Today it was reported that Fox has cancelled the series Going Dutch after two seasons and while it sounds like that was a decision based on ratings -- and made after giving the show two full seasons to find its audience -- it made me wonder about what a reasonable amount of time for a network to give a show before cutting it would be. In the age of streaming so many series are cut very early on only to find major audiences after their demise. It would seem like maybe some shows just need time to bloom. But, by the same token, how much time is too much time?

I guess giving two seasons in advance is a nice compromise. However, that needs to be clear. I still remember 1899. Netflix bought the idea for a three-season story, so of course, the creators left a massive cliffhanger at the end of the first season. Then the series got cancelled, and, last I heard, they are not even allowed to shop it elsewhere.

Creators need to know in advance how much time they have and what metrics they must achieve, so they can plan around it.

9 hours ago, Marco Vito Oddo said:

I guess giving two seasons in advance is a nice compromise. However, that needs to be clear. I still remember 1899. Netflix bought the idea for a three-season story, so of course, the creators left a massive cliffhanger at the end of the first season. Then the series got cancelled, and, last I heard, they are not even allowed to shop it elsewhere.

Creators need to know in advance how much time they have and what metrics they must achieve, so they can plan around it.

1899 is still one of the most disappointing cancellations for me. It was such a great show and it definitely deserved to complete its three-season story.

I feel like 3 seasons is about as perfect as you get as far as enough time to find an audience and also wrap up your story in a satisfying way if you can't get a big enough audience to continue forward.

1 hour ago, MattAguilarCB said:

I feel like 3 seasons is about as perfect as you get as far as enough time to find an audience and also wrap up your story in a satisfying way if you can't get a big enough audience to continue forward.

I agree with Matt here (for once). Three seasons is the best possible amount especially because shows are generally much shorter now. Three seasons is basically one season back in the old days by comparison.

13 hours ago, Marco Vito Oddo said:

I guess giving two seasons in advance is a nice compromise. However, that needs to be clear. I still remember 1899. Netflix bought the idea for a three-season story, so of course, the creators left a massive cliffhanger at the end of the first season. Then the series got cancelled, and, last I heard, they are not even allowed to shop it elsewhere.

Creators need to know in advance how much time they have and what metrics they must achieve, so they can plan around it.

I will never forgive Netflix for cancelling 1899.

4 hours ago, Allison Schonter said:

1899 is still one of the most disappointing cancellations for me. It was such a great show and it definitely deserved to complete its three-season story.

THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS

41 minutes ago, Valdezology said:

I agree with Matt here (for once). Three seasons is the best possible amount especially because shows are generally much shorter now. Three seasons is basically one season back in the old days by comparison.

Shooketh that you're agreeing with Matt, Nick. ;)

But yeah, I think three is the sweet spot. If we still had proper, long seasons, it might be different.

9 hours ago, Valdezology said:

I agree with Matt here (for once). Three seasons is the best possible amount especially because shows are generally much shorter now. Three seasons is basically one season back in the old days by comparison.

Wow Nick, you finally saw the light! You should agree with me more often