April 3 - CN Upfront. Will FHFIF get another season or end at 6?

[BluebottleFlyer]

Originally Posted by WiltsAKGirl17

I agree about the "six season limit"-- I really don't get it. Foster's was doing so well, why should CN cut it down in its prime?

But I suppose that it had to happen eventually. And we'll always have memories, reruns, iTunes and hopeful DVD releases.

Sounds like a bad form of "stock rotation" if you ask me.

[Cassini90125]

Originally Posted by fosters home fan

Because otherwise, The people making the show would start running out of ideas and be forced to make mediocre episodes if the show were to go over the intended numbers of seasons. *coughsouthparkWHEEZE*

As I said, however, it's an arbitrary limit. Some shows and their creative staff can maintain good quality well beyond six seasons; others can't even get past six minutes. Craig did say they had been struggling so it is possible that Foster's had in fact reached it's limit, but it is also possible that all the team needed was a vacation from the show for a bit, or perhaps an addition or two to the staff, people with fresh ideas (and a proven track record). Ultimately it's Craig's decision, of course, and that is as it should be, but the artificial limit of 78 episodes makes the decision for him, and for every other show as well. Suppose that the Foster's team was not struggling in any way, and indeed had gotten a "second wind" of sorts? What if they'd been on a creative roll? What might be lost in such a case because of this limit? No, I say that every show needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, as I said earlier. If the ratings are good, and the creative team is happy and wants to continue, then I say let them continue and to hell with this pointless limit... unless of course you relish the idea of watching something called, oh, Kangaroo Samurai Space Gardeners when, had the limit not been in place, you might instead be viewing Good Wilt Hunting 2.

Think about that for a minute.

[WiltsAKGirl17]

Originally Posted by Cassini90125

As I said, however, it's an arbitrary limit. Some shows and their creative staff can maintain good quality well beyond six seasons; others can't even get past six minutes. Craig did say they had been struggling so it is possible that Foster's had in fact reached it's limit, but it is also possible that all the team needed was a vacation from the show for a bit, or perhaps an addition or two to the staff, people with fresh ideas (and a proven track record). Ultimately it's Craig's decision, of course, and that is as it should be, but the artificial limit of 78 episodes makes the decision for him, and for every other show as well. Suppose that the Foster's team was not struggling in any way, and indeed had gotten a "second wind" of sorts? What if they'd been on a creative roll? What might be lost in such a case because of this limit? No, I say that every show needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, as I said earlier. If the ratings are good, and the creative team is happy and wants to continue, then I say let them continue and to hell with this pointless limit... unless of course you relish the idea of watching something called, oh, Kangaroo Samurai Space Gardeners when, had the limit not been in place, you might instead be viewing Good Wilt Hunting 2.

Think about that for a minute.

Once again, I agree. Some shows, indeed, can turn out high quality episodes well beyond six seasons (I point to M*A*S*H, which went on for eleven seasons, but some may debate that point, saying the show got-- to quote Peter Griffin-- "dramatic and preachy" in the latter seasons, when Alan Alda started writing and directing, but I digress), while some shows are of terrible caliber from the get-go.

I understand the lack of inspiration, and accept that. I would, however, like to see if, as you suggested, Cassini, the staff needed a break to recharge or add a new writer or creative consultant or whatnot. I think a case-by-case policy would be much better in the long run-- it would keep high quality shows on the air and less-than-stellar shows off, thus bringing more veiwers to the network and boosting the ratings.

And no, I don't relish the thought of a title card reading Kangaroo Samurai Space Gardeners as opposed to one reading Good Wilt Hunting II. So, yes-- I did think about it for a minute. A couple minutes, in fact.

[One Radical Dude]

I never understood these limits, either. CN isn't the only one that does it, though. I do understand that Craig accepts it, and that they were beginning to struggle with coming up with more original stuff. Once the show ends, though, they're (CN) definitely going to have some big shoes to fill in. I look forward to what comes out of the Cartoonstitute project.

[jekylljuice]

Originally Posted by Cassini90125

If the ratings are good, and the creative team is happy and wants to continue, then I say let them continue and to hell with this pointless limit... unless of course you relish the idea of watching something called, oh, Kangaroo Samurai Space Gardeners when, had the limit not been in place, you might instead be viewing Good Wilt Hunting 2.

Think about that for a minute.

To be frank, with a name that outrageous, I'd think it would at least be worth a look.

Also, I think it's worth picking up on a point ORD made that CN aren't the only ones who do this. The Disney Channel does operate on that infamous little 65-episode limit, which is even more restrictive, though they were convinced to relax it in the case of Kim Possible.

I certainly do agree with the argument that these things should be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than a set limitation. Still, just to play devil's advocate, there is something to be said for quitting while you're still ahead and going out with a bang. You only need to look to the Simpsons for an idea of what can happen to a show when it keeps on going merely for the sake of it.

[fosters home fan]

Originally Posted by jekylljuice

Also, I think it's worth picking up on a point ORD made that CN aren't the only ones who do this. The Disney Channel does operate on that infamous little 65-episode limit, which is even more restrictive, though they were convinced to relax it in the case of Kim Possible.

They actually appear to have done away with that rule. Last time I checked *almost a year* They actually only run some cartoons for like 30 episodes. In that respect, getting well over 65 episodes is something worth congradulating IMO.

Given the fact that the show hadn't gone downhill.

Which fortunatly, Fosters didn't.

[One Radical Dude]

I forgot to say that who knows; maybe when Foster's reaches it's 10th anniversary, there could be some sort of special. Don't get your hopes up, though. I'm just saying. First thing is first, and that's to see how things go between now and the end of the series.

[jekylljuice]

Originally Posted by fosters home fan

They actually appear to have done away with that rule. Last time I checked *almost a year* They actually only run some cartoons for like 30 episodes. In that respect, getting well over 65 episodes is something worth congradulating IMO.

Well, 65 episodes is of course just a maximum limit. I'm sure that there have been several shows which, for whatever reason, Disney has opted to discontinue with well before they've reached that point, though Dave the Barbarian is the only one that comes to mind right now. I don't think that show got more than a single season, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Frankie_4_Prez]

If Bloo were in charge, he'd make it so that 6 x 13 = 188!!!

[bloonuggets]

Well, I got an e-mail from Candi Milo today (4/11) about the episode last night ("Mondo Coco" on 4/10) and she tells us that the last recording session for the final episode is Monday (4/14). She's all sad about it too, as is everyone else.