Someone recently wrote in ...
Someone recently wrote in about the poor chances of Invasion
getting a second season. That would sadden me (I like the show), but I have wondered where it would even go for a second or third season. Some shows seem to be able to keep it fresh and fun for years, and others burn themselves out quickly. I know networks want shows that keep making money year after year, but do you think they might keep the "Arrgh, they canceled my show!" viewers happier if sometimes they released a show that was only meant
to have one season? Some stories are too big for cinema, but they're not long enough to last five or six seasons. Sometimes one season is just about right. (I got this idea from animé, in which stand-alone 26-episode stories are very common.)Answer:
We'll see how this plays out when the networks experiment this summer and into next season with the telenovela format (on My Network TV), which (from what I understand) tells closed-ended soap-opera stories in season-long formats. I totally get where David is coming from. Some shows no doubt would be better off if the whole intent were to tell a story within the confines of a season (just think how much stronger Twin Peaks
' reputation would be if it had stopped with the reveal of who killed Laura Palmer). Unfortunately, as I've said before, network TV works on a different financial model, one that looks toward the syndication of multiple seasons' worth of episodes to cover the staggering cost of weekly series production (not sure that DVD revenues of a single season of Invasion
would justify the expense to the studio). But creatively speaking, I would love to see someone try. (Arguably, Reunion
attempted just such a thing, with a murder-mystery arc that would have been resolved at the end of the season. And we all know what happened there.)