What Does A TV Show Owe Its Audience?

  • 17 Comments
 
What Does A TV Show Owe Its Audience?  

Do television shows owe their audience anything beyond entertainment? The backlash to the season finale of AMC’s The Killing has me wondering.

For those who missed either the show last weekend, or the online upset that followed, the final episode failed to answer the question that had been the basis of the show since the very beginning: Who killed Rosie Larsen? Instead, it turns out that that mystery will remain unanswered until midway through the show’s second season — a risk on the part of those making the show, considering the final episode was completed before the series had been renewed — leading a lot of people to complain that the show had failed to deliver the one thing that they’d been waiting for all year, and in the process, somehow cheated them by not saying upfront that they wouldn’t get an answer immediately.

The Killing showrunner Veena Sud seems to be enjoying the notoriety, saying that “the fact that people love us or hate us is a beautiful thing. I don’t want to be kinda liked. The fact that someone loves my show or hates my show is great,” but I can’t help but wonder whether AMC will feel the same way if those complaining really follow through on their threats and abandon the show when it returns next year. After all, there’s good passionate about a show and bad passionate about a show, and disappearing audiences? That’s definitely not the former.

Thing is, I wonder if the upset is slightly misplaced. I can’t help but feel as if the problem isn’t that audiences didn’t discover the identity of Rosie’s murderer in the final episode, but that they didn’t enjoy the way that they didn’t find out. After all, the penultimate episode had ended with what turned out to be the biggest red herring of the season, a “gotcha” that promised something very different than what was actually delivered in the finale. Could it be that people are actually upset about just not enjoying what they saw that much?

I don’t think that The Killing necessarily promised to reveal Rosie’s murderer within the show’s first season; certainly, it was a logical idea t0 gravitate toward, but I’m not sure that — once the show was renewed for a second season, everyone just naturally assumed that it would follow a second murder (if people did so, it was probably because the show’s inspiration, the Dutch series Fordrydelsen, followed that rhythm). That we didn’t find out who killed Rosie before the season finale? It’s not really the end of the world — but in order to make that really work for the viewers who’d invested their time in the series to date, there should have been some level of revelation or payoff toward the ultimate discovery make the entire thing feel less like the reveal had been punted for no immediately apparent reason — something to make them feel as if it had been “worth” the time they’d spent watching.

Ultimately, entertainment isn’t enough for things like The Killing, you see; audiences need not only to be entertained by shows like this — that’s the main thing, that should come first always — but also feel as if there is some value in their paying attention. I feel torn about this, to be honest, because it feels … greedy, perhaps? But it’s also respectful, if that’s the right way to put it: It’s a sign that the program makers are aware of the choices viewers have made to watch the show, and rewarding them for them (Also, I know that I can be a very entitled viewer at times). And that’s where The Killing‘s season finale made its real mistake: It’s fine to dodge the ultimate reveal for a few more episodes, but in doing so, the show had to offer up something of almost equal value instead, and what everyone saw on Sunday just … didn’t. It was another episode of the show, in scale, scope and plot twists, no greater (and arguably lesser) than other episodes so far. It failed to respect the audience, and in doing so, it accidentally risked losing that audience.

Is all lost? No, not really; the show’s second season could – and, really, should – open with something that makes the final episode more worthwhile in context, and build to something that really pays off the long wait for the identity of the murderer, and sooner rather than later. And, while Veena Sud is working out just how to do all that, it might be a good idea to think about why it’s really not that great a thing to have people hating your show …

  • Scarletspeed7

    Wow… Graeme has some serious entitlement issues.  Why would a TV show owe anyone anything?  The show’s creators are creating a show.  Whether you choose to watch it or not is your prerogative.  That you are a loyal viewer does not give you some sort of prima nocte-like control over the outcome of your favorite TV shows.  God forbid people like you determined the plots of other great TV shows or Col. Blake would have been on MASH for 11 years, The Sopranos would’ve lived happily ever after, and there would have been a wedding episode for Ross and Rachel in season 2.

  • comicfan

    The people who make a show don’t owe the audience anything. The audience may expect a certain level of quality and if that is not delieved that can lead to frustation with the view and they will not watch the show anymore. that is natural and approapriate, the show didn’t do anything wrong, the audience wanted something else. the show does not have to that.

    Look at Battlestar Galatica. the last 10 episodes were designed to answer questions and conclude the series in a big bow. Instead they are the worst episodes of the of series. That show thought they were giving the audience exactly what they wanted, but in the end it was a train wreck.

  • http://profiles.google.com/michael.a.busuttil Michael Busuttil

    A TV show owes you two things: entertainment, and consistency. If a TV show stops entertaining you, you can be annoyed. If it starts jumping all over the place, you can be annoyed. Beyond that, the creators have every right to tell their story in whatever way they want to. Imagine if everything in the world ended how you wanted.

  • Kookie!

    The only thing I am upset about is having to wait for the second season to start!..I am so hooked..kudos to Veena Sud for making a show that has stirred up so much emotion in everyone watching,good and bad.And as for a show owing something to its audience..hmmmm all a show truly owes is “that” “a show” what you take from it is what you want!! Good or bad!

  • Ianungstad

    The backlash is more for than a backlash to the season finale. The season finale was the last straw for most viewers who were on the fence since mid-season due to ludicrous plot twists, poor writing and wafer thin characters. It was the final insult. Most of the articles written about The Killing seem to not understand the The Killing has been having problems for some time.

  • VLRYAN

    IT IS VERY SIMPLE, YOU HAVE EXPOSED YOURSELF FOR WHAT YOU ARE – HUCKSTER – WITHOUT THE WRITING SKILL TO FASHION A LEGIMATE STORY – HELLO, DAYS OF OUR LIVES – I FOR ONE WILL NOT BE CURIOUS AS TO THE OUTCOME OF YOUR SCAM – HELLO  DAYS OF OUR LIVES – MOST LIKELY RATINGS WILL TAKE A BATH – VERNON RYAN, SAN ANGELO, TEXAS

  • Tomfitz1

    How is this different, I wonder, from the way The Sopranoes ended?
    The series ended, with the audience not knowing what happened to the characters.

    Still, it’s a calculated risk that the people behind The Killing is taking.  I just hope, that they don’t over-play their cards, like Twin Peaks did in the second season.  The ratings dropped so far that they were lucky to finish the full second season.

  • kalorama

    Most of the people bitching about the Killing seem to have gone into it expecting it to be something other than what it actually is. Now, if there’s any evidence to suggest that the show’s maker’s actively encouraged viewers to expect one thing and then delivered another, then the maker’s are at fault. But as far as I can tell, there is no such evidence. They never said it was going to be an Agatha Christie novel or an episode of Law and Order where the suspects are neatly ticked off and the killer is revealed at the end, hugs all around. So the people complaining because it wasn’t that have no one but themselves to blame.

  • kalorama

    And this:

    “Ultimately, entertainment isn’t enough for things like The Killing,
    you see; audiences need not only to be entertained by shows like this —
    that’s the main thing, that should come first always — but also feel as
    if there is some value in their paying attention.”

    . . . makes no sense. The “value in (their) paying attention” is . . .  entertainment. That’s it. That’s all there is. If you’re not entertained then there’s no value in continuing to watch, so find something else to do.

  • Nataniel Costard

    Well, I guess they learned from Twin Peaks -The Killing`s mother, so to speak-. Twin Peaks lost half its audience after they revelaed Laura Palmer`s killer.

  • http://www.spinoffonline.com Kevin Melrose

    How is this different, I wonder, from the way The Sopranoes ended?
    The series ended, with the audience not knowing what happened to the characters.

    It’s different in that The Killing is a murder mystery.whose driving question, and marketing slogan, was “Who Killed Rosie Larsen?” The genre and the question suggest a resolution — a notion The Sopranos routinely, and gleefully, scoffed at.

    I found The Killing alternately riveting and frustrating, although as the season wore on it was more often the latter than the former. My major complaint isn’t that Rosie’s (real) killer wasn’t revealed in the finale but that The Killing was established as a classic whodunit, challenging viewers to solve the crime along with Linden and Holder — there was even a “Suspect Tracker” on the the show’s website — while making it virtually impossible for them to do so. Seemingly air-tight cases were built against a chorus line of suspects, only to come crashing down at the last second, frequently because of illogical, or sloppy, investigative procedures.

  • Anonymous

    Heroes kept pandering to their fans and look what happened.  An un-watchable mess after 1/2 way through the second season.  Instead of keeping with a well scripted few seasons, they kept bringing back ‘fan favorites’ in pointless roles.  The Ali Lauder twin/clone thing was especially brutal and lame.  

  • Coryjameson

    Ever since being completely screwed over by Ron Moron with Battlestar Galactica, I don’t think that any one investing their precious time in a show is going to take anymore shit from anyone.

    I dropped “The Killing” after they got overly politically correct and it became OBVIOUS that the black teacher was only being used to show how racist white people are.

    AMC had better be careful. They’ve already pissed everyone off by cutting the budget of WALKING DEAD. They screw up again and they can keep their damn “Mad Men”.

  • RunnerX13

    Thanks for putting spoilers in your tag line.

  • Drhiphop85

    “How racist white people are”? I wasn’t aware of that plot point. I thought hte Killing had some great well-rounded white people…*shrug*

  • Anonymous

    Loved The Killing….I was hooked from the pilot…can’t wait until Season 2.

  • Mike Phillips

    The show is TOO decompressed. It’s got moments of great character development, but it’s too slow to enjoy. I guess I’m too ADD… Plus I think AMC got a little too full of themselves with this show. The self-aggrandizing in the commercials was obvious and not believable.