What series/book/story that you liked in the beginning disappointed you the most?

[Rodin]

Was sasuke ever really important to the bad guy plot? I thought he was basically a seat filler for the bijuu hunting squad. As for orochimaru and konoha, as long as they could get the bijuu did madera even care that much?

Not Sasuke - remember, he and the real Madara don't even meet until the final battle.

No, I'm talking about Obito. If Obito had not, very specifically:

1) Gone on that particular mission.
2) Had a teammate get captured and held in that particular cave.
3) Get almost killed by the cave in, such that his friends leave him for dead.

Then NONE of the plot for Naruto happens. Madara bums around that cave for a few more years, then keels over. The End.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second comment, Orochimaru was never interested in the Bijuu that I can recall. I was talking about after his resurrection (another BS ass-pull since his soul SHOULD have gotten devoured by that sword Itachi had) when he's suddenly on the side of the good guys. His obsession with destroying Konoha? Gone for no given reason. His interest in Sasuke? Other than a lingering teacher-pupil thing, he now seems uninterested where he was creepily obsessed before. This is borne out by the sequel series, where Orochimaru just goes off and lives in the woods somewhere. It's weird, and there isn't a Piccolo-style slow shift in his character to justify it.

Could you please make that? I want to see it.

[Scruffy the Janitor] Second. [/Scruffy the Janitor]

[The Fury]

Death Note. It started out as one of the best animes I had ever seen, and I loved every minute of it. Unfortunately, the series died when L did. Everything after that moment was complete garbage filled with dumb characters, plot holes, and way too many contrivances. It almost felt like the rest of it was written by an entirely different person who didn't even understand the show. Such a disappointing ending to an otherwise amazing show.

I had a similar issue with Baccano. I gave it a watch after some friends told me how good it was, and for the most part... yeah, it was a really cool show. Stylish, snappy dialogue... decent plot. Then there were the last few episodes that didn't take place on the train. They felt weird and out of place. Especially the parts with Wrench Guy. While Baccano had plenty of fights throughout its run, the theme of the fights seemed to be quick and dirty. Wrench Guy seemed to be pulled from a Shounen battle series what with him using dramatic attacks that left craters in the ground. Plus he seemed to communicate in slam poetry. All that aside, he was a character that came from nowhere and went nowhere.

All that said, I'd still call Baccano a good series with a disappointing ending rather than a disappointing series.

[Celestia]

I sort of understand this, and I sort of don't. There's a sudden change there, for sure, and from what I hear not a lot of people stick through the shift in the story's focus.

When I first watched the show I had the same kind of reaction to Light and L and the early story. But after a while, I started to understand what the writer was going for. So when that same sort of thing started happening again later on, I went with it.

Spoiler: Death Note symbolism and stuff

Show

I actually really like the second half. It's depicting that although Light had won the battle, he was still nailed down by the compromises he had to make in order to get that victory. He was going to have to continue being careful in a post-L world. Both against people seeking to take up L's mantle and those seeking to take Light's position.

It's really all about how Light's ideal world is ultimately arbitrary and doomed to failure. Although Light beat L, Light will inevitably lose and whoever comes after won't continue what he's done.

Symbolism is fine, but it doesn't excuse poor writing. Near and Mellow are both terrible, useless characters. Near's "investigation" involves him making straight up guesses and happening be right because the plot needs him to play catchup in an impossible situation. And even then, he still only wins because Light makes dumb mistake after dumb mistake like he lost 50 IQ points after L died.

I know that Light is supposed to lose in the end, but with how many contrivances are used to get there, it undermines the entire symbolism thing, anyways. With the situations Light and his opponents were in, he should not have lost there, but he did because the plot demanded it. It's supposed to feel like Light was hoisted by his own petard, but, instead, it just feels like he got cheated.

[Xyril]

Sword of Truth can't be the answer, because that was crap from page one. I didn't make it far in the series, so I don't know how bad it got, but it couldn't possibly be a disappointment after the first books.

Sword of Truth was never great literature, but the first book or two were the literary equivalent of something like a B-movie, or one of those many post-Hercules/Xena fantasy action series: Perfectly fun and readable for when you want something that's fairly entertaining but doesn't require much deep thinking (or more accurately, something that benefits from turning off the critical thinking/nitpicking part of your brain.)

Later on, it transitioned from trashy literary junk food to eating actual trash. As someone whose political views probably aligns with the author much more than the average person on this forum, I got tired of the abrupt transitions where plot basically stopped so that some author-avatar could preach at you for a few pages. I imagine that somebody who disagrees with the author's position substantially would find it not so much tedious as rage-inducing

[napoleon_in_rag]

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time

[Traab]

Not Sasuke - remember, he and the real Madara don't even meet until the final battle.

No, I'm talking about Obito. If Obito had not, very specifically:

1) Gone on that particular mission.
2) Had a teammate get captured and held in that particular cave.
3) Get almost killed by the cave in, such that his friends leave him for dead.

Then NONE of the plot for Naruto happens. Madara bums around that cave for a few more years, then keels over. The End.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second comment, Orochimaru was never interested in the Bijuu that I can recall. I was talking about after his resurrection (another BS ass-pull since his soul SHOULD have gotten devoured by that sword Itachi had) when he's suddenly on the side of the good guys. His obsession with destroying Konoha? Gone for no given reason. His interest in Sasuke? Other than a lingering teacher-pupil thing, he now seems uninterested where he was creepily obsessed before. This is borne out by the sequel series, where Orochimaru just goes off and lives in the woods somewhere. It's weird, and there isn't a Piccolo-style slow shift in his character to justify it.




[Scruffy the Janitor] Second. [/Scruffy the Janitor]

First part yeah, I missed the switch to obito, oops. As for orochimaru, I thought you meant his plans for konoha somehow impacted maderas end goals. I didnt realize it was more a complaint about how orochimaru just stopped wanting to bother. Though I suppose it makes some sense. A big part of it was his anger at his sensei. Well his sensei is dead, killed due to his invasion, so he got his revenge there, and he tried to destroy konoha and failed miserably, so its doubtful he wants to go through all that effort to spite someone he has already seen dead. As for his soul, there are two things to consider here. One, itachis sword is a trap, not a soul devouring thing. Secondly, he has chunks of his soul absolutely EVERYWHERE. His arms were eaten by the shinigami, his seals have little chunks everywhere in who knows how many test subjects, itachis susanoo has a large bit of it sealed in that sake blade thing of his. Trying to guess what the result of him being resurrected should be is pretty complicated all things considered. As for his obsession it was less sasuke and more sharingan. He wanted those eyes and sasuke had the only pair he stood a chance of nabbing. Im not sure why he couldnt take some from danzo considering he showed us we totally dont need to replace actual eyes to get a functioning sharingan. Im sure orochimaru could have slapped one on his forehead and copied jutsu to his hearts content, putting an eyepatch on like kakashi when he didnt want to burn the chakra.

Now the grand plan relying on obito. There would be absolutely nothing stopping madera or zetsu from setting up a trap for obito. That brings into question why he waited so long then jumped on the first opening sure, but its not like madera couldnt have pulled that off.

[2D8HP]

I'm trying to think of a series where I don't find the later installments less entertaining than the first, um....

Aliens was as good as Alien.

The Road Warrior was better than Mad Max.

The Empire Strikes Back was as good as Star Wars.

Goldfinger was better than both Doctor No and From Russia With Love.

Stormbringer was better than The Dreaming City.

The Tower of the Elephant was better than The Phoenix in the Sword.

The subsequent seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation were better than the first.

The last season of Enterprise was the best.

The Terry Pratchett novels without Rincewind (and especially Two Flower) were better.

And Rocket to Russia was a better album than Ramones, and Leave Home,

otherwise I can't think of any works that don't lose something compared to the earlier installments.

Change is usually bad for me, other people find things improving?

A thread saying what series get better interests me!

[tensai_oni]

Re;creators.

This isn't a case of late entries, seasons or episodes not being as good as the early ones, or a slow decline in quality. This is a series where knowing what happens in the endgame stretch actively ruins the first 17 episodes. This is because the first two thirds of the show are either buildup (to a really disappointing payoff later on) or character drama (which is meaningless as almost all characters then get poor treatment and become aggressively irrelevant at best).

Tl;dr version: it's a series that's really convincing at promising you a great finale and then delivers an incredibly crappy one.

[Kitten Champion]

A thread saying what series get better interests me!

Okay, sure, why not?

[tomandtish]

The subsequent seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation were better than the first.

The last season of Enterprise was the best.

With TV shows, this isn't that surprising. For your typical broadcast shows there's usually one of two scenarios....

1) The first season is of a set quality. That quality is either too poor to generate a second season, or it does, and the second season is poorer and the show usually dies during/at the end of that second season.

2) The first season is of a set quality. That show is of sufficient quality to generate a second season which is of better quality, and the show continues. Repeat until it declines.

There are exceptions, but I have a hard time picturing any show that went 5 or more seasons where the general consensus is that the first season was the best. Likewise I wouldn;t expect the last season of any show going that long to be the best. Enterprise seems to be an exception in some people's opinion.

Aliens was as good as Alien.

The Road Warrior was better than Mad Max.

The Empire Strikes Back was as good as [I]Star Wars.

Change is usually bad for me, other people find things improving?

A thread saying what series get better interests me!

I think most people feel Thor: Ragnarok was better than the first two. One of the few example I feel that way about in movies, esp. trilogies.

[Summer Lamb]

MOST AT ALL disappointed me "Fahrenheit 451" be Ray Bradbury!
People talked about her so much and said that it was very important. The story is interesting and the idea, but GOD main character, terribly annoys me. I only reached the middle of the book, tolerated his behavior, but at some point I just closed the book and put it away.
It would have been much better and more interesting if the protagonist had not been so weak and did not betray anyone.
Also "Submarine" by Joe Dunthorne. So messy and uncomfortable to reed

[2D8HP]

While upthread I've mentioned that I've long expected to enjoy sequels less than originals and exceptions to that rule are what suprise me, when I love a work I'm still a little bit disappointed that I'm not enjoying the sequel as much, but I can think of a few times when, either because I hadn't yet learned better or the sequel suprised me by being even worse than my lower expectations:

Return of the Jedi.

I loved Star Wars, and I really liked The Empire Strikes Back, but the selfish and smug Skywalker plus the teddy-bear-vietcong of Jedi really were disappointments.


After buying everything Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons that my meager allowance could get me for years, the 1985 Unearthed Arcana supplement unbalanced the game and disappointed me so much that I quit buying new D&D & AD&D books for decades.


And I was surprised and disappointed when after I dipped my toe bsck into D&D again and started buying 3e D&D books, only for them to be quickly made obsolete when WotC within a decade of 3e published both 3.5 and 4e, not that the quality was bad, it was that those editions existed at all so soon after 3e was published.

[dps]

With TV shows, this isn't that surprising. For your typical broadcast shows there's usually one of two scenarios....

1) The first season is of a set quality. That quality is either too poor to generate a second season, or it does, and the second season is poorer and the show usually dies during/at the end of that second season.

2) The first season is of a set quality. That show is of sufficient quality to generate a second season which is of better quality, and the show continues. Repeat until it declines.

Whether or not a show gets renewed for an additional season has nothing to do with quality--it's about the ratings. You are confusing popularity with quality.

[Celestia]

Whether or not a show gets renewed for an additional season has nothing to do with quality--it's about the ratings. You are confusing popularity with quality.

Well, there does tend to be a correlation between quality and ratings...

And ratings aren't always the only concern. Sometimes, there is something more being considered. Many kids' shows, for example, often get cancelled due to poor merchandise sales, even if the show, itself, has great ratings.

[deuterio12]

Whether or not a show gets renewed for an additional season has nothing to do with quality--it's about the ratings. You are confusing popularity with quality.

A show's main purpose is to entertain people. If a show entertains people, then it has quality.

[Rynjin]

A show's main purpose is to entertain people. If a show entertains people, then it has quality.

Leaving aside that debatable statement, there isn't necessarily a correlation between ratings and entertainment value. A lot of shows get bad ratings due to their timeslot or other factors. Farscape is one of the best sci-fi series ever made, but it constantly struggled in the ratings because of network shenanigans.

[LordEntrails]

Dark Matters. First season was exceptional, after that they were just "regular".

[Velaryon]

Leaving aside that debatable statement, there isn't necessarily a correlation between ratings and entertainment value. A lot of shows get bad ratings due to their timeslot or other factors. Farscape is one of the best sci-fi series ever made, but it constantly struggled in the ratings because of network shenanigans.

Farscape is but one of many series that have been recognized for their quality over the years, but which did not survive long for various reasons. Sometimes a show isn't adequately promoted, so the viewership numbers aren't strong and the network cancels it before it can find its fan base. Sometimes a show gets moved to a bad time slot because executives want to make room for a new show, or because some higher-up doesn't like that show for some reason, and viewership declines because of the time slot. And so on.

Linking the quality of a TV series to its ratings numbers comes perilously close to equating quality with popularity. If you claim popularity as the measuring stick for quality, then Jersey Shore is better than Firefly, and Justin Bieber and Lil' Wayne are better musicians than Santana, Prince, Cher, or David Bowie, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a better movie than Casablanca, The Godfather, or Gladiator.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Linking the quality of a TV series to its ratings numbers comes perilously close to equating quality with popularity. If you claim popularity as the measuring stick for quality, then Jersey Shore is better than Firefly, and Justin Bieber and Lil' Wayne are better musicians than Santana, Prince, Cher, or David Bowie, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a better movie than Casablanca, The Godfather, or Gladiator.

Critics of various mediums see a lot of the media in question, so they're a significantly different audience than the casual public. Not that I necessarily disagree that critics are a better judge of 'quality' but ultimately the distinction is a subjective one and there are more people on the 'other side' of such discussions.

Trying to produce a quality movie for the mass-market to consume, for example, requires a happy ending. Possibly because people mostly want to see movies which offer a happy diversion for their day. But in some stories, that kind of thing just doesn't fit from a critical perspective. So sometimes the artists make something which is nudged in a slightly different direction by people who have a stake in increasing its popularity.

The most obvious example I can think of is A.I. The movie is great. But from a(my) critical viewpoint that ending doesn't really fit with any of the rest of the movie and was probably made to improve its 'quality' for a general audience. It's impossible to know for sure, but I would guess that extra last bit was why the movie wasn't a bomb of some sort or another. Audiences generally do not like ambiguous or sad endings.

Hmm, actually, A.I. would be better example if the ending wasn't apparently part of the original artistic vision. But it's still the best example I can think of at the moment. The things you find out when fact-checking are inconvenient sometimes.

[deuterio12]

Leaving aside that debatable statement, there isn't necessarily a correlation between ratings and entertainment value. A lot of shows get bad ratings due to their timeslot or other factors. Farscape is one of the best sci-fi series ever made, but it constantly struggled in the ratings because of network shenanigans.

A good series may be stuck in bad timeslots, but a bad series will never get to remain in good timeslots because people will not care for it.

Linking the quality of a TV series to its ratings numbers comes perilously close to equating quality with popularity. If you claim popularity as the measuring stick for quality, then Jersey Shore is better than Firefly, and Justin Bieber and Lil' Wayne are better musicians than Santana, Prince, Cher, or David Bowie, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a better movie than Casablanca, The Godfather, or Gladiator.

That's only momentary popularity. In 10+ years, Casablanca/Godfather/Gladiator will still be remembered, re-aired and referenced (like they keep being), while Transformers Dark Moon will get a mention in the transformers wiki if that.

Critics of various mediums see a lot of the media in question, so they're a significantly different audience than the casual public. Not that I necessarily disagree that critics are a better judge of 'quality' but ultimately the distinction is a subjective one and there are more people on the 'other side' of such discussions.

Trying to produce a quality movie for the mass-market to consume, for example, requires a happy ending. Possibly because people mostly want to see movies which offer a happy diversion for their day. But in some stories, that kind of thing just doesn't fit from a critical perspective. So sometimes the artists make something which is nudged in a slightly different direction by people who have a stake in increasing its popularity.

And what's wrong with that?

If all media aimed only to please the most extravagant tastes of the highest critics, then the world would be much poorer for that. Entertaining the general public is an art on itself.

As another example, the original Gundam was supposed be mono-white/grey and Zeon's only mechas would be zakus for maximum grittyness (and Amuro was supposed to die at the end too), but since it had to appeal to children to get them to buy toys, Tomino ended up caving in and adding some brighter colors plus more Zeon mobile giant robots and Amuro getting his happy end too. And that allowed Gundam to succeed beyond all expectations, revolutionizing the mecha genre and anime itself and becoming a running franchise that lasts to this day (yes, the original series ended up being cut short, but then the toy line sold like hot cakes which opened the gates for the compilation movie trilogy that was a huge success with the filler trimmed down).

If Gundam hadn't tried to appeal to the general public, it would've ended as just some obscure anime.

[BeerMug Paladin]

And what's wrong with that?

If all media aimed only to please the most extravagant tastes of the highest critics, then the world would be much poorer for that. Entertaining the general public is an art on itself.

It's hard to explain the idea that being good at 'entertaining the masses' is significantly different than 'entertaining critics' without it sounding like a value-judgement of some kind. I really didn't mean it that way and I do generally agree with what you've said here. Not that I have much experience nor interest in most of the movies/music/shows that have been listed as examples.

I will add that my subjective value of 'quality' for movies (if not other things) tends to align more closely with 'snooty critics' than 'general audience'. So I'm aware that in terms of many peoples' subjective value-judgement of quality, I'm somewhere outside looking in.

As another example, the original Gundam was supposed be mono-white/grey and Zeon's only mechas would be zakus for maximum grittyness (and Amuro was supposed to die at the end too), but since it had to appeal to children to get them to buy toys, Tomino ended up caving in and adding some brighter colors plus more Zeon mobile giant robots and Amuro getting his happy end too. And that allowed Gundam to succeed beyond all expectations, revolutionizing the mecha genre and anime itself and becoming a running franchise that lasts to this day (yes, the original series ended up being cut short, but then the toy line sold like hot cakes which opened the gates for the compilation movie trilogy that was a huge success with the filler trimmed down).

If Gundam hadn't tried to appeal to the general public, it would've ended as just some obscure anime.

This sounds like a much better example than the one I came up with. Nice.

[Adderbane]

It's hard to explain the idea that being good at 'entertaining the masses' is significantly different than 'entertaining critics' without it sounding like a value-judgement of some kind. I really didn't mean it that way and I do generally agree with what you've said here. Not that I have much experience nor interest in most of the movies/music/shows that have been listed as examples.

I will add that my subjective value of 'quality' for movies (if not other things) tends to align more closely with 'snooty critics' than 'general audience'. So I'm aware that in terms of many peoples' subjective value-judgement of quality, I'm somewhere outside looking in.


This sounds like a much better example than the one I came up with. Nice.

Something can be entertaining without being good. I can think of dozens of examples; though I expect not everyone would agree with me on which are which. Most of the metrics we have don't really grasp the difference between a lot of people merely liking a work and then forgetting about it, and a lot of people really loving a work so that it becomes a part of the culture. The test of time is the only one that really works here.

[Frozen_Feet]

Also, in every other field of life, people routinely buy and consume crap simply because they don't know better or can't afford better. That's the real reason why popularity doesn't equate wity quality, even if ideally they correlate well.

[Serpentine]

(skippin' right over whatever arguments are going on now)

Heckin The Ill-Made Mute, The Bitterbynde trilogy, by Cecilia Dart-Thornton.
It started out really interestingly. At the beginning, the main character had no voice, no gender, a horribly disfigured face, and no history, and was incredibly interesting, in this intriguing world that was a mix of fairy tales from our world and brand new concepts.
At the end of the first book

Spoiler

Show

the main character could speak again - and did so in "thees and thous", was a woman, was incredibly beautiful, had all her memories restored, was in love with the incredibly handsome fairy prince, and was deeply, profoundly, boring.

It was so disappointing that all these components that I liked when I was reading it, like the references to IRL fairy tales, started feeling like lazy writing instead.

[Razade]

A show's main purpose is to entertain people. If a show entertains people, then it has quality.

Appeal to popularity says what?

[Traab]

Appeal to popularity says what?

What IS quality? No, seriously, how do you define it beyond "I like this."? Appeal to popularity is as good a way to decide if something is good as any other metric you might want to use. When talking about entertainment, there really isnt an objective way to decide if something is "good" or "has quality" If it could be that formulaic it already would be. You can list the standard things most good movies have such as three act structures and the like, but I could also list a thousand horrible movies that also have that. Quality is opinion, not fact.

[napoleon_in_rag]

What IS quality? No, seriously, how do you define it beyond "I like this."?

I suggest reading Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

[Jay R]

The Andy Griffith Show after Don Knotts left.
The Avengers after Diana Rigg left.
Alias Smith and Jones after Pete Duel died.

[deuterio12]

Also, in every other field of life, people routinely buy and consume crap simply because they don't know better or can't afford better. That's the real reason why popularity doesn't equate wity quality, even if ideally they correlate well.

Maybe a gold-plated ferrarri with true leather seats has better "quality" than your average commercial car, but for me and you the commercial car's will be a much better choice to consume than ruining ourselves trying to afford the really shiny thing.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. Something that's good enough and readily available is infinitely better than something perfect you simply cannot afford.

[Velaryon]

That's only momentary popularity. In 10+ years, Casablanca/Godfather/Gladiator will still be remembered, re-aired and referenced (like they keep being), while Transformers Dark Moon will get a mention in the transformers wiki if that.

So are you suggesting that there is something more to determining quality than popular appeal? Because if popularity is the only metric of quality, then "stands the test of time" only matters if those movies overtake Dark of the Moon again.

But let's go back to the musicians I listed in my previous post (and also Lil' Wayne and Justin Bieber). I pulled all my info from Wikipedia's list of best-selling musicians. Again, if we say that popularity = quality, then Bieber's 140 million sales makes him objectively better than Santana, Prince, Cher, or David Bowie (all of whom have around 100 million sales).

You could perhaps argue that record sales are not indicative of the true popularity of an artist since not everyone who likes a song is necessarily going to buy it, but using the "popularity=quality" definition, those sales numbers at least prove that Bieber and Lil' Wayne belong in the same conversation when it comes to all-time musical greats, do they not?

(By the way, I'm picking on those two specifically because they're both artists that a lot of people complain about. I'd have used Nickelback, but they've only got ~50 million sales, so they're not at this level yet).