Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9642972" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Thus far, we've focused almost exclusively on highly recognizable network (+HBO and now streaming) shows that were a big deal at the time. Also*, we're generally going with shows people think started off as very good shows. What if we open the discussion up to, say, non-HBO cable tv shows and first run syndication** shows and such; as well as shows that only ever started at 'okay?' I'm thinking things like Stargate SG-1 or The Magicians or Time Trax. Not them specifically, since I can't remember what their 1st seasons were like compared to later ones, but those kind of shows.*possibly with the exceptions of WoT, RoP, and HotD; YMMV**other than ST:TNGFirst vote would be Andromeda. The idea was not bad -- Roddenberry had been fleshing out the Dylan Hunt/fallen 'federation' storyline over the course of a number of series pitches, actually bringing that to fruition was not a ridiculous notion. Nor was casting Kevin Sorbo, who at the time was just 'the guy from Hercules' (another smarmy hero in charge who would be overconfident if not for being just-that-good). And the first season was... fine. Nothing to write home about, and mostly episodic stuff that resolved the plot of the week and got us used to the characters. However, not far and away obviously worse than the first seasons of similar shows that went on to end up being great (like Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5), and honestly better than season 1 ST:TNG. It was only after Robert Wolfe left that it became obvious that they didn't know where to take it and that Sorbo had no range.Another one is Beastmaster. This one started out aiming even lower -- it was trying to replicate the model/ride the wave of Hercules/Xena with camp and action and exposed flesh. And it was perfectly fine at that model. My wife tells me that Daniel Goddard is very easy on the eyes, and I find the season one baddy (King Zad) a wonderful scenery-chewing performance. Then, like fellow syndicated show Earth: Final Conflict*, it ran into casting issues. People couldn't fit the next season into their schedule or whatever, and so the cast (and story) had to be re-written with every season. *which doesn't match the thread premise, as I think seasons 1-3 are all of similar qualityThere was a third example I had that isn't coming to me right now. If I think of it, I will post it as well. I want the rest of season one I have in my head to be real. What we've heard about the plans for the second half of season one are not particularly great. Regardless, I am with darjr on no more than one season. The premise of being one step ahead of the law, one behind the next paycheck does not lend itself to a long series.This reminds me of how a friend who still watches talks about The Simpsons. By the time the show had ironed out the rough spots, it also was past what people think of as the golden days; and* there's no clear point where it truly 'got bad,' so much as vacillated in quality and in how much of it was filler ever since. *supposedly, I stopped watching some time in the early 90s.I am a strong proponent of the notion that a strong final episode is not the most important thing for a show to have (better than a bad one of course, just not very important). A great capstone does not make everything leading up to it retroactively better, and a single bad episode at the end does not retroactively spoil what came before either. Game of Thrones and bad last two seasons or something like that is a different matter, although even then I think it is only because people were so invested in where things were going that it has made the previous 6 seasons unwatchable to so many. Uncancelled shows are another beast as well. They are even better for this, since you can just pretend they didn't happen and still get your closure.</blockquote>

Verification