A thought: a lot of what is called crap on networks these days is what happens when network executives/marketing staffs justify their existence by busy work, or lack thereof.

That may be what he believed, but the only way you could have plot driven anything is if you have that history of film and tv characters backing you up IMO. You could go light on the characterization because it was basically a story we had seen many times before. You didn't need to explain all the actions and reactions because it folllowed a well trod path. So maybe what I'm saying is "plot driven" is just another way of saying derivative. I hope that was coherent.

I may not express this very well, but I think suckage happens in a lot of cases when a show's audience is seen as a demographic. I'm gonna use Buffy The Vampire Slayer as an example here, 'cause it's my favourite show and I think it started to suck in the last couple of seasons.

This was a show that was a mid-season replacement and that the execs probably didn't think that much about. There seemed to be some element of surprise in it becoming a hit. As time went on, I suspect the suits got more involved in the direction the show took. I think that could at least partly explain the introduction of one of the elements that led to the suckage - Dawn. By the time Dawn was introduced, the leads were getting older and I suspect someone thought ‘How can we attract the lucrative teenage audience to the show? I know, we'll introduce a kid sister!’ (and soon after, Angel followed suit by introducing Connor - but did it a lot better and more naturally for the show IMO). Then, a couple of seasons later, we get - the Potentials. A whole bunch of annoying teenagers. I can't think of any other reason why these characters were introduced.

If this is the case, I hate such a simplistic view of audiences. When I was a teenager in the 80s, my favourite shows were things like Moonlighting (well, before that sucked too, anyway) and the Golden Girls (cheesy, I know, but I loved it), shows without a teenager in sight. I just find it insulting that networks think people will only watch shows featuring people approximating their own backgrounds. To me then, suckage happens when networks have no sense of imagination or escapism. All JMO of course.

Isn't this a result of the multitude of networks and specifically UPN, Fox, and the WB targetting specific demographics? They building or airing shows designed theoretically to appeal to certain demographics. The WB wants girls and boys (14-24), Fox wants young adults (18-30), etc...

The end result is casting choices that try to appeal to the 'expected' key demograhic. How else does one explain the exceptionally young staff at CTU on 24, or the near complete absense of anyone over 40, excepts parents, on the WB.

Suckage happens because the viewing public loves it. We hit on something and want more and more and more of it, and the dollar-mad programmers are more than willing to give it to us.

Example: as much as people say they are sick of hearing about 1) Paris Hilton, 2) Britney Spears, 3) Omarosa, those three bi... women are everywhere. Every late night monologue, every pop culture rank-em-up, every infotainment crapfest. You can't escape them if you wanted to.

Of course, some people are truly sick of this suckiness; I am one of them. But you know that many were intrigued by the prospect of Oma Rosa coming back to "The Apprentice" (two words - whatever).

Of course, by November we'll be done with all of them (except maybe Britney, depending on what her handlers come up with next). But as long as viewers are publicists' bitches, there will be more coverage.

Sorry, no more "Arrested Development", but stay tuned for another season of "The Simple Life". With 30% more skank. Stay tuned

I think suckage happens for three reasons: 1) Network pressure, 2) The audience, and 3) Poor craftsmanship.

1), the network, is the most often cited and probably the most overrated. Yes, network notes are infuriating, but the effect of network interference is on the form of shows -- making them blander, making them more standardized. That's what network execs live to do, to make every show the same as the last show. That prevents truly great, quirky shows from being made, but it doesn't necessarily speak to whether the show itself is watchable or not.

2), the audience, is more important because it's ultimately the viewing public at large that kills quirky, individual shows. It's of course de rigeur to blame the network for "mishandling" or "not marketing" a favorite show, but 99% of the time I think a show that fails fails because most of the audience preferred to watch some other show. And that, in turn, prevents more quirky shows from being made, because the public has a history of rejecting them. Look at Freaks and Geeks. Every online review of the DVD set blames NBC's handling/marketing for its failure, but then goes on to talk about how painful and realistic and sad it was. Freaks and Geeks was great, but is there really any marketing in the world that will sell the American public on a show that is meant to evoke painful memories? I don't think so. It's just that our democratic instincts prevent us from blaming The People for the failure of great shows. (There are one or two cases like "Seinfeld" or "Cheers" where a network sticks by a show until it becomes a hit, but that's usually where the show has obvious commercial possibilities that the public hasn't caught onto yet -- Cheers, as someone pointed out on another board, was likely to catch on eventually because it was basically Taxi in a bar.)

3) Craftsmanship. This is my favorite category. Even after the public has rejected shows with a glimmer of individuality, even after network notes has made the shows formulaic and the characters even more so, there's still the question of what the writers of the show are doing to produce a watchable show within those limitations. There are plenty of shows that are too bland and cookie-cutter to be considered great shows, but nevertheless have good writing that make them watchable. "Who's the Boss" is an example. "Boy Meets World" is another. "The A-Team" had pretty solid scripts for the first couple of years, despite the fact that it had the same plot every week. And the much-derided "The Nanny" actually had some really good comedy writing. (I actually shouldn't even include "The Nanny" here because I think it was a very good show and anything but bland or standardized.) You can often tune into a show and find that while it doesn't have anything to distinguish it or make it memorable, it does have solid craftsmanship that makes it watchable and prevents it from being considered "suckage."

My point is that I think there are fewer and fewer examples of the standardized but solidly-crafted show. I mean, the reason sitcoms are in so much trouble is that so many of them just suck -- the jokes aren't funny or related to the characters, the story structure is terrible, the staging and blocking is bad. According to Jim could never be a great show, but it could be a watchable show, with solid writing. It doesn't have that and it ain't watchable. I don't know how to account for the decline of craft, but I think one possibility is the almost complete lack of opportunities for freelance writers. Shows nowadays are almost entirely staff-written. In The Old Days, young writers would get their start by writing freelance scripts for established shows. Now there are no freelance jobs, and everyone's competing for staff jobs -- which means that people can be thrown into a staff job without ever having written anything but a spec (sample) script. I'm speaking as an outsider, but I really don't think that TV writers get the kind of on-the-job training that they used to. They're not learning their craft, and it shows.

ITA - knowing some folks out there in the business, there's was a change in the work ethic (I say "was" as tight times seems to force people to smarten up). There's more mobility in many production jobs and it's harder to care about any one project when you might have to be searching for your next job. Which makes it easier for some folks to cop an attitude of "well this project is crap so why should I try?" I totally smell this on Tru Calling.

I'm not sure if one can blame this one the attitude of the average production staffer, or their leaders. It seems to me that there's a lot of producers who just don't get it out there, or who know more about office politics than actually producing a working (let alone a good) show.

Compare Tom Fontana, who got a tattoo just for the opening credits of OZ to whoever is producing The Help (they clearly don't give a shit; the thing looks like a televised high school play). NYPD Blue may have slipped over into undead show stage a while back, but Bochoco keeps on the cliches with conviction, while Mutant Enemy seems to have allowed any disgruntlement about off screen issues to affect show quality in an especially passive agressive way.

Also - someone needs to give the whole industry a slap on the head about continuity. I'm not a continuity nazi, but it seems like some shows don't have blue books anymore.

Well.
So much to say on this topic. (One could use this topic as the basis for a Term Paper on "Why *Good* Shows Fail & *Bad* Ones Suceed")

I'll start by saying that one reason suckage happens is that there are too many networks, "free" and cable.
From the 60s to the mid 80s, there were essentially three broadcast networks (CBS, NBC, ABC). Cable networks like HBO and Showtime merely ran theatrical movies during that time. There was no Fox until 1987, and no UPN or WB until 1995.
So there were fewer shows on, and you had stronger writing staffs. Once cable started doing their own shows and the aforementioned networks appeared, there was a demand for more shows to fill more slots. That stretched the writing pool thin, diluting the overall quality on most if not all scripted shows. Evidently, the writing pool isn't quite as deep as one would think. Eventually, audiences and network execs realized this quality dilution, which was one reason for the rise of all these "reality" shows.

Maybe if, say, Caroline In The City, Walker Texas Ranger or currently, According To Jim (to give you three shows often singled out as prime examples of what is called "suckage"; all three aired after The Big Three networks became The Big Four in 1987) aired in the 70s or 80s (particularly before Fox started in 1987, beginning The Great Network Talent Drain), perhaps there would have been a better chance of a good writer or two being on staff (with fewer competing networks to scoop up said writer-s), thus improving the writing quality to at least "solid" or "watchable" (if not "great" or "classic")?

I see other reasons for suckitude, but that's all I'll say for now

The talent drain has something to do with it, as does the influx of MBAs to Hollywood, people who generally have no idea how the creative process works and don't care to learn. The dreaded "network notes" that each show must follow certainly play a role as well.

But the biggest problem is the audience. Somebody's watching According to Jim. And that somebody is probably someone who works hard and wants something predictable to watch at the end of a workday, not something challenging. Blame it on the economy, or on shortened attention spans, or on George Lucas.

Discerning viewers of the level found on TWOP are a mere fraction of the audience; the average viewer doesn't much care about continuity. They want Joey to be dumb, Chandler to be witty, Monica to be a tightass.

And that's why most shows go downhill after they become truly popular--The X Files, ER, even Seinfeld. People want more of the same, then networks run scared, and give them it until they can't stand it anymore. Here, you want cherry pie, here it is, and look, here's a sour cherry pie right after you eat the cherry pie!

I think this is a pretty good explanation of suckage. But to be honest I think you have to add the self esteem (or lack there of) factor. There are probably lots of people out there who tune into misogynistic soaps, em-bare-assing "talks shows", "reality" shows, shit-coms and all the rest of the tv crap fest because they feel,"yeah, I'm a @sshole, f-up, loser or all the above but that person has got to be a bigger one for putting themselves in that position."
I could be wrong. Only time will tell. Maybe good and bad tv just follow each other in cycles and we're deep in the bad cycle. That would mean a change for the better is just around the bend but I doubt it.
I think the lesson for TWOPers about suckage may be twofold. First, in overall programming, majority rules. Secondly,(this could be useful for every tv addict) tv is a money making venture aimed at advertisers not viewers. TV execs set programming to trap viewers for commercials. If you like the show that's nice too. Proof of that is advertisers are publicly bitching about the new "commercial skipping" technology in new vcrs, dvd recorders, and dvrs like TIVO. TV execs are crapping their collective pants because they can't make you watch their bread and butter. I predict in an attempt to save their asses they're going to push tv to what TWOPers would consider even new lows.

I barely deal with it anymore. I find myself turning more and more to cable and less and less to network television. I can probably count the number of network programs I watch on one hand.

Makes it difficult sometimes to even address the concept of network TV because I won't spend the time on it. I'll generally stick to FoodTV, but there are times when even that gets a bit lame.

A previous poster puts it all into perspective: Network TV isn't meant for us viewers anymore; it's really aimed at the money. 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' was the best example of a great idea that was done to death because it generated such revenue and was comparatively cheap to put on. Dead inside of two seasons due to over-exposure.

If there's no good Mystery on our local PBS station I limit my viewing to Scrubs and the weather (which is even starting to piss me off 'cuz they're usually wrong).
Disclaimer: I'm defining tv viewing as watching network/cable/satellite programming. We have 3 great libraries and a great movie rental place (That's Rentertainment) here in C/U that allow me to create my own programming - D0ggieTV!

I know there's a separate thread for this, but another reason for suckage is network execs who not only pick bad shows and schedule good ones in awful time slots, but also take uneven yet still entertaining shows (ie, Sliders and *sigh* That's Life---there's others too) and make them less entertaining to the point of extinction.

Let's not even mention Dawn on Buffy and Jon Seda on Homicide.

There's other factors of course, but that's it for me for now

Bump. One new reason that came up over the months has been the power of successful producers - these days, they really tend to pile on new shows quickly, until the point of failure is reached. For example, a few years ago, Joss Whedon had like 5 shows in various states of production (Buffy, Angel, Animated Buffy, Firefly, Watcher spinoff). Look at Mark Burnett right now - he's even got a sitcom cooked up. Since quantity does not equal quality, I'm wondering how much longer he's got.

That would explain David E. Kelley and Bunim/Murray. One theory of mine is that TV is the ultimate "look at me! look at me!" medium. Goal Number One is to get noticed for long periods of time. You get noticed, people watch. If people watch-- and stay, you get ratings. Ratings mean money. And as we've established, money is golden. (Well, at least some of it is.) There are several ways to get noticed:

*Be original. This does get attempted, but not too often. It's just too hard to do correctly, so that people stick around. TV employees are just as human as the next person: they want money without the work. So you can either get breakout hits here, or more likely, suckage. You don't get much in between. It's high-risk, ultra-high-reward.
*Do something in a certain vein better than anyone else. This is attempted a lot, because a) it's easy- the formula's spelled out for you, and b) most people think that they can do their job better than anyone else. Doesn't matter if you're up against the Friends people or the CSI people. You think you can do better. So you try. And usually you fail. But a lot of the time you don't realize you suck. It's your baby; you think it's cute even when the baby screams on airplanes at volumes sufficient to bust the windows and suck everyone out to a shrieking splattery death. Thus, suckage. Low-risk, medium reward.
*Finally, you can take the easy way out and be shocking. Fox, I'm looking at you. Cable networks, I look at a lot of you. You know this one: nudity, swearing, sex, violence, 'extreme stunts', midgets, the whole damn circus. Everybody in development knows full well that something good and classy is completely out of the question. Suckage is bound to happen, but unless people aren't watching, nobody cares. Low-risk, low-reward.

In all three cases, the goal is to get noticed, and the Circle of Money as already discussed hopefully follows. 'Noticed' usually means ratings, but it doesn't always. Might mean critics (so you can say 'From the people who brought you the critically acclaimed' later, or maybe get some awards; this is the most likely reason for the West Wing's and ER's continued existences), magazines/newspapers (in which the articles will then potentially mention other shows on the network), somebody else.

With all the $ rolling in and new shitty shows being pipelined I think that last line should be "Low-risk, High-reward." It was probably "High-risk, Low-reward" for the first couple of people who tried it before they could convince the censors "this was the 19X0's" and showing this crap was acceptable.

There's a lot of truth to that theory. Take Stargate SG1, it started out as an entertaining show that mixed sci-fi, drama, humor and actual philosophical discussions. Then it devolved into a dumbed-down, explosions 'n spaceships complete with scantily clad female aliens tailored to appeal to the almightly young male demographic, with a dull, forced romance between the leads thrown in as a bone to the female viewers, (who of course are all romance obsessed and couldn't possibly watch a scifi show because they like scifi). The show's quality suffered greatly.

This is so true. There was a big campaign by viewers to save this show, but it was doomed. I mean who wants to watch a fourteen year old, played by an actor of that age with acne and awkwardness when they can watch a twentysomething model have high school soap opera type angst on the WB? Shows like "Joan of Arcadia," "Life as We Know It," and "Jack and Bobby" that aren't completely populated with glossy fake teens with soap opera type storylines are usually on for a short time only. Sometimes a show like "The Wonder Years" comes along, though and gets to stay.

One of my biggest disappointments in recent years has been "Gilmore Girls." The heroine went from being a bookish high school outsider to a spoiled rotten society princess who steals a yacht in college then drops out to mope. Her boyfriend is a shallow trust fund snob with zero appeal. Talk about a let down. But, the show's still on the air.

I've been thinking about this topic since I watched the Torchwood miniseries. The contrast between this and the first two seasons is incredible.

The first season was horrible, the second, so-so and the miniseries has been excellent so far.

Why the difference? Partly because they killed off the two worst characters, Nasty!Owen and BoringPathetic!Tosh. Partly, because TPTB must have realized that 'adult' doesn't mean sex and swearing, it means intelligent, gritty and not being afraid to tackle complex moral issues.

So the suckage was a case of acting and writing.

I think it's more writing and our expectations. We're in an age where we demand movie-like perfection out of the shows we watch. Episodes have to blend together at some level, and there have to be themes that are consistently portrayed through all the episodes.

The UK doesn't really seem to have the tradition of show runner, so part of what we saw in the first two seasons was a production staff learning how to mesh individual efforts. This 3rd season had 3/5 of the scripts written by RTD, which helps a lot in tying things together.

Only in reruns. It was canceled back in 2007.

Craig Ferguson gives an astute explanation of Why Everything Sucks.

That was on point.

I would also like to propose the Too Much Too Quickly theory. Specifically that US seasons can be very, very long compared to some other places (a British show would be EXTRAORDINARILY lucky to get 12 episodes a season ever unless its Doctor Who or a soap opera really with most averaging about six episodes a year shown in order each week until it is finished with no annoying reruns in the middle). The 22, 24 and even 26 episode runs that network shows in-particular often contend with has the effect of asking writers, producers, production personnel and actors to do considerably more work on much less turnover and preparation time. Writers have less time to work on their scripts and fix the sometimes glaring problems with arcs or lack thereof, the production staff have less time to put it all together and the actors can't rehearse, plan their character's arc or research new developments adequately (I imagine that medical show actors like to have some basic understanding of the diseases their characters will be called upon to cure that episode or procedures they must perform for example) all of which contributes to producing a weaker product. Everything's done at hyper-speed, a breakneck pace where even the very talented can miss obvious errors or have inadequate opportunities to finesse potential problems until they find a satisfactory solution. This also gives an excuse for the less talented to produce weaker material because they "just ran out of time and had to go and shoot" or whatever.

There are of course also some instances, and Star Trek is a great example, where there is just far too much of the damn stuff. 26 episodes per year of a Trek show is just not necessary, particularly given that 3/4s of them at least will be filler episodes which contributes nothing to any arc the show might be persuing, put way too much emphasis on one element of the show over everything else i.e. the Borg on Voyager or indeed are instantly forgettable and irrelevant, I mean who cares about the latest group of bumpy foreheaded aliens obsessed with honour?

Leaner episode orders with a little more time between when the camera stops rolling on one episode and starts on the next would be helpful from this point of view. As little filler as possible, I don't think BSG had much filler in it at all, two episodes 'Black Market', 'The Hand of God' and 'The Woman King' are the only episodes that spring to mind that felt like fillers in the traditional sense of the term, though I might be wrong, and in a four year run that's pretty damn good. It might even free up some studio time for somebody else to take a crack at making a Pilot thereby creating more product to go some way towards replacing the episodes you didn't make because you no longer had to.

I would also like to see more extensive planning before a show airs, shows having a pre-planned beginning, middle and an end that doesn't get messed around with too much during production. Sure shows might get cancelled before their conclusion, but the easiest way to destroy credibility is to pull a Chris Carter and try and keep his X-Files cash cow going way beyond any sane length thereby destroying the myth-arc in the process and ruining his show, who cares about Colonisation now anyway? Its not like we have a bloody clue what on Earth the conspiracy is really about because its so contradictory and meaningless now. A five year, 100 episode run is more than adequate, six years at an absolute push. Concepts have a natural shelf-life, I applaud any producer who has the balls to create a plan, know where his show is going, stick to it and end his show on a high-note with the fans wanting more rather than completely pissed off because it sucked and stayed around too long.

This is a topic that could cause a very successful party to end in a brawl. So many opinions ! I feel that one reason is the fact that when someone does come up with something pretty creative and is given a shot and it works--within a couple of months you'll find ripoffs-most of which are horrible. I find it funny that all the talent shows have to have a judge and/or host with an English or Australian accent. However, this is not limited to tv shows--movies, books, magazines--I just wish the copycats could mostly find a way to make their shows watchable.

And calling them out on being rip-offs sometimes does not work because the creators could point out how many police and detective shows there are out there, as if that negates the argument.I really do not see a reason to have that many episodes of a series so quickly unless it was a one-off series. It is good if one already likes the series, but sometimes less is more. Even a hiatus may not be enough time. I had never really thought about this, but it does explain some of the major plot holes, retcons, and goofs. While hardcore fans and savvy viewers may pick up on mistakes and continuity flubs with relative ease, the writers may have too many things on their plate to remember or find out why something would not work (of course, maybe they could have just checked some internet sites or eased up on the specifics). This does not quite explain why this nonsense happens in movies, but that is another issue.That is also a major problem. At the same time, expectations from previous shows may compromise any research given, since there is already a wealth of other shows that covered the same topic. The creators may have misconceptions of what really goes on. Even if they know better or find out better, they and their bosses have to think about their audience, who may hold those misconceptions. Of course, the creators and their bosses may underestimate their audience.

I think that lack of planning can ruin even a great show. Sure, one has to account for variables, but doing it on the fly works only sometimes. Shows that are complex and rely on arcs, mysteries, call-backs, backstories, and whatever else; those could most likely benefit from smaller seasons, if only so that an entire season can be planned out while one can think about future plans. I think that Battlestar Galactica started off quite well, but got bogged down in its own plot. At first, much of the story did not necessarily need a lot of planning out, but there were several threads early on that seemed to suggest a mystery to be solved. Gradually, the mysteries just started piling up and overtaking everything; I am guessing that it was due to the writers not actually having known how to resolve previous issues. This led to stuff like "the final five". They could still make stories out of these new twists and added mysteries, but much of the interest was in the expectation for eventual resolve. In my opinion, the whole thing unraveled very badly at the end. The notion of it being the journey and not the destination some times does not apply. If creators, writers, and executives were willing and allowed to work things out beforehand, stuff like that could be avoided.

I think it would be an interesting experiment to write and then shoot an entire (say, 12-episode) season of a show before the first episode ever aired. I've long thought that television series would be of better quality if they were released in the same fashion that books are published -- i.e., after their authors have written and re-written and edited and re-edited the entire completed work before releasing them for public consumption.

That way, the TV writers would have plenty of time to work on plot- and character-cohesion, the actors would see the beginnings and ends of their characters' arcs and could prepare accordingly, and if there are any happy accidents or revelations along the way (like realizing certain actors have great chemistry that should be played up, or that this plot-line would work better if Character A had a brother, or whatever) or unfortunate accidents (like an actor getting arrested or a location being unavailable), there would be time to go back to the earlier episodes and fix things.

You'd also possibly avoid the terrible pox of network interference, or at least you'd have time to reflect on the network's demands and make them work to the show's advantage.

I'm thinking, too, of characterization problems where different writers have different conceptions of a character and so the actor has the difficult task of trying to find a middle ground from week to week as each new script comes in. If the whole season were written in advance, the writers should have time to come to a consensus, or at the least, the actor would see the entire picture and would know ahead of time that their character is going to behave questionably in episode X and could prepare.

I don't think that was the case for Buffy, especially since the show wasn't that big of a hit. Remember, it would have been canceled had UPN not bought it. The show just because worse (imo) because the writers ran out of ideas and/or stopped caring about the characters, which is the case with most shows.

And that's usually where network interference makes a show worse. A writer doesn't want to do the show anymore, but it's a hit, so the network wants the show to stay, offers incentive, the writer agrees, and voila, crappy writing continues to go on until the ratings plummet.

I thought that the WB would have kept it, but BtVS wanted more money per episode of the last two seasons and UPN gave that money.

I think that some shows have done that, such as The Wire. Of course, The Wire had over a year-and-a-half between seasons 3 and 4, so that might not count.

That's also what happened with Buffy's first season. They reshot some scenes in the Pilot after completing the other episodes. The problem with that method, though, is that there's no way to gauge audience reaction to the show. If it's a flop and no one ends up watching the show after 2 episodes have aired, a network would have wasted millions producing 10 more episodes no one will watch.

I think a huge reason for suckage, apart from overly long seasons, is that shows are stretched out far beyond their "best by" date. IMO, no TV show should run longer than five years, which is plenty of time to tell a story well. So many shows that I liked-- Buffy, Gilmore Girls, Friends, the West Wing-- were ruined because, by the time season 6/7 rolled along, the writers were just...done. They had lost touch with who the characters were, and they had run out of compelling storylines (or the ability to write them, at least).

This is what makes me apprehensive about How I Met Your Mother getting a fifth season, and probably a sixth after that. The concept of that show was perfect for a one, two or three season show. The idea that it could go on for seven years makes my toes curl; I don't want my memories of it to be tainted by a fall from grace. Ditto with the Office- I just can't buy that a doco crew would be following these people around for 5+ years. IMO, when starting a show, the writers need to have a clear idea of what will happen over its run-- even if they don't know an exact end date, they know that they need to get from A to B, then start working their way there. Instead, they tend to put in too much, too quickly (as noted upthread) and then they just flounder around after realising that they'll be sticking around for ages.

Of course, I'll never get my wish of five-season maximums, because it's the American way to milk an enterprise until it's dry and shrivelled. It's economically sound, but creatively tragic.

Suckage comes in many shapes and sizes, but one that comes to mind is letting a character all but hijack a show. Now, I've wasted a good portion of my youth watching TV to know how it is: The main protagonist is typically less interesting than the a wacky supporting character. It's only natural that the zanier character is going to "steal the show". This is fine and good. However, the suckage kicks in when the show abandons its original premise to support the once secondary character, when in fact the original plot was working fine and this wasn't necessarily what viewers wanted.

Great example? Bender on Futurama. I know, I know, I'm far from the first person to gripe about this, but my point's still valid. Bender was an extremely fun character in the first season. His decidedly misanthropic, dishonest, hedonistic personality was a delightful contrast to clueless, ordinary Fry and no-nonsense Leela. But over time, Futurama became-say it with me, embittered fan boys and girls... THE BENDER SHOW!!! Bender became the central focus of practically episode, was the catalyst/hero of the majority of the Futurama movies, and went from being an amusing scene stealer to an unwelcome show-hijacker. Hell, in the last movie, Fry miraculously gained the ability to read minds, but they abandoned that plot for practically half an hour to focus on Bender's affair with a robot gangster's moll! WTF?? I was watching with my husband, and finally at one point blurted out, "Hey, remember when Fry could READ MINDS?!?!"

Solution? Attempt to distribute plot lines to all of your characters, even if some aren't as colorful as others. I mean, if the other Simpson characters can get stories despite Homer's ongoing popularity, then why not everyone else?

That is why it would be an experiment, which would allow for failure. I would not want it to be done for a big-budget 24-episode season of 43-minute episodes, but maybe something on a smaller scale.

Oh, I had no idea. In any case, I don't think it was network interference that brought down Buffy.

I think part of the suckage problem is too many hack writers who have friends in the business so that even if they are just awful they can still get work. I mean look at Law and Order SVU. It is one of the highest rated shows on NBC, and Dick Wolf probably has enough clout with NBC where he could make the stories about whatever he wants. Yet year after year the stories get worse and worse to the point where they rarely involve sex crimes, and a lot of the time make no sense. Surely there is nothing stopping Wolf from hiring people who can write good stories, so why doesn't he (Buffy was another great example of a show where the boss kept using the same writers even though the show got worse and worse)? And then the audience gets conditioned to think that this is the best they can expect to see and they cycle just keeps continuing.

I think the longer US seasons are a mixed bag. It gives more room for longer story arcs, but also means sometimes there are complete filler episodes because the writers have run out of things to say. I think long seasons are less of an issue with comedies and procedurals than they are with more arc driven dramas but even on comedies the writers seem to just get burnt out and recycle the same plot points over and over (witness the later seasons of Friends). On the flip side, I’ve occasionally felt that things were too compressed in UK seasons and the sometimes very long hiatuses can make me lose interest in a show.


I really don’t think most actors on procedurals are doing in-depth research on the disease or crime of the week. It isn’t like the actors are writing the episodes. Even if they want a better understanding than the script allows, you can often get a good understanding of a disease from a quick medline search.


I have a hard time imagining a one season How I Met Your Mother. I think they would have had to cut down on the non-Ted storylines so much that it would have been a far less interesting show. I can see it working for another 2 seasons, but I think they need to lay off the girlfriends of the week and move Ted towards a slow starting relationship (he meets her at the start of season 5, they start dating in the season finale and Ted proposes in the 6th season finale, ending the show)


I’ve pretty much forgotten the camera crew. If they can keep the writing up to snuff, I am willing to go along with a 10 year documentary.

I think some shows might work better as a short miniseries. I actually preferred the Torchwood mini-series to the first two seasons. The mini-series felt tighter and better paced. I though Harper’s Island worked well as a one season show, but I seem to have been one of 20 people who watched. I think abbreviated seasons might work better in the summer when they can be shown several nights a week.

I think a lot of suckage happens because of money and uncertainty about where television is going. The days of the "big three" networks are long gone, but it is by no means clear exactly what course the industry is on. So we see shows that are very big deals for a season or two --- the Sopranos, Grey's Anatomy, Mad Men -- and then there seems to be a reversion to rudderless ship-dom. I have no idea at all what the future will bring. Only hoping for less suckage, more sustainable shows.

As an aside, is anyone sick of television turning into a place where, oddly enough, the public confers royalty on talk show or news show hosts? Oprah, Leno. Letterman, even John Stewart, and others in that vein. All this gets to be too much at times. In my utopia, there would be more voices and choices, less lemming like fandom.

The reboot of 90210, and it's struggles, are a perfect example of Show, Don't Tell, and Delayed Gratification Works Better.

We were told by the producers that the Wilsons were just like the Walshes. And they aren't- the only similiarity is the size of the family, and the fact that they're from the mid-West. We were told that Annie is supposed to be this amazing protagonist whom everyone should love- and we haven't seen any evidence of this, either.

In terms of delayed gratification, the show seems to be big on insta-friendships, namely Liam and Dixon. We're suddenly supposed to believe they're best buds in the space of two or so episodes. And the show has also been trying hard to recapture the Dylan/Kelly/Brenda triangle of yesteryear- first with Ethan/Naomi/Annie, and then again with Liam/Naomi/Annie. They're doing this in the span of a few episodes- and seem to be forgetting that the Dylan/Kelly/Brenda triangle was *three* years in the making.

I don't watch 90210 but I've seen that kind of problem on a lot of shows. Its like writers rush things and don't bother to properly build relationships because they think their audience has the attention span of a two year old.



I agree. Shows continuing on long after the writers have lost interest and there are no more good stories left to tell is a big reason why so many shows end up sucking. I don't think most shows that are not episodic should last for more than 4-6 seasons. Except for some comedies and procedurals I've rarely seen a show stay truly good after that point.

I agree somewhat on the quality issue, but I don't begrudge anyone for wanting their show to run as long as possible. I mean, it puts food on the table for a lot of people--not just highly paid actors and producers--but also lots of music editors, casting directors, grips, wardrobe people, etc., (and, hell, even personal assistants). YMMV, of course. Plus, I've never seen a once great show lose *all* its quality.

Unpopularly, I also think it's possible for a show to rebound well from a period (even a season or maybe two) of suckage and recapture "former glory." It's rare, but I do think it's happened.

I can't blame those working on a show for wanting to have a job as long as possible but I do think it is very hard for show to stay good if it lasts longer than your typical series. And while I'm not sure I'd say I've seen great shows lose all quality I've seen a lot of good shows whose last seasons have made me wish they ended earlier.

I think shows break down into 3 categories, and each category has a completely different reason for suckage. The only universal reason for sucking is lack of talent, but there are plenty of talented people out there.

1. Episodic - This type of show more or less hits reboot at the end of each episode and next week begins at the same way this one did. Examples: Star Trek, Seinfeld, CSI.
Episodic shows typically start sucking when writers get bored with them and/or run out of new ideas. This happens quickly because their job becomes so formulaic. The solution is to have guest / freelance writers. Lots of them. The other less common reason for suckage is loss of continuity, so they need to pay attention.

2. Mini-Arc - These shows are very popular these days. A plot that advances through a story arc, and then when that arc is concluded a new arc is started. Examples: Dexter, Deadwood, Veronica Mars.
Mini-Arc shows are very successful, and less likely to suck than other types, but they can be bad. The main reason for sucking is straying into episodic territory. People who watch these shows hate filler, and filler happens when the pacing isn't right. The solution is to do shorter arcs. No reason an arc has to last an entire 22 episode season. Do 2 or 3 arcs in a season. These shows dominate on cable because cable has shorter seasons, thus less filler. Network TV could make these shows if they wised up that 22 episodes is too long for a mini-arc.

3. Long-Arc - Shows that have a clear start and end point, with established metrics from point A to point B. Examples: Lost, Babylon 5, Carnival. These shows need planning and pacing. Anybody can plan an awesome show, but to make it happen you need to pace it right. If the pace is too slow, the show starts sucking (Then Nine), also if you try to extend your plan and change the pace it starts sucking (Lost season 4, Babylon 5 season 5). The solution is to have a clear start and end date. Lost has gotten so much better since they put the end date in place.

It's the same thing with "Saturday Night Live" featured players. Once an actor/actress gets 3+ years under their belt and/or a character takes off, "Entertainment Weekly" gives them a cover, NBC runs a "Best Of _______" special, and the media proclaims that "SNL PLAYER is the funniest person alive!!!" until it becomes common knowledge. It doesn't matter if the actor is a hack or not, they've been touched by the Lorne Michaels Starmaking Plan.
How else can you explain NBC touting Amy Poehler and her boring "Parks and Recreation" above the newer shows? Or Poehler and Kristen Wiig's Emmy nominations this year?
"Saturday Night Live" hasn't been funny for about 15 years.
It's all just protecting NBC's investment.

Though in Babylon 5's partial defense, the timing boondoggle was because JMS wasn't sure if there was going to be a season 5, ended up wrapping a couple big storylines early in season 4 to get through them, and then had to come up with a whole bunch of effective filler when season 5 did get picked up. The telepath storyline seemed like it was twice what it should have been, and if they had to do that, there should have been far more Bester. The show, IMO, did manage to pull it back together for about the last five episodes, which I suspect were part of the original production timeline for the show.

I do, however, hold him entirely responsible for the singing telepaths and their Vorlon technology hair product and Elizabeth Lockley.

You have read my mind. Let me add, once a featured player has been on for about three years, they are then making a movie. I know Chevy Chase and Bill Murray did great with their careers but does every single person from SNL HAVE TO MAKE A MOVIE?

More recently - as of the last 5 yrs or so - much suckage has been spawned from the shows that have too narrow a premise. The suckage happens either immediately, as in Drive, or more commonly, after the show becomes a big hit, and then the writers have to figure out what to do now. Prime examples are Lost, Prison Break. Hell, even the titles are limiting. Heroes could have avoided this entirely because stories about people with super powers is so broad it's almost unlimited, but they made the mistake of boxing themselves in the first season with the end of the world storyline, and nothing has been the same since.

I totally get why this happens, which is to make the biggest initial impact for a new show so that it can have a chance to grab a foothold and succeed in the brutal prime time TV arena, where most new shows don't make it. I would have thought, though, that people making shows would have learned from the trials and tribulations of shows like Lost. Unfortunately the lesson has not been learned, since we now have FlashForward. They're either going to have to drag out 6 months in show time forever, or have to figure out what to do after the big day. If they drag it on forever, it'll be irritating; if they have the big day and then life goes back to normal, it'll be anticlimactic and they'll have to come up with the next big thing, which will be labored and not fit the premise or title of the show. It'll be Heroes all over again. Yay.

One reason for suckage that has not been touched on here is the actors themselves. Some of them start getting too big for their britches, have "creative differences" with the producers then have to leave the show. This means any plans the producers might have had go right out the window and have to be redone. Which might not work. Season 5 of Babylon 5 (besides changing the pacing because of being on the bubble) is a good example of this. Claudia Christian was not brought back for season 5. There went all her storylines and history and we got Female Comimander that tried to be Ivanova but was only a pale, sade imitation.

The Heigl thing is trying to do that on Gray's anatomy. Having to get rid of Isaih Washington because of his mouth meant really messing with Sandra Oh's character. Of course, Gray's has its own separate problems (no Shonda, it is not a show about strong women).

I believe this absolutely and think it points up a couple of different challenges. First of all, some shows are truly meant to be strong cult shows, not mass market, and while occasionally a show will transcend that for awhile, as "Lost" did, eventually some of the mass audience falls off (it's 'too complicated', 'believes its own hype', etc). Also, some formats are meant, intrinsically, for a limited run. "Prison Break," to me, was a prime example of that. But running one long season and saying 'fini' regardless of the ratings is counter to the networks' business model. So either they find a new model, reject such concepts, or continue to do what they are doing.

I don't honestly know what the answer is but I do know that I get tired of seeing a quick death to quirky, interesting shows that aren't cookie cutter predictable (I'm still mourning "Kings" and "Pushing Daisies", though the latter may have been doomed on arrival).