Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
After watching shows like Fargo and True Detective, I wonder how many other shows past and present could benefit from having their story arcs contained within one season instead of several. Can any of you guys think of any that needs the fix of an one-season solution?
First thought in my head. This was the original idea behind Heroes. But then they ignored it and the show took one of the biggest nosedives from quality to garbage I've ever seen.
Season 6 of Lost sucked but seasons 1-3 and 5 were excellent. I never understand the people who say a bad ending negates the entire show, Lost was more about the characters than the central mysteries. Some of the show could have been condensed and season 6 should have, well, not sucked, and had a more scifi explanation for the flash sideways. But the show needed the space to flesh out the massive cast of characters, and it needed to ease into the weirdness and establish the setting and characters or else season 5 wouldn't have worked.
Seasons that could have benefitted from one season storytelling, Dexter and Six Feet Under. Two shows with excellent first seasons and gradually crappier and crappier future seasons.
They should've ended it at the conclusion of episode 16. The speech about the evil that men do and the scene of Cooper, Truman Albert and the Major in the woods, followed by the shot of the owl, was how the series should have ended.
While I love Fargo to death, I don't think the "One-Season Solution" fits all shows. As was already stated, Lost needed more than one season to tell it's story. Seven seasons? Yeah, that was probably too many.
What's forgotten is that Fargo, True Detective, and American Horror Story are anthologies. Future seasons of Fargo and True Detective are being planned to feature different characters (and possibly slightly different settings). American Horror Story is already doing this. This opens up the possibility for some things (Stavros' money, for instance) tying the stories together, though each season would tell a complete story. In fact, a second season of Fargo is not, from what I know at this time, a given, and if that's the case, I'm happy with "Morton's Fork" being the end of our time in the Fargoverse. Though, if it does go on, I'll be downright thrilled, oh, you betcha!
Babylon 5 has ruined a lot of TV for me. Granted, the possibility of cancellation at the end of season four and the 12th hour granting of a 5th season by TNT changed things, the idea of a TV series planned for a specific amount of time really appealed to me. Of course, when I really got into the show during the 3rd season and found this out, I was devestated. Yet, since then, I am thankful for the fact that it had a planned ending (especially seeing the struggles JMS has had to tell a continuing story set in the universe, let alone a good one).
After seeing show many shows I like falter as the years go on and what made me love the show fade, a definite end-point is a good thing. However, none of us can say how long that should be. The show creators need to decide if they can tell the story in one or more seasons. However, it would be nice if they could agree on it and have the show mapped out before it hits the air. Will this happen given the state of TV today (especially in the US)? No.
So that being said, with the exception of Joss Whedon being told he only had one season to tell the story he intended to in firefly, meaning if Fox had given him a full season, but only a full season to tell his story, instead of the half-season with no definitive ending, Serenity aside (which, granted, is a subversion of the question the OP asked), I can't think of any shows I'd rather have seen given only one season.
Now Lost and Battlestar Galactica would have benefited from shorter runs, with the end date known far enough in advance they could plan everything out. Both shows had sub-plots and entire episodes devoted towards things that, ultimately, never drove the plot further. Shorter runs could have helped.
The same could be said, on the sitcom side, for How I Met Your Mother. A shorter run, with more planning on when and how to introduce the mother would definitely have helped.
And
if they still wanted to do the bit where the mother dies and Robin was Ted's true love, they could have spent less time convincing us that Robin wasn't the one, more time on Ted and the mother's relationship, and more time at the end showing us that, Ted had the relationship he always wanted and that made him ready to be the perfect match for Robin.
What's forgotten is that Fargo, True Detective, and American Horror Story are anthologies. Future seasons of Fargo and True Detective are being planned to feature different characters (and possibly slightly different settings). American Horror Story is already doing this. This opens up the possibility for some things (Stavros' money, for instance) tying the stories together, though each season would tell a complete story. In fact, a second season of Fargo is not, from what I know at this time, a given, and if that's the case, I'm happy with "Morton's Fork" being the end of our time in the Fargoverse. Though, if it does go on, I'll be downright thrilled, oh, you betcha![/spoiler]
I would probably like shows like that. I began watching television around age 5 in 1956. Anthology shows were popular, some were genre based like Alfred Hitchcock, The Twilight Zone, and The Outer Limits. There was no regular cast, though they might have had a stable of bit players and extras you'd see often.
Unfortunately, I've not seen even broadcast television since 2006, and haven't had cable since the 90s.
The difference is the shows you mentioned differed in cast, setting, etc. episode to episode. Anthologies now are being done with a single season long story, cast, setting, etc. then changing that for each successive season.
I don't think season 4 was bad, just not up to the same level as the other seasons.
I loved the four new characters introduced in the season, but Keamy & crew weren't very interesting villains, the siege of the barracks didn't seem well planned out and the sequence of events leading to the escape felt contrived.
In Battlestar Galactica, seasons 3-4 definitely should have been condensed into one season.
If I had the opportunity to re-pace Battlestar Galactica, make seasons 2 and 3 16 rather than 20-22 episodes.
Season 1: Stays relatively the same.
Season 2: Divided fleet arc, straight to Admiral Cain arc, straight to election, end on escape from New Caprica.
Season 3: Skip most of the actual season 3, forget the temple of five and that nonsense, go almost directly to the events of the gas giant and the final five reveal. Meet the cylon traitors sooner and spend most of the season on the blending of crews and less on Starbuck's destiny quest.
If I had the opportunity to re-pace Battlestar Galactica, make seasons 2 and 3 16 rather than 20-22 episodes.
Season 1: Stays relatively the same.
Season 2: Divided fleet arc, straight to Admiral Cain arc, straight to election, end on escape from New Caprica.
Season 3: Skip most of the actual season 3, forget the temple of five and that nonsense, go almost directly to the events of the gas giant and the final five reveal. Meet the cylon traitors sooner and spend most of the season on the blending of crews and less on Starbuck's destiny quest.
