Hello America, one question. Why do you ruin all your best television shows?

[Sonic Doctor]

Not all American television has been ruined. There is still some good stuff out there. Example: Castle. It is an awesome detective show. Also if you like Nathan Fillion, you will love Castle.

 

[Ensiferum]

So, it has come to my attention that many American TV shows are run into the ground. Series such as Scrubs, Two and a Half Men, the Simpsons and CSI(just to name a few) were great shows, but after several series they've all gone down hill, and by down hill I mean fell off a cliff.

This isn't to say America is the only offender, but it's certainly the worst by far. So while truly great and original shows like Futurama and Firefly get cancelled (although I hear Futurama is coming back), Two and a Half men, which was great to begin with, has long stopped being funny, yet it continues to run, and the less said about Scrubs, the better.

Now I understand that popular shows make a lot of money and it's for that reason that they keep going for as long as they do, but don't the writers want their shows to be remembered for being great? Not 'that one show that started great and then was pretty shit for several years'.

Here in Britian, shows like Fawlty Towers and Blackadder, while very popular, only ran for 2 and 4 series respectively. You can gurantee that if any of those two shows were to suddenly return with a new season, their ratings would soar. But they won't return any time soon, for one reason. The writers don't want to write a new series for the sake of writing a new series, they want their work to be just as funny as it's always been, not churning out some forced plot just for the sake of it.

It's certainly the safe option, milking a series for all it's worth (let's not forget how guilty the video game industry is that), but it saddens me to see so many good shows(say what you want about America, but they have some damn good TV shows) die, when they could have finished with a bang and always be remembered as a great series.

So, fellow escapist, what are your thoughts on the matter?

The short answer is: ratings and a general lack of taste among mainstream viewers.

Lets look at Firefly for an example; it received poor viewer ratings because it was badly marketed and they didn't even show the opening episodes in order. Most average viewers had no idea what it even was and were merely confused by it, so they stopped watching it, viewer ratings slipped, and thus the show was canceled.

The opposite can also happen, where a show will run for years past its prime as long as the network running it thinks they can get a decent enough number of viewers to keep it going. Heroes is a good example of this; it had a great story arc for the first season or two, and should have been brought to an end, but they figured they could still get enough viewers if they dragged it out for a couple of more seasons so they bled it dry and it died a slow death of mediocrity.

Thankfully there are still a few shows we have yet to ruin; Fringe is still one of the best series on Television. I just hope they know when to end it and don't drag it out like they've done with so many others.

 

[Kiju]

Television companies are running out of original ideas.

People like familiar characters, because it puts them at ease and they are more likely to sit and watch something that is familiar to them.

Plus...too many viewers are more than willing to pay a cable bill just to watch shows they think might be worth it. I've all but given up on television as a whole; I don't watch it anymore, and when I do it's usually the History channel when they don't have that Ice Road Truckers bullshit that doesn't belong on that channel. It's not even history!

 

[MetaMuffin]

Some shows just don't have longevity. Nothing more to it than that. I loved the first 2 seasons of Dexter, but after the 3rd and 4th I really lost interest. Most shows just fall into the pattern of cliche plot devices.

 

[Snotnarok]

Money>Quality

That's how most media vendors work. While I disagree with this, I also hate it...yes I know what I said and I stand by it.

Also: Firefly whhhhyyy *tears of sorrow*

 

[VGC USpartan VS]

America's Responce: We have Family Guy and Jump City.

CASE CLOSED

 

[Drakmorg]

I gave up on American television when My Name is Earl was canceled on a cliff-hanger.
Seriously, I don't even own a cable box and I only use my TV with my Xbox. If I could find some way to just use my Computer monitor with my Xbox I'd just sell my TV.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

I remember Firefly... T_T

Firefly, to my knowledge because Fox is full of idiots... (obviously) and they pretty much removed to put more places for Family guy or something.

Don't quote me.

Unless you're quoting the Fox is full of idiots part. That'd be correct.

 

[EHKOS]

Because our best man contracted parkinsons. Have you seen him lately? I feel really bad for him, he looks terrible.

 

[Siuki]

I really don't know. I guess after a generation or two of viewers the ratings start plummeting. The new group doesn't really understand the show's universe as much while the old group complains about how bad the current episodes are compared to the old ones. If I had to list my favorite dead TV shows, that would be Samurai Jack, followed by The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.

 

[Senaro]

I see this problem with a lot of shows, including anime. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a show with a complete story that only lasts 20-30 episodes. It's when writers have to start making up random shit to fill time that we end up with this 400+ episode filler garbage. So many shows are ruined by their extensive run times, not many survive that kind of exposure.

The only shows I really care to watch right now are House and Dragonball Z Kai. I know DBZ is the epitome of all that is long, drawn out anime, but the cut speeds it up quite a bit and I enjoy making fun of it while I watch, despite secretly loving every moment.

 

[Karma168]

Now I give an example of a show that deserved to be canceled, but could have survived if the people that produced it would have just paid attention to franchise fans and made it like it should have been.

Stargate Universe, it had potential. The problem was that they didn't focus the stories like Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis did, which is on classic sci-fi plots. Instead of focusing on the Stargate and the ship that the people were stuck on and any kind of true stargate-like story, they focus 90% of the show on relationships of the crew. They had love triangles, an affair, a baby from the affair, no loves that end up getting killed, and lesbians. They had turned an awesome sci-fi franchise into a space soap opera that had little to do with the franchise that it was taking the name of. It took them a season and a half to develop any kind of plot that dealt with the ship and and aliens. Aliens did appear in the first season, but they were like an afterthought.

thats the problem though, they couldn't do another series like the last two. those could pretty much be summed up as "went to planet, met bad guy, kept firing till problem went way" or "went to planet, met bad guy, team genius designs deus ex machina". the show would have bombed as it would be 'an SG1 clone'.

they decided to try a more character driven story. yes you still have the same character classes (warrior,leader,genius, etc.) but now they are a lot more fleshed out than in the previous series. wondering what's going on in rush's head makes him a much more interesting character than say Rodney, who didn't have a thought he didn't immediately share.

most of the love stories were a bit stupid on the ship yes but the relationships with the people back on earth were much more deep. Eli worrying about his mum, Colonel Young and his strained marriage, etc. all added another layer to the characters and made them seem more real.

The fact that it took me a minute to remember who the lesbians were tells me that it wasn't a major part of the story. would the character have been any different if she had been straight?

SGU brought an entire new spin to the franchise by introducing stories that lasted more than one or two episodes. the whole thing with Rush, the aliens from season 1, the purpose of the destiny. all these long arcing stories brought a lot more intrigue to the show than if everything was solved within an hour and forgotten. the fact that it took longer to start just builds it up, feeding the story in drips to keep you interested.

for example which is better? a story that takes time to develop all the aspects clearly or one that just dumps them all on your lap in one go?

 

[Bobbity]

I'm really enjoying Modern Family right now, and I hope that they don't run it into the ground. That said, South Park can still put out some good laughs, and not all American shows have become a shadow of what they were.
That said, two of my all time favourite TV series were Blackadder and Fawlty Towers, and neither of those ran for very long at all. Keeping a TV series only as long as you can keep providing new and interesting ideas is the best approach, but I can understand why networks might choose to bleed old favourites dry, because making these shows is expensive.

 

[BoredDragon]

Wait, are you telling me that there is actually good shows on my TV. No way, all this time I thought everyone was just making crappy remakes and sitcoms... wait.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I read this as our best series, so I thought it would be a complaining thread about things like life on mars and top gear.

american top gear is what happens when you insert a camera in utero and film an abortion

The real answer is that when half of the new tv shows are doomed to fail, tv execs want to stick to something recognized.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

The problem is that here in America we're retarded unaware that too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

American TV shows are designed to be never-ending, and the way they do that is by never setting a plot

[sub]If the above picture doesn't make any sense to you, you'd make a great American TV writer.[/sub]

Plot's are standard in books and movies because books and movies are finite entities. having the END of a story looming helps give the action purpose. That's what makes certain shows awesome (Firefly, Buffy, a metric fuck-ton of animes I could mention, Twin Peaks, hopefully The United States of Terra, probably some foreign shows I haven't seen, and Miniseries's like The Room[sub]If you haven't seen The Room, you should get on that[/sub])

They all conform to the story arc and they all have endings.
More general American TV shows tend to go for the infinite story approach where they have a bunch of one or two season story arcs where all status quo is restored at the end but then they're on to something bigger and better and more intense. (see Burn Notice or Dexter or 24 or any show really they all get interchangeable after about 3 seasons. Dragon Ball Z is the worst offender)

Then there are comedies (2.5 men, Simpsons etc.) sit-coms, Situational Comedies, they have characters and they have situations. and that's the full extent of the plot
(Charlie is an alcoholic womanizing jingle writer, Alan is a broke divorced father, what mischief can they get up to this episode.) the good ones start out funny as all hell but then the running gags get played out and the stereotypes get tired. (South Park and The Simpsons are the only two that are consistently funny)

This got long-winded didn't it?
how's about a TL: DR

American TV shows don't follow a traditional plot line (intro, rising action, climax, falling action)
they tend to go for a more milk-able story structure (intense thing happens, status quo restored, intestine thing happens, status quo restored, repeat ad nauseum) and that gets boring fast.
the reason comedies all eventually suck is that the jokes get played out.

this, a thousand times this

Once a series gets over 7 seasons, it usually sucks anyway. Exception: Friends. Anyone else remember Friends? It was a great show that lasted for 10 great seasons.

i beg to differ, try watching friends with the laugh dub removed, it stops being funny immediately and goes from there to quite disturbing, to put it mildly

 

[Sonic Doctor]

thats the problem though, they couldn't do another series like the last two. those could pretty much be summed up as "went to planet, met bad guy, kept firing till problem went way" or "went to planet, met bad guy, team genius designs deus ex machina". the show would have bombed as it would be 'an SG1 clone'.

they decided to try a more character driven story. yes you still have the same character classes (warrior,leader,genius, etc.) but now they are a lot more fleshed out than in the previous series. wondering what's going on in rush's head makes him a much more interesting character than say Rodney, who didn't have a thought he didn't immediately share.

most of the love stories were a bit stupid on the ship yes but the relationships with the people back on earth were much more deep. Eli worrying about his mum, Colonel Young and his strained marriage, etc. all added another layer to the characters and made them seem more real.

The fact that it took me a minute to remember who the lesbians were tells me that it wasn't a major part of the story. would the character have been any different if she had been straight?

SGU brought an entire new spin to the franchise by introducing stories that lasted more than one or two episodes. the whole thing with Rush, the aliens from season 1, the purpose of the destiny. all these long arcing stories brought a lot more intrigue to the show than if everything was solved within an hour and forgotten. the fact that it took longer to start just builds it up, feeding the story in drips to keep you interested.

for example which is better? a story that takes time to develop all the aspects clearly or one that just dumps them all on your lap in one go?

The problem is that the Stargate franchise and its universe is not built entirely on its characters. It is built on the history, mythology, the uncovering the Ancients to see their history and why they did things. It is about exploring new places, finding new technology, and finding aliens.

It just isn't driven by relationships in the way Universe tried to do. They were subtle, and not blatantly out in the open, like the angsty crap that Universe did, with boo-hoo mope mope why doesn't she like me, boo-hoo mope mope why doesn't he support me having the baby.

With SG-1, people can see that O'Neill and Carter have a thing for each other, but they didn't over step their bounds with the characters and play the relationship over the top.

The same goes for Shepard and Tala in Atlantis.

With Universe, it was sex sex sex, and if they weren't showing it, they showed that the characters were thinking about it. It seriously played out like a cheesy daytime soap opera, except it was in space. I get the same reaction from all the fans of the Stargate franchise that I encounter.

They pissed off the core fan-base and that is why the show failed. It can't be denied. I'm not really into the fan community even though I am a fan, but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been an organized boycott of Universe to get it canceled. Especially since Universe was the reason Atlantis got canceled.

I'm not saying that Universe had to be entirely like SG-1 and Atlantis. It had a good premise with the ship and all. I did like Rush, but there just wasn't enough about him or dealing with the ship. I found myself watching Eli moping about what's her face, and then the army guy that is involved with what's her face and worrying about her turning into an alien, and then the drawn out stuff with the lesbians; the whole time I was thinking what's Rush doing, why is there not a real plot for each episode?

The problem was there was too much going on. With SG-1 and Atlantis, there was a main plot/story for each episode and one, maybe two side stories. With that the main plot/story took up at least 30 minutes of the episode, the rest was 12 minutes placed in little pieces thorough out the episode. With Universe there are so many things going on that if we are lucky, the main plot/story is 10 minutes long if you cut out all the other crap thrown in.

It took them a season and a half to reveal a possible main plot for the series. Which I think is Rush looking into the possibility of finding out who engineered the creation of the universe. This would have been awesome but they ruined the show by dumping a soap opera in the middle of it.

Oh, and if you didn't know who the lesbians were, you really weren't watching the show. They practically had a get together every other episode, and you could tell a few times they were having some kind of relations, which feels really wrong since we know that the one was using another woman's body with the communication stones. Wow, what if the stones cut out when they were in the middle of something.

The show was just plain handled poorly. Instead of sticking with the same classic sci-fi formula which of course would have succeeded, they changed it up and made dog crap.

If anybody that had a hand in creating this affront to the Stargate franchise is reading this(of course likely not), go back and study what made SG-1 and Atlantis great, make a new series with that formula, guess what, I guarantee it will be a success. But really, just un-cancel Atlantis, it had at least two more season left that could have been done. With what they did with Atlantis because of Universe, it just has Fox written all over it. Here that SyFy, or whatever crap you are calling yourselves these days, you have been compared to Fox. Burn!

 

[Adam Galli]

Hollywood loves money and if a show is making them money then they beat that horse til it's way past dead. Although I loved the show, I admire what Brent Butt did with his series Corner Gas. It had several successful season and he decided to end it before it became too stale.