Castle : Should all tv series have a five season life span?

Look, no matter how you look at it, the ending was poor. The ONLY time i can think of a satisfying ending was Battlestar Galactica and that was series that quit on its own terms.
Let's be honest, Castle was jumping the shark for a while and whilst we all like more of something we love, it does leave you with scenarios like this where a show lets cancelled and you're either left in limbo or get a hastily tacked on ending that doesn't do the show justice.
Perhaps all shows should have that 5 years shelf life so you don't go round in circles or scratch around aimlessly going nowhere which is what Castle has been doing lately..
Me? I'd have stopped after the wedding. I wouldn't have had the final shoot out and I'd given each character their send off/ending. Let's not forget Castle is an ensemble piece and the show worked because we loved all of the characters not just the leads.
7 years and you end it like that?
No, thank you.

I just made a thread in which I compare Castle's finale to that of All Good Things (1994) in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987).

I think a show can finish well if it knows when to do it. Even if we want more the cast and crew know when to end it and we get a satisfying conclusion.

I agree that I'll miss all of the other characters from Castle and wished there was a way of keeping them alive but, it is what it is and I had a great time with it for almost all of the way (The Pre-7 stuff more than makes up for the post-7 stuff to my mind).

You should not threaten babies.

No, but most cable shows only last 5 seasons, even if we think they are good. A lot of those are too expensive to keep making and many are made in Canada

In Canada the Gov't subsidies run out after 5 years.

---

Perhaps all shows should have that 5 years shelf life so you don't go round in circles or scratch around aimlessly going nowhere

---

That is my belief as well. I honestly have never seen a show that didn't decline after season 5. The same goes for Castle, it seems the writers didn't know what to do next.

---

I honestly have never seen a show that didn't decline after season 5.

---

M*A*S*H
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
Stargate: SG1
Cheers
Friends

Just a couple off the top of my head.

Not for me. I loved Friends, but it definitely started declining after season 5.

I thought Friends held its own right up to the end.

Same with M*A*S*H.

Others, not so much.

I thought it got even better after season 5.

Yo momma

That's also the opinion of Michael Straczynski of Babylon 5 fame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Straczynski. He planned Babylon 5 as a 5 seasons show (no pun intended). I tend to agree.

Best example? Supernatural. Might have season 6 or something but it had the PERFECT ending, absolutely spot on and then they dragged around and it's now limping around on season 11?
Sometimes you just HAVE to quite whilst you're ahead

---

Best example? Supernatural. Might have season 6 or something but it had the PERFECT ending, absolutely spot on and then they dragged around and it's now limping around on season 11?
Sometimes you just HAVE to quite whilst you're ahead

---

Completely disagree with you there.IMO shows start getting stale when the actors become bored with their parts and start phoning it in or when the writers run out of ideas and lose their passion for the material.I've seen none of this with Supernatural.These guys still love what they do.Did you see the season 11 episode Don't call me Shurley.One of the best episodes of the whole show IMO.

Hmmm. I got bored with Supernatural around season 3.

Haven't tuned into that one since.

Is it really still on?

Going on season 12 this year.Your missing out if you stopped at season 3.Castiel doesn't show up until season 4 and Crowley doesn't appear till season 5.

Ummm, Who and Who? Why would I care, if I was bored before they showed up?

I'm pretty sure they had figured out whatever the original demon was, and they were done with the original premise. And there was a writer's strike or something, and I got out of most of what I had been watching. Besides, I had a young child then, who would sneak out and watch around the corner from where I was sitting, and then he'd have nightmares.He's not so young anymore!

He snuck out and watched some of the last seasons of Buffy, tooand some of The Big Bang TheoryOh! The things I wish he hadn't learned sneaking around! He learned about robot masturbation that way! LOL! What I had to explain about Howard and the robot hand.OMG!

"snuck"?! Spayer, I am well and truly shocked. And you, a self-professed grammar Nazi, slipping into trendy vernacular. Tsk, tsk.

"sneaked is the preferred word-choice, but snuck is also acceptable."

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/snuck-vs-sneaked

Sorry. You're right. I usually opt for the more correct version, even in such a situation, but this time it felt right.

I still use "shall" and "will" correctly (though most people don't understand the fine differences), "like" and "as" correctly (like is comparison between nouns, while as is comparison of actions), etc., though I have a problem with the difference between further and farther, lay/lie, sit/set, etc.

My biggest problems are hearing people use past participles instead of past tense, and vice versa, and using nominative pronouns in objective situations. Also, in writing, the misuse of quotation marks where one really needs to underline for emphasis. I once saw a restaurant board tout the Chef's "specials". I had to wonder why the person posting that didn't think they were very special, or he/she would have underlined itusing quotation marks implies that the person writing doesn't think they are writing the truth.

In my professional life "shall" was binding and "will" only expressed intent; couldn't miss the meaning in those cases! One of my biggest peeves is using "less" when "fewer" was required, as in: 10 Items or Less." Maybe it's time I just let it go.

Oh not so, Dear Skip!

According to my Latin teacher (who knew about just about everything), For the future tense, you use will with the second and third persons, but shall with first persons (both singular and plural). You reverse them for emphasis, as in, you shall go to the store for me, right now! (a bit more of a command). Or I will go to that concert, whether you like it or not!


http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/shall_will.htm


Oh! How about when there is a discount at a store, and you may save up to 20% or more! ? I actually went up to the service desk to ask them to remove the sign a few weeks ago!

Ah, but no one in the Department of Defense knows or speaks Latin. At least when it comes to specifications for systems or equipment. Those things are like binding contracts. YECH!

Department of Defense? When did they come into this?

Meaning/use of "shall" v. "will" in my previous post. Maybe I'm getting too obscure?

Too obscure for me, I guess.

My favorite Cas scene:

*Cas, looking serious and perplexed, sitting on a couch in a motel room while Sam and Dean sit at the table*:

Cas: "This is very complex. If the pizza man truly loves this babysitter, why does he keep slapping her rear? Perhaps she's done something wrong."

*Sam and Dean look at each other*

Dean: "You're watching porn? Why?"

Cas: "It was there."

Dean: "You don't watch porn in a room full of dudes, and you don't talk about it! Turn it off!"

*Cas lowers his head*

Dean: "Great. Now he's got a boner."

*Knock on the door and Sam Campbell walks in*

Sam: "This what you boys do? Sit around with angels watching porno's?

Cas: "We're not supposed to talk about it."



Cas joining the show as an angel was the best thing about this show for a long time. I quit watching the show after Bobby got killed and they turned him into a ghost. Bobby should have been sacred. Dean loved Bobby like a father and was really the only one Dean could lean on. I couldn't watch after that.

In war, victory. In peace, vigilance. In death, sacrifice.

Yeah, babylon5 is still the best example i know of 'properly planning out a show in advance'. It wasn't perfect: some stories did not pan out, sometimes real life got in the way (mostly in the sense of actors being unavailable). But the show was spaced pretty neatly within the pre-planned 5-year run, evolving logically from growing tensions to army-building to war to civil-war.
It never felt like they were out of stories but tacking on more seasons anyway.

In second place are shows that wrote their story from season-to-season but knew and accepted that they were gonna get canceled and tried to give viewers a satisfying final season to wrap everything up: Continuum, The Mentalist, Battlestar Galatica, Jericho, etc.

It really irritates me when i have invested a lot of time in a show and it keeps stringing you on and on and on and you start to realize they have long run out of good stories but after spending so much time with them you want to know how it's going to end. It feels like a bad relationship in which your partner wants out but keeps waiting for you to break up.
Lost and Heroes are particularly notorious examples of shows that promised to have a babylon5-like multi-year arc, but were soon found out to be lying when they kept writing themselves into corners.

And sometimes there is the weird exception that goes completely down the drain but finds a second life: Stargate, Startrek:Enterprise, etc

There are shows I loved that I think wrapped up great after a max of 7 seasons (Buffy the Vampire Slayer had an epic finale IMO). Other than Friends, which I liked all 10 seasons of, I have not seen any show that I feel should've survived past 7 seasons. I think anywhere between the 5-7 seasons mark is the perfect time to end a show, as long as the original writers/creators stay and know what they're doing. I'm sure there are always exceptions, but I'd rather shows wrap up in a way that makes them rewatchable rather than having to cut it off 3/4 through a marathon.

When I was younger, I used to be disappointed when my favorite shows were cancelled at 4 or 5 seasons. I'm pretty grateful now (as long as they wrapped up well!)!!!

I think it all depends on the type of show. NCIS is still doing well even after all these years and look at how long the original Law & Order ran for. If there is a talented showrunner and a team of writers with a clear vision of where the show is headed then I think it can keep going.

Criminal Minds is also still going strong.

But those are the kind of soap-ensemble-shows where you can relatively easy swap out one lead for another in order to freshen things up a bit. There is no clearly defined begining or end, just a revolving door of detectives while 'the team' as a whole is your lead-character.

Castle on the other hand cannot live without Kate and Rick in it, and would greatly suffer if Ryan and Esposito (the b-couple) are broken up.

---

I have not seen any show that I feel should've survived past 7 seasons.

---

I do:

- Doctor Who (but it's a very special series, aren't it?)
- Scrubs (Season 9 is horrible, but the Season 8 ending was perfect, they should've ended there)
- The X-Files (almost the same: Season 9 is very disappointing, but Season 8 has a great story arc and ending)
- Monk (8 seasons, perfect closure)
- ER (great episodes along 15 seasons! also, if it had ended on the 7th season, we would have lost one of the finest episodes on TV, 'On the Beach')
- Frasier
- South Park

-
Sorry if my linguistic skills aren't good enough. English is not my first language.

Don't forget these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-running_scripted_U.S._primetime_television_series

"Ive had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasnt it." - Groucho Marx

At season 6 the 3XK story arc wasn't finished though.

Actually, it was. Enough. It was revived.

And it wasn't that central to the overall story.

IMO 3XK is the biggest story arc after Johanna Beckett's one. Yes it was revived and if they hadn't solved it it would have been a loose end.

And I think that yes, it was central to the overall story since it was significant in the development of Rick's character so I think it's important that they saw it through.

---

No, but they should all be cut down to 13 episodes a season, like a lot of European TV is. 21-22 episodes a season is way too much. I remember when TV shows used to be 32-33 episodes long before they chopped it down to 22. We need another chop down to a more manageable 13 episodes.

---

The advertisers don't like short seasons and won't pay as much for 13 eps on the 4 majors as for 22-24. Without that extra cash the quality usually suffers and viewership becomes untenable. If you decrease it much more broadcast is in trouble.

Cable does more serving of the various niche audiences than does broadcast. That's not to say broadcast doesn't occasionally do something like that but their track record in that regard is pretty bad, especially in the last 10-15 years.

Finally the actors salaries are normally reduced for the first 5 years with the understanding that they will get major increases in years 6+. Ending after 5 screws that up.

So try again.

No.

This is a capitalist society. The very basis of this society and the business world (and television is a business) is that people pay for the goods they buy. On an open market.

If there is a market for a show, then the producers should, and will continue producing it. Because there is a market for it.

And not all shows go bad at five years.

Just, too many producers continue to see a market where there really is none.

If you would have stopped at the wedding, the show would have gone a year and a half past your proposed 5 year cut-off.

Shows should run as long as they are meant to. Some shows are 1 season shows. Some 3. Some 5 or 6. Some 8. Some 10+ Shows should run for the length that fits them.

__
Writing is my favorite hobby. Writing something that many can enjoy is my favorite dream.

Well, a show should run for as long as it is desirable by the audience. I could name a few dead shows that deserve to be brought back to life and some terrible live ones, that deserve to die. Unfortunately it is unlikely that we will be those who will judge that. Though I agree with you on something - I spent eight years of my life for that ending?

Oh, so true! So many shows keep on dragging along ahead of the dead horse for far too long! All in the name of winning that almighty dollar! If only people could learn to bow out while they're ahead, and forfeit some moneybut I doubt that will ever happen.

There have been more than a few shows that have been great past 5 seasons. I don't think this show should be used as an argument for shows to only be limited to 5 seasons. If a show is well written and can balance characters well even when some come and go a TV show could last well past 5 seasons (as some have)

But of course everyone is going to have their own opinion.

---

Should all tv series have a five season life span?

---

No, but they should all be cut down to 13 episodes a season, like a lot of European TV is. 21-22 episodes a season is way too much. I remember when TV shows used to be 32-33 episodes long before they chopped it down to 22. We need another chop down to a more manageable 13 episodes.

In war, victory. In peace, vigilance. In death, sacrifice.

i think some networks are starting to order a 13 episode first season to see how a show does. Unfortunately, the format is wonderful, people love it, and it gets renewed for a full 22 episode season, and the ratings plummet. People call it the sophomore slump, but I think the writers just need to be able to focus on writing a few good stories and not filling time with some of the mind numbing crap called a "filler" episode.

Less filling, more satisfying and no I'm not talking about lite beer. I couldn't agree more, 13 episodes seems more manageable. If you are the BBC, you get away with 3 and 4 episode seasons. Endeavor, Vera, Sherlock anyone?

All the premium cable channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) are succeeding doing just that!

Kind of tagging along to this post. I think there is some merit to a show ending after 5 seasons. I've had a number of shows that while fun at first really hit a wall after the season 4/5 swing. I think the style of show that Castle was and the habit of somewhat repeating narratives really weighed on the show. I found myself several times the last couple of years going "again" someone has disappeared/kidnapped from the main cast.

I agree that the limited episodes seasons do lead to better narratives and tighter storytelling for the most part.

I think some shows like a Law & Order, Criminal Minds, etc. can live off 22 episodes and their case of the week aspects can work until they don't. Case in point CSI franchise.

I also feel that the genre melding that Castle falls into that Comedy/Drama/Crime mixture has a limited shelf life. They can't ever be really serious like Criminal Minds/Law and Order on network TV and shows like The Wire or The Sopranos from Cable. I compare it to a lot of the USA Shows like Burn Notice or Suits, or White Collar stuff that has a fun slant to it, but get bogged down when they try to go to heavy. Hell I'd even say USA is the perfect example of a bunch of fun shows that outlived their appeal and the later seasons suffered.

Showtime to me did this as well with Weeds and Nurse Jackie. So overall I would think that it's not so much the number of episodes (though they do play a role) it's more the framework that is the narrative of a show that can really prove if they should go past 4/5 seasons.