Let’s Try a (Scheduled) Time for Every Season

If you build it, they will come back. . . .

As I turned on my television set earlier this month, I was greeted by advertisements for network series. They were touting the amazing fact that there would be new episodes of my favorite shows played for four consecutive weeks. “Wow!” I exclaimed. But as I sat down on my couch, I wondered why this was such an extraordinary

feat. Shouldn’t this be the norm rather than something to shout about?

I remember a similar promotional campaign in February. When George Clooney was leaving “ER,” there was an advertising blitz that shouted to the rafters that there would be four all-new episodes of “ER.” By the end of the month, “ER” was enjoying its highest ratings of the season.

Was this all because of Clooney’s leaving? Certainly he was a big draw to the show, and I, for one, was sad to see him leave. But there might be an additional reason. Perhaps the ratings were so high because by the end of February, with a string of new episodes, people had again made “ER” part of their weekly routines.

Unfortunately, this new-show bonanza was followed by two months of reruns. After the lull in original programming, “ER” and the rest of the NBC Thursday night roster returned April 29, only to register the network’s lowest rating for an all-original lineup on that night in nearly five years. But what do the networks expect from their viewers when original episodes are played in such a hit or miss fashion?

Though I seem to be singling out NBC, it is certainly not the only offender. Every network has done the same thing, right down to the WB’s “New Tuesday,” an ironic title during the last two months of reruns.

To the networks complaining about their shrinking viewership, I offer this advice: Show some consistency. You must again make the shows you air part of our weekly routine. To make us tune in on a regular basis, we have to know that there will be something original to watch.

I understand the reasons that the television season has evolved into the mess that it is. There are 52 weeks in the year and only 22 episodes of a given series. Simple math shows that the number of new episodes covers less than half the year (just over 42%, if you want to get technical). If this is the case, then why does the television season stretch from September to May (about 75% of the year)? Simple logic suggests that we need to create a new concept of the television season.

*

That being the case, I have a suggestion for a new format. Beginning in the fall, the traditional start of the TV season, break the year into four three-month seasons:

October, November, December: “Season A.”

January, February, March: “Season B.”

April, May, June: “Season C.”

July, August, September: “Season D.”

*

Using NBC’s Thursday night lineup as an example, “ER” might play 11 episodes in Season A and 11 episodes in Season C. During Season B and Season D, NBC could rerun these batches of “ER.” “Friends” and “Frasier,” on the other hand, might air 10 original programs in Season A and 12 during Season B, and show reruns in Season C and Season D.

This system allows for flexibility while creating some much-needed consistency. This would spread new programming throughout the current television season while avoiding confusing, inconsistent scheduling. Viewers could finally get back into a routine because they would finally know when original episodes would air.

Imagine: There could be two cliffhangers in one year. There would be no need for the term “mid-season replacement”; it would simply be a new season’s show. Airing 10 episodes during a three-month season also allows for some flexibility for special events such as the World Series or the occasional miniseries.

This system would even bring some order to the rerun schedule. Currently, reruns are shown in no particular order. If you miss a certain episode during the regular season, you never know when it might air again, if ever. With a four-season year, you would. And allowing a batch of 10 or 12 episodes to be rebroadcast in sequence could raise the viewership of reruns as well.

Look, I am just a frustrated television viewer tired of searching the TV listings to see if there are new shows airing this week. I do not claim to have all the answers, and there might be a much better system than the one I propose. All I know is that there has to be a better way to organize television than the frustrating, unpredictable method they’re using now.

John Messitt is a director of photography and screenwriter with a masters degree in cinematography from the American Film Institute.