Nodus Tollens:
n. the realisation that the plot of your life doesn’t make sense to you anymore—that although you thought you were following the arc of the story, you keep finding yourself immersed in passages you don’t understand, that don’t even seem to belong in the same genre…
Many great TV shows go downhill. They reach that state of “Nodus Tollens”. Depending on how willing you are to invest in such things, this can feel anywhere from annoying to depressing; at times, even a betrayal. There is something cruel about causing an audience to care and taking that for granted. For better or worse, we entwine a part of our emotional lives with the characters in stories, we ride alongside them vicariously and grasp them as conduits for inspiration, escape, and many things in between.
By this point we’ve all been burned by shows we love descending rapidly in quality. The reason for this is fairly obvious: the incentive structure for a successful show is for it to continue. But how can we solve this problem? Writing, directing, acting, sound engineering, editing… these aren’t jobs where regular work is a given. If you latch onto a good thing you want it to last. If you’re an actor in your first hit role, or a writer finally finding your way to a story that captivates audiences, letting that go is hard. It’s not just hard in fact, it’s financially undesirable too. The networks or platforms hosting the show will feel exactly the same way. Dragging a show out is often still fundamentally profitable. Cynically leveraging the good will built up on foundations of compelling characters and meaningful storylines to offset the diminishing returns of each passing season is a tried and tested formula at this point.
The price of artistic integrity
I’ve been wondering whether there’s a way to reward people for stopping a show when it has reached the end of its natural narrative? Perhaps a residual payment for shows that stand the test of time? Maybe it could be more cultural, where a lack of artistic integrity is more stigmatised. Or, we could pay for TV shows like we pay for movies. Calculations could be made based on the average numbers of viewers a “good” show would get, and how much they’d need to make a profit, then the price of an individual episode (or season) could be calculated. If a show maintains its quality, then word of mouth and online reviews will draw people to it, and they can pay for it. You can pay for the entire season upfront, or go one episode at a time if you’re in doubt. As you can see, nothing seems practical. No incentive structure currently seems possible to fix this problem.
Possibly we could start more slowly. Imagine scrolling through Netflix shows and in addition to the description, number of seasons and reviews, it could also have a section that says: “most viewers recommend stopping after season X”. A while back my stepbrother told me I should watch a particular show and stop after season two. I followed his advice and it was great. Clearly the story of the show had come to its natural end. After season two, Netflix picked up the show and commissioned more seasons. I’m sure they’re excellent, I’ve heard they are worth watching, but to me it’s a two season story, that was the stop for my particular train.
My last post ended with an interactive question so I’ll do the same here: How would you fix this issue?
Probably something akin to crowdfunding and Kickstarter. Each season is prefunded by those with the interest in seeing it continue. I'd also probably keep the shorter 12 to 13 episode per season format to reduce filler and pay for 12 episodes at a time. Then have the stats regarding backers be publicly available so we have a clear metric that can determine interest relative to past seasons. Maybe include a way for fans and contributors to have direct impact on the show itself regarding direction and termination.
Sometimes fans just really love the characters and stay watching even after the show degrades. It doesn't really solve the incentive structures you described though. For that to happen the very nature of the film industry might need to change. For instance, in this prepaying model, the actors could be regarded as a troupe that continues to work together, and only the stories they tell together changes; which to some degree could be determined by what stories get funded. That might solve the continuity of work issue, by allowing the bidding of multiple stories to be put forth for funding after the end of a show.
My rambled response......
First thought .. art and money. It is an art to let things come to a natural end. There is a Chinese saying.. 点到为止 (to conclude a fight with an opponent by a touch - without killing)
Like in comedy, painting, calligraphy and ceramics... there comes to a point where the making has to be done.
To overdo it... the clay will crumble, the calligraphy will just look wrong and the joke falls flat.
Can Art and Earnings be a homogeneous mixture of harmony?
Perhaps a great TV show isn't art.. it is also psychology.
Which hooks us with nuanced human conditions.
The characters we "ride alongside them vicariously", are the very characters we fantasize about, we have in our lives or dwell deep, deep, deeper within us.
Sometimes we keep watching because we want to know what becomes of us. (oh wait, i mean what becomes of the characters.)
That seems to intertwine.
That keeps the labyrinth going.
Oh wait. So perhaps it is an art too? An art of psychology to keep the labyrinth going that is still crazy but also relatable. That is a fine line to tread.
(Back to Earth with practical suggestions)
Maybe technology of blockchain and NFT is the way to keep the artists paid, which can keep the integrity going. Royalties when someone watches it or transfers it etc.
I was also thinking of an Emotional Platform version of Netflix where categories are "Are you missing your Ex?" --> Here are Suggested TV shows to satisfy your craving to feel or transform your lust to hate. (This could help bring back good shows that was lost in the ocean of Shows.)
(I do almost hate it that price and artistic integrity has to be in the same sentence.
So many things in this world that should not be "in the same sentence" exist in the same sentence.)
Argh. This is where I think my comment shall end.