[…] I don’t know how much longer the idea of a “season” will be something that we feel like we need to adhere to in television. Even the idea of an episode. I think with streaming, you might have shows in the future where you have three or …read more […]

I think we're a way off from this. Even though the tech makes it possible to do whatever the artist feels like, there's still some obstacles: * The audience expects a certain amount of consistency, you can play with lengths and episode count a bit, but too much too soon and you could lose people. It helps to know how much time you're investing in something before you go into it (I know if I start another episode of Breaking Bad, I'm in for forty minutes, for example). And when you binge watch, you're doing that math in your head. * I don't think anyone's going to watch an eight hour thing, they need their time broken up into chunks, even if they watch eight hours of a show, we need rhythm, we need natural pauses where we know it's okay to stop for the night or to go to the bathroom, or a common point where we can discuss it (it's easier to say "I'm at episode eight of House of Cards" than "I'm 7 hours 15 minutes in." I barely remember what was in a numbered episode, let alone what time something happened at on a show). I know not every book is divided into chapters, but I think a good proportion of them are, for that reason. Chunking is very helpful for not just consuming but also discussing, and you want your audience discussing your content. * Here's the big one: I think we'll be stuck with the traditional molds for a while because it's just easier to write up contracts for them. I remember when Arrested Development came back for season four and reading about how nebulous the contracts were (and consequently how a little editing change could wind up costing a few extra thousand dollars). Sticking to traditional constructs of seasons and movies probably makes all that less painful. The real thing is, I can't really think of many good reasons why you would want to have a series with episodes of various lengths or an eight hour movie (who would have the time to watch that in one sitting?) outside of just being able to do it.

Drama without borders. I believe this *is* the future. It's great because stories no longer have to fit into TV or film-length molds. You can give people a short-length web series or more short films (not just the 5-15 min. variety but longer versions -- like a film novella) and they can be just as impactful and satisfying -- and make great watercooler conversation.

Binge viewing? Netflix? Helllo?

I think you stumbled on something there Watson. It's reality. In the real world things are not either black or white, true or false, hot or cold, political or anarchist, love or apathy, win or lose, TV or Film. There are grey areas. Lots and lots of little grey areas. Some as yet undiscovered.

Try living off of it.

This. People forget: aside from subscription channels, the primary purpose of a TV show is to deliver ads to eyeballs. And for Netflix & HBO, etc... the commercial goal behind House of Cards and True Detective is to encourage new subscribers to sign up. Almost every significant decision that's made in the broadcasting & cable industries, business, creative or otherwise, is affected by that simple idea.

Totally agree with plinytheelder_t. For TV formats to change in the cable and broadcast TV worlds the advertising piece will need to be figured out. Maybe like one of those Mad Men things on AMC where they say this episode is brought to you by BMW at the top of the episode or story chunk or whatever it'll be called. How else are the networks going to make money?

I'll just add that if Beau or someone else tries to just put out an 8 hour "thing" of some sort, it'll likely be on Netflix, HBO, etc. The subscription model allows for some flexibility in artistic license because it's unlikely that someone will unsubscribe because of one failed project, whereas each episode's ratings in broadcast and cable are more directly tied to its profitability.

Very interesting thoughts. I remember a couple of TV shows that were also shown as movies: Ingmar Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage (1973) - six episodes, 281 minutes. There's also a 167 minute movie. Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander (1982) - conceived as a four-part TV movie running 312 minutes. There's also a 188 minute movie. Olivier Assayas' Carlos (2010) - a three part, 319 minutes mini-series. Also edited as a 166 minute movie. So maybe this isn't so new. It's the same story but in all three cases there have been different versions for different media. Sometimes you add things, sometimes you cut others. The huge challenge I can see as a writer is how to write scenes that could be left out in the shorter version and yet feel necessary for the longer version. Are t hey essential if you can leave them out and things still make sense? What do you think? Would it be possible to make a "House of Cards" two or three hour movie with some editing? What could be left out. (Disclaimer: I haven't watched House of Cards)

I have to agree, overall, with blueneumann. The difference between a film and TV is that a film is a self-contained story (even if it has sequels); a TV show is a continuing story for a group of specific characters or a specific situation. Eight hours? I need time to process a deep two-hour movie I've seen. Sometimes I have to sleep on it before I know how I feel about it. I don't think I could absorb an eight- (or six- or five-) hour film. Remember "Shoah"? Four hours, a break or an overnight, and another four hours. I'm just not willing to commit to that. I'm not seeing this as an actual trend. I see the occasional possibility for an eight-hour event, but I just as comfortably see it broken up into one- or two-hour series of shows.

8-10-12 hours of binge watching already happen. I've read of people who download seasons of House of Cards. They may split it up into two screenings. But they watch the whole thing. Same for other series. That's why it works with series. They are designed in one hour pieces so you can stop at a point in the middle. We should consider writing more in series, and encouraging this. It opens up new markets. If people start buying series, that's a lot more writing to get out, more writers are needed, more money is spent.

Demonstrating the new paradigm even more than True Detective (which adopts the British production model), a season of the BBC's Sherlock consists of three 90-min episodes, no ads. While 90 mins represents the upper limit for an episode length, it's easy to see the number of episodes expanded to six or even ten. However, the benefit of the British model, is that it encourages all the episodes to be written by a single writer and potentially directed by a single director (Paul McGuigan directed 4 of the 6 episodes comprising seasons 1 & 2. There's value, imho, in the tonal consistency that approach brings.

Thanks, everyone, for your observations and speculation. The conversation is a healthy one if only to remind ourselves that story is organic. The forms and formats we use to convey stories is also organic, no matter how rigid we think it may be. Yes, for a time, maybe even decades, the form may pretty much stay the same. But as the combination of creativity and the interests of viewers does its magic, all set within the context of the business of delivering entertainment, things change. One takeaway for writers is to explore ALL narrative forms. This is good advice not only relative to what may or may not happen in the way of movies, TV, whatever, but also to delve into which arena best suits your writing capabilities and instincts.