Audiences Grow Weary of Stories That Never End | Hacker News Reader

Audiences Grow Weary of Stories That Never End

tedgioia.substack.com

41 pointspaulpauper37 comments

The problem isn't shows that don't end, but ones that keep dragging out the 1-2 season plot line because it was popular (lost, stranger things, etc).

I'm fine with a plot that is progressing and things are being answered (the expanse, b5, etc) or just a plain old serial like the original star trek or the simsons where each episode stands on its own. But these shows where the plot just never quite gets resolved because yet another thing happens to snatch it away at the last moment quickly become tiring. Or like stranger things the whole things is nice and complete with all the lose ends tied, and then oh, lets do season 2 because its our best show and we want the money. This BTW seems to have been most movies since ~2000s where everything is a sequel, prequel or comic universe movie. Its like hollywood has forgotten how to buy book rights that aren't themselves giant economic works already (harry potter anyone?).

Stranger Things is the worst for this. The most recent season was terrific but it didn’t even come close to finishing its story! Super frustrating to watch a “finale” and be left feeling like you’re halfway through a movie

I agree.

Stranger Things as a 1 season miniseries would have been the stuff of legends.

It's hard to find a long-lasting show that doesn't devolve in the later seasons.

I remember binge watching _House MD_ in college, really liked the beginning, and felt disappointed as the characters grew increasingly comical and less nuanced in later seasons. It's still the same show, similar vibe, similar character if we view them as symbols of personality adjectives (the sarcastic are still sarcastic, the sympathetic still sympathetic), but somehow among those similarities, the subtleties died.

At some point of the show, every angle of romance, mystery, character growth has been investigated, and none of them can come to a resolution, because, well, the show has to go on. How do you raise the stake---which is usually how you hook the audience---when they know nothing the character does will ever come to a conclusion, anything they become can be reverted in the _next season_? In fact, even the changes that have already happened in earlier seasons can be rolled back. I think this is why, in later seasons, a common complaint is that the writers are undoing everything good about the show in the beginning.

Some shows sort of avert this by replacing the main character (e.g. _Doctor Who_) and effectively telling a different story in the same universe. Does it work? Maybe. But still, I've, generally speaking, grown quite reluctant to watch TV shows that are longer than 5 seasons since then.

I think of Columbo where the first two seasons are brilliant (freaking Steven Spielberg directed the first episode!) but it quickly goes downhill but goes on for decades. (Of course, Columbo is almost impossible to binge watch because it is so formulaic. On the other hand, when I turn on the TV and catch it randomly on reruns I think 'Columbo is such a great show'.)

Colombo comes from an era before time shifting and on demand. The formula is so much easier to overlook when you're only watching one episode a week.

Columbo was unusual in that it aired much less frequently than once a week so the formulaic nature wasn’t a problem.

Today I sometimes enjoy watching off-brand OTA channels such as Comet and Charge and will tune in from time to time and get reintroduced to shows like Quantum Leap, Farscape, and Sliders and sometimes I will get into an appointment viewing habit but I am just as likely to by a box set or otherwise switch on on demand viewing. Columbo plays well in that world but who knows how long it will last.

The 2 or 3 last seasons of House MD went off the rockers on the raising of stakes that you talk about, I felt. It was time to end it, but I wouldn't cut there.

> I remember binge watching _House MD_ in college, really liked the beginning, and felt disappointed as the characters grew increasingly comical and less nuanced in later seasons

This was Friends for me. The character Joey was the "less smart" one of the group, but often wrong in clever ways, such as confusing "moot point" with "moo point". It's like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter. He was right and wrong at the same time. In later seasons, he turned into what could possibly be described as the dumbest person alive.

The other characters had similar transformations. The nuances becamse their defining characteristics. They became caricatures of themselves.

The expanse should be a case study on how to adapt books and how to finish a series.

It helped to have the authors of the books as producers and that they finished writing the books.

> I remember bing watching _House MD_ in college, really liked the beginning, and felt disappointed as the characters grew increasingly comical and less nuanced in later seasons.

Also the so-called "medicine" became more and more detached from reality and frankly lunatic. Hugh Laurie's brother is an actual doctor, I wonder why he didn't grab Hugh after about Season 5 and say "none of this makes any sense anymore! It doesn't work like this, ever!"

A few things clicked for me here:

The algorithms that show me “things to watch” are so utterly useless (and yes I’ve thumbs downed a whole lot of things but it keeps showing me crap). Especially bad is Netflix, I think once Stranger Things is done with the final season (5) I’m out. Which leads to:

It’s f’ing impossible to find things (especially on Netflix). The whole UI of a wall of rectangular cover art with a show name below with no additional information until you click it is seriously the worst UI ever designed, it didn’t work well for music and it definitely doesn’t work for video ESPECIALLY on the limited and slow interactions of a TV remote.

These points above partly explain low viewing figures for new shows: they are so utterly hidden from view, the first season barely has a chance to get started before it’s pulled because cost/viewer ratio is too low.

Moving on from that - I’ve stopped watching anything that’s not a wrapped up series or a limited series (Maniac or New Cherry Coke Flavor on Netflix come to mind).

Often before I even start watching something I’ll quickly Google for “<show name> cancelled” before I waste time watching it.

I completely agree with other commenters here about companies committing to a guaranteed number of seasons / episodes which wrap up the story neatly…

If you look at a great example: BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (reboot) - the writers knew exactly how long it would last, everyone committed to it and the story was told and it got critical acclaim. Once it showed its worth there was still room for “sequels”. “The plan” was a great example of how the exact same story could be told from another point of view.

Another thing that comes to mind is “the matrix” which as a trilogy came to a satisfying conclusion. The amount of money spent on Matrix 4 verses how utterly terrible it was (does anyone even talk about it any more?) show a good reason why things need a definite end.

That being said I’d probably watch a tv series that showed the matrix world from the machine world…

One of my favorite things about Babylon 5 was how it was planned out for exactly five seasons, with a beginning, middle, and end.

Granted, the last season was a bit muffed since they'd had to bring the story to a closure at the end of season 4 when they thought it would be renewed. But still...

I have a lot of respect for creatives who can plan out a work, and then actually carry through and walk away from it when it is complete.

Having a the story mapped out before you start and being willing to say "no matter how well this does it's stopping here" makes for incredible content, but poor business. If you have only modest success you may be cut off in the middle and leave an unsatisfying conclusion. If you do really well you have to stop at the height of your success and the execs will be putting huge pressure on you to figure out how to continue somehow.

Maybe HBO got it right with Game of Thrones? Have some incredible early seasons and then totally shit the bed later so nobody is clamoring for new content and the showrunners can move on to different projects. This kinda fails the audience test however.

The media landscape is also a concern. I would never ever plan a 5 season story on Netflix for example. And to be fair, some of their best content is one and done. Russian Doll for example has a second season, but it's only barely connected with the first. It's basically an entirely new show that just happens to have the same actors.

You just create spin offs when you hit the end of your initial material. Game of Thrones is airing one right now, but it sounds like they had 3 or 4 planned.

Star Wars is effectively all spin offs now.

Babylon 5 itself had a short-lived spin off in Crusade [0].

Personally, I don't think things even need to be spinoffs in the same story universe. Just knowing that a particular production group that I like is putting out a new work is enough for me. Like the Christopher Guest cabal, or the Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright collaborations.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_(TV_series)

This chimes. I've stopped watching tv series altogether now unless it's an old one that has already finished and someone has vouched for it to me.

A story should have a beginning and a middle and an end but modern tv shows are either a beginning and a short middle and then nothing, or a beginning and long meandering middle and then highly unsatisfactory end as they try and fail to tidy up all of their loose threads.

Now that I've given up on series and streaming is so fragmented I've downgraded and gone back to physical media. It's nice to be able to just buy a movie and watch it again.

We need more limited series.

A show should be ordered for a season or three with the understanding that it'll come to a creative conclusion at the end of the predefined period.

The entire main arc for that 1-3 seasons should be known to all parties before contract negotiations.

No cancellations; Just non-renewals.

That way, every show has a creative conclusion.

More seasons are fine and can add to the story. Game of Thrones should have actually been a season longer, but the directors got greedy and wanted to wrap it up so they could move on to their new contracts (that thankfully evaporated after the disaster of the last couple seasons).

Sitcom style shows are also perfectly fine being left open ended. It's kind of an annoyance that British and Japanese shows will spend time creating funny characters in an interesting environment and just end it in a season when there was plenty left to explore.

But serial dramas should have an ending planned from the beginning and an early cancellation should have some kind of early exit clause to wrap the show in a limited number of episodes.

The walking dead went from an intriguing story line to a complete waste of time when I read the show runner had no interest in exploring the origins of the outbreak or finding a cure, he just wanted multiple series to explore the outbreak in various parts of the world. Just a complete and total disrespect for the audiences time, since the thought of an ending wasn't even considered.

It's also completely disrespectful when networks pull the plug early. There was so much hype around Westworld with multiple seasons that were building and then HBO cancelled it without the final season and took it off the service, so there isn't even the option to watch the nearly complete series.

"It's kind of an annoyance that British and Japanese shows will spend time creating funny characters in an interesting environment and just end it in a season when there was plenty left to explore."

I disagree, you don't know what you're missing. Ie you're missing getting bored of tired storyline and characters.

Keep in mind, all the talent is still knocking about making TV, you just need to find what they got up to.

I disagree about handling different genres differently. Sitcoms are not better when they're open ended. They go bad before they end. British and Japanese shows would do that too if they just kept going.

If they're really good and popular, then they should get a new contract after the first one ends that also comes to a creative conclusion.

The obvious solution is to wait until series are done before watching them, if lack of narrative closure upsets more than watching with everyone else excites you. E.g one of these days I might get around to The Wire or Breaking Bad, but probably not Lost or Game of Thrones or Twin Peaks, because I'm aware people were annoyed at how they ended. On the other hand I'm perfectly happy with seasons 1-3 of The Office or season 1 of Stranger things, or Season 1 of Severance even though it was a total life hanger, so it's not impossible to make something that's good even if it's not clear how long it'll run.

I really hate stories that don’t end and resolve the main story arcs.

Clearly tv companies feel that if it cleanly ends then you won’t come back for more. It’s the opposite for me… if it does not cleanly end then I definitely won’t be back for more.

At this point I don't trust TV shows to be anything but sprinboards for subsequent creativity: you know the show's going to go rotten sooner or later, mostly each new season is a step down in quality and consistency. So the best thing to do is to take the story into your own hands for further what-if discussions.

An example: Jon Snow gets stabbed and somehow next season comes back from the dead... Well no sir, he is actually being replaced by the faceless man, Arya won't be fooled but all others will.

Just take the story from there and have fun discussing what happens next.

Same for Stranger Things after season one...

Though the network's funding ambiguity caused season four to be compressed and season five to be past peek filler, that Babylon Five had a five season arc planned out from the beginning made it an enjoyable show to watch. But it's difficult to plan something out like that when there's a chance it will be terminated after two seasons and of course some people can't stand the thought of leaving money on the table so they want something open ended to keep shows going for as long as their ratings keep the bills paid. Can't imagine much reason to watch The Simpsons now other than habit and inertia.

Netflix needs to move to the KDrama model -- a set 20-24 epsidodes for a series. You know it's fixed going in. If they want to, then you do a follow-up, but then it's never expected to continue. It just is contained.

For those who prefer a limited series, I recommend checking out the vast catalog of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean shows on Viki. The model of eternally-renewed-until-suddenly-canceled is not a global norm.

I was apprehensive when I got to the end of Foundation because I really wanted to see what happened next and didn't know if it would be continued. I was happy to see they are planning another season. I'd contrast that to Squid Game that I knew, when it started, was going to come to a satisfying conclusion.

Westworld and Heroes are great examples of shows that overstayed their welcome pretty quickly. Lost did too, but managed to limp along for quite a while.

It sucks when "the audience wants to consume more of this" collides with "creators have no idea how to make more of this".

Not just audiences. Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he was tired of him, and Chesterton for the same reason killed off Father Brown. But the audience demand was such that they brought them back.

Word up to Neil Gaiman for having had the savvy to buck that ugly trend with Good Omens... I am now very weary to watch anything that not based on an already-finished book.

The link discusses shows that get cancelled early before a satisfactory resolution due to bad ratings. This is reasonable as usually they get cancelled because they are bad.

The other side of this is shows that run too long due to the inertia of their initial success. I am now unwilling to start watching a popular a TV show because it won’t end until it turns bad. This might be 10+ seasons and there is no prize for watching it all.

I am fundamentally tired of being told stories. Nowadays I just stick to movies: The time investment is minimal, and if you are willing to read subtitles there is lot of them.

Spurious excuses for the massive drops in viewership also seem never ending.

MCU is CPTSD at this point.

Get your hint Netflix...

Netflix's problem is more that the intriguing series never get a chance to go on too long and get axed after one or two seasons. Longer running shows, like Stranger Things, are the outlier.

> Would you start a novel, if you weren’t allowed to read the final chapters? Would you play a video game, if there was no winning solution? Would you watch a movie if the last 15 minutes were missing? Would you go on a date if it ended after you picked up the restaurant tab?

Yes. Of course.

Video games are obvious. Many never end or are classically impossible (Prince of Persia)

A practice date would be interesting, I assume paying Dutch unless it's a I pay and get to first base system.

There's a few unfinished classic novels and TV pilots turned to movies I've watched.

What sucks is the metaverse. This is Western comic book cultural at it's worse, a childish idea adapted by the media.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com