CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- NBC's "Kings" premiered Sunday and, as soon as it did, the great debate began: will it or won't it survive?

(Full disclosure: I missed the premiere and haven't had time to watch it online yet.)

From what I've read, the series, loosely based on the Old Testament tale of David and Goliath, has a very epic feel to it. Because of this, and its apparently expensive-looking production values, many who liked the premiere already fear the show's cancellation.

Several have vented their anger that, if it does get the axe, they'll be left hanging, as has happened with so many other shows on network TV. Some, however, are wondering why it should even have to come to that. They say, "Why wait for cancellation and dread being robbed of a proper finale? Why not make it a mini-series or a limited-run show?"

I like their thinking, especially about the limited-run idea.

Other countries have already figured out the benefit of limited-run programming, so why can't we? Heck, the UK has mastered it, and we steal so much from them, why can't we steal this, too?

I know that when it comes down to it, TV is a business, and the networks want to keep their successes so they can translate them into revenue, but limited-run shows have benefits that would attract viewers and entice them to stick around - which means higher ratings for the network, which means more money from advertising.

Think about it. First, viewers would know that there is a definite end in sight. This could attract occasional viewers who might not want to invest in a long-term series. It also would encourage fair-weather viewers, who might abandon ship if they fear the show is sinking, to stick around until the end.

It also would help in terms of storytelling. Many shows that have been derailed - or "jumped the shark" as they say - have done so because they've ventured into absurd territory, trying to keep the show going past the point of when it should have retired.

Currently, "Heroes" is a prime example of that. Its first season was fabulous, but it just keeps getting worse. If the show had stopped after one season, it could have gone out on top with people talking about how awesome it was, instead of staggering along while people talk about how awful it's become.

Another bonus would be a better likelihood of keeping all the cast members on board. The longer a show runs, the bigger the chance that at least one key player will leave. (See "Lost.") When that happens, storylines have to be abandoned or altered to fit the situation, which can, in turn, lead to viewer frustration and/or ridiculous storylines.

(Full disclosure: I missed the premiere and haven't had time to watch it online yet.)

From what I've read, the series, loosely based on the Old Testament tale of David and Goliath, has a very epic feel to it. Because of this, and its apparently expensive-looking production values, many who liked the premiere already fear the show's cancellation.

Several have vented their anger that, if it does get the axe, they'll be left hanging, as has happened with so many other shows on network TV. Some, however, are wondering why it should even have to come to that. They say, "Why wait for cancellation and dread being robbed of a proper finale? Why not make it a mini-series or a limited-run show?"

I like their thinking, especially about the limited-run idea.

Other countries have already figured out the benefit of limited-run programming, so why can't we? Heck, the UK has mastered it, and we steal so much from them, why can't we steal this, too?

I know that when it comes down to it, TV is a business, and the networks want to keep their successes so they can translate them into revenue, but limited-run shows have benefits that would attract viewers and entice them to stick around - which means higher ratings for the network, which means more money from advertising.

Think about it. First, viewers would know that there is a definite end in sight. This could attract occasional viewers who might not want to invest in a long-term series. It also would encourage fair-weather viewers, who might abandon ship if they fear the show is sinking, to stick around until the end.

It also would help in terms of storytelling. Many shows that have been derailed - or "jumped the shark" as they say - have done so because they've ventured into absurd territory, trying to keep the show going past the point of when it should have retired.

Currently, "Heroes" is a prime example of that. Its first season was fabulous, but it just keeps getting worse. If the show had stopped after one season, it could have gone out on top with people talking about how awesome it was, instead of staggering along while people talk about how awful it's become.

Another bonus would be a better likelihood of keeping all the cast members on board. The longer a show runs, the bigger the chance that at least one key player will leave. (See "Lost.") When that happens, storylines have to be abandoned or altered to fit the situation, which can, in turn, lead to viewer frustration and/or ridiculous storylines.

Speaking of "Lost," its creators are on the right track, having set a series end date of next year. Many fans felt the show really lost its way the past two seasons, stretching already far-fetched storylines to a breaking point. But since announcing a definite end, the creators have been able to get the show back on track (or so I've heard). They know where they want/need to go with the story, and they know exactly how long they've got to get there.

This sort of thinking can lead to higher-quality programming, which leads to happier viewers, which mean better ratings, which lead to increased advertisers/ad cost, which brings in more revenue, which means more money to spend on new programming.

With the current trend toward reality and talk shows, what can it hurt to try something new to help support scripted shows?

Earlier this week, I was perusing my usual TV Web sites when I came across a TV Guide article listing ABC's finale dates. As I scrolled through the list, I saw this - Tuesday, May 5: "According to Jim" (series finale).

I did a double take, sure that my eyes were deceiving me, but there those magical words were. Series. Finale. After eight long seasons, ABC has finally wised up. Now if only they'd given a show like "Pushing Daisies" as many chances as they gave "Jim."

Series finale: "Battlestar Galactica," 9 p.m. Friday, Sci Fi.

Season finales: "Star Wars: The Clone Wars," 9 p.m. Friday, Cartoon Network; "The Secret Life of the American Teenager," 8 p.m. Monday, ABC Family; "Important Things with Demetri Martin," 10:30 p.m. Wednesday, Comedy Central.

Series premieres: "Taking the Stage," 10 p.m. tonight, MTV (reality show about Cincinnati's School for the Creative and Performing Arts); "The Roommate," 9 p.m. (sitcom about friends navigating post-college life in NYC), and "Sophie," 9:30 p.m. (sitcom about a single mom and her talent agency manager), Monday, ABC Family.

Season premiere: "DogTown," 10 p.m. Friday, National Geographic.

Reach Amy Robinson at flips...@wvgazette.com.