MovieChat Forums > Castle (2009) Discussion > Should all tv series have a five season ...

Should all tv series have a five season life span?

posted 8 years ago by darenwheeler
45 replies | jump to latest

Look, no matter how you look at it, the ending was poor. The ONLY time i can think of a satisfying ending was Battlestar Galactica and that was series that quit on its own terms.
Let's be honest, Castle was jumping the shark for a while and whilst we all like more of something we love, it does leave you with scenarios like this where a show lets cancelled and you're either left in limbo or get a hastily tacked on ending that doesn't do the show justice.
Perhaps all shows should have that 5 years shelf life so you don't go round in circles or scratch around aimlessly going nowhere... which is what Castle has been doing lately..
Me? I'd have stopped after the wedding. I wouldn't have had the final shoot out and I'd given each character their send off/ending. Let's not forget Castle is an ensemble piece and the show worked because we loved all of the characters not just the leads.
7 years and you end it like that?
No, thank you.

[–] Like_Oh_Sure 8 years ago

I just made a thread in which I compare Castle's finale to that of All Good Things... (1994) in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987).I think a show can finish well if it knows when to do it. Even if we want more the cast and crew know when to end it and we get a satisfying conclusion.I agree that I'll miss all of the other characters from Castle and wished there was a way of keeping them alive but, it is what it is and I had a great time with it for almost all of the way (The Pre-7 stuff more than makes up for the post-7 stuff to my mind). You should not threaten babies.

[–] SarahKSeraSera 8 years ago

No, but most cable shows only last 5 seasons, even if we think they are good. A lot of those are too expensive to keep making and many are made in Canada

[–] JDLail 8 years ago

In Canada the Gov't subsidies run out after 5 years.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Perhaps all shows should have that 5 years shelf life so you don't go round in circles or scratch around aimlessly going nowhere...

That is my belief as well. I honestly have never seen a show that didn't decline after season 5. The same goes for Castle, it seems the writers didn't know what to do next.

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

I honestly have never seen a show that didn't decline after season 5.

M*A*S*H
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
Stargate: SG1
Cheers
Friends

Just a couple off the top of my head.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Not for me. I loved Friends, but it definitely started declining after season 5.

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

I thought Friends held its own right up to the end.

Same with M*A*S*H.

Others, not so much.

[–] Jonstoni 8 years ago

I thought it got even better after season 5.

Yo momma

[–] Stratego (29315) 7 months ago

Troll.

[–] mendacity (20) 2 years ago

I watched all of MASH in reruns and DVD. It absolutely declined. Whether you like Winchester or not is another argument but the Winchester years were preachy and more about social statements than characters. I think people that watched it first-run elevate it because even bad MASH seasons were better than the other garbage on network TV at the time (that robot kid, etc.).

I remember Cheers and Friends declining because I stopped watching them entirely.

Even Seinfeld had 2 bad years (compared to earlier Seinfeld) towards the end before a comeback last season (not the finale).

[–] wilya7 8 years ago

That's also the opinion of Michael Straczynski of Babylon 5 fame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Straczynski. He planned Babylon 5 as a 5 seasons show (no pun intended). I tend to agree.

[–] darenwheeler 8 years ago

Best example? Supernatural. Might have season 6 or something but it had the PERFECT ending, absolutely spot on... and then they dragged around and it's now limping around on season 11?
Sometimes you just HAVE to quite whilst you're ahead...

[–] horrorfan000 8 years ago

Best example? Supernatural. Might have season 6 or something but it had the PERFECT ending, absolutely spot on... and then they dragged around and it's now limping around on season 11?
Sometimes you just HAVE to quite whilst you're ahead...

Completely disagree with you there.IMO shows start getting stale when the actors become bored with their parts and start phoning it in or when the writers run out of ideas and lose their passion for the material.I've seen none of this with Supernatural.These guys still love what they do.Did you see the season 11 episode Don't call me Shurley.One of the best episodes of the whole show IMO.

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

Hmmm. I got bored with Supernatural around season 3.

Haven't tuned into that one since.

Is it really still on?

[–] horrorfan000 8 years ago

Going on season 12 this year.Your missing out if you stopped at season 3.Castiel doesn't show up until season 4 and Crowley doesn't appear till season 5.

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

Ummm, Who and Who? Why would I care, if I was bored before they showed up?

I'm pretty sure they had figured out whatever the original demon was, and they were done with the original premise. And there was a writer's strike or something, and I got out of most of what I had been watching. Besides, I had a young child then, who would sneak out and watch around the corner from where I was sitting, and then he'd have nightmares....He's not so young anymore!

He snuck out and watched some of the last seasons of Buffy, too...and some of The Big Bang Theory...Oh! The things I wish he hadn't learned sneaking around! He learned about robot masturbation that way! LOL! What I had to explain about Howard and the robot hand....OMG!

[–] skip-49816 8 years ago

"snuck"?! Spayer, I am well and truly shocked. And you, a self-professed grammar Nazi, slipping into trendy vernacular. Tsk, tsk.😉

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

"“sneaked” is the preferred word-choice, but “snuck” is also acceptable."

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/snuck-vs-sneaked

Sorry. You're right. I usually opt for the more correct version, even in such a situation, but this time it felt right.

I still use "shall" and "will" correctly (though most people don't understand the fine differences), "like" and "as" correctly (like is comparison between nouns, while as is comparison of actions), etc., though I have a problem with the difference between further and farther, lay/lie, sit/set, etc.

My biggest problems are hearing people use past participles instead of past tense, and vice versa, and using nominative pronouns in objective situations. Also, in writing, the misuse of quotation marks where one really needs to underline for emphasis. I once saw a restaurant board tout the Chef's "specials". I had to wonder why the person posting that didn't think they were very special, or he/she would have underlined it...using quotation marks implies that the person writing doesn't think they are writing the truth.

[–] skip-49816 8 years ago

In my professional life "shall" was binding and "will" only expressed intent; couldn't miss the meaning in those cases! One of my biggest peeves is using "less" when "fewer" was required, as in: 10 Items or Less." Maybe it's time I just let it go.😢

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

Oh not so, Dear Skip!

According to my Latin teacher (who knew about just about everything), For the future tense, you use will with the second and third persons, but shall with first persons (both singular and plural). You reverse them for emphasis, as in, you shall go to the store for me, right now! (a bit more of a command). Or I will go to that concert, whether you like it or not!

http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/shall_will.htm

Oh! How about when there is a discount at a store, and you may save up to 20% or more! ? I actually went up to the service desk to ask them to remove the sign a few weeks ago!

[–] skip-49816 8 years ago

Ah, but no one in the Department of Defense knows or speaks Latin. At least when it comes to specifications for systems or equipment. Those things are like binding contracts. YECH!

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

Department of Defense? When did they come into this?

[–] skip-49816 8 years ago

Meaning/use of "shall" v. "will" in my previous post. Maybe I'm getting too obscure?

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

Too obscure for me, I guess.

[–] RightBackAtYa 8 years ago

My favorite Cas scene:

*Cas, looking serious and perplexed, sitting on a couch in a motel room while Sam and Dean sit at the table*:

Cas: "This is very complex. If the pizza man truly loves this babysitter, why does he keep slapping her rear? Perhaps she's done something wrong."

*Sam and Dean look at each other*

Dean: "You're watching porn? Why?"

Cas: "It was there."

Dean: "You don't watch porn in a room full of dudes, and you don't talk about it! Turn it off!"

*Cas lowers his head*

Dean: "Great. Now he's got a boner."

*Knock on the door and Sam Campbell walks in*

Sam: "This what you boys do? Sit around with angels watching porno's?

Cas: "We're not supposed to talk about it."



Cas joining the show as an angel was the best thing about this show for a long time. I quit watching the show after Bobby got killed and they turned him into a ghost. Bobby should have been sacred. Dean loved Bobby like a father and was really the only one Dean could lean on. I couldn't watch after that.

In war, victory. In peace, vigilance. In death, sacrifice.

[–] clytamnestra 8 years ago

Yeah, babylon5 is still the best example i know of 'properly planning out a show in advance'. It wasn't perfect: some stories did not pan out, sometimes real life got in the way (mostly in the sense of actors being unavailable). But the show was spaced pretty neatly within the pre-planned 5-year run, evolving logically from growing tensions to army-building to war to civil-war.
It never felt like they were out of stories but tacking on more seasons anyway.

In second place are shows that wrote their story from season-to-season but knew and accepted that they were gonna get canceled and tried to give viewers a satisfying final season to wrap everything up: Continuum, The Mentalist, Battlestar Galatica, Jericho, etc.

It really irritates me when i have invested a lot of time in a show and it keeps stringing you on and on and on and you start to realize they have long run out of good stories but after spending so much time with them you want to know how it's going to end. It feels like a bad relationship in which your partner wants out but keeps waiting for you to break up.
Lost and Heroes are particularly notorious examples of shows that promised to have a babylon5-like multi-year arc, but were soon found out to be lying when they kept writing themselves into corners.

And sometimes there is the weird exception that goes completely down the drain but finds a second life: Stargate, Startrek:Enterprise, etc

[–] justine165 8 years ago

There are shows I loved that I think wrapped up great after a max of 7 seasons (Buffy the Vampire Slayer had an epic finale IMO). Other than Friends, which I liked all 10 seasons of, I have not seen any show that I feel should've survived past 7 seasons. I think anywhere between the 5-7 seasons mark is the perfect time to end a show, as long as the original writers/creators stay and know what they're doing. I'm sure there are always exceptions, but I'd rather shows wrap up in a way that makes them rewatchable rather than having to cut it off 3/4 through a marathon.

When I was younger, I used to be disappointed when my favorite shows were cancelled at 4 or 5 seasons. I'm pretty grateful now (as long as they wrapped up well!)!!!

[–] Daithi-orian 8 years ago

I think it all depends on the type of show. NCIS is still doing well even after all these years and look at how long the original Law & Order ran for. If there is a talented showrunner and a team of writers with a clear vision of where the show is headed then I think it can keep going.

[–] clytamnestra 8 years ago

Criminal Minds is also still going strong.

But those are the kind of soap-ensemble-shows where you can relatively easy swap out one lead for another in order to freshen things up a bit. There is no clearly defined begining or end, just a revolving door of detectives while 'the team' as a whole is your lead-character.

Castle on the other hand cannot live without Kate and Rick in it, and would greatly suffer if Ryan and Esposito (the b-couple) are broken up.

[–] JFByers 8 years ago

I have not seen any show that I feel should've survived past 7 seasons.

I do:

- Doctor Who (but it's a very special series, aren't it?)
- Scrubs (Season 9 is horrible, but the Season 8 ending was perfect, they should've ended there)
- The X-Files (almost the same: Season 9 is very disappointing, but Season 8 has a great story arc and ending)
- Monk (8 seasons, perfect closure)
- ER (great episodes along 15 seasons! also, if it had ended on the 7th season, we would have lost one of the finest episodes on TV, 'On the Beach')
- Frasier
- South Park

----
Sorry if my linguistic skills aren't good enough. English is not my first language.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

Don't forget these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-running_scripted_U.S._primetime_television_series

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

[–] marrokinhas 8 years ago

At season 6 the 3XK story arc wasn't finished though.

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

Actually, it was. Enough. It was revived.

And it wasn't that central to the overall story.

[–] marrokinhas 8 years ago

IMO 3XK is the biggest story arc after Johanna Beckett's one. Yes it was revived and if they hadn't solved it it would have been a loose end.

And I think that yes, it was central to the overall story since it was significant in the development of Rick's character so I think it's important that they saw it through.

[–] JDLail 8 years ago

No, but they should all be cut down to 13 episodes a season, like a lot of European TV is. 21-22 episodes a season is way too much. I remember when TV shows used to be 32-33 episodes long before they chopped it down to 22. We need another chop down to a more manageable 13 episodes.

The advertisers don't like short seasons and won't pay as much for 13 eps on the 4 majors as for 22-24. Without that extra cash the quality usually suffers and viewership becomes untenable. If you decrease it much more broadcast is in trouble.

Cable does more serving of the various niche audiences than does broadcast. That's not to say broadcast doesn't occasionally do something like that but their track record in that regard is pretty bad, especially in the last 10-15 years.

Finally the actors salaries are normally reduced for the first 5 years with the understanding that they will get major increases in years 6+. Ending after 5 screws that up.

So try again.

[–] spayer27 8 years ago

No.

This is a capitalist society. The very basis of this society and the business world (and television is a business) is that people pay for the goods they buy. On an open market.

If there is a market for a show, then the producers should, and will continue producing it. Because there is a market for it.

And not all shows go bad at five years.

Just, too many producers continue to see a market where there really is none.

If you would have stopped at the wedding, the show would have gone a year and a half past your proposed 5 year cut-off.

[–] straw_hat_boy_luffy 8 years ago

Shows should run as long as they are meant to. Some shows are 1 season shows. Some 3. Some 5 or 6. Some 8. Some 10+ Shows should run for the length that fits them.

__
Writing is my favorite hobby. Writing something that many can enjoy is my favorite dream.