Zeus
Creeping Corpse
Posts: 53
|
Post by Zeus on May 16, 2010 14:29:20 GMT -5
This is why I pretty much quit watching TV for years. Only recently did Hulu and Netflix Streaming convince me to give shows like Lost, Heroes and Torchwood a try. I like them all, but I have to admit, I'm wary of watching ANY show, knowing full well that at any time the proverbial axe could fall, leaving my favorite characters without any resolution whatsoever.
Word is that Legend of the Seeker, based on the Sword of Truth books, has been canceled too. What a rip! It was produced by Sam Raimi most of he episodes were like watching a little self-contained fantasy film. Really high quality stuff. Fortunately, I hear the second season was truncated and designed to encompass the second and third books, so it's like we're getting a decent trilogy of tales, at least.
As far as Heroes goes, so far I've only seen the first two seasons. But the lack of a legitimate ending does more to convince me NOT to give the rest of a series a try than any amount of complaints from fans about the series supposed decline in quality.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 16, 2010 14:55:34 GMT -5
Regardless of how well the story wrapped up, it was intended to continue. Now, I'm not overly familiar with the business, so I can't comment on the rationale behind pulling the plug the way NBC did. I just feel the networks do a big disservice to the fans of a show by simply ending it. Even if it makes for a disjointed season (like the last season of Angel), it allows the fans to have a sense of closure. Sure, Heroes was low on the ratings. But people were still watching (about 6.5 million of them) and you'd think that would justify a wrap up episode. With rare exceptions (LOST) Tv shows are meant to be continuing narratives. There is no final wrap up as long as someone is breathing. There will always be tomorrows, always "what will happen next?" questions. Answering those questions is what gives us crap like AfterMASH.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on May 16, 2010 16:30:47 GMT -5
Yea, but without at least a simple "The End," a quick little resolution, it's like watching Back to the Future 2, only to find out Part Three was canceled.
|
|
Zeus
Creeping Corpse
Posts: 53
|
Post by Zeus on May 16, 2010 17:48:49 GMT -5
Yea, but without at least a simple "The End," a quick little resolution, it's like watching Back to the Future 2, only to find out Part Three was canceled. Well said, especially considering the non-episodic nature of Heroes. Moreso than Star Trek, Buffy or most other gene TV shows, if you miss an episode of Heroes, you really miss out on the overall storyline. And if you miss out on the ending of the series, you've really got a problem. I think Heroes would have worked nicely a miniseries. The first season ran about six episodes too long, the second season was more like it (minus the glaring plot holes). It's a shame they couldn't have just ponied up the cash for a six-episode mini-series to wrap up all the loose ends. They could have sold the DVD for the same price as any other season and recovered the loss. (It's not like the first season of The Office or Parks & Recreation flopped due to only being six episodes long.)
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 16, 2010 17:52:56 GMT -5
Yea, but without at least a simple "The End," a quick little resolution, it's like watching Back to the Future 2, only to find out Part Three was canceled. You're kidding me, right? Pretty much every character gets a happily ever after, and you're comparing it to a film that leaves both of its characters trapped in time? Even if the show ended as is, on a mild cliffhanger, it works, because it brings the show full circle (Claire jumping from a platform for a camera). All it takes is a little imagination on the part of the audience to figure out what happens from there. The comparison here is not to BTTF2, which was conceived of, and written as, one half of a two part story, but BTTF1, which ended on a happy note for all, but not without telling the audience another advenure would follow. If BTTF2 and 3 never happened, there would be some disappointment, but no one would be bitching that the story was incomplete.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on May 16, 2010 21:44:06 GMT -5
As I admitted, I haven't watched the series since Season 2, so I don't know how it ended. And you've said, despite all the happy ever after endings, the current season closed on a (mild) cliffhanger.
The reason I used BTTF2 is because the tale wasn't over. BTTF left itself open for a sequel, but it wasn't planned, so you didn't have the expectation of more to come. I admit, maybe not the best example, but I wasn't comparing the cliffhanger ending. I was saying that if you know the series isn't over, you want to see how it would end.
Part of the reason for wanting an ending to a show is how television series have started developing characters throughout a series' run. One really can not compare the continuing narrative of shows like, say, Bonanza, with a television series like Buffy. Sure, characters in both shows were subjected to heartache, loss and pain, but for Pa, Hoss and Little Joe, it was over at the end of that particular episode. Show back then never made reference to what happened earlier in the run.
However, one character's story arc in Buffy can played out for an entire season or longer, as it did with Heroes. When you're that invested in a show, when you've followed the characters and watched them evolve over the years, it makes you want to see the ending. Not that all shows need such a finale (Law and Order comes to mind), especially the ones that follow the older style of episodic television. But when you've become invested in the characters, you don't want the plug pulled when you sense the end isn't near.
I guess I could best sum it up by mentioning Serenity, the movie that ended Whedon's series Firefly. As the ship flies off into space, you know the crew's adventures will continue. So much has happened that it could fuel another series for a couple of years. Yet, the current story arc has ended, the cast has taken it's curtain call and you know the show's over. Even though I wanted to see what happened next, it was nice to have reached The End.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 16, 2010 22:30:19 GMT -5
As I admitted, I haven't watched the series since Season 2, so I don't know how it ended. And you've said, despite all the happy ever after endings, the current season closed on a (mild) cliffhanger. The reason I used BTTF2 is because the tale wasn't over. BTTF left itself open for a sequel, but it wasn't planned, so you didn't have the expectation of more to come. I admit, maybe not the best example, but I wasn't comparing the cliffhanger ending. I was saying that if you know the series isn't over, you want to see how it would end. Part of the reason for wanting an ending to a show is how television series have started developing characters throughout a series' run. One really can not compare the continuing narrative of shows like, say, Bonanza, with a television series like Buffy. Sure, characters in both shows were subjected to heartache, loss and pain, but for Pa, Hoss and Little Joe, it was over at the end of that particular episode. Show back then never made reference to what happened earlier in the run. However, one character's story arc in Buffy can played out for an entire season or longer, as it did with Heroes. When you're that invested in a show, when you've followed the characters and watched them evolve over the years, it makes you want to see the ending. Not that all shows need such a finale (Law and Order comes to mind), especially the ones that follow the older style of episodic television. But when you've become invested in the characters, you don't want the plug pulled when you sense the end isn't near. I guess I could best sum it up by mentioning Serenity, the movie that ended Whedon's series Firefly. As the ship flies off into space, you know the crew's adventures will continue. So much has happened that it could fuel another series for a couple of years. Yet, the current story arc has ended, the cast has taken it's curtain call and you know the show's over. Even though I wanted to see what happened next, it was nice to have reached The End. The way the show is structured (every show, in fact) is that there are always plans for more. A show shouldn't avoid cancellation just because it put a 60 second tease at the end of a season, nor should that be used as leverage to get the network to make a telefilm to wrap it up (which seems to be the case here). Again, the fault lies with the showrunners, who simply failed to address the show's numerous flaws and could not lure back the old fans. They had plenty of notice that this was a strong possibility. This isn't something like Firefly that just got sandbagged by the network before it even got off the ground. And since you mention Buffy, Wheedon said he always structured that show, and Angel, so that the end of a season could work as a finale (even if its not the happiest of finale's in the case of S2 and S5) if they were cancelled. That is the best way to do it. Only the mega hits (CSI: X), or those signed to long term deals ( LOST) need not bother.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on May 17, 2010 19:44:34 GMT -5
I do see your point, but I think we're at that "agree to disagree" point. I do see that if the show structures itself to end at the finish of each season, that would be grand. But if you look at the seasons endings of Buffy and Angel (before the final season), they are TOO open ended to truly end the show. If you watch the final season of Angel, you might notice how rushed it feels at the mid point, as the WB canceled the series at that point, and every rushed to tie up the loose ends (but knowing the cancellation in advance made for a most excellent ending, to quote Mr. Reeves). Again, I feel we're at the agree to disagree point. Do you.... Agree?
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 18, 2010 20:02:04 GMT -5
I do see your point, but I think we're at that "agree to disagree" point. I do see that if the show structures itself to end at the finish of each season, that would be grand. But if you look at the seasons endings of Buffy and Angel (before the final season), they are TOO open ended to truly end the show. If you watch the final season of Angel, you might notice how rushed it feels at the mid point, as the WB canceled the series at that point, and every rushed to tie up the loose ends (but knowing the cancellation in advance made for a most excellent ending, to quote Mr. Reeves). Again, I feel we're at the agree to disagree point. Do you.... Agree? No. Angel was a bit rushed, but ended perfectly. They were lucky to get a fifth season, so again the wrting was on the wall. And Heroes was "planned" to continue in the same way that every series is. It wasn't any more developed than, say, ending Batman Begins with the Joker card. There is a hint that more is to come, but it works just as well as the endpoint. Now, if you want to bring up something like ALF, where they were promised a conclusion and so left the series on a cliffhanger, that's another story.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on May 18, 2010 22:58:24 GMT -5
Angel was a bit rushed, because the production company was told around mid season that the show was not being renewed for the next year. They were able to piece together an ending for the series (and I agree, it's a perfect one at that) because the network gave them advanced notice that the end was come. (On a side note, that was the reason Whedon initially said he wasn't going back to television, as the show was given the axe after the network threw a part to mark the 100th episode. That and the fact that the WB wanted to make Dark Shadows and didn't want a competing vampire show). In the case of Batman Returns, the writers hinted at where they might go in a sequel. But it was a completed movie. even thought the ending contained a little teaser at the end designed to whet the audience's appetite for more. That is not the same as Heroes, where the production company had more planned for the episodic story and were not given the chance to wrap things up. And, seriously..... ALF? That's all you've got? *Please take note of smiley, indicating the sarcastic intent of my last remark. I'm enjoying this discussion and am not trying to be insulting. Well, not too insulting... *
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 20, 2010 16:25:48 GMT -5
Regardless of how well the story wrapped up, it was intended to continue. Now, I'm not overly familiar with the business, so I can't comment on the rationale behind pulling the plug the way NBC did. I just feel the networks do a big disservice to the fans of a show by simply ending it. Even if it makes for a disjointed season (like the last season of Angel), it allows the fans to have a sense of closure. Sure, Heroes was low on the ratings. But people were still watching (about 6.5 million of them) and you'd think that would justify a wrap up episode. 1. Once again, one is in the plannng stages. 2. Every tv show is meant to continue. If a network were to follow your reasoning, shows would never be able to be cancelled without the network having to pony up for a finale. Again the writing was on the wall. The responsibility was on the showrunners shoulders. If the ending was unsatisfactory (and I really don't think it was), blame them, not the network.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 20, 2010 16:39:16 GMT -5
Angel was a bit rushed, because the production company was told around mid season that the show was not being renewed for the next year. They were able to piece together an ending for the series (and I agree, it's a perfect one at that) because the network gave them advanced notice that the end was come. (On a side note, that was the reason Whedon initially said he wasn't going back to television, as the show was given the axe after the network threw a part to mark the 100th episode. That and the fact that the WB wanted to make Dark Shadows and didn't want a competing vampire show). In the case of Batman Returns, the writers hinted at where they might go in a sequel. But it was a completed movie. even thought the ending contained a little teaser at the end designed to whet the audience's appetite for more. That is not the same as Heroes, where the production company had more planned for the episodic story and were not given the chance to wrap things up. And, seriously..... ALF? That's all you've got? *Please take note of smiley, indicating the sarcastic intent of my last remark. I'm enjoying this discussion and am not trying to be insulting. Well, not too insulting... * Alf was a bit tongue in cheek, but it is one of the more notorious examples, as it ended with him being captured and taken away by the government. But I can think of many shows that had big plans (many following in LOST's footsteps) and were never able to tell the story. The Nine, Class Reunion, Threshold, Flashforward, Journeyman, etc. Those were shows that never really had a chance to wrap up, but for the most part the ratings were awful. With Heroes, we're talking a minute of a new story - and one that offered nothing more than the showing of the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, or Batman being chased at the end of Dark Knight. Nothing had been written for the next season. The story they were telling was wrapped up, as intended (for better or worse). I think we're arguing a difference between a general principle, and a specific example. Yes, it does suck when a show with a larger arc is killed without giving a chance to wrap it up. However that really doesn't apply to the specific case of Heroes, which did pretty much give its cast a happy ending, and tied up almost all its loose ends.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on May 21, 2010 2:30:00 GMT -5
Alf was a bit tongue in cheek, but it is one of the more notorious examples, as it ended with him being captured and taken away by the government. But I can think of many shows that had big plans (many following in LOST's footsteps) and were never able to tell the story. The Nine, Class Reunion, Threshold, Flashforward, Journeyman, etc. Those were shows that never really had a chance to wrap up, but for the most part the ratings were awful. Yea, I figured ALF was a bit of a stretch. But I had to give you a bit of a ribbing for it. Hope you didn't mind. To be honest, I don't know most of the shows you mentioned, and never watched any (including ALF ). It's one of the reasons I hate watching episodic television series. You either get a network that decides to pull the plug before the story is over, or they stretch thing out because the ratings are too good (X-Files, I'm talking to you; you broke my heart too many times stringing me along on the alien invasion). With Heroes, we're talking a minute of a new story - and one that offered nothing more than the showing of the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, or Batman being chased at the end of Dark Knight. Nothing had been written for the next season. The story they were telling was wrapped up, as intended (for better or worse). Yes, the stories in the Batman movies were done, with a hint of where a SEQUEL would take the character. In current episodic television, with more of a focus on character development (and you get much more character attachment and development over 22 episodes than a 2 hour movie), if a continuation of the story is even hinted at, you what to know where it goes. I think we're arguing a difference between a general principle, and a specific example. Yes, it does suck when a show with a larger arc is killed without giving a chance to wrap it up. However that really doesn't apply to the specific case of Heroes, which did pretty much give its cast a happy ending, and tied up almost all its loose ends. I don't know how Heroes ended, but the "almost all its loose ends" seems to indicate that more was offered the audience. People invested a lot of time into these characters and (in my opinion) deserved an ending. Not a complete tying up of loose ends, but a moment where the writers, directors, producers and everyone involves simply says, "The End." Angel was a great ending to the show. Yea, it left a lot of stuff open, but the writers were able to sum up the entire show into a few closing minutes, then simply said, "The End," and I was happy. Not that everything was tied up in a neat little bow, but that the people behind the show were able to close it out the way they wanted to. I would just rather see a show end the way the production crew feel it should end, then having somebody else say, "Sorry, we're pulling the plug," despite how happy the ending may feel. Yes, I understand the economics behind the decision and that AMERICAN television is meant to go on forever, or until the network pulls the plug (One of the reasons I loved Spaced; it had an ending). I will continue to support letting the artists come up with an ending (even in the case of ALF ). It's my personal opinion, and I doubt anything will change my mind.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 21, 2010 14:10:44 GMT -5
Alf was a bit tongue in cheek, but it is one of the more notorious examples, as it ended with him being captured and taken away by the government. But I can think of many shows that had big plans (many following in LOST's footsteps) and were never able to tell the story. The Nine, Class Reunion, Threshold, Flashforward, Journeyman, etc. Those were shows that never really had a chance to wrap up, but for the most part the ratings were awful. Yea, I figured ALF was a bit of a stretch. But I had to give you a bit of a ribbing for it. Hope you didn't mind. To be honest, I don't know most of the shows you mentioned, and never watched any (including ALF ). It's one of the reasons I hate watching episodic television series. You either get a network that decides to pull the plug before the story is over, or they stretch thing out because the ratings are too good (X-Files, I'm talking to you; you broke my heart too many times stringing me along on the alien invasion). Yes, the stories in the Batman movies were done, with a hint of where a SEQUEL would take the character. In current episodic television, with more of a focus on character development (and you get much more character attachment and development over 22 episodes than a 2 hour movie), if a continuation of the story is even hinted at, you what to know where it goes. I think we're arguing a difference between a general principle, and a specific example. Yes, it does suck when a show with a larger arc is killed without giving a chance to wrap it up. However that really doesn't apply to the specific case of Heroes, which did pretty much give its cast a happy ending, and tied up almost all its loose ends. I don't know how Heroes ended, but the "almost all its loose ends" seems to indicate that more was offered the audience. People invested a lot of time into these characters and (in my opinion) deserved an ending. Not a complete tying up of loose ends, but a moment where the writers, directors, producers and everyone involves simply says, "The End." Angel was a great ending to the show. Yea, it left a lot of stuff open, but the writers were able to sum up the entire show into a few closing minutes, then simply said, "The End," and I was happy. Not that everything was tied up in a neat little bow, but that the people behind the show were able to close it out the way they wanted to. I would just rather see a show end the way the production crew feel it should end, then having somebody else say, "Sorry, we're pulling the plug," despite how happy the ending may feel. Yes, I understand the economics behind the decision and that AMERICAN television is meant to go on forever, or until the network pulls the plug (One of the reasons I loved Spaced; it had an ending). I will continue to support letting the artists come up with an ending (even in the case of ALF ). It's my personal opinion, and I doubt anything will change my mind. Again, in the case of Heroes, the artists had the opportunity, and chose not to take it (not definitively). They could have held off showing the last minute of the last episode, but they didn't. It was a gamble to see it they could hook people into giving a shit, and it didn't really work. But, one more time, NBC IS giving them one more chance to wrap up the show, so I don't even know what we're debating any more.
|
|
|
Post by mudoogul on May 21, 2010 14:51:03 GMT -5
SAVE THE CHEERLEADER ... SAVE THE WORLD!
That's the Heroes I'll remember.
|
|