When it becomes clear the writers don't have a long term plan. I've been rewatching Once Upon A Time. Still my all time favourite show but I'm confident that the writers only had a clear plan up to the end of season 3, after that things start to get fuzzy. Storylines get abandoned and unresolved, things happen that seem to be setting up something that doesn't come, storylines happen that almost contradict past events (for example Snow and Charming having a dark secret about what they did to Maleficent, when you watch prior seasons with that in mind, it's really weird nobody brought it up sooner). Yeah, you can just tell they didn't plan past a certain point and they started adding lore that didn't add up
When the potential long-term impact of the events keeps increasing, but the actual long-term impact keeps decreasing.
Sounds like life right now
Dude, put up a spoiler alert!
It's less of an issue in comedies, but main characters becoming Flanderised in drama series is where it becomes obvious they've run out of ideas.
For example, at the beginning of Stranger Things, Hopper had basically given up on life, and over the course of the first two seasons he finds purpose again through helping find Will, and later, raising Eleven as a surrogate daughter.... And then in season 3 he becomes ANGERY MAN WHO FIGHTS PEOPLE - and that's about it.
It runs in parallel with a show getting too many characters to handle. It accelerates the Flanderization of characters who don't have a lot to do. Stranger Things had that problem as well, with a far too bloated main cast by the end.
For me, Will: It's when... Dustin: The characters in every scene... Max: Talk like... Steve: This.
There are too many characters, and the only way your audience can remember that half of them still exist is... Nancy: For them to start sharing lines.
Loose ends start accumulating and there comes a point where you realize there's no way they could possibly be resolved coherently in the time the series has left. I was feeling this in a big way during seasons 6 and 7 of Game of Thrones.
That pretty much sums up Lost for me. I probably watched longer than I needed to land on that conclusion, but I wanted to quit on a good point to leave the series behind.
I don't remember exactly when I quit watching, but they managed to contact a ship and they were about to be rescued. My headcanon is that they made it home to live miserably ever after. I've since learned that the show got even worse.
I remember watching early Lost promo videos where a very smug JJ Abrams swore blind there was a fully logical explanation for everything happening. And then a polar bear showed up. And I realised that whatever definition of "fully logical explanation" he was using probably didn't align with my own definitions of those words lol. That show was pure hype with talented actors.
What pissed me off the most about Lost is that, very early on, I pegged onto the fact that they were naming a lot of characters after prominent social philosophers; all of whom wrote about things like inequality, the social contract, human nature, etc...
- John Locke (John Locke, Liberty and the social contract)
- Desmond Hume (David Hume, treatise of human nature)
- Danielle Rousseau (Jean-Jacque Rousseau, discourse on inequality and the social contract)
- Boone Carlyle (Thomas Carlyle, the importance of belief)
- Juliette Burke (Edmund Burke, Philosophy of Conservatism)
- Mikhail Bakunin (Mikhail Bakunin, Russian Anarchist)
And a few others. As they introduce these characters, they set them up in opposition to each other and I'm thinking "okay..this means something. They're trying to say something about society in a Lord of the Flies type of way.
I remember myself and a friend of mine discussing the show endlessly after each episode wondering what it all meant in that context. And then...nope...they were all just dead all this time. It meant...precisely...jack...shit.
And it couldn't have been an accident that they so many promininent social philosophers showed up. They CHOSE to name those characters that...for no other reason than a fuck-you-red-herring.
I can't even begin to describe how much that angered me. I've despised JJ Abrams ever since.
Depending on the kind of show it is contextual, but here's some.
If it is a tight self contained story that ends...and then more things happen. Stranger Things for example pretty much perfectly ended in season 1. There was a tiny dangling mystery regarding Eleven's fate. Such things do not need to be a sequel hook, they can simply exist to tantalize and never be expanded on. This is like if Inception 2 was made and it answered the questions about Cobb's spinning totem; it would utterly miss the point that the story was over and the ending was intentionally ambiguous.
If the actors or voice actors are simply getting too old for the part. Personally I have a good ear for animation's voice acting. It drives me absolutely crazy when I hear noticeably aged actors reprising role or continuing them as if nothing has changed. Obviously some performers can last longer than others but for example modern Simpsons is unwatchable to me entirely on the basis of the voices. Even if somehow the writing turned around I simply can't get past the voices. Similarly I could barely sit through The Incredibles 2, which supposedly picks up right as the first movie ends but all the voices are aged 14 years and I can hear it.
Modern Marge sounds like Julie Kavner's been fronting a death metal band for the last 30 years. Let the poor woman rest.
I mean her net worth is estimated around 90million (and she makes about 400k per episode.), she could easily quit if she wanted to. She's also in her mid 70s.
I'm kind of ambiguous about the first point. I think you can expand on a tightly-written, concluded story... but not repeatedly. Furthermore, it requires you to - to some degree - shift the focus of the following stories. Continuing the meta-story is all and just fine, but the immediate story can't be about the same theme/issue/encounter indefinitely.
Back in the 80s and 90s, it was when they added a new child character. In the 2000s, it was when they started doing weird crossovers that made no sense.
I always liked on 'Married With Children' the executive forced child character that was wedged in was gone the next season and the only acknowledgement he ever existed was his photo on a milk jug.

With the notable exception of Malcolm in the Middle.
Baby Jamie wasn't brought in as any way to boost audiences, but rather because the actress playing the mother was pregnant in real life and the writers decided that instead of hiding it, they'd work it into the series.
Considering the show didn't have any dips in quality throughout the saga, it's a rare situation. It's the one show I can think of where a baby was brought in and the show still felt the same (in a good way) both before and after.
Walking back character development/growth.
When the characters are talking about something and say "oh this is like that time when..." and a flashback scene which is just copy and pasted from old footage is used. Then they do this 5 more times in the episode. So annoying and cheap.
A clipshow episode. These were used as cheap fillers when the shows still had 20+ episode seasons, if the production needed to save money this was the easiest way to do it.
For all its other issues, Rick and Morty did this right. They had a clip show episode, but of things that had never aired. Others too, but Rick and Morty is the example that came to mind.
When they have a contained shark that the main character decides to jump to keep establishing his cool.
Seriously though, when threat of the week escalates to such a degree that it becomes a potential universe calamity, it's hard to be worried about Murderer McGee stabbing 13 people to death.
Superhero comics are one of those things where I don't think it's possible to jump the shark.
The Justice League itself was kind of an awkward collaboration starting back in the 60s where they brought together a bunch of disparate different comic characters into a shared universe.
That being said, I think a series has jumped the shark when it becomes entirely unrecognizable from its original iteration to the point of absurdity. You would never expect to see a scene where The Fonz jumps over a shark while water skiing if you only saw the first episode of Happy Days
Shoehorning in a new main character
Shoehorning in a new main character to try to increase appeal
Shoehorning in a new main character to try to increase appeal to sell more merchandise
Shoehorning in a new main character to try to increase appeal to sell more merchandise because the higher ups made a decision to drastically change the original main character in an obvious cash grab
I'm looking at you, ya pop tart colored unicorn
The "clip show" is a good sign the writers are running out of ideas. The writers write 10 minutes of dialogue and the rest of the show are scenes from previous episodes.
Clipshows were a necessary evil on broadcast shows, especially scifi ones that cost a lot of money. Sometimes the show would have to do a clipshow or a noticeably cheap bottle episode to save up for an expensive episode. Also, in the pre-streaming era, people couldn't just watch all the episodes in order on demand so an occasional episode summarizing what was going on was actually useful.
I liked the clip shows from Community because they showed clips from "episodes" that weren't shown. They would just reference events that we didn't see happen and show a clip of it. Idk if that counts though.
a parody of a thing is not the thing itself.
When the clip shows start appearing.
On older broadcast shows, sometimes that was just a necessary evil to save the budget up for an expensive episode.
Identical twins...trapped in the basement...winning the lottery...tonight, on a very special...cousin oliver
When it's based on a book/series and outruns the source material
Meta: when the principal actors become the producers.
When the sexual tension between main characters eventually results in a sexual relationship or they get married.
If it's Cop apologia, when the cop has to go 'rogue' to get 'justice'.
Counterpoint: Jonathan Frakes seems to have done well for Star Trek.
I didn't realize he's a producer (of TNG?), I know he directed a quite a few episodes.
Ahh, you're right, I'm crossing up directing and producing.
Easy enough. It's quite different between film and TV.
In film the director has creative dominance, but the producers do in TV.
jumped its shark
…. Is this a thing? Origin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
The phrase was coined in 1985 by radio personality Jon Hein in response to a 1977 episode from the fifth season of the American sitcom "Happy Days", in which the character of "Fonzie"(Henry Winkler) jumps over a live shark while on water-skis.
Basically any time a show goes on too long and tries to introduce a stupid, attention-getting gimmick to try to stay relevant.
In the old sitcom "Happy Days," after far too many seasons, a new episode featured The Fonz, blue screen water skiing, a crappy looking shark prop, and the Fonz literally jumped over the shark.
Its from the show Happy Days (1977) where Fonzie jumps over a shark while water skiing. Its considered the point where the show took a dramatic turn down hill and the term is still used in that manner today.
It's from Happy Days when the Fonz literally jumped over a shark while water-skiing. Seen as a sign that the show is out of ideas and using crazy stunts or out-of-character actvities to shock some life (money) out of a dying franchise.
When they introduce time travel to fix the CF of plot holes.
Gods, I fucking hate time-travel/multiverse plots. They're so overdone.
They're basically used for when the writers are too cowardly to stick to decisions they want to make. Like killing key comic book characters. Nobody stays dead! Except for characters nobody cared too much about or has lost popularity. Spin-offs are different and can be used to tell stories of maybe what things would be like if X character isn't around anymore. That's fine.
But interjecting lazily implemented multi-verse, alternate universe, time traveling wrenches in on-going mainline stories? Fuck no.
The shows dialogue becomes bloated with convoluted bullshit lines such as "The DOW is over 50,000 right now! It's over 50,000 dollare, you should be GRATEFUL, and we shojld be talking about that!"
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu