If someone asks for show recommendations many people here will recommend a show (or comment on another’s recommendation) but also add in a comment that the last season or last few episodes sucked. For example, if I rated the first 6 seasons of Dexter 9/10 on average and the final 2 seasons 7.5 or 8/10 I would still recommend the entire series to people without any comment on the 2 final seasons. Others are much stricter in how high their rating of the final season(s) or episode(s) need to be before not needing to comment about them.
OK, thanks. I think a lot of series flame out much sooner than eight seasons so I guess Dexter had a good run. I did drop out in season eight though.
I’d maintain that Dexter went on too long. Many successful shows have this problem. I’m almost finished with “Mad Men” after never seeing it when it ran. I think this is another example of a show that probably should have wrapped it up after S5.
Never saw that one. That was a good show, but I lost interest at some point and never really got back into it. I did check out the finale, though.
Jennifer Carpenter’s role, towards the end, was to simply act hysterical and cry. I hated that. Hugh Dancy (as Will Graham) did the same thing for the entire run of Hannibal.
If we’re doing Mad Men, I’d say it lost something after the flashbacks stopped but that it was only in season 3 where it felt like the writers were treading water.
Well, it was what the season called for, but she could act with a surprising degree of professionalism when in policing mode, whether detective or chief after her promotion. After all, her character was hugely conflicted about her brother. I thought the writers maintained a phenomenally high level of quality and character dev -- the best consistently since Sopranos (not surprising due to Weiner's involvement in both). There was no reason for the flashbacks after the show revealed Draper's true identity and he finally reconciled with the past, which cost him his marriage. A terrific crucible of the shifting social norms of the '60s.
But his "ethics" were merely a means to an end. Dexter needed to kill and his "code" of only killing murderers (and his process of disposal) was mainly a way of keeping himself from being caught. It wasn't so much "only kill bad people" as it was "only kill people who the police won't worry about finding".
All I’d say is that if you think the rationale offered up by TV show is hard to swallow, keep away from the books.
One of the issues with the later seasons was how careless he got. They made a point from the start what a careful killer he was, always following Harry's rules to make sure all evidence was gone so he could never get caught, but he committed quite a few murders later on that were sloppy, ones that he should have gotten busted for, but the showrunners were obviously content on him never caught, which ultimately was the biggest disappointment. The payoff of him getting outed never came.
