Write towards a conclusion each series, and find yourself a new plot for next season. How hard is that?
Well, it's probably not actually difficult, and obviously some series do that. That doesn't mean it's always desirable. It requires you to "resolve" everything every series (or half-series if you're supposed to account also for mid-season canning).
Actually, I was quite pleased that 24 did what you suggest. After 12 or so episodes it was lunchtime, the two main plots had been resolved, the series was plainly unimaginative shit, so I stopped watching and I don't feel I missed anything worthwhile. But I can't realistically expect all writers to plan for mediocrity. I'm glad I never watched Lost past episode 2, but I'm led to believe that people who like that sort of thing find it's the sort of thing they like.
If you're going to have a medium with the potential to tell a 100-hour story (or anyway to include a plot which starts at the beginning and finishes at the end), I don't think it's unreasonable for writers to sometimes try to tell that story. Even if there's a high chance of the audience or the execs getting bored, and turning it into an unfinished story, surely it's worth trying? I'm not a great fan of gigantic, sprawling novels, but I do acknowledge that the trilogy (or longer) exists as a medium and is well-liked. Would Lord of the Rings have been 6 better novels if Tolkien had tried to wrap each one up neatly and start the next one fresh? I mean, without assuming that for Tolkien to do that, he would have needed to be a far better author and would have written better books for that reason.
I guess maybe those TV writers should be doing soap opera, and avoid the economic demands of the series format that way.
Quite aside from high-falutin' ideas about the potential of the medium, though, it's expected that a TV series which will be re-commissioned should end on some kind of teaser, and one which won't, won't. So in that very market-driven sense, what the public asks the writers to do is impossible. If TV networks insist on making the decision once it's too late for the writers to react appropriately, then the execs, not the writers, are guaranteeing failure. I agree with bateleur that the end of Heroes just about stands as an end, but it's not a strong one. Had it been a strong ending, it probably would have been a weak series continuation. Doing both probably is hard.
In the case of The Mentalist, the show ends when Red John is identified and either wins or loses. So each series-finale has an option: that can happen, or it can not happen. If it happens, the show is left open, if it doesn't the show is tied up. It can't do both (although now I've said that, maybe they'll find a way to ruin my theory).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-05-17 02:58 pm (UTC)Well, it's probably not actually difficult, and obviously some series do that. That doesn't mean it's always desirable. It requires you to "resolve" everything every series (or half-series if you're supposed to account also for mid-season canning).
Actually, I was quite pleased that 24 did what you suggest. After 12 or so episodes it was lunchtime, the two main plots had been resolved, the series was plainly unimaginative shit, so I stopped watching and I don't feel I missed anything worthwhile. But I can't realistically expect all writers to plan for mediocrity. I'm glad I never watched Lost past episode 2, but I'm led to believe that people who like that sort of thing find it's the sort of thing they like.
If you're going to have a medium with the potential to tell a 100-hour story (or anyway to include a plot which starts at the beginning and finishes at the end), I don't think it's unreasonable for writers to sometimes try to tell that story. Even if there's a high chance of the audience or the execs getting bored, and turning it into an unfinished story, surely it's worth trying? I'm not a great fan of gigantic, sprawling novels, but I do acknowledge that the trilogy (or longer) exists as a medium and is well-liked. Would Lord of the Rings have been 6 better novels if Tolkien had tried to wrap each one up neatly and start the next one fresh? I mean, without assuming that for Tolkien to do that, he would have needed to be a far better author and would have written better books for that reason.
I guess maybe those TV writers should be doing soap opera, and avoid the economic demands of the series format that way.
Quite aside from high-falutin' ideas about the potential of the medium, though, it's expected that a TV series which will be re-commissioned should end on some kind of teaser, and one which won't, won't. So in that very market-driven sense, what the public asks the writers to do is impossible. If TV networks insist on making the decision once it's too late for the writers to react appropriately, then the execs, not the writers, are guaranteeing failure. I agree with bateleur that the end of Heroes just about stands as an end, but it's not a strong one. Had it been a strong ending, it probably would have been a weak series continuation. Doing both probably is hard.
In the case of The Mentalist, the show ends when Red John is identified and either wins or loses. So each series-finale has an option: that can happen, or it can not happen. If it happens, the show is left open, if it doesn't the show is tied up. It can't do both (although now I've said that, maybe they'll find a way to ruin my theory).