What is the most important thing for a TV Show to have?

[djgeneral]

What is the biggest factor for a TV show to have? Are there any missing from this list? Here are some of the biggest factors people use to determine what shows to watch.

Star power - Maybe they don't like the concept, but their favorite actor/actress is part of it, so they are watching.

Acting abilities - Let's be honest, some shows can't afford lavish production values or star power, but some up-and-coming actors are some of the most "hungry" and actually try to produce a quality product.

Writing- Maybe you can't stand the people in the show, but the writing is so good you want to keep watching, and give the actors another chance.

Directing - A popular director, or a show with an established "direction" can really lure viewers in.

Production values - A lot of complaints from cheap CGI (Once Upon A Time anyone?) can turn someone off, but shows like Game Of Thrones draw some viewers in just for the production values.

Time slot - This might not sound important, but in this day and age, it really is. With so many shows on, some people choose what they watch based on the time slot it is in.

[Walts Ghost]

Usually for me it has to do with the story, who's behind the show, and the actors involved. Those things are the ones that will usually grab me and keep interested.

[Lehnhart]

The characters.

It's not like a movie. A movie is 2 hours long. A TV series can be seasons and seasons. So most likely I'll be spending hours and hours, years upon years with these characters. For me to love a show, I need to fall in love with the characters. Obviously everything listed in the OP helps. But the most important thing IMO is the characters themselves.

[Steelers629]

For me it's mostly the writing. Even if the acting is superb, it's hard to get by bad/sloppy writing like the later seasons of Dexter.

[The_Donster]

And end game. So many shows have a great start and slowly run out of steam.

[Anthony P]

I would add genre. If it fits in a category I like I am more willing to give it a try on the other hand if it is a category I don't like I won't even give it a try.

[spanky87]

Joss Whedon. I say that without ever seeing an episode of Shield, but that's not even a show he created.

Also shows should have a great show-runner that stays for the duration of the series.

[djgeneral]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I would add genre. If it fits in a category I like I am more willing to give it a try on the other hand if it is a category I don't like I won't even give it a try.

That's a pretty good one. Genre should be on the list!

[Tony208]

for me the most important is the writing/story/characters etc.

it could have everything else but if the story isn't interesting I'm not going to watch

close second is the acting and production values

time slot a non factor

[Hucksta G]

Originally Posted by Tony208

for me the most important is the writing/story/characters etc.

it could have everything else but if the story isn't interesting I'm not going to watch

close second is the acting and production values

time slot a non factor

Yep same for me. I don't really care who is acting, as long as the acting is good

[Tony208]

Originally Posted by Hucksta G

Yep same for me. I don't really care who is acting, as long as the acting is good

a lot of TV actors are unknowns or up and comers anyway so if you limit yourself to stars you're missing out on a lot of good shows

[Hucksta G]

Originally Posted by Tony208

a lot of TV actors are unknowns or up and comers anyway so if you limit yourself to stars you're missing out on a lot of good shows

exactly

[St.ylo]

Originally Posted by djgeneral

Time slot - This might not sound important, but in this day and age, it really is. With so many shows on, some people choose what they watch based on the time slot it is in.

I'd actually say in this day and age, timeslot is less important. I think I know more people who stream/download/buy than I do who watch "regular" TV.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by St.ylo

I'd actually say in this day and age, timeslot is less important. I think I know more people who stream/download/buy than I do who watch "regular" TV.

Timeslots have pretty much vanished out of existence--Shows are now aired as a contractual obligation to their sponsors, and even TV Guide hasn't bothered to tell us when they're on for the last twelve years.

Originally Posted by djgeneral

Production values - A lot of complaints from cheap CGI (Once Upon A Time anyone?) can turn someone off, but shows like Game Of Thrones draw some viewers in just for the production values.

Yeah, but that's not always a compliment.

ABC's ads for Once Upon A Time pretty much defined the current TV generation with their ads saying "It's like going to the big-budget special-effects movies EVERY WEEK! "
And yet, for all that, it's still empty, demographic-pandering and cliche'-ridden, and let's not even get into Agents of SHIELD's budget. The network sees most of its viewership being drained away by Netflix and Blu-ray, and thinks it has to be every big-studio movie of the last few years just to compete.

If production values are so important, try getting in the middle of a discussion between fans of the new Doctor Who, and diehard fans of the old penlight and papier-mache Classic BBC version about which was "better" and more involving.
A show that can't afford to do flashy things has to make up for it in the writing, and that's one thing a lot of shows in the current generation has forgotten. Back in the old days, TV knew it wasn't the movies, and had to set the rules for its own genre.

[StevenHarvey1990]

I see lots of people saying things like "cast, character, writing, direction" etc.

Whilst I agree... ANY movie or TV show should have those things, but I'll go with something that is absolutely imperative in creating a great TV show.

All movies have it but not a lot of TV shows do - A definitive beginning, middle and end.

I'll use Breaking Bad as an example. It was created with a starting point and an end completely nailed on, and it didn't waiver from that. It focused on getting from point A to point B, thus the middle part being the how to get from point A to pint B. That show could have easily went on, and on, and on until it eventually wasn't good. It's creator had a vision and he stuck to it, succinct and concise. Didn't jump the shark once.

90% of shows have a starting point and just go until there is no life left in it. VERY VERY few of those work well.

[djgeneral]

Originally Posted by StevenHarvey1990

All movies have it but not a lot of TV shows do - A definitive beginning, middle and end.

90% of shows have a starting point and just go until there is no life left in it. VERY VERY few of those work well.

Very great point here as well! Many people are more likely to tune in if they know there is an ending (remember The Killing fiasco? Although the creators claim they never said the case would be solved at the end of season 1) or at least a multi-season commitment.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by djgeneral

Very great point here as well! Many people are more likely to tune in if they know there is an ending (remember The Killing fiasco? Although the creators claim they never said the case would be solved at the end of season 1) or at least a multi-season commitment.

It's a no-win situation:
Twin Peaks invented the modern "Season arc storyline" with Who Killed Laura Palmer?
As fan joked out at the time, they couldn't go for the entire series and not solve the mystery--Yet once they DID solve the mystery early on into Season 2, there was nowhere for the show to go except to go goofier and more off-topic.

Even Star Trek felt the modern peer pressure and turned Season 3 of Enterprise into one big long "Tune in next week" season arc--Must not have gone down well with the fans, since they switched back to multipart mini-arcs of two and three episodes in Season 4.
Seems like one of those last retro holdout series where they aren't "going anywhere", we just want to tune in to see whether our favorite comfort-food characters are still there.

(And to go further out on a tangent, that may be what series don't have now:
Since we treat our shows like YouTube videos we dial up on a moment's notice, instead of tuning in every week, we're so caught up with Serial Arcs, "Imitating a cinematic style" with post-CSI procedurals, and the sudden influx of nasty misanthropic immaturity in post-Seinfeld sitcoms, we don't have favorite characters anymore. We don't have a place to virtually hang out every Tuesday or Thursday night, like the Cheers bar or Station WJM, or even root for Columbo to solve a case.
TV's become disposable, and we've disposed of it. )

[Canada]

I say writing. You could have David Mamet and Quentin Tarantino writing the episodes but if your leads have the talent of Megan Fox your sunk

[Veronica Mars]

Faith.

[djgeneral]

Originally Posted by St.ylo

I'd actually say in this day and age, timeslot is less important. I think I know more people who stream/download/buy than I do who watch "regular" TV.

I get what you're saying, and it certainly is true... but timeslot certainly does matter because if enough people are not watching the show live, other people won't have the chance to stream/download/etc. the shows because they will be canceled. And surely there is a market for TV as Big Bang Theory and NCIS reach almost 20 million live viewers each week.