Compare the original UK version of the Office and its American facsimile and I think you'll see it's much better to go out on a high rather than drag on endlessly. If the Simpsons had ended after a couple of seasons it would have been one of the best shows ever, instead the brain dead drivel they churn out for it now just continually diminishes its early greatness.
Netflix just pulls the plug. This means you get a weird kludged together final episode to try to pull stuff together or they just leave it and there's no resolution for a lot of stuff.
I do agree that many of these shows would be better if they were written in the UK style. A lot of US shows now just feel woolly as they meander through the plot.
During the production of season 4, JMS (the creator) was given to understand that season 5 was unlikely to happen. So he had to cram most of the rest of his plot into that season.
Having such a powerful, story-packed season 4 meant it did really well. So they put season 5 back on.
But he'd already used up (most of) the story he wanted to tell, because they told him he wasn't getting a season 5. So the season 5 we got ended up being a bit weak and wandering, with only the last few episodes (which were part of what would have been the ending of season 4, if he hadn't found out in time that there would be a season 5) having the same strength and memorability as the season 4 episodes.
It also meant (IIRC) that they lost some important actors, like Claudia Christian, for season 5. If Ivanova had been able to stay on to be B5's captain after Sheridan became President, the final season would have been much stronger.
All of season 5 was in the original plan as the side-stories for seasons 4 and 5, not written after the series was renewed. That's mainly why the filmed season 4 was so action-packed - the main plot wasn't really compressed in terms of screen time, instead there were no side plots.
Aside from that, the finale, Sleeping in Light, was filmed during season 4, that's why Claudia Christian was in it. They found out about the renewal just barely in time to use some season 5 budget to film The Deconstruction of Falling Stars, which only then became the season 4 finale. I think that was really the only thing not in the original plan.
I love how modern formats allow for stories to be told where they otherwise wouldn't fit into a single film or work as a weekly recurring series. I've always felt that a movie is like a short story: you're dropped into the plot and the background is exposed through the course of action. Longer formats like the miniseries can tell a story more on the scale of a full novel.
When you get into stuff like "The Walking Dead" where it theoretically starts off like a novel but keeps renewing and keeps rehashing the same basic plot points for years, it's like one of those novel series where they just keep cranking out new sequels as long as people are buying them, quality be damned.
I do prefer quality over quantity, and more episodes per season isn't IMO a good thing. Having tight focus, telling a complete story from beginning to end, is more important than adding a lot of unnecessary filler.
I wasn't the biggest fan of Altered Carbon, but thought Ascension was exemplary. While it finished with an ending that could have set it up for a second series, the story it told was complete, and leaving some mystery is no bad thing. I'm currently reading the Witcher books, and the series was a reasonable adaption of the content of the first two books of short stories. There's plenty more material for the future, but what was done in eight episodes was decent and self-contained. Way better value than a movie ticket.
What I like about these short series is that they are free to take risks and make niche stuff that doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator. There's plenty of stuff on Netflix that doesn't appeal to me, and that's OK. There's also stuff that would appeal were it not poorly-written and produced dross. I would really prefer their "data driven" decision making to bear in mind the lasting appeal of these productions within their niche interest, rather than only using the initial response as an indicator of long-term success. Some of the best productions took years to develop a good following, and yet were successful beyond expectations.
Good observation the lack of sex and violence in the second one. Could be true. I thought the new "sleeve" actor killed the second. The one in the first season was much much more convincing.
For many of these productions, if the story has been told and it ended on a high note, then I think it would be better to draw a line under it, and move onto a brand new idea and explore new concepts rather than squeeze every last little bit out of something that's not going to advance much upon what's already been done. Better that than jumping the shark.
The local library had the audiobooks, so I listened to them on a long car trip between the first and second season being released. The writing isn't great but the stories definitely have their moments, even if its smothered in the usual "action flick" mindset.
I think netflix would have done a lot better to just stick to the plot of Broken Angels for the second season. But I think there was some rumbling on the message boards that it would have actually cost real cash to pull that off and netflix apparently wasn't willing to do it. So its the worst kind of serial scifi rubbish.
Its really too bad. The trash they invented as filler, was just that. But you can see their problem, the first book took place on an earth city, so they didn't need a lot of custom sets, and loads of CG.
My wife signed up for the hbo trial for a month and then canceled it. That was just about perfect. I watched the last season of game of thrones and a couple other things, and was getting bored with it just as the trial ended. I actually think that model might be the right one for the entire streaming ecosystem. Just rotate the streaming services every couple months.
UK Office is a concise and witty comedy idea expressed in the correct amount of time the idea deserves.
If you look at the later seasons of shows like US Office, Parks and Rec and similar shows, what you're watching has more in common with a soap opera than a sitcom. I feel I can almost count the exceptions to this on one hand.
edit: it's also purely a matter of opinion, but I got a lot more pure enjoyment from the US version of the Office than the UK one. They had more time to develop the characters and figure out what was truly funny about the show. Sure it devolved into sentimental fan service in the last few seasons, but at it's peak I was laughing way harder at the American version than I ever did for the British one.
If The Simpsons was British, none of the best episodes would have been made.
But neither would any of the 300 worst episodes.
I don't. This might be true with dramas where the plot is a big component of it, but certainly not for episodic comedies.
Yeah, the Simpsons isn't something I care to watch anymore, and the Office's final seasons without Michael Scott weren't as good. But I'd still much rather have more episodes of content I enjoy than less for the sake of "the complete package". It sucks when a show gets cancelled without an end, but while we're here, the American Office had a fine ending and I'm much happier with the many seasons of it over the British one.
That's why I thoroughly enjoyed the German show Dark. They planned 3 series/seasons and that's what we got: a well-thought-out show from start to finish with a single vision of how the whole thing will end. That clue in the first episode? Yep, directly related to the ending in season/series 3 and not some, now inconsequential, detail the writers 'forgot about' or changed course over.
Same with The Simpsons — the 8 year peak of seasons 1-8 means at least we got those episodes. I haven’t watched a new episode in over 20 years but revisit the early episodes often.
I like the sandwiches on my favorite restaurant’s menu. Them serving the pasta dish I don’t like doesn’t make the sandwiches worse.
What does 'great' mean when you're assigning it to such a huge number of episodes? Are they truly great or just good?
Obviously any assessment of art is going to be subjective. But at the time, those 75 episodes were the either the GREATest thing on television or very close to it. They hold up today and are episodes that are just as GREAT to me on the 20th or 30th viewing as they were on the first.
Don't think there is any "new" series that I've watched over twice, I wonder why that is.
Inspector Morse (et al) come to mind as one that lasts longer. So many great British detective shows that go on for decades, with around 20 movie-length episodes per season (aka series).
Is that a typo? Inspector Morse had a total of 33 episodes across 7 seasons and 5 specials. Seasons averaged about 4 eps each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Inspector_Morse_episod...
The Bill may have more episodes, but Doctor Who has been running for 20 years longer.
The prototypical "long lasting UK series" is actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_Street (nearly 60 years, >10000 episodes)
A Series consists of one or more Seasons. A Season has episodes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_10)
> The tenth series of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 15 April 2017 and concluded on 1 July 2017, and consisted of twelve episodes, after it was announced in July 2015 that BBC Worldwide had invested in a tenth series of the programme in its annual review. The series is led by head writer and executive producer Steven Moffat, alongside executive producer Brian Minchin. It is the third and final series overseen by the two as executive producers, as well as Moffat's sixth and final series as head writer. This series is the tenth to air following the programme's revival in 2005, and is the thirty-sixth season overall.