In the simplest form yes.

However if the contract called for more seasons, then they may be in breach. Many times the showrunners just get switched.

However if the contract is over the creators are not required to negotiate a new one.

Depends on the contract. HBO wanted another season of Watchmen, Lindelof said no, so no second season. Gilmore Girls did not renew the contract of the show's creator and head writer after season 6, but still did a 7th season without her.

So who owns the the actual playwright? Does an OG producer sell these rights to another? Or does the studio basically have all ownership?

You could argue it has to do with the associated costs of production. I would surmise studios low ball producers to create their shows.

>But typically mutually inclusive

Its inherently subjective but hard to show that.

But typically mutually inclusive. Although generally it comes down to semantics.

Also "good" and profitable are different.

To a certain extent, they do. If they feel that it's time for the show to go out on a high, the network often doesn't try to force them to continue. In the case of Stargate SG-1, that was a decision to call it a day and because Amanda Tapping still had a year on her contract, she was moved over to Atlantis.

The producer always wants to continue the show; they’re literally going to make money when they do and not if they don’t

The CAST sometimes leaves the show, it it’s extremely rare and would take some sort of burned out success level for a producer to quit or shut down a production. If anything they would move up to EVP and let someone else do the real work.

The studios are canceling shows. They have the money. Everyone else wants a job.

> if the producer doesn’t want to continue the show, it’s effectively cancelled?

Not necessarily.

Supernatural went on for 10 additional seasons after its original producers left following season 5.

Yes, the latter. I figured as much, because despite shows being “good” to suddenly be cancelled makes me believe there were two sides in the negotiations, perhaps.

So basically, let’s say a show get the green light for another season, if the producer doesn’t want to continue the show, it’s effectively cancelled?

I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if a canceled show can decide to not be canceled? Like a “both parties must agree to the break-up” situation? That’s not how it works. A show can’t continue if there’s no network to fund it and air it. But a show can decide to end on its own terms before being canceled if the showrunners think the story has run its course.

[deleted]

> Producers are able to decide when a show ends if the studio wants to keep making it.

Yes and no. Producers can leave but the studio can try to keep going without them.

Actors are locked in to multiyear contracts before season 1, usually seven seasons but its expected to renegotiate after 3 or 4. Creators usually can leave if they want but the network almost always has the right to continue without them.

Producers are able to decide when a show ends if the studio wants to keep making it.

Popularity helps balance the scales.

Well yes, but not everyone did pirate in the 00s (either for ethical reasons or inability to do so) - and internet was slower, quality was worse, and HD space was less

>I mean I don't know if there's ever been data on this historically. But also in the 90s and 00s you kinda had to watch the show when it aired, or wait for reruns or eventually buy it.

You didn't have to do that once piracy became widespread tho. And if you don't want to watch a show because you fear it'd be cancelled, that doesn't really matter.

>Less not zero and it was because of budget and by the end of the 90s tv dramas started ramping up.

Indeed.

>People have always complained about cancellations but I don't remember any time in which a quarter of the audience refused to watch a show for fear of cancellation...

I mean I don't know if there's ever been data on this historically. But also in the 90s and 00s you kinda had to watch the show when it aired, or wait for reruns or eventually buy it.

>There were less Sopranos type shows, and sitcoms are different thing entirely. They tend to be cheaper, tend to be less plot-driven.

Less not zero and it was because of budget and by the end of the 90s tv dramas started ramping up.

>Shows were much more commonly set up in the procedural 'monster/criminal/case of the week' style. Also seasons were longer so you felt like you got more from it.

Ending in cliffhangers each season.

>I think people have complained about cancellations in the late 00s and 10s tbh.

>But there's definitely a lot more competition now.

People have always complained about cancellations but I don't remember any time in which a quarter of the audience refused to watch a show for fear of cancellation...

Either that audience has just turned 18 so they only remember TV under Netflix or people have really forgotten how ruthless linear tv could be.

What? Before streaming shows could be cancelled and pulled from air mid season.

What are this rose tinted glasses?

Before streaming you would find out once a year in May whether all shows are renewed or cancelled, right before the Upfronts where they reveal the new shows. Now you find out as soon as the decision is made.

Shows used to be mostly episodic so there was no investment if a show did get cancelled and you didn't lose anything. Now every show has at least some element of continuing plot, people don't want it ruined.

[deleted]