If a series talks about one theme and manages to do that until the end, they deserve a round of applause. So many different series could not, and 13 Reasons Why was one of them.

The title '13 Reasons Why' had a meaning, 13 reasons as to why someone did something, or why something happened. And they did pour the title into the story very well in the first season. Season 1 had a coherent plot, cinematography, cinematic representation, and practically anything else you might've wanted from a teen drama series. It interpreted the title very well with Hannah Baker's tapes and the people in them. The theme was light, it was a good mystery, it was a good romance, it was a good crime series. I'd happily give season 1 an 8.6 or even a 9, but they just had to carry on with season 2, 3, and 4.

The thing is, the whole '13 Reasons Why' arc only applied to the first season. Season 2 was nothing but the production team beating a dead horse. They could've removed the last three seasons and be praised for just one good season. The second season's plot didn't need to happen. Even if the audiences didn't see it on screen, the story could've ended just fine. So were the events of season 3. A whole new crime, a whole new case for an entirely different character. A whole season dedicated for a whole new mystery that could've been countered with--oh I don't know, how about a redemption arc?

Redemption arcs don't exist in 13 Reasons Why. I can name a few different series and movies that managed to fit a good redemption arc in between the main events of the story, but nope, that was just not the case in this show. Death really is the cheapest way of redeeming a character. Even the one single character I once believed would finally get redemption at the end of the fourth season was once again served with injustice.

Don't get me started with the final season. I really had high hopes, because one friend convinced me to finish the series instead of abandoning it for something else. But if there was one season in 13 Reasons why that disappointed me the most, it was season 4.

Season 3 carried quite a plot on its shoulders, with it wrapped up in at the end of the season, yet quite unsatisfyingly, and I was more than happy to greet a fourth season, see if justice will be served. Personally I was less on Clay and his friends' side and more on the 'antagonists'' side, and I'd like to see a series where the main character is made as the bad guys and gets justice served right onto their faces. Season 4 also got me really excited the first time. Aside from it being the final season and carrying the conclusion to the conflict in season 3, season 4 had a really good color scheme representation, which I had also praised in the previous seasons.

The series finale was the farthest thing I can get from an ending I actually want. I thought 13 Reasons Why was finally doing something different, making me side with the initial 'antagonists' of the fourth season for once. It didn't represent it's '13 Reasons Why' series title whichever way you see it. And no, forcing the initial main characters of a series for a rendezvous does not count. Why would you bring back characters who didn't even matter throughout the events at season 2 and 3 for a fifteen-minute scene at the end of the series?

If it matters, there were zero likeable characters from the series. The main character is pathetic, and everyone else bores me, they seem to have same problems, and if they do, it's not put into focus in the series except for Tony Padilla. One character in particular amused me, though, and he was Charlie St. George, more because he was soft and lovable than because he changed the series in some way. His caring and loving attitude was exactly the thing I needed in the midst of liars, rapers, and killers in the 13 Reasons Why storyline.

I might sound like I loathed the series, and some part of me does. I spent a night coding and decoding, seeing if there was a hidden ending or a hidden moral the 13 Reasons Why crew wanted me to pick, but there was none. That, or I didn't think hard enough. But I can't say I hated everything about it.

The first season had a very good story. It was coherent, it was good, cinematic representation was done very well, how we can see that the scene we're watching is set in the past through the warm shade, and in the present with the colder color scheme and Clay's scar. The same cinematic representation was used throughout season 2 and 3, where season 3 also had screen size difference for these representations, a wider one for present events. The story itself told us that people you think might be innocent could be deeply involved in a crime, that rape and bullying is a more serious problem than meets the eye. And even though season 2 and 3's plot were forced, I really have to compliment the actors on their acting throughout the series, especially Katherine Langford and Alisha Boe's.

In short, if you're watching movies and shows for the thrill of it, if you just want to watch good shows, you should stick with the first season. Don't even bother touching the second seasons and the seasons that come afterwards. But if you're here for curiosity, for criticism, to see why people are so against the show after season 1, then do carry on.