I think I'll always mourn Pushing Daisies and The Tick.

There's nothing I want back anymore either. I wanted Firefly back when the wound was new, but now I'm content with letting it be what it was.

I'd still like Farscape back in some form

Only if they keep Ricky Manning involved, since he's got the most evil sensibility, and they really need that.

But I don't see it ever happening, and I'd rather be happy with what we got (except for some parts of season 4) than see it tarnished by going on and on like SPN. (Sorry, ita !)

Oh, I mourn stuff. But I am also really really okay with letting things lie.

On the flip side, I got into a big argument (this is where you do your shocked face) with a guy about ending shows. He was complaining about shows going on too long, and Story suffering, and I said--just turn off your TV! They'll cancel it soon enough, no worries. You can stop watching any time--it's not their fault if you don't, and why not let anyone else who's still getting enjoyment out of it squeak by with some extra fun on their screen?

Oh, no, Story will be tarnished. Dude, Buffy doesn't have a GPA or a rebound average she needs to maintain. Feel free to only buy the boxed set up through season 5, and leave other people to get what they can out of the rest. Everything is always cancelled too soon for someone. Just consider yourself lucky it's not you in this case, but why bother complain something's being cancelled too late? If SMG doesn't want a new job yet, it's her call. Not indentured servitude.

Sorry--I've just had so many "arguments" with people who want Supernatural cancelled because they stopped watching after season 5. YOU STOPPED WATCHING. What difference does it make if it's on air or not? You need the timeslot for something else?

eta: ha! I totally wrote this before reading your post, Consuela, but I stand by it 100%. The concept of "tarnishing" a show is completely useless to me. Completely.

What difference does it make if it's on air or not? You need the timeslot for something else?

I suppose it would free up the actors and creators to go on to other projects you might like better.

(I suppose I should add: I'm still following the show and enjoying it.)

Hmmm... For me it depends. I haven’t watched the Simpsons in 15 years, and I just don’t give a damn about it. But I also remember being extremely annoyed at how bad the X-Files got; I kept watching that for longer than I should hoping it would start to make sense.

I've just had so many "arguments" with people who want Supernatural cancelled because they stopped watching after season 5. YOU STOPPED WATCHING. What difference does it make if it's on air or not? You need the timeslot for something else?

Heh. Well, there is the zero-sum school of thought, where Dollhouse got a second season but Sarah Connor didn't, and therefore the one was at the cost of the other.

In general, I don't think SPN should have been cancelled: as you say, I took my leave. But I wouldn't like to tell people they don't have a right to feel that their emotional investment in a show has been hurt when the show goes places they didn't expect in the first couple of seasons, or even degrades in quality (nobody thinks Farscape S4 is the best overall season, although there are some very good episodes in it).

A friend of mine has a theory that the average tv concept has, at best, 100 good episodes in it. After that, the writers have run out of things to say about the characters and the premise, and end up repeating themselves or reinventing the show. Which I think isn't that far wrong, if you look at shows like SG-1, in which season 8 doesn't look much like season 2, and for some people might as well be a different show altogether--different cast, different enemy, different constraints.

SPN season 7 is, by all accounts, not much like season 2: different enemy, different constraints, different assumptions. And people like it, so clearly there's something worthwhile there. But for me, the whole angel-armageddon-destined vessel storyline was so far from the story I'd originally attached to that it just lost me (among other reasons).

I think it's just hard for some people to accept that the show is different now, and rather than deal with their inability to follow it emotionally, they would rather have it end at what was, to them, a high point.

But back to my original point: if the showrunners can't change the premises or the cast, and just keep telling the same stories over and over--well, that is almost inevitably going to result in some degradation of quality. How can it not?

And I know enough about what was going on behind the scenes at Farscape to know that the battles with the network weren't going to get any better--they wanted more accessibility, less complicated serial storytelling, more "casual-viewer-friendly" episodes. And that was almost precisely what Farscape hadn't been since about midway through season 1. I suspect that if that battle had continued on, without cancellation, well. The outcome wouldn't have been pretty.

the average tv concept has, at best, 100 good episodes in it. After that, the writers have run out of things to say about the characters and the premise, and end up repeating themselves or reinventing the show

That sounds about right to me - 5 seasons seems to be that sweet spot where you either get canceled or go completely off the rails.

John Rogers has said the same thing, specifically about Leverage: that a show concept has only got so many episodes in it before it starts to go stale.