What factors do you think are the biggest indicators that a once good show is on its way out? Suppose you were a producer and you’d made your pile of money already- what signs would let you know to go ahead, pull the plug, and let the show die with dignity?
The biggest factors to me would be:
Characters become predictable- you know that Kramer’s going to screw it up, you know that Barney’s going to make an okay situation an out-of-control mess, you know that Archie’s going to fumble the English language, and it’s just not really at all fresh anymore.
Too many cast-changes- and don’t EVER EVER EVER replace a major character with another actor. It never works. Just kill them off or send them to a nunnery (though ROSEANNE did this better than almost any other sitcom when she switched actresses for her oldest daughter, then switched back).
No sense of evolution- a day in the life of a character in the fourth season shouldn’t be the same as it was in the first season or everything is too repetetive. Keep them moving enough to keep things new.
LAW & ORDER would be the exception to this rule. Actors and actresses have spun through this show with regularity and the series (the original) is still a powerhouse. For the life of me, I don’t understand why since the plots all tend to be the same, the cops are led from one witness to another through amazing coincidences and the district attorneys seem to lose more cases than they win.
I think when the writing goes south, so does the show. And I think sometimes the audience simply gets bored with characters, situations and stories.
I think those two posts pretty much cover it. Familiarity with characters can be a good thing, but when the plots start to feel familiar, that causes trouble. Stars leaving is bad, writing difficulty may be worse.
To me, the sequence usually goes like this: 1) writers get to know/reveal everything about the character, leaving little room to explore or new ground to cover; 2) jokey/weird/reach premises result (“hey, let’s do a musical/black and white/time travel episode!”) because it’s a way to get something interesting from the characters; 3) the characters lose integrity and believability, and so does the show. Repeat for as long as the program stays on the air. Also a problem for many shows - sitcoms especially - is that the WORLD never changes. The Simpsons writers know this and mess around with it sometimes. But after you really know a show, you understand that certain major things are not going to happen, and that in any given episode, things will be ‘back to normal’ at the end. That’s okay for a while, but it grates eventually because you’re not learning about the characters, etc.
I dunno. The cast changes were the only things that kept MAS*H and Cheers going. Given Dick York’s health problems, Bewitched had to get a new actor, or else Darren would have wound up playing all his scenes sitting down or lying in bed. And cast changes were pretty much immaterial one way or the other on shows like Mission Impossible and Law and Order.
I think the biggest problem is a) when you run out of things for the characters to do or b) you know EXACTLY what they’re going to do before you even tune in.
Buffy was perfectly fine this season. Especially when compared to that piece of crap that once used to be Farscape (I note how many people are bemoaning the loss of Farscape (a mercy killing) while someone ignoring what’s on the screen and deciding Buffy somehow went downhill).
The issue is not the actors – it’s the creators. Once they move on, watch out. An egregious example was “Picket Fences.” Three-time Emmy winner, then David Kelley goes on to other projects and it jumps the shark immediately.
There’s a difference between keeping a character and changing actors (Darren on “Bewiched,” Becky on “Roseanne”), which can be problematical, and changing characters (“Law and Order,” “MAS*H,” “ER”). New characters often serve to keep the series fresh, since new relationships and new situations will emerge. This is not the case, obviously, with “Law & Order,” which isn’t about relationships, since it basically isn’t really about characters.
On a broader note, many great TV shows are about some kind of unresolved situation which creates tension between the characters. Will Sam and Diane fall in love? Will Mulder convince Scully that the truth is out there? Who killed Laura Palmer?
But tension has a half-life. There is only so far you can take the situation before you either must resolve it or let it become the status quo.
A really good story has an ending that’s planned out from the beginning, and doesn’t just keep going on: it’s actually moving towards the ending. Most Tv shows aren’t like that: their goal is to stay on the air as long as possible. So things just have to keep getting stretched and stretched…
I’m serious. I hear this stated all the time as if it’s some kind of proven truth, and yet the only examples that are given are of times when the technique was used successfully.
Bewitched (which replaced not only Darrin, but also Mrs. Kravitz and Mrs. Tate with new actors) ran just as long with Dick Sargent as it had with Dick York. And Roseanne, which had already been running for quite a while before the actress playing Becky was replaced, ran an additional four years after the change. So where are all the examples of shows which tried to replace an actor and failed miserably?
As a soap opera fan, I’ve always wondered why primetime shows didn’t take more advantage of the opportunity to keep a long-running, familiar character on the air by bringing in a new actor. After all, soaps run far longer than primetime shows – some are still going strong after fifty years. I would have loved to see The West Wing try bringing in a new actor to play Sam Seaborn, for example. I’d at least like to see a primetime show take the risk – until someone points out to me cases where it didn’t work, the only evidence I see is that replacing an actor is at best neutral, and in some cases could easily prolong the life of a show.
Maybe it’s a tautology: if a new actor replaces a major character and the show doesn’t fail, then the original actor or charactor wasn’t a major one after all.
Heck, major, minor, as far as I’m concerned, there just isn’t enough data, and the data that exists is almost exclusively on the positive side.
One more example: Dallas ran for five more years after Donna Reed temporarily replaced Barbara Bel Geddes as Miss Ellie. (Of course, like Roseanne, this is a case where the original actress eventually decided to return.)
So someone give me an example of a primetime series that tanked when a character, any character, was played by a replacement actor. Otherwise, I’m sticking with the precedent set by General Hospital (40 years and counting) and Guiding Light (50 years and counting) that says that keeping the characters when the actors leave is a key to longevity.
Well going to the leading experts on this sort of thing…
It lists about 18 different shows where Different Actor, Same Character caused the jump. But there are people anywhere who will cling to a dead show long after its time and insist its still the greatest, so I suppose it’ll always be debatable.
But my vote for most predicting sign of failure would be the Ominous guest appearance by… Ted McGinley
Another thing I’d like to note is the strange fact that the creative integrity of writers/creators/producers always seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of commercial success and length of time spent in their careers. I blame this wholly on the free-market system, and Fortuna, the fickle goddess of luck.
It also might have something to do with shows becoming too popular…if they’ve gotten a comfortable “niche” in the mainstream marketplace, the network might want to try and keep the show “as is” just to keep the audience it has, resulting in stagnation.
On the other extreme, they might try changing the show too much, owing to a noble-hearted attempt to let the show “develop,” or perhaps due to a less-noble (i.e. “Crass”) attempt to boost sagging ratings, but end up just alienating the fans, causing the show to “fail” in the ratings.
What causes the decline and fall of a great TV show?
Being on the FOX network.
A sarcastic answer, but with a grain of truth to be found within. Because once a network has lost faith in a show, the show is doomed; the time-schedule shuffle, the notes from the suits, the pre-emption during sweeps weeks… nothing can save a show if a network won’t stand behind it.
And standing behind a show means more than just putting it on the air. It means being okay with the creative risks the show’s team takes; it means standing up to the vocal minority that might disapprove of a risky aspect of the show. If your network weighs in too heavily on the side of commerce, and not heavily enough on the side of art, your show is doomed.
Cupid, Firefly, Andy Richter Controls the Universe… we’ll miss what you never got the chance to become. Sniff.
