ChristopherA
05-17-2007, 04:16 PM
My companion and I have been frustrated the last couple of years by watching shows that were character ensembles with long running series plot arcs, only to have them be canceled without any sense of completion, or worse, canceled after a cliffhanger.
We watched two years of 'Joan of Arcadia' in 2003 and 2004, only to never have the nature of that series cosmology (God, the nature of God, good and evil) explained, and the final episode hinted about the existence of something against God. We enjoyed Joan of Arcadia tremendously, but the dropped series with a cliffhanger and without any feeling of completion really bothered both of us.
The following year in 2005 we both watched Invasion, another ensemble show, which in spite of its "alien invasion" premise was turning out to be very high quality. It too was cancelled and ended with a cliffhanger and very little resolved.
I also watched Surface in 2005 -- not quite the character ensemble that Invasion was, so my companion didn't watch it. But it too was cancelled with a cliffhanger and nothing important really explained.
I also watched Lost in 2005, which of course hasn't been canceled, but I almost quit after the end of first season because of its resemblance to Alias season endings, i.e. very few real answers and lots of new complications. I'm worried that the same thing will happen in the 2006-2007 season.
Other series that I fear may have bad endings are Battlestar Galactica, which was briefly was rumored to be canceled. Every year of it has been some of the best TV I've ever seen, but the pace of revelations has slowed down vs adding new stuff (in particular with this season's finale which through a lot of new stuff into the plot).
On HBO there have been some good series as well, and supposedly thing will be wrapped up on The Sopranos, however, they rushed season 2 of Rome to a too fast ended, but at least the producers had enough warning to do a final denouement. Showtime has been less supportive, canceling a couple of shows without allowing them to reach a completion point.
The key problem now is that for the 2006-7 my companion decided not to watch any new series with episodic content.
I did pick up Heroes in 2006, and so far have been surprised that they seem to be on track to resolving their first years story arc. We'll see with the finale.
Most of the other new series I started in recent years have been episodic, with minimal story arcs. If Dresden Files was canceled today, I'd say it was an ok series and though I'd like to see more, wouldn't feel frustrated. Same with Eureka. However, none of these are particularly great TV, but instead are more filler.
So what is the answer to this? How do we the audience demand some type of commitment from the networks for them to complete their series, or to producers to have 1 year story arcs (ala buffy, heroes, etc.) that are relatively complete? Do we shy away from supporting 5 year story arcs (ala Babylon 5)? Are their other answers?
-- Christopher Allen
We watched two years of 'Joan of Arcadia' in 2003 and 2004, only to never have the nature of that series cosmology (God, the nature of God, good and evil) explained, and the final episode hinted about the existence of something against God. We enjoyed Joan of Arcadia tremendously, but the dropped series with a cliffhanger and without any feeling of completion really bothered both of us.
The following year in 2005 we both watched Invasion, another ensemble show, which in spite of its "alien invasion" premise was turning out to be very high quality. It too was cancelled and ended with a cliffhanger and very little resolved.
I also watched Surface in 2005 -- not quite the character ensemble that Invasion was, so my companion didn't watch it. But it too was cancelled with a cliffhanger and nothing important really explained.
I also watched Lost in 2005, which of course hasn't been canceled, but I almost quit after the end of first season because of its resemblance to Alias season endings, i.e. very few real answers and lots of new complications. I'm worried that the same thing will happen in the 2006-2007 season.
Other series that I fear may have bad endings are Battlestar Galactica, which was briefly was rumored to be canceled. Every year of it has been some of the best TV I've ever seen, but the pace of revelations has slowed down vs adding new stuff (in particular with this season's finale which through a lot of new stuff into the plot).
On HBO there have been some good series as well, and supposedly thing will be wrapped up on The Sopranos, however, they rushed season 2 of Rome to a too fast ended, but at least the producers had enough warning to do a final denouement. Showtime has been less supportive, canceling a couple of shows without allowing them to reach a completion point.
The key problem now is that for the 2006-7 my companion decided not to watch any new series with episodic content.
I did pick up Heroes in 2006, and so far have been surprised that they seem to be on track to resolving their first years story arc. We'll see with the finale.
Most of the other new series I started in recent years have been episodic, with minimal story arcs. If Dresden Files was canceled today, I'd say it was an ok series and though I'd like to see more, wouldn't feel frustrated. Same with Eureka. However, none of these are particularly great TV, but instead are more filler.
So what is the answer to this? How do we the audience demand some type of commitment from the networks for them to complete their series, or to producers to have 1 year story arcs (ala buffy, heroes, etc.) that are relatively complete? Do we shy away from supporting 5 year story arcs (ala Babylon 5)? Are their other answers?
-- Christopher Allen