Today's User Submitted Daily (USD) Poll was submitted by Freda who was picked randomly from our Poll Submissions (see below).
Let us know in the comments what you voted for and why? Want to see your Poll posted on the site? Click the Blue Button below
Rules
- Polls need to be TV/Movie related.
- You must supply a Poll Question, and the possible choices. Please try to keep the number of options to a reasonable amount (Max of 20 Items)
- You can only Submit 1 Poll Per Day. Previous polls submitted will still be eligible for posting (ie you don't need to keep submitting the same poll everyday)
Each day we will pick one submitted poll at random to post on the site.
Depends if the shock has real ramifications in the following episodes. And sometimes your watching an episode and thinking hmm not a lot is happening here and the shock happens but looking back on the episode you can see why it was a slow-burn, maybe to lure the audience into a false sense of security and then wham!
It depends, sometimes a boring and slow episode makes up for the shocking ending. But then sometimes the shocking end can end up adding no impact in the following episodes, and it ends up being pointless.
It depends of course, but yes usually it does. I know various examples where the episode itself was mediocare or just outright bad, but the ending was great. The most recent one being Arrow's "Seeing Red".
No. Arrow's Seeing Red is a perfect example of this. The last six minutes was one of the best scenes the show has done. But the rest of the episode was crap. I'll happily go rewatch the ending, but the rest of the episode? Meh. Would I rank it among the top five of the show? No. It doesn't make up for it. You can't just go 'Here's a load of rubbish story but we have a shocking ending so it's alright'. Even if the main part of the episode isn't overly spectacular, it just has to be good, though I prefer it if the entire episode is spectacular.
No, a contrived shocker at the end of an episode can never make up for bad writing before that. It's usually just a cheap attempt to distract attention away from the incompetence (or lack of ideas) of the writing staff.
For me, it never does. If someone will ask me about a lackluster episode with such an ending, my answer normally would be something like "Nah, a pretty mediocre episode but do keep a lookout for the last scene". If it doesn't hinder the story's understanding, I might just suggest skipping the episode save the parts which are worth it. Hence, the positive feedback is ONLY for the good portion and not the entire episode. Also, it depends. If it is merely to add shock value, then I don't even think highly of such an ending but if it truly sets a tone for the next episode/arc, only then would it impress me.
I would say it's between It Depends and No. I don't like sitting through a really bad ep and then getting just a five to one minute amount of good at the end. It's usually a cheap trick to try to justify filler or really bad writing. I'm never really happy with it.
It depends... on the rest of the season, the rest of the show, whether and how the show regularly makes use of cliffhanger endings, if you've come to expect more of a higher average throughout an episode... it depends.
Law & Order SVU built many episodes around this premise - "Ooh, let's have a bizarre twist at the end to make up for the cookie cutter first 50 minutes. The audience won't care that we pulled it out of our butts, because it a cool, "shocking" ending."
NO! Castle's season finale is a great example for that, the ending was shocking, yes, and I'm a little bit curious about what's going to happen next BUT the last two minutes of this episode do NOT make up for the 40minutes of bad writing i had to endure before that. so yeah, i was shocked by that ending but I'm still not planning on watching this episode EVER again because it was awful and boring.
It Depends... I think just as @Lou said, there can be real ramifications from some of those shock endings, but I also think it also depends on what was all happening in episodes preceding it and how the episodes that follow it develop. Sometimes I think the lackluster can be intentional, which is why the shock is such a shock!
It obviously depends but most times it doesn't hurt. One time when a shock made an appalling episode even worse was in Arrow, State vs. Queen, when the big twist would have sunk an even great episode. Mostly though, if the twist gives me something to be excited about for the next episode, then it does in some ways mitigate a lackluster episode. That happened a few times in early Graceland and that bought the show enough time for me to be hooked by the characters and plot. Without those early twists, I might not be watching the show today.
Are we assuming that the buildup to the shock has been executed properly?
For example: "boring, boring, boring, OMG MUSHROOM CLOUD!" Is not a shocking ending that would appropriately redeem a boring episode. Many summer blockbusters do this. It falls flat many times because I just mentally checked out somewhere around minute 35 of super-human-school-bus-wielding-fight-to-the-death and the "Big Dumb Fatigue" (h/t RedLetterMedia) has poisoned me against the outcome, whatever that is.
Perhaps the shock has ramifications -- as in GOT. In those cases, you're invested in the outcome of what's unfolding. I don't know how someone could get emotionally invested in something and then turn around and call it lackluster.
Considering those two examples, I lean towards no. The shock is only effective if I'm interested.
It depends, like said by others, if the shock has impact on future episodes. It also depends on the reason it was lackluster - was it building up to something or could it really have been written better.
How about the option, it makes it worse. More often than not, when the episode is lackluster, the shocking event at the end the writers think will make up for it just irks me the wrong way.
For me, it depends on whether the 'lackluster' portion was completely unrelated to the shocker - like a procedural spending most of the hour solving an un-engaging case only to end with the unrelated kidnapping up a team member - or the lackluster stuff actually laid the groundwork for a jaw-dropping ending. The latter case would make me resentful that I wasted an hour, the former would make me want to watch it again to see if it was reallllly as dull as I thought.
really depends: on how bad/lackluster the ep was and if the shocking ending/twist doesn't feel like it's trying too hard to make up for any deficiencies and if said twist will "change he game" of the overall show.
NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.
Depends if the shock has real ramifications in the following episodes. And sometimes your watching an episode and thinking hmm not a lot is happening here and the shock happens but looking back on the episode you can see why it was a slow-burn, maybe to lure the audience into a false sense of security and then wham!
ReplyDeleteIt depends, sometimes a boring and slow episode makes up for the shocking ending. But then sometimes the shocking end can end up adding no impact in the following episodes, and it ends up being pointless.
ReplyDelete"It depends" - a universal and suitable answer to any question.
ReplyDeleteIt depends of course, but yes usually it does. I know various examples where the episode itself was mediocare or just outright bad, but the ending was great. The most recent one being Arrow's "Seeing Red".
ReplyDeleteHawaii Five 0 is a example of this kind of crap Peter Lenkov tries to pull each week
ReplyDeleteNo. Arrow's Seeing Red is a perfect example of this. The last six minutes was one of the best scenes the show has done. But the rest of the episode was crap. I'll happily go rewatch the ending, but the rest of the episode? Meh. Would I rank it among the top five of the show? No. It doesn't make up for it. You can't just go 'Here's a load of rubbish story but we have a shocking ending so it's alright'. Even if the main part of the episode isn't overly spectacular, it just has to be good, though I prefer it if the entire episode is spectacular.
ReplyDeleteTo me, that's a BIG yes.
ReplyDeleteNo, a contrived shocker at the end of an episode can never make up for bad writing before that. It's usually just a cheap attempt to distract attention away from the incompetence (or lack of ideas) of the writing staff.
ReplyDelete"It depends" i think. Ask "The Walking Dead"'s producers that question..
ReplyDeleteSeeing Red is considered by many Arrow's fans like one of the show best episodes because of that ending so..
ReplyDeleteFor me, it never does. If someone will ask me about a lackluster episode with such an ending, my answer normally would be something like "Nah, a pretty mediocre episode but do keep a lookout for the last scene". If it doesn't hinder the story's understanding, I might just suggest skipping the episode save the parts which are worth it. Hence, the positive feedback is ONLY for the good portion and not the entire episode.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it depends. If it is merely to add shock value, then I don't even think highly of such an ending but if it truly sets a tone for the next episode/arc, only then would it impress me.
P.S. One of the best USD polls on this website :)
I know. I don't agree.
ReplyDeleteI would say it's between It Depends and No. I don't like sitting through a really bad ep and then getting just a five to one minute amount of good at the end. It's usually a cheap trick to try to justify filler or really bad writing. I'm never really happy with it.
ReplyDeleteIt depends... on the rest of the season, the rest of the show, whether and how the show regularly makes use of cliffhanger endings, if you've come to expect more of a higher average throughout an episode... it depends.
ReplyDeleteLaw & Order SVU built many episodes around this premise - "Ooh, let's have a bizarre twist at the end to make up for the cookie cutter first 50 minutes. The audience won't care that we pulled it out of our butts, because it a cool, "shocking" ending."
ReplyDeleteI thought Seeing Red was a fantastic episode, with or without the ending
ReplyDeleteNO! Castle's season finale is a great example for that, the ending was shocking, yes, and I'm a little bit curious about what's going to happen next BUT the last two minutes of this episode do NOT make up for the 40minutes of bad writing i had to endure before that. so yeah, i was shocked by that ending but I'm still not planning on watching this episode EVER again because it was awful and boring.
ReplyDeleteIt Depends...
ReplyDeleteI think just as @Lou said, there can be real ramifications from some of those shock endings, but I also think it also depends on what was all happening in episodes preceding it and how the episodes that follow it develop. Sometimes I think the lackluster can be intentional, which is why the shock is such a shock!
It obviously depends but most times it doesn't hurt. One time when a shock made an appalling episode even worse was in Arrow, State vs. Queen, when the big twist would have sunk an even great episode. Mostly though, if the twist gives me something to be excited about for the next episode, then it does in some ways mitigate a lackluster episode. That happened a few times in early Graceland and that bought the show enough time for me to be hooked by the characters and plot. Without those early twists, I might not be watching the show today.
ReplyDeleteAre we assuming that the buildup to the shock has been executed properly?
ReplyDeleteFor example: "boring, boring, boring, OMG MUSHROOM CLOUD!" Is not a shocking ending that would appropriately redeem a boring episode. Many summer blockbusters do this. It falls flat many times because I just mentally checked out somewhere around minute 35 of super-human-school-bus-wielding-fight-to-the-death and the "Big Dumb Fatigue" (h/t RedLetterMedia) has poisoned me against the outcome, whatever that is.
Perhaps the shock has ramifications -- as in GOT. In those cases, you're invested in the outcome of what's unfolding. I don't know how someone could get emotionally invested in something and then turn around and call it lackluster.
Considering those two examples, I lean towards no. The shock is only effective if I'm interested.
It depends, like said by others, if the shock has impact on future episodes. It also depends on the reason it was lackluster - was it building up to something or could it really have been written better.
ReplyDeleteHow about the option, it makes it worse. More often than not, when the episode is lackluster, the shocking event at the end the writers think will make up for it just irks me the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it depends on whether the 'lackluster' portion was completely unrelated to the shocker - like a procedural spending most of the hour solving an un-engaging case only to end with the unrelated kidnapping up a team member - or the lackluster stuff actually laid the groundwork for a jaw-dropping ending. The latter case would make me resentful that I wasted an hour, the former would make me want to watch it again to see if it was reallllly as dull as I thought.
ReplyDeletereally depends: on how bad/lackluster the ep was and if the shocking ending/twist doesn't feel like it's trying too hard to make up for any deficiencies and if said twist will "change he game" of the overall show.
ReplyDelete