Some of my favorite television series have been analogous to a shooting star – unexpected, attention-grabbing and one-of-a-kind.

“13 Reasons Why,” a recent release on Netflix but a long-time favorite of mine since reading the book of the same name 10 years ago, is one such shooting star of a show.

There is one catch when it comes to shooting stars, however: You don’t force them to reappear. The appreciation that I hold for shooting stars and great television series comes with the acceptance that it’s better to enjoy a high-quality, short-lived moment than to drag it out to the point of mediocrity.

When Netflix announced on May 7 that “13 Reasons Why” would be renewed for a second season, I wasn’t surprised – sequels, remakes and reboots seem like safe ground for television and movies. But I was disappointed that producers of an impactful and engaging series preyed on viewers and their need for closure.

“13 Reasons Why” isn’t necessarily going to have a subpar second season; there’s a good chance that if a solid vision for the season is executed properly, the already successful television series will grow to be even more successful.

But the odds of the second season falling short rather than exceeding expectations is significantly higher – trying to ride on the curtails of high praise can backfire. This phenomenon has been seen time and time again; one just needs to look at the sophomore seasons of “Mr. Robot,” “True Detective” or “Desperate Housewives” to understand how a television series can be a smash hit in the first season, yet falter and lose its steam just a season later.

Cliffhangers at the end of the first season of “13 Reasons Why,” like the impending results of the trial against Hannah’s high school or Jessica’s continued path to recovery from sexual assault, left viewers wanting more.

The desire is not unexpected; many people want closure for the television shows they watch, and fueled by the public, show creators can choose to give them answers in exchange for continued popularity and financial gain.

Just because dedicated viewers may want an extended story, however, doesn’t necessarily make it the right decision. The whole arc of the show will have to undergo a radical new format since the first season used all of the book’s material within its 13-episode premise.

Showrunner Brian Yorkey said Hannah’s story will continue into the second season through flashbacks that explain Hannah’s, as well as the other characters’, pasts.

Continuing the retrospective structure of the show is an interesting concept in theory, but it runs into a problem relatively quickly; you can only go back into the past so far without being boring or creating inconsistencies between the past and the present. For example, “How I Met Your Mother” constantly delves into the past, which led to a timeline error that made a couple of dates in Ted’s life impossible to carry out.

The underlying problem stems from the fact that television series nowadays can be produced with the hope of a continuation in mind, extending a series whose original story – the book – was not intended for a longer life. The cliffhangers in the last episode are not originally in the book and are the creation of the executives themselves.

The series didn’t need to add in more cliffhangers than what was already present in the book; the decision was catalyzed by the creative team as much as the viewers themselves.

While a second season of “13 Reasons Why” doesn’t inherently signal the demise of a successful and impactful television series, it exemplifies how more television series are being produced with the hope of a continuation in mind, as opposed to creating more short-lived original series.

We should appreciate the fleeting beauty of one series as opposed to making it continue on for the benefit of the executives at the price of the series’ quality. The decision could potentially lead the series to more fame – or to its end.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *