What makes a great first season of a show?

[Joe Washington]

A sequel to the "what makes a great final season of a show?": what do you think would make a great first season of a show? The ability to grab people's attention from the series premiere to the season finale? Characters we can relate to and find interestingly interesting? Less predictability and more originality when it comes to the storylines of that season? What do you think and what great first seasons of shows can you think of?

 

[Starbreaker]

Just look at Lost. There was something every week that made me want to tune in the next week.

 

[Megatron]

You need an introduction to the format and characters, but not so much that it becomes too banal and same.

 

[auntiehill]

An intriguing and appealing character, plus something intriguing and exciting in the plot. Look at LOST, Dexter and Deadwood. The first three episodes are jam-packed and full of wonderful character moments.

 

[Trekker4747]

I dare say Prison Break's first season is damn-near perfect. The seasons that followed? Not so much.

If PB's first season had ended with Michael and Lincoln getting out, making it to Panama to start their surf shop and fixing other characters' wrap ups (ditching the whole "The Company" story line.) It'd be a perfect one-shot miniseries. The following seasons have been "good" but there was just something about PB's first season that worked and clicked so well.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Great first seasons: Lost, Heroes, BSG, Prison Break, Chuck, Dexter (all seasons are great seasons with that one).

What they have in common is compelling characters - sharply defined writing, and actors who are either very talented or, if not terribly talented, at least very well matched with the character. The characters grab the audience's attention and give us a motive to stick around as the premise is developed into a story.

After that, it depends on whether the premise lets you do more story, and whether the writers are good at extrapolating the story that the premise gives them.

Lost - Very good job extrapolating and building on the vague but intriguing premise.

Heroes - Overall, they've botched it, but the premise still offers possibilities so maybe they can finally get it together in S4.

BSG - Mixed bag. It turns out the "premise" was based on logic that still doesn't make any damn sense (can they finally explain everything in The Plan?) but I'll give em credit for writing a compelling, creative story despite not having a premise that works - usually a killer handicap for any show.

Prison Break - It was a one-season premise all along. They've just stretched things beyond the breaking point after that.

Chuck - Very limiting premise that has been creatively worked through. The problem with limiting premises is that they force the writers into repetition, and I'm thinking that if this show gets renewed, that's going to be increasingly a problem. Their "game changer" at the end of this season wasn't nearly big enough to avoid it.

Dexter - Another limiting premise, handled creatively. Haven't seen much evidence of repetition setting in as of S1-S2, but by S4 or so, I'm betting it will become an issue.

 

[Vanyel]

Simply put:
Good writing
Good acting
Good, identifiable characters
and in dramas, a good well placed plot

 

[diankra]

Lois & Clark really needs a mention here: the first season is great - fresh, fun but still a bit serious in character terms.
Then they thought they weren't getting a second season, and they pulled forward things they'd have prefered to leave till later - and then got a second season, which was all about PR stunt guest villains, followed by the mess of seasons three and four.
Brilliant first seson: if only they'd been allowed to just keep going in the same style for a year or two before it inevitably changed.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Good premise, good writing, good acting, and good character development of interesting characters.

But in truth, I think the toughest thing is to have a good SECOND season of a show. Especially since so many shows these days are built on a premise that is really only sustainable for one season. Look at Desperate Housewives, for example - a great first season with a great mystery as the premise to the entire show. But what happened when the mystery was solved at the end of season 1? Answer - a descent into just another prime-time soap. Zzzzzz......

Heroes is another example. I mean, where do you go from a season 1 ending like that? The seriously bad 'bad guy' is dead...and the main 'good guy' has accumulated all of the powers of the other heroes and so can, theoretically, kick anyone's ass.

That was how season 1 ended. And so, to even DO a season 2, they had to sort of back off from the impact of the season 1 finale...which immediately made it kinda semi-lame.

Prison Break is kinda another example, in many ways. Once they got through the actual...well, prison break, the initial premise of the show was over and they had to reposition the show with the conspiracy angle.

It's tough keeping shows like these going after the initial season, IMO.

 

[Praetor]

I'd say a good introduction to the format and basic exploration of each of the characters and their relationships, and a solid exploration of the primary themes, all culminating with a good finale/cliffhanger that makes you want to tune in next season.

See 'Dexter' season one. Or two. I haven't seen three yet to comment.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But in truth, I think the toughest thing is to have a good SECOND season of a show. Especially since so many shows these days are built on a premise that is really only sustainable for one season.

The only show I can think of with a real one-season premise is Prison Break. (I don't watch DH.) Some like Chuck and Dexter have self-limiting premises that require a lot of creativity to squeeze, say, four seasons out of. That's a more common problem - probably because few shows survive that long so nobody bothers to create premises with legs.

Heroes is another example. I mean, where do you go from a season 1 ending like that? The seriously bad 'bad guy' is dead...and the main 'good guy' has accumulated all of the powers of the other heroes and so can, theoretically, kick anyone's ass.

Heroes is an example of an open-ended premise, like Star Trek, because it's an unresolvable situation rather than a goal. If it had been handled properly, it had the potential to become a franchise with spinoff series (probably too late now).

You're just not thinking about all the possibilities that could be pulled out of that premise (that's ok, the writers aren't either ). The premise is: the world has people in it now with powers that make them a LOT more powerful than other people. That upsets the natural power structure of society and creates mistrust and fear which leads to all sorts of bad things. But the people with powers aren't going away and neither are their powers (I guess they could, but that would be a lame-ass resolution to the story, by simply negating the premise). So how does everyone cope?

That premise could go on forever, with a 100% changeover in cast if needed, either after the first season or just over time. They could kill Sylar and keep the show going - the premise doesn't demand Sylar's presence. What demands his presence is that the writers apparently can't think of anyone to replace him with as a central organizing factor, but they really should be able to do stuff like that and it's not the premise's fault that they can't. They could kill Peter, they could kill anyone. Or nerf Peter's powers, or Sylar's, or decide to turn them both in werewolves or give them the power to eat the planet (I better stop before I give them any brilliant ideas in case anyone's reading).