When should a series end?

[CookieS]

A trend on Toon Zone is for fans of a show to complain about series cancellations that are too abrupt or too slow. I was wondering what kind of time scale we're dealing with, and if that changes.

For example, I recall a series such as "Ed, Edd, n Eddy" first aired on Cartoon Network, and had a lukewarm welcome by fans. Yet, but continuing to nuture the series, it has become one of the core programs on the network. On the flip end of this, we have shows that last only one season or less and just disappear.

So if a show is doing well, how long should it go on? Forever? 8 years? 5 years?

If a show is doing bad, should it continue at least to seasons to "grow on" to people?

[Yash]

It should end when the creator wants it to end.

[Fone Bone]

Yeah, it should be up to the creators not the beancounters. I believe Matt Groening would've ended The Simpsons already if he had his way, to focus full time on Futurama which was cut down in it's prime. Greg Weisman had plans for Gargoyles to go on six more seasons and spawn many spin-offs which sadly never happened. And I am saddened to think that I might never know if Zeta from The Zeta Project ever stopped running.

[Spongebrain2.0]

9 Seasons.;)

[Deadly Messiah]

Ed Edd, and Eddy still has new eps?

Anyway, I think any series that has had more than 26 episodes by now should end.

I think this should be the final season to TMNT, end it with a bang, not with boredom factor like the series from the 80s. I also think Samurai Jack should get a theatrical movie as its conclusion.

Other series I can think of that need to end:

Grim and Evil
Power Puff Girls
Dexter's Lab
Code Lyoko
Jackie Chan Adverntures
The Batman - yes, it needs to end already
Pokemon - Japan needs to end this crap
Simpsons - love the series, but like Jack, it should end with a movie
Kids Next Door

Oh forget it, I can't think of anything else right now.

And 6 more seasons of Gargoyles? I'm sorry, I may love that show, but I think a 4th season should have been the ending unless they wanted to go into the future and have Thailog and the clones wake up to become the main characters.

We need a Shake and Flick series though.

[Master Moron]

Code Lyoko needs to end? In my opinion they've barely even started explaining the plot.

[Kurtman]

I think Teen Titans should have 5 seasons before it ends. It's such an awesome show!

[Alaskanbullworm]

I think it's a very touchy subject. I mean, for any series there could be some plot that could be better than the last and could help strengthen the show. However, this doesn't become the case for most shows that go beyond their good years. Almost any series that lasted long could have stunk if a different plot was used, or could have done better. In the long run, it's all the creators decision. If he wants to end it early because the story is done, do it. If he wants to ad another season on because he has ideas for a new setting for the charcters (or something like that), go for it. Personally, if the creator tied up all loose ends for the characters and provided enough story to determine what type of characters they are, then I can't decide when a good time to end a series is. Some only need 6, or some need 65. Either way, it's all good.

[Rover_Wow]

Yeah, it should be up to the creators not the beancounters.

Especially when said beancounters are Disney, who ended Lizzie's run at 65 despite her popularity, and will likely end KP at the same number despite her popularity. Raven's popular, but surely it shouldn't be the only show that got more than 65...

Even when you're with the CN, you can't always expect stellar treatment, given what happened to Jack. They're hyping up the final eps as if the series was getting closure with them, when it's so clear that it ain't.

[SirLemming]

A series should end when the creators can't come up with any (good) new ideas and/or have lost their passion for the series. An obvious answer, but I think it's the right one.

[Bubblegum Girl]

IMO The average "life span" for a regular animated series should end in either season 4, 5, or 6. Unless the series is very popular then it could last a little longer(As long it's still good ;) ).

Some series can end in season 2 or 3 or even the first season if there's a good reason.(I recalled "Evolution the animated series and it lasted for one season. It was too bad that I wasn't able to see the last episode and will never again....)

However if a series was cancelled and there was a strong fanbase to the show(*Cough*FamilyGuy*Cough*) there's a slight chance it might return. But sometimes a series that returns with a different crew changes the series for better or for worse.(IMO usually it's for worse. Example - PPG)

[Delthayre]

In vague terms, a series should end just before it hits its peak. Perhaps a bit of a denial for the fans, but it ensure that a show goes out on a high note and never gets dragged down.


Series with a planned continuity should be allowed to see their story through to the end, but no farther. Comedies or purely episodic shows are harder to peg, but I tend to put the limit at four to six seasons.

[DaphFlamm]

When the writers start screwing up the characters.

[Conan-san]

When the story has reached it's logical conclusion and the writers beleave that no more can be added to it.

[Czar Gato]

Personally, I think that when a show gets repetitive it should probably end, but it's often at these points that the show is insanely popular. At the same token, it should be up to the creator.

[Tash]

Especially when said beancounters are Disney, who ended Lizzie's run at 65 despite her popularity, and will likely end KP at the same number despite her popularity.Well KP really needs to end. Most people don't relise that creators can't be stuck with one project too long. Otherwise they lose intrest, and the show ends with a bad season that forces it's cancellation. Like that one episode of the Proud Family where the fans forced a cancelled TV show back on the air, and pissed off the crew of the show.

So please, to all of the raging KP fans on the Disney Animation board:
let KP die with dignety.

[The Landstander]

A series should end when it runs out of steam, which is often the same point when the creator wants it to end.

[Shaggy&Daphne]

When the writers start screwing up the characters.
Your statement makes more sense than anyone elses on this thread. I feel the same way. When the characters start acting unlike themselves that's the sign that it's time to call it quits, or when a show losses one of it's cast members, that plays a main character on the show.

[Mister Intensity]

I know many people don't want to hear this but I say an animated series should end when the ratings go down just like a prime time television show. i never understood the rule that an animated series should end after a set number of episodes so they could be in reruns after that because that limits the long-term rerunability of a show. The Flinstones was in constant reruns for thirty-five years which led to further money making opportunities by spining them off because they were always on. I doubt they would have made the same impact if it ended after 52 episodes.

If the creators choose to pull the plug then that's fine but an animated show should be on for as long as there is an audience for it. Ending a show after an arbitrary number of episodes, which gets smaller all the time, limits the creative possbilities within a given show.

Mister Intensity

[Pepperidge]

In the case of Samurai Jack, Gen should've assumed that the series wouldn't last more than 52 episodes and planned the storyline out accordingly so that it would actually end.

[Matt-a-Tastic]

As long as it was oringally supossed to go for

And also, when the writers lose passion in the show, which is clearly what happened to the simpsons.

I don't think Samurai Jack needs another series as the creater would just run out of ideas (Season 4 wasnt quite up to scratch) but it really needs to be concluded in a movie (prefpartlly an animated movie directed by geddy himself)

I think really it depends on the show

I like the simpsons alot, the first 12 seasons were great becasaues there are a lot of different things you can do with the simpsons

I like Ulysess 31 even more but I'm very glad it only had one season: it just woudn't of worked with more seasons.

In my opion with Dragon Ball it starts of getting better (Pilaf + Budoki saga) then for 3 sagas it was at its peak (red ribbon, blue and red) then it started to steadly downhill (Baba - Androids) saga.

After the androids saga dragonball Z is pretty boring, if then though it picks up with DragonBall GT. The Blackstar saga was good, and though the next few sagas it gets better and better. At the Shadow Dragon Saga I think its at its best saga. Too bad it got cancelled |-(

[Shaggy&Daphne]

I know many people don't want to hear this but I say an animated series should end when the ratings go down just like a prime time television show. i never understood the rule that an animated series should end after a set number of episodes so they could be in reruns after that because that limits the long-term rerunability of a show. The Flinstones was in constant reruns for thirty-five years which led to further money making opportunities by spining them off because they were always on. I doubt they would have made the same impact if it ended after 52 episodes.

If the creators choose to pull the plug then that's fine but an animated show should be on for as long as there is an audience for it. Ending a show after an arbitrary number of episodes, which gets smaller all the time, limits the creative possbilities within a given show.

Mister Intensity
Actually, the Flinstones was a prime time television show, so that isn't a very good example when talking about an animated series.

[Mister Intensity]

Actually, the Flinstones was a prime time television show, so that isn't a very good example when talking about an animated series.
I'm aware that it was a prime time series but it was reran as a "children's" series. In many ways, my point is that animated children's series should be treated like prime time series in terms on how many episodes should be produced.

Mister Intensity

[sag_2002]

I feel a series should end when the writers:

A.) Lose passion for the series.

B.) Runs out of episode ideas.

Also, when a series just plain begins to get boring for viewers, that's another sign it's time to call it quits.

[N310DA]

When the story has reached it's logical conclusion and the writers beleave that no more can be added to it.I agree, couldn't have said it better myself.

[magicjac]

I know many people don't want to hear this but I say an animated series should end when the ratings go down just like a prime time television show. i never understood the rule that an animated series should end after a set number of episodes so they could be in reruns after that because that limits the long-term rerunability of a show. The Flinstones was in constant reruns for thirty-five years which led to further money making opportunities by spining them off because they were always on. I doubt they would have made the same impact if it ended after 52 episodes.

If the creators choose to pull the plug then that's fine but an animated show should be on for as long as there is an audience for it. Ending a show after an arbitrary number of episodes, which gets smaller all the time, limits the creative possbilities within a given show.

Mister Intensity
I agree. I also think that a show should end when it reaches its peak. Like "Rugrats" for example. When "Rugrats" ended new episodes in 1993, the series was at its peak. They shouldv'e just ended the show right there, instead of bringing back new episodes in 1997. "Rugrats" was at its peak in 1994 when Nick added the show to primetime and rapidly grew the shows' popularity. If it were me in charge of "Rugrats", I wouldv'e ended the show on a high note in 1993, with a few specials in the up-coming years. Like the Hannakah and Mother's Day Specials. Those were good episodes of "Rugrats", but when "Rugrats" went back in production in 1997, Nick ruined what was already a good thing.

[Prism]

A series should end when the creators run out of ideas or when everything gets out of character. Gummi Bears,Smurfs,Real Ghostbusters,Beetlejuice and several others had more then 52 or 65 seasons and they were considered to be the best toons of the 80's. There should not be an episode count. Some stories are epic and some are episodic. As long as they keep the original writers and stay true to the story then there should be no limit.

[Mynd Hed]

Y'know, it's easy to say, "Oh, it should end when the creator wants it to," but honestly I think that examples like Matt Groening (who clearly knows better than Fox does which of his series should have quit while it was ahead and which should have been given the support to do well and continue beyond when it did) are the exception rather than the rule. I think it's easy for a creator to keep a show going long after all appeal has gone out of it and it's become a travesty of itself if the network lets him/her. Never underestimate the ability of creative people to delude themselves into believing they're still doing great work when it's obvious to everyone that it's no longer the case. (-: (*cough*Lucas*cough*)
Of course, a show should certainly never go on LONGER than the creators intend, but I think there are a lot of cases when the best thing a network can do is to mercifully pull the plug on a show that's past its prime, especially if they're losing money on it that could be going to newer, fresher shows.

I think the more important question than "when should a show end," though, is "how much warning should the creators get that their show is ending," especially in plot-heavy shows that demand a proper close. Too many times I've seen a great show end on a cliffhanger because the creators believed they were getting at least one more season. I think networks should give creators at least a season's warning to let them wrap everything up and make a decent finale. In episodic shows it's not quite as important, although it's still nice to be able to have a nice big finale that pulls out all the stops even in those shows.

[Prism]

It's true that no show should really last for 10 years or more however there really shouldn't be a set limit. And besides that some creators prefer working on one series as opposed to several.

[Wolfman]

Well I think the state of the Simpsons at the moment (and for the past 3 years or so) should be CANCELLED.
The new episodes are absolutely terrible.

[Dudley]

I've seen shows that lasted more than 2 decades, and I think the viewers come first on the decision of continuing a show, the creator comes in second, and the company that controls the amount come third.

[Mystic Shadow]

I think it's a very touchy subject. I mean, for any series there could be some plot that could be better than the last and could help strengthen the show. However, this doesn't become the case for most shows that go beyond their good years. Almost any series that lasted long could have stunk if a different plot was used, or could have done better. In the long run, it's all the creators decision. If he wants to end it early because the story is done, do it. If he wants to ad another season on because he has ideas for a new setting for the charcters (or something like that), go for it. Personally, if the creator tied up all loose ends for the characters and provided enough story to determine what type of characters they are, then I can't decide when a good time to end a series is. Some only need 6, or some need 65. Either way, it's all good.That's basicly the way I feel. You can't just stick a label on a show and say, "That's how long it should last."

[Terrence Briggs]

A trend on Toon Zone is for fans of a show to complain about series cancellations that are too abrupt or too slow.
A trend on ALL fans commons, I'm afraid ;)


If a show is doing bad, should it continue at least to seasons to "grow on" to people?
Shows should last long enough to develop their basic themes. Everything else beyond that should depend on the existence of an audience. Plenty of great shows get it right the first time, but others need time. I see no reason for mediocrity to be dragged out, however. If a show's GRUDGING FANS (Road Rovers is the most obvious example to me, but Sonic Underground fits the bill, too) admit that a show is severely flawed, why insist on prolonging the pain in the hope that a decent thread will come out of it?

I remember Home Movies and Baby Blues being cancelled from broadcast TV after the first few episodes. Those shows were great from the beginning, but at least they got 6 or so chances to build interest. That's 120 minutes of material, which is about as long as the average movie these days. That's plenty of time to develop your ideas. If you can't do so in 90 minutes (3.5 episode), why demand more time?

Having said that, Gargoyles and the old TMNT represent the other extreme. To some fans, Gargoyles "should have been allowed to complete its story", despite the fact that Greg Weisman could conceivably extend the series into something of soap opera length - to rival Guiding Light's 70-some-year run. TMNT lasts more than 150 episodes, and fans thought its cancellation was the result of meddling CBS executives. Sure, but the last two seasons still sucked, and there's no reason a fading phenom should have been kept on life support. Hasn't Power Rangers: Ninja Force already made that all too clear?!?!?!