🔗 Share this article

Many viewers know this disappointment. The second series of your favorite TV show has just begun streaming, and your mind is full of hopeful expectation. The debut season ended flawlessly: narrative threads were dangled enticingly, and a protagonist met a mysterious end – or so it seemed. During the hiatus, you delved into fan discussions with dedicated fans to decode subtle references illuminating what would happen next.

But the new season opener falls flat. It seems as if the creative team was swapped for algorithms. By the next installment, a beloved actor's character acts in a way that you and Reddit user Fishy2345 agree is totally out of character. As the story progresses, it’s clear that the showrunners have had collective amnesia concerning narrative arcs clearly established previously. And by the disappointing finale, you long for an earlier termination.

The Pitfall of Prolonged Runs

Regretting a show's continuation is hindsight; most fans protest when their favorite shows are canned before they can get off the ground. Look at Kaos, a delightfully satirical take on Greek mythology starring Jeff Goldblum, which was binned by Netflix due to low viewing figures. However, supporters might find comfort knowing their enjoyment of the series won’t have been muddied by a sophomore slump.

Reflecting on Yellowjackets, I prefer it had remained a self-contained narrative. Season one had a creatively abundant premise, with ten flawless installments. Aircraft disaster leaves a teen girls' team isolated in 1996. Skilled performers (featuring Juliette Lewis, Lauren Ambrose and Sophie Thatcher) played the characters across timelines. There were multiple award nominations, producers originally mapped out a five-season arc to develop the plot thoroughly. But last week, it was announced that it would end with season four. And as a fan, I let out a sigh of relief.

The Stranger Things cast returns for season five.

Plot twists have diluted the essence. In place of exploring post-rescue life, and watching how they deal with their horrific new secrets, the story grew padded and excessive. This involved a wearying pattern of highlighting added personalities (like the underdeveloped daughter Callie) who added little to the overarching plot. It's disappointing, and witnessing a great series decline into annoyance is disheartening.

An Increasing Pattern

But it’s not only Yellowjackets. Shows such as Emily in Paris, House of the Dragon, Squid Game and Stranger Things no longer surprise audiences, and fallen headfirst into expected or comfortable cliches. Occasionally, series should end on a high note.

Indeed, pleasures exist in single-season stories. 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, return repeatedly with declining quality. Maybe Adolescence's creators hesitated about continuing.

The Supreme Instance

I preferred Yellowjackets as a limited run, occupying our minds endlessly, mysteries intact. The best program I've seen succeeded this way. The classic teen series, the perfect 90s teen dramedy, lasted for only one season yet felt epic in scale: the personalities were complex and inconsistent, the cinematography was perfectly autumnal, and the scripts transcended typical youth dialogue. Its final episode was bitterly unresolved, but this reflects truth appropriately of youth queries staying forever open. After 18 perfect episodes (and one dodgy one), I mourned its end and drafted follow-up stories to resolve lingering mysteries. Though stored on outdated technology, it demonstrates television's powerful connection.

The Unique Connection

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

• This writer writes about the arts, music and fashion.