"Why Some TV Shows Are So Good, They Need to End"

[The NZA]

NYT

 

Wanting a good series not to last too long is a high-class problem, and a fairly recent one. In the early decades of TV, series were endless, until they ended. This was fine, since most shows essentially returned every episode to the status quo ante.

In the cable era, TV got more ambitious and more serial. Things changed by the end of an episode. Characters would be in very different circumstances a few years after we met them. Once TV was telling stories that changed, it suggested that the stories needed to end, properly, rather than just stop.

So David Chase ended “The Sopranos” when he was done with it, not necessarily when his viewers were. “Lost” set its ending date three seasons in advance. We now had the notion that a fresh TV idea, like fresh produce, had an expiration date.

And when it passed that date — whew, could you smell it. Take “Dexter” - it was about a murderer for whom we had mixed sympathies (a serial killer who tried to follow a code to whack only deserving victims). The first season was excellent, and popular. So it had another, and another, and another, stringing itself out for eight seasons of implausible dilemmas until its final mercy-killing.

“The Office” should have departed when Michael Scott did. You may be a bigger fan of the later seasons of “Homeland” than I am, but had it ended after its first, it would have been a legend.

I can’t judge a season of TV that doesn’t exist, of course. But as a larger pattern, sequel-driven TV does not make me any more hopeful than sequel-driven movies.

Beyond that, it feels like we’re losing the idea that you should leave people wanting more, that you can love something without needing twice as much of it.

I realize that complaining about too much of a good thing makes me sound like a crank. No one’s forcing me to watch this revival or that sequel, to stick with a show that’s lasted too long.

But we lose something when we lose a sense of finality. It gives meaning to art the way that the knowledge of death gives meaning to life. When no ending is permanent — even if it means resurrecting dead characters — the power of endings is compromised. And often an ending that comes before we want it to comes exactly at the right time.

 

it's a rare thing, and you can see why: just imagine how hard AMC execs were begging Vince Gilligan to give them one more season at the end there

 

[Visitant]

I've been having a lot of similar feelings recently about the length of shows (in-season). There's a lot of ongoing stuff (I am specifically calling out all the DC CW shows) that could be better served by having a season that's half as long. (hell, if you're that worried about numbers, make your cross over events a 2 hour special in the summer). 

 

Some shows just go on too long. I know a lot of people are tuning out of the walking dead, I'm still watching because apparently I hate myself. 

[Donatella]

Yes yes yes. Shows need to go out before they get stale. I've had way too many shows fizzle out with miserable seasons and it tarnishes the entire thing (Dexter, like they said). That show should've had one season after Trinity and done it completely differently. Their examples are actually perfect. The Office also became unwatchable. 

 

Even if it's a show I adore, I'm grateful if they end strong. Broad City announced this season would be their last, and I'm glad. They're still pretty great, but it feels like time. The last season, while hilarious, wasn't as strong as earlier ones. I think they can pull off a great ending and move on. 

 

Wanting a show to go on forever seems selfish as a fan. Especially after everyone on board has clearly checked out!

Edited August 27, 2018 by Donatella

[The NZA]

yeah, few things worse than a show hanging around past its expiration date when folks clearly don't wanna be there...the final season of highlander cones to mind