The Season 2 Problem

Especially in such case as that of unfolding "mystery of the premise." You know, the sort of show that challenges us to figure out what show is about. What is that island on Lost about? Well, you either tell us and we shrug, because every mystery reduces to a common trope or you don't explain it and you keep on stroking the mystery, trying the patience of the audience.

Season 1 of Westworld is great. The mystery unfolds, the premise is revealed, story arcs are completed, a story is completed. Everything after that flounders. We didn't need to see the robots escape part of the story, because that was not the heart of the narrative (it's not a Skynet story). Severance season 1 is similar. Season 2 feels like circling drain. Haven't we seen all this before? Our characters have been "outside" and the existential terror was compassed in season 1. What's left? Continuing with Severance fatigues me, because increasingly, as a viewer, I feel like an "innie" being forced to repeat a monotonous meaningless task. Do I really want to be trapped in a fluorescent cubicle maze with no hope of a pay off, because I can get that in the real world along with a paycheck.

Season 1 of True Detective is great. It's complete. Season 2 is bold in attempting to start a new story, but it turns out that you need more than a shared title, you actually need a new story to tell which is of equal quality with the first (and actors of similar caliber). Fargo does it better, but the seasons are uneven.

Silo starts off interesting "What the heck is going on?" When we get to season 2 we're running deeper and deeper into the woods and compiling questions, which is a strategy that threatens to become too confusing for people to continue to care. I cheated and looked up details of where the story is going (according to the books) and found an ever-expanding lore-forest. Do I really want to pick up a history minor for a timeline that doesn't even exist?

BBC does it better with limited series. Tell your story and move on. Stop trying to make everything a nacho-cheese pump, endlessly churning out goo.

If you're doing episodic television, pump away for as long as you can. If, however, you're doing serialized programming, you really need a series Bible and know when to stop.

Although not in its entirety, this is just how British tv used to work before box sets/binge watching and world wide TV sales ruined it. Because the way most British tv is written (one or two writers) you have fewer episodes and they have more creative control. If/when they don't want to do it any more, it's over. It's still like that to an extent, but you can see the influence of it on British TV from the late 00's/early 10's. My mind instantly goes to Luther and Line Of Duty, both of which I feel suffer from this in later series.

Comedy always felt like the gold standard for this, as most sitcoms here are written by one or two people, but more recent years there's a constant back and forth between fans of Taskmaster as to whether it was better off with 5-8 episodes a series (as the first 5 were) or 10 as the following have been. The more people feel the quality of the tasks is reduced/reducing the louder the calls for 6 episodes has become, but my guess is that with the international market being so important now, it'll keep pumping them out for as long as possible. If only for content or continuation of 'the brand'. There's just too much money on offer not to now for most people.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Personally, I've always thought that the fourth season is the most challenging one because season 1 to 3 often shows the structure of a trilogy (even if it isn't intentionally written that way). Beginning, middle, finale.
Season 4 is when they have to prove why it should continue, and it almost never happens that way.
The Walking Dead is a perfect example of this. The first three seasons had something to show and something to say, and in the fourth season they just started moving characters around because the best part of the zombiecalypse had already been told.
Downton Abbey is another one that massively nosedived after its third season.

And perhaps there are also off-screen issues that need to be factored in. If, for example, the three years contract (writers, directors, actors) is the standard or maximum standard then it needs to be renegotiated for the next (fourth) year.
Depending on what they expect from their careers they might decide to move on which means that new crew/cast members need to be brought in to ensure the continuation of the series.

Season 1 of The Old Man was great. Jeff Bridges, John Lithgow, and couple other recognizables. Season 2 was so flat I only got halfway thru.


It all comes down to what is inspired and what is contrived. Even if you have a story beforehand as a template, a tv series may try to stretch it out so thin that the potency of the story suffers. Whenever theres the decision of more money or quality television, its rare quality wins.


Disney bought Star Wars to make money. That sponge still had alot left in it. Of all the projects theyve released only Rogue One and Mandolorian are the only good ones. Storylines elsewhere were decided upon beforehand, and then they make a script.


I think this is why live theater is still alive and well. If it aint quality, the shows immediately done. Actor screws up on stage, the shames unavoidable and unable to be filmed over. Its pitiless and pure. I aint gonna get that type of content from Season 2 of the next shiny bright object.

I think most non-broadcast TV shows (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) should be limited series. That should be the default. Due to the desire to make money, many successful one season shows are extended to multiple seasons, even when the story they are seeking to tell better supports being told in one season.

The curse of success. The best thing that ever happened to Firefly may very well have been its "premature" cancellation.

I like that Fargo and True Detective move on in their own way from season to season. After watching part of season two of True Detective, I tuned out, but I still had the complete story from season 1. Season 1 still shines. Their story didn't slowly unravel and sink. If and when True Detective gets back on track and I hear a buzz, I might come back.

But didn't I tune out? Didn't this make it easier for me (the viewer) to leave depriving them (the makers) of the maximum profit? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you play it. If I watch a show from "X" and have a bad experience, I may not come back for the same premise (e.g., no thanks, I know how this "Lost" style premise goes), the same producers (Alex Kurtzman? No thanks), or a reboot, remix, prequel, sidequel (House of the Dragon? Sorry, I got burned in an eight-year relationship with the original show. We're staying broken up.). If you insist I stay until I hate it, I may not come back to it or to you at all.

On the other hand, freestanding seasons, independent stories, allow the viewer to check in and check out. A really bad season (they killed Glenn!) can lose a viewer for good, but I have been able to check in and check out of Fargo, because I am not committed to the entire corpus when I watch a season. This strategy might prove just as, or even more, profitable in some cases. If the serial cow must be milked to exhaustion, this may be the most respectful way to do it (i.e., you don't risk spoiling all the milk because it's mixed in the same container).