People in charge (supposedly)

[caracas1914]

I just don't get switching a show's format 2/3 into the season several episodes after a long winter hiatus AND a time slot change.  All this bungling is pretty mind staggering even for FOX.

[Cranberry]

Hehe, this title made me chuckle. And to think, back in the days of Popular, I used to think Ryan Murphy was great.

[tab19]

It all reeks of desperation.  As does only doing 20 episodes this season - I'm thinking 13 episodes is the best they can hope for next year.

[bravelittletoaster]

It's a shame Ryan killed this show.  I think if they'd done the "revolutionary" thing I thought they were going to do after season 3, and time jumped 5 years and to the kids a bit older and having found their footing in NY, the show's ratings would have held steady at season 3 levels, possibly even bumped a bit.  But he's so arrogant he thought the cast was expendable and the setting was paramount, and I don't think any improvement in quality could save it at this point.  To salvage this now, FOX should have considered rebranding the show with a new title or something and billed it as a spin off.  Because Glee is pretty dead as a brand.

I just don't get switching a show's format 2/3 into the season several episodes after a long winter hiatus AND a time slot change.  All this bungling is pretty mind staggering even for FOX.

I think it was absolutely the right move.  In September 2012.  It's too late now to do what they should have done a year and a half ago.

Edited April 2, 2014 by bravelittletoaster

[caracas1914]

Yea, FOX bought in to Ryan Murphy's premise that the setting was "the star" which is pretty inexcusable for a prime time Network. They pay the FOX honchos to prevent that kind of fucked up rationale. Keeping the Originals in Lima or even high school, or fast forwarding them to New York, at least they would have been working with the actors who brought them to the dance.

Instead they sidelined them AND kept their main couple separated for a year in different narratives. Were the FOX people high when they OK'd that Murphy sales pitch?

I give Ryan Murphy the excuse his boner for Blee and Blam sort of blinded him but the ones footing the bill...

Edited April 2, 2014 by caracas1914

[bravelittletoaster]

My theory is there just wasn't the will to intervene on FOX's part because a: it wasn't the cash cow it once was, b: even though they knew it was a terrible idea I think they had no idea how far the bottom would drop out of the ratings, and c: he's just such a nightmare to deal with that no one could get it up for that particular battle.  

[caracas1914]

b: even though they knew it was a terrible idea I think they had no idea how far the bottom would drop out of the ratings,

There is no way in hell FOX  would have even contemplated a two year renewal if they had anticipated .9 Demos (.8 in the second hour this week).   The options  for FOX are  lose/lose, do they look even more incompetent by backtracking and  pulling the plug this season if the ratings continue to slip, or worse if they do renew for S6  to "save face".

If the ratings slip even more this season, a 13 episode order for next year would actually be very, very lucky for Glee to get.  How low can Glee go?  Already Glee has the lowest current Demos of any FOX show on the air from Sunday thru Thursday.

Glee has been Murphy's only network hit TV show so I have no idea the perception that  he's this great cultural zeitgist God.   He was lucky he had the cast he had to start the series and he pissed it all away becasue they refused to tour an insane third year in a row.

[bravelittletoaster]

I think the relative success of American Horror Story--which I have my own issues with--is owing to that show's unique format where it reinvents itself every year.  I've always said Ryan Murphy only has the attention span for 13 episodes of anything, so the AHS approach does work perfectly with his limitations, I'll give him that.  

[Joystickenvy]

I think the majority of AHS' success is owed to the cast, which is something RM failed to realize with Glee. The bad writing put the show on shaky footing, but the idiotic power play tactics that resulted in the feckless new new directions/NY split storyline put the nail in the coffin.

AHS having a new setting & characters while recycling fan favorites from the cast is perfect for RM's ADD, though the writing still manages to be scattered. At least they don't have to maintain continuity from one season to the next.

[bravelittletoaster]

Oh, totally.  I agree that it's terribly written, too.  The amazing cast is the only thing that saves it.  

[which show am I talking about?  Hard to tell!]

[caracas1914]

it's clear that Ryan Murphy who was front and center touting everything McKinley when season 4 was about to start ("We've found some real stars in this new bunch of kids who are going to re energize Glee to continue for 4 more years, yada, yada, yada) has been weirdly quiet over the all NY format.

Brad and Ian are now the cheerleaders but apparently Ryan is too busy to say much about Glee these days. 

I guess it's hard to talk much with your testicles cut off.   His much ballyhooed concept, revolving "teenage cast' to make it a franchise machine with regular touring was a bust so I suppose there's not much for him to add to that debacle.

[vb68]

As testy and even as nasty as Ryan can reportedly be, I was always mildly curious of what led to Chord coming back on the show mid -season three and then it was like nothing ever happened.   And I always hear that Chord is a favorite behind of the scenes of the production.    

That was never as front and center as all the spin-off mess was, but I still thought it was interesting.  Was it Brad who very publicly  dissed Chord that summer at Comic Con?   So I do think there were some hard feelings there.

Oh well, I can't wait for the books.   There's no doubt that those will be much more entertaining than the show.

Edited April 7, 2014 by vb68

[caracas1914]

I think that Chord's team had to eat crow and take Glee's terms to get back on the show. I suspect he's probably the lowest paid of the regulars left.

[vb68]

Yeah, it wouldn't surprised me if he had to apologize personally. Ryan Murphy seems like he would be one to hold a grudge to me.

[caracas1914]

The funny thing is, I agree that showrunners should be able to follow their vision, just don't bitch when other disagree with you like Ryan seems to do at the drop of a hat.  And the META commentary by RIB is downright pathetic, it makes them look like whiny  petty little drama bitches....

Wait......never mind.

Edited April 8, 2014 by caracas1914

[bravelittletoaster]

I don't think it was that mysterious.  I gathered Chord's people tried to play hardball, Glee's response was "LOL, no, bye," and then he came crawling back after a cool off period.

[Flippant]

I think the Chord "fanbase" is highly overrated in some quarters.  This year Chord  still holds "the record" as the only solo  single not to crack in the 1500 in ITUNES  for the Beatles "Something."

His songs  usually are the worst sellers in an episode, not that that  ultimately matters but in the vein of why RIB gives him so much screen time to an actor  who receives  neither critical acclaim nor seems to have a sizable  following it's head scratcher, or maybe a bone scratcher..

[whack-a-mole]

There were some crazy quotes from Ryan about how Chord was the future of the franchise as they graduated off others, so I think that's where his people got the idea they could play hardball and demand Lea Michele level money. That's where the "lol, no" happened because it was just the usual Ryan Murphy talking out his ass about how he's a star maker and we all know that's also point and giggle time. Keep trying to make lame supposedly straight white boys happen, Ryan. That's totally working. Anybody heard anything about what the latest white bread from that reality show is up to these days?

[Flippant]

Chord is the only white, straight able bodied male character left on the show .  That is apprently more than anything, worth it's weight in RIB Gold.   It doesn't matter he's dumb as shit, he's a "leader". 

[Guest]

I don't know if anyone will write a book, based on how RM acts when people disagree with whatever he's chosen to do. Yes, he is allowed to have his vision but I also agree he goes on interviews to call people out when they don't agree with it or when they are confused about it(see Graduation-Gate). So.. I would not be surprised if nobody writes a book because they are too scared to be blacklisted by him. 

It's really too bad that we probably won't get a tell all book. Sigh.

In my opinion Glee never did well with split narratives (see: Dalton), so it's no surprise that Season 4 was a trainwreck. But in all honesty, Season 3 tested my patience enough (I still remember when I thought the new writers were a good idea...). So Season 4 would have had to be amazing to keep me watching... The Blam show was the final straw for me.

Do you think that Ryan still cares about Glee? Or is he all about AHS now?

Edited April 14, 2014 by deargravity

[Higgs]

Do you think that Ryan still cares about Glee?

Yes, I believe he's telling the stories he wants to tell, within the constraints imposed by an S6 limit and budgets. (I say this despite the fact that I, personally, have no interest in those stories or characters beyond Rachel, and even there my focus is really on Lea performing her dramatic and vocal tricks.) The NYC characters are maturing (Rachel, though, is still day-to-day), and the dialog and SLs are no worse or more inconsistent or irrational than in the romanticized S1 of distant memory. (How young and foolish we all were back then!)

The pilot was a different matter entirely, as it was designed to serve as a standalone if the series wasn't picked up. Will rejuvenated the show choir and, with the insight provided by someone who loved him, realized his true calling. "Just a city boy, born and raised in South Detroit" was all I needed to hear to know ND would succeed and Rachel would achieve her dream of stardom. So "Fin", as RJR put it. But on (and on and on) it went, and Ryan does appear to be trying to deliver the remaining characters to their respective appropriate starting points of adulthood. (Sorry your fulfilled dream wasn't all you had imagined, Rachel. That's life, but you'll be having another shot to get it right)

Edited April 14, 2014 by Higgs

[camussie]

Do you think that Ryan still cares about Glee? Or is he all about AHS now?

 

Given that there was no tweet from him when Glee aired their 100 nor when they switched to all New York I don't think he gives a damn about Glee anymore.  Probably because he is most decidedly NOT telling the stories he wants to tell, ones centered in the choir room.  After all he has always been the most vocal supporter of the "choir room being the heart of the show" and Fox finally reigned him in and said get rid of it.  

[camussie]

I would agree with that.  His creative strengths lie with fleshing out a "high concept" over  a short season.  When he has to sustain storytelling over several seasons his weaknesses become glaringly obvious (see Nip/Tuck, Glee).  An anthology series like AHS ensures that he doesn't have to maintain characterizations and continuity for more than 13 episodes at a time, which is about his limit.  

I said recently that if RM ever wants to do a do a multi-season TV series again someone needs to make him go to a writing boot camp with someone like Vince Gilligan, creator of  Breaking Bad.  99% of the plots in that show fleshed out the characterizations in a sensible way and built to a series conclusion that made was both consistent to the story they were telling and satisfying.  Sure Walter completely transformed to Scarface by the end of the series but the progression was carefully and consistently plotted along the way.  Really it was the tightest writing I have ever seen in any series and because of that the exact opposite of the writing in the second seasons and following for Nip/Tuck and Glee.  

Edited April 14, 2014 by camussie

[Cranberry]

I enjoy AHS, but he can't even handle characterizations and continuity for 13 episodes. Coven was a hot mess. Entertaining, but a hot mess. Cordelia and Delphine especially were all over the place. I just think that in general, Ryan Murphy is about style over substance. 

[Guest]

I enjoy AHS, but he can't even handle characterizations and continuity for 13 episodes. Coven was a hot mess. Entertaining, but a hot mess. Cordelia and Delphine especially were all over the place. I just think that in general, Ryan Murphy is about style over substance. 

"Entertaining, but a hot mess" seems to sum up most Ryan Murphy shows. I've always felt Glee was a highly stylized show, but at the beginning it had enough substance to keep me interested. Now it's just a string of music videos vaguely tied together by a barely there plot and the best efforts of the cast.

I know we've talked a lot about Ryan in this thread, but what about Brad and Ian? I wonder if they've checked out too at this point.

Edited April 14, 2014 by deargravity

[bravelittletoaster]

Yeah, I think a Vince Gilligan boot camp would do Ryan Murphy about as much good as it would a puppy with ADHD.  He doesn't have it in him.  

[Cranberry]

I actually loved Popular, and I can't quite pinpoint why I loved it but am so disappointed by Glee. It was also completely wacky, characterization varied by the episode, and the "very special episodes" were eye-rollingly bad. Maybe it's simply the fact that it only lasted a couple of seasons and didn't have time to completely ruin any characters I loved. I liked Glee for the first couple of seasons, too.

[Higgs]

Ryan has to care about ALL his projects--past, present and future--as would any producer who was neither clinically insane nor mentally retarded.

We have not seen the last of the McKinley choir room.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Higgs

[Flippant]

I don't subscribe to the notion that Season One was "overrated" and looks dated now.  It was WTF whacky, inconsistent  but entertainment wise it delivered the goods.  Technically most shows look dated the second time around, but I think what Season One had going was that along with the dollops of black comedy and a  subversive streak, the young actors connected as characters and as a group. 

By Season Two, the WTF story lines didn't seem to build on the characterizations started in Season One.   So the problems from Season One were never addressed, and the runaway success of Glee made the show runners think that those problems were irrelevant.

The fall in ratings over time for a TV show is as normal as the decrease in frequency of sex in a marriage.

By TV averages, Glee beat the odds by surviving (presumably) to a season 6.  However, there are shows that had as much buzz/acclaim/ratings  and mojo as Glee did out of the gate and were able to sustain decent ratings throughout their run better than Glee has.  So the  decline to current .9  or 1.0 ratings as "inevitable", no matter what Glee did,  is more than open to debate.  

A decline like Glee's in not the template for all shows that started with similar  acclaim and popularity. 

Edited April 14, 2014 by Flippant

[Higgs]

The long-running TV comedies that sustain their popularity are those in which the setting itself is the source of the humor and the characters hardly change, e.g., "Seinfeld" (where the fact that the characters would never change was the main premise), "The Simpsons", "Cheers", "Friends", "All In The Family". (According to some, "The Office" went downhill because it ceased to be about the generic mind-numbing workplace and the characters were allowed to change.) Glee's main characters, starting as high school sophomores, HAD to change fairly significantly. (So did the players in FNL, but that great show wasn't a comedy.)

So, has there ever been a TV comedy set in a high school, with the students as the main focus, that had greater longevity in quality and popularity than Glee? And if noobs, of however great talent, had to be brought in to replace the aging and graduating originals, was it even theoretically possible to invent SLs that would be as fresh and funny as in the previous three years? Is it possible that the use by date was inherently just one year (which "Freaks and Geeks" couldn't even reach)?

[Coxfires]

Glee has longevity in quality?

Depends how you see IT but Buffy was set in High School and had mostly comedic aspects about it, and handled itself better than Glee

[Cranberry]

Even Dawson's Creek maintained its quality longer than Glee did. Gossip Girl, too. Pretty Little Liars is going into its fifth season (with the girls still in high school!) and has barely dropped in viewers over the years. One Tree Hill had nine seasons and managed to handle the switch from high school to "real life" with finesse (it lost two of the main characters, but that didn't ruin the show). Some would argue that The O.C. maintained its quality as well (personally, I wasn't the biggest fan of season three). Same for Veronica Mars. And the fact that they're not "comedies" is irrelevant. Glee is only a comedy some of the time and is nominated in that category for awards shows because it would never win drama awards.

(As far as actual comedies go, Awkward. is going into its fourth season now and is still generally well-received by critics.)

[caracas1914]

Even Dawson's Creek maintained its quality longer than Glee did. Gossip Girl, too. Pretty Little Liars is going into its fifth season (with the girls still in high school!) and has barely dropped in viewers over the years. One Tree Hill had nine seasons and managed to handle the switch from high school to "real life" with finesse (it lost two of the main characters, but that didn't ruin the show). Some would argue that The O.C. maintained its quality as well (personally, I wasn't the biggest fan of season three). Same for Veronica Mars. And the fact that they're not "comedies" is irrelevant. Glee is only a comedy some of the time and is nominated in that category for awards shows because it would never win drama awards.

For a show that got 21 Emmy nominations it's first year, and 15 or 17 nominations it's second year, it's not a slam dunk it's going to implode critically and ratings wise within a few years.  "Parks and Recreations" has always had crappy ratings and yet in some aspects the show is better than ever, ditto "The Good Wife".  So it's not so much that Glee is a comedy or a drama, or a musical comedy drama, etc. it's that the show runners never bothered to address issues the show had, nor did they keep focus but kept on adding characters, guest stars, etc  to the point that it had to have the largest cast of any scripted show on TV  with plots that had no coherency to what had happened before. 

Glee had some good things it's first year and some memorable episodes and moments even in Seasons 2 and 3, but the show runners took the show's zeitgeist reputation to do carte Blanche with everything and everyone on the show , thinking there would be no audience fatigue.  The shows mentioned above , the crucial difference is that the show runners/writers didn't seem to have such an open contempt towards their own audience. PLus they didn't sacrifice their characters for the exigency of some throwaway SL the way Glee would do.  Season One had set up the characters quite vividly.   Glee constantly refuted it's own canon within episodes, much more from episode to episode.  Glee literally would eventually deconstruct every good SL or characterization it had done.  Take Dalton, which was such a whacky tongue in cheek utopian "gay" prep school in Season 2, by  it's  last appearance I just wanted throw that annoying  school off my screen.  Then in Season 4 it tossed everything out just  to repeat it with a lesser charismatic cast and elevating to leads actors/characters that should have remained supporting. Nothing of Glee's trajectory IMO was preordained but the result of some jaw dropping fuckery, hubris  and incompetence of it's show runners.

Edited April 14, 2014 by caracas1914

[Higgs]

And the fact that they're not "comedies" is irrelevant.

It's not only relevant, it's a crucial difference. A major element that contributed to the success of Glee:S1 was the edgy, character-based comedy, laced with satire and farce. Long-running TV comedies rely on the same, unchanging characters doing the same foolish things, with variations, over and over. But when the characters are teens in a non-animated show, they can't be made static, and if they graduate and are replaced, any attempt to have the newbies, however talented, do the same things, is bound to be seen as a pale imitation of the originals. To take the most obvious example, Rachel was very funny as a sophomore, but could not realistically be kept so as a senior, and as a college student, she, combined with Kurt, was so unfunny they had to bring in Santana's insults. There was simply no way to maintain one of the keys to the popularity of S1. Teen dramas have no such limitations.

[Cranberry]

Why could Rachel not stay funny? Veronica Mars stayed funny after she went to college. She's still funny now, 10 years later. Seth Cohen stayed funny. Brooke Davis stayed funny. They all matured (somewhat, in Seth Cohen's case), but they didn't drastically change in personality like Rachel did.

Glee is not strictly a comedy. It's a dramedy, if we need to categorize it. The writers absolutely could have allowed the characters to change and grow without ruining the show and without replacing them with stock character newbies. Back to the One Tree Hill example -- that show had its flaws, but it did a great job of keeping some of the main cast, losing some, and cycling in new characters who ended up just as beloved as the old ones over its nine years on the air. It never made the mistake of replacing an old character with (basically) a clone of that character.

[caracas1914]

It's not only relevant, it's a crucial difference.

A comedy or drama can (and has) maintained  it's quality, so can a teen comedy/ drama/musical. I don't understand rationalizations that want to explain Glee's incompetency as if was a template that couldn't sustain itself.  Keeping consistent with characterization could have kept it both funny and dramatic, but that required hard work.  Glee didn't turn to shit because it was so difficult to sustain itself, it turned to shit because the show runners shot the goose that  lay the golden egg.  Now that has a lot of precedence.

Edited April 14, 2014 by caracas1914

[Myrna123]

There was simply no way to maintain one of the keys to the popularity of S1.

The only way this statement is true is if there were letters and entire words forbidden to be scripted for Rachel.  Rachel was no longer funny because the writers stopped writing funny things for her to say and do.   Just because Rachel did funny things as a sophomore doesn't mean there weren't different, funny things she could do as a senior and beyond.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Myrna123

[caracas1914]

Rachel in funny situations in HS  would have been fantastic, instead of mired in Finchel drama time after time after time.

Lea salvaged so much with her charisma and acting and that was brought home when they brought in an infinitely less charismatic and skilled comedian, Melissa (as Marley) to rehash the same love triangles and relationship drama.   The contrast was jarring. 

Edited April 14, 2014 by caracas1914

[Higgs]

Why could Rachel not stay funny?

Talent. Rachel's monumental talent combined with her no-nonsense determination to exploit it, then a meteoric rise to a position of high-stakes responsibility. Mediocrity and/or failure could be funny; stardom not so much. Yes, Rachel could still BE funny ("TAXI!!!"), but she couldn't "stay" funny, certainly not as she was as a high school sophomore.

Rachel's long-range SL was set in stone with the casting of Lea, and while it can start funny, it can't end funny. RM's desired spin-off would have given the character room to breathe, but the forced split narrative with limited screen time and limited seasons and a post-dream-fulfillment story still due at the back end left little time for exploratory dead ends or humor. (Eliminating NYADA entirely would have helped enormously. A failed audition for "The Glass Menagerie" versus a serious ballet lesson with a psychopath? No contest. But that's what you missed on Glee.)

Edited April 14, 2014 by Higgs

[indeed]

it's clear that Ryan Murphy who was front and center touting everything McKinley when season 4 was about to start ("We've found some real stars in this new bunch of kids who are going to re energize Glee to continue for 4 more years, yada, yada, yada) has been weirdly quiet over the all NY format.

Brad and Ian are now the cheerleaders but apparently Ryan is too busy to say much about Glee these days.

RM is going to be live tweeting with Lea, Darren, and Chord (+ special guests) during the episode tomorrow night. He said, and I quote, "Ask us anything." Bwah! That should be more interesting than the episode, I'm sure!

[Myrna123]

while it can start funny, it can't end funny.

I don't see Rachel or Lea as the bestest and mostest talented performer ever in the history of the universe; and therefore don't subscribe to an absolutist view that the story of Rachel's rise to stardom can't be funny.  The actual brightest and most talented performers all have funny, embarrassing and silly stories accumulated on the road to where they are.  Rachel's not so special a snowflake that she can't experience funny, silly or embarrassing events as well.  It's simply a question of the writers writing it.  It's not like they're actually telling a story for or about Rachel right now anyway.

[Coxfires]

I don't see why she couldn't have stayed funny, it is just the writers inability to maitain it, not the character or its settings that made it impossible. Everything is entirely dependent on the writing, there are tons of shows with similar concepts that are all declined according to different tones and types of writing. Setting a TV show in a hospital doesn't equate drama: you can have the super-serious type à la ER, the whacky one like Scrubs and the in-between like Grey's anatomy.

What Glee lacked was just good writers, Rachel could perfectly had remained "S1 funny" even with being successful. Now it of course would have been easier if S4 wasn't distributed so that NY only had 8 minutes an episode when the rest was wasted on McKinley, that wasn't either funny or entertaining for that matter.

[tom87]

Yes, Rachel could still BE funny ("TAXI!!!"), but she couldn't "stay" funny, certainly not as she was as a high school sophomore.

 

Talent is why she can't  be funny?  Please I love Lea and Rachel but lets not oversell it.   Sure she could stay funny and still be mature and talented.   But  even if she could not stay funny as you put it there is no reaosn they didn't let her still be funny aka Taxi  or other OTT moments.    

Fun would have been to actually see her auditon with the nitghmare director of The glass mengerie.    Oh how about some odd ball roomate blow ups by Rachel and Kurt just about getting to know each other  by living togehter. 

Edited April 14, 2014 by tom87

[camussie]

Rachel's is talented. no doubt, but she is hardly so talented that she is immune to the "have to laugh or you will cry" process that almost all performers  go through on their rise to the top. Ridiculous auditions, pretentious co-stars, incompetent directors, bad odd jobs to make ends meet are all sources for comedy that Glee could have easily mined if they didn't decide, starting in the last few episodes of season 3, that Rachel would no longer have to work for any professional success - rather it would all just be handed to her (and almost all of the other characters for that matter)

In that same vein I think it was a HUGE mistake to get rid of NYADA for Rachel and jump right to Rachel achieving her Broadway dream.  It would have been much better if she went to college and realized she was but one of many "Rachel's" out there and had her own doppelganger rival to contend with.  That right there is both a goldmine for comedy as well as an interesting part of her journey.  Unfortunately Glee decided it wasn't important after spending all of season 3 setting NYADA up as the end all and be all.  Talk about stepping on their own story.  

Really there was absolutely no inherent reason Rachel's story couldn't have included a sometimes funny, something difficult journey other than RM's own huge ass blind spot about the choir room.  It certainly isn't because she is just so talented that there is no way she would never so much as chip a nail on her way to the top. 

It is, however, because it has been RM's choice to rush to a post dream fulfillment story for Rachel to end her time on the show.  He could have easily built to a conclusion of her fulfilling her Broadway dream while the glee club cheered her on.  I would even contend that if you polled most of the audience in the first 3.5 seasons of Glee they would have said "the show is going to end on Rachel making her debut on Broadway, all of her friends and loved ones cheering her on."   The only reason he "had" to rush through the journey was because of his choir room fixation.  Of course, the companion to rushing through Rachel's story, so she could end up in the choir room, was stalling Finn's so he  never left it.  All because RM wanted to play starmaker for a new generation of no names and when it didn't work out, instead of cutting his losses, he was going to get his ending come hell or high water or probably more accurately until Fox  told him enough is enough.  And even with that he may get the choir room ending after all, with Rachel returning there after deciding stardom isn't all that it is cracked up to be.  What a gross way to end the show.

I imagine if Finn had lived it would have fallen out like this.  RM still wouldn't have gotten his "Rachel returns to Finn in the finale" ending, as by the middle of season 5 the falling ratings would have led to Fox telling RM to cut the show down to one narrative to save costs.  Still because of his choir room fixation,  the show would have ended with both Finn and Rachel returning McKinley.  Finn saying that is where he wants to teach (never mind he could teach anywhere and never mind that he has always wanted her to live her dream) and Rachel thinking that is a great idea because success hasn't fulfilled her like she thought it would.  

Edited April 14, 2014 by camussie

[Guest]

Glee had some good things it's first year and some memorable episodes and moments even in Seasons 2 and 3, but the show runners took the show's zeitgeist reputation to do carte Blanche with everything and everyone on the show , thinking there would be no audience fatigue.  The shows mentioned above , the crucial difference is that the show runners/writers didn't seem to have such an open contempt towards their own audience. PLus they didn't sacrifice their characters for the exigency of some throwaway SL the way Glee would do. 

Such as the writers making meta jokes about audience complaints....

I wish that Rachel had some of the storylines mentioned in this thread.

[bravelittletoaster]

Ryan has to care about ALL his projects--past, present and future--as would any producer who was neither clinically insane nor mentally retarded.

If he does care and this is what he turns out, I'm not sure it speaks much better of him.

The long-running TV comedies that sustain their popularity are those in which the setting itself is the source of the humor and the characters hardly change, e.g., "Seinfeld" (where the fact that the characters would never change was the main premise), "The Simpsons", "Cheers", "Friends", "All In The Family".

Occam would also point out that those were much, much [much] better shows.

And in the new world order plenty of shows' ratings are going UP with each passing season because people are able to catch up on Netflix [breaking Bad's ratings went up exponentially every season.  But Breaking Bad was a really well crafted show, too.]

RM is going to be live tweeting with Lea, Darren, and Chord (+ special guests) during the episode tomorrow night. He said, and I quote, "Ask us anything."

What could possibly go wrong?

Edited April 15, 2014 by bravelittletoaster

[caracas1914]

Dear God, Ryan's' plans for Season 6 sound like a hot mess.

They are some spoilers, (sort of)

http://tvline.com/2014/04/15/glee-season-6-spoilers-returning-cast/#more-509496

[camussie]

Every single time RM says that only reason they shifted to one narrative is because of Cory's passing I get extremely annoyed.  It is a load of BS because he obviously tried to make the dual narrative work, even after Cory passed but ratings hit unacceptable lows and Fox brought the hammer down.  Just look at the first 6 episodes, save "The Quarterback."  They were as McKinley/sophomore centric as always.  Those also happen to be the episodes they were done with or mostly done with before the record low ratings for 502 came in.  It was only after those ratings came in did we see the show shift away from any and all sophomore stories.    

Make no mistake if ratings hadn't hit unacceptable lows we would still have two narratives.  Likewise if ratings had hit those lows, even with Finn still on the show, there still would have been a mandated shift to one narrative.  The show simply reached the point where funding two narratives was not in the budget.  The only real question is did Finn's passing lead to those record lows or was the show headed that way anyway?  I say the die was cast to reach those lows the second they split the narrative but especially after dumbass decision to extend the school year was made.  That was the final straw for so many

I just loathe that he scapegoats "Finn's story" as the reason they didn't do NY only before.  Please the reason they didn't do NY only before was because RM had dreams of being starmaker for a second generation of Glee actors.  He had dreams of concert tours, etc, and he needed an anchor in Lima so Finn was kept there.  They certainly did not give the 5 sophomore actors contracts last summer to support what RM is now claiming was Finn's story.  Finn was well on his way to riding the blackboard, just like Will did in seasons 2 and following.  They wrapped up his finding his passion story by 419 and from stills from 420 he was right back in the choir room supporting the newbies and their angst.  For that matter, I would say even in season 4, especially after the holiday break, Finn was a supporting player to  Blaine/Sam, the true leads of the Lima narrative last year.

Sure he might get the occasional romance or side story in McKinley's halls (as did Will with Emma) but his primary function would have been to hold the sophomores' hands.  I would even bet that is why the catfishing story was dropped. I think  Finn was going to be the one to talk Ryder into coming back to ND 

Edited April 15, 2014 by camussie

[indeed]

Wow, really not interested in watching season 6 after reading that.

[caracas1914]

"We accelerated all those New York stories, and I think that was the right choice. I think that gave the show a burst of new energy. It feels like a new show to me in that it’s much more young-adult than it’s ever been."

Something sounded similar when Ryan talked in the interview about being newly energized by the move to New York and the stripped down cast.

Oh that's right, he said a similar thing when the launching the recast choir room with Noobs in Season 4.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/glee-ryan-murphy-season-four-spoilers-concert-tour-372376

"I feel like I have a really renewed passion for it because I love what we're doing with the old characters and with the new characters."

Love how Ryan is trying to spin it it was his plan all along to shut down McKinley and move to New York.