Season 1s are great, setup, some payoff, a bit of lead into the overarching story. Then season 2 to X. The heroes win and then lose in the final episode, cliffhanger to next season. People get bored. Final season is announced and they wrap up the show.

78 points

It can certainly seem that way sometimes. Shows like The Handmaid’s Tale have been circling the drain of their own premise for a few years now. A big part of it, I think, is that they want to keep their main cast for as long as possible, which limits the options of what can happen.

Give me a mini-series, or even an anthology series, any day.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

I love the limited scope of British TV series. They even managed to do only a few seasons of Law & Order, for crying out loud.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

It’s not a creative or artistic choice; British channels simply have minuscule budgets compared to their American counterparts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

And yet it often leads to more satisfying narratives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I think it’s for the best. Too much money in the US is spent on bullshit.

In any case, US versions of British series are almost certainly worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Sherlock proves it. It was given too much budget and time and what we got was overproduced bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Shows like The Handmaid’s Tale have been circling the drain of their own premise for a few years now.

As far as I’m concerned, that show ended when the first season did (which corresponded with the ending of the book).

When I heard a season 2 was happening, I thought it might be based around the book’s epilogue. Instead, it’s the same story dragged out long past where it was supposed to end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Weird, I feel the exact opposite about most k-dramas. Good premise but then take forever to tell their story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-47 points

I still don’t get why so many were relating handmaids tale to real life. Just as annoying as those who think everything is 1984. Its a YA series, and not a particularly great one at that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Not sure about the show, but Margaret Atwood has been at pains to point out that pretty much everything in her books has a real life precedent (albeit in different places at different times).

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Child appropriations under the military juntas in Latin America, for one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Do you really not see the parallels to real life of a religiously-ruled country who has enshrined in law ways to take control of fertile women’s reproductive rights? Really?

The US is becoming more and more Giléad with every passing day.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-25 points

I don’t see anyone taking away rights of women, and America is secular.

You can draw parallels between anything, thats not really pertinent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points

I think the shows with long term success either have multiple independent or semi-independent story arcs or they have a well defined story arc that lasts for the entire run of the show. The characters grow and change as the show progresses which keeps the audience interested.

Where they run into trouble is when the constraints built into the structure of the show limit the number of possible stories, but success leads to them trying to keep the show running after all possibilities have been used. At that point, the show becomes repetitive and boring.

Writing this, I’m reminded of the show, Scrubs.

Scrubs was an excellent show for the entirety of it’s 8 season run. The concept allowed for a story arc that lasted the whole run, specifically the story of JD and his friends learning and developing as doctors from first year residents to attendings. There is a natural progression during that process that allows for individual growth of the characters and accommodates natural shifts in storylines to allow for new topics for episodes. In addition there are countless opportunities for different individual smaller story arcs to make each episode able to stand alone as it’s own tale.

Because there was a built-in plan creating a structure for the life of the show, they were able to maintain quality and audience interest for all 8 seasons.

If the producers had foolishly tried to squeeze more seasons out of the show after they had exhausted the original concept, they would have inevitably failed. The result would have been a weak and pathetic shadow of the previous seasons and would have rapidly lost the patience of the audience.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Eh, Scrubs suffered a lot from trying to find ways of keeping the characters somewhat together and on the hospital. Also, even if not relevant to the topic, flanderization utterly fucked Scrubs from season 5ish onwards.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Flanderization? And in what way regarding Scrubs? Genuinely intrigued by your point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I’ll leave you with two links:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Flanderization/LiveActionTV (search for Scrubs there)

Careful, don’t get sucked into the TVTropes website, it’s a black hole.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Man, Scrubs was great. Still one of my favorite shows ever

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Hot take: Scrubs Season 8 was weak. Dr. Cox as chief was lame, the new interns were lame, the Janitor’s wedding was lame.

Season 9 was actually a bit of a dead cat bounce.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

dead cat bounce

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Scrubs had its problems too. It just didn’t matter as much because its a comedy first.

For example: Elliott took like 6 seasons to gain confidence. Probably because JD kept trying to get with her then being an idiot and breaking up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I think the point of the question is that the producers get greedy midway. And stop the progress so they can go indefinitely. Then when the show is cancelled the finish the story arcs in the final season.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

Once they realize they have a potential cash cow on their hands they do whatever they can to ensure that they can milk it as long as possible. S1 has no gaurentee of being a hit when its made so show producers put their all into crafting an enjoyable show. Once it becomes purely about extending its life as much as possible. Usually turning the story to crap in the process. I call this 'the Dexter effect"

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Sounds like enshittyfication for series.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

You see it pretty clearly with Stranger Things. In S1 each character has a specific purpose or role they fill in the story to back up the themes the show wants to explore, and they excel at that role. S1 is great, and they weren’t expecting to get an S2. But they did.

Now those same characters, with their specific roles? Well now they need to change (because you’re telling a different story), and they aren’t a super great fit for the new roles they have to play. It still kinda works, but the show’s themes become muddled and you’re banking a lot on the audience’s love of the characters now. Still a success.

Now we get to S3 and we have to change the characters’ roles even more! Entire storylines from S2 have now gone to waste, and many characters are far from their initial roles and don’t feel as interesting or compelling as they used to be - because they were never meant to get this far. They’re cogs jammed into new and unfamiliar spaces to try and get this machine to keep running. And it lurches and jerks its way forward, but it’s a far cry from the efficient, effective show it was in S1.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Stranger Things doubly suffers because it’s horror. In the first season, neither the characters or the audience know what’s going on. The monsters are new and scary. The concepts are new and scary. The first season is incredible because it’s all unknown, and because there’s an almost cosmic horror quality to it.

However, by the end of the first season, both the characters and audience are experienced. The monster has been revealed and killed and, while it was tense and scary, the characters and audience know what to expect next time. The upside-down has been revealed and, while there’s a lot about the idea left to explore, there’s and understanding of what it is, how it works to some degree, how it’s linked to the real world, etc. Everyone has knowledge and experience. And with knowledge and experience, the horror dissipates.

So where do they go from there? Well all they can do is to make bigger, scarier concepts or to throw more of the same at the characters. More of the same can make for good action - see Aliens - but the horror element just doesn’t work any more, and it loses a sense of intimacy that a single monster brings. So the only way to try to maintain that feeling of horror is to go bigger and scarier.

Of course, the issue of intimacy remains. How do you have a huge, scary monster - far bigger and scarier than the first one - while still keeping it feeling both personal and intimate to our characters and having it feel “beatable”? And, well, you can see how Stranger Things struggled with that in season 2.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

S4 was less of a mess than S3, and the worst parts of S4 were the cleanup from S3 — namely, the Hopper/Russia plot.

S4 could have leaned much more into the “Satanic Panic” theme. Dig into the “spiritual warfare” literature of the period — Frank Peretti’s This Present Darkness (1986) or the Mike Warnke “Satan Seller” scandal (exposed in 1985).

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

I like the idea that a lot of series are repeating Act II over and over. I had never thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

Showrunnners are never absolutely sure how many more seasons they’ll get. If a show is popular, they could end up having to continue it after a conclusion. Or the show could be popular but corporate priority could be elsewhere, and they’ll be forced to wrap up promising storylines quickly. Even for shows that announce they have plans for a beginning, middle and end, it’s possible that they’ll be cancelled before end planned ending, or else have to stretch after the ending has been reached. Safer is to try to just coast along, being non-committal about major plot elements, until something happens that pushes the show to resolve things.

permalink
report
reply

No Stupid Questions

!nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Create post

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That’s it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

Community stats

  • 9.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 3K

    Posts

  • 116K

    Comments