It Gets Better Later

[Best of the 3]

I find things usually get better with time because you get invested in them and so look upon whatever it is more favourably. Eureka Seven was a weird one. I remember it being dragged out but I remember liking it at the end. I wish it was more condensed. I had the same thing with Kurokami (I think) but I didn't like the end of that as much.

One thing that I say doesn't get better with time is School Days. I've tried 3-4 times to like that show now. Every time I feel like crap the more I watch it. I can't seem to feel disgusted at the main character so much that I just can't watch it. I don't think it gets better or worse, but it makes me feel like crap the more I watch.

 

[Fappy]

In my experience, "it gets better later" usually is true. This seems to be especially prevalent with animes, though sometimes the opposite is true (Psycho Pass is a good example). As for Eureka Seven... well, whoever told you it gets better is a liar. That anime sucks balls

I've almost always found the exact opposite.

Dexter: First two seasons brilliant. After that: less stellar
The remade Battlestar Gallactica: First season amazing. Second season and on: Hey everyone is a cylon
Mass Effect 1: By FAR the best game in the series. Mass Effect 2: Still stellar (hehe, star joke). ME3 - Star Child 'nuff said
Joan of Arcadia: First few episodes: Thoughtful, interesting deep. The rest.....
X-Files: Creature of the week: AWESOME! Odd conspiracy theories...meh
Elder Scrolls stands out as one that has stayed consistently good

I find that a lot of the time the writers just start looking for drama, or have to raise the stakes to make things bigger, faster and "more". Often with little good reason to do so.

I think it has a lot to do with how planned out the story is. In many instances where "it gets better later" applies, the story's been planned out from start to finish. Many of the stories you mentioned are installment-based (multiple seasons of television show for example) in which a lot of what happens later in the story wasn't thought out before it was created. As a story gets dragged out due to popular demand the writers run out of steam and start pulling stuff out of their ass. In the case of Dexter for example, I think it's just a case of a premise lasting longer than it logically should.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I'd say that this would make those later works good, but taken as a whole the entire series still wouldn't be that great by simple virtue that there's many series which are great from start to finish.

Also, it's still entirely possible to enjoy mediocre things. However, to me, for something to qualify as genuinely good or even great I expect a minimum of quality to be maintained across the entire work. If at any point I'm struggling through, only going on by the vague promise that 'it gets better later' and not by any virtue of the work itself then that work no longer qualifies as good, let alone great.

I disagree, but then maybe I'm just more forgiving. Does one mediocre episode downgrade an entire body of work? Being consistently quality is hard; everyone raves about Breaking Bad, and while I really enjoyed the first three(?) episodes, I stalled on the one where they went to a birthday party and had cringe-inducing conversation with his old business partner. And that show is supposed to be slow-burn. On balance though, from what I've seen so far, I'd still call it a great show and one day I fully intend to go back and keep watching. That one episode hasn't really dragged down the overall quality, as a bad patch can be easily forgotten if the quality of the rest is high enough.

I'm not talking about slow spots or rough patches where the work still shows promise in characters, dialogue or storyline. I'm talking about works where literally the only reason you continue to watch/read/view them is on the promise that it 'gets better later', you're not watching/reading/viewing them because of any quality of the work itself.

To be honest, I can't think of any time I've genuinely experienced that. I often find myself playing through a dull game (*cough* Witcher Dishonoured ACIII*cough*) not because I'm told it'll be better later, but because I'm loathe to have wasted the money I spent on it. Arguably, I suppose that's more masochistic that continuing with something in the hopes of it improving :-/

 

[Silverbeard]

On the subject of anime, I am reminded of the original Guyver series.
The first handful of episodes were piss-dribblingly awful. But the individual episodes and the show as a whole gets much better from number 5 onwards- so much so that I was almost certain that they had brought in a new production team to make it so.

My own video game equivalent has to be Spec Ops: The line. The early bits are rather bland and tedious. Two hours later, however...

 

[John Heater]

Homestuck would be an example of "It gets better later" most definitely. It genuinely does, and the first part of it isn't the most engaging (But its alright) As for video games, this would apply mainly to RPGs and RTS games, due to the needed buildup for their plots, and some story driven games definitely suffer from it. Anime DEFINITELY suffers this like 99% of the time, i find Anime nearly unwatchable myself...I would say keep at it, first impressions are some of the things most books/games/shows/comics can never seem to get right, unfortunately.. So its harder to make decisions on what you want to keep at.

 

[SonicWaffle]

X-Files: Creature of the week: AWESOME! Odd conspiracy theories...meh

See, on paper I'd say I enjoyed the conspiracy episodes more than MOTW episodes in the X-Files. "On paper" because when it was only vague hints and jumping at shadows, it hooked me in and I wanted to know more about it. Unfortunately it all fell apart when they began to reveal the conspiracy, because they obviously hadn't planned very far in advance and so it became more about shock twists-and-turns than patiently revealing an actual story arc.

I think it has a lot to do with how planned out the story is. In many instances where "it gets better later" applies the story's been planned out from start to finish. Many of the stories you mentioned are installment-based (multiple seasons of television show for example) in which a lot of what happens later in the story wasn't thought out before it was created. As a story gets dragged out due to popular demand the writers run out of steam and start pulling stuff out of their ass. In the case of Dexter for example, I think it's just a case of a premise lasting longer than it logically should.

Accursed ninja :-(

But yeah, pretty much this. To return to the Buffy example I used earlier in the thread, they had a perfect ending with the close of season five, they'd planned everything up until then and tied a neat little bow on it all. Then the network wanted another series, so the show (and Buffy) had to be dragged out of a grave and awkwardly returned to life. Ergo much of season six sucked, being rudderless and adrift, before recovering (YMMV) in season seven, only for it to end again.

Then we got season eight, which kinda went the opposite way. Started out really well, then when it got to the meat of the myth arc it just went completely off the rails. You win some, you lose some I suppose.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The camera always lingers over Misato. Rei has that towel scene with Shinji. And I'm pretty sure Asuka gets a panty shot every other episode. Generally speaking though, there's plenty of fanservice. I'd post a bunch of images about it but I'm down to my 4th warning so...

The scene with Rei is there specifically to not be fanservice though, but to be very awkward and uncomfortable. Establishing that Rei is kinda... weird. She doesn't blink an eye when she's seen naked or gets groped, but immediately smacks Shinji square in the face when he says he distrusts his father.

Most of these scenes are more for the purpose of confronting Shinji with something he's scared of; Girls. The scene where Asuka's skirt flies up is mainly for a bit of lightheartedness, the results of which only the characters get to see, not the audience. The bit at the pool where Asuka mentions thermal expanded boobs is her trying to get a rise out of Shinji and to figure out what kind of person he is. She's also just very attention seeking.
Then there's the bit at the hotsprings, which is probably the closest the series gets to flat-out fanservice. And even that gets punctuated by Misato's giant scar, and Asuka confirming that Misato is aware of her past, which isn't the happiest one.

I'm not saying the show is totally devoid of anything tantilazing - the character designs speak for themselves - but the majority of it is not there for simple fanservice. And if the show already has you scratching your head, I'd advise you to avoid the Rebuilds like the plague, especially Rebuild 2. It features Asuka in a plugsuit that sports a torso section that's conveniently see through. I wish I was kidding.

 

[Username Redacted]

One Piece gets better later, for some it's in the first few episodes, other needs 100 episodes, the majority it's when they pass the grand Line.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. If something is asking me to sink 50 hours of my life into it then the payoff has to be epic. As someone who has never committed to a epically long show or anime I feel like, from the individual episodes that I've seen of many such programs, that they survive almost entirely on being just barely not crap so that the carrot on a stick keeps people going until the next episode where something terribly important happens (or not; most likely 'not'). Basically the most surefire way for me to not believe someone telling me it gets better later is if the show is still going on and it's painfully obvious that those making it have no idea what their endgame is.

 

[Hagi]

I disagree, but then maybe I'm just more forgiving. Does one mediocre episode downgrade an entire body of work? Being consistently quality is hard;

Well... yeah...

Making quality things IS hard... If it were easy it wouldn't be quality, it'd be average as everyone would be making it.

One mediocre episode does downgrade the entire body of work, not by a huge margin but it still decreases the overall quality. The work would have been better if there wasn't a single mediocre or worse episode.

But the main factor, for me, still is that there's no shortage of works which don't get better later, they are better now and stay good.

I've got a decently sized backlog of books I still want to read, series I want to watch and games I want to play. I really don't see much reason to stick with something I'm not enjoying on the chance that it might get better later.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I find things usually get better with time because you get invested in them and so look upon whatever it is more favourably. Eureka Seven was a weird one. I remember it being dragged out but I remember liking it at the end. I wish it was more condensed. I had the same thing with Kurokami (I think) but I didn't like the end of that as much.

I had a similar experience with that show. The first 10 or so episodes were a chore to get through. The whole "too cool for school" attitude wasn't winning it any favors either.

It wasn't untill...

Spoiler

...Eureka turned into a plucked chicken...

...that I felt the characters were actually going places, and some much needed drama got introduced.

Renton's Japanese voice actor (or is it actress?) still made it hard to take him seriously though.

 

[carpathic]

In my experience, "it gets better later" usually is true. This seems to be especially prevalent with animes, though sometimes the opposite is true (Psycho Pass is a good example). As for Eureka Seven... well, whoever told you it gets better is a liar. That anime sucks balls

I've almost always found the exact opposite.

Dexter: First two seasons brilliant. After that: less stellar
The remade Battlestar Gallactica: First season amazing. Second season and on: Hey everyone is a cylon
Mass Effect 1: By FAR the best game in the series. Mass Effect 2: Still stellar (hehe, star joke). ME3 - Star Child 'nuff said
Joan of Arcadia: First few episodes: Thoughtful, interesting deep. The rest.....
X-Files: Creature of the week: AWESOME! Odd conspiracy theories...meh
Elder Scrolls stands out as one that has stayed consistently good

I find that a lot of the time the writers just start looking for drama, or have to raise the stakes to make things bigger, faster and "more". Often with little good reason to do so.

I think it has a lot to do with how planned out the story is. In many instances where "it gets better later" applies, the story's been planned out from start to finish. Many of the stories you mentioned are installment-based (multiple seasons of television show for example) in which a lot of what happens later in the story wasn't thought out before it was created. As a story gets dragged out due to popular demand the writers run out of steam and start pulling stuff out of their ass. In the case of Dexter for example, I think it's just a case of a premise lasting longer than it logically should.

I think your comment is fair. Harry Potter started well and got better (and more adult) probably because she had a goal in mind (having written the final chapter years and years before the final book). But she did probably meander if different directions from what was thought originally.

I think often it relies not just upon the organization of the writers, but really upon what they think the appetite of their audience might be. The authors that think only of the potential appetite and not their own creative vision likely end up with things that get worse as things progress. I think also the writers who focus exclusively on their own creative vision and not on the appetite of their audience also make things that get worse. I suspect the success if found generally when the writers find that balance between their ideas and what the audience wants. I think that given how often the authors manage to screw this up, it is probably harder than I've represented it above

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't believe things that get better later are actually good, they're just mediocre at best.

Surely that would depend on the relative quality of the good and bad bits and how long it takes to get good.

If the first two chapters of a thirty chapter book are below average, but the remaining twenty-eight are refined and purified textual nirvana then I'd say that makes it significantly better than average overall.

I have trouble believing anyone capable of such quality would be writing bad things in the first place. Well, AND get to nirvana in such a reasonably short period of time.

Although I suppose it's technically possible, I find it unlikely to the point of near-absurdity.

OT: What I can stand often varies. If there's something I like in a work, I can put up with a lot, personally. The "it gets better" argument only works for me if it gets better in a reasonable timeframe. I remember people saying you have to play the latest Final Fantasy (at the time, which I think was XIII but I don't remember) for 20 hours to get to the good parts.

And that gets a sound "fuck that" from me.

I can deal with early adaptation weirdness, I can deal with dry establishing material, etc. But it really should get to the point sooner rather than later. While my attention span is erratic, the one consistency is that it is finite.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

"It gets better" is a flawed argument. Most things "get better" as you become invested in them. But we live in a pretty rich environment when it comes to products and items designed to entertain us. I don't need to slog through something just because it might improve when there are literally dozens of other options out there that took the time and crafted an experience that is more engaging from the beginning.

It also often comes as a promise from people who are already invested in whatever item/show/game they are talking about. I can bang on about Dead Rising until the cows come home, I can tell you that Frank West will eventually become indistinguishable from a ninja and that he can disembowel zombies with his bare hands at level 50, but if you aren't enjoying the slow slogs through the mall at level 10 that is small comfort. Or if you don't care for zombie fiction or if you don't find the games sense of humor enjoyable, why would you bother?

Of course time with a product can improve ones affection for it. But before we tell someone to stick it out, it might be wiser to find out what they are not engaging with in said item/game/show and assess if the recommendation is really worth it or not.

 

[ShogunGino]

One Piece gets better later, for some it's in the first few episodes, other needs 100 episodes, the majority it's when they pass the grand Line.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. If something is asking me to sink 50 hours of my life into it then the payoff has to be epic. As someone who has never committed to a epically long show or anime I feel like, from the individual episodes that I've seen of many such programs, that they survive almost entirely on being just barely not crap so that the carrot on a stick keeps people going until the next episode where something terribly important happens (or not; most likely 'not'). Basically the most surefire way for me to not believe someone telling me it gets better later is if the show is still going on and it's painfully obvious that those making it have no idea what their endgame is.

If I may reply, I personally disagree that One Piece gets good 100 episodes in. The problem with One Piece is that the protagonist is trying to build a crew on the ship, and the first small recruitment story arcs are kinda interesting in some aspects, but they don't introduce many 'large-scale scenarios in exotic locations that affect a good deal of the world' for a while, and that's something that One Piece is known for.

I'd say it gets good about 40 episodes in at the Arlong Park arc. Yeah, I can understand that's still too long to have a real hook, but by that time, 5 members are on the crew, plus two allies for the arc, and they begin to do the things that have become staples of the series that fans like me attached to. I liked the manga before I watched the anime, so I was pretty fine with the adaptation of the less interesting stuff. Toei Animation at least paced those early arcs well, all things considered, and I don't feel as if they are 'carrot on a stick' at all because even though they aren't as interesting as later arcs, enough stuff happened per episode so that you don't feel led on. Yeah, they have no idea what their endgame is because its an adaptation of a still-going manga, and the manga author has stated in earlier interviews that he does indeed have a clear ending in mind, so it'll get there when it gets there.

The other thing I would point out is that there are some points where it gets worse in the anime for various reasons. Sometime over 250 episodes, there was a part when the first half of an episode was the EXACT last half of the previous episode, that was a time when the pacing was suffering because they had to save money for the epic conclusion of that arc. And not many people, fans included, like the poor pacing for about 3/5 of the Thriller Bark arc. That arc was heavily reliant on backgrounds and atmosphere, more-so than most other arcs, and the episodes suffered for a decent amount of time while they tried to keep the visuals consistent.

So, yeah, just wanted to provide a counterpoint to Anoni Mus. I disagree with his/her stance on when the anime gets good, but I wanted to provide a more detailed reasons as to why I disagree. While I don't expect this post to convert you into a fan, or anything, I wanted to be a bit more descriptive to the pros and cons of my fav anime.

 

[Raine_sage]

The thing I see people do though is conflate "better" with "different" when they're trying to explain what makes something good without spoiling what it is or when it happens in a series. There are some works where the twist is part of the point, or where the twist sheds all the earlier episodes in a new light.

People have brought up Tales of the Abyss and Madoka Magica which both spend roughly the first half (or in madoka's case the first three episodes)setting you up for a bait and switch. Then the pivotal event happens and the viewer realizes that the story they thought they were getting is not the one that is actually happening.


Since it's nice to be surprised it's hard to tell someone why they should play/watch these things without ruining the surprise and therefore one of the things that made it so enjoyable for you. But it really would be more accurate to say "These characters are not static and neither is the story. If you're worried nothing will change, then don't worry they will."

 

[Catrixa]

"It gets better later" usually needs to mean "it's tolerable now" for me. Final Fantasy XIII might be the most amazing game ever, but if I have to spend at least 20 hours enduring menu-based real-time combat before it gets decent, I'm going to go insane. If it's the first season of a TV show with awkward acting, but a good premise, I can endure until it gets good and the actors figure out what they're doing. If I'm not hooked by the idea, however, it better start off brilliant too, or I'm bored and onto something else.

 

[00slash00]

I almost quit Last of Us because the first half of the game was, at best, so mediocre it hurt. I am gad I stuck with it though. I mean the controls were shit and the devs apparently kept getting sick of stealth game play and instead decided to keep throwing you in a small room while you gun down enemies for an unspecified amount of time. So in that sense, it didn't get better. But the story got much better. It went from revolving around every zombie survival story cliche known to man, to being really gripping (especially the Winter chapter. Oh my god).

Still, my feeling has always been that if something can't at least keep you interested enough to hang on while it builds up steam, it isn't good storytelling