From what I've been reading, serial storytelling on television is once again on the decline. A lot of scripted shows saw sharp drops in their viewing figures when returning this season. Reality TV shows, or what passes for reality on the idiot box, rule supreme. Audiences can't seem to get enough of fabricated conflict and people making a fool of themselves in a desperate bid for 15 minutes of fame.
Producers are happy to cater to this need, as these shows are relatively cheap to produce. Shows that have episodes which are relatively self-contained, like those from the CSI stable, have been suffering less. These shows require no real commitment from the viewer: you can watch pretty much any episode and follow the main story without being lost and get a feeling of closure by the end of it, unlike when you watch one episode of... well, Lost, for instance.
So what caused this decline in ratings for serials? Most of the blame has been directed at the writers' strike which took place about a year ago. Supposedly people felt betrayed by the sudden discontinuation of their favourite shows, or just lost interest in them over time. I think, however, that a growing frustration on the part of the viewers is the cause, and it goes back further than the last curtailed season.
My personal experience: once upon a time there were two new shows, Surface and Invasion. I gave both shows a chance, invested my time in them and grew to appreciate them, if not love them. I would have been fine with it if the shows had ended after that first season, but because both of them went out on a cliff-hanger, I felt betrayed rather than just disappointed. Someone had just made me waste a lot of time watching a story without an ending or a real point. When the next batch of new series rolled around, I made sure to just tape the first few episodes of anything that seemed promising and check for rumours of cancellation before I started to watch them. This saved me from getting frustrated about The Nine when it was axed and made me pass on Drive, even though that seemed like a very interesting series, starring the deeply charming Nathan Fillion.
My point is this. Before viewers become invested in a story, they want to know that the people telling it will care enough about it to guarantee that there will be an ending. Due to the fickle gods of circumstance, the ending might be rushed or not the ending that was originally intended, but there needs to be a sense of closure. I don't start reading a book unless I am fairly certain that the author will have a go at wrapping things up nicely in the final chapter. This can also take the form of an intentionally open ending like they used for The Sopranos or Angel (well, Joss Whedon has claimed that it was intentional in any case). Both the creators and the networks are to blame for the frequent absence of a proper ending to serials. Creators want to draw people back for the new season or when there is a short hiatus and therefore prefer to keep their audience hanging. They might also figure that an unsatisfying ending is more likely to get fans rallying for renewal, should the show be canceled. Unfortunately, they are probably right about that.
Article comments
1 - Johnnycakes
Interesting article with one major flaw. The last episode of the Sopranos was only ambiguous on the surface. A truly great ending can force you think and discover what the show has always been about. David Chase did that.
What is most impressive is that the writer has crafted a rather exhaustive critique of the conclusion of the final episode, while also providing a larger contextual view, of which the ending is a piece.
The writer also offers an analysis of the final scene and the sequence of shots that I haven't read elsewhere. The essay also contains a fascinating look at the Kevin Finnerty coma dreams, the connection between Phil and Tony in the final season and of course, the meaning of those ducks and how they relate to the final scene.
What it expresses more than anything else is that David Chase created one of the great works of art of the last century. Reading this I want to watch the whole series again.
2 - Steven van Lijnden
Right, well I used the wrong show as an example apparently. Though it is strange that people would need to do a near-academic study of a final episode to understand that the ending is NOT, in fact, an open one. I wasn't a regular viewer (plan to catch up) but friends who watched interpreted it as an open ending. In any case, it was just an example and my point still stands.
For my money, the best series' finale is from Six Feet Under, which manages to leave your heart aching and makes you ponder life.
From an interview will Scrubs'Bill Lawrence on the Entertainment Weekly website:
"One of the problems with network TV is that they don't reward loyalty. I've gotten to the point now that if I find a new show I like, I'll check its ratings before committing. If it's not a gangbuster hit, I'm very careful about getting invested."
See the url for the link to the interview.