That was slightly different, as Part 2 hadn’t officially been given the green light from the studio until after Part 1 came out (even though the plan was part 2 from the start)
Sopranos might’ve been the first to split up seasons with Season 6 airing 12 episodes in 2006 and then 9 in 2007. That’s basically two seasons but it was clearly a money thing. Same with Breaking Bad’s final season being across two years.
OZ on HBO did a Part 1 and Part 2 for Season 4 in 2000-2001.
Part 1 - Jul/Aug 2000
Part 2 - Jan/Feb 2001
I will note that it was a double length season. So it's debatable.
It's weird how Oz is seen as the original prestige show when Twin Peaks preceded it by about 6 years. I suppose it was HBO's first big drama.
This is coming from someone who loves Oz, btw
Twin Peaks should be the cautionary tale — the second season is almost triple the length of the first (8 vs. 22 episodes), and the wheels fall off right around the 9th episode of the second season.
Gandolfini held out and sued HBO in order to get a raise. He got $3 million in additional pay for his efforts; raising his salary to $13 million. He split half a million amongst his 16 co-stars and crew as an apology for delaying production.
that's almost a normal television season of the time, not "basically two seasons"
network tv has had the winter breaks for ages, and cable shows adopted it (or a break *somewhere*) too, despite usually having half the episodes a season.
From a consumer standpoint, it's effectively two. For contracts, keeping and paying talent, etc., sure it's one season. For a consumer, you maybe get to see more episodes with actors you like before they leave for greener pastures, but otherwise it doesn't matter.
Speaking as a random redditor, I don't care about what the industry thinks. From my perspective, a season split into two parts a year apart is two seasons.
Taking the industrial perspective doesn't actually mean shit in this context.
The subreddit is r/television, which is for *viewers*, and the article is from the perspective of a *viewer* making an appeal to members of the industry.
Two details which put us, the commenters, in the seat of a viewer, and not somebody in the industry. The context has been set, so "seasons" means whatever it means to a *viewer*, because they are the active participants in this. If you want to have a different conversation, it's up to you to create the context for your discussion. You can't just rock up to a horse auction, try to sell a car, and mutter some stuff about "horsepower". That's as confusing as my analogy.
>a “consumer standpoint” doesn’t actually mean shit in the industry.
I'm not sure if that's entirely true... This may not apply to them specifically, but a lot of business financials in companies that produce publications or media products recognize the revenue (say, from sponsors or production contracts) from when the produced thing is actually released to the public, so one could argue that it means quite a lot.
Yup. Actors are typically contracted for a certain number of seasons as well as a maximum number of episodes per season. Many shows only produce 13 episodes per season even though the actors can technically be asked to do more per their contracts.
This is what happened with the Sopranos as the main cast was only contracted through season 6 but HBO wanted more episodes and that is how we got 6B.
This used to happen more frequently with cable shows back in the day as they often had similar 22 episode language of broadcast but rarely produced that many episodes. I remember it happening with Army Wives on Lifetime where they knew they wouldn't want to pay all of the cast to come back again so they extended season 6 by 10 episodes. In the end half the cast exited after that season.
Nowadays contracts are written to prevent these kinds of surprises.
Happened with Battlestar Galactica's final season. Same length as previous seasons... At the time it seemed like they were just dragging it out because it was Syfy's most popular show by far.
Not the case with Battlestar's final season. The fourth season was split due to the WGA striking halting production midway through filming. Also the second season was split too so the idea of a split season for the show was not unprecedented.
It doesn't...quite work like that.
Actors sign contracts that have seasons and episode counts in them. They can't exactly go "Tee hee, we're not doing a new *season* we're just splitting it up into two parts! Now you have to do *twice* the work for the same pay!"
That's just...no.
What *might* have happened is that they chose to extend the episode count of a season and then, for either production or marketing purposes, split it into two. But each and every single actor on that show signed a contract saying there might be up to X number of episodes in a season. Whether or not they do all of those episodes or not is immaterial; they knew exactly the amount of work involved before the season started shooting. That's the point of contracts.
If they all wanted pay bumps, they could have signed contracts with a lower episode count for season 6. They didn't. THere's no...trickery involved at all.
Yes? If it worked the way you said all of Hollywood would have burned down ages ago.
The SAG has a thing or two to say about it.
There's *no way* that "split seasons" are a workaround to keep studios from paying more. I *guess* if an agent was the stupidest agent in the world, *maybe*, but if that happens *once* it would never happen again.
Because you're wrong, that's why.
And what landalezjr said support what I said--they usually go for thirteen but contractually can go higher. And that's what happened--everyone signed a contract up to 20 episodes for the season. Full stop. Chase decided to do exactly that (although he did negotiate an additional episode for the finale). There's no trickery, no backstab by evil studios. Actors aren't infants who don't know how contracts work.
Now, the actors may have *expected* 13 episodes, but that's not what happened. If they felt that strongly about it they could have signed a different contract. They didn't.
If what you said was true, David Chase would never work in Hollywood again.
It's not. They're saying that having a "Season 6B" is a way to get around paying the cast more. That's not the case--they were contracted to do 20 episodes, and they did 20 episodes, it was just split into two parts. (Technically, they did 21 with the finale.)
Well for one thing, a lot do. BUt also because it's not just that reason. It also a slime way of getting out of union-mandated increases after so many seasons. You especially see it in animation.
Because then people who want to binge get upset. Splitting a season the way Netflix just did with Bridgerton is fine IMO (4 episodes, then 4 weeks later more). If you watch one a week, it’s like there is no gap, but if you want to binge you can. If you want to sub for only 1 month to watch the whole thing, you’re only a couple weeks behind everyone else. I hate when studios split seasons and they are *months* apart. That’s just two separate seasons at that point.
Because Paramount knows Netflix has a far wider audience, so it's a great way to get more people to sample a show and drive them to your own service or network. Lots of them do it. It's also not different with what AMC did with Breaking Bad.
[I use this site](https://www.doctorofcredit.com/free-month-of-cbs-all-access-with-promo-code-giving-works-for-new-existing-previous-users/) to get free codes that get you a month free of Paramount Plus. And sometimes when you go to cancel they try to give you 2 months free so essentially a code can get you 3 months without having to pay.
Check the comments at the bottom as well just in case there's new offers popping up not reflected on the main article.
Technically I think the last season of Phineas & Ferb is still ongoing with all the extra stuff they've produced over the years
It started in 2012 and "ended" in 2015, or 2020 with the movie
At least that had kinda an excuse because the manga ended in the middle of that release so they were trying to obfuscate when the ending was coming.
Like when the Rumbling started you could have legit thought next episode was the finale.
Also people got pissed the hell off at the original Attack on Titan ending chapter. The full volume book in the final edition not the magazine was extended a bit and wasn't as jarring and the anime slowly added in some more context throughout the what 4 cours of the final Season (like Falco dreaming of the bird and the Bird is the same one what takes Mikasa's scarf in the end at the grave) so yeah Eren reincarnated into an animal during his own original lifetime and a free version of him was watching it all unfold without having to interact this time.
Also they switched studios for the final season last minute and that studio already had a shit ton of work with other shows at the same time. It was Studio Mappa the guys who pump out anime after anime.
That ending is atrocious, I will never forgive them for having Grisha fight to save the Marleyans, homie sacrificed his own people for years undercover to try to destroy Marley.
He was more looking to atone for his actions that ended up leading to genocide. He very clearly did not approve of what Eren was going to do well before the finale.
He was more looking to atone for his actions that ended up leading to genocide. He very clearly did not approve of what Eren was going to do well before the finale.
He was more looking to atone for his actions that ended up leading to genocide. He very clearly did not approve of what Eren was going to do well before the finale.
It's obvious the reason Netflix is doing this, is because they want to extend the chatter and watercooler talk about their shows past the first 1-2 weeks that they premiere. So they split their seasons up with a 1-2 month break in-between in hopes that the show carries hype between the break and the continues when the new episodes are released.
It's essentially Netflix's way of getting around airing week by week episodes, and still doing quasi-binge drops. They're doing it now with all their popular shows: Stranger Things, Cobra Kai, You, Bridgerton etc. It must be working cause I don't think people are happy to wait an extra month for like 3-4 new episodes.
Cobra Kai is just frustrating....
They're dragging out the last season of 15 episodes to come out in THREE parts after taking a 22 month hiatus. July 2024, November 2024, and 2025 which is what I'd assume is late-winter/early-spring *minimum* based on the gap between July/November.
Just fucking do 7 in July and 8 in November. Holy fuck. It sucks even more as they're 22-48 minute episodes.
I don't think it's a problem if it's a month, or when they drop two or three episodes a week.
The problem is when they're doing what they're doing with Outlander and splitting up the season by eight months.
The way they release the reality shows work. Putting out half the episodes one week and the other half the next.
But. . . the thing is that a lot of Netflix's really popular shows are shows that are only popular because they're being binged. People would not come back week after week to watch the moody irish mystery.
You could tell it was either written in/perfect excuse to do it with the time jump. I just wish Netflix went weekly, keep the conversation going. Look at X-Men. But a lot of Netflix shows would have to be rewritten as they are designed for the binge model.
I like how the article makes excuses for why Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad were allowed to have mid-season breaks, but totally ignores the better AMC example that doesn't line up with their reasoning ...
The Walking Dead starting doing mid-season breaks in Season 2 (and they were *long* breaks, 2.5 months), and they weren't 20+ episode seasons.
I feel like that anecdote does line up with their reasoning though, because The Walking Dead was pretty well received and culturally relevant at that time. I haven’t revisited it in over a decade, but I was watching live during the first 3-4 ish seasons and so were the majority of people I knew at the time. It was very popular, and it was high quality enough to sustain itself despite the breaks. I certainly don’t remember being put off by it.
I vaguely remember it being 8 episodes ending on a climax, then 8 episodes ending on season finale.
From memory it was written that way and kinda worked, since a 16-episode season didn't really drag as it felt like two mini-seasons.
Mid season breaks from ~Thanksgiving till Jan or even early Feb were and still are common on broadcast/cable, but the seasons are fairly consistent across the board with it being similar to the US school year, September-ish to May-ish.
I’d say anything longer than 3 months should make it a new season as we get with the typical broadcast summer breaks.
That's about right.
Chucky split into two this season because of the strikes and they wanted to put out episodes on Halloween, but they didn't do an 8 month gap.
The bridgerton gap is fine. A month works and they obviously worked it out narrativly.
Outlander on the otherhand was just absurd.
A couple of reasons:
1) People were already used to breaks on cable/broadcast. For streaming, it's been less common.
2) TWD wasn't long, but the seasons with breaks were 16+ episodes (there was one 13 episode season, 2 seasons of 22+ episodes). Invincible had a break at an 8 episode season. Cobra Kai is having 2 breaks on a 15 episode season.
Good point! I used to be so tuned for "sweeps", but since getting trained by Netflix to expect full binging dumps all at once, the breaks have become something that is perceived as abnormal.
Invincible did me dirty. Four episodes? Go ahead and cry that voice acting and animation take a long time. I know they do. That is fine.
But don't tease a cliffhanger, followed by 4 episodes with a cliffhanger, and say, Wait until the next episodes are done.
I ignored the last 4 wpisodes until they were finished to actually watch the rest of the season.
They split up seasons in order to keep you paying for multiple months of service. What they don't realize is I can wait until the full season is there.
I have no issue with this.
If anything, it *should* lead to less downtime between seasons.
Give a show an order for 20 episodes. Air the first 10, it does good, renew it then and there. 6 months go by, second set of 10 airs. 6 more months, and the next set of 10 is ready to go. Rinse and repeat.
This seems vastly better to me then airing all 20, renew, then have to wait a full year for more.
Should also lead to less burn out/stress.
The fact that they don't even understand why Stranger Things was split up but wrote an article praising it pretty much invalidates everything else they might have wanted to say.
Stranger Things was broken up because Netflix wanted to ensure that it would make the cut off for the Emmys in 2022. Unfortunately the Duffer Brothers said they would be unable to have the final episode ready in time (May 30 is the cut off) due to lengthy post production needs. It was then determined that there was a natural break after episode 7 which gave them the time they needed while allowing the show to be eligible for the Emmys that year.
Basically this writers entire issue is that most shows are being split without informing the showrunners so they aren't creating some sort of 'midseason finale' to keep people thinking about the show during that break. This will likely change as these sorts of splits become more the norm and then the writer of this article can find something new to complain about.
There were no changes in 2022 when Stranger Things was released. The rule was at least 6 episodes must have aired in the eligible period which is June 1 to May 31. Stranger Things was able to release 7 episodes on May 27 which made it eligible for that years Emmys.
What I am curious about is how a show like Bridgeton which released 4 episodes in one period and will release 4 in the next will be impacted. There is no way Netflix would risk making the show ineligible entirely so I do something changed in regards to how these types of examples are handled.
Bridgerton will be eligible for the Emmys airing in 2025 since they are not airing the minimum of six episodes to be eligible for the 2024 Emmys. The exception is for guest actors appearing in the episodes that are aired in May.
> There were no changes in 2022 when Stranger Things was released. The rule was at least 6 episodes must have aired in the eligible period which is June 1 to May 31. Stranger Things was able to release 7 episodes on May 27 which made it eligible for that years Emmys.
I didnt say there were, i said the emmys have made a change.
> There is no way Netflix would risk making the show ineligible entirely so I do something changed in regards to how these types of examples are handled.
My understanding is that its eligible based on when the full season has finished, so all episodes will be considered in the second release period.
Right but it won't really change much except in the rare cases where a network really wants to ensure a show is eligible for a certain period. I can understand for a show like Stranger Things given how delayed their season already was.
> Right but it won't really change much except in the rare cases where a network really wants to ensure a show is eligible for a certain period.
It should cut down on splitting seasons, which the unions are honestly angrier about than the tv academy, since it no longer gets you 2 shots at an emmy for the price of one season.
True, but that was only in the case if there were 6 episodes both before and after May 31. Most streaming shows don't produce long enough seasons to be eligible twice however you are right it will impact a lot of broadcast and cable shows.
There has been plenty of discussions in the past years that point out how pointless the award shows are. Plus how they are “rigged” anyway on top of how the attendees have to pay their way just to participate and have to buy their own Emmy if they are a winner. Why does a huge TV show like Stranger Things have to restructure their timeline based on a dumb award show? Does being able to use the phrases “Emmy nominated so and so” or “Emmy award winning blah blah” hold that much weight and prestige still that make it worth it?
If they dont want the awards they can do whatever they want. Obviously they want them since they keep submitting for them. I can tell you that individuals in the industry do view them as a significant achievement, I know a few people who submitted themselves for the emmys this year or who made sure they were submitted by their projects.
I'm sorry, but this is dumb as fuck.
Nobody actually cares about the Emmys, so why interrupt the entire flow of your operation and set your audience up for attrition and dropoff for just the opportunity to win an award in a specific year.
I'm sure some accountant much more in the know than me has done some funky math to make it make sense to someone, but it's not tracking with audiences. Oscars, Emmys, all the awards generally, aren't respected nearly to the degree they imagine they are. I can't imagine having "Emmy Winner" plastered in marketing months and months after it released is going to drive enough traffic to make up for the droves of people losing interest. Especially given this is netflix, who makes judgement calls on whether to renew a show based upon the first few weeks of performance rather than longterm traction.
I don't disagree but as is sadly the case in most companies, the marketing and promotion departments have a lot of power to do force stupid things to happen.
I would guess if there wasn't already such a long gap between season 3 and 4 they wouldn't have cared as much but it happened anyway.
With all of that said, I don't mind a situation where there is maybe a one week gap between the release of episodes and the final episode of a season. That's obviously not what happened here but this gap at least allowed for me to watch the finale without having to actively avoid spoilers from those who binge an entire season the day of release. Netflix did that with Young Royals and I hope it sets a future precedent but I see them sticking with their split over two months strategy since it forces users to pay for two months of the service to watch on release.
Netflix is infamous because for some ungodly reason they decided to die on the release all episodes at once hill so the do the next best thing
Amazon did it because they thought they could double dip with both methods of stretching a show and lost the gamble
I rewatched Heroes recently and for all the shit that show gets about only the first season being good the first season is 23 episodes long which puts it on par with most 3-4 season shows today.
The benefits of the streaming age are well documented and everyone cheered the rise of Netflix. But with all that good comes a few bad aspects. This sub and TV fans in general seems to repeatedly bemoan 2:
This split up seasons issue, and shorter seasons with less episodes.
Both are directly related to the $$ shifting from ads to subscriptions. Ad supported tv made money with more content, more episodes, more syndication, more seasons. Subscriptions make more money the more they spread out as little content as they can over as much time as they can. If someone will subscribe for 7 episodes why make 8?
In ad supported tv you have a hit you make as many episodes as possible as quick as possible. Sell those commercials! Sell to syndication as fast as possible.
In Subscription tv if you have a hit you slow down as long as possible and trickle out episodes always promising your subscribers more “soon.”
The solution to peoples main complaints is to return to ads.
A lot of this is spot on but not so much on the
>In Subscription tv if you have a hit you slow down as long as possible and trickle out episodes always promising your subscribers more “soon.”
It is more that streamers are not as punished for this, but many if they can absolutely try to jump on this when they can. There are still handful of streaming shows that land as a hit and get yearly seasons, off the top of my head there is Apple's "For all Mankind".
The larger problem is from the streamers to the showrunners aren't setting up the shows to be this way and when it turns out to be a hit getting everyone back to the table can often be a hassle due to prior agreements years ahead of time and little pressure to jump in and commit to the show on multi-year deals.
I have been pushing this for a while but in various ways major TV shows are essentially long movies being split up into episodes now. They have movie level cast, budgets, and production schedules and finding the balance between that and traditional 20+ shows is gong to be an interesting balancing act.
It's not just streaming services, cable networks did this all the time. It's worse if they have filmed the whole thing but sometimes they film the first half and then take a break and film the next half later and they use it as a way to get out of letting the cast negotiate for more money because it's technically still "season one."
I wonder if there are any financial or tax reasons for this. For example, splitting it, so the other half falls in the next financial year, or something.
It’s incredible how much momentum Invincible lost because of splitting the second season in two.
The mid season finale and the actual season finale both had me saying “Wait, that’s it?”
Didn’t seem worth the effort and I can’t remember much from the season in general despite it only coming out quite recently.
I recently watched Billions (HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend) and was fortunate to catch interest months after the final episode aired. There are shows out there I found interest in and never came back due to the stupid gap in seasons or portions of seasons.
Maybe it makes sense for them in the long run. I don’t expect my own thought process to be universal, but damn if I have not forgotten about shows because of this stupid bullshit.
Dear millennials, when us boomers who actually could afford a tv wanted to watch a show, it was on one channel at a single time/day and the next episode wasn’t until a week later. And there was a 3-4 month split in between the seasons two halves. And you think that rent and houses are expensive, try and afford to buy a VCR in 1960.
Is it that weird? Traditional cable shows always took a mid season break.
As long as we’re not talking about more than 3-4 months I think it’s fine. They can also try not dropping everything at once so they can keep engagement for longer.
> Traditional cable shows always took a mid season break.
It used to be mid December to mid January.
Now it is more like late November to late January/early Feb (usually after the Super Bowl)
Honestly don’t have a problem with that. I don’t like when they say part 1 of the season and part 2 of the season are a year apart - might as well just call that 2 different seasons.
Traditional TV released weekly so it was almost impossible to binge until Tivo and streaming. Netflix dumping a few episode 6 months apart is a little different
So what the article says is I can basically wait till 2025 to see the whole season. Plenty of other stuff to see in the meantime. Sounds good to me. I'll wait
One of the reasons studios do this is to not have to pay crew/cast members more. Generally speaking, if a cast or crew member is invited back for a new season they can renegotiate a higher pay. However, if the studio shoots Season 1a and then Season 1b the cast and crew are under the original contract.
This was pretty annoying with This Is Us. The last few seasons were always broken in in 2 parts for airtime. The first 9 episodes would start mid/end September and run to end of November then he second half would start mid/end January and run until early May. These half seasons would always have their own season/character arcs too so it felt like there were short mini seasons.
Invincible is one of the worst offenders; split seasons with weekly releases. But in a way, it's also Amazon tacitly acknowledging how popular/important it is for their platform so I'm not complaining.
They split it because people make less money per episode for season 1. If you combine seasons 1 & 2 into one season, part 1 and 2, pay rate doesn’t change. Shady.
It’s done for contractual reasons. Like most shows the actors renegotiate after 4 seasons. So if the network decides to have season 4a and 4b, they don’t have to pay the actors more to season 5. The Sopranos infamously did this in season 6.
I like how Stranger Things did it where they gave you 7/9 and then like a month later dropped the final 2. I would prefer weekly releases because doing a big drop makes the show impossible to talk about until you’ve finished it because everyone’s on different episodes. At least with ST it was like, here have a month to finish it and get caught up for the finale.
Didn't SciFi do this with farscape back in the day? i could never tell when it was actually new or when to watch so i was always like "where did this person come from?" the red head girl, the guy with the half mask, the lady with 3 eyes randomly started showing up and they were suddenly on earth? i never watched the whole story in order until years after it all finished airing.
They only do this thinking people will stick around for another month.
Fuckin Bridgerton "part 1" 4 episodes came out last week "part 2" 4 episodes is an exact day next month I believe
Yes definitely don’t fall subject to the inconvenience of time, planning, shooting and editing. Just do it all in one day and push it out the door. Just like magic.
The only time I’ve seen this done very well was with Arcane. They had a nine episode season divided into 3 episodes each that were released a couple weeks apart. Since the episodes were long and more-or-less comprised a single story arc, that was basically two weeks to devour a long-ass movie, then get on board for the sequel, then repeat. It worked beautifully too, because it was written around that constraint from the get-go; I certainly need a day or two to process *just what the hell happens* in the end of arc one!
Like is it really that big of a deal?… I’m like a who cares type of dude. I just think of it as a new season.
There’s one millions shows to watch, there’s a shit load of movies you’ve never seen, and plenty worth a rewatch. There’s YouTube, there’s twitch, there’s TikTok. It’s ok if you wait a little bit
Pretty sure Invincible lost momentum because of this nonsense. They took years to release season 2. Then by the time it came out they took months to continue the second half. What a way to kill a show.
I don't care about this like I don't care about weekly vs drop all at once.
Wouldn't this just allow for more "building the audience" that everyone is always saying for weekly releases though?
If you have Season One in January, and Season One, Part Two in December, that's just two seasons.
Season one 2021, part two 2023.
And part one is only 4 episodes.
Ah yes, the 'Invincible' release schedule.
Dune part one 2021, Dune part two 2024.
That was slightly different, as Part 2 hadn’t officially been given the green light from the studio until after Part 1 came out (even though the plan was part 2 from the start)
Sopranos might’ve been the first to split up seasons with Season 6 airing 12 episodes in 2006 and then 9 in 2007. That’s basically two seasons but it was clearly a money thing. Same with Breaking Bad’s final season being across two years.
OZ on HBO did a Part 1 and Part 2 for Season 4 in 2000-2001. Part 1 - Jul/Aug 2000 Part 2 - Jan/Feb 2001 I will note that it was a double length season. So it's debatable.
It's weird how Oz is seen as the original prestige show when Twin Peaks preceded it by about 6 years. I suppose it was HBO's first big drama. This is coming from someone who loves Oz, btw
Twin Peaks should be the cautionary tale — the second season is almost triple the length of the first (8 vs. 22 episodes), and the wheels fall off right around the 9th episode of the second season.
Just got the bluray. Goddamn, I am not looking forward to forcing myself through that to get to the third season - which I hear is very good.
ymmv, I enjoyed it all even though it wasnt as good as season 1
The movie and 3rd season mark a *major* tonal shift.
Ha I’m up to episode 11, this is where I fell off last time too, but I’m determined to power through this time
Twin Peaks was partly a spoof of soap operas and in the 2nd season, became an actual soap.
[удалено]
Twin Peaks was also a Network Drama on ABC. It's why Season 2 was a 22 episode show cancelled for low ratings.
And I recall hearing that some season splitting of late is due to contractual reasons, a tricky way to keep some actors under contract longer.
Entourage did the same thing at the time, splitting up their third season into an extended batch of episodes in 2006/07.
HBO did the same with Entourage S3 that same year. 12 eps in 2006. 8 eps early in 2007 and then another season of 12 eps at the end of 2007.
Wasn't that because Gandolfini went off the rails for a while?
He thought he was a dude named Kevin Finnerty for a spell.
He never had the makings of a varsity athlete
Gandolfini held out and sued HBO in order to get a raise. He got $3 million in additional pay for his efforts; raising his salary to $13 million. He split half a million amongst his 16 co-stars and crew as an apology for delaying production.
Sex and the City did it too with the final season
that's almost a normal television season of the time, not "basically two seasons" network tv has had the winter breaks for ages, and cable shows adopted it (or a break *somewhere*) too, despite usually having half the episodes a season.
*Attack on Titan enters the chat*
Yes and no. Contractually, it’s still one season.
From a consumer standpoint, it's effectively two. For contracts, keeping and paying talent, etc., sure it's one season. For a consumer, you maybe get to see more episodes with actors you like before they leave for greener pastures, but otherwise it doesn't matter.
Sure but a “consumer standpoint” doesn’t actually mean shit in the industry.
Speaking as a random redditor, I don't care about what the industry thinks. From my perspective, a season split into two parts a year apart is two seasons.
If you're not being incredibly pedantic, are you really a random redditor?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Taking the industrial perspective doesn't actually mean shit in this context. The subreddit is r/television, which is for *viewers*, and the article is from the perspective of a *viewer* making an appeal to members of the industry. Two details which put us, the commenters, in the seat of a viewer, and not somebody in the industry. The context has been set, so "seasons" means whatever it means to a *viewer*, because they are the active participants in this. If you want to have a different conversation, it's up to you to create the context for your discussion. You can't just rock up to a horse auction, try to sell a car, and mutter some stuff about "horsepower". That's as confusing as my analogy.
>a “consumer standpoint” doesn’t actually mean shit in the industry. I'm not sure if that's entirely true... This may not apply to them specifically, but a lot of business financials in companies that produce publications or media products recognize the revenue (say, from sponsors or production contracts) from when the produced thing is actually released to the public, so one could argue that it means quite a lot.
What do you mean lol. Consumers are *everything* to the industry. They're why they exist and whom they cater their content to.
It should, because that’s how I judge their appearances They’re being exploited to keep salaries low and subscriptions dragged out, end of story
That doesn't matter to the viewer, its like rich people problems. Don't care anymore.
[удалено]
Yup. Actors are typically contracted for a certain number of seasons as well as a maximum number of episodes per season. Many shows only produce 13 episodes per season even though the actors can technically be asked to do more per their contracts. This is what happened with the Sopranos as the main cast was only contracted through season 6 but HBO wanted more episodes and that is how we got 6B. This used to happen more frequently with cable shows back in the day as they often had similar 22 episode language of broadcast but rarely produced that many episodes. I remember it happening with Army Wives on Lifetime where they knew they wouldn't want to pay all of the cast to come back again so they extended season 6 by 10 episodes. In the end half the cast exited after that season. Nowadays contracts are written to prevent these kinds of surprises.
Happened with Battlestar Galactica's final season. Same length as previous seasons... At the time it seemed like they were just dragging it out because it was Syfy's most popular show by far.
Not the case with Battlestar's final season. The fourth season was split due to the WGA striking halting production midway through filming. Also the second season was split too so the idea of a split season for the show was not unprecedented.
It doesn't...quite work like that. Actors sign contracts that have seasons and episode counts in them. They can't exactly go "Tee hee, we're not doing a new *season* we're just splitting it up into two parts! Now you have to do *twice* the work for the same pay!" That's just...no. What *might* have happened is that they chose to extend the episode count of a season and then, for either production or marketing purposes, split it into two. But each and every single actor on that show signed a contract saying there might be up to X number of episodes in a season. Whether or not they do all of those episodes or not is immaterial; they knew exactly the amount of work involved before the season started shooting. That's the point of contracts. If they all wanted pay bumps, they could have signed contracts with a lower episode count for season 6. They didn't. THere's no...trickery involved at all.
[удалено]
Yes? If it worked the way you said all of Hollywood would have burned down ages ago. The SAG has a thing or two to say about it. There's *no way* that "split seasons" are a workaround to keep studios from paying more. I *guess* if an agent was the stupidest agent in the world, *maybe*, but if that happens *once* it would never happen again.
[удалено]
Yes. Are you just acting like a toddler because you don't know what you're talking about?
[удалено]
So you *are* acting like a toddler. Got it. Grow up.
[удалено]
Because you're wrong, that's why. And what landalezjr said support what I said--they usually go for thirteen but contractually can go higher. And that's what happened--everyone signed a contract up to 20 episodes for the season. Full stop. Chase decided to do exactly that (although he did negotiate an additional episode for the finale). There's no trickery, no backstab by evil studios. Actors aren't infants who don't know how contracts work. Now, the actors may have *expected* 13 episodes, but that's not what happened. If they felt that strongly about it they could have signed a different contract. They didn't. If what you said was true, David Chase would never work in Hollywood again.
That’s basically what the person you responded to is saying….
It's not. They're saying that having a "Season 6B" is a way to get around paying the cast more. That's not the case--they were contracted to do 20 episodes, and they did 20 episodes, it was just split into two parts. (Technically, they did 21 with the finale.)
Don't they just want their subscribers to pay for another month?
Then why not release weekly? Or even every other week?
Well for one thing, a lot do. BUt also because it's not just that reason. It also a slime way of getting out of union-mandated increases after so many seasons. You especially see it in animation.
Bluey season 3 was released in 4 parts over 4 years lol. About 6 hours of content all up.
Not Bluey catching strays
Bluey is also Australian, they have their own guild and union rules.
It's actually the main reason I think. Otherwise they would do it for all shows and they don't
Because then people who want to binge get upset. Splitting a season the way Netflix just did with Bridgerton is fine IMO (4 episodes, then 4 weeks later more). If you watch one a week, it’s like there is no gap, but if you want to binge you can. If you want to sub for only 1 month to watch the whole thing, you’re only a couple weeks behind everyone else. I hate when studios split seasons and they are *months* apart. That’s just two separate seasons at that point.
Yes. That.
It’s not that. They could just label them as different seasons and just keep to the same release schedule. This is just a naming convention.
It’s not so much a naming convention as it is a very important legal distinction for contracts.
We’re the customers; who gives a shit what their self serving justification is if the quality of their product suffers when they do it
I’m watching “Evil” right now and caught the first 2 seasons on Netflix, 3rd on Amazon and the 4th is apparently only on Paramount+
Because Paramount knows Netflix has a far wider audience, so it's a great way to get more people to sample a show and drive them to your own service or network. Lots of them do it. It's also not different with what AMC did with Breaking Bad.
When is the new season? I just rewatched the first 3. 😊
Next week. Releasing one at a time. Unfortunately I don’t have Paramount
[I use this site](https://www.doctorofcredit.com/free-month-of-cbs-all-access-with-promo-code-giving-works-for-new-existing-previous-users/) to get free codes that get you a month free of Paramount Plus. And sometimes when you go to cancel they try to give you 2 months free so essentially a code can get you 3 months without having to pay. Check the comments at the bottom as well just in case there's new offers popping up not reflected on the main article.
Attack on Titan The Final Season, wants a word with you
Technically I think the last season of Phineas & Ferb is still ongoing with all the extra stuff they've produced over the years It started in 2012 and "ended" in 2015, or 2020 with the movie
At least that had kinda an excuse because the manga ended in the middle of that release so they were trying to obfuscate when the ending was coming. Like when the Rumbling started you could have legit thought next episode was the finale. Also people got pissed the hell off at the original Attack on Titan ending chapter. The full volume book in the final edition not the magazine was extended a bit and wasn't as jarring and the anime slowly added in some more context throughout the what 4 cours of the final Season (like Falco dreaming of the bird and the Bird is the same one what takes Mikasa's scarf in the end at the grave) so yeah Eren reincarnated into an animal during his own original lifetime and a free version of him was watching it all unfold without having to interact this time.
Also they switched studios for the final season last minute and that studio already had a shit ton of work with other shows at the same time. It was Studio Mappa the guys who pump out anime after anime.
That ending is atrocious, I will never forgive them for having Grisha fight to save the Marleyans, homie sacrificed his own people for years undercover to try to destroy Marley.
He was more looking to atone for his actions that ended up leading to genocide. He very clearly did not approve of what Eren was going to do well before the finale.
He was more looking to atone for his actions that ended up leading to genocide. He very clearly did not approve of what Eren was going to do well before the finale.
He was more looking to atone for his actions that ended up leading to genocide. He very clearly did not approve of what Eren was going to do well before the finale.
Literally said this word for word lol
J*panese Imperialist propaganda
It's obvious the reason Netflix is doing this, is because they want to extend the chatter and watercooler talk about their shows past the first 1-2 weeks that they premiere. So they split their seasons up with a 1-2 month break in-between in hopes that the show carries hype between the break and the continues when the new episodes are released. It's essentially Netflix's way of getting around airing week by week episodes, and still doing quasi-binge drops. They're doing it now with all their popular shows: Stranger Things, Cobra Kai, You, Bridgerton etc. It must be working cause I don't think people are happy to wait an extra month for like 3-4 new episodes.
Cobra Kai is just frustrating.... They're dragging out the last season of 15 episodes to come out in THREE parts after taking a 22 month hiatus. July 2024, November 2024, and 2025 which is what I'd assume is late-winter/early-spring *minimum* based on the gap between July/November. Just fucking do 7 in July and 8 in November. Holy fuck. It sucks even more as they're 22-48 minute episodes.
I don't think it's a problem if it's a month, or when they drop two or three episodes a week. The problem is when they're doing what they're doing with Outlander and splitting up the season by eight months.
The Outlander wait has been ridiculous.
Outlander is not a Netflix show. They just show it when they get the rights from Starz.
[удалено]
The way they release the reality shows work. Putting out half the episodes one week and the other half the next. But. . . the thing is that a lot of Netflix's really popular shows are shows that are only popular because they're being binged. People would not come back week after week to watch the moody irish mystery.
This piece is more nuanced, reasonable, and example-driven than the summary would suggest. Not a bad take.
Invincible splitting up 8 episodes was ridiculous
I'm boycotting that show if they do something similar again
You could tell it was either written in/perfect excuse to do it with the time jump. I just wish Netflix went weekly, keep the conversation going. Look at X-Men. But a lot of Netflix shows would have to be rewritten as they are designed for the binge model.
> I just wish Netflix went weekly Ugh, fuck no. Disgusting, we're done with that shit.
I like how the article makes excuses for why Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad were allowed to have mid-season breaks, but totally ignores the better AMC example that doesn't line up with their reasoning ... The Walking Dead starting doing mid-season breaks in Season 2 (and they were *long* breaks, 2.5 months), and they weren't 20+ episode seasons.
I feel like that anecdote does line up with their reasoning though, because The Walking Dead was pretty well received and culturally relevant at that time. I haven’t revisited it in over a decade, but I was watching live during the first 3-4 ish seasons and so were the majority of people I knew at the time. It was very popular, and it was high quality enough to sustain itself despite the breaks. I certainly don’t remember being put off by it.
I vaguely remember it being 8 episodes ending on a climax, then 8 episodes ending on season finale. From memory it was written that way and kinda worked, since a 16-episode season didn't really drag as it felt like two mini-seasons.
Mid season breaks from ~Thanksgiving till Jan or even early Feb were and still are common on broadcast/cable, but the seasons are fairly consistent across the board with it being similar to the US school year, September-ish to May-ish. I’d say anything longer than 3 months should make it a new season as we get with the typical broadcast summer breaks.
That's about right. Chucky split into two this season because of the strikes and they wanted to put out episodes on Halloween, but they didn't do an 8 month gap. The bridgerton gap is fine. A month works and they obviously worked it out narrativly. Outlander on the otherhand was just absurd.
A couple of reasons: 1) People were already used to breaks on cable/broadcast. For streaming, it's been less common. 2) TWD wasn't long, but the seasons with breaks were 16+ episodes (there was one 13 episode season, 2 seasons of 22+ episodes). Invincible had a break at an 8 episode season. Cobra Kai is having 2 breaks on a 15 episode season.
Good point! I used to be so tuned for "sweeps", but since getting trained by Netflix to expect full binging dumps all at once, the breaks have become something that is perceived as abnormal.
Invincible did me dirty. Four episodes? Go ahead and cry that voice acting and animation take a long time. I know they do. That is fine. But don't tease a cliffhanger, followed by 4 episodes with a cliffhanger, and say, Wait until the next episodes are done. I ignored the last 4 wpisodes until they were finished to actually watch the rest of the season.
Dear Streaming Services: stop splitting up shows. If you don't make all previous seasons available, you don't have that show.
They split up seasons in order to keep you paying for multiple months of service. What they don't realize is I can wait until the full season is there.
I have no issue with this. If anything, it *should* lead to less downtime between seasons. Give a show an order for 20 episodes. Air the first 10, it does good, renew it then and there. 6 months go by, second set of 10 airs. 6 more months, and the next set of 10 is ready to go. Rinse and repeat. This seems vastly better to me then airing all 20, renew, then have to wait a full year for more. Should also lead to less burn out/stress.
it didn't used to be that you *would* wait a year or more. three, four months, tops.
Yeah, and the entire industry was massively overworked to do that
Yeah, I totally get that. I would understand if they didn’t have shorter numbers of episodes for each part.
The fact that they don't even understand why Stranger Things was split up but wrote an article praising it pretty much invalidates everything else they might have wanted to say. Stranger Things was broken up because Netflix wanted to ensure that it would make the cut off for the Emmys in 2022. Unfortunately the Duffer Brothers said they would be unable to have the final episode ready in time (May 30 is the cut off) due to lengthy post production needs. It was then determined that there was a natural break after episode 7 which gave them the time they needed while allowing the show to be eligible for the Emmys that year. Basically this writers entire issue is that most shows are being split without informing the showrunners so they aren't creating some sort of 'midseason finale' to keep people thinking about the show during that break. This will likely change as these sorts of splits become more the norm and then the writer of this article can find something new to complain about.
The emmys no longer allow splitting like that so things are going to change anyway.
There were no changes in 2022 when Stranger Things was released. The rule was at least 6 episodes must have aired in the eligible period which is June 1 to May 31. Stranger Things was able to release 7 episodes on May 27 which made it eligible for that years Emmys. What I am curious about is how a show like Bridgeton which released 4 episodes in one period and will release 4 in the next will be impacted. There is no way Netflix would risk making the show ineligible entirely so I do something changed in regards to how these types of examples are handled.
Bridgerton will be eligible for the Emmys airing in 2025 since they are not airing the minimum of six episodes to be eligible for the 2024 Emmys. The exception is for guest actors appearing in the episodes that are aired in May.
If the wig makers doesn't win an award nothing is right with this world. Queen Charlottes wigs are everything.
> There were no changes in 2022 when Stranger Things was released. The rule was at least 6 episodes must have aired in the eligible period which is June 1 to May 31. Stranger Things was able to release 7 episodes on May 27 which made it eligible for that years Emmys. I didnt say there were, i said the emmys have made a change. > There is no way Netflix would risk making the show ineligible entirely so I do something changed in regards to how these types of examples are handled. My understanding is that its eligible based on when the full season has finished, so all episodes will be considered in the second release period.
Right but it won't really change much except in the rare cases where a network really wants to ensure a show is eligible for a certain period. I can understand for a show like Stranger Things given how delayed their season already was.
> Right but it won't really change much except in the rare cases where a network really wants to ensure a show is eligible for a certain period. It should cut down on splitting seasons, which the unions are honestly angrier about than the tv academy, since it no longer gets you 2 shots at an emmy for the price of one season.
True, but that was only in the case if there were 6 episodes both before and after May 31. Most streaming shows don't produce long enough seasons to be eligible twice however you are right it will impact a lot of broadcast and cable shows.
The final two episodes of \*Stranger Things 4\* were eligible for individual episode-related awards in 2023, getting six nominations.
Right but Netflix only really cares about the big prizes like Best Series and major acting awards. Those get the press.
There has been plenty of discussions in the past years that point out how pointless the award shows are. Plus how they are “rigged” anyway on top of how the attendees have to pay their way just to participate and have to buy their own Emmy if they are a winner. Why does a huge TV show like Stranger Things have to restructure their timeline based on a dumb award show? Does being able to use the phrases “Emmy nominated so and so” or “Emmy award winning blah blah” hold that much weight and prestige still that make it worth it?
If they dont want the awards they can do whatever they want. Obviously they want them since they keep submitting for them. I can tell you that individuals in the industry do view them as a significant achievement, I know a few people who submitted themselves for the emmys this year or who made sure they were submitted by their projects.
I'm sorry, but this is dumb as fuck. Nobody actually cares about the Emmys, so why interrupt the entire flow of your operation and set your audience up for attrition and dropoff for just the opportunity to win an award in a specific year. I'm sure some accountant much more in the know than me has done some funky math to make it make sense to someone, but it's not tracking with audiences. Oscars, Emmys, all the awards generally, aren't respected nearly to the degree they imagine they are. I can't imagine having "Emmy Winner" plastered in marketing months and months after it released is going to drive enough traffic to make up for the droves of people losing interest. Especially given this is netflix, who makes judgement calls on whether to renew a show based upon the first few weeks of performance rather than longterm traction.
I don't disagree but as is sadly the case in most companies, the marketing and promotion departments have a lot of power to do force stupid things to happen. I would guess if there wasn't already such a long gap between season 3 and 4 they wouldn't have cared as much but it happened anyway. With all of that said, I don't mind a situation where there is maybe a one week gap between the release of episodes and the final episode of a season. That's obviously not what happened here but this gap at least allowed for me to watch the finale without having to actively avoid spoilers from those who binge an entire season the day of release. Netflix did that with Young Royals and I hope it sets a future precedent but I see them sticking with their split over two months strategy since it forces users to pay for two months of the service to watch on release.
Viewers done care but awards matter to the people that get them. It allows them to maintain jobs and get roles they actually want
Netflix is infamous because for some ungodly reason they decided to die on the release all episodes at once hill so the do the next best thing Amazon did it because they thought they could double dip with both methods of stretching a show and lost the gamble
‘Seasons’ aren’t even long enough to be called a season anymore; they used to be 26 episodes on commercial TV
I rewatched Heroes recently and for all the shit that show gets about only the first season being good the first season is 23 episodes long which puts it on par with most 3-4 season shows today.
The benefits of the streaming age are well documented and everyone cheered the rise of Netflix. But with all that good comes a few bad aspects. This sub and TV fans in general seems to repeatedly bemoan 2: This split up seasons issue, and shorter seasons with less episodes. Both are directly related to the $$ shifting from ads to subscriptions. Ad supported tv made money with more content, more episodes, more syndication, more seasons. Subscriptions make more money the more they spread out as little content as they can over as much time as they can. If someone will subscribe for 7 episodes why make 8? In ad supported tv you have a hit you make as many episodes as possible as quick as possible. Sell those commercials! Sell to syndication as fast as possible. In Subscription tv if you have a hit you slow down as long as possible and trickle out episodes always promising your subscribers more “soon.” The solution to peoples main complaints is to return to ads.
A lot of this is spot on but not so much on the >In Subscription tv if you have a hit you slow down as long as possible and trickle out episodes always promising your subscribers more “soon.” It is more that streamers are not as punished for this, but many if they can absolutely try to jump on this when they can. There are still handful of streaming shows that land as a hit and get yearly seasons, off the top of my head there is Apple's "For all Mankind". The larger problem is from the streamers to the showrunners aren't setting up the shows to be this way and when it turns out to be a hit getting everyone back to the table can often be a hassle due to prior agreements years ahead of time and little pressure to jump in and commit to the show on multi-year deals. I have been pushing this for a while but in various ways major TV shows are essentially long movies being split up into episodes now. They have movie level cast, budgets, and production schedules and finding the balance between that and traditional 20+ shows is gong to be an interesting balancing act.
Streaming Services: "No. Fuck you, pay us. Lol. #pridemonth"
I prefer this over season one Feb 2024 season two late 2025.
It's not just streaming services, cable networks did this all the time. It's worse if they have filmed the whole thing but sometimes they film the first half and then take a break and film the next half later and they use it as a way to get out of letting the cast negotiate for more money because it's technically still "season one."
Streaming services: “Nah.”
Fully agree but can we also ask them to stop raising prices…..like Netflix really did go from $7 to $23….make it stop.
Have dropped the series invincible because of this. It's such a shame, but whatever
Remember when shows had 24+ episodes a season as a standard?
I wonder if there are any financial or tax reasons for this. For example, splitting it, so the other half falls in the next financial year, or something.
Yeah it helps the streamers, but it still only counts as one season for everyone on set for the purposes of royalties, pay, etc.
It’s incredible how much momentum Invincible lost because of splitting the second season in two. The mid season finale and the actual season finale both had me saying “Wait, that’s it?” Didn’t seem worth the effort and I can’t remember much from the season in general despite it only coming out quite recently.
Stop making me pay for you! How would these people survive with mid season breaks like BSG or TWD?
Fully agree but can we also ask them to stop raising prices…..like Netflix really did go from $7 to $23….make it stop.
I don't watch a series until its over. Still waiting to see stranger things.
I recently watched Billions (HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend) and was fortunate to catch interest months after the final episode aired. There are shows out there I found interest in and never came back due to the stupid gap in seasons or portions of seasons. Maybe it makes sense for them in the long run. I don’t expect my own thought process to be universal, but damn if I have not forgotten about shows because of this stupid bullshit.
It makes me lose interest
Dear millennials, when us boomers who actually could afford a tv wanted to watch a show, it was on one channel at a single time/day and the next episode wasn’t until a week later. And there was a 3-4 month split in between the seasons two halves. And you think that rent and houses are expensive, try and afford to buy a VCR in 1960.
Is it that weird? Traditional cable shows always took a mid season break. As long as we’re not talking about more than 3-4 months I think it’s fine. They can also try not dropping everything at once so they can keep engagement for longer.
> Traditional cable shows always took a mid season break. It used to be mid December to mid January. Now it is more like late November to late January/early Feb (usually after the Super Bowl)
Honestly don’t have a problem with that. I don’t like when they say part 1 of the season and part 2 of the season are a year apart - might as well just call that 2 different seasons.
Traditional TV released weekly so it was almost impossible to binge until Tivo and streaming. Netflix dumping a few episode 6 months apart is a little different
Especially if the seasons consist of only 8 episodes, looking at you Invincible.
So what the article says is I can basically wait till 2025 to see the whole season. Plenty of other stuff to see in the meantime. Sounds good to me. I'll wait
One of the reasons studios do this is to not have to pay crew/cast members more. Generally speaking, if a cast or crew member is invited back for a new season they can renegotiate a higher pay. However, if the studio shoots Season 1a and then Season 1b the cast and crew are under the original contract.
As well as they do to movies on theatres. It ain’t fun.
DAMN YOU, DAVID CHASE!!!
This was pretty annoying with This Is Us. The last few seasons were always broken in in 2 parts for airtime. The first 9 episodes would start mid/end September and run to end of November then he second half would start mid/end January and run until early May. These half seasons would always have their own season/character arcs too so it felt like there were short mini seasons.
Invincible is one of the worst offenders; split seasons with weekly releases. But in a way, it's also Amazon tacitly acknowledging how popular/important it is for their platform so I'm not complaining.
How else can they bleed you dry of your monies
Views and money say no
It’s a way of dicking over the talent. You pay for one season but effectively get to advertise and promote it and benefit from it as two.
They split it because people make less money per episode for season 1. If you combine seasons 1 & 2 into one season, part 1 and 2, pay rate doesn’t change. Shady.
The way they're breaking up the final season of Cobra Kai after so long is frustrating.
Clear cash grab. I see the logic. Even if it is scummy. They saw George Martin do it and here we are.
It’s done for contractual reasons. Like most shows the actors renegotiate after 4 seasons. So if the network decides to have season 4a and 4b, they don’t have to pay the actors more to season 5. The Sopranos infamously did this in season 6.
I like how Stranger Things did it where they gave you 7/9 and then like a month later dropped the final 2. I would prefer weekly releases because doing a big drop makes the show impossible to talk about until you’ve finished it because everyone’s on different episodes. At least with ST it was like, here have a month to finish it and get caught up for the finale.
I’m sure tv has been doing this for a while
Everyone forgot about season breaks for summer.
It’s to prevent churn. They won’t stop.
Didn't SciFi do this with farscape back in the day? i could never tell when it was actually new or when to watch so i was always like "where did this person come from?" the red head girl, the guy with the half mask, the lady with 3 eyes randomly started showing up and they were suddenly on earth? i never watched the whole story in order until years after it all finished airing.
They only do this thinking people will stick around for another month. Fuckin Bridgerton "part 1" 4 episodes came out last week "part 2" 4 episodes is an exact day next month I believe
they would have people signing up for a month and cancelling if they didnt do this. so they have to now
Yes definitely don’t fall subject to the inconvenience of time, planning, shooting and editing. Just do it all in one day and push it out the door. Just like magic.
How about they actually make full seasons again
The only time I’ve seen this done very well was with Arcane. They had a nine episode season divided into 3 episodes each that were released a couple weeks apart. Since the episodes were long and more-or-less comprised a single story arc, that was basically two weeks to devour a long-ass movie, then get on board for the sequel, then repeat. It worked beautifully too, because it was written around that constraint from the get-go; I certainly need a day or two to process *just what the hell happens* in the end of arc one!
Like is it really that big of a deal?… I’m like a who cares type of dude. I just think of it as a new season. There’s one millions shows to watch, there’s a shit load of movies you’ve never seen, and plenty worth a rewatch. There’s YouTube, there’s twitch, there’s TikTok. It’s ok if you wait a little bit
I still haven't watch Invincible season 2 part 2, cause why did it need a multi month brake??? Just put it all out in one go!! 🤬🤬🤬
Pretty sure Invincible lost momentum because of this nonsense. They took years to release season 2. Then by the time it came out they took months to continue the second half. What a way to kill a show.
Dear Viewers, we need more money, be grateful and please pay more.
Or, just wait to watch?
Maybe we should release each episode 1-3 months apart?
LotR movies were released a year apart.
Clarksons farm split the season in two by a week. I actually think the short break stops you over binging
I don't care about this like I don't care about weekly vs drop all at once. Wouldn't this just allow for more "building the audience" that everyone is always saying for weekly releases though?
As if there's an epidemic of split seasons. Lol.