The networks keep their eye on the financial bottom line — how much does this show cost and how much money is it likely to make us? Going by this reasoning, I am surprised that Pushing Daisies lasted as long as it did — very expensive to make by the looks of it and likely too quirky and whimsical to reach a very wide audience. The 'throwing good money after bad' attitude is understandable; profits have to come from somewhere. But I think that the decisions are being made by a confused industry which is forgetting about DVD sales and the possibility of monetising a series on the Internet, by way of (legal) downloads. The studios only seem to look at the initial viewing figures, which are somewhat outdated and not a real measure of a series' popularity any more, factoring in the new media.
It seems to me that a series with closure, a story with an actual ending, has much more lasting value and is a lot more marketable than one that simply stops. Whenever I spot the DVD set of Invasion in a store, I can't help but think that any buyer will feel duped and betrayed by the (lack of) outcome. I can't imagine that the series would get a lot of good word of mouth these days: "Yeah, it's kind of slow at the beginning, but then there is a nice build-up and then it is, like, you know, over." Therefore it puzzles me that not a little extra time and money is put into finishing the final chapter, making the product a much more marketable package after the initial television airing.
I can see that in some instances, such as with Drive, which barely made it out of the gate, this would be virtually impossible. But a show such as Pushing Daisies, like a lot of other serials, had a couple of ongoing storylines which could have been tied together with a bow given the budget for an additional two or three episodes and a notice to wrap things up. Not being an industry insider, I am not sure if it would be wiser to air these final episodes or to only release them on DVD as part of the box set — holding them ransom in a way. Either way, it would make the series as a whole an easier sell.
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.