🔗 Share this article

This scenario is painfully common. Season two of your favorite TV show drops on your platform, and optimism runs high. Season one ended with such precision: narrative threads were dangled enticingly, and a protagonist met a mysterious end – or so it seemed. In the months since the finale, you scoured online forums with fellow enthusiasts to uncover hidden hints pointing toward upcoming twists.

But the new season opener falls flat. It seems as if the creative team was swapped for algorithms. In episode two, your favorite cast member has done something that fans unanimously declare inconsistent. As the story progresses, it’s clear that the showrunners have had collective amnesia regarding plot points heavily emphasized earlier. As the underwhelming ending arrives, you long for an earlier termination.

The Pitfall of Overextension

Wishing for cancellation can only be retrospective; viewers usually oppose premature cancellations. Consider Kaos, an amusing Greek myth parody starring Jeff Goldblum, which was binned by Netflix due to low viewing figures. Yet audiences can console themselves that their enjoyment of the series won’t have been muddied by a sophomore slump.

Looking back at the horror-mystery show Yellowjackets, I now wish it had been a limited series. Season one had a creatively abundant premise, and its 10 episodes were note-perfect. Aircraft disaster leaves a teen girls' team isolated in 1996. Excellent actors (including Juliette Lewis, Lauren Ambrose and Sophie Thatcher) portrayed the team then and now. Several prize nominations followed, creators confidently planned five seasons to fully explore the narrative. But last week, it was announced that it would end with season four. I felt grateful as a viewer.

The Stranger Things cast returns for season five.

Story decisions have weakened the core. Instead of focusing on the survivors' reintegration, and their struggle with traumatic memories, the story grew padded and excessive. That included the show’s tiring habit of highlighting added personalities (including the flat character Callie) who added little to the overarching plot. It’s frustrating, and witnessing a great series decline into annoyance is disheartening.

A Growing Trend

However, Yellowjackets isn't alone. Shows such as Emily in Paris, House of the Dragon, Squid Game and Stranger Things lack original impact, and fallen headfirst into expected or comfortable cliches. At times, programs must stop while successful.

The thing is, there are joys to be had in a limited, “one-and-done” series. From Sharp Objects to I May Destroy You to Adolescence, writers understand when narratives find completion. But the game is over when shows such as Big Little Lies, initially a one-season story, come back for more and more with diminishing returns. Hopefully, Adolescence’s producers have thought twice about that rumoured season two.

The Ideal Model

I preferred Yellowjackets as a limited run, residing permanently in our thoughts, cliffhangers and all. The best program I've seen succeeded this way. The classic teen series, the quintessential youth program, ran for just one year but was cinematic in its scope: the personalities were complex and inconsistent, the cinematography was perfectly autumnal, and the scripts transcended typical youth dialogue. The ending left questions unanswered, yet this mirrors real life accurately of never having real, definitive answers to the open-ended questions from your teenage years. After 18 great episodes (and one mediocre), I felt devastated and created my own continuation to address unfinished business. It might only live on an old hard drive, it demonstrates television's powerful connection.

The Special Relationship

If writers recall the sacred audience-series connection, more programmes can bow out when the time is right.

• The author writes about the arts, music and fashion.