I searched for a similar topic, but couldn't find one. If I was remiss, can a mod please close this thread?

I thought I'd start this topic to discuss shows that have a great first season, but a relatively subpar second season. "The O.C.," for example. Great first season, meh second season. I'm really hoping "Rescue Me," which has its season premiere tonight, can match up to last season. Also, when "Veronica Mars" starts again in the fall, what will Veronica do now that Lilly's murder has been solved?

With the number of shows that slump in their second season, I'm almost glad that "My So-Called Life" only lasted that one perfect season.

Joan of Arcadia is a prime example.

I was just going to come in and mention Joan. I was really hoping for it to pull out of the slump for season three, but of course they cancelled the show so now I'll never know if it would have returned to season one standards.

It's not even that season two was so terrible, it's just that when you compared it to its first season, it looked so... unimpressive. It was still good TV if you looked at it objectively, but you kept waiting for them to meet the bar that the first season had set so high, and it didn't happen (although they really were showing improvement by the end).

I remember back when Dharma & Greg came back for its second season, and there was a bunch of talk about it hitting a sophmore slump. It was the first time I ever heard the term applied to TV and I thought it fit so perfectly. D&G did manage to bounce back, though (I think. It's been a long time since I ever even thought of the show, and the episode order is a little fuzzy). Can anyone think of another show with a crappy second season that managed to snap out of it? Can anyone confirm if D&G actually did?

I feel like just about any competitive reality show that manages to make it three seasons, stars off super strong, but in season two the players are meaner, more cut-throat, and generally unwatchable. But in season three the producers do a better job of getting "real" contestants, not cartoons. I am thinking specifically of: The Apprentice, Survivor, Big Brother...

Based on the comments in the subsection, Star Trek:TNG fits the bill.

And I beg to differ about Survivor. Its second season was one of its stronger seasons. I'd say that Survivor didn't hit the sophomore slump until season 5.

How about Twin Peaks?

The first season was so fun, so quirky. The second season was just so...what the fuck was it?

Of course, there wasn't a third season.

I think Roswell had an awesome first season, then the second season sucked ass and got even worse in the final season. So I guess that's an example of a show whose sophomore slump just got worse.

I'd forgotten about Joan. While I was only a casual watcher of the show, I was also hoping it would snap out of its season 2 funk. Unfortunately, Les Moonves kind of sucks.

Buffy avoided the season 2 slump; interestingly, that was probably the show's best season (but season 1 wasn't the greatest ever, of course).

And the first season of Gilmore Girls was so good, I can't imagine any second season could have lived up to it, even though season 2 wasn't all that bad.

I think in the case of The O.C.,the show just packed so many storylines into season 1 that it was probably hard for the writers to come up with anything new for season 2. I think the Sports Guy did a column about this when he did his breakdown between The O.C. and 90210. 90210 had longevity because it spaced out its crazy-ass plots and love triangles over whole seasons, while The O.C. crammed storylines like crazy-ass Oliver and Theresa's pregnancy into one season.

I agree. I remember thinking at the end of season one that they shoved in enough storylines in one season to last three, and wondering what they were going to do in the second. Sadly, my concerns were valid.

The Guardian. Great first season, then the second season did a reset to zero and completely screwed up the show.

<small voice> I like the ST TNG second season. </small voice>

That was my first thought. When you try to top yourself too much, you just end up with random bizarre crap.

Murder One had a great first season, but they thought the one season one trial thing would keep viewers away, and they ruined it the next year.

I also think 24 can't duplicate the drama and intensity of it's first season, because there's only so many times Jack can "die", or "get out of an impossible situation", and split screens should be reserved for people in two different places. Although, if they would plot the entire season from the start, it might help pick things up.

Joan of Arcadia is a prime recent example of the slump. I think part of the problem was that the writers lost their way, but I also think a huge part of the problem was the constant network tinkering (e.g., the Duffs). Judged on its own merits, it was still pretty good, but I think it lost that season one magic due to the pressures to bring the ratings up.

The first season of The Naked Truth was hilarious and biting, but the second season (when it moved to NBC) was absolutely horrible. Now that I think about it, this is probably a case of a retool gone awry than a sophomore slump, per se.

SVNBob writes:


TNG had a great first season? What did I miss? Outside of big Dr. Crusher fans, the conventional wisdom is that TNG didn't really hit its stride until year three.

Popular definitely belongs in this category, since its slump resulted in cancellation. I loved the show the first season, I could barely bring myself to watch 3 episodes of the second season.

Boomtown

Word on Joan of Arcadia and The O.C.. I loved them in their first seasons, and ended up dropping both halfway through season 2 because somewhere along the line I completely stopped caring/lost interest.

With so many new dramas airing and flourishing this past year (Veronica Mars, Lost, Desperate Housewives, House, Medium, Numb3rs, Grey's Anatomy) it'll be very interesting to see which ones go through the sophomore slump, and which ones avoid it. Statistically, I have to think at least a third of those will slump, the question is: which ones? Is it possible to predict such a thing? Are there warning signs?

It seems like a show might undergo a sophomore slump if it (a) starts its first season out very strong and loses steam along the way, which carries over into season 2 (past example: The O.C.; current (potential) example: Desperate Housewives) or (b) the writers end season 1 with a plot twist or a new direction that doesn't work in season 2 (culturevulture73 mentioned The Guardian); or © the show had a season-long story arc in season 1 that the writers could not top or replicate in season 2 (past examples: Twin Peaks; current (potential) examples: Lost or (yikes, I hope not) Veronica Mars).

Based on the above, procedural dramas are much less likely to undergo sophomore slumps than high-concept shows. So House and Numb3rs are probably safer than Lost and Desperate Housewives.

I could definitely see Desperate Housewives and Veronica Mars slumping in their second season. It's easy to see DH taking a dive -- the first season was so packed with plots in addition to finding out why Mary Alice killed herself. Now, Gabrielle is going to have a baby, which screams jump the shark. Two good things Marc Cherry did were leave open the question of Zack's paternity -- is Mike his father? -- and send Lynette back to work. But all the hype around DH and the divalike behavior of Teri Hatcher, Marcia Cross and Eva Longoria just screams for the show to dive.

As for Veronica Mars, now that the murder of Lilly Kane is solved, what will Veronica do? I read the Rob Thomas interview with Ausiello (don't read it if you don't want to be spoiled and I swear, I'm going to stop reading spoilers before the second season starts), and it seems UPN is really trying to interfere in this show, which can't bode well for it. I'm really hoping that whatever they do next season, they do it well. But I can unfortunately see the writers going through a few creative doldrums.

And shows that rebounded after a crummy second season? Well, Gilmore Girls rebounded after a crummy fourth season to have a decent fifth season. Don't know if that counts, though. Might have been the writers just floundering with where to go with Rory after she left high school.

I don't know if this will lead to a slump, but this is exactly why I've never watched this show. I didn't at first because I was usually busy when it was on, but thought about tuning in because I like Felicity Huffman. But when I started hearing more about the stupid, catty shenanigans going on behind the scenes than I did about the show, that completely killed any interest I had in the show. If they keep it up, I can see others getting turned off by that.

Yeah, but if go by these forums, Rory is even more pathetic and unlikable than she was last year. And a lot of people think last season was better than this one. I think last season was plotted out better and had more structure to it, but was ten thousand times more boring.

I think MSCL was losing steam by the end of its run and probably wouldn't have been half as good its second season.

JoA? Didn't watch the first season. However, I didn't think the show was as bad as some of its detractors claimed. I'm kind of bitter, since those detractors were probably a large bit responsbile for the show getting cancelled. Hope you're happy, spoilsports.

Popular's slump was due entirely to the WB, who mandated to Ryan Murphy that he make the show more like Dawson's Creek than Beverly Hills, 90210 on Crack.

Boomtown suffered because NBC renewed it, but retooled it to make the episodes more "accessible", which killed the originality. Also, NBC jerked it around and canceled it fast. I don't think that can be called a sophomore slump since the writers didn't even get to finish a full second season.

May I say that I don't think Gilmore Girls rebounded all that much last season?

Yes, the Lorelai/Luke stuff was good, but that was very nearly the only good thing about it. Other than that, the plot continuity was awful, there was too much Rory love triangle stuff, and *way* too little Paris Gellar.

I'm hoping it will rebound next season. Rory (of all people!) as a college dropout could be very interesting, but I'm afraid the resolution of that story is going to be as much a copout as the resolution (pardon the definition stretching) of last season's adultery plot was. If it is, there won't be much reason to watch other than the excuse to ogle Lauren Graham and/or Scott Patterson, depending on your orientation. While I've got nothing against eye candy, it just can't carry a show all by itself, sorry.

PS: If you haven't already done so, go out and get yourself the Season One [b] JoA[b] DVDs and I think you'll better understand why so many people were so disappointed with Season 2. I agree that the latter wasn't really that bad by most shows' standards, but it was still a definite come down from what had gone before.

For me, "Dead Like Me" was a prime example of the sophomore slump. I don't know what happened, but the magic of the writing took a sky-dive. Talk about falling off, it fell off, never to be seen again.

The diva stuff was all overhyped nonsense; don't pay too much attention to it.

I'd say the big reason DH could have a subpar second season is the way the great character Rex was uncerimoniously killed off for absolutely no other reason than he's based on Marc Cherry's father who died at the same age. If you check out the speculation forums these days, it's almost entirely people who are desperately holding on to the ever more tenuous possiblity that the whole thing was just a huge fakeout and Rex is still alive.

ggjunkie423 writes:


I agree, but for the reason that the series was stuck being centered around Angela, who-for me, at least-wound up being the least interesting and least sympathetic of the show's characters.

This could have been due to the writers' interest in her flagging in comparison to the other characters, which raises another question; what if the "slump" isn't a "slump" per se, but the result of a structural weakness in the series that's become more obvious?

I see Lost being a great candidate for the slump - with most characters's backstories pretty much explained, the basic needs for survival already somewhat covered and as the answer for the question of what makes the island tick reserved for Season Five - the show has little chance of maintaining what it made it so compelling in the first place.

Lost would have to re-invent itself in order to avoid the slump and with the limitations of taking place on an island, the flashback formula, a mythology that is difficult to abandon and the somewhat static cast, I don't see it happening.



Angel had a sophomore slump in my opinion. They went from Cases of the Week format to having actual arcs and the transition didn't went well. The Darla storyline dragged on and resolved itself kind of not and then to top it all of, there was the ridiculous Pylea storyline at the end. It had a few great episodes, but it was just all over the place.

Buffy didn't had a sophomore slump, but as some point the number of times she averted the apocalypse and died became a little problematic.

I guess every show that uses a certain hook (Joan talks to God, speaking animals are asking some to help people, you go back in time to fix things, save people from dying etc) risks to bore the audience with exactly that hook sooner or later.

Shows with really strong storylines that get wrapped up in the first season on the other are forced to come up with an exactly as compelling storyline and are risking failure.

Yes, I'm definately fearful for Lost. I mean, what can they do to top this past totally awesome season? It gave me flippin' goosebumplies!

I wonder if House will go that route. I love the show personally, but I've been reading a lot of articles and whatnot saying that people are already growing tired of the show's formula.

Well, guess we'll see.

The writers really seemed to be starting to edge away from the formula at the end of season one though, so I'd say the show is safe from contracting the Sophomore Slump. Hopefully. Please, oh, please let it be safe.

I think Lost could be interesting if the second season focuses on a different group of the castaways, with the main players from the first season kept in supporting roles.

Really? I thought that's when Angel really came into his own. No more Buffy, a real plotline driving the show (and as we saw in the future seasons: Angel is most awesome with their arcs), and bringing in more and more characters and settings. It got a hell of a lot better than s1, which might be the most uneven season in all of television.

I'm trying to think of other slumps. I don't think Friends had a sophomore slump, they actually got a bit better. Realized they can't prolong the whole Ross/Rachel thing (until the season 4 finale, of course...the rest of the show was "will they/won't they") and started to expand on all the characters more and more.

I don't actually remember the second season of The Simpsons...

Arrested Devolopment, though the second season, IMHO, was not as great as the first - it didn't really loose any of its charm.

The first season of TNG wasn't great per se, but it was better than season 2. And agreed it didn't really take off until season three. But I brought it up as a response to the quoted question about a show with a bad 2nd season that snapped out of it, not necessarily as one that fit the pattern of great then bad.

Witchblade only had 13 eps per season, but it really slumped in it's second (and final season). Part of what made the first season great was the spectacular ending of hitting the giant reset button. But it ended up putting the second season on a much weaker ground. Killing Irons right away and taking away ghostDanny who let us get into Sarah's head in an interesting way... They set the bar too high in the second season story-wise. I know Yancy Butler was having some personal problems during the filming of season two, but I think that was less of a contributing factor to the slump than some would say.

. . . which will never happen because the actors (and their agents) will have very loud temper tantrums. Plus how much drama are you going to get out of killing people off if you're just going to phase them out anyway?

Lost is an incredibly uneven show. It's an unweildly teenager who has no idea what it wants to be when it grows up. The writers need to focus, and the show could be great.

I think there's a real chasm between the online fans, who whine about this-and-that mystery not being solved RIGHT!NOW! and the general public, which is put a little off by that aspects and is more tuned into the "Will Charlie and Claire ever get together?" aspect of it. Like it or not, the show is about the characters, which is why there are backstories. if it was purely about the mysteries there'd be no purpose in finding out the little details.

Once Angel became about the arcs, I started liking it more. Especially as the writers devised more and more ways to torture the pure guy. I think the first and fifth seasons, with the emphasis on the weird cases, sucked. In the middle there they really got good at torturing the guy.

I liked MSCL when I - as a 14 year old - could identify with it. I could identify with
a young girl who wanted more than just having the usual boring friends and the boring extracurricular activities that you're suppossed to want, but being too insecure to actually go after what you wanted, so choosing to hang out with someone more exciting, with liking someone you would get no traction with, etc.
Basically as long as Angela was somewhat of an outcast I could identify with her, but as soon as she started contemplating sleeping with Jordan and working on the play with her new friends I didn't identify with her anymore and I got over the show. Plus it got soap-y, with the dad thinking about having an affair, Rayanne sleeping with Jordan, Sharon wanting to have casual sex with the ex . . . I don't know. It was still a great show. But I liked it more in the beginning, when Angela didn't have much of a life. Later on it seemed to become more like every other teen soap.

I think that shows like Veronica Mars that wrap up their first season arcs in the first season have a somewhat easier time of avoiding the sophomore slump if they truly have the depth in the writer's room. If you wrap up an arc in one season, then you get to start from scratch the next season with the characters already in place and established. The problem with shows like Lost is that their arc is basically never-ending. They can't tell all the secrets too soon because then the audience would be like "get them off the damn island already", but as we've seen, drawing it out isn't the greatest move either. It seems to me that Lost is going to be relying on introducing new characters instead of driving the story forward and that's why I think they'll have the biggest slump of last season's new shows.

ITA. Unfortunately, I really don't think I'm ever going to see the balance I want from it.

For me, the gold standard of a character based show is The Sopranos. Each season of The Sopranos manages to be about the characters, but each season also has a point. Some of the stories have a beginning, a middle and an end. Other ones simmer for a season or two, and THEN they use an entire season to bring it to an end. (Poor, poor, dumb Ade.) Other stories will probably never be resolved.

Lost is a perfect show to follow the Sopranos model. We could have some mysteries never solved, other ones simmer, and still others resolved.

Season two really needs to draw me in early, because I was very disappointed with the way it ended.

One show that's suffered from the sophomore slump is Two and a Half Men. Its first season, it was a genuinely funny and witty sitcom. Most episodes were good or great, and I liked the characters. Although Alan was suffering through the divorce, he still seemed sympathetic and smart, and he got in many good lines against his mother or his brother Charlie.

This season, though, the majority of episodes have been disappointing. They indulged in too many wacky girlfriends, didn't use the kid Jake effectively, made Alan a raving loser and a schmuck, and they took all the humanity out of Judith, making her a greedy bitch who threatens him with the lawyers constantly. If things don't improve in season 3, I will be very upset.

Word on Boomtown Arizonajoe and Cress. NBC barely gave this show a chance when they watered it down so the audience could "get it".

ABC did this too, with Dragnet in it's second season. Instead of having the show be about Joe Friday and his partner Frank, they changed the dynamics of the show completely, by ditching the buddy cop premise, getting rid of Joe's partner entirely, and adding useless characters that no one cared about. This was my favorite show until I tuned in for the first episode of the second season and went, "WTF?!?" It was like a totally different show! It never went back to the greatness of season 1 either. This wasn't a slump. More like a nosedive.

I hate to disagree with a fellow bee, but I enjoyed DLM season 2 quite a bit. I particularly liked the development of the Joy and Reggie characters, and thought this storyline was richer in season 2 than in season 1.

My nominee for worst Season 2 decline ever: The L Word. I won't call it a slump because Season 1 wasn't consistently strong itself. But the difference between whatever height Season 1 achieved and the depths to which Season 2 plummeted? If height of Season 1 = sea level, height of Season 2 = hovering just above the bottom of the ocean trenches, in the region where fish have evolved with lamps on their heads to penetrate the darkness.

ITA. What I don't understand is, how was the original concept so unaccessible? It's not like if you missed an episode, you would be lost for the season.

Watching Ellie was somewhat uneven in its first season, but I still found it to be enjoyable junk food while waiting for 24. Then they got rid of everything that made the show different (single camera, no audience, and taking place in real time) and the show became just another mediocre sitcom that quickly took a ratings nosedive and was cancelled.

I never saw Watching Ellie, but that story seems to ring true about a lot of other shows that draw small niche audiences or are critical darlings in their first season but don't draw huge numbers. Network or show producer wants to retool the show a bit or make it more palatable for a general audience to draw in bigger numbers and the show flops. One Tree Hill was over-the-top cheesy goodness in its first season, and sucked big-time in its second season after they stopped focusing on basketball.

I should probably have a little more trust in the Veronica Mars writers, but I'm still a tad bit fearful.

Isn't there a similar story for the John Larroquette Show?

I recently saw the pilot for TJLS when TVLand was doing a marathon of Warner Bros. shows. It was a fun, dark (there's a dramatic/scary scene in the pilot where two of the characters get held up at gun point), and intelligent comedy about a recovering alcoholic that had hit rock-bottom. But, I remember catching an episode in one of the later seasons, and it was just another run-of-the-mill workplace hijinks sit-com. Totally different.

Another show that was marvelous in its first season, and then suffered, IMHO, from network tinkering, was "Murder One". The critics adored the concept - a capital murder case followed in detail from the first time a high profile defense attorney hears about the killing to the final resolution of the case - but the ratings were never quite good enough, in spite of great writing and compelling acting. ABC renewed the show - the ratings had improved somewhat in the last couple of episodes - but insisted on major changes. Some actors who had been specific to the particular case -e.g. Emmy nominee Stanley Tucci, Jason Gedrick - weren't going to come back in any event, but they fired much of the remaining regular cast, including leading man Daniel Benzali [who I liked a great deal, but a lot of people didn't]. They changed the format, so that three different cases were followed, and added more of the lawyers' personal lives. The good news was that the new leading man was Anthony LaPaglia - hard to argue with him being cast in anything - and the quality of the writing, while more uneven, could still rise to great heights. The third case, which won Taylor Pruitt Vince an Emmy as Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama, was excellent in every way.

But it was still, overall, not a patch on the first season, IMO. And it didn't get better ratings, so after 'burning off' the terrific last arc, ABC finally cancelled the show and replaced it with.... another lawyer show - "The Practice".

I actually agree about One Tree Hill. It was never a good show per se, and it was never going to be the par of The OC, but it was fun and cheesy. However they stopped focusing on the rivalry, made it far more over the top than you could handle (The Haley/Nathan marriage? and her parents are okay with it), and lost everything that made it fun. IE: The rivalry between the brothers, which was everpresent in the basketball, and in the triangle with Peyton. Which got lost forever as soon as CMM and SB got married and Brooke and Lucas became the ultimate couple.

Gotta agree with those predicting the worst for Lost, DH and Veronica Mars, Lost being the biggest candidate for failure in my eyes. To me, it's simply too hot in all areas to be able to avoid burnout.

I also must agree with those who saw the slump affecting ST: TNG. Among fellow next gen fans, this slump is legendarily awful. I actually prefer the bizarre stories, stilted performances and uneven characterization of Next Gen's first season to the badness of season two. Aside from my highly unpopular adoration for the Dr. Pulaski character, that year is unsalvageable for me.

Unless I'm blind, nobody has mentioned my observation that ER actually had a not-so-terrific second year. First of all, I actually think the second year features some of the saddest, most depressing cases any of the cast had to deal with, (Carter and Mr. Rubadou, Carol and Tatiana, Shep and the fire) go-nowhere plotlines, (Benton and his professional discord with his colleagues) and incidents with the main characters that were either stupid, (Carter and Harper, Kerry and everyone) or predictable yet almost too heartbreaking to watch (Mark's divorce, Susan and Little Susie). Typing all of that and ruminating on it once again, I'm thinking that I should have cared. Still, I didn't, because the writing that year? Blah isn't the word to describe how unaffecting it was.

I actually liked the later seasons of The John Larroquette Show. The first season was quite dark and killed in the ratings by Roseanne, so they lightened it up a bit. I liked both versions.

I think Lost is safe from the sophmore slump. Or at least I really hope so. I think DH is more at risk of it than anything because it relied so heavily on the main mystery and the new mystery has basically already been resolved thanks to ABC's carelessness.

A good show to put here is Dharma & Greg, although it would be more like a junior slump. The first two seasons were fantasticly funny and fresh, then the show took a very sharp nose dive in the third season and never really recovered. The basic problem was that it strayed away from the main premise which made the show so funny (Greg as straight man to Dharma). Then again, the premise itself was thin and they were lucky to get two good seasons out of it. Still disappointing though.

The Sophmore slump scares me, because the three shows most mentioned; Lost, Housewives, and Veronica Mars are my three "must see" shows every week and I would hate the fate of JOA to befall any of them. Now to enter the debate.

I think Lost is at most risk. I know most people on the boards think the show sank in quality as the season went on. I am not one of those people, I love this season and am awaiting next season anxiously. I think the first season set up the series nicely. We had tons of backstory on the characters and a lot of mysteries were introduced. Now it is time for major plot development. I am not asking for answers to the mysteries, I like the mysteries, but lets start exploring their significance. We have Hurleys numbers, Walts powers, Lockes descent into madness, The Others, The Hatch, Claires baby, and some other smaller ones. If the show continues in its second season to tell stories the same way it did the first I think the viewing public will lose interest. If however they start exploring the mysteries, even if they don't get answers I think the show will thrive.

DH and VM are in a good position to avoid the slump because even though both have mysteries to them, their strength comes from the characters and as long as the writing can keep the level it had for the first season they should be ok.

Good call, DB in London. The junior slump is a little-discussed t.v. phenomenon that can make or break a series. I'm of the opinion that Alias's junior slump broke that show, and the ER sophomore slump was followed by an even more heinous third year. At the time, I thought the third year was SO bad, I wondered why anyone was still watching. The characters were just all over the place in terms of motivations, attitudes and decisions, the plots bored me to tears, and then there were weeks it wasn't on because NBC kept yanking it for weeks at a time. I'd say that is shows perceived to be as hot as DH and Lost make it unscathed from their second season potential slumps, they've still got that possibly problematic junior slump to worry about.

As much as I want Lost to be on for 20 years right now, I think the series will be much better off if they limit it to 5 seasons and draw out a very solid story arc.

Then there are shows that don't really hit their groove until their second or third season. Roseanne is a great example. The first season was okay, but second better, but the third lauched a 5 season run that made it the best show on tv at the time. Seinfeld is another example, although the first two seasons were short. I think there were only 6 and 13 episodes, respectively.