For a procedural drama seven seasons deep, securing an episode that fans and critics alike hail as one of the series’ best is a monumental achievement. ABC’s did just that in Season 7. Whether you point to the high-stakes, brilliantly written “Wildfire” (S7E8) or a bold, genre-bending experiment like the true-crime-inspired “Mad About Murder” (S7E14), a singular hour of television emerged as a beacon of the show’s enduring quality.
But herein lies the paradox. That exceptional, stand-alone episode—a brilliant mid-season firebreak that recaptured the high-wire tension and emotional depth of the show’s early years—created an almost impossible standard. By delivering such a thrilling, cohesive, and narratively satisfying chapter, it inadvertently exposed the shaky foundations and structural flaws of the season’s greater arc, setting the entire ABC hit up for an ultimately disappointing and fragmented conclusion.
The Weight of Expectation: The Perfection of the Mid-Season Arc
The episode in question—let’s use the widely praised “Wildfire” as our key example—was a masterclass in procedural storytelling. It seamlessly wove together multiple high-stakes plot threads: a hunt for a chilling serial killer, the intense backdrop of a literal natural disaster, and the high-tension personal conflict between key characters. The writing was sharp, the directing frenetic and visceral, and the performances—particularly from those characters thrust into life-or-death scenarios—were utterly compelling.
The installment was a reminder of at its peak: a show that could blend action, drama, and character-driven moments without sacrificing pace or tension. It promised a resurgence, suggesting that the creative team had found its footing after a few seasons of narrative meandering. It didn’t just meet expectations; it vaulted over them, setting a soaring new benchmark for what the show was capable of achieving.
And that was the problem.
The Post-Peak Slump: Fragmentation and Unforced Errors
The episodes that followed simply couldn’t live up to the standard set by this high-water mark. When a show delivers an episode that feels like a de facto finale, the post-mortem can feel disjointed and anticlimactic. For Season 7, the rest of the season often felt less like a cohesive narrative and more like a collection of disparate storylines, each failing to recapture the intensity or emotional resonance of its predecessor.
The Problem of the High Bar
In the immediate aftermath of a phenomenal episode, everything else looks comparatively flat.
- Rushed Resolutions: Major storylines that were set up with great care, like the ongoing emotional rift between Tim Bradford and Lucy Chen (Chenford) or complex undercover assignments, felt either unnaturally resolved or hastily sidelined. The emotional stakes of the breakup, for instance, were often diluted by the need to pivot to a new Case of the Week, or by an underwhelming reconciliation that lacked the narrative weight of their initial split.
- Villain Fatigue: The season’s attempt to introduce or reintroduce Big Bads struggled to find traction. Having a central villain—such as the manipulative lawyer Monica—dragged across multiple seasons is a common procedural trope, but the stakes often felt manufactured or repetitive, especially when juxtaposed against the visceral, immediate threat presented in the standout episode.
- The Gimmick Over Substance: While the show is known for its light dramedy and experimental formats, some of the later episodes leaned too heavily on gimmicks—specifically the recurring true-crime mockumentary style. While a bold stylistic choice, the frequent return to this format felt like a detour rather than a meaningful exploration, leading to episodes that were criticized for being immersion-breaking and failing to advance the main character arcs.
The Long-Term Consequences for Season 8
A spectacular episode that is an outlier—rather than an elevation of the baseline quality—is a short-term win that becomes a long-term liability. By demonstrating its capacity for near-perfect storytelling, inadvertently highlighted its own inconsistency.
For a new season to succeed, it must either maintain the high standard set by its best episode or introduce a new paradigm that makes the previous peak feel like a footnote. In the case of , the show struggled to stick the landing, concluding its seventh season with a finale that, while featuring some action, ultimately lacked the oomph needed to carry momentum into the next year.
The failure here isn’t a collapse in quality across the board, but a narrative inconsistency that fragments the viewing experience. The best episodes succeed because they force characters to confront their deepest fears and make impossible choices. When the rest of the season reverts to standard procedural fare, those monumental moments lose their echo. The peak episode becomes an anomaly—a glorious, but ultimately unsustainable, narrative high.
To succeed in Season 8 and beyond, needs to find a way to make that peak quality the rule, not the exception. The writers must take the lessons of what made their best episode so compelling—the focused stakes, the emotional integrity, and the airtight pacing—and apply them to the entire season, ensuring that the characters and their relationships are always the driving force, not just the backdrop for the next big case. Otherwise, that one great episode will stand as a painful reminder of the season that could have been.
