Discussing the ‘Outlander’ season 3 split-season idea
Why couldn’t “Outlander” do a split season?
There are a few different questions we’ve been asked over the past couple of weeks regarding a potential season 3 premiere, but many of those have intensified in the wake of looming evidence that the third season will likely not premiere until the summer. (Remember, that has not been officially confirmed yet by Starz.) Split seasons are becoming increasingly popular in the wake of shows like “The Walking Dead,” “Mad Men,” and even some network shows like “Once Upon a Time” doing it here and there. They give you a chance to enjoy one batch of episodes, take a break, and then come back later.
It’s becoming clear that, logistically, “Outlander” premiering season 3 in April would be almost impossible. Filming in South Africa will not be complete until late May, and even if these scenes are not in the early episodes, you’d be asking your editors and everyone else in post-production to work overtime to get the episodes done immediately in order for them to be ready in time. Doing a split season gives you a chance to start the story, soothe those who are suffering a serious case of Droughtlander, and give you more a little bit later. We understand the desire for it.
However, there are a few reasons why that’s unlikely to happen in this situation.
1. Consider the network – The other examples that we’ve listed above are all for either network TV or basic cable shows. They benefit more from split seasons because they’re often filming while episodes are airing, or because they’re trying to boost ratings during sweeps and want to air during key times. “Outlander” films before episodes air, and it doesn’t rely on sweeps or live ratings so much as it does subscriptions to Starz. There’s no benefit to them splitting things up. (In retrospect, there’s a big part of us that thinks that “Mad Men” did it for its final season to boost Emmy eligibility.)
2. Momentum – If you’re splitting the season up, you need to have episodes that work both as a midseason finale and then a midseason premiere. Trying to craft those narratives in a 13-episode season is challenging, especially with a show like this where one episode bleeds into the next. What if there aren’t any episodes that necessarily work well as a midseason finale? Once the show starts airing, you want to get the next episode in a week’s time and get answers. Dividing it up into different arcs within a larger season can be challenging.
3. Marketing – Sure, the devoted followers of the show (otherwise known as the people reading this article) will always watch no matter what. However, the folks that watch a little more casually would need more reminders as to when it’s ending and then coming back. Therefore, Starz would have to work overtime with advertising and press tours. Conducting those sort of things takes time and money (though we like to think that we’re a free, convenient option for any person in the “Outlander” family looking for an interview *wink wink*), and these actors and producers have jammed schedules given that they also have to film the show. Airing the season all at once makes matters more convenient for everyone involved.
4. Scheduling – Unless Starz decides to schedule two scripted dramas on a single night (something that will be discussed more on the site this weekend), things could start to get complicated for them having to juggle around so many different shows and weekends where there needs to be a hiatus. For example, it’s not a big deal to take a week off in a 13-episode season for a holiday or a sporting event. However, doing so in a half-season of only six or seven episodes is a little more frustrating.
If “Outlander” does premiere in the summer as opposed to the spring, obviously it’s a bummer given that it could miss out on Emmy eligibility this year (depending on when it premieres) and we as people are ingrained to want something we love right away. Just remember that patience is still a virtue, and with a show this fantastic, you want it to be the best it can be. The last thing you want is for it to feel rushed. As for Emmys, it’ll still be eligible next year and being an awesome show is a reward in itself.
As always, we welcome your thoughts on this story below. You can also head over here to check out some of our other coverage on “Outlander.” (Photo: Starz.)
Christine Smilak
February 6, 2017 @ 1:37 am
I think that we fans should just take a chill pill and just be patient. Ron Moore knows what is best for everything Outlander. We would not want to jeopardize the quality and performances of the actors and crew in order for Outlander to premier in April. I say lets all take a deep breath and a dose of patience and see what happens. I would rather get to see a very high quality Outlander that I have grown to expect from Ron Moore than a poor quality Outlander. Ron Moore do what you have to do. We will be patient. Actors and crew keep doing your ever present great jobs. Us fans will wait for the Outlander for the quality we know and love.
distachio
February 5, 2017 @ 8:10 am
Whoever wrote this article seems either not to know, or has forgotten, that this exact thing was done in Season 1, and NO ONE was happy. I hope STARZ makes the right choice. Start later and give fans 13 top-quality episodes in direct succession. NO BREAKS IN THE MIDDLE, please!
PunkRockOldLady
February 5, 2017 @ 5:04 pm
It was easier to split in season 1 because there were 16 episodes.
Dana
February 4, 2017 @ 8:56 pm
Outlander fans are waiting years for the 9th book. A few more months for the Series isn’t a big deal. A quality product, a well told story and actors that aren’t performing under pressure are what is most important.
Barbara Miller
February 4, 2017 @ 6:15 pm
Ron knows best. He’ll make a good decision about this.