The Downfall of GLEE on TV

     When the TV show Glee aired in 2009, it was sensational.  So full of life, inspiration, music and choreography, it became a nationwide phenomenon.  Audiences were still fondly remembering the successfully gleeful 2007 movie/musical Hairspray.  Until then, people might not have mentioned a school Glee Club, unless they referred to a 1950s documentary.  I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekly, "Has there ever been a TV show more aptly named than Glee?  It both embodies and inspired exactly that quality.  Yet if I tell you the show is about a high school glee club and features bursting-into-song musical numbers, you might react as I did initially: I wanted no part of that.  But this comedy from creator Ryan Murphy (Nip/Tuck) is so good—so funny, so bulging with vibrant characters—that it blast past any defenses you might put up again it.  Glee will not stop until it wins you over utterly."  Which was true… for awhile.
     An adult fan wrote, "The show taught me that everyone has a story, and not to 'write people off' via stereotypes."  Another fan (which are called Gleeks) was "outed" at middle-school and found strength in the show's gay characters.  The prom episodes instilled hope in many students.  It discussed topics like bullying, harassment, exclusion, pregnancy, peer pressure, nutrition, embracing quirks, forgiveness and cooperation.  A Glee moviegoer said, "When I got into Glee, life was hard, dealing with the loss of my father and being different.  But then I really wanted to change and be a positive happier person—a light in people's lives."  
     Early on, the show won huge audience viewership (amongst the top ten most-watched shows), and consistently earned Emmy and Golden Globe nominations.  It won its highest viewership in Season 2.  But then, the show began to sag.  Its as if the show knew this, and created a "Glee Movie Musical", after the 3rd Season.  As if to capture the magic… before it was eradicated.  From that point onward, the show became more and more disjointed.  Just like simultaneous TV failure, Smash (that had started with equally high potential), the series tried too hard to balance too many fractured sub-plots.  Smash disintegrated because too many people messed around with the show—fissuring too many cracks into its structure.  The same thing happened to Glee, which had half of its characters based in Manhattan (just like Smash), at that time.  (I stay in touch with dancers from the show).
     Today, I was watching an earlier Season 2 episode of Glee and noticed 8 "producers" in the credits.  Compare that with the 17 "producers" in its current (last) season!  As the expression goes, "Too many chefs spoil the broth", which is nothing new in big business television.  Shows that succeed are the ones that stay the same.  Perhaps the creators should've let the graduating class fade out, instead of trying to keep them in the script—which stretched the screen-time too thin for everyone.  Perhaps they should've cultivated a new set of characters, so the former ones only appeared for cameos.  Part of the fun of Glee's earlier seasons was its intoxicating enthusiasm of high school trepidation.  That's where the magic was.  That was its niche.
     It also was won audiences' hearts because it celebrated characters like Artie and Sue's sidekick, Becky.  It had an international, inter-religious crowd of all sexual orientations.  The meek principle, the haltingly-progressive guidance counselor, Will's overbearing first wife, the football coach, and the club's silent pianist gave a well-rounded patina to the colorful series.
     Personally, I think that the best episodes involve life at the high school.  Not about life amidst the characters going into "over-the-top" successful opportunities in NYC.  Had they brought in a new class of characters, it might've kept that energy riding high.  As you can see, instead, they brought in characters and then abruptly "dropped" them.  You'd tune in for the next episode and find that a character or two was suddenly gone.  Without explanation.  That is a blatant "cardinal sin" in storytelling.  (In fact, Coach Sue began making fun of that perplexing idiosyncrasy in final episodes).  If the show's creators don't care about its characters, then the audience won't either.  Why should the audience "feel" for characters, if those characters won't be there after two episodes?  That was especially disheartening, because fans of the show admired the lovingly-created character development of the first two seasons… and the introduction of Blaine's romance in season 3.  In fact, the sudden removal of Blane's Warblers was a tragic mistake of the show.  It ripped out the contributing talent of amazing dancers and singers that had brightened the show… and added a gay sparkle.  (I still keep in touch with some of the Warblers, as they've pursued new ventures).  Instead, the show's re-appropriated budget seemed to bring a new group of disjointed "NYC college characters"—each also abruptly removed from the show.
     The débacle was the utter loss of plot continuity!  It was as if there were polar-opposite groups of writers and producers.  One group would knock the other unconscious and drive the script in one direction.  Then, the other group would awaken and knock the first group unconscious to drive the plot in reverse.  Back and forth.  That is how you lose audiences.  How many times do you want to watch the same characters break apart then get back together again?  How many times do you want to watch older characters steal the spotlight from newly-budding characters (whom appear to have amazing abilities… if they could only get "center stage" for more than five minutes).  Talented actors, singers and dancers vanished or were shoved to the background as the producers seemingly played "favorites" with underachieving characters.  Sub-plots of petty minutia took precedence over the spirit of teamwork and striving against a common enemy.  Even the quantity of "famous cameos" dropped.
     Did viewers really want to watch characters arrive newly in Manhattan and miraculously win high-profile jobs a Vogue-ish magazines or win leads in Broadway (not even Off-Broadway) shows?  Was that the modest show that had won their hearts?  Sort of like initially-wildly-popular True Blood, which—after the first season—veered and careened entirely off the original plot-lines.  (I know… I've read the books that the series was supposed to be based on: the books are AMAZINGLY better!  I'd HIGHLY recommend them).  Just like Glee, it rapidly lost viewership (the bell curve still existed) and languished in its last season.
     Thus, current audiences probably have a flow-chart and bulletin boards to keep track of which characters are still appearing, which story-lines have been cut, and which people make oddly-placed 5-second reappearances.  The multitude of producers has married-off the couples: no more loose ends there.  Tonight was the series conclusion.  The most recent episodes shed dim light, in comparison to the show's initial sparkle.  At this point, audiences were just waiting for the cast to take its final bow.  
     Having just watched the last episode, I daresay that if they'd done that plot-line two years ago, it might've saved the show.  Allowing new members to embrace the club's ideals and "strut their stuff", while letting alums inspire them from afar or as teachers for the new school's several performing groups.
     Maybe, years from now, someone will compose an exposé about what it was like dealing with all the abrupt story changes.  That would certainly garner audiences' attention again.  Hopefully, some young storyline writer has been inspired by the early segments of the series, and will create fanciful and captivating entertainments for future audiences.