"TV Rules": Or Things That Ought To Be Rules

[Kromm]

I got to thinking about this tonight in a topic about the 4th season renewal for The Goldbergs. I was really happy for the show, and looking forward to a 4th season, but started musing about how they'd better make the best of it, because every comedy I know goes to shit if they go past 5 seasons. So I found myself hoping that the show has the sense to call it a day... in 2 seasons. Do Season 4, get their one more renewal, and then go bye-bye before the show starts sucking.

That's just my observation--that [TV rule]: sitcoms shouldn't last more than 5 seasons. Not that funny is impossible after 5, just that it's a case of diminishing returns (and IMO can hurt the legacy of the show). It's a "rule" only in my head. If I was going to diddle around with caveats, I'd add that this supposes 5 typical 20-22 episode seasons (so between 100 to 110 episodes), and admittedly a lot of shows  have 13 episode orders fooling with that kind of accounting, but just to be punchier, a rule saying "no more than 5 seasons" is breezier than "no more than approximately 100 to 110 episodes".

 

I think we all have "TV Rules" like this and could have some fun airing them out here. Seriously, or jokingly, or however you feel about a particular "rule". Go wide on this. It can be about anything. Actor salaries. Showrunners. Mary Sues/Stus. Breakout characters. Product Placement. Anything.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Kromm

[Raja]

Cops who shoot 23 people a year should not suddenly have one very special episode because oh my God I killed somebody

[Shannon L.]

Some character development is fine.  It's a good thing--people do grow and change.  However, no show should be allowed to take a certain aspect of one character's persona and turn them into a caricature of themselves.  Mean people should not turn into raving lunatics.  Dimwits should not become dumb as stumps.  Smart, but somewhat preachy people should not become holier-than-though with superiority complexes.  Etc, etc, etc. 

[legaleagle53]

I got to thinking about this tonight in a topic about the 4th season renewal for The Goldbergs. I was really happy for the show, and looking forward to a 4th season, but started musing about how they'd better make the best of it, because every comedy I know goes to shit if they go past 5 seasons. So I found myself hoping that the show has the sense to call it a day... in 2 seasons. Do Season 4, get their one more renewal, and then go bye-bye before the show starts sucking.

That's just my observation--that [TV rule]: sitcoms shouldn't last more than 5 seasons. Not that funny is impossible after 5, just that it's a case of diminishing returns (and IMO can hurt the legacy of the show). It's a "rule" only in my head. If I was going to diddle around with caveats, I'd add that this supposes 5 typical 20-22 episode seasons (so between 100 to 110 episodes), and admittedly a lot of shows  have 13 episode orders fooling with that kind of accounting, but just to be punchier, a rule saying "no more than 5 seasons" is breezier than "no more than approximately 100 to 110 episodes"..

 

So at what point should Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons have packed it in under this rule?  

[cpcathy]

We've gotten a lot of great TV episodes after year five, but frankly, if you're the creator/network/whatever of a show and you know your show is limping along (looking at you, Office!) do the audience a favor and let it end gracefully. Four seasons of crap really do ruin the good vibes of a show that was once great.

[merylinkid]

All shows should have a 5 year plan ala Babylon 5.   Story arcs at least generally sketched out, character development indicated, etc.    No making it up as you go along.   

[blueray]

I would say sci-fi or fantasy type shows should have 7 seasons and no more, less is okay if done right. That seems to be a great number for those type of shows. It allows for great character development and story lines, without the show getting repetitive or decrease in quality of episodes. As shows such as DS9 and TNG prove. Sure shows like Sg-1 had great episodes in it's last few seasons, but it for the most part wasn't as good as it was in previous seasons. Take  a show such as Charmed, season 8 did suck lol and the show would have been great going out after seven.  It also provides a great number of episodes to rewatch, assuming that each season is around 22 episodes. And of course this is assuming that networks do not cancel shows before their time.

Edited March 7, 2016 by blueray

[Kromm]

So at what point should Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons have packed it in under this rule?  

SNL isn't a sitcom.

 

The Simpsons is, and arguably HAS gone on far too long, but it HAS had the benefit of not really maintaining strict continuity between episodes. While they do sometimes loosely refer back to events in earlier episodes in later ones, for the most part there's a reset each episode.

 

Actually The Goldbergs almost does this too. But unlike The Simpsons the actors age. So they can't really infinitely suspend it in time. The Simpsons could--and so then what got old eventually were the ideas, and that took longer.

[Kromm]

How about this: Don't Try To Pull A Chuck Cunningham On Your Viewers.

 

It's understandable that actors might leave, or a concept change, or some other situation where a character has to be sent away. But don't insult the audience's intelligence with it. 

 

For example, does anyone remember that the Winslow family on Family Matters had an extra kid who just... disappeared?  Look it up. Someone decided that to pay Jaleel White's bloated salary, they had to ditch a character. Poor Judy Winslow (look her up! I swear she existed) simply went bye bye. In fact, it's one of the sad stories of the TV industry--the kid actress went broke and eventually went into porn. No joke.  On the show I believe they just inferred she was always around a corner somewhere or some BS like that.

 

Someone's SIBLING, be it Chuck C. or Judy W, going away and never showing up again (or even being mentioned) is the ultimate example of this ridiculousness, but even in lesser forms this shouldn't be done. 

 

Normally rather than a tough explanation like a sibling, it's going to be a boss character, a neighbor, a teacher or school principal, a sibling not of the main character or family but of a lesser character, etc. And my "rule" is that however tough it is you HAVE to explain their absence. No ignoring them, not by acting like he never existed in the first place like happened with ol' Chuck, or by stopping mentioning them but leaving people to come to their own conclusions about where else in that small house they might be (like with Judy Winslow). I'd even say that if you can't control the boss, neighbor, teacher, principal type characters being gone without an on-screen goodbye (the best way to do it), then you at least need to name-check them. But disappearing family members?  Frankly... I don't know what can be done with them other than to kill them. Which is tough on a sitcom, admittedly. I suppose if it were a rich family you could imply boarding school.... and have them on the other end of a phone line (with the viewers not hearing that end) but really? Probably not. And getting back to the originator of this nonsense, Chuck... if they pissed off the actor who played him by not wanting to pay him enough to show up maybe once every few years, then they simply should have recast the role. Easy peasy. Chuck lives in... lets say... New York and only flies in for every few Christmases. Right? But don't ignore him. We SAW him. With a grown up sibling they could do that. Fuller House is doing that right now with Michelle (younger sibling but an adult now living elsewhere), although it won't feel lame until we just miss seeing her for two or three full seasons. But at least they mention Michelle. They haven't Chuck Cunninghamed her (at least until the point where it gets ludicrous that we haven't seen her, and as I said that's years off).

Edited March 7, 2016 by Kromm

[Guest]

Several related to methods for generating attention for a show.

 

[tv rule] Mass murder and many lesser crimes are not redeemable.

 

I get it showrunners.  You want the drama.  You want the buzz.  But with the buzz comes the saw.  In your gut, you know you are playing with fire and want to throw up a little, but you are like a little kid pulling pigtails.  Any attention you get is desirable even if its negative.  You'll convince yourself you can write your story in a way that its the only logical conclusion.  You didn't and Its not.  You think you'll be hailed as edgy and daring.  Yeah, not going to happen.  You think you are good enough to redeem the character responsible for these heinous crimes. Well you aren't.  So you decide to use a fan favorite to commit atrocities because viewers will accept anything not to lose their favorite.  Dumbass.  Now you've got the audience in three camps 1) pissed off,  2) completely disassociating because of OOC behavior, and 3) no longer watching.    Exhibits A-C The 100 (Bellamy), OUAT (Regina), and Scandal (everyone). 

 

[tv rule] Every cliffhanger must be bigger than the last one, so limit them to once a season

Madame Secretary, I refuse to believe that the number of assassination attempts, wars, and nuclear terrorist attacks in half a season wouldn't result in you being fired.

[Mulva]

If you want me to like a character, kindly make them likeable from the get-go. Don't write them as nasty, hostile, unprofessional, rude, etc., and expect me to ever like them. No, completely rewriting the character many episodes later doesn't work. Also don't complain that the viewers are either dumb or meanyheads because they don't like your awful character.

All children must age one year per season and at the same rate. No having the baby turn into a six year old while the others stay the same age or the oldest is a 10th grader for four years.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Mulva

[Kromm]

All children must age one year per season and at the same rate. No having the baby turn into a six year old while the others stay the same age or the oldest is a 10th grader for four years.

The only caveat to that would be if it's some kind of rare reality breaking comedy without real continuity and its done tongue in cheek. A total over the top farce would be necessary probably.

 

Not that I've ever seen that happen specifically with TV kids as that kind of joke, but in Movie Terms I never forget the way the ages of the Griswold kids randomly jumped around (and I mean in relation to each other) over the course of the Vacation movies.

 

That said, most sitcoms aren't working as farces.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

So you decide to use a fan favorite to commit atrocities because viewers will accept anything not to lose their favorite.  Dumbass.  Now you've got the audience in three camps 1) pissed off,  2) completely disassociating because of OOC behavior, and 3) no longer watching.    Exhibits A-C The 100 (Bellamy), OUAT (Regina), and Scandal (everyone).

 

Unfortunately there is a fourth camp - fans who will find excuses for each and every atrocity their favourite character commits. Their number is in close correlation with the perceived hotness of said character. But I really wish showrunners obeyed the rule of no redemption for mass murder. It sounds so obvious and simple, right?

 

 

sitcoms shouldn't last more than 5 seasons

 

I will go one step further and say no show should last for more than 5 seasons, unless the seasons consist of only a few episodes each. I have yet to watch a show that doesn't experience sharp decline in quality after season five at the very latest. In fact the only one, in my viewing experience, the show that came closest to avoiding this decline was a sitcom, namely Friends. Sure, the characterization was terrible in the latter seasons but I still found most of the jokes funny.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Jack Shaftoe

[bmasters9]

If you want me to like a character, kindly make them likeable from the get-go. Don't write them as nasty, hostile, unprofessional, rude, etc., and expect me to ever like them. 

This is what the title character of Barney Miller was written like (or at least I remember Barney so being written), and this is why I was with Barney Miller throughout its run (seeing it all from Shout!'s full-series release); not to leave out of course that Hal Linden brought him across very well. 

[cpcathy]

If a TV family sends a kid away for college, he needs to stay there! No coming back and hanging out and then no explanation as to why he's not in school.

[Kromm]

Unfortunately there is a fourth camp - fans who will find excuses for each and every atrocity their favourite character commits. Their number is in close correlation with the perceived hotness of said character. But I really wish showrunners obeyed the rule of no redemption for mass murder. It sounds so obvious and simple, right?

I have a better rule.

 

[TV Rule]: If a character is supposed to be the good guy... never have them, even under some altered state, commit an atrocity.

 

I mean unless it's a show that lives in gray on purpose, where it's deliberately an antihero, or a villain who's the protagonist, because those are different things. But lets say you have a character... for the sake of convenience lets call him "Jim Gordon". Jim is a good guy, the straight arrow, according to a whole mythology. You can show him tempted--that's just making a show. But if you have him do something unforgivable? It's unforgivable. So don't have him do it. You're writing this--you the showrunner/writer--so there's no excuse the story backed you into a corner. 

 

Now depending on the show and character, mere killing is not always an atrocity. Even murder isn't if you are lets say... a character who's a spy. Or a Vampire. Well, unless it's supposed to be a nice, reformed Vampire, Whatever. The point is who your character is supposed to be in his universe, and what he's representing to the viewing audience.

 

On a lesser scale, this applies to characters and ANY kind of status quo attempt at a shock, then a "reset". Resets are bullshit. Wait maybe that's a rule too...

 

[TV Rule]: Resets Are Bullshit.

If a TV family sends a kid away for college, he needs to stay there! No coming back and hanging out and then no explanation as to why he's not in school.

I came back home from college. Don't most people?  It depends on the distance I guess.

[Winter Rose]

Obviously not every couple on a show is going to work out and yes, some breakups are bad. But I don't think every time a couple breaks up that it's necessary for the writers to then trash everything they had together. I find this especially true for shows that either have a love triangle or where the couple the writers like is different from the couple that the fans want. How about instead of trashing the competition to make their favorite couple the lesser of two evils, writers actually let their preferred couple stand on its own merits.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I have a better rule.

 

[TV Rule]: If a character is supposed to be the good guy... never have them, even under some altered state, commit an atrocity.

 

I mean unless it's a show that lives in gray on purpose, where it's deliberately an antihero, or a villain who's the protagonist, because those are different things. But lets say you have a character... for the sake of convenience lets call him "Jim Gordon". Jim is a good guy, the straight arrow, according to a whole mythology. You can show him tempted--that's just making a show. But if you have him do something unforgivable? It's unforgivable. So don't have him do it. You're writing this--you the showrunner/writer--so there's no excuse the story backed you into a corner. 

 

Now depending on the show and character, mere killing is not always an atrocity. Even murder isn't if you are lets say... a character who's a spy. Or a Vampire. Well, unless it's supposed to be a nice, reformed Vampire, Whatever. The point is who your character is supposed to be in his universe, and what he's representing to the viewing audience.

 

As a corollary to this rule, I think there should be a rule where if a character behaves like a tool, he/she should apologize later, then try not to be a tool in the future. Expressing remorse for killing someone is one thing, but garden-variety toolish behavior i also something that merits a sincere apology, and someone else being a tool does not justify or excuse you being a tool in return.

[Kromm]

As a corollary to this rule, I think there should be a rule where if a character behaves like a tool, he/she should apologize later, then try not to be a tool in the future. Expressing remorse for killing someone is one thing, but garden-variety toolish behavior i also something that merits a sincere apology, and someone else being a tool does not justify or excuse you being a tool in return.

Only to the extent that someone would in real life. I mean there are people who in real life never apologize for anything. That said, if a character is supposed to represent "the good guy" to us onscreen, you'd think he wouldn't be one of those people.

 

I suppose there's also the non-apology apologies. What we might otherwise call "the grand gesture". It's a staple of fiction (not just TV) to have someone do something to illustrate an apology and then not have them actually say the words.

[Sandman87]

All shows should have a 5 year plan ala Babylon 5.   Story arcs at least generally sketched out, character development indicated, etc.    No making it up as you go along.   

This is close to an opinion that I've had for quite some time: All of the episode scripts for a season of any scripted show must be complete before that season's production may start. Last minute tweaks and minor rewrites would be ok since the real world often intrudes, but have it all down before the first frame of footage gets shot. This would tend to reduce the "making it up" and "too many writers muddling the arcs" factors, but would still allow for changes in direction on a season by season basis if inspiration suddenly strikes.

 

An exception can be made for soap operas, since they basically recycle the same plots over and over.

[Guest]

All shows should have a 5 year plan ala Babylon 5.   Story arcs at least generally sketched out, character development indicated, etc.    No making it up as you go along.

Or at the very least, if you don't have a 5 year plan then don't put it in the opening credits that there is a plan and the have an episode podcast emphasizing the degree of flying by the seat of your pants...BSG.

Then there are the shows with 5 year plans that are in season 11....Supernatural.

[magicdog]

[TV Rule]:  If a character or characters of a show (sitcoms in particular) have major life changes occur as a storyline (won the lottery, hired for their dream job, admitted to their dream college, etc.) please stick with it, rather than have some silly reason derail it (lost the ticket!  The job/school will take me away from my friends/family).

 

I'm so sick of plots in which writers don't go through with their own set ups. Roseanne seemed to be one of the few which clung to its storyline of winning the lottery.... until the finale.

 

[tv rule] Every cliffhanger must be bigger than the last one, so limit them to once a season

 

 

[TV Rule]: No season finales may end on a cliffhanger.  Viewers of mainstream TV shows don't like to wait more than a week to find out what happened.  Exemption being shows available for downloading/binge watching.  Other times the season finale could turn into a series finale and nothing gets wrapped up.

 

[TV Rule]:  Don't tease you audience too long.  The Pretender was a good show in its early seasons but instead of getting to something substantial (peeling an onion to get to its layers and complexity - you end up with nothing but more questions than answers and you peeled the onion down to nothing).

 

All shows should have a 5 year plan ala Babylon 5.   Story arcs at least generally sketched out, character development indicated, etc.    No making it up as you go along.

 

 

100% agreed!

[ChromaKelly]

Stop with full-scale redemption arcs. It's tired and it's unbelievable. I like my villains to be villains. Along those lines, stop with the Bad Guy is a Bad Guy because of a shitty childhood.

[Sandman87]

Shifting to news shows: No one on a TV news show should be allowed to make puns. I'm absolutely sick of hearing the same damn stupid puns over and over and over and over: Doing a story about a bear? I guarantee that they'll find a way to work "bear-ly" into it. Stories about cats always lead to "purr-fect" or "the cat's meow." A dispute involving one of the breweries in our area always makes them "hopp-ing mad." And people wonder why I prefer the BBC news...

[Shannon L.]

 

Shifting to news shows: No one on a TV news show should be allowed to make puns. I'm absolutely sick of hearing the same damn stupid puns over and over and over and over: Doing a story about a bear? I guarantee that they'll find a way to work "bear-ly" into it. Stories about cats always lead to "purr-fect" or "the cat's meow." A dispute involving one of the breweries in our area always makes them "hopp-ing mad." And people wonder why I prefer the BBC news...

They must also stop replacing part of a word for....whatever reason they do it (to drive home a point? To be cute?)....ex. Marco-mentum or [something]-gate.

 

Edited March 15, 2016 by Shannon L.

[Kromm]

They must also stop replacing part of a word for....whatever reason they do it (to drive home a point? To be cute?)....ex. Marco-mentum or [something]-gate.

One of the late night shows (and I don't even recall which) had some recent riff I DO vaguely recall about newspeople putting "Trump" in front of words.

 

Hmm, I THINK it may have been @midnight as part of one of their games, but I won't swear to it.

[Winter Rose]

I think shows need to lay off the "come full circle" endings. If the characters end in the same place they started, or the setting suggests after however many years that things are back to what they were before, I don't see the point in me watching passed the pilot. I'm not saying shows should forget where they came from but as years go by, I want to see characters moving forward and developing. I feel cheated when character development goes to waste for the sake of doing a callback to the beginning.

[proserpina65]

I think shows need to lay off the "come full circle" endings. If the characters end in the same place they started, or the setting suggests after however many years that things are back to what they were before, I don't see the point in me watching passed the pilot. I'm not saying shows should forget where they came from but as years go by, I want to see characters moving forward and developing. I feel cheated when character development goes to waste for the sake of doing a callback to the beginning.

Callbacks to the beginning are acceptable only when they're used to show how much characters have changed and grown.  Otherwise, I'm totally with you on this one.

[Snow Apple]

Stop breaking up a couple just because you don't know how to write interesting stories about happy couples, so you break them up to create lame drama.

[Shannon L.]

Reality tv rules (especially reality game shows):
 

1. Stop recruiting people who are so over the top that they are obviously acting.  Try to get people who are genuine and sincere in their behavior (but, you are forgivin if one slips by you).

2. No more producer manipulation and keeping the pain the ass contestants around for the sake of drama.

3. Watch a season or two of Face Off and take note:  it's successful without the fighting and nastiness between contestants.  They even...*gasp*...help each other!  omg!  It's much more pleasant to watch that way.

[merylinkid]

Stop cramming characters down the viewer's throats just because the writers fell in love with the character/actor.   

 

I've had two of my favorite shows RUINED because the writers/showrunners/whoever decided that a certain female character was just the awesome awesomest whoever awesomed to the point they took over the show.   To the point the show became about them instead of, you know the premise of the show.    Person of Interest decided that a textbook psychopath who said people were "bad code" somehow became the moral conscience of the show.   A show that was doing just fine in the moral conscience department btw given the premise of the show:  There is no such thing as an irrelevant person, we all matter.   Now juxtapose that premise with the thinking of the who became the moral conscience.    Then there is a Grimm.   A nice little show about a cop who finds out fairy tales are real.   Except now its all about the cop's girlfriend and her angst.    

 

Just stop it.   

[ganesh]

All of this sounds like what I call, "know the show you have. it might and probably is different than the show you want." Keep asking yourself that all the time. Hire someone to do it. Also, TPTBs, don't bother getting online to explain to me what I just watched. I stopped listening to you years ago.

 

Good example: Sleepy Hollow. S2 wasn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be. TPTBs wanted to have a show about Crane family drama, but what they had was a show about Abbie and Crane fighting monsters. So, they killed off the wife and ended S2 with a soft reset. 

 

Bad example: Big Love. Sorry, TPTBs, you can shout from the top of the mountain about an LDS polygamous family lioving openly is the same as gay people being able to live freely in modern society, but that wasn't the show that aired even remotely. 

[Guest]

They must also stop replacing part of a word for....whatever reason they do it (to drive home a point? To be cute?)....ex. Marco-mentum or [something]-gate.

 

And if you are going do be cute, don't think that you named a thing and viewers think its relevant.  I banned a local news program from my viewing because they described a coming storm as more like Snowpocalypse than Snowmageddon and expected me to know what they were talking about.

[Shannon L.]

 

And if you are going do be cute, don't think that you named a thing and viewers think its relevant.  I banned a local news program from my viewing because they described a coming storm as more like Snowpocalypse than Snowmageddon and expected me to know what they were talking about.

The only time I found it funny was last year during what was supposed to be the snow storm of the century in NYC.  They were talking about it for days and every reporter flooded NYC for the big event.  John Stewart's people captioned the story with something like "Stormapocalypsageddon!" and went on to describe how it kind of fizzled out to nothing in the end.

[Raja]

When syndication packages are sold crossover episodes from other series must be included and aired in order so you don't get half of a story

[Shannon L.]

For movies playing on tv:    Most really popular ones have scenes that everyone knows and most of time, they wait for them. When you either cut it out or cut it in half, it's going to make loyal fans angry.  Ex.  In the movie Hocus Pocus, everyone knows Sarah Jessica Parker's character says "amok, amok, amok!".  Not the most important scene, true, but still on that is associated with the movie.  Why oh why was it necessary to cut it out just as she's about to say that?  It would be like cutting Jaws just as he's about to say "We're going to need a bigger boat.".  And while I can't think of specifics right now, I've seen plenty of older tv shows in syndication where small, but important scenes were cut out altogether.

 

And one more about editing (back to big screen movies playing on tv)  Boogie Nights?  Zach and Miri Make a Porno?  Please stop.  There's way too much that needs to be cut out and dubbed over for it to be worth the time to watch it. Although, I guess if you've never seen it before, you won't know the difference, but still.....

[Raja]

I remember Predator airing without " I ain't got time to bleed"

[BW Manilowe]

When syndication packages are sold crossover episodes from other series must be included and aired in order so you don't get half of a story

Seriously! There's at least 1 Law & Order case I've never seen the end of because it was a crossover ep with, like, Homicide: Life on the Street or another L&O franchise show (I only watch the original), & each part only airs in syndication as an episode of the show it was originally filmed for.

And I think the show that had the 2nd part of the case isn't even in syndication right now. I'm not even sure the DVDs of the shows with that story included both parts of it.

And, Hawaii Five-0 & NCIS Los Angeles did a crossover in 2012, near the end of what was then H50's 2nd season & NCIS Los Angeles' 3rd season.

In syndication, you only get each show's half of the story & you have to watch the other show for the other half--just as when CBS aired it.

But... If you buy the season DVD set involved for each show, the producers (or whomever) kindly worked it out so that you get both halves of the story on 1 set, regardless of which 1 you buy (H50's or NCISLA's). And I really appreciated that.

You don't have to buy the DVDs for both shows to get the whole crossover story, you can buy the set for whichever 1 you like (if you don't like both) & still get the whole story. The part of the story from the other show is usually considered an "extra" (like all the commentaries & the behind the scenes videos, etc.) on the DVDs in which it appears.

Edited March 27, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[roseha]

When syndication packages are sold crossover episodes from other series must be included and aired in order so you don't get half of a story

 

Also, if a dramatic show does a special two hour episode and it's broken up for reruns please do *not* cut between the two halves right in the middle of the most dramatic scene.  This has happened in reruns of the Law and Order Criminal Intent two hour episode "In the Wee Small Hours" (I have it in the original form from Amazon Prime) and it's incredibly distracting.

[bmasters9]

But... If you buy the season DVD set involved for each show, the producers (or whomever) kindly worked it out so that you get both halves of the story on 1 set, regardless of which 1 you buy (H50's or NCISLA's). And I really appreciated that.

That also happened on the second-season (1982-83) Simon & Simon release from Shout!, in that it had a crossover with Magnum, P.I. at the top of that season. Unfortunately, the two have their dates crossed on the packaging. The Simon & Simon part (the second part, "Emeralds Are Not A Girl's Best Friend") is shown as airing on Oct. 5, 1982, and the Magnum, P.I. part (the first part, "Ki'is Don't Lie") is shown as being on Oct. 7, 1982. I do not know why it was printed this way on the packaging, but it was. 

 

Here's the first slipcase of that second-season Simon & Simon release so you can see what I'm referring to.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

For movies playing on tv:    Most really popular ones have scenes that everyone knows and most of time, they wait for them. When you either cut it out or cut it in half, it's going to make loyal fans angry.  Ex.  In the movie Hocus Pocus, everyone knows Sarah Jessica Parker's character says "amok, amok, amok!".  Not the most important scene, true, but still on that is associated with the movie.  Why oh why was it necessary to cut it out just as she's about to say that?  It would be like cutting Jaws just as he's about to say "We're going to need a bigger boat.".  And while I can't think of specifics right now, I've seen plenty of older tv shows in syndication where small, but important scenes were cut out altogether.

 

And one more about editing (back to big screen movies playing on tv)  Boogie Nights?  Zach and Miri Make a Porno?  Please stop.  There's way too much that needs to be cut out and dubbed over for it to be worth the time to watch it. Although, I guess if you've never seen it before, you won't know the difference, but still.....

 

The IFC network aired the Kill Bill movies recently, and in one of the early scenes The Bride is supposed to say, "Your name is Buck, right? And you're here to fuck, right?" But the dubbing tries to make it seem like she says the word 'party' instead. Hilarious and awful at the same time.

[magicdog]

When syndication packages are sold crossover episodes from other series must be included and aired in order so you don't get half of a story

 

 

I agree but sometimes alternate endings are attached for syndicated episodes.  I remember a two part crossover with Happy Days & Lavern & Shirley in which The Cunninghams and Fonzie went to a lakeside cabin in a rural part of Wisconsin.  Richie and Fonzie  get mixed up with a couple of hot farmer's daughters and their Swedish father tries to force a shotgun wedding with them.  Fonzie convinces the farmer to let Richie get their "fiancees" to prove they can't marry the daughters.  The final scene as I remembered it first run was that Richie was running for his life (and Fonzie's since the farmer threatened to kill him if Richie didn't return in time) to get help.  He returned with Laverne & Shirley who were coincidentally vacationing in the area with Edna & Frank (for those who remember, L&S aired right after HD in primetime, not always in syndication).   They return to the farm where events pick up and comedy ensues.

 

In syndication, the episode ends with Richie running madly past his father, Howard, who was fishing at the lake.  Howard is perplexed at what was going on.  Suddenly Fonzie appears and tells him they got into a scrape with the farmer and the daughters but he convinced the farmer to let him go since he promised Ralph and Potsie would marry them.  The end.  

[MaryMitch]

If a show needs to be cut in syndication to put in more commercials (boo!), they need to let fans decide what should be cut. Honestly, sometimes you can't even figure out what's going on because a significant moment has been cut.

 

That's one thing I like about MeTV - they don't cut most of their shows. Instead, they time compress them to show a 48 minute hour long show in 45-46 minutes. Only someone with a good ear can really tell a difference.  (Back in the olden days, an hour long show had about 48 minutes of content; today it's more like 40.)

[Raja]

If a show needs to be cut in syndication to put in more commercials (boo!), they need to let fans decide what should be cut. Honestly, sometimes you can't even figure out what's going on because a significant moment has been cut.

 

That's one thing I like about MeTV - they don't cut most of their shows. Instead, they time compress them to show a 48 minute hour long show in 45-46 minutes. Only someone with a good ear can really tell a difference.  (Back in the olden days, an hour long show had about 48 minutes of content; today it's more like 40.)

I don't know how good an ear it would take. I can hear the sirens change pitch on Emergency and Adam-12 to slow back down and go lower when a character starts to speak. Given the nature of the characters they played on Jack Webb shows I can see them speeding up Gary Crosby's or Frank Sinatra Jr's speaking parts

[kiddo82]

When syndication packages are sold crossover episodes from other series must be included and aired in order so you don't get half of a story

True story: I had been watching an SVU marathon and caught the first half of a crossover between SVU and Trial by Jury. Since I couldn't find Trail by Jury on Netflix or Hulu, and single eps weren't available for download on Amazon, I bought the whole season digitally just for that one ep. The conclusion wasn't particularly worth it but by that point it was the principle.

[BW Manilowe]

I agree but sometimes alternate endings are attached for syndicated episodes. I remember a two part crossover with Happy Days & Lavern & Shirley in which The Cunninghams and Fonzie went to a lakeside cabin in a rural part of Wisconsin. Richie and Fonzie get mixed up with a couple of hot farmer's daughters and their Swedish father tries to force a shotgun wedding with them. Fonzie convinces the farmer to let Richie get their "fiancees" to prove they can't marry the daughters. The final scene as I remembered it first run was that Richie was running for his life (and Fonzie's since the farmer threatened to kill him if Richie didn't return in time) to get help. He returned with Laverne & Shirley who were coincidentally vacationing in the area with Edna & Frank (for those who remember, L&S aired right after HD in primetime, not always in syndication). They return to the farm where events pick up and comedy ensues.

In syndication, the episode ends with Richie running madly past his father, Howard, who was fishing at the lake. Howard is perplexed at what was going on. Suddenly Fonzie appears and tells him they got into a scrape with the farmer and the daughters but he convinced the farmer to let him go since he promised Ralph and Potsie would marry them. The end.

Hawaii Five-0 also did an ep with multiple endings, in S3. When the ep was aired beyond the first time on CBS & in syndication, & sold as downloads from iTunes &/or Amazon Instant Video they only aired a certain ending (there were 3 choices & viewers in the Eastern/Central & Pacific time zones could vote on which 1 should air/they liked in their time zone the first time the episode aired). But, at least initially, you could also download the 2 other ending choices from Amazon & iTunes, & the endings not used on the ep version in the DVD were included as extras in that season's DVDs.

Edited March 28, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[MaryPatShelby]

Also, if a dramatic show does a special two hour episode and it's broken up for reruns please do *not* cut between the two halves right in the middle of the most dramatic scene.  This has happened in reruns of the Law and Order Criminal Intent two hour episode "In the Wee Small Hours" (I have it in the original form from Amazon Prime) and it's incredibly distracting.

Also related to "In the Wee Small Hours....", add 'Part 2' or something to the {identical to the first hour}episode description given to cable/dish providers, so it's completely clear that the second hour is not a re-showing of the first.

[Sandman87]

This is an actual rule of live video production, but TV stations need to be more diligent about enforcing it: Don't wear clothing with fine patterns for a video shoot. You've all seen this: Some chucklehead wears his herringbone suit for the newscast, and the resulting moire patterns on your TV screen are so distracting that you can't pay attention to what he's saying.

[meep.meep]

For movies playing on tv:    Most really popular ones have scenes that everyone knows and most of time, they wait for them. When you either cut it out or cut it in half, it's going to make loyal fans angry. 

.......

And one more about editing (back to big screen movies playing on tv)  Boogie Nights?  Zach and Miri Make a Porno?  Please stop.  There's way too much that needs to be cut out and dubbed over for it to be worth the time to watch it. Although, I guess if you've never seen it before, you won't know the difference, but still.....

 

Have you ever seen what they do to 4 Weddings and a Funeral when it's run on a "Family" channel?  It ends up about an hour long.  Things they cut:  all the buggers, the bridesmaids are supposed to get sex scene, any indication that anyone is having sex with anyone else, the scene at the reception of the 2nd wedding where Charles is seated with all his exes, the description of all 37 of Carrie's lovers, etc.  It makes no sense.  Why do they bother.

 

The other thing that's always cut is the line out of Madelein Kahn's song in Blazing Saddles about how she's been "with thousands of men, again and again, they're always coming and going and going and coming, and always too soon."  Every time.  Any channel.

[DeLurker]

If someone is supposed to be all rich and powerful, please make sure that in his impressive suit his pants are properly hemmed.  The most recent incident I remember is John Noble as Morlock Holmes on Elementary.  Morlock is wonderfully played by Noble, but it takes all the intimidation out of him when his pants are several inches too long!

 

Actually, please make sure all suit pants shown on tv are properly hemmed.  I keep seeing Chris Hardwick's Comcast commercial and they make me nutty.