>the show starts great but then it declines sharply and never recovers
>the show starts weak but then finds its footing and becomes great all the way to the end
Which do you prefer
>the show starts great but then it declines sharply and never recovers
>the show starts weak but then finds its footing and becomes great all the way to the end
This never happens with cartoons.
Beavis and Butthead. Hell BB to me is a show that got better with every new season.
Mostly these.
Bojack Horseman?
HAHAHA
season 1 episodes 1 - 4 are weak.
season 1 episodes 5 onwards are strong.
season 2 - season 3 are strong.
season 4 - last season, meh / weak.
Venture Bros morons
VB started great
Does anyone genuinely prefer watching a show they love decline? It's always made me completely miserable. Option 2 all the way, worst case I can just watch it in the background until it gets good.
You could say this about Avatar. The first 10 or so episodes are incredibly forgettable but it's great from the back half of s1 right up to the end.
Like I said before, I don't mind if there is a cut point were you can drop a series without feeling incomplete.
Also, I think ATLA is more like two thirds of a bell curve in terms of quality, s3 isn't bad but it drops a bit from s2.
Simpsons
Obviously the second one
No, it started weak then it became great and then it became weak again and then it became shit
Obviously the latter, but consoomers never know when to let a franchise die so that never gets to happen.
Even now on Cinemaphile you see threads like "what's next for X property" and "should Y property be rebooted/come back" and the answer is fricking no - let them tell the story they wanted and frick off.
I find amazing how The Clone Wars had a massive improvement after the horrible start it had. The middle/latter series isn't free of issues but it's mostly good regardless.
Why the hell would anyone pick the first option?
I don't mind if it has a nice conclusion before the decline is too much to notice
Yeah but "declines sharply and never recovers" implies that that wouldn't be the case
I'd still go with the later choice, but this is a fair point.
>"declines sharply and never recovers" implies that that wouldn't be the case
No?
You can just stop watching Spongebob after the first movie for example.
The hell are you talking about? That doesn't even contradict my statement.
It contradicts because you said it wouldn't be the case
You watch a show throughout its entire run. If the show "declines sharply and never recovers", you will notice the decline in quality and the conclusion will not be good. How does that statement prove me wrong?
My point is that you don't need to watch the whole thing
No shit, but that's irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
How is it not relevant?
Because you have to actually watch the entire show, or at least most of it, to know if it declines sharply in quality and never recovers or vice versa. Unless you're some jackass who only gets their opinions of media from other people.
Wow I'm a jackass because I wanna spend my money and time in something that's worth it and I check what people have said about it
And it is totally impossible to know something is bad from the summary alone of course
Yes. Whatever your favorite youtuber says about a cartoon, you could have a completely different opinion on it if you watched the show for yourself. Also it's easy to pirate stuff, you don't even need money.
I'm definitely watching 30 seasons of Simpsons just so that I can have an opinion on it
The Simpsons is an obvious exception, most cartoons barely even go past 5 seasons, let alone 30.
It means the show started out with a wealth of inspiration rather than finding its identity during its run, there's a certain naive "virginal" unadulterated quality to it, of being an imprint of someone's passion project. SpongeBob, Simpsons, Futurama, Adventure Time etc.
Steven Universe
Legend of Korra
Star VS
Those were all mediocre even from the start and just got worse later.
It's very rare that anything is good beyond even the second season.
The last show that was perfect from beginning to end was Breaking Bad.
#2, improving and ending strong means those people can theoretically go on to make something better.
you guys are forgetting that the 2nd option can be a pain in the ass to get through the beginning, specially if it is a lore show that needs those early episodes to make sense so they can't be skipped.
>Season 1 is shit
>Season 2 is great
>Season 3+ is shit
What's the show, Cinemaphile?
I didn't HATE Kipo seasons 1 and 3 but 2 was the peak of that series
Ren & Stimpy is the only example of this (outside of a few episodes from season 1 being good).
For me, it's "immaculate throughout the entire run"
miniseries are cheating
The only thing I didn’t like was the fact it was actually taking place in the 90’s
>the show is better than average all the way through but doesn't last more than 2 seasons
What about "show starts mid and is always mid but is watchable from start to finish"?
>>the show starts weak but then finds its footing and becomes great all the way to the end
Name one show.
As soon as networks realize they have a hit they'll run it into the ground again.
___TOH___
Is there any example of these 2?
Show me where to start (in anime game dubbed voice)