Hey, Netflix: Stop Drawing Out Binge TV
Some people would rather binge a 10-hour TV show than pick a two-hour movie — but with new shows, that may not be a popular option for long. “Emily in Paris” dropped a five-episode Season 4, Part 1 August 15, the latest Netflix show to painstakingly draw out a new installment just to keep viewers on the hook, and milk the clock while counting down to the next season. It happened with “Bridgerton” (Part 1 in May and Part 2 in June); it happened two years ago with “Stranger Things” (Season 4 premiered in May and July of that year, and Season 5 will debut in 2025).
The two-parter hype isn’t new. Since the epic split of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” in the aughts to its trendy successor of “Twilight: Breaking Dawn” to “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay” to the most recent “Avengers” movies, film has been in the business of cliffhangers and sequels for a long time and seen favorable results. Back in the aughts, TV didn’t need this; retention was baked into episodic releases that usually premiered weekly.
More from IndieWire
But everything changed when the streaming era attacked, creating new viewership habits and release models that upended the television landscape and continue to reshape to this day. Shows that would have been consumed over weeks or months could be binged over just a weekend, or sometimes in one sitting. The end of an episode started to carry less weight, and the end of a season can now mean years of waiting rather than just a few months.
“Emily in Paris” is the perfect example of a show that can be mindlessly binged in a night (ideally with wine and cheese and lots of screaming about every outrageous plot point and outfit). It is a show that has been lovingly called “slop,” in which continuity and cliffhangers do not matter nearly as much as snorting the next episode as soon as it’s readily available (and with “Emily,” that’s been almost annually like clockwork since 2020). I watched the last episode of Part 1 three hours ago and already forgot what happened.
I realize there is little to be gained from bemoaning this release model, because at the end of the day it’s not about audience preferences or creative strategy, but about viewership and metrics and algorithms. A show that releases in two parts has two opportunities to take over the pop culture zeitgeist, the hashtags, the search trends, and the conversations. The release of part 2 prompts new and old viewers to revisit part 1 or older seasons, as happened with “Bridgerton” in the spring. Those audiences include Emmy voters, who might miss a part 1 release but be inspired to give the show a chance when it resurfaces with part 2.
And with a “Bridgerton” or a “Stranger Things,” that makes sense for the above factors in terms of R.O.I. For an “Emily in Paris,” it’s nonsensical. The show is a runaway hit that plenty of viewers recognize as objectively bad, but that won’t stop them from coming back — nor will a two-part release prompt them to rewatch the series from the beginning or even refresh Season 4 Part 1 before September 12 (again, I have already forgotten and do not care to remember). The two-part release grates because it’s the most shameless thus far, unsuited to this specific show, and I suspect the results will be underwhelming compared to the benefits experienced by titles with higher production value. But like all experiments of the streaming era — and roof sex, the one plot point from “Emily” I remember — maybe it was worth trying just once.
“Emily in Paris” is now streaming on Netflix.
Best of IndieWire
Sign up for Indiewire's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.