Death of Miniseries..

I don't seek out miniseries nearly as much as I should. By definition, they have the main attribute of my favorite TV series: a well planned story arc; so you'd think I'd be all over them. Shaka Zulu and Roots, my favs are basically sacred staples of my childhood. Also Anno Domini (from the 80s). I can think of a handful more that I've watched, (Band of Brothers, The Stand) but that's it. There's got to be tons of good stuff out there.

It's a great format that is (or has become as you argue) underused?

--
H

Well, I think a lot of times lately, when they do have miniseries, it's just a failed full-length series.  As in, usually it seems they planned for a full series, and then never got picked up after that, and so it's just the first four episodes or something like that.  (There was a XIII miniseries a year or two ago that was a perfect example, since it ended with a cliffhanger).

 

As opposed to some of the better ones that started as a fully-contained miniseries and then after the completion were extended out into a series (like the 4400, for example).

Speaking of XIII, it was designed as a mini, covering the first (if I'm not mistaken) four issues of the comic series.

It's apparently been picked up for a 13 episode "series", to start airing this summer.

Crusoe sort of fit, since it was only intended to run for 13 episodes.  There was an actual miniseries on a major network a year or two ago about an asteroid hitting the earth or something, but I don't remember what it was.

---
Impact is a 2008 ABC mini-series about a meteor shower which eventually sends the moon on a collision course with Earth. The two-part mini-series premiered June 21 and 28 on ABC
---

I don't think a 2-episode production is really a miniseries. It's just a long movie.

 Don't you think it's a matter of economics? The universe  of viewer choice is simply too vast for any program to expect to pull in an audience for an extended period. The cost of assembling stars, shooting in a distinctive location instead of a studio lot (where the geography is boringly familiar) and promoting a "big event" is just too much to bear in this hyper-media age. Long-form television has gone the way of the Dickens novel.

Rome was initially meant to be a miniseries of sorts. If HBO can do it, why can't network TV? I think the real problem isn't that it's not doable on network TV, but that network TV doesn't have the structure to encourage such efforts. I think it's a case of, "If you build it, they will come." If you're offering marginal product, you can't expect to get strong ratings. But if the product is good enough and hits on something people really want to see, they'll watch.
 
And if they watch, you get good ratings. And if you get good ratings, you can charge more for advertising. And if you can charge more for advertising, you can afford good content. But if you interrupt that chain anywhere and, for instance, say, "Instead of spending the nice ad dollars on excellent entertainment, let's allocate a bit more of it to management bonuses and shareholder profits, and pay a little less for the content," then eventually the audience migrates away and you can no longer afford to take big risks. Or if you do take them, they're even riskier. Among other things, you're now trying to lure back a disillusioned audience.

HBO has also done Band of Brothers, and is now going to do The Pacific (among others). The key is picking something that many people would be interested in. How about a no holds barred miniseries written by a good writer, directed by a good director, and starring a bunch of talented (but not necessarily costly) actors. If it doesn't come off like an after school special, I bet many would watch -- all over the world. The problem is, if network TV did such a thing, it'd be a fluff piece. There's too much PC-ness. They wouldn't really show the negatives of the people involved, but that's where thh drama is.

Fair and balanced doesn't make for good entertainment. Roots didn't make sure they showed white people saying slavery is wrong, even though there were many such people. Because the story wasn't about those people. The Shield doesn't spend time showing there are many hispanic people who are decent, law-abiding citizens. Because the story wasn't about those people. The Wire didn't worry about showing the upstanding Cosby-esque black people of the world. Because the story wasn't about those people.

There's so much drama in Obama's rise to the White House that it makes me want to become a writer just so I can write the story. There's how many people on both sides feel Colin Powell was a sell-out (for supporting the war in Iraq on one side, for supporting Obama on the other). And it just goes on and on. You could even through Edwards into it at this point. And McCain/Palin. That story could easily fill, say, 8 hours of TV, and if done right, I see it as compelling. But without a no-holds-barred writer and a no-holds-barred director, it would have no chance of being done right. It'd come off more as a movie of the week. I wish someone like David Chase would do it, but yeah... not happening.
 

I love the miniseries format - like they did in the 1980s, with four or five parts instead of just two - and wish more networks would get a vision for a longer narrative, and then produce it and move onto something else.

Miniseries shouldn't necessarily be "The Thorn Birds" or "The Winds of War" or "The Day After" or classic works of literature. (Though they work well.) The form is nearly limitless in its narrative possibilities... you get more density than the "epic film" format, but more narrative cohesion than an open-ended television run.

You might say that some of our regular television series are trying to convert themselves to this model, with shorter episodes than the standard miniseries but a longer run (12 or 13 episodes). But most viewers need a self-contained formula in each episode, which is what still hold back these shows from full "miniseries" status for me. Some producers get lucky enough to plan for an exit strategy in case the show is canceled. I know from a business standpoint it's ridiculous to cut your losses with the promise of multi-season revenue, but from an viewer's standpoint, I'd welcome the variety (and the narrative risks that come from trying more things every year).

I never see it mentioned here but I really enjoyed Shogun.

I am huge fan of miniseries, especially the ones produced in the 1970s and 1980s. I have several mini-series/movies, such as the following:

1. Pearl the mini-series
2. Martian Chronicles
3. V the mini-series
4. Rich Man, Poor Man
5. Once an Eagle

I hope to add the following to collections in the next few years

1. Roots
2. North -vs- South
3. War and Rembrance
4. Winds of War
5. Shogun
6. Thornbirds
7. Aspen

Hollywood did something right in the 1970s by bringing books to life via use of miniseries. I do not support war, but i am a history buff and many of the miniseries touch issue such as war. The old saying is those deemed to forget about history are deemed to repeat it!

It is too bad a specialty channel was created to focus on miniseries and/or movies based on novels. I would think there is marketing opportunity for these type of shows. Heck there is soap network then why can't there be a miniseries network?

What is the XIII mentioned earlier?

Ok I never heard of that one.

XIII was a 2 night "event" type thing.

That led into a (thus far) single season of... 13 episodes. I think that it got renewed for a second season.

http://www.amazon.com/Action-Triple-Feature-1-Blu-ray/dp/B00682LSE6/ref=sr_1_37?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1328321298&sr=1-37


Apparently the two night event of XIII is coming to blu, not sure if it was already on blu.

It came out here in Canada. Don't know the quality of it. Only saw it once for sale.

I really enjoy mini-series, especially with a DVR, just save up the parts and watch it over a weekend, no cliffhangers or what ifs to worry about.

Stephen King novels seem to be meant to be mini-series, they're just to long and cover so much material. Loved "The Stand" and the second version of "The Shining". There is something else of his coming up that I can't recall the name of right now.

I don't think there is any definite line, but even though "Band of Brothers" was great, I don't think it qualifies as a mini-series, maybe just an extended run of an episodic show.

Two episodes definitely doesn't qualify, they could possibly be shown in one showing, but the networks want the extra advertising. For example that horrendous piece of crap a few years ago when they redid "The Andromeda Strain" easily could have been shown in one night, but it was so outrageously packed with commercials they stretched it out. Wow was that disappointing. One of my favorite films and they completely destroyed it. Thank goodness I have the original DVD.

3-4 seems to be the perfect number of episodes for a mini-series. Never saw "The Thorn Birds" or much of what's mentioned above, just a bit before my time. I do recall "Roots" but I was very young and not my style of entertainment back then.

Never heard of XIII, but reading some of the links, it looks like it may be pretty good. I'll have to try and find it.

XIII is very good, and is based on a graphic novel/comic book that also became a video game in 2003.

I have the following mini-series:

1. Rich Man, Poor Man
2. Pearl Harbor
3. V The mini-Series
4. Once a Solder

I am a huge fan of mini-series and was fortunate to grow up in the 1970s as a kid to experience some epic mini-series. I like to purchase winds of war, shogun, roots and other mini-series that have been released on dvd.

I disagree. BoB is the very definition of a miniseries. I also really enjoyed HBO's "John Adams". It was very well done.