:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
No fair! DEADWOOD and ROME are my favorite TV shows, you're not allowed to bring them up! It makes me not want to argue any more.
I now know your one weakness VFD. :twisted:
You know, Bass, I usually agree with you on most things. However, I completely disagree with you here. The longer a show runs either A) the worse it becomes or B) the better it becomes. It's almost impossible to have a show run for years and years and be completely stellar the entire run. It just isn't going to happen. Either it's going to be mediocre at first as they build up the mythology or it's going to blow its load early, have a mediocre middle, and then, perhaps if they've planned well enough, salvage the end.
I disagree. LAW & ORDER has remained as an entertaining, albeit not particularly substantive, police procedural. While it's episodes go up and down, the show as a whole is of the same quality. Same for the three 7-season long STAR TREK spin-offs. All remained at a pretty similar consistency. While TNG and DS9 found their 'groove', their groove was only a slight improvement. And VOY was always rubbish, but consistent.
That said, I'm nitpicking. You're right; the majority of cases, a show just gets worse as it goes on. It's less likely to get better, just because of the nature of television. The first seasons are going to be the ones with the most thought behind them because they had to 'sell' the show. It's rare that once on the path of success, a show stops trying to 'sell' itself. It's one of the reasons FIREFLY was so good - every episode had to 'sell' the show.
With Firefly, there's a damn good chance that seasons 3 or 4 could have been rubbish. It happened to Buffy and it happened to Angel. Same with any of the shows you mentioned. As it is, some shows start out rubbish and improve with time. LOST had a spectacular first season, as did BSG. The problem with LOST was that the show was meant to have an end and, when that end wasn't in sight, they had to stretch it out. With BSG, the third season was completely messed with by the network. They wanted more standalone episodes and, because of that, we got a sub-par season.
As I just mentioned, I agree. FIREFLY, if not under the constant threat of cancellation, might have been really poopy. And if it continued, might have gotten even worse. But there's no denying that the 14 episodes we GOT, were brilliant. And deserving of more episodes. Compare those 14 episodes with other shows first seasons, and you'll start to wonder how some shows get renewed long after they've proven an inability to deliver.
And I agree about BUFFY and ANGEL. BUFFY's first season was fun, it's second brilliant, and it's third was just astounding. It's fourth wasn't as good as the previous three, but it was still a lot of fun. It's fifth was worse still. It's sixth was almost unwatchable. And it's seventh was retarded. After high school, the show fell apart. ANGEL, on the other hand, had two fantastic seasons. Season 3 fell apart at the end, and season 4 was a mess. Then... season 5 came out of nowhere and totally energized the show. It was a terrific season.
Now, as for LOST, I didn't get through the first season. It became apparent that the writers had no idea what was going on in any meaningful way. Sure, they may have had the whole 'magnet' thing planned, but they didn't know how to bring it into the story. It's evident when you compare LOST to shows with an overarching mystery that is
known by the writers. The first season of HEROES moves with an almost clockwork precision. The main question of the first season of BABYLON 5 is revealed in its 9th episode. And then there's all manner of other stories that are set up, progressed, and resolved throughout the show. Bringing up an overarching plot element and then returning to the status quo is a
tease, not progression. THE X-FILES did this at least once a season. And then LOST seemed to go out of its way to make its characters unlikeable. When I quit the show, I liked Daniel Dae Kim (because of CRUSADE and not because of anything he did in LOST) and Hurley. Even Locke I was tired of.
As for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA... see, we're never going to agree. You think the season was subpar because it had too many standalone stories. I think it was awful because it was too self-involved with its inconsistent, bull**** mythology. The first episodes of BSG were ALL standalone and they were awesome. The only thing that sucked was Helo. But as the series progressed the fantastic, "the last refugees of humanity surviving in the blackness of space" got replaced with a fanwank of destiny and "who's a cylon?" and "what is their plan?" and all that rubbish. They betrayed the core concept and turned into the crappy STAR TREK spin-offs which lectured people on morality and faith with half-assed, ill-conceived thoughts. Blerg.
The reason I'm not giving the show 'another chance', is because this 'mistake' of focusing on their bull**** mythology without properly understanding where it was going was in the mini-series. It was in the first season, but in a minor way. And in the second season, it took up half the damn season. And in the third, 90% of the season was this fanwank bull****. I fail to see why the fourth season won't be more of the same. They, to my mind, are compounding the mistake, blissfully unaware it exists.
Unless the ship's medical staff turn out to be cylons, I can't be bothered to watch a show that spends all its time going on about its own continuity when the writers can't even be bothered to remember what has happened in the show.
That's why I don't watch HEROES anymore.
I think what Bass is trying to suggest is that TV shows should be good and short, and well-conceived from beginning to end, rather than long and good with ups and downs in between.
Not at all. What I want is a show with a strong concept. A TV show
needs a strong concept. It needs it so that it's unique identity is always present, and it needs to be strong so it can be continually repeated and progressed.
A show's concept
can change, but it's bloody hard to do. BUFFY's concept of 'teenagers fighting monsters' changed when they grew up and it fell apart. ANGEL changed from 'private investigators fighting monsters' to 'lawyers fighting monsters' and it worked.
See, COLUMBO lasted ages and it was just
good. It had a strong concept (the character of Columbo) and they just repeated it.
What I can't stand is a show with a weak *** concept or a show that betrays its concept because the show flounders, gets desperate, and falls apart. If a show's concept is "a fully planned mystery about people on an island" or "the cyclons have a plan", then the writers should
know that concept. If their concept is intrinsically finite, that it has a beginning, middle, and end, then the show's writers are honour-bound to know it in advance. If the show's concept doesn't, if it's a repeatable concept, then they need no ending.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to pop in and bash BSG. I just saw Skotti's comments and felt I should say, "This is how I feel" and leave. BUT! I have been drawn into the argument of "BSG sucks" versus "I'm wrong about BSG being good".
