Are American tv shows stuck in Act 2 for their entire runtime between season 1 and final season?

It can certainly seem that way sometimes. Shows like The Handmaid's Tale have been circling the drain of their own premise for a few years now. A big part of it, I think, is that they want to keep their main cast for as long as possible, which limits the options of what can happen.

Give me a mini-series, or even an anthology series, any day.

I think the shows with long term success either have multiple independent or semi-independent story arcs or they have a well defined story arc that lasts for the entire run of the show. The characters grow and change as the show progresses which keeps the audience interested.

Where they run into trouble is when the constraints built into the structure of the show limit the number of possible stories, but success leads to them trying to keep the show running after all possibilities have been used. At that point, the show becomes repetitive and boring.

Writing this, I'm reminded of the show, Scrubs.

Scrubs was an excellent show for the entirety of it's 8 season run. The concept allowed for a story arc that lasted the whole run, specifically the story of JD and his friends learning and developing as doctors from first year residents to attendings. There is a natural progression during that process that allows for individual growth of the characters and accommodates natural shifts in storylines to allow for new topics for episodes. In addition there are countless opportunities for different individual smaller story arcs to make each episode able to stand alone as it's own tale.

Because there was a built-in plan creating a structure for the life of the show, they were able to maintain quality and audience interest for all 8 seasons.

If the producers had foolishly tried to squeeze more seasons out of the show after they had exhausted the original concept, they would have inevitably failed. The result would have been a weak and pathetic shadow of the previous seasons and would have rapidly lost the patience of the audience.

Once they realize they have a potential cash cow on their hands they do whatever they can to ensure that they can milk it as long as possible. S1 has no gaurentee of being a hit when its made so show producers put their all into crafting an enjoyable show. Once it becomes purely about extending its life as much as possible. Usually turning the story to crap in the process. I call this 'the Dexter effect"

I like the idea that a lot of series are repeating Act II over and over. I had never thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense.

Showrunnners are never absolutely sure how many more seasons they'll get. If a show is popular, they could end up having to continue it after a conclusion. Or the show could be popular but corporate priority could be elsewhere, and they'll be forced to wrap up promising storylines quickly. Even for shows that announce they have plans for a beginning, middle and end, it's possible that they'll be cancelled before end planned ending, or else have to stretch after the ending has been reached. Safer is to try to just coast along, being non-committal about major plot elements, until something happens that pushes the show to resolve things.

Some of my favorite tv shows' first season is usually the worse. Then the plotlines get better until the second to last season and things resolve. By the final season, the last few threads get resolved and the story ends.

You see that a lot for sure. One show that stands out in my mind of continually moving the plot forward is Breaking Bad. The 'villain' changes throughout the show, Walt has an evolving relationship with Skylar and Walt Jr, and motives change as well for Walt and Jesse. Completely different show from beginning to end.

SPOILER: it's a well known fact that season 1 was shortened due to the last writers strike and had that not happened Jesse would have been killed off at the end of the season. This show very well could have suffered the same fate OP prescribes to most shows since Jesse is so pivotal to the shows overall success. So maybe we should look for shows who's first season is currently being cut short by this writer's strike and that will be the next great show.

Ultimately, the primary satisfaction of storytelling comes from the story ending.

You can do that episode to episode, season to season, etc. I feel like the best shows balance by having plot archs and character archs that can happen independently of each other. That way each episode or two can close one kind of arch while opening another. Because they are different kinds of problems, they're less likely to conflict, giving you the sense of closure you crave while also creating a sort of cliffhanger.

That's really hard to do well though, especially over time. And usually expensive.

A lot of shows start with 2-3 seasons of concepts in mind, and hope to get picked up for more. At that point it gets exponentially harder to go on without detracting from what you've already built.

I'm glad that most streaming platforms are starting to see value in shows with a fixed ending in mind, it just makes for better storytelling.

"final season is announced and they wrap up the show"

Bro must be from 1995 or some shit. Since when does a show get an actual ending these days?

Think we need more specific examples of what you’re watching, but I don’t think it’s just “American tv“—watched plenty of anime that is guilty of what you’re describing.

Plot creep is real, just look at any webcomic that’s been going for more than 3 years. Looking at you (lovingly, c… years ago?) Questionable Content.

Permanently Deleted

Some shows do a better job than others of having a satisfying arc in every episode. The Boys comes to mind in the sense that every single episode has a cool, self-contained story that gets resolved by the end of the episode, as well as an overarching story that spans the season.

Really great shows have a broader plot premise and are free to build new storylines and character arcs each season. As YoBuckStopsHere said, some great shows build up and grow overtime - think Breaking Bad, Parks and Rec. Both shows start off slower, focus on character building in the earlier seasons. Then they become plot focused later on.

Other shows have the flexibility to create new story arcs so each season almost stands on its own but they still stay within the larger overarching premise, example - The Great, Game of thrones (although they really gave up at the end)

I think good shows have a plan for how to get to the end and mediocre shows do as OP described - have a beginning and end planned and not much in the middle. I don't think all shows are stuck in Act 2, but it does say something that the ones that aren't stuck there stand out that much more

I suppose it's the natural result of wanting to keep the show on as long as possible, when you've only got one good idea for the story arc. You need a lot of filler.

I'd like to see more shows done in the style of Babylon 5, where the creator had the whole 5 years written out from day 1. There was very little in the show that felt like filler or treading water.

Which also may explain why books are being brought to TV more frequently these days. But, TV showrunners have a bad habit of taking a good novel and totally mangling it in the translation to TV, so it's not a guaranteed win.

A good show will treat each season as a new story within the over all series, with 3 acts in a season.

It depends on the show.

In some cases, shows are written to be anthologies of stories. The characters stay similar across episodes and seasons, but the isn't really an overarching plot. Sitcoms are known to use this a lot. Plot across episodes is mainly done to give writers something new to write.

In other cases, several plot lines are happening at once which resolve at different times. That way, there is always a plot having something happening even if other plots end or hit a resting point. A lot of soap operas did this.

Finally, there can be one overarching plot that gets resolved, but then another plot starts to take its place or the show ends. A lot of modern science fiction is written that way.

I always found East Bound and Down jarring in some respects, the jump from the US, to Mexico, to Myrtle beach at the time felt all over the place, but in retrospect it gave every season of the show a different world to play in. I rewatched it during Covid and really enjoyed it moving around and even though some people like different venues for the show as a whole I feel it made the shower stronger.

A lot of shows tend to lose steam around seasons four and five or so. Actors and actresses come and go and writers struggle to find new ideas so storylines get recycled and repackaged. Breaking Bad handled this perfectly by willing ending after 5 seasons.

I'm confused by your question.

Is your objection cliffhanger endings? Those are more common in American media. Or is it lack of plot progression, which is common across all media? Even shows famous for moving the plot forward never stray too far from the start.