Wouldn't the opposite be true? Wouldn't a short attention span favor an easy-to-follow episodic format?
Do we really need mythologies anymore
- Thread starter startrekwatcher
- Start date
Wouldn't the opposite be true? Wouldn't a short attention span favor an easy-to-follow episodic format?
You're right. Like a novel series the creator should have a clear concept of the head, body and tail of it as a single organism that keeps changing and shifting but remains basically the same. GR is Star Trek as a showrunner/creator is the show. Hidden, couched mysteries that have no definite direction or solution to it are no mysteries and weak mythologies at best. JJ's reach exceeds his grasp. It becomes about personalities outsmarting and outthinking themselves with mediocrity and that's what killed Star Trek which should have been, well about good Star Trek. A good writer writes the end first with it firmly in mind first and foremost. Many good stories are all about their end and aftermath.
Last edited:
If we take 3 of the Trek shows
TNG, it's premise led to a more episodic format. Which they used
DSN's premise led more towards a serialised(arc) based format which they used
VOY's premise once again led to a serialised format, however they went more towards the episodic format.
The first two are generally held in high regard, the latter not as much so. Could that in part be down to the fact that the former two used their premises correctly whilst the latter didn't.
Of course some disagree because of their prefences to a more episodic format.
TNG, it's premise led to a more episodic format. Which they used
DSN's premise led more towards a serialised(arc) based format which they used
VOY's premise once again led to a serialised format, however they went more towards the episodic format.
The first two are generally held in high regard, the latter not as much so. Could that in part be down to the fact that the former two used their premises correctly whilst the latter didn't.
Of course some disagree because of their prefences to a more episodic format.
I agree. If New Galactica had focused more on it's mythology and less on it's characters, it would have been a MUCH better show.
In my opinion, anyhow.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Audiences want more complicated story arcs that they need to pay close attention to for months or years on end, proving that their attention span is declining.
T
Well this is a discussion board--I think discussing the increase in mythology/mystery dramas is a valid one given the explosion of that type of show in recent years and the failure rate of them. If you don't like it then avoid the thread but I see no reason to come into it like a few others have and contribute nothing except to complain about the poster and offer lowbrow efforts at "humor" rather than being on topic--that to me isn't normal.
Do you ever contribute anything substantive to any thread besides bitching about my posts?
Well, in a similar vein, since you only want to give your opinion and not actually discuss anything or consider others opinions, why bother starting a thread at all?
You hate LOST and everything like it. Got it.
I like LOST but all the attempts by the studios to copy its rating success have failed. Oh well. Next season, there will be another trend that everyone will copy, trying to cash in. Big Whoop.
Once Upon a Time and Grimm show that mythology is very useful in two types of shows: fantasy soaps pitched to women and sf/f for small niche audiences. So if you're on ABC or the CW, or alternately on Friday night (where niche audiences are acceptable), then mythology is a good strategy.
Deadline's doing some analysis of the logic behind the networks' choices.
ABC is making a play for the male audience. During this past week, when more of their soap pilots were rumored to be strong, I'd wondered if they were going for an all-female strategy. But at the last minute, they dropped a couple front-running soaps and picked up fantasy (666 Park Ave) and a couple male-skewing, mythology-heavy series (Last Resort and Zero Hour).
So ABC is testing the proposition that mythology can also work among a male, non-niche audience. My bets: 666 Park Ave will make it (soapy horror appeals to women), especially if Once Upon a Time is the lead-in on Sunday night, and maybe Zero Hour (sounds like it might have reasonable female appeal).
But I wouldn't bet heavily on Last Resort. That could very well be one of those shows that get a big initial sampling and then fall off a cliff. If they want to appeal to men, they need ACTION, not mythology.
Deadline hasn't done an analysis of NBC yet. Unlike ABC, which has a very clear (if risky) strategy, NBC is a bit of a mish-mash. With the Olympics and football to use as leverage for ads, NBC should really be the network making a strong play for the male audience. But what did they pick up? A mythology-heavy sf/f series (Revolution) and a sci-fi-ish doctor show (Do No Harm).
Again, I think the way to appeal to the male audience is action. Whatever happened to all the strong 24-ish action series? It's all talk talk talk now. NBC had a Western (!!!) it could have picked up. Show danger, violence, guns and horses, maybe some spooky supernatural hints to the sports viewers. If watching a show about people without electricity is such a draw, why not just make that show a Western?
Deadline's doing some analysis of the logic behind the networks' choices.
ABC is making a play for the male audience. During this past week, when more of their soap pilots were rumored to be strong, I'd wondered if they were going for an all-female strategy. But at the last minute, they dropped a couple front-running soaps and picked up fantasy (666 Park Ave) and a couple male-skewing, mythology-heavy series (Last Resort and Zero Hour).
So ABC is testing the proposition that mythology can also work among a male, non-niche audience. My bets: 666 Park Ave will make it (soapy horror appeals to women), especially if Once Upon a Time is the lead-in on Sunday night, and maybe Zero Hour (sounds like it might have reasonable female appeal).
But I wouldn't bet heavily on Last Resort. That could very well be one of those shows that get a big initial sampling and then fall off a cliff. If they want to appeal to men, they need ACTION, not mythology.
Deadline hasn't done an analysis of NBC yet. Unlike ABC, which has a very clear (if risky) strategy, NBC is a bit of a mish-mash. With the Olympics and football to use as leverage for ads, NBC should really be the network making a strong play for the male audience. But what did they pick up? A mythology-heavy sf/f series (Revolution) and a sci-fi-ish doctor show (Do No Harm).
Again, I think the way to appeal to the male audience is action. Whatever happened to all the strong 24-ish action series? It's all talk talk talk now. NBC had a Western (!!!) it could have picked up. Show danger, violence, guns and horses, maybe some spooky supernatural hints to the sports viewers. If watching a show about people without electricity is such a draw, why not just make that show a Western?
Do it, it's great!
And now that you know that the ending is "disappointing" (which is arguable), you won't be disappointed.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. RJ obviously has it backwards there.
I love "mythology" shows like Twin Peaks, X-Files, LOST, Carnivale, and Game of Thrones. They're deeper and more rewarding. Certainly serialization is needed to have an effective, although not necessarily successful, ongoing show as the characters can grow and their actions will have consequences.
Hey! The trailer for Revolution looks good, will wonders never cease?
Dad from Twilight makes a good action hero, reminiscent of Richard Dean Anderson. Giancarlo Esposito is of course a badass villian. I like Nate - hope he will become one of those "whose side is he on?" type characters. As for the niece, eh, not so sure about her acting. Maybe it will improve.
As long as the characters are fun and there's plenty of action, I don't mind waiting for the mythology to unspool. I just can't stand it when the show is static - that was the problem with Alcatraz - or when the characters are meh - that killed The Event.
The final scenes of the trailer will prove disturbing to anyone who hates Lost.
Dad from Twilight makes a good action hero, reminiscent of Richard Dean Anderson. Giancarlo Esposito is of course a badass villian. I like Nate - hope he will become one of those "whose side is he on?" type characters. As for the niece, eh, not so sure about her acting. Maybe it will improve.
As long as the characters are fun and there's plenty of action, I don't mind waiting for the mythology to unspool. I just can't stand it when the show is static - that was the problem with Alcatraz - or when the characters are meh - that killed The Event.
The final scenes of the trailer will prove disturbing to anyone who hates Lost.
That's a matter of opinion/taste. I was quite satisfied with the close of both Lost and nBSG.
True-- all I mean is "cohesive fictional universe."
No, because episodic shows offer a static format which an audience with a shorter attention span gets bored with quickly; an arc-based show offers constant novelty-- from unexpected reveals to the ever-popular shocking death of a major character-- which keeps them tuned in.
See above.
See above.Yeah, that's what I was thinking. RJ obviously has it backwards there.
Still doesn't make sense. An episodic show is the same thing over and over again which requires much less thought to watch and write. A long show requires patience and attention, something people with short attention span's don't have. David Simon made this point in an interview once where he explained just how different it is between a CSI show and an ongoing show like The Wire.
I can dangle a string in front of my cat every day for hours and she'll never tire of the entertainment. Clearly, cats are superior in intellect to man.
Maybe people who are easily bored tend to get more bored with episodic formats, because they see the same thing over and over. That certainly describes me. I crave novelty, invention and surprise, and have little patience for shows whose rhythms I can predict.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the ability to focus on something, but rather motivation. If I don't think something is worth my focus, if it bores me, I have no motivation to pay attention to it for two seconds. Why should I? Nobody pays me to watch TV.
Episodic formats have a nice, soothing quality to them. People watch them because they are predictable. When you're burnt out at the end of a hard day, the last thing you need is a story jerking you this way and that, after the boss has done that all day.
However, in my case, when I feel that burnt out, I play the piano. That provides repetition (can't get very good at it any other way.) I don't need TV for that.
Something doesn't strike me right here. I don't think you are using the term mythology correctly for what you're trying to describe. Mythology is either the study of myths or a collection of ancient stories. That doesn't seem to be what you're talking about.
Mind you there has been reference to modern mythologies referring I believe to popular or familiar elements of a collection of stories. I've heard the term used in reference to the mythology of Superman or Batman or other superheroes. Versions of the story can be retold with differences in detail yet all draw upon the same basic elements or mythology. I've even heard the term used in reference to Star Trek, most particularly TOS.
One could say the current Dr. Who draws upon the mythology of past Dr. Who series or versions without adhering unwaveringly to previous continuity.
Mind you there has been reference to modern mythologies referring I believe to popular or familiar elements of a collection of stories. I've heard the term used in reference to the mythology of Superman or Batman or other superheroes. Versions of the story can be retold with differences in detail yet all draw upon the same basic elements or mythology. I've even heard the term used in reference to Star Trek, most particularly TOS.
One could say the current Dr. Who draws upon the mythology of past Dr. Who series or versions without adhering unwaveringly to previous continuity.
Mythos/mythology/mytharc means "some big hand-waving mystery that the characters and the audience are clueless about, yet is the point of the show, or at least real important." I think The X-Files is to blame for this.
Everyone seems to understand it. We're not talking about Greek myths. Star Trek has never had a mythology in this sense. Maybe the Prophets if you really stretch a point.
Everyone seems to understand it. We're not talking about Greek myths. Star Trek has never had a mythology in this sense. Maybe the Prophets if you really stretch a point.
No, mythology/mythos is merely the background universe elements and history that stories draw upon. Mass Effect's mythology includes asari, Battlestar Galactica's mythology includes Cylons.
Star Trek definitely has a mythology, including Klingons who come from Quo'nos and are imperial conquerors, Romulans who fought a war with Earth centuries ago and are xenophobic offshoots of Vulcans, and a mulispecies Federation that humans are a part of and has had several ships name Enterprise.
Star Trek definitely has a mythology, including Klingons who come from Quo'nos and are imperial conquerors, Romulans who fought a war with Earth centuries ago and are xenophobic offshoots of Vulcans, and a mulispecies Federation that humans are a part of and has had several ships name Enterprise.
Okay let's break this mythology discussion down. There appear to be three competing defintions here.
Usage A:
This uses 'mythology' as fictional universe. Its application to sci-fi and fantasy TV is obvious, but it could also be applied to non-SF TV - in the universe of Homeland, the current Vice President of the United States is William Walden.
Usage B:
The dictionary definition, basically - well, close to it, as 'ancient stories' are not automatically 'myths.'
And Usage C:
Now, this is actually what we're talking about.
When talking about a TV show's 'mythology', the source of the term is the X-Files and the X-Files myth-arc. This is the sense the word's generally used in this context, and certainly was the one used in the OP.
Therefore, yes, BSG has a mythology, but the mythology is not 'the Cylons', it is the Cylon Plan and the other ambiguous forces at work in the series.
Usage A:
This uses 'mythology' as fictional universe. Its application to sci-fi and fantasy TV is obvious, but it could also be applied to non-SF TV - in the universe of Homeland, the current Vice President of the United States is William Walden.
Usage B:
The dictionary definition, basically - well, close to it, as 'ancient stories' are not automatically 'myths.'
And Usage C:
Now, this is actually what we're talking about.
When talking about a TV show's 'mythology', the source of the term is the X-Files and the X-Files myth-arc. This is the sense the word's generally used in this context, and certainly was the one used in the OP.
Therefore, yes, BSG has a mythology, but the mythology is not 'the Cylons', it is the Cylon Plan and the other ambiguous forces at work in the series.
Similar threads
