How Many Episodes Should You Watch Before Quitting a TV Show? A Statistical Analysis (statsignificant.com) 172
Daniel Parris: Some TV shows take a while to "get good." Modern classics like Breaking Bad, The Wire, Community, and Bojack Horseman are notorious for "starting slow" and are often recommended with a disclaimer like "Give it a few episodes; I promise it gets good!"
At the same time, some shows never get good. Recently, I started a spy series called The Agency, which could best be characterized as premium mediocre (at least so far). There are big-name actors (Michael Fassbender, Jeffrey Wright, Richard Gere), expensive sets, and glossy camerawork -- but after a few installments, I'm trapped in a liminal space between engaged and listless. At the end of each episode, I'm left with the same thought: "Maybe the next one will get good."
Committing to a mediocre program or continuing with a floundering series elicits a state of (mildly) torturous ambiguity. Should you cut your losses, or is this show some late-blooming classic like Breaking Bad? What is the optimal number of episodes one should watch before cleansing a subpar series from their life? Surely, a universal number must exist! Like 42, but for television. So today, we'll explore how long it takes a new show to reach its full potential and how many lackluster episodes you should grant an established series before cutting ties. His analysis reveals that viewers should watch six episodes before quitting TV shows. The study, based on IMDb user ratings, found most series require six to seven episodes before early ratings match or exceed the show's long-term average. After six consecutive subpar episodes, the likelihood of permanent decline exceeds 50%, making it the optimal point to abandon disappointing series.
Several acclaimed shows including Breaking Bad, Friends, and Seinfeld required multiple episodes before reaching their quality potential, with Seinfeld needing 16 episodes to match its series average. The research also identified a pattern where long-running shows typically experience quality decline around seasons five and six, with ratings dropping below first-season averages and continuing to fall.
At the same time, some shows never get good. Recently, I started a spy series called The Agency, which could best be characterized as premium mediocre (at least so far). There are big-name actors (Michael Fassbender, Jeffrey Wright, Richard Gere), expensive sets, and glossy camerawork -- but after a few installments, I'm trapped in a liminal space between engaged and listless. At the end of each episode, I'm left with the same thought: "Maybe the next one will get good."
Committing to a mediocre program or continuing with a floundering series elicits a state of (mildly) torturous ambiguity. Should you cut your losses, or is this show some late-blooming classic like Breaking Bad? What is the optimal number of episodes one should watch before cleansing a subpar series from their life? Surely, a universal number must exist! Like 42, but for television. So today, we'll explore how long it takes a new show to reach its full potential and how many lackluster episodes you should grant an established series before cutting ties. His analysis reveals that viewers should watch six episodes before quitting TV shows. The study, based on IMDb user ratings, found most series require six to seven episodes before early ratings match or exceed the show's long-term average. After six consecutive subpar episodes, the likelihood of permanent decline exceeds 50%, making it the optimal point to abandon disappointing series.
Several acclaimed shows including Breaking Bad, Friends, and Seinfeld required multiple episodes before reaching their quality potential, with Seinfeld needing 16 episodes to match its series average. The research also identified a pattern where long-running shows typically experience quality decline around seasons five and six, with ratings dropping below first-season averages and continuing to fall.
I watch all of them (Score:3)
Re: I watch all of them (Score:2)
Re: I watch all of them (Score:4, Insightful)
Some don’t, others very much do. Breaking Bad for example has a very clear very definitive ending. (SPOILER HORN!) The main character achieves many long term goals, others are given up on. Main character dies. Characters that have been enemies and allies over many seasons are killed. Most loose ends are tied up.
Breaking Bad ended so definitively then when the network, fans, and director wanted to “carry on” they made a prequel. (ok, ok, also one single two hour “movie” type show for one of the few major characters that didn’t get his whole arch resolved, and didn’t get killed)
A lot of other shows have “endings” that are clearly an ending (all the “friends” from Friends move away, that “stage of life” where your fiends are your first priority is over, most of them hav families taking the number one spot). Some shows have dissatisfying endings (Seinfeld , Sopranos), that never the less are endings.
I don’t dispute that some shows have non-endings -- Miami Vice didn’t “end” it just had a last episode. Most “network TV” works that way (but not all of it, “House” had an end for example). Prestige TV tries to have an overarching story, and that generally (but not always) includes having an end.
Re: (Score:3)
You say that but Walking Dead was so-called "Prestige TV" that just constantly tried to have ongoing perma status quo for infinity seasons.
Good writing is good, and not easily reduced to a single brand or practice
Re: (Score:3)
I generally quit the first time a ad shows up. I *REALLY* dislike intrusive ads.
Depends (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I gave up on Rings of Power too, although I'm told it gets better in season 2. That's a bit of a slog to get to.
Andor was a slow burner but I'm glad I stuck with it. Takes until about episode 5 or 6 to really get moving, but then it's excellent.
Andor (Score:2)
Cop Rock (Score:3)
Up to 4 (Score:2)
Manimal (Score:3)
ST:TNG (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't until the third season that ST:TNG found its footing.
Re: ST:TNG (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: ST:TNG (Score:2)
Re:ST:TNG (Score:4, Interesting)
Another possible factor is the overall structure and duration of a season. Back in the TNG days, seasons were typically 20+ episodes, whereas now they often seem to be somewhere around 8-10, so less than half. If I'd only given shows six episodes to prove their worth back then I would probably have given up on a LOT of great shows long before they hit their stride, conversely, I didn't even need the ~six *minutes* of the opening scene to realise that all of "Section 31" would have been best left on the cutting room floor. If that had gone to series and I'd given it six episodes I'd have probably needed a lobotomy to help me get over how awfully bad it was.
Somehow, I don't think it's anything like as clear cut as TFA is trying to imply.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't even need the ~six *minutes* of the opening scene to realise that all of "Section 31" would have been best left on the cutting room floor. If that had gone to series and I'd given it six episodes I'd have probably needed a lobotomy to help me get over how awfully bad it was.
Unpopular, and maybe untrue opinion: if it had gone to series maybe it would have actually improved and been good enough to watch by the end of six episodes? (alt: maybe it would have improved over six episodes and by the end of the sixth it would have merely been “not good enough” as opposed to damaging your very existence, or at least your opinion of the Star Trek universe)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In literature, there's a concept called "narrative hook", which in a nutshell goes something like this: the writer is supposed to capture the reader's interest within the first paragraph, otherwise they're probably not going to read the rest of the book. If you need an entire chapter of boring background infodump be
Re: (Score:3)
This - we live in world of much greater choice now. TV is a lot like fiction literature is/was.
In the 1990s there were 60k sq foot book stores with rows and rows of shelves laden with mass market paperbacks, and even more choice to be found at your county library. Most of us though had either 2-5 OTA channels or maybe 20 or cable channels that were not shopping/weather/cspan and local equivalents.
You had few options to chose from as far as prime time television went, the networks could tweak the shows mid
sunk costs (Score:2)
I'm going to say 0.5 episodes. There is no TV payoff that is worth slogging through an entire work day worth of content. If a show still sucks by the time I get to the first ad break, its over.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. The same sort of person who needs the hook in the first 15 seconds of the song. In the name of developing nuanced material, I think it's best that the artists cut you loose from the targeted demographic. Sadly, you're becoming representative of the norm rather than the bottom of the barrel. Can't have a well constructed, thoughtfully developed pace...
Re:sunk costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfair comparison.
A song is, what, 3-4 (or more) minutes long. If you start listening to it, and listen to it all, you wasted 3-4 minutes if it's not good.
A TV series could mean losing 3-4 hours, which is 60 times more time spent. In today's world, that's a lot.
I currently have 11 TV series in my short backlog. If the pilot episode is bad, I will move said TV series to a "will check later" stack, and if, in the future, I happen upon a good review or someone telling me "hey, it really gets good after a while, and here's why", then I'll reconsider.
Fact of the matter is, there are simply too many TV series out there to give them all a long look before you decide they are worth your limited time.
And another thing: I try to watch most TV series only after they end. There are way too many TV series which I liked / loved, but got canceled because reasons. "Jericho" and "Shadow and Bone" come to mind. Now, that is also a waste of time.
There are also TV series which started very well but devolved into a tangled mess, such as Lost, Manifest, Heroes and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
While I get your point, and I agree with some of your other points (like never watching "current" shows), relative to length, half an episode is like less than 15 seconds of a song.
Well defended, though. Points for not taking my (unreasonably) condescending tone as bait.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah - I thought you were the OP. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Appreciate your civilized response.
Regarding the "relative to length", in my opinion, the measure is flawed.
I prefer using "my time" rather than "percentage of item time length", because, in certain cases, the becomes unreasonably long.
Determination of good versus "not worth my time" on the following examples:
"Half a song" is obviously not a problem. Even "half an album" isn't that bad.
"Half a TV series" is unreasonably long.
"Half a lifetime" (e.g. when you go to a first date) is excessively long (yet some
Re: (Score:3)
Battlestar Galactica was a great example of a great 1st Episode.
When #6 showed up at the neutral station, and asked "Are you alive?".
Perfect Hook. Hot Chick, Menacing robots, existential crisis ....
Re: sunk costs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say the same about Forrest Gump, it is one movie I would have walked out of had I ever seen it at a cinema.
Considering it's a work of fiction, based on a printed best-selling fictional novel... you talk about suspension of beliefs (not "suspend disbelief")... YEAH, OBVIOUSLY! NOBODY CALLED IT A DOCUMENTARY, OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO ONE.
How was BrBa starting slow? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you're the type of person that can't make it 35 seconds into a show without 'splosions or some ludicrously choreographed martial arts sequence ... I've never understood the "starts slow" characterization of Breaking Bad.
I get that label a little more for the Better Call Saul spinoff, but even there, the character writing was deep and good, so it made up for the less "wacky adventure" nature of the first couple seasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Better caul saul definitely has a slower start, which is to be expected when you learn it's the origin story of a fucking shadeball defense lawyer who sta
The Cough (Score:2)
Walt's cough through the first couple of episodes was awful, and I couldn't bear the idea of multiple seasons of it.
It fades, thankfully, so I presume someone got a note or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood the "starts slow" characterization of Breaking Bad.
Compared to how crazy the story went by the end, it's fair to say it started slow.
I Don't think the problem is slow starts (Score:2)
In the days of broadcast television you used to have to fill time so you could sell advertisements. This means that shows that had a bad first season would keep going because that's just what they had to put on air so they could sell the ad space.
Probably the biggest example of this is family matters. It's an old sitcom that had an extremely weak first season or two and then along came Steve urkel. That one character transforms the show and made it a huge hit but the show
None? (Score:3)
I usually wait to watch a show at all until I'm fairly sure I'll like it. I don't have time to waste on every mediocre TV show that comes along.
Ever since Netflix started dropping a season at a time, I have moved to waiting until a show has been fully released before deciding whether to watch.
If it's a local broadcast show, I may record an entire season of a show that looks like a good fit. But I may not get around to actually watching it.
To be honest, Netflix has a good enough recommendations engine that I don't look outside of their catalog very often. Back in the DVD days, I rated probably 700 movies and shows on there and since then the algorithm just gets me. It has been spot on. Though they don't seem to give the % match information to me anymore in the listings, so I don't really have the same trust I used to.
I was probably the last to watch Breaking Bad. It was just a few years ago. I watched a couple episodes and then bought the Blu-Ray box set to rip to make it easier to watch (and higher quality).
Who the fuck is this guy? (Score:2)
They do not appear to be an expert in pop culture, but they do have expertise in data science. So I guess that's a plus.
Not just TV shows -- movies too (Score:2)
Some movies also are slow-starters. I wonder how many people gave up watching Dr. Strangelove after twenty or thirty minutes, and missed out on the hilarity that ensues.
Analysis is only half of the picture: missing data (Score:3)
The analysis gives data for shows which start out poor and get good. By not discussing shows that start out poor and stay poor, we don't have a picture. It also misses shows that start out good and get bad.
Simple (Score:2)
Next story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be disappointed... (Score:2)
if you don't watch any of them!
I kinda hate TV. I very very rarely watch anything, and if I do, it's live news for something significant happening (breaking news or cultural, like a State of the Union or similar).
My wife is the opposite. If she is anywhere within the house, the TV is guaranteed to be on. Drives me insane.
Usually five minutes are enough... (Score:2)
Acting Cohesion... (Score:2)
Some shows take time to develop (Score:2)
The first 5 or 6 episodes of Seinfeld weren't very good. The cast were trying to grow into the characters so things were stiff and awkward. The same is true of other shows like M*A*S*H, Star Trek: The Next Generation, and even the Simpsons. They all became major hits and were on for years. But it's hard to know that early on. For me, unless the show premise is ridiculous, too much like other shows, or has one or more characters I simply can't stand, I'll give it 3 or 4 episodes before I pull the plug. Of c
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it really seems like comedies can suffer in their first seasons since they are able to shift their characters and tone quite a bit more than dramas but that also allows them a bit more freedom to tweak things.
Countless first season examples with comedies like you mentioned the Simpsons with "Walter Matthau Homer voice", someone here also mentioned The Office (US). I would throw Parks and Rec there whose first season is almost kind of mean in it's tone and really takes a shift in it's second season. It
Re: (Score:2)
I agree about Lost. The first season was its best while the first 3 seasons were great in comparison to the final 3. After season 4, I was wavering a bit going into 5 but I'd invested so much time in it, I really wanted to see it through. I'm glad I did but it was sometimes a struggle.
Re: (Score:2)
Same, I saw it through to the end but you're spot on that in season 4 you could start to feel the creeping sense of "oh, they don't really have the answers for all these questions they opened up"
I'm at that point now. (Score:2)
Late to the party... but just started the first few episodes of "Lucifer". While the acting is decent, the "confrontation" moments of the police drama angle seem ludicrously anachronistic. Feels like old-timey 50s Dragnet acting. The perpetrator goes from denial to, "You'll never take me alive, copper!" Jumped out to watch something else, now debating re-engaging. Were it not for my treadmill I wouldn't watch series shows at all...
Analyzing the wrong thing (Score:2)
Star Trek TNG viewers know the drill. Skip season 1, spot-watch the important stuff in season 2, and dial in for the rest. What's different between seasons 1-2 and 3-7?
The uniforms! Those jumbo spandex jumpsuits were obviously the problem, not the ratings.
explorers not colonizers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The introduction of Q into the series, for me, started its descent into irrelevancy. I liked ST because of its close association with hard SciFi. It wasn't a perfect match but it was close enough. Having magical beings who can simply snap their fingers to make characters disappear into new realities or locations exceed my ability to swallow such impossibilities.
The Office (USA version) (Score:2)
But these were before "second screen content" (Score:2)
But today we have to deal with "second screen content", a strategy by Netflix and others to generate content that people can watch while they are on their phone.
It is not enough with just visuals, everything must also be said, preferably more than once because people are not paying attention. The pace should be slow so people can keep up.
if you think I am kidding or i am making it up myself, just google it. :)
(I don't subscribe to streaming services anymore, but that is mostly because i need a second job th
Gun X Sword (Score:2)
But man it's a tough first five episodes before it gets going. At the time I had a drought of anime and it was on one of the streaming services so I sat down and watched it. Powering through those five episodes and it's one of my top five mechanime.
It's tough though to get that far into a show before it takes off. In these days most anime runs 13 episodes and then stops
Depends on a lot of things. (Score:2)
Shows can start strong and have nowhere to go stringing out the audience forever, or they can start weak but the showrunners push the story through an arc that gains an audience. Worst of all are the ones that pulled the rug at the last minute and completely suck. Game of Thrones would the prime example of that but Lost was another.
Does it matter anymore? (Score:2)
It seems like everything is 6 episode seasons now. Unless it's so bad you feel like you need to bail in the first episode, you may as well finish the whole season.
That said, Dune: Prophecy is a serious WTF and I regret everything.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how long it takes to solve a case.
Absolutely not (Score:2)
The office, first season was terrible, second and th
Breaking bad, really? (Score:2)
The first episode is a masterclass in how to be immediately interesting and exciting.
If you found that it started slow ... ehm ... maybe you watched a different show?
Re: (Score:2)
The first episode is a masterclass in how to be immediately interesting and exciting
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Breaking Bad E1 doesn’t have the full depth of later episodes because in E1 you don’t know any of the characters, so aren’t rooting for anyone in particular, and you definitely aren’t hoping to see someone fail. You also don’t trust the show to let the characters to actually have the characters not get jerked around (much) for the sake of plot. (at least one of the things I really liked about BB is nobody does something dumb just because the plot demands
Babylon 5 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Midnight on the Firing Line" was awesome. First episode of the series (after "The Gathering").
Re: Babylon 5 (Score:2)
You can watch junk. Or.. (Score:3)
So ... waste 6 hours of your life to find out? (Score:2)
IMDB ratings? (Score:2)
Waste of everyone's time to base anything on the ratings. So many shows end up with all 1s "writers are too woke; not interested in what this woman thinks; I just want to have a laugh" and 10s "just putting this in to counter the snowflake republitard knuckle-draggers".
Firefly (Score:4)
The first season was pretty good. I'm expecting great things from season two.
Re: (Score:2)
Season two was the movie.
Episodes (Score:2)
Two.
They get two.
If by two I'm not at least thinking "Hey, if this was a little better I could enjoy this", then it's not worth my time.
If the show is established, I'll take those two from random series. If the show is new, it has to be the first few episodes.
If I'm not hooked by two, at least for the potential of the series, then it's not going to work.
Sorry, but live is too short to give things 6 episodes of trial, and I don't think I've ever encountered a series where that would make any difference.
Sure
Re: (Score:2)
People keep telling me that if only I'd stuck with Enterprise, it got a whole lot better in Season 2.
Note to all current and future showrunners: Season 2 is too late!
hear me out (Score:2)
NO, THATS NOT IT! Then cancel it immediately! You have to cancel the entire show at that point even though people now understand what's going on.
Re: hear me out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a good idea. I'll have to try that.
Some showrunners do exactly that. They'll start in the middle of a story or a fight sequence, then fill in later what led up to it. I think it's a valuable technique. We need a reason to watch.
The X Files (Score:2)
15 minutes (Score:2)
If something doesn't happen in the first 15 minutes that tells me it's worth watching I'm out. There's too much stuff to watch for me to spend longer than that. Breaking Bad was compelling from the opening sequence so I'm not sure where this article is coming from.
No show is worth waiting 4 episodes to get good. This isn't the 70s through the 00s. There's too many options to waste that much time.
Doesn't mean I won't come back to a show if it can generate 'buzz'.
Too much work, an easier way... (Score:2)
Watch it, if it doesn’t grab you in the first episode ignore it for a year or two (or more). If it is still around you might have been wrong, ask someone who has a similar taste to yours, if they say it is good, go ahead and give it another try for a few more episodes. If you can’t find anyone with similar taste in TV shows as yourself, maybe you should spend more time making friends. If you can’t bring yourself to make more friends clearly you have plenty of time to fill with TV and g
Re: (Score:2)
In very rare circumstances, I've skipped a season and tried the show again. Sometimes that works!
Ersatz Reality (Score:2)
In the case of anything new on Disney+, the answer is zero.
Maybe in the future I'll get an AI to watch it for me and just summarize the emotions I would've felt.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney used to produce good stuff, back in the day. It's like they lost the formula. But yeah, Disney+ is an automatic nope these days.
I think Disney will turn it around eventually, but by that time they'll probably be a significantly smaller company.
Beacon 23... don't bother (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm re-watching L.A. Law right now... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The producer who took the mantle is Dick Wolf @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Basically, in classic Hollywood fashion, actors of various flavors would get opportunities on serial dramas (like LA Law, Law & Order, or other type shows). If actors succeed in those opportunities (sometimes they start with silent/background roles before getting speaking roles in later episodes) then other production companies would giv
Three too many. (Score:2)
The Wire? Really? (Score:2)
Only some appreciate deep character development (Score:2)
I find you can rather neatly put people in one of two categories; those who want to feel emotions early/often while watching a show -- and those who are fine with watching a lot of character development unfold as "set up" for a show.
The people in the first group *could* just be the ones who want to see a bunch of explosions and crashes? But sometimes, they're just people who want to feel entertained (lots of things to laugh at, for example).
I find that for me, the payoff is worth the time investment when th
Two points for me here. (Score:2)
Point 1: Depends on the nature of the show. I just finished Babylon 5 not long ago, and you could make the argument that it was pretty lackluster in the first few episodes, even if it was entertaining in some ways. That was a slow burn, but when it got good, it got DEEPLY good. I didn't follow my own defacto rule, which is three episodes and I'm out if I can't find a compelling reason to keep going. I'm glad I didn't give up. That said, there are a *LOT* of shows being made now just to shove something out t
2-3 (Score:2)
I've watched a several series that were amazing...but wasn't impressed with the first episode. So, I usually try to push through a few.
Three episodes (Score:2)
Three seems the sweet spot. The first episode, the cast and crew are finding their feet. Usually there are small course corrections in the second episode, and by the third episode the plot, characters, mannerisms, direction, all have solidified. There are exceptions of course, but I've found that in most cases three episodes are good enough. And yes, I have dropped many series after three episodes. Life is too short for the banal.
Marketing might plead with us to give the show a chance, it gets better,
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.
Back in the day of 'tonight's episode was filmed last week,' sure.
Nowadays, it's not unusual for a full 'season' or even two to be fully in the can before a show premieres.
You watch until you don't. (Score:2)
I should have more patience. (Score:2)
Re: "characterized as premium mediocre" (Score:2)
I'm guessing high production value but uninspired artistically.
Translation for mouth-breathing Alabama types (Score:3, Funny)
Really? People with more than 5th grade vocabulary are artsy-fartsy New York types? Premium (PRE-me-um) means expensive and Mediocre (me-de-O-ker) means average (or as the kids say these days, "mid"). Though a reasonably intelligent person should have been able to guess that from the context even without knowing what those very common words meant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
if I detect any woke or political BS
So misogyny, racism, and anti-semitism are not dealbreakers for you, but "woke" is?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'll silently drop a show if it doesn't catch my attention in the first two or three episodes. It's not worth my time to review something I stopped watching unless it really offended me, which happens seldom. If a significant portion of the population feels that way, I can see where it would be difficult to figure out why a show failed.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the trailer for Section 31 and tossed in the towel.
Re: (Score:2)
Wife and I made it three episodes into Rings of Power. We were ready to quit on episode two but decided to give it one more. Wow was that a waste of time.