And I wasn't really thinking about this show in particular, just genre-bending in general and why it's so rare.
I once saw a synopsis someone had written of a story whose elements were picked by random generator and were ALMOST coherent, resulting in something that was basically most of Casablanca before suddenly turning into The Blob. And I thought it was absolutely hilarious, how this serious historical drama of the sort that wins awards got suddenly hijacked by the schlockiest of sci-fi, but later realized why such things generally aren't done. It only worked BECAUSE it was a synopsis; if it were a longer work, the people who were there for the serious historical drama wouldn't be happy to see it hijacked, and the people who wanted the schlocky sci-fi probably wouldn't want to sit through the serious historical drama.
Storytelling runs on making promises and delivering on them satisfactorily, which takes some measure of consistency. Looking at Star Vs., it has to be about more than just "changing the status quo" itself; there certainly are countless directions it could go that would leave everybody dissatisfied, like, say, "abandon the rest of the cast but River and Ludo who go on a road trip for a season;" that would be a change, yes, but we've gotten invested in characters and plotlines beyond them and would rightfully feel like that isn't what we've signed up for. Not saying this is what is happening now, but just describing why there's a limit to going in that direction.>It would absolutely suck shit if we were still doing episodes in high school about Brittney being a bitch with no lore in sight
Not to the people who liked that! (Of whom I presume there are some, and their tastes are as valid as anybody else's.) And the people who like "lore being in sight" might have had problems getting over the zany fluff of Season 1, while the people who liked that early zany fluff might feel abandoned, see.