asshole.
 
2013-08-12 07:37:12 PM
Figures they and others will try to cash in on the split season, why waste an opportunity to gouge the consumer?
 
2013-08-12 07:37:16 PM
Pretty sure Apple isn't the one who decides how to package and sell them.
 
2013-08-12 07:39:25 PM
My Amazon VOD didn't resume season pass on these last 8 episodes. But I knew I was going to pay for the either way
 
2013-08-12 07:41:52 PM
So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.
 
2013-08-12 07:44:22 PM
Yeah, this is fairly normal with iTunes.  What you think of as a season and what Apple thinks of as a season aren't necessarily the same.  Most notable with kids' shows - Phineas and Ferb just started season 4.  Or, as Apple calls it, season 9.  (And before you claim this is the studio - Amazon doesn't tend to do the same IME.)

On the plus side (what there is of it), they generally charge based on how many episodes you get, so it's not like you paid for a 20-episode season and then got 10.
 
2013-08-12 07:45:19 PM
Most split seasons have only a month or 2 off. BB had an entire year off between. Sorry don't feel bad for these people
 
2013-08-12 07:49:46 PM
Did Apple have to pay for the final season? Was it included in season 5 for them? Most likely they did have to pay for it as a separate season, so you will have to pay also. Deal with it.
 
2013-08-12 07:51:49 PM

untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.


I think cable channels are doing this more and more.

ABC Family, for example, has two-three seasons of eachc of their shows. The"summer finales" are going to be coming up soon. My guess is that over the course of the year, their shows still get the 20-24 episodes we are generally used to.
 
2013-08-12 07:54:23 PM
Is this the thread where Apple gets blamed for doing the exact same thing as their competitors?
 
2013-08-12 07:55:36 PM
Pay?  snerk guffaw giggle snort
 
2013-08-12 08:00:46 PM
Some things are worth paying for.  Breaking Bad is one of those things.
 
2013-08-12 08:06:46 PM
Dick move. I blame Battlestar Galactica and the writers strike for this half season bullshiat.
 
2013-08-12 08:08:00 PM

untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.


This. And since TV seasons normally coincide with the length of a season, that means we're going to get six seasons per year now: Winter, Wing, Spring, Summer, Autumn, Wintumn.

Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-08-12 08:09:09 PM
And before that, he was all uppity with his friends about how he cut the cord and didn't have some huge cable bill.
 
2013-08-12 08:09:50 PM

MrEricSir: Is this the thread where Apple gets blamed for doing the exact same thing as their competitors?


Maybe.  It could also be the thread where Apple gets blamed for the actions of one of its content providers.
 
2013-08-12 08:12:40 PM

untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.


ecx.images-amazon.com

images.starpulse.com

The precedent has been set for a while now.
 
2013-08-12 08:13:15 PM
AMC is the one that split the season, not Apple. The first half of the season is up on Netflix now, so it is very much separate from the half season that is currently airing. Doctor Who also did the same thing with their split seasons as well. As someone up thread mentioned, they basically charge you $3 per episode for HD with a small discount for the season pass, so it's not like they paid for 20 episodes.
 
2013-08-12 08:15:35 PM
There's been about a year between when the last episode aired and the most recent -- calling it one season in two parts or two seasons is semantics .
 
2013-08-12 08:27:10 PM

bingo the psych-o: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 362x500]

[images.starpulse.com image 580x352]

The precedent has been set for a while now.


Came here to post the BSG season "2.5" thing myself.
 
2013-08-12 08:27:35 PM
This has been old news ever since I bought MLP season 3 last year.
 
2013-08-12 08:32:42 PM

MrEricSir: Is this the thread where Apple gets blamed for doing the exact same thing as their competitors?


Unpossible! Remember, Apple is different because they're innovative.
 
2013-08-12 08:33:12 PM

untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.


Good. The Brits do it this way, and it makes for better tv. Producers don't have to pad out 8 episodes worth of ideas to get to a 23-episode season, and shorter seasons means you can get a bigger variety of series on the air every year (meaning a better chance to find something good). I've been waiting for that broadcast model to catch on in the US for years, and it might finally be happening. The big networks will resist it for a while, but if AMC, FX, and the others can get acclaimed for 8-12 episode seasons of great quality tv, maybe the big boys will eventually fall in line.
 
2013-08-12 08:35:28 PM
The only people who truly consider this to be one season are Sony, and that's because they'd have to give people raises if it were treated as two.  And, as has been mentioned, they probably should have seen this coming, considering that Seasons 2-4 were all $30/each while Season 5 was only $22.
 
2013-08-12 08:44:03 PM

Uzzah: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Good. The Brits do it this way, and it makes for better tv. Producers don't have to pad out 8 episodes worth of ideas to get to a 23-episode season, and shorter seasons means you can get a bigger variety of series on the air every year (meaning a better chance to find something good). I've been waiting for that broadcast model to catch on in the US for years, and it might finally be happening. The big networks will resist it for a while, but if AMC, FX, and the others can get acclaimed for 8-12 episode seasons of great quality tv, maybe the big boys will eventually fall in line.


I doubt that's going to become standard.  The only reason Breaking Bad is doing it is because Gilligan wanted to wrap it up in one season but AMC wanted two years.  So they did 16 episodes and split them in two.  There are a few networks experimenting in short-form television (Sundance and IFC notably), but for the most part, 13 episodes is as few as any ad-supported network is going to want to go.  And I'm actually okay with that.  The British model can be good at times, but I don't mind having more episodes.  It's not like shows can't put up good runs.  The US version of The Office had more great episodes than the entire UK run.  I guess I'm just willing to take the bad with the good.
 
2013-08-12 08:53:58 PM
I'm not sure why some shows have only a few episodes, I think its because when it was signed on as a show it wasn't picked up for a full season. For example I am waiting for Southland to come out, all seasons cost the same money - but season 1 had 7 episodes, season 2 6 episodes, 3 and 4 were 10 episodes.
 
2013-08-12 09:02:54 PM
I've got the weirdest boner right now.....
 
2013-08-12 09:06:19 PM
I'm just here to say fark Apple and fark iTunes.

/that is all
 
2013-08-12 09:17:27 PM
Why not just get a cablecard and record it? I've had mine put to use so many times (TV shows, premium channel movies) that it more than paid for itself and monthly DVR subscriptions with shiatty harddrive space.
 
2013-08-12 09:21:06 PM
People still pay to download new movies and new TV shows from the interwebs?

Huh?  How about that?
 
2013-08-12 09:22:56 PM
After all of the commercials I had to watch over the years, I figure the box owes me... I watch my BB pirated.

/I'm dying
//will never see the inside of a prison cell
 
2013-08-12 09:23:20 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned how stupid it is to buy seasons of TV shows on iTunes in the first place when there are perfectly acceptable ways to watch these shows through other means.

(Personally, I don't think shows that are broadcast or on basic cable and ad-supported should cost more than 99 cents an episode anyhow; it's just greedy to charge 2.99-3.99 for an episode of a show that's already paid for by advertisers before it airs.)

But hey, if you're GOING to pay for a show, Breaking Bad is one of the few that's worth whatever you have to pay.
 
2013-08-12 09:28:48 PM
Does it cost the same amount per episode? If so, who cares.

Does it cost the same amount per season regardless of the episodes? If so, that's ridiculous.
 
2013-08-12 09:32:13 PM

secularsage: ... it's just greedy to charge 2.99-3.99 for an episode of a show that's already paid for by advertisers before it airs.


Yeah... no. Most prime time TV shows would lose money if they had to be paid for based on ad sales of the first showing of each episode.
 
2013-08-12 09:36:08 PM

secularsage: I'm surprised no one has mentioned how stupid it is to buy seasons of TV shows on iTunes in the first place when there are perfectly acceptable ways to watch these shows through other means.

(Personally, I don't think shows that are broadcast or on basic cable and ad-supported should cost more than 99 cents an episode anyhow; it's just greedy to charge 2.99-3.99 for an episode of a show that's already paid for by advertisers before it airs.)

But hey, if you're GOING to pay for a show, Breaking Bad is one of the few that's worth whatever you have to pay.


Eh, you're paying to watch it without commercials and to KEEP IT.  The Breaking Bad FIfth Season Blu-Ray retails for $65 and hits $30 on sale, but you can download it for $24 for iTunes.  Seems to be a good deal to me.
 
2013-08-12 09:36:30 PM
If I remember correctly, there were already ads for the season five dvds during last night's episode, implying either easy access to the rest of the season or another 5.5 dvd set later.
 
2013-08-12 09:40:00 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Pretty sure Apple isn't the one who decides how to package and sell them.


Apple doesn't package and market the products they sell? Really?
This is exactly why Apple will never see another thin dime from me.
 
2013-08-12 09:46:50 PM

untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.


They one-upped HBO cutting seasons from 12 to 10 episodes.  They did it with "Girls" and they did it with this season of "True Blood." Not sure if they are doing it with other shows. The "True Blood" one really bugs me... it feels like it just started and it ends next week.
 
2013-08-12 09:49:55 PM

dstrick44: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Pretty sure Apple isn't the one who decides how to package and sell them.

Apple doesn't package and market the products they sell? Really?


Really.  The content producers do that.
 
2013-08-12 09:51:38 PM

DenisBergkamp: Figures they and others will try to cash in on the split season, why waste an opportunity to gouge the consumer?


Vince Gilligan said last night that legally and contractually the network considers it to all be one season (ie, the cast and crew are getting paid and residuals as if it were just one season).
 
2013-08-12 09:56:55 PM

untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.


Heh.  You must not watch much UK-originated TV; Sherlock has been running three-episode seasons, and seasons of four or five aren't uncommon over there.

/still a bit pissed about only getting 8 episodes of Top Gear this summer.
 
2013-08-12 10:06:19 PM
The last 8 episodes is considered season 6. If there's an upside to this new trend, it's that stories will become tighter and less meandering.

The Venture Bros did the same thing. This after "Season 4" was split into two 8-episode halves split by a year.
 
2013-08-12 10:07:39 PM

Mad_Radhu: AMC is the one that split the season, not Apple. The first half of the season is up on Netflix now, so it is very much separate from the half season that is currently airing. Doctor Who also did the same thing with their split seasons as well. As someone up thread mentioned, they basically charge you $3 per episode for HD with a small discount for the season pass, so it's not like they paid for 20 episodes.


They never split the season. It's PR bullshiat.

They lost the negotiations with Mad Men so to save money they cut Walking Dead's season 2 budget in half and reduced the episode order for Breaking Bad seasons 5 and 6 to eight episodes each.

After the shiatstorm they received when people heard about what happened to TWD, they called season 6 of BB part two of season 5.

I think in the Breaking Bad thing with Hardwick, Gillian refers to this season as "season 5 part two as the lawyers call it' or something to that effect.
 
2013-08-12 10:09:26 PM
"OMG! Apple ripped me off again! I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!"
 
2013-08-12 10:13:14 PM

Kaybeck: Mad_Radhu: AMC is the one that split the season, not Apple. The first half of the season is up on Netflix now, so it is very much separate from the half season that is currently airing. Doctor Who also did the same thing with their split seasons as well. As someone up thread mentioned, they basically charge you $3 per episode for HD with a small discount for the season pass, so it's not like they paid for 20 episodes.

They never split the season. It's PR bullshiat.

They lost the negotiations with Mad Men so to save money they cut Walking Dead's season 2 budget in half and reduced the episode order for Breaking Bad seasons 5 and 6 to eight episodes each.

After the shiatstorm they received when people heard about what happened to TWD, they called season 6 of BB part two of season 5.

I think in the Breaking Bad thing with Hardwick, Gillian refers to this season as "season 5 part two as the lawyers call it' or something to that effect.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-08-12 10:19:51 PM
tenpounds trolls entertainment threads now, too?

What an age we live in...
 
2013-08-12 10:30:02 PM
Jeebus, I just paid Amazon for the next eight episodes that were not included with last year's episodes. This isn't anything unique to Apple.
 
2013-08-12 10:34:36 PM
If you buy current TV on the internet does it end up costing more than cable? At $23 for 8 shows it seems like it might.
 
2013-08-12 10:44:36 PM
Hey, this is probably a good place to ask this question. When you purchase a season on Amazon VOD, do you pay for the season up front, or are you charged weekly? (Does that make sense?)
 
2013-08-12 10:47:18 PM
I haven't started watching this show yet... It's in my Netflix queue. Once the show's over entirely, I'll wait a while and then start watching it.

/Currently on Season 9 of X Files and the tail end of every 1970s SNL episode.
//I am still giving Under The Dome a chance, too.
 
2013-08-12 10:49:33 PM
I recently discovered that audiobooks bought through apple are a one-shot deal. Delete them? They're gone.  This is not the case with Amazon (via audible), or apple music.

Just mad that they don't mention that (surprise) anywhere.
 
2013-08-12 10:57:31 PM

ZeroCorpse: I haven't started watching this show yet... It's in my Netflix queue. Once the show's over entirely, I'll wait a while and then start watching it.


Definitely worth watching.  It takes a couple episodes to get started, but once it's moving, it becomes very addictive.

/can't wait to see what happens in the last seven episodes.
 
2013-08-12 11:02:19 PM

Dwight_Yeast: ZeroCorpse: I haven't started watching this show yet... It's in my Netflix queue. Once the show's over entirely, I'll wait a while and then start watching it.

Definitely worth watching.  It takes a couple episodes to get started, but once it's moving, it becomes very addictive.

/can't wait to see what happens in the last seven episodes.


Well, I like Cranston, so I'm sure I'll like the show. It helps that the fans are annoying pricks, too. I might be a bit more hesitant if the fans called themselves Breaking Baddies and obsessed about casting all the actors in every other show and movie ever mentioned while wearing Etsy-bought clothes that look like the ones worn by the Breaking Bad characters.

Luckily, the show's fans seem to be the sane variety.
 
2013-08-12 11:03:56 PM

EvilMonkeyBoy: tenpounds trolls entertainment threads now, too?

What an age we live in...


I think the crazies in the politics tab stopped responding to his even crazier ass, so he has to resort to trolling tabs that don't know he's a troll. Trolling what many consider the best show on TV is prime real estate for a troll like him, but it's too obvious.
 
2013-08-12 11:04:25 PM

gnosis301: This has been old news ever since I bought MLP season 3 last year.


a) season 3 was short because they wanted to reach the 65 episosde mark.
b) no one ever claimed there was gonna be a second half to season 3
corollary: season 4 is going to be the full 26 episodes and is labeled as such, rather than part of season 3.

that said, I think it's a dick move if your first season got you X number of episodes and the 2nd season got you half of that and you paid the same amount for both.
 
2013-08-12 11:13:28 PM
and this is typical of apple users wanting a handout.
 
2013-08-12 11:17:57 PM

dstrick44: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Pretty sure Apple isn't the one who decides how to package and sell them.

Apple doesn't package and market the products they sell? Really?
This is exactly why Apple will never see another thin dime from me.


He's actually correct. They don't make the call on anything but price (and even then that's arrived at through negotiations with the providers). The content provider determines how it will be packaged and sold. Apple simply has a license to sell the product they're given. Go ahead and check it out on Amazon, PSN, or wherever you buy season passes from. They're split up the exact same way because that's how AMC has decided they want it sold. Biatching at Apple and crossing your arms and pouting isn't going to change shiat any more than whining to your cable or satellite provider that your favorite show changed time slots will. You want to see a change? Start breathing down AMC's neck over them telling everyone that this is just season 5.5 but having their VOD providers treat it like a whole new season.

whatshisname: If you buy current TV on the internet does it end up costing more than cable? At $23 for 8 shows it seems like it might.


Depends on what you watch and which route you take. My TV portion of my cable bill was $150 alone (and that was for the basic package), so $1800 a year. The only shows I have to buy season passes for are The Walking Dead, Hell on Wheels, Bates Motel and Hannibal, so that's $125 for the year. Everything else I watch is available on Hulu Plus at $7 a month, so $84 a year. I already had two PS3s in my TV rooms to use Amazon and Hulu on and I also subscribe to Netflix to the tune of $96 a year, so my total TV expenditures for the year are $305. That's a $1500 a year savings. That's worth it to me.
 
2013-08-12 11:20:27 PM

Uzzah: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Good. The Brits do it this way, and it makes for better tv. Producers don't have to pad out 8 episodes worth of ideas to get to a 23-episode season, and shorter seasons means you can get a bigger variety of series on the air every year (meaning a better chance to find something good). I've been waiting for that broadcast model to catch on in the US for years, and it might finally be happening. The big networks will resist it for a while, but if AMC, FX, and the others can get acclaimed for 8-12 episode seasons of great quality tv, maybe the big boys will eventually fall in line.


The reason it works in the UK is because 1) they have fewer channels and 2) they can fill all the holes in there schedule with popular US shows to make up the difference. If a standard season of a show is going to be 14 episodes shorter you are going to need around 3 times as many TV shows to fill the same prime time schedule. And there just aren't that many good TV writers with that many good show ideas out there. Not to mention developing new scripted shows is super risky. All of which means you would see way more reality shows if this were to happen since they are way cheaper to develop (reality shows are also huge in the UK, they love Big Brother like crazy over there).
 
2013-08-12 11:25:59 PM

TheJoe03: EvilMonkeyBoy: tenpounds trolls entertainment threads now, too?

What an age we live in...

I think the crazies in the politics tab stopped responding to his even crazier ass, so he has to resort to trolling tabs that don't know he's a troll. Trolling what many consider the best show on TV is prime real estate for a troll like him, but it's too obvious.


He trolled The Walking Dead threads too (too violent, contributes to the violence of American culture, etc. derp derp).

To his credit, at least his persona in this tab fits the one he takes on in the politics tab.
 
2013-08-12 11:35:49 PM

Dwight_Yeast: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Heh.  You must not watch much UK-originated TV; Sherlock has been running three-episode seasons, and seasons of four or five aren't uncommon over there.


I don't think you can really count Sherlock in all this. It's not that they're putting out three episodes a year, it's that they're putting out three feature-length films a year. They just happen to be on TV.

(yeah, the extended break due to the Hobbit is annoying)

And it's a great format if the content is up to it. Red Riding is another one that needed to be done exactly the way it was done.
 
2013-08-12 11:43:20 PM

bambi121899: Hey, this is probably a good place to ask this question. When you purchase a season on Amazon VOD, do you pay for the season up front, or are you charged weekly? (Does that make sense?)


If you buy a season pass partway through the season, you get charged up front for the episodes that are already available (at the reduced rate), then charged for each subsequent episode as it becomes available (usually 8AM the next day).
 
2013-08-13 12:02:55 AM

rappy: Sock Ruh Tease: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

This. And since TV seasons normally coincide with the length of a season, that means we're going to get six seasons per year now: Winter, Wing, Spring, Summer, Autumn, Wintumn.

Thanks, Obama.

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense


What. The. F?
 
2013-08-13 12:23:16 AM

bingo the psych-o: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 362x500]

[images.starpulse.com image 580x352]

The precedent has been set for a while now.


The precedent is "content deliverer charging the old full-season price for just 8 episodes", not "a show taking a mid-season break".
 
2013-08-13 12:28:56 AM

Dwight_Yeast: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Heh.  You must not watch much UK-originated TV; Sherlock has been running three-episode seasons, and seasons of four or five aren't uncommon over there.

/still a bit pissed about only getting 8 episodes of Top Gear this summer.


Sorry, I thought we were talking about an American show. Yeah, I know that's how they do things in Britainland, but that doesn't mean it's how it has traditionally worked over here. Also, if the Brits charge $24 for 8 eps, that's just yet another crazy British habit that we shouldn't copy.
 
2013-08-13 12:35:32 AM
JUST CALL IT A NEW SEASON.

*i bought season 5 on Google Play, and am wondering how it will be handled.
 
2013-08-13 12:52:36 AM

MrEricSir: secularsage: ... it's just greedy to charge 2.99-3.99 for an episode of a show that's already paid for by advertisers before it airs.

Yeah... no. Most prime time TV shows would lose money if they had to be paid for based on ad sales of the first showing of each episode.


Citation needed, because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

The business model for broadcast television for the last 60-70 years has been "we produce programming and sell advertising to fund its broadcast." If a show is successful enough, selling the second-run or syndication rights allows for extra revenue, but that often goes to the production company and not the channel that originally aired the show.

Basic cable adds in one additional element - they collect modest fees from cable companies for their channels since they sell advertising for so much less.

In fact, DVD sales and digital sales were an afterthought until a few years ago -- the companies that actually produced the shows were reluctant to get into the game until they started seeing how well shows that were available were selling. Those became an additional revenue stream, but not part of the business model of the shows that air. Again, those funds largely go to the production companies (who are paid for their work when they'd producing the shows), not the channels airing them unless those channels have a production company producing original content.
 
2013-08-13 12:57:37 AM

kroonermanblack: I recently discovered that audiobooks bought through apple are a one-shot deal. Delete them? They're gone.  This is not the case with Amazon (via audible), or apple music.

Just mad that they don't mention that (surprise) anywhere.


Think that's bad, wait till next year. Apple signed a contract with Hypnotoad to erase all memories of purchased products from your brain when they've expired.
 
2013-08-13 12:59:45 AM

rugman11: Uzzah: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Good. The Brits do it this way, and it makes for better tv. Producers don't have to pad out 8 episodes worth of ideas to get to a 23-episode season, and shorter seasons means you can get a bigger variety of series on the air every year (meaning a better chance to find something good). I've been waiting for that broadcast model to catch on in the US for years, and it might finally be happening. The big networks will resist it for a while, but if AMC, FX, and the others can get acclaimed for 8-12 episode seasons of great quality tv, maybe the big boys will eventually fall in line.

I doubt that's going to become standard.  The only reason Breaking Bad is doing it is because Gilligan wanted to wrap it up in one season but AMC wanted two years.  So they did 16 episodes and split them in two.  There are a few networks experimenting in short-form television (Sundance and IFC notably), but for the most part, 13 episodes is as few as any ad-supported network is going to want to go.  And I'm actually okay with that.  The British model can be good at times, but I don't mind having more episodes.  It's not like shows can't put up good runs.  The US version of The Office had more great episodes than the entire UK run.  I guess I'm just willing to take the bad with the good.

So, TV Mini-Series are back?

cdn.aarp.net
 
2013-08-13 01:01:31 AM

rugman11: Uzzah: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Good. The Brits do it this way, and it makes for better tv. Producers don't have to pad out 8 episodes worth of ideas to get to a 23-episode season, and shorter seasons means you can get a bigger variety of series on the air every year (meaning a better chance to find something good). I've been waiting for that broadcast model to catch on in the US for years, and it might finally be happening. The big networks will resist it for a while, but if AMC, FX, and the others can get acclaimed for 8-12 episode seasons of great quality tv, maybe the big boys will eventually fall in line.

I doubt that's going to become standard.  The only reason Breaking Bad is doing it is because Gilligan wanted to wrap it up in one season but AMC wanted two years.  So they did 16 episodes and split them in two.  There are a few networks experimenting in short-form television (Sundance and IFC notably), but for the most part, 13 episodes is as few as any ad-supported network is going to want to go.  And I'm actually okay with that.  The British model can be good at times, but I don't mind having more episodes.  It's not like shows can't put up good runs.  The US version of The Office had more great episodes than the entire UK run.  I guess I'm just willing to take the bad with the good.


Nope, shorter seasons are becoming more common for cable dramas, especially ones that are more expensive to produce. For example, Falling Skies has had 3 ten episode seasons and Orphan Black had a 10 episode season. FX seems to be holding steady at 13 episode seasons, but I think you'll start seeing more 10 episode seasons like HBO does for Game of Thrones.
 
2013-08-13 01:06:06 AM

Mad_Radhu: rugman11: Uzzah: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Good. The Brits do it this way, and it makes for better tv. Producers don't have to pad out 8 episodes worth of ideas to get to a 23-episode season, and shorter seasons means you can get a bigger variety of series on the air every year (meaning a better chance to find something good). I've been waiting for that broadcast model to catch on in the US for years, and it might finally be happening. The big networks will resist it for a while, but if AMC, FX, and the others can get acclaimed for 8-12 episode seasons of great quality tv, maybe the big boys will eventually fall in line.

I doubt that's going to become standard.  The only reason Breaking Bad is doing it is because Gilligan wanted to wrap it up in one season but AMC wanted two years.  So they did 16 episodes and split them in two.  There are a few networks experimenting in short-form television (Sundance and IFC notably), but for the most part, 13 episodes is as few as any ad-supported network is going to want to go.  And I'm actually okay with that.  The British model can be good at times, but I don't mind having more episodes.  It's not like shows can't put up good runs.  The US version of The Office had more great episodes than the entire UK run.  I guess I'm just willing to take the bad with the good.

Nope, shorter seasons are becoming more common for cable dramas, especially ones that are more expensive to produce. For example, Falling Skies has had 3 ten episode seasons and Orphan Black had a 10 episode season. FX seems to be holding steady at 13 episode seasons, but I think you'll start seeing more 10 episode seasons like HBO does for Game of Thrones.




10 at 60 minutes each is great. Mini series length. Not shorter.
 
2013-08-13 01:16:29 AM
Dwight_Yeast:
Heh.  You must not watch much UK-originated TV; Sherlock has been running three-episode seasons, and seasons of four or five aren't uncommon over there.

dude, each episode is like an hour and a half long
 
2013-08-13 01:23:25 AM

secularsage: MrEricSir: secularsage: ... it's just greedy to charge 2.99-3.99 for an episode of a show that's already paid for by advertisers before it airs.

Yeah... no. Most prime time TV shows would lose money if they had to be paid for based on ad sales of the first showing of each episode.

Citation needed, because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

The business model for broadcast television for the last 60-70 years has been "we produce programming and sell advertising to fund its broadcast." If a show is successful enough, selling the second-run or syndication rights allows for extra revenue, but that often goes to the production company and not the channel that originally aired the show.

Basic cable adds in one additional element - they collect modest fees from cable companies for their channels since they sell advertising for so much less.

In fact, DVD sales and digital sales were an afterthought until a few years ago -- the companies that actually produced the shows were reluctant to get into the game until they started seeing how well shows that were available were selling. Those became an additional revenue stream, but not part of the business model of the shows that air. Again, those funds largely go to the production companies (who are paid for their work when they'd producing the shows), not the channels airing them unless those channels have a production company producing original content.


Ad sales are a fickle business, and producing a good show costs money. Some shows make up the difference on DVD sales but the real cash cow is syndication.

Anyway there's far more details about how television shows are financed over on good ol' Wikipedia.
 
2013-08-13 01:37:36 AM

Plant Rights Activist: Dwight_Yeast:
Heh.  You must not watch much UK-originated TV; Sherlock has been running three-episode seasons, and seasons of four or five aren't uncommon over there.

dude, each episode is like an hour and a half long


Yup.  They made a decision: they could do 9 mediocre one-hour episodes or three movie-length good ones.  Believe it or not, it was the BBC that pushed the production team in that direction; it's also let them sell it to PBS as part of Mystery!

But my point was that you never hear people complain that we only got four episodes of Morse a series, or that Poirot has been produced almost at random since 1988.
 
2013-08-13 01:44:58 AM
Ooohhh, let's pretend this is Apple's fault, and it doesn't happen at Amazon, etc., and that it hasn't been going on for at least a few years now, and that the half-seasons aren't cheaper than other shows that sell full season passes.

Farktards.
 
2013-08-13 02:13:55 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Ooohhh, let's pretend this is Apple's fault, and it doesn't happen at Amazon, etc., and that it hasn't been going on for at least a few years now, and that the half-seasons aren't cheaper than other shows that sell full season passes.

Farktards.




Just say no.
 
2013-08-13 02:29:00 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Ooohhh, let's pretend this is Apple's fault, and it doesn't happen at Amazon, etc., and that it hasn't been going on for at least a few years now, and that the half-seasons aren't cheaper than other shows that sell full season passes.

Farktards.


If you're paying more than $24 for the ability to watch one (actual) season of a show on your computer, then I think we all know who the farktard is.
 
2013-08-13 02:39:37 AM

untaken_name: 100 Watt Walrus: Ooohhh, let's pretend this is Apple's fault, and it doesn't happen at Amazon, etc., and that it hasn't been going on for at least a few years now, and that the half-seasons aren't cheaper than other shows that sell full season passes.

Farktards.

If you're paying more than $24 for the ability to watch one (actual) season of a show on your computer, then I think we all know who the farktard is.


Not necessarily arguing that point. It depends on the show. I pay Amazon $1.89 (or something like that) per episode to see "Doctor Who" a few hours after it airs because I've been a "Who" fanatic since childhood. But then, I don't have cable, and since "Doctor Who" is the  only show I do this for, I'd say that's $20-something well spent (per series), since I'm not spending twice that every month for hundreds of thousands of episodes of other things I'd never watch anyway.
 
2013-08-13 03:10:13 AM

bingo the psych-o: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 362x500]

[images.starpulse.com image 580x352]

The precedent has been set for a while now.


(for the first pic)All this has happened before...

(and the second)... oh Cock!
 
2013-08-13 03:26:12 AM

kroonermanblack: This is not the case with Amazon (via audible), or apple music.


It's the case with Apple music if they lose their distribution deal before you want to download it again (which used to happen all the time but is less frequent these days), and before that all iTunes purchases were one-shot. I suspect Amazon and Audible are similar, but they don't comment on future availability so it's hard to say. In general though, while you may be able to re-download some content on some services, none of them guarantee the indefinite availability of any content, so you should keep your own backups of all content.

/ The policy still sucks, and Apple should do better
// Just saying it's complicated all around due to copyright wankery
 
2013-08-13 04:13:34 AM

blakeosage: People still pay to download new movies and new TV shows from the interwebs?

Huh?  How about that?


You are not cool because you are a criminal.

/ stop living in the nineties and PAY for what you enjoy like a productive member of society.
 
2013-08-13 07:22:51 AM
Yeah, be cool like I look fat and take it up the bum from the corporations! Then you too can feel smug in your righteousness, no matter how ill-placed it may be.
 
2013-08-13 07:33:19 AM
Call me crazy, but when you buy a season of shows, shouldn't it tell you how many shows you are paying for? The distributors of the shows should know how many episodes are going to air. If the show is cancelled, etc. then the distributor can then refund a portion of the 'season pass' they issued.
 
2013-08-13 08:10:17 AM

Dinobot: gnosis301: This has been old news ever since I bought MLP season 3 last year.

a) season 3 was short because they wanted to reach the 65 episosde mark.
b) no one ever claimed there was gonna be a second half to season 3
corollary: season 4 is going to be the full 26 episodes and is labeled as such, rather than part of season 3.

that said, I think it's a dick move if your first season got you X number of episodes and the 2nd season got you half of that and you paid the same amount for both.


I know that. The first 7 episodes were one purchase.  The second half was another purchase.
 
2013-08-13 08:14:16 AM

baorao: My Amazon VOD didn't resume season pass on these last 8 episodes. But I knew I was going to pay for the either way


Yes, same here, but it's the same per episode price, so it's not a big deal.
 
2013-08-13 09:18:13 AM

Mad_Radhu: rugman11: Uzzah: untaken_name: So...I guess we're gonna see 8-episode "seasons" of popular shows more often now. They're not mistaken. They're trying to set a precedent.

Good. The Brits do it this way, and it makes for better tv. Producers don't have to pad out 8 episodes worth of ideas to get to a 23-episode season, and shorter seasons means you can get a bigger variety of series on the air every year (meaning a better chance to find something good). I've been waiting for that broadcast model to catch on in the US for years, and it might finally be happening. The big networks will resist it for a while, but if AMC, FX, and the others can get acclaimed for 8-12 episode seasons of great quality tv, maybe the big boys will eventually fall in line.

I doubt that's going to become standard.  The only reason Breaking Bad is doing it is because Gilligan wanted to wrap it up in one season but AMC wanted two years.  So they did 16 episodes and split them in two.  There are a few networks experimenting in short-form television (Sundance and IFC notably), but for the most part, 13 episodes is as few as any ad-supported network is going to want to go.  And I'm actually okay with that.  The British model can be good at times, but I don't mind having more episodes.  It's not like shows can't put up good runs.  The US version of The Office had more great episodes than the entire UK run.  I guess I'm just willing to take the bad with the good.

Nope, shorter seasons are becoming more common for cable dramas, especially ones that are more expensive to produce. For example, Falling Skies has had 3 ten episode seasons and Orphan Black had a 10 episode season. FX seems to be holding steady at 13 episode seasons, but I think you'll start seeing more 10 episode seasons like HBO does for Game of Thrones.


But you're talking about three extremely fx-heavy shows.  10 episodes seems to be the "test-phase" order for some cable networks (especially TNT and TBS), but for successful shows, they usually still want more.  Look at Major Crimes and Perception (both TNT shows).  They both had 10-episode first seasons but got renewed for 13 before being expanded to 19 and 14 episodes, respectively.  Subscription networks like HBO might be more flexible, but for the most part, more is always going to be better for networks, unless they're looking for a scheduling hole or a programming niche to fill.
 
kab
2013-08-13 11:22:11 AM
If only there were an alternative means to watching shows like this.
 
2013-08-13 12:29:22 PM
It says on the box which episodes are included.  It says in the reviews which episodes are included.  It says in the product description which episodes are included.  It says anywhere you want to look on the internet which episodes are included.  What is NOT included in the iTunes download of Season 5 is the brain power you'd need to understand that you get exactly what you paid for and nothing more.  You have to supply that yourself.
 
2013-08-13 01:32:40 PM

theflatline: and this is typical of apple users wanting a handout.


How else are they going to afford their bowler caps and skinny jeans?
 
2013-08-13 03:34:04 PM
Splitting a season only works if they are self-contained stories. I like the BBC model of 4, 90 minute episodes for Sherlock and Luther as a season vs what we got here.

Now I'm going to be on the outs with this, but other than Star Trek and Walt and Hank at the end I thought this episode blew. I don't think the episode was bad, but so much time had passed I'm out of loop with the characters that I can see through Walt's fakeness immediately and thought: "He's done this 83 times before." I wonder if it'll speed up-which I'm sure it will. If too much time passes, I stop caring about the story.
 
2013-08-13 09:51:03 PM
i cant be the only one who pays for cable tv and then gets his rips from PB ....still ...24$ ?! lol
 
2013-08-13 10:52:14 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Pretty sure Apple isn't the one who decides how to package and sell them.


Oh really. This product not withstanding it seems I have read a few thousand words about that recently. They may even be in about a half billion bucks worth of trouble over a related issue. But yeah, probably not in this case.
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report