Which shows would have been better off as one-season miniseries?
One-season miniseries: a better option?
- Thread starter Joe Washington
- Start date
Heroes.
Heroes had a very open-ended premise that could have gone on for many years, in competent hands. It just wasn't in competent hands.
Here's a show with a one (at most two) season premise: Prison Break.
Here's a show with a one (at most two) season premise: Prison Break.
I'm going to say that in retrospect Rubicon would have been better as a one-season miniseries. That way, I'd imagine that we'd have more of a complete story in the can, instead of what we have, which is a cliffhanger that may never be resolved.
^Yes, Rubicon would've been a great miniseries (alas!). And V, of course, which started out as a miniseries, would've been much better off if it had been "re-imagined" that way.
"Kings" would've made a great mini-series, where it might have had some resolution, instead of getting the shaft like it did, having to end on a brilliant cliff-hanger. Damn it.
"Kings" would've made a great mini-series, where it might have had some resolution, instead of getting the shaft like it did, having to end on a brilliant cliff-hanger. Damn it.
J
Jetfire
Guest
Smallville. 
24
Caprica
Star Trek: Voyager
Stargate Universe
Star Trek: Voyager
Stargate Universe
That should have been a zero-season series.
As executed, it should have been one season, but the question is, would it have been "better"? Since the subsequent seasons don't make the first season any worse, then the answer is no, even if you interpret the question restrictively (and I interpret it more liberally - is the premise a one-season premise, or more?)
A lot of nominees here, like Caprica, V and Sarah Connor are hard to judge because there were problems in how the shows were conceived from the start. Done differently, they might have been better, and how can we know whether the changes would have made them one-season shows or ten-season shows?
A strong case can be made for Twin Peaks, ending the series with the resolution of the Laura Palmer arc.
I think what the show really needed though was for Lynch and Frost to have stayed on after the Laura Palmer storyline ended. That was a very poor decision, and it's sad to see the writers become completely lost without any guidance. The proof is that the show gets good again once Lynch and Frost return.
I'm a fan of shorter runs in general for most shows. I'd give up half of the episodes of something like The A-Team for a smaller amount of episodes that were truly original and innovative each week. I think shorter runs really focus a creative team on pulling out all the stops. The episodes feel more special too, as there are less of them. Take Life on Mars (UK). Only 16 episodes, but each one is a damned classic.
I think what the show really needed though was for Lynch and Frost to have stayed on after the Laura Palmer storyline ended. That was a very poor decision, and it's sad to see the writers become completely lost without any guidance. The proof is that the show gets good again once Lynch and Frost return.
I'm a fan of shorter runs in general for most shows. I'd give up half of the episodes of something like The A-Team for a smaller amount of episodes that were truly original and innovative each week. I think shorter runs really focus a creative team on pulling out all the stops. The episodes feel more special too, as there are less of them. Take Life on Mars (UK). Only 16 episodes, but each one is a damned classic.
It's possible for a full season of a show to have 24 or so episodes that all feel like classics. The first season of Prison Break was that way. If a creative team can do that one year, why not the next and the next after that? The problem is the premise. If a show doesn't have a premise that allows for years of storytelling, then the quality suffers, which is what happened with Prison Break.
I never saw Prison Break, but that is a fair point. Also, Perfection isn't really required. It's nice, but obviously I don't demand it(and I'd have to watch a lot less tv if I did.)
Although I prefer shorter runs, I'm certainly glad that shows like TNG got long runs, in spite of the inconsistency. There is something to be said for Formula television after all. Certainly Quantum Leap isn't any lesser for being predictable at times, we expect and enjoy the twists and formula devices when they come. It's like a shootout or bar fight in a western, it becomes a convention that we look forward to and celebrate.
So in the most boring and neutral way possible, I can respect both sides of the argument.
So was Heroes S1.
I think that putting out 24 near perfect hours in one season just drains the writers' creativity. Shows these days seem to burn bright early then burn out leading to the so called sophomore slumps. Even BSG which had a tight first season started suffering just 2 seasons in when at that point most series would just be hitting its stride. Same for Desperate Housewives after a really strong first season--ever since then 7 years later it has been a mess.
It just seem writers these days can't churn out consistent seasons or consistent seasons consistently over several years. Some first seasons are their best and is all downhill from there others yo-yo and have a good season then a few weak ones before finding their stride again then dropping off once more i.e. Supernatural.
Why can they work at "full strength" for one year and then not the next? I can imagine how my boss would react if I said, "I worked hard last year, but this year I'm too tired."
People usually become better at their jobs over time, not "worn out" unless they're digging ditches for a living.More likely the same group of writers just runs out of ideas, not out of energy. People do tend to go back to their favorite hobbyhorses. So why not bring in fresh writers with new ideas?
I can see why writers would run through all the possible ideas if their premise was too restrictive to begin with, which was Prison Break's problem. But Heroes' premise was wide open. I still can't figure out what went wrong there. I still halfway suspect Tim Kring stole the first season from some unknown writer, then killed him and buried him in the desert so he couldn't complain.
People here were coming up with all sorts of good ideas for that stupid show, why couldn't the writers do the same? And really, the problem wasn't a lack of ideas. The show had plenty of ideas bouncing around. It was a lack of basic writing skills - how to develop an idea well, how to keep characters consistent, how to pace a story, how to be logically consistent within a story, how to tell when characters aren't working and need to be killed off, that sort of thing. You don't just "use up" that kind of stuff. If you do it once, you should be able to do it forever. It's like they had someone who knew how to do that and lost him after the first year - Bryan Fuller? But when Fuller came back, he didn't magically solve all the problems.
BSG had a time bomb at its core that didn't start to explode till S2 - the writers didn't lock down their premise tightly enough. Here's the premise: "Cylons attempt to wipe out humans and pursue the survivors because...?" They didn't get to the because part.
That was okay as long as the story was just "Cylons chase humans," but after a year that gets old, so they need to change the story, which means changing what the Cylons are doing, which means understanding why they're trying to kill humans in the first place and oops, we don't have a good answer for that! So they came up with half-assed answers and it was all downhill from there.
I sound like a broken record, but the longevity of a series is in its premise. A restrictive premise gets you less time than an open-ended one. A poorly thought through premise means the show self-destructs prematurely.
HBO's Rome.
The plans they had for future seasons were all interesting, but given how awful the second second was, it would have been better just to leave it at one season and end it with the death of Julius Caesar.
The plans they had for future seasons were all interesting, but given how awful the second second was, it would have been better just to leave it at one season and end it with the death of Julius Caesar.
Oh I loved the second season of Rome - Brutus' plans gone horribly awry and the sexxxy dissolution of Marc Antony. That was all great. I don't know what the frak they'd have done with a third season, tho.
That was all great. I don't know what the frak they'd have done with a third season, tho.
Well, the original plan was for the second season to focus solely on Octavian and Antony's war against Brutus and his allies. The season would have ended with Brutus' defeat.
The third season, then, would have focused on the rise of Octavian and the fall of Antony, ending with Antony and Cleopatra's defeat at Actium.
The fourth season would then shift to Palestine and focus on the birth of Christianity.
The problem was that HBO realized that the production expenses were FAR to great to continue for another two seasons. So, the order came down that after Season Two, it would be over. Thus, the producers and showrunners had to rush to get in as much as they could into one season - which is why the history moves at such a breakneck pace, especially towards the end of the season. As a result, Brutus is defeated in the middle of the season, Antony is defeated at the end and the Christianity storyline was almost virtually eliminated.
If they had been allowed to follow those original plans, it could have been marvelous. As it stands, I really think they ended up dropping the ball in their mandated attempt to push everything in.
That, and there are other problems I have with it. 1.) The guy playing the older version of Octavian can't hold a candle to the younger version. 2.) For some reason, they want us to feel sympathy for Atia all of a sudden at the end. Why I should like this character is beyond me. 3.) What little remains of the Christianity storyline feels forced, unnecessary and disjointed. It would have been better to just completely get rid of it.
The third season, then, would have focused on the rise of Octavian and the fall of Antony, ending with Antony and Cleopatra's defeat at Actium.
The fourth season would then shift to Palestine and focus on the birth of Christianity.
The problem was that HBO realized that the production expenses were FAR to great to continue for another two seasons. So, the order came down that after Season Two, it would be over. Thus, the producers and showrunners had to rush to get in as much as they could into one season - which is why the history moves at such a breakneck pace, especially towards the end of the season. As a result, Brutus is defeated in the middle of the season, Antony is defeated at the end and the Christianity storyline was almost virtually eliminated.
If they had been allowed to follow those original plans, it could have been marvelous. As it stands, I really think they ended up dropping the ball in their mandated attempt to push everything in.
That, and there are other problems I have with it. 1.) The guy playing the older version of Octavian can't hold a candle to the younger version. 2.) For some reason, they want us to feel sympathy for Atia all of a sudden at the end. Why I should like this character is beyond me. 3.) What little remains of the Christianity storyline feels forced, unnecessary and disjointed. It would have been better to just completely get rid of it.
I like the original premise the writers were toying with in which the star of the show would be the twenty-four hour format. In other words, each season would be about a completely different set of characters (with the possibility of overlap, but certainly not as much as the Jack Bauer-CTU centered series we ended up with for eight seasons).
