After the end of “Succession”: what makes a series a lasting success?

Something has come to an end again. Last week the last episode of “Succession” aired. Once again, the big business kids of the Roy family played their favorite game: stabbing each other in the back, plotting against each other, swapping alliances around legacies faster than dirty underwear. Without wanting to reveal too much: the end of the fourth season does not make things easy for itself, does not absolve anyone of guilt and responsibility, but does not really solve anything either. The characters remain who and how they are, the river of time flows fearlessly and does not heal all their wounds.

This is how the series carries out its program to mercilessly expose human unpredictability up to and including the melancholy final image. Feelings are not tides that can be calculated. The emotional swings are supported by a sensational cast of actors around Jeremy Strong (‘Ken’), Sarah Snook (‘Shiv’) and Roy Kieran (‘Rome’), whose faces are captured by the camera in close-ups almost like a documentary. captures. Stream like a big movie theater.

How often, when a critically acclaimed series ends, the media proclaims it to be the new heir to the throne, long live “Succession”! But what makes a really great series that lasts longer than it does now?

Loss of attention due to excess

In the US alone, more than 500 series launched in 2022, reboots, sequels, remakes, spin-offs. Due to the competition between large and small streaming services, production has taken on gigantic proportions in recent years. And it has become more global: new releases from India, Brazil or Turkey have long pushed for international exploitation. Series have become the prototype of the culture industry: there is something for every taste, every age, every target group, from gamers (“The Last of Us”) to single mothers (“Workin’ Moms”) to retired couples (“The Kominsky- method”).

But this abundance leads to a complete loss of attention: who can still follow all the series? Let alone seeing even a fraction of what’s on offer?

In December, the New York Times wrote that the golden age of streaming was coming to an end. One reason for this is the impatience and predictability with which series are designed. Too often it’s precisely tailored algorithms behind it rather than artistic heart and soul. The streamer pays particular attention to the number of clicks, if they do not meet expectations, the plug is immediately pulled.

Netflix, in particular, is notorious for this practice, having such expensive in-house productions as “GLOW,” “1899,” or more recently, “Lockwood & Co.” brought the untimely end. A risky strategy: why should viewers invest time and (subscription) costs if they can’t even be sure that they will be rewarded with a completed story?

The tried and true does not always prove itself

Sometimes the series creators rely on the tried and tested, trying to inspire new age groups for a well-known phenomenon or expand an existing series world. This can be done, for example, with the “Breaking Bad” offshoot “Better Call Saul”. Countless other things get bogged down in the desert of the semi-interesting like “And Just Like That”, the follow up to “Sex and the City”. And many a would-be self-runner runs out of breath halfway through: Less than 50 percent of the global audience watched Amazon’s prestige production “The Rings of Power” until the season one finale.

It is a misconception that series productions are upgraded by movie stars who have long been strangers to streaming anyway. Series produce their own stars. Just like Pedro Pascal, who became one of the most popular contemporary actors as a paternal protector in “The Mandalorian” and “The Last of Us”. Presence on the screen does not automatically mean presence on the tablet. Renée Zellweger (“What/If”) or Sylvester Stallone (“Tulsa King”) can sing a song about it.

Arnold Schwarzenegger currently joins this group with “Fubar”. The Netflix series about the conflicts between a spy father and his spy daughter would probably have been more entertaining as a moody action movie like the model “True Lies”.

What fuels the campfire mood?

So there is no guaranteed recipe for success for series that are not only told coherently until the end, but can also maintain their level and remain culturally relevant after their broadcast. And yet occasionally there are the perennial favorites that differ from the flash in the pan. The major productions in the digital successor to the serialized novels by Dickens and Dostoevsky. The series that attract a certain audience and create the much-cited campfire atmosphere, the series you talk about in the morning at the office, in the evening over a beer and preferably years later.

Is “Succession” one of them? Three elements seem to support this. On the one hand, a successful series should focus on the immediate present and incorporate the conflicts and phenomena that are enacted there. This can also happen under the guise of the past. Two of the best series of our time, “Succession” and “Game of Thrones”, already mention their very topical topic in the title.

Both tell of changing times, generational succession, economic crises and relentless struggles in an unstable world in which the old rulers are gradually eroding. The former only duels rhetorically, the latter brings in the hatchet. But the confrontational and pessimistic political mood could hardly be more topical.

However, too much presence alone hardly helps as long as the core of the story is not timeless and generally understandable; like all classics. The progeny of “Succession” may have sprung from a mega-wealthy media dynasty of the early decades of the 21st century. But her sibling quarrels, the courtship of paternal recognition, the envy of each other, their sometimes playful dissolution – all this could also take place at the kitchen table with Köbi Meier.

These are experiences from every family; here they are dissected with terrifying precision. The Roys in their designer wardrobe are as ambivalent as any other mere mortal, as loved as despised.

The very best series

Ultimately, a truly successful series has to transcend itself, generating an influence far beyond a handful of daily reviews on the art pages. The internet is as good a gauge for this as it is for hypes, as it can also be a reservoir for long-term fan engagement.

People talk about series on forums, keep running stories, feel part of a community, for example when petitions are started to keep a series. Memes maintain and increase notoriety; “Succession” in particular lends itself perfectly to this thanks to its focus on the individual characters.

Ultimately, for any form of art and entertainment, time is the only judge. But what is the best series of all time? My pick is hardly original, almost canonical, given that it’s the mother of all highbrow series, to which about one in three showrunners bow publicly to this day. A complex masterpiece of all pitches, from creepy to romantic to absurdly funny that is still current: “Twin Peaks”.

Five shows that have stood the test of time:

1. “Twin Peaks”

In the early 1990s, David Lynch and Mark Frost’s mystery drama laid the groundwork for series that came to be regarded not only as entertaining entertainment, but gradually as an art form.

2. “The Sopranos”

A mafia boss on the therapy couch? In 1999, Tony Soprano was one of the first broken anti-heroes to star in what has since become a modern classic.

3. “Breaking Bad”

The story of Walter White, a chemistry teacher with cancer and rise to dealer king, is still a poignant example of how far one can fall, nearly a decade after it ended.

4. “Game of Thrones”

Currently the most popular example of a series that everyone has heard of. And with potentially diverse offshoots, the intrigue on Westeros won’t be erased from cultural memory anytime soon.

5. “Southern Park”

Since 1997, the American animated series has managed to ridicule everything cheerfully and politically incorrectly; unlike the “Simpsons” still at a high level. (aargauerzeitung.ch)