Speaking of shows that have to make up for bad seasons, my last argument for the five season structure is that it prevents a show from overstaying its welcome. There is a certain point in a show, an inevitable point, where the ideas are not fresh any more. There are only so many stories a show can tell, only so many ways to reinvent the wheel, and eventually, things become stale, caricaturish and repetitive. We’ve all heard of the phrase “jump the shark.” Well, it’s a truism. And, I would argue, the five season structure works to prevent this by ending the show before it can reach the point where Fonzy climbs onto that damn surfboard.
Look at the shows that became stale long before they ended: Gilmore Girls, Buffy, Scrubs, Friends, Frasier, Will and Grace, Bones, 24, Grey’s Anatomy, ER, Lost. The list goes on and on. And look at the shows currently on TV that should have ended by now: The Office, How I Met Your Mother, House, 30 Rock, Dexter, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. If these shows went off the air right now, would you really be sad about it?
I’m not arguing that for all these shows, you should just ignore everything after season 5. That would be madness. (Except with maybe Buffy. If you stopped watching after season five, I would be okay with that.) But there is a certain mark for each show where things start to falter, and almost consistently, it’s around season 5.
Gilmore Girls, for example, is pretty excellent for its first four and half seasons. Then midway through season five, once Luke and Lorelai finally(!) are together, the writers introduce the character of April. I’m not inside the writers’ heads, so I can’t vouch for the real reason they did this, but as a viewer, it seems like April was added to the mix simply to keep the plot going. The writers didn’t know how to sustain the drama in the Luke/Lorelai relationship, so they used April as a point of contention. But then imagine if the show was going to end after season five. There would have been no need to introduce April and throw a wrench in the relationship. And the show clearly would have been better for it.
Another example would be The Office. This show has one of the best seasons of television ever in season two. And season three is pretty great too. But by the time we get to later seasons, much of the what made the show amazing has dissipated. The tension in the Jim and Pam relationship is suffused; they get together and are happy. And there are only so many times Michael can put his foot in his mouth without begging the question of why the character doesn’t grow. If you look at season five, you can spot a point where the show could have ended but didn’t. And it comes down to Amy Ryan and the character of Holly. Suppose for a second the writers had planned that season five was going to be the last. Michael could have gone off with Holly, just like he eventually does in season seven. It would have been a perfect end to the show and for Michael as a character. If you don’t believe me, try watching “Company Picnic” from Season 5 back to back with “The Search” and “Goodbye Michael” from season 7. It’s a little rough, but you can see how all the stuff in between isn’t really necessary. And all the episodes after “Goodbye Michael” are definitely not necessary. The Office would have been a great five season show.
Of course, these shows do have some great episodes after season five. “Niagara” on The Office, “Once More With Feeling” on Buffy, “My Way Home” on Scrubs. All are what I like to call “Time Capsule Episodes,” ones that if you only had a few episodes to convince someone to watch a show, you would have them watch those. But the great episodes are so few and so far between that they don’t make the seasons worthwhile. And the in fact, the bad seasons often tarnish the good opinion you once had of the show. I know that’s the case for me and 30 Rock. I can barely remember when I used to love this show.
Now, I’m not saying that every show should be drawn out for or end after five seasons. There are obvious exceptions; I’m not denying that. Obviously, if a show goes bad, like, say, Heroes or Jack and Jill, there’s no point in dragging things just to fill five seasons. But what else comes to my mind? First are the Ricky Gervais comedies, The Office (UK) and Extras. The two season and a Christmas special structure work perfectly for them. And certain high, high concept shows can’t/shouldn’t sustain themselves past a certain point. Flight of the Conchords is a prime example of that. Also, I think certain “hangout” sitcoms can get around this rule because they are not so much about structure and story and more about character; character has the ability to last longer than five seasons. Just take a look at Seinfeld, Friends, M*A*S*H, and Cheers. However, imagine for a second that these shows had ended after five seasons. Do you think you would have a fonder place in your heart for them because they left on high notes? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
So what do you think, gentle viewers? Do you agree with my logic? Can you find other shows that contradict me? Do you think I’m bat-shit crazy? Let me know in the comments.
Mary the TV Maven 
I really enjoyed this post.
I think an interesting side point to this topic would be Dollhouse, as it was intended to go for five seasons but was condensed into two. It suffers because of that.
Thanks for commenting. I didn’t know that Dollhouse was planned as a five season show. But that’s fascinating to know. And I agree, it did suffer from being shoehorned into two seasons. (I still love those seasons, though) I think Joss Whedon shows really are some of the best examples I could ask for when defending the five season theory. They just fit so perfectly.
Well at least that’s what I heard – It was certainly sketched out for a longer run than it had.
You can sort of see it in the show itself. If you remember in season 2 there is a section where Echo is working outside of the dollhouse. They more or less just skip over it because they literally didn’t have time to tell that story proprerly.
If it was to be a major season arc (which I feel it could well have been) then it would fit nicely with what you were saying about the third season breaking the established rules and taking more risks.
I still think the show would have ended in roughly the same way that it did, only they would have peered into a few more corners along the way. [That’s why I think it suffered, I quite like peering into corners 🙂 ]
Excellent article, and spot on regarding the quality benefits of a five season run. I would however have loved a season six of Angel, as there was some genuinely brilliant character development and interactions coming, in regards to Illyria, Wesley, Angel and Spike, and even Gunn, who I felt often lacked in good character development. Though, I feel that “Angel” season five is so fondly looked upon perhaps mostly because of the new dynamics explored, and that last six-episode range from “A Hole In The World” til’ “Not Fade Away”, which was among the best I’ve seen in television. There were some holes in the season, especially in the first half, but that was mostly negated by the inclusion of Spike into the cast. I actually wasn’t particular fond of him on Buffy, but his rapport with Angel was wonderful in all its pettiness, history, and emotional depth.
Basically though, the reason “Angel” was a good show was because it constantly changed, embraced the fleeting nature of human life and interaction, while maintaining its emotional charge. That “Angel” constantly reinventing itself was the drive and subtle matter of the show, as it was a show with an existential core, creating its own meaning and purpose, and then recreating them in different clothing and situations. This could be interestingly examined in contrast to the five season run limit you proposed, as it meant that the structure it built up wasn’t leading to any particular climax, just that the climax was fairly easily created out of it. Was “Angel” a show that by accident fit into the five show success mold, or was its wonderful ending and run due to its existential and constantly reinventing nature? The grand finale, where Angel the character chooses something he desperately wanted in favour of doing the right thing, would perhaps point to the latter, but the question would be up for debate.
Kathiravan Isak Arulampalam.