GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What's more tragic: a slow decline or a swift, brutal death?

POSTED BY: DESANGRO
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 06:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2846
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:58 AM

DESANGRO


Okay, got a question for y'all. It isn't a happy question, but it's one that I think about sometimes.

For a sci-fi series (movies, books, tv shows, you name it), what is more tragic? A swift and brutal blow that effectively ends the series, ala Firefly, OR a slow (or not so slow) decline in quality (insert your choice of The Matrix/ X-Files/ Star Wars/ Star Trek here). My pick is that even though Firely's untimely passing was tragic, at least we never saw it go down the road of mediocrity. For that, we can be thankful.

What are your thoughts? Speak, because I value your opinions.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:04 PM

WERESPAZ


Well, the best is the quick death, but only once the show has just started on the downward spiral. Something like 3 or 4 seasons and out. Sadly most shows don't stop there.

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:16 PM

LTNOWIS


Either way, it's best to end with an awesome finale, instead of just cuting off the series in the middle, leaving all the viewers hanging. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:17 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by DeSangro:
For a sci-fi series (movies, books, tv shows, you name it), what is more tragic? A swift and brutal blow that effectively ends the series, ala Firefly, OR a slow (or not so slow) decline in quality



Its better to burn out that to fade away, as the Corgan said. My view is that the series should end when it is on top, but of course you really don't know that the next season the quality will dip, and the temptation is there to keep going. People were clamouring (particularly some of the actors) for B5 season 6, but JMS said the story was done, and just stopped. Sorkin bowed out of West Wing when he felt he was done, and some say a season too late (haven't seen his last season so can't yet comment, and intend to do my best to treat the next season as a "new show" to try and give it a fair shot). The Office ran for two series and a Christmas special, and Fawlty Towers for 12 episodes.

In all honesty, most of us would take bad episodes of a show we love rather than no episodes.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:22 PM

OKKAY


I'm nearly 50-50 on this, but I would say that a quick death is worse, because even in a slow decline, you end up with a couple gems that otherwise would not have existed. Especially with Joss Whedon shows; a couple years down the line, we may not have liked some of the directions the characters went, but the talent of the people involved would never have let it slide too far.

I don't think this situation applies to Star Trek, because it didn't seem like a slow decline to me, but rather more of a steep dropoff. Up until Voyager started, Trek was the best thing on television (both TNG and DS9), then once Voyager started, both DS9 and Voyager went down the toilet, and Enterprise has only gotten worse.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:32 PM

WERESPAZ


Quote:


I don't think this situation applies to Star Trek, because it didn't seem like a slow decline to me, but rather more of a steep dropoff. Up until Voyager started, Trek was the best thing on television (both TNG and DS9), then once Voyager started, both DS9 and Voyager went down the toilet, and Enterprise has only gotten worse.


I'll have to agree with you on this. I think TNG had just started on it's downhill slide when it was done, mostly because most of the new ep seemed like some kind of re-hash of a previous one. Never got too much into DS9 myself, but the eps I have seen, I've mostly like. I really like the concept of Voyager and some of the first episodes were pretty cool, but I think that they writers weren't able to take it in a new direction away from the standard Star Trek stuff. Enterprise had a ton of promise and couldn've been really awesome, however (again) I don't think they could get away from standard stuff (a la time travel, borg, etc.)

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:37 PM

DESANGRO


Quote:



In all honesty, most of us would take bad episodes of a show we love rather than no episodes.

"I threw up on your bed"



Hmmm... I'm not sure that I feel that way. To me, if it's bad, and consistently bad, it ain't the thing that I loved in the first place. The temptation is is to ignore it. With some stuff, you can ignore the bad elements, but with some things, no. I do agree about your comment that the show should preferably end while it's still good. So... Firefly ended, but it ended with honor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:42 PM

DESANGRO


Quote:

Originally posted by Werespaz:
Enterprise had a ton of promise and couldn've been really awesome, however (again) I don't think they could get away from standard stuff (a la time travel, borg, etc.)

-The SpAz



I'm not really a Star Trek fan myself, but I saw the Movie that had the Borg in it. Scccaaarrry. And Enterprise ruined the Borg?! Man, that's sad.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:46 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by DeSangro:
Hmmm... I'm not sure that I feel that way. To me, if it's bad, and consistently bad, it ain't the thing that I loved in the first place.



The problem is that you keep hoping that the re-capture the magic, and often they do. I'm tyring to think of some examples. Quatum Leap springs to mind, which should have ended rather than gone for "quirky" - but the final season had some good stuff. In general, if the same team are there, the talent doesn't dry up. Heck, start of most of the seasons of Buffy from four people talked of a drop off, but things always picked up, and looking back at the season things often made more sense.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:58 PM

TEELABROWN


I think getting a quick death before it's prime is just tragic. There's so much to tell.

But for some shows, a slow decline is more tragic, because you see it suffering, and you want it over. Mercy killing. (Isn't it a coup de gras, in the French?)

For Firefly, it was the first. Just so tragic. Gone before it had a chance...*sigh*

_____________
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Teela Brown, keeper of bad typing.
"No one reads these things any way."- Bart on Blackboard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:35 PM

STEVE580


But if you look at Wedon's other shows, I don't ever think this was a possibility with Firefly. Personally, my least favorite seasons of Angel and Buffy were the first ones. Angel season five is by far the most interesting, in my opinion. And Whedon has already shown that he will end a show when he's done with it; and end it well.

That said, if I had to choose, I'd say quick death.
-Steve

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:52 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by DeSangro:
What are your thoughts? Speak, because I value your opinions.




It takes YEARS to decline to medocrity. I would settle for a long slow decline. As it is, I feel Firefly was aborted. It never got a chance with the Faux network

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:57 AM

DYAIRVATREE


Misguided by Voices, just so you know, "It's better to burn out than fade away!" Is from Def Leppard Pyromania in 1983. Well before Coragan or Smashing Pumpkins existed. And I ought to know since I think it's one of the best metal albums ever to exist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:48 AM

SEVENPERCENT


The quick punch to the face we all got when they cancelled FF was far worse than a slow decline- At least with a slow decline you could say, 'well, that answered my questions, although maybe not like I wanted' and you could reminisce (as someone else on this thread said) about the episodes that were great AFTER the series went into decline- We were left with unanswered questions and a brutally short run; WAY not fair- My degree is in English Lit, I could go into detail about the true definition of Tragedy, but I wont, cause you all know it-It's what happened to FF -

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:53 AM

SAINT JAYNE


I look at a real-life example. Do I have stronger feelings for (a) the Simpsons, crawling to a slow death some 20 years down the road, or (b) the Family Guy, plucked from us in its prime?

I'm certainly more upset about the quick death.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:42 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
But if you look at Wedon's other shows, I don't ever think this was a possibility with Firefly. Personally, my least favorite seasons of Angel and Buffy were the first ones. Angel season five is by far the most interesting, in my opinion. And Whedon has already shown that he will end a show when he's done with it; and end it well.



I think Steve580 sums it up best.

Personally, I would say a quick, clean cut instead of a slow decline into bad episodes and then an agonizing finale.

I agree w/ Steve that I have not had that issue w/ any of Joss's other shows. I did think Buffy was a bit slow in the first season, as was Angel, but both of those shows got better as they went along. Now, if that is any indication, Firefly would have only gotten better, and Joss would have ended it when he felt the story was done. I would say around season five or six.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL