On Not Writing for Television

I am not a television writer and don't pretend to be, but I'd like to pick up on something that Matt Watts talked about in his blog yesterday. Now, perhaps because I'm not a television writer I don't hate Lost. I actually think it's a pretty good show, but I do see Matt's point:


For instance, there's the hatch. It was found by complete accident (or was it?) and Locke and Boone spent the greater part of the first season, digging it up. Finally, they BLOW THE HATCH! Whoo-hoo, they go down the hatch but how are they going to deal with Hurley getting down there? He's too fat. And we can't have the characters going up and down that long shaft every week, SO.... There's a GIANT METAL DOOR.

It was easy to miss, because it was BEHIND A BUSH.


Many, ok most, successful television shows end up 'jumping the shark.' HBO seems to have worked their way around this to an extent by pulling the plug on shows after a reasonable amount of time and by not making as many episodes a season.

What I wonder is: When you sit down to write a new series, why don't you write a story - that is a single story with a beginning, a middle and an end. Next you figure out how many episodes you need to get from the beginning to the end. Shows would still have to be renewed season to season but it seems to me that if you know the story from the start, it is easier to stick to and tell that story and when the story is over it's over.

Shows wouldn't go on for MASH or Friends like runs but I think you'd end up with better shows, with no flashback shows, no christmas specials, in short no filler - in future when these were sold on DVD people would be more compelled to own the entire thing, because there is no filler - it's a single story.

Just a thought, as I said, it's not what I do.