RDM - not the answer

[Eric Cheung]

All shows have arcs, whether they're episodic or arc-based. It's inherent to the medium of television series, or for that matter any fiction series with fixed continuity, be it magazine serials or comic books or movie series. Arc-based shows are simply shows with a more conscious attempt to acknowledge the arcs in their own show. It's mostly in the past decade that Arc-based shows have gone mainstream.

I think reasons that studios might find that stuff more commercial now include TV on DVD box sets, reality television (which as much as I dislike it does train viewers to tune in week-to-week to follow a continuing storyline. Reality TV, along with NYPD Blue and French New Wave cinema verite, also probably account for the prevalence of hand-held camera-work in todays TV and movies.), and shows like Hill Street Blues and DS9 being shows of which current TV producers grew up watching.

The pendulum probably won't swing back in that regard, simply because this is a step in the evolution of the medium, not television reverting to some previous trend.

 

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between what audieces and critics like--they often coincide. ER and Lost come to mind. Sometimes I agree with critics when the two sides collide, sometimes I agree with the audience. It depends on the show.

What I meant was that when the critics disagree with the mass audience, it's almost always over a character-based show that's relatively light on plot. This has been true for decades; I think the Newsday critic used to regularly say that a show was "too good for TV," and he was usually right that such a show was toast. Always made me wonder if he regretted his career choice. I should call the shows "critic bait" instead of "quality," just to make clear that there's nothing objective about it.

You're absolutely right that audience bleeding is the problem with the character-based stuff. Critics may be insensitive to this because watching the stuff is their job; besides, if you weren't predisposed to following TV shows you wouldn't have gone into the business in the first place.

I just don't think there's a pendulum here so much as there are two different business models; Eric's right about the influence of DVDs. You can go episodic and make all your money in syndication (the strategy invented by Dick Wolf for "Law & Order," and comedies generally), or you can go extremely arc-driven and make your money from DVD sales to the few fanatics. (Don't ask me where the Stargates fit in here. )

Cable will tend to follow the second model, because it generates more critical prestige and cable networks need that. Sci-Fi gets better ratings for their dopey monster movies, but if that and reruns were all they offered, they wouldn't be able to keep their channel slot; they'd be exiled to the 160+ band the way Oxygen channel was.

Going back a little in the thread, I decided that with all the talk of soap operas, one of us should actually watch one. I decided to look at an episode of "As the World Turns," since I'm familiar with the show from when my mom used to watch it back in the 80s. It was actually kind of amazing; not only were many of the characters the same, but there were at least eight actors playing the same parts after 2 decades. Job security, eh?

Frow what I could see, the characters that I knew were exactly the same as they had ever been; different situations, but the same personalities. Wouldn't be the first time that one of stj's vague generalizations had failed a reality check, of course.

Anyway, I realized something about the form. Sure, there's a lot of talking between characters that just rehashes previous plot elements. Without this, you really would have to watch the show every day to follow the plots. But as written, every episode recaps the last couple, so you can skip a day, a week, or two decades, and still get right up to speed.

We probably shouldn't talk about BSG as being "soapish," since it's not doing the same thing that soaps do. The character talk isn't there to bring the audience up to speed, it's there because it's the substance of the show.

 

[Eric Cheung]

I've been watching reruns of Get Smart lately, as I haven't done since I was a kid watching it on Nick @ Nite. And a funny thing occurred to me: it's fairly arc-driven for a silly sitcom. Early on it's clear 99 has a crush on Max and the chemistry between them grows. Later on, each has an opportunity to be jealous of the other which culminates in an episode in which Max shyly attempts to tell 99 he loves her because they're facing certain death. The subsequent episodes integrate thrilling espionage plots, the usual verbal, slapstick, and character-based comedy, and the little details involved in planning a wedding, and eventually the twins get born.

My point is that even with most arc-driven shows they usually do a pretty good job of either catching the viewers up or making the arc stuff only part of the particular episode you're actually watching.

On his blog on Scifi.com, Moore says the following regarding the influence of Hill Street Blues:

I made explicit reference to the show in our series bible and talked about how we would strive to emulate their structure as much as possible. That structure was, basically, to have a self-contained A-Story that would begin and end each week, with smaller character-centered B-Stories that would take place over a few episodes, and finally long-running C-Stories that would arc throughout the season.

I remember seeing the first season finale of 24, after never having watched it before, and being surprised at how much I was able to get the basic story down in just minutes. As television is getting more arc-driven, it's getting more economical in its writing.

 

[stj]

Real life taking up most of my time, but---

In my second post I wrote "In the long run, because all the innumerable changes to the characters give them an unreal plasticity, they tend to become more archetypes than real people, despite the many hours devoted to character development." And, "It is not at all clear why anyone thinks it is more realistic to write silly stories where some melodramatic epiphany somehow changes everything---particularly when even very often even in the series itself, nothing really changes at all."

This may seem paradoxical. But in practice character-driven writing (aka soap writing) develops individual characters by melodramatic scenes where they emote some viewer fantasy. Then when some other viewer fantasy is being emoted the new character traits devised for the ritual cancel out the older character traits. It doesn't take too long before the supposed character is really nothing more than a cardboard cutout with a hole for the viewer to imagine their own face. The unchanging essence is usually identifiable I think as a basic archetype.

I made the mistake of giving a concrete example---In an early episode, Adama will risk all humanity for (supposedly surrogate daughter) Starbuck. The climax is his declaration he would sacrifice everything for Apollo. Adama's identity as a father is strong enough to overcome decades of indoctrination and dedication to military service. Now if that's the kind of man Adama is, how can he, when both Starbuck and Apollo, are trapped on a planet where the sun is about to blow up (or whatever the jeopardy was,) suddenly is not only indifferent but seems to derive some sort of sour satisfaction that they are getting what they deserve?

The answer is that the first story was a sentimental fantasy about the loving patriarch revealing the depth of his love. In the second story the stern patriarch rejects Apollo and Starbuck for their disregard of marriage vows. The only character consistency lies in the archetypal figure of the patriarch, who does different things according the the scenario. Adama as a lifelike character no longer exists.

One objection to the example was that Adama learned better. I'm sorry I can't help but think this is foolishness. What kind of lesson teaches a middle aged man not to love his son? Roslin's confrontation with Adama over the search for Starbuck? The very idea is ludicrous. It suggests an adolescent thinking that he or she will change as they grow up, projecting that inchoate sense of self onto the TV screen. The other objection was that Adama is a creature of impulse. That also is foolishness. What creature of impulse has the awesome ability to quell practically all humanity with a single look? Adama is written as the rock of the fleet, not a creature of impulse.

Misrepresenting someone's views, then refuting the misrepresentation is a rhetorical trick called the straw man. Resorting to deception of this kind is a symptom of a lost cause. By the way, the inability to even attempt to explain how Starbuck isn't a classic soap opera Queen of Misery, or the witlessness of the Adama/Roslin 'ship are also symptomatic.

I referred to the political implications of BSG. If people will deliberately misrepresent what I said about the soapishness of BSG, they will certainly not be forthright about political issues. As for the religious implications of BSG, note that the sexy Cylons are literally dying to be human. Those are the ones who had a dose of good luvving from a hero or heroine, don't you know? The incredible stupidity (and not-very-niceness too) should have been painfully obvious to everyone. But when the elephant in the room cannot be mentioned, discussion is impossible.

 

[stonester1]

Don't you ever get tired of hearing yourself bloviate?

 

[David cgc]

I made the mistake of giving a concrete example---In an early episode, Adama will risk all humanity for (supposedly surrogate daughter) Starbuck. The climax is his declaration he would sacrifice everything for Apollo. Adama's identity as a father is strong enough to overcome decades of indoctrination and dedication to military service. Now if that's the kind of man Adama is, how can he, when both Starbuck and Apollo, are trapped on a planet where the sun is about to blow up (or whatever the jeopardy was,) suddenly is not only indifferent but seems to derive some sort of sour satisfaction that they are getting what they deserve?

I saw no evidence that Adama was trying to get the people on the Algae Planet killed or experienced any schadenfreude at their predicament. Indeed, I don't think there's ever been any evidence at all that Adama knows or cares about Lee and Kara's relationship.

More importantly, the situations are not analogous. In the first, there was nothing to prevent Adama from looking for Kara until the end of time (or, rather, until they ran out of fuel). There were no Cylons around attacking them. In the second, the Cylons are sitting right there in a standoff and will shoot down any rescue ship and then destroy Galactica with their superior numbers should Adama attempt to pick up the people on the planet. The Cylons are not some abstract consideration that may or may not show up at some undetermined point in the future as in the first instance; they are a very active participant in what is happening. They are the jeopardy that's caused Lee and Kara to be trapped. In fact, the moment the threat of a Cylon strike is removed, Adama launches a rescue even though the sun has already exploded and there is barely enough time to attempt it, and the ship comes within seconds of being destroyed because it stayed behind to rescue the people on the ground.

In other words, as soon the situation at the Algae Planet became equivalent to the situation on the Red Moon, Adama acted in exactly the same way, taking what some might consider an unacceptable risk to rescue a small number of people, including his son and surrogate daughter. So, he hasn't stopped loving his children.

The answer is that the first story was a sentimental fantasy about the loving patriarch revealing the depth of his love. In the second story the stern patriarch rejects Apollo and Starbuck for their disregard of marriage vows.

Again, no indication is given that Adama knows or cares about their affair. He doesn't seem to give it any thought in the episodes concerned, being far more interested in the standoff with the Cylons and preventing them from killing the people on the planet and finding the way to Earth. Indeed, if he didn't want to save the people on the planet for whatever reason, he could've just bombed the temple with the information about Earth so the Cylons wouldn't get it and left, instead of staying behind in a dangerous situation to protect his people.

 

[NoImpulseEngine]

He's overrated, RDM is a competent remaker but he's not much of a writer

But that's RDM's biggest problem - He's ALL style and No substance - I'd make it darker - i'd make it lighter - WHO CARES Can you come up witha good story or at least attract the right talent who does? No - all he's worried about is the look not the meat Hence his shows wiggle around and tend to be boring

I liked DS9 but wasn't ever a big DS9 fanboy, it copied too many pages from the B-5 books

Original series fans got a laugh out of the ratings for one of Sci Fi's Saturday night schlock movies, Earthstorm, starring original series star Dirk Benedict. The movie posted a rating of 1.9 while that week's episode of Battlestar Galactica could only manage a 1.2.

The GINO fans are still watching?

 

[clonewarrior]

Real life taking up most of my time, but---

In my second post I wrote "In the long run, because all the innumerable changes to the characters give them an unreal plasticity, they tend to become more archetypes than real people, despite the many hours devoted to character development." And, "It is not at all clear why anyone thinks it is more realistic to write silly stories where some melodramatic epiphany somehow changes everything---particularly when even very often even in the series itself, nothing really changes at all."

This may seem paradoxical. But in practice character-driven writing (aka soap writing) develops individual characters by melodramatic scenes where they emote some viewer fantasy. Then when some other viewer fantasy is being emoted the new character traits devised for the ritual cancel out the older character traits. It doesn't take too long before the supposed character is really nothing more than a cardboard cutout with a hole for the viewer to imagine their own face. The unchanging essence is usually identifiable I think as a basic archetype.

I made the mistake of giving a concrete example---In an early episode, Adama will risk all humanity for (supposedly surrogate daughter) Starbuck. The climax is his declaration he would sacrifice everything for Apollo. Adama's identity as a father is strong enough to overcome decades of indoctrination and dedication to military service. Now if that's the kind of man Adama is, how can he, when both Starbuck and Apollo, are trapped on a planet where the sun is about to blow up (or whatever the jeopardy was,) suddenly is not only indifferent but seems to derive some sort of sour satisfaction that they are getting what they deserve?

The answer is that the first story was a sentimental fantasy about the loving patriarch revealing the depth of his love. In the second story the stern patriarch rejects Apollo and Starbuck for their disregard of marriage vows. The only character consistency lies in the archetypal figure of the patriarch, who does different things according the the scenario. Adama as a lifelike character no longer exists.

One objection to the example was that Adama learned better. I'm sorry I can't help but think this is foolishness. What kind of lesson teaches a middle aged man not to love his son? Roslin's confrontation with Adama over the search for Starbuck? The very idea is ludicrous. It suggests an adolescent thinking that he or she will change as they grow up, projecting that inchoate sense of self onto the TV screen. The other objection was that Adama is a creature of impulse. That also is foolishness. What creature of impulse has the awesome ability to quell practically all humanity with a single look? Adama is written as the rock of the fleet, not a creature of impulse.

Misrepresenting someone's views, then refuting the misrepresentation is a rhetorical trick called the straw man. Resorting to deception of this kind is a symptom of a lost cause. By the way, the inability to even attempt to explain how Starbuck isn't a classic soap opera Queen of Misery, or the witlessness of the Adama/Roslin 'ship are also symptomatic.

I referred to the political implications of BSG. If people will deliberately misrepresent what I said about the soapishness of BSG, they will certainly not be forthright about political issues. As for the religious implications of BSG, note that the sexy Cylons are literally dying to be human. Those are the ones who had a dose of good luvving from a hero or heroine, don't you know? The incredible stupidity (and not-very-niceness too) should have been painfully obvious to everyone. But when the elephant in the room cannot be mentioned, discussion is impossible.

Great post - right on the money

 

[Jonesy]

Moore is probably one of Trek's better writers. My only complaint is that these days he does a bit too much bitching about Trek. The DVD commentary for the BSG mini-series is basically just three hours of him bithcing about Trek and David Eick bitching about other sci-fi shows.

I'd would add to say that it seemed that every third statement out of his mouth on the entire season 1 set was him bitching about Trek. I like RDM's writing and think he's better than most of the currently working television scifi writers, but I'll never sit through those commentaries ever again.