To be fair, The 4400 ran for four seasons, which is a fairly decent run. It's not like it flamed out after one season.
ABC's Once Upon a Time
- Thread starter Gryffindorian
- Start date
To be fair, The 4400 ran for four seasons, which is a fairly decent run. It's not like it flamed out after one season.
Yes but its mythology was a incoherent mess and I frankly didn't find the procedural aspect all that compelling. Plus it was on USA--a cable channel. I thoought Heroes did a better job in S1 with the people coping with abilities.
I don't think it's the structure that was the problem. It was just plan and simple bad writing. LOTS of shows fail.
Heroes seasons 2-4 could've been better, they could've told a compelling story each season... they just lacked the skills to do it.
I think writers these days make things too complicated for themselves. They worry about crafting a complex mythology centered around a very limited idea and focus on the bells and whistles rather than developing a more open premise that could potentially go on indefinitely. It is all about games and gimmicks and structure rather than good solid writing.
I long for the networks to get back to having a tv drama that doesn't give us more than 7 or so main characters and who appear almost every week; tv shows that don't incorporate into the very DNA of the show dozens and dozens of unanswered questions/mysteries that drag on into frustration. I'm so tired of writers trying to cram as much material into an hour as they can leaving very little time for longer scenes. I'd be more than happy with a few well developed season long storylines--they don't have to even be connected to each other--just break down the ensemble cast into two or three arcs that play out in a relatively straightforward manner over the season--the cast doesn't have to have their fates intertwined a la LOST or Heroes or BSG.
Too many writers think that a convoluted ADD paced show is the way to go or one that is a glacially paced pretentious bore (Caprica, Rubicon, The Killing)and I fervently disagree.
Re The 4400: Strictly speaking the overall story was not a convoluted mess. The insistence on refusing to allow the viewer enough information to understand the characters, particularly Jordan Collier, was deliberate. They also deliberately refused to allow us enough information about how the future was to be changed, not just in a technical time travel paradox way, but in an ethical goal kind of way. The moronic shades of grey principle was adhered to at all costs. Also, the way that each season ended in a seeming radical change that ended up with the balance of power between factions being the same, so that there was no essential change, was also deliberate.
Re Rubicon: The long term conspiracy made sense, which is amazing enough for any serialized show. If I recall correctly, there was only one possible plot hole, having to do with the murder of the widow who didn't interact with any other cast members until late in the season. However, Rubicon is unusual in that the show runner was changed fairly early and the new guy, while still carrying out a coherent plot for the season long mystery, treated most of the show as a workplace drama about intelligence work. That workplace drama was quite good indeed. In any event, having the bosses be the bad guys is less common, but having the bad guys win is quite unusual. Rubicon actually had something besides pretensions.
Re Rubicon: The long term conspiracy made sense, which is amazing enough for any serialized show. If I recall correctly, there was only one possible plot hole, having to do with the murder of the widow who didn't interact with any other cast members until late in the season. However, Rubicon is unusual in that the show runner was changed fairly early and the new guy, while still carrying out a coherent plot for the season long mystery, treated most of the show as a workplace drama about intelligence work. That workplace drama was quite good indeed. In any event, having the bosses be the bad guys is less common, but having the bad guys win is quite unusual. Rubicon actually had something besides pretensions.
Last edited:
I don't disagree that it's about good solid writing, I just disagree that the structure is the problem. Look at Desperate Housewives. Or Revenge. They succeed.
The opposite end of the spectrum are cop shows and bodies of the week, and that gets boring because it because the same thing over and over again.
It isn't the structure that's the problem, is what I'm arguing, it's the writing, as you and I both agree.
CSI? Law and Order? NCIS? Castle? There are a ton of these shows already.
The networks aren't doing a very good job of putting a moratorium on the Children of Lost. Depending on which pilots get pickups, almost all the sf/f genre shows have some mystery inherent in the premise. NBC - Revolution, Midnight Sun and The Frontier. ABC - Last Resort, Dark Horse, maybe 666 Park Ave.
Other than a few possibilities on the CW, that's the whole list of genre series that still have a reasonable shot at pick up. (The good news: the trend of doing cop shows with genre window dressing is definitely dying out!)
Sure, this type of show has a poor track record, but all shows have a poor track record. Most fail the first year, and of those that survive, few last very long beyond that. Four or five seasons is doing really well.
For shows to succeed nowadays, there are two realities they need to come to terms with: audiences are smaller across the board, because so much of the broadcast audience has been lost to cable, the internet, video games, et al. And more males have been lost than females, so shows that try to appeal to a male audience have a particularly rough time.
Other than a few possibilities on the CW, that's the whole list of genre series that still have a reasonable shot at pick up. (The good news: the trend of doing cop shows with genre window dressing is definitely dying out!)
Sure, this type of show has a poor track record, but all shows have a poor track record. Most fail the first year, and of those that survive, few last very long beyond that. Four or five seasons is doing really well.
Along with Revenge, Once Upon a Time is one of the few successful new shows this year. Both are complex, with large, recurring casts. Grimm is a success by NBC standards for Friday night, and they've been slowly building up a complex mythology, and moving away from the simple cop-show format they started with.
For shows to succeed nowadays, there are two realities they need to come to terms with: audiences are smaller across the board, because so much of the broadcast audience has been lost to cable, the internet, video games, et al. And more males have been lost than females, so shows that try to appeal to a male audience have a particularly rough time.
Alcatraz was an excellent example of that. I kept going as long as I did, being curious about the larger mystery (which turned out to be nothing much by the end of the season) but the serial-killer-of-the-week routine was so painfully boring that I just started fast forwarding each episode to the end, where a little more mythology might possibly be doled out.
DHW and Revenge might have good ratings but they in my opinion don't have good writing.
As for structure I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because for me structure is an issue--I simply don't think the way tv shows esp serialized ones these days are structured is very well done. They have these complicated interconnected storylines, fast pacing, collision storytelling, expansive casts that don't allow for the kind of breathing room traditional pre-2000 storytelling allowed for i.e. longer character scenes, fewer more well developed storylines as opposed to the truncated "everything including the kitchen sink" plot point approach that doesn't allow for a good story idea to be fully mined before the writers get bored and jump right into the next plot point, and a more leisurely paced hour rather than the breakneck pace.
As you just said--you are talking about extreme ends of the spectrum--I would argue there is a more satisying middle ground between stale formulaic cop crap like CSI and the bloated overly complicated storytelling style of LOST type shows.---and that is a more traditional serialized primetime drama with a modest ensemble of about 7 characters which gives everybody enough screentime each week allowing the viewer to become invested in them and with a season long storyline that doesn't need to last the life of the show or involve an outrageous amount of questions/mysteries.
I was referring to serialized dramas not procedurals. Did DALLAS, Hill Street Blues, original Melrose Place for example need complicated mythologies or drag shit out because the writers were afraid to show their hand?
Well I'll be passing because the Children of LOST have constantly disappointed and I'm through wasting my time on them.
My issue with Rubicon was that it was a tedious bore to have to sit through and there weren't very many surprises.
Last edited:
As you said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the structural thing... but I want to respond to one point...
You're kidding about Dallas and Melrose Place, right? That shit got complicated FAST. It's soap, the twists and turns, complicated relationships... one could argue, the complicated mythology (yeah, not scifi mythology, but mythology none the same) could be intimidating. But the writing--as cheesy as it might be at times-- was strong.
You're kidding about Dallas and Melrose Place, right? That shit got complicated FAST. It's soap, the twists and turns, complicated relationships... one could argue, the complicated mythology (yeah, not scifi mythology, but mythology none the same) could be intimidating. But the writing--as cheesy as it might be at times-- was strong.
Still watching...
"Indeed! It matter not!"
Snow is talking like Teal'c.
"Indeed! It matter not!"
Snow is talking like Teal'c.
Well, I completely misread Jefferson. I thought he was tragic, but he's just stupid. He's working for the Queen a third time!
Her last little bit of magic? That's coming out of nowhere.
Killing Emma breaks the curse? Any guesses as to the rationale for that?
Why does Regina not care about Mary Margaret bonding with her daughter (enough to really lay a heavy duty guilt trip on Emma
)?
Gold talks about people remembering but he doesn't talk about going back. Is it official that breaking the curse still leaves everyone in Storybrooke?
Her last little bit of magic? That's coming out of nowhere.
Killing Emma breaks the curse? Any guesses as to the rationale for that?
Why does Regina not care about Mary Margaret bonding with her daughter (enough to really lay a heavy duty guilt trip on Emma
)? Gold talks about people remembering but he doesn't talk about going back. Is it official that breaking the curse still leaves everyone in Storybrooke?
You had to pretty much watch every episode to understand what was going on but the writers told their story in a relatively linear straightforward manner--there weren't out of order flashbacks, multi-perspectives on the same event, every storyline connected, they weren't nearly as densely plotted where events were constantly being re-examined because of more and more layers piled upon giving new context to what was previously believed. They had a few parallel-running storylines that were resolved by the end of the season and the series could theoretically go on in definitely. The writers didn't have to worry about putting things off for years at a time. The writers didn't rack up dozens or even hundreds of unanswered questions leaving the audience constantly confused. The episodes picked up right where they left off the previous week instead of jumping around all the time--telegraphing what was coming then working its way back to filling in the gaps. The scenes weren't nearly as rapid-fire--you could actually follow what was going on as the episode unfolded.
They didn't run one hour long recap episodes every few months and the episode recap at the start of each hour weren't as complicated. You didn't need to check with Wikipedia to keep things straight. The writers had assembled the story for you so you didn't have to stop and put the flashbacks in order or remember who knew what when, you didn't have to fill in the blanks because the episodes weren't so crammed full of stuff that a lot of things were left for you to fill in. There wasn't a need to keep everything cloaked in a constant of mystery.
Well those shows I mentioned had season long arcs and weren't necessarily about a Big Picture mystery the way LOST and other shows like it were. Dallas was about a wealthy oil family in Dallas--pretty simple premise. MP--twentysomethings sharing life struggles in an LA apartment complex. The writers could then--which they did--craft season long arcs without concern to a bigger picture. Can you seriously tell me that LOST and Dallas--subject matter aside--are even the side beast in terms of structure. LOST was all about interconnected mysteries on an island that required stall tactics to prevent moving the story to fdar ahead and ruining other things linked. I never once experienced the kind of frustration and confusion as I did with LOST and its brethren. I didn't have to zoom in or screencap on an image and pick it apart trying to find meaning the writers suggested was there only to later learn the writers were full of shit.
But as a matter of preference I prefer that more modest serialized format. I'd rather focus consistently on 7 or so main characters, 2 or three linear plotlines with only a few mysteries/questions that are resolved definitively by the end of each season rather than some plot-heavy mythologically laden behemoth that is structured in an unnecessarily complicated way that guts the opportunity for longer scenes, more one-on-one character time--Everything on LOSTesque shows is rushed, abbreviated, plot heavy reducing characters to exposition dumpers. I just don't find it a very rewarding experience. I sit down to enjoy tv not feel like it is a huge undertaking the way LOST was.
re:the relationships weren't really that complicated on the shows I mentioned--the writers would usually pare off the ensemble in groups and keep them together over a series of episodes. LOST and its ilk almost each week tried out various pairings then spin them off with others and do that over and over again. Same thing for S1 of Heroes.
Last edited:
Soooo, you didn't like Lost then, is what I'm getting here...
Lost was an interesting experiment--I think a lot of the things it did were innovative and it was interesting to see what the writers could do with it. But ultimately I think it failed.
In the end the writers' reach exceeded their grasp and they included waaaaaaaaaaay too many plotlines and threads--more isn't always better. And they genuinely had no idea how to resolve many of them so in hindsight viewers wasted their time focusing on them.
Lindelof and Cuse even said at the end the show was more about the characters than the mysteries/mythology--something similiar was said by Moore in regards to nBSG--which to me just makes me wonder why they bothered to attempt a monstrous mythology and introduce so many elements, mysteries and questions if they felt they were an albatross around their neck. It was too much for the writers and the audience--hence my feelings about shows getting back to a more manageable storytelling format.
Is there really a need for a ton of characters if most end up being plot devices? Is there a need for dozens of mysteries dragging on for years if the writers don't intend to address them? Is there really a point to stuffing an episode full of a ton of really brief scenes rather than filling it with fewer but more substantive ones?
Basically LOST and all the wannabes that attempted to emulate it in the years that followed just cemented that sort of excessive storytelling isn't really necessary. You don't impress viewers by how many characters or mysteries or plotlines you can cram into a series. They ended up making it more difficult than it needed to be.
I gave it an overall "Good."
Emma grates from time to time. I don't like that I know more than she does.
However, the struggles of the other characters intrigue me and keep me hooked.
I like Regina as villianess. I like her - love her - hate her. Lana P is a good actress and really sells the role.
Robert C shines as Gold/Rumple. I could watch the Queen and Rumple exchange barbs all the live-long day.
Snow and Charming can be a little tedious in Maine, but pair her with Red and the Dwarves and I am having fun.
I like the progression of the "fairtytale" characters themselves.
God Bless Jefferson he is entertaining, but the man needs to stop getting involved with Regina. I guess that is why he is the Mad Hatter....The definition of insanity.
I love Leroy/Grumpy and who knew I could be jazzed by a full grown Pinocchio.
Emma grates from time to time. I don't like that I know more than she does.
However, the struggles of the other characters intrigue me and keep me hooked.
I like Regina as villianess. I like her - love her - hate her. Lana P is a good actress and really sells the role.
Robert C shines as Gold/Rumple. I could watch the Queen and Rumple exchange barbs all the live-long day.
Snow and Charming can be a little tedious in Maine, but pair her with Red and the Dwarves and I am having fun.
I like the progression of the "fairtytale" characters themselves.
God Bless Jefferson he is entertaining, but the man needs to stop getting involved with Regina. I guess that is why he is the Mad Hatter....The definition of insanity.
I love Leroy/Grumpy and who knew I could be jazzed by a full grown Pinocchio.
The finale is starting to shape up to be the thwack on the head that Emma needs, in order to start believing or at least considering the possibility that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Henry's bold act will be that thwack, driving Emma to visit the Fairy Tale land via Jefferson's hat to find some magic doodad cure.
In other words - don't bail yet! It looks like they're actually getting around to kicking the story into gear at long last.
In other words - don't bail yet! It looks like they're actually getting around to kicking the story into gear at long last.
I'm pretty much fine with the way it's progressed and it looks like the finale is shaping up well. This episode felt like we were on the brink of something serious, with the apple tree dying and the desperate attempt to jump start the Mad Hatter's hat and August giving up as he turns to wood. And, of course, Henry eating the poisoned apple.
I was disappointed that Amy Acker wasn't among the Fairies, though.
My favorite line, to Red: "You've got someone on your mouth."
I was disappointed that Amy Acker wasn't among the Fairies, though.
My favorite line, to Red: "You've got someone on your mouth."