d0om on 20/2/2007 at 23:22
I remember when I was a kid watching 80s cartoons like thundercats, they never really ended or progressed; it was the adventure that mattered. Did cartoons like that actually ever end? I don't know. I didn't care.
Now I am older though, I do get annoyed when things don't end.
Maybe its an age thing?
Scots Taffer on 21/2/2007 at 00:02
We all seek satisfying resolutions to make us more comfortable with the inevitability of death.
But with regards to the OP, I agree with fett to a large extent, sometimes unsatisfying endings are better than non-endings. For example, many fans found the end of Twin Peaks to be bewildering and something of a non-ending - however I found it simply to be unsatisfying ending, we had the conclusions to the main plot threads and everything else was more or less tied up, it was just that the ending was abrupt, unforseen and rather cruel. I prefer that to, say, most of Lynch's other denouements - which typically make no sense at all and don't close off anything the narrative structure started.
Oli G on 21/2/2007 at 00:52
Perhaps you're looking for great endings in the wrong places. I don't want to come across as snobbish and highbrow, but there's only so much you can expect from computer games (HL2), children's books (Lemony Snicket), action movies (The Matrix) and prime-time TV (Lost). These are all highly marketable forms of entertainment, which means their purpose is to pack in as many of the same kinds of thrills as possible until they aren't thrilling any more. As for myself I got bored of The Matrix trilogy ten minutes or so into the second film, gave up on Lost after the 2nd series (and even then I skipped a lot of it) and abandoned HL2 about 2/3 of the way through (although I did finish it after about a 15 month break). The problem with all three of these is that they don't develop in any meaningful way. They're all good premises, but that's all that they are. Any ending will be nothing in comparison to the beginning, and the longer something goes on the more difficult it is for the narrative to live up to the audience's own imagination and speculation.
I don't think the problem with modern writing in popular entertainment is that the endings are bad (although that's certainly a symptom). It's that everything gets dragged out for far too long. No one can sustain the highest quality of writing over 10 episodes, let alone 20. The more something is dragged out, the less impact its individual parts can have. And the longer something goes on, the less coherent and meaninful the conclusion will ultimately be.
All the best works of literature are tightly structured. They know where they're going and they get there. Every part relates to the whole. And even if they're long, they're concise: every sentence and every paragraph has something to do and it does it - and then moves on.
Popular entertainment in my experience just isn't usually like that. There are exceptions of course, but because they're short by definition, they don't tend to get much notice. I think 6 episodes maximum is long enough for a TV show to take a great premise and take it somewhere worthwhile. After that, everything should be over. Originality disappears, boredom increases, and you can't help but hate the characters. I've not read Lemony Snicket, but 13 books? Not a hope of a good ending. And 9 series of the X-Files? You should probably get our more ;) No abuse intended, but dramatic impact in any form of entertainment is all about concision, structure and timing - and, unlike in sex, if you delay the climax too long, it's just not worth having any more.
Pyrian on 21/2/2007 at 01:00
I don't have much to add, except to say that I agree with most of what's been said in this thread. It appears to be a profit thing; a series which ends, ends the potential for lucrative sequels! Bleah.
Scots Taffer on 21/2/2007 at 01:14
OliG is pretty much bang on the money, and money is precisely the crux of his argument whether he explicitly mentions it or not. It is not the sacrifice of structure that most of these mainstream writers are worried about, it's the sacrifice of potential revenue if they cut a good thing short.
HBO provides interesting examples of this, both Six Feet Under (now finished) and The Sopranos (nearly finished) were extended beyond their original intentions of however many series, and as a result the writing quality wavered and stumbled along the way. However, due to the fact that both writer/creators had a full arc in mind when they began, they were able to (and I'm hoping The Sopranos is going to) satisfactorily resolve the stories being told. They are pretty much an exception to the rule though, even excellent long running comedy shows suffer horrible indignities to answer the moo of the cash cow - in the UK, Only Fools and Horses went about two or three seasons too far, and in the US, Scrubs is still swimming around the bottom of the barrel as it has done since season 4.
OnionBob on 21/2/2007 at 02:08
Quote Posted by fett
I could care less
quit now, you don't deserve a degree in anything
SlyFoxx on 21/2/2007 at 02:51
Quote:
or (preferably for me) in an elementary school library.
:eek: :eek:
RUN CHILDREN, RUN!!!;)
fett on 21/2/2007 at 04:19
Quote Posted by OnionBob
quit now, you don't deserve a degree in anything
I couldn't care less that you guys are still on about that. ;)
Mortal Monkey on 21/2/2007 at 05:57
Hear, hear!
And so they all went to the tavern to drink on their agreement. And that's the end of this thread.
Fringe on 21/2/2007 at 06:04
No, no, the real thread starts after everyone's drunk.
