Do we really need mythologies anymore

[pork3]

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.

I haven't seen a thread about this new show, so I'd encourage you to create one if one doesn't already exist.

I would agree, those final scenes had me cringing with flashbacks from Lost as its mythos turned out to be, for the most part, a farce.

-Jamman

 

[JanewayRulz!]

I like stories that "go" somewhere... whether that means a "mythology" or just a simple memory of what happened before makes no difference to me.

Sometimes complex story telling can be downright fun, like the kind I'm having this year with "Once Upon a Time"... or the fun I had with NuBSG! Lost was a love/forget TV series for me... I'd watch then lose interest then watch again. I think the mere fact that I kept trying to get back into it suggests its complexity did draw me in more than CSI (and this from someone who has learned to love NCIS!)

Someone brought up JAG up thread. That's a great example of years spent circling a specific relationship question... one that became boring until the final ep. I was more invested in Bud and his wife (?) than Mac and Harm from a relationship / personal growth POV.

Never watched X files or Buffy, but did catch up with Xena 2 years ago and found that to be a satisfying mix of episodic stories AND ongoing growth of characters (especially Gabrielle).

 

[RJDiogenes]

So the canon of Sherlock Holmes takes a lot less effort than Days Of Our Lives? Most of the great classics of TV have been episodic-- they relied upon good and concise writing. Calling that "the same thing over and over" is a bit cavalier.

Nope, it's accurate. Arc based, or ongoing at least, TV shows have character arcs which episodic television does not. Character arcs are needed for any decent drama, just ask Shakespeare or Dickens or Fitzgerald. Episodic TV can't provide emotional payoff as the characters can't change. Thankfully, this rarely happens anymore as there's little truly episodic TV left.

Episodic TV shows are anthologies with continuing characters, so the character arcs happen to the characters in that particular story. There's obviously no need for the main character of a series to have a major, life-changing event in every episode.

I'm also a bit confused about your introduction of popular late nineteenth century literature to this debate, which has been about television. Certainly you could have found an episodic television series that has been canonized to make your point, no?

Sure, lots of them. But the point is that episodic and arc-based storytelling is an aspect of storytelling that is not unique to TV. Both have always been there and always will be. It's just that right now in the particular medium of TV, arc-based is what's fashionable. It doesn't represent any major breakthrough in the art of writing. There have always been epics and novels.

By what metric are you defining "the great classics of TV?" If you mean "old," then the fact that they were episodic programs is self-evident; TV-1 era programming allowed for very little serialization. If you're referring to programs that you personally like, then this is also self-evident. If you're referring to programs that have been appreciated by critics and historians of the television medium, then "most" is a gross exaggeration.

All of the above. And it's not an exaggeration; it's self evident. As you said, there was little serialization in the past, so obviously most of the great classics are episodic. Shows like Star Trek or Route 66 or Have Gun, Will Travel are simply well written, despite not having an overarching arc.

Of course, the relationship between episodic television and "good and concise writing" that you're trying to suggest (and the inverse, that serialized television must be bad and imprecise) is rather silly. Plenty of television, either episodic or serialized, could be described with either sets of terms.

Luckily, I never said that. I said that there is no intrinsic superiority to either approach.

There are three different types of TV viewers:

You forgot 4) People like me, who read novels and short stories, comic books and graphic novels, epic poetry and limericks, watch movies and short films, and both episodic and serialized TV-- and who appreciate the variety and value of each form of storytelling.

 

[startrekwatcher]

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.

See, I couldn't disagree with that more. The characters and character development/arcs is what I loved most about nBSG.

I felt that way in the early years but I think critics' praise went straight to Moore's head and the show became a pretentious mess and the characters became specimens to be analyzed and studied than people.

 

[startrekwatcher]

Mythology is absolutely key to making a show more involving, memorable, addictive and full of depth.

But you don't need a mythology to do that--you just need serialized storytelling. For me serialized arcs give you all the depth, unpredictability, willingness to shake up the status quo, twists, unforseen complications, cliffhangers and exciting build up that results in a satisfying emotional release without all the unnecessarily confusing baggage of a series spanning expansive mythology. Soap operas did this. Primetime dramas like Hill Street Blues, DALLAS, Grey's Anatomy, Melrose Place etc did this and they never had to connect all their threads, go out of their way to confuse the audience with a string of neverending questions. And even though DS9 wasn't a heavily serialized show you can look at the Occupation arc and esp the Final Chapter to see how satisfying a straightforward arc can be without all the LOST story structure and mythology.

re: episodic tv
I really don't have a problem with standalone shows--some of my all time faves are nothing but one-offs like TNG and The X-Files--but the problem with that type of show today is they are either formulaic procedurals like CSI, NCIS, L&O, Criminal Minds, Body of Proof or they tell recycled stories that are stale. TNG offered up a variety of story types from high concept sci fi mysteries(usually courtesy of Brannon Braga) to character pieces to political intrigue i.e. the Klingon stories to morality plays like "Ethics" or the classic hour by Melinda Snodgrass "Measure of a Man". Plus TNG did not have a strict formula as to how everything would play out--it isn't like CSI where they find a body, investigate, confront the killer in the interrogation room and they buckle--every week!

 

[pork3]

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.

See, I couldn't disagree with that more. The characters and character development/arcs is what I loved most about nBSG.

I felt that way in the early years but I think critics' praise went straight to Moore's head and the show became a pretentious mess and the characters became specimens to be analyzed and studied than people.

Interesting you mention that, because I got those vibes from his later podcasts.

-Jamman

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Of course you don't "need" a mythology to tell a serialized story. Some serialized stories use that format and others don't. Whether or not shows within either format are successful is another thing entirely. Same for episodic shows, which can be successful or otherwise.

I'm willing to let the show creators decide what they think their show needs and then judge for myself whether they are successful at it, and whether it's something that appeals to me. As long as show creators think they can pull off any of these formats, then we "need" to let them try. If they fail, the show will go away quickly enough.

And since Revolution won't debut until the fall, I guess the NBC 2012-13 schedule thread is a good enough place to discuss it for now. (NBC doesn't have much else worth discussing...)

So, for shows already ended like DS9, B5, Farscape, etc, they can gain new life on DVD and streaming, because the audience can go at their own pace.

My point was, DVD sales can't support the creation or even the extension of a series that can't survive on "normal" TV. So TV is still the gating factor.

The influence of DVRs in the survival of a new series on TV is a different topic. They are probably helping serialized shows survive, as long as people watch them within three days of original broadcast. After that, the advertisers won't pay, and the viewing won't count in determining the series survival.

 

[sidious618]

You forgot 4) People like me, who read novels and short stories, comic books and graphic novels, epic poetry and limericks, watch movies and short films, and both episodic and serialized TV-- and who appreciate the variety and value of each form of storytelling.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Honesty, what does this have to do with anything?

 

[RandyS]

There are three different types of TV viewers:

3) There are those, like me, who just wait for a show to be successful before we bother watching it at all. And even then, we'll wait for the DVDs or for Netflix to add it to their Instant library.

Yep, I'm the same way. I haven't watched broadcast TV since ENTERPRISE ended, and that was mainly because I got sick of the constant pop-up advertisements onscreen during the show. The only new show I currently follow is CLONE WARS, and being a Star Wars fan, I planned on adding that to my DVD library anyhow, so I just watch the episodes in a week long block every November, or thereabouts when the next DVD set comes out.

The same with The Simpsons, although in that case, the DVD's are, what? Eight years behind?

 

[RJDiogenes]

You forgot 4) People like me, who read novels and short stories, comic books and graphic novels, epic poetry and limericks, watch movies and short films, and both episodic and serialized TV-- and who appreciate the variety and value of each form of storytelling.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Honesty, what does this have to do with anything?

It has to do with responding to RoJo and to pointing out that there are many styles of storytelling, none of which is inherently superior to the other.

 

[JoeD80]

Well House turned into a pretty awful show that makes bad attempts at characterization

The characterization is probably the best part of the show for me.

but I'd say it's somewhat serialized as opposed to completely episodic.

I was referring to the medical cases of the week. It's always a new story there.

 

[MacLeod]

Are we more forgiving to some shows when it comes how episodic/arc/mythology it has. To shows like House M.D., L&O other proceduals have an easy time than a more Sci-Fi genre?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I can't talk about those since I don't watch them, but a good comedy can be episodic and still appeal to me, especially if it's on cable and doesn't have to worry about mass tastes or the FCC. Archer and Curb Your Enthusiasm for instance.

I can't think of a single episodic drama that interests me among those currently airing.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The most recent show that I've followed that was mostly episodic was Monk, and even that had a background "mythology" (in the sense that we're using it here) that led into the series finale. The most episodic show I watch currently is Bones and that is only episodic in the main plot; the character arcs continue from week to week. Nothing is purely episodic these days.

 

[stj]

Most mythologies are boring because they are mainly a morass of senseless rules and events ginned as motive for fake conflicts. Alcatraz had some mythology about time traveling for convict assassins. But there was no sane reason for going to the trouble of traveling in time for convict assassins, given that these can be obtained by mere money. What was grossly obvious by Alcatraz' second episode is true of most mythologies. They're crazy, i.e., boring when taken seriously but too elaborate for a joke.

Most character arcs are melodramatic, with changes either too extreme or too rapid or both. Also, the changes are too often unmotivated, arising neither from changes in their setting nor from interactions with other people. Many character arcs seem to be wish fulfilment fantasies about personal reinvention. Others appear to be growing up stories more or less arbitrarily stuck onto people who should already be grown up. worst of all, sometimes the character arc is that of a pendulum.

Many episodic stories are original. To be honest, I'm rather skeptical of claims that they are all predictable. What episodic stories aren't, however, is stories about the regular characters. Many viewers appear to invest in only the regular characters. It really seems that part of the resistance to episodic stories is the feeling that investing in the guest characters is like investing feeling in strangers. I'm a little uneasy at the implication that we shouldn't have feelings for strangers, but only for our friends and frenemies.

The conclusive test of experience shows that open-ended serialization is in fact an inferior form. They almost universally end badly, even when they started very well. All the talent that made good starts surely couldn't have dissipated into thin air. It must be the intrinsic limitations of the open-ended serial format.

 

[Kegg]

I really don't think episodic TV necessarily means it's 'about' the guest characters, or that serialized TV doesn't drift into a focus towards 'guests.'

A common approach for episodic TV for example is to anchor an episode around a regular character; typically most characters in a show's ensemble will get at least one episode about themselves every year. A cliched though common use for the 'guest' is as a new romantic partner that a regular has a fling with over the course of the episode and then it doesn't work out and credits.

Likewise, a serialized series may introduce a key guest character and have them involved in an arc over a couple of episodes. They may have their own story within that arc.

Addendum relevant to original topic: A series can have a myth-arc without the show being serialized. While the myth-arc episodes would need a serial element, a series could remain otherwise dependent mostly or wholly on standalone episodes. Monsters of the week were a staple of X-Files, etc.

 

[MacLeod]

I'm sure this will have been mentioned by someone, the reason why shows with a heavy arc/mythology being built into them, don't always work, is that someties it appears as if the end has yet to be concieved by the show runners. B5 is often cited as an example of a show that was written with a clear goal in mind, with various exit strategies put in place for a cast member to leave.

 

[Harvey]

I can't talk about those since I don't watch them, but a good comedy can be episodic and still appeal to me, especially if it's on cable and doesn't have to worry about mass tastes or the FCC. Archer and Curb Your Enthusiasm for instance.

Curb Your Enthusiasm hasn't really been episodic; outside of the first season it's pursued season-long arcs to great success. Archer has been less tightly structured, but definitely has strong recurring elements (Barry, Archer's wife, etc.).

 

[stj]

I really don't think episodic TV necessarily means it's 'about' the guest characters, or that serialized TV doesn't drift into a focus towards 'guests.'

It is correct that guests (especially guest villains) can be incorporated into serialized shows. It is also correct that many episodic series routinely featured the lesser players at least once a year. And it is also correct that guests are often tragic loves. But I believe it is more often the case that episodic series have the episodes center on the guests in the sense that they are the ones whose lives are permanently changed by the events.

This is not immediately apparent because these guest stories are intimately tied up with the regular lead. In doctor/lawyer/cop shows, of course, the connection between the guest and the lead is a professional one. It is very often the case that the dramatic choice or action that determines the outcome of the guest's story is made by one or more of the regular leads. In that sense it is a drama about the regular leads.

In well written episodic series, the decisions made by the regular leads will firmly establish a character, complete with depths. It is not necessary to have a backstory dramatization, or an episode focused on a "permanent" change in the regular leads' lives. Often open-ended serialization results in reversions to type (repeatedly, some times) or unbelievable reversals, that make the character-building by this kind of guest episode sometimes (often? usually?) superior.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I guess I think of Curb more as "Larry's hideously embarrassing debacle of the week." And Archer also has serialized elements but is usually about that week's mission. So those come as close to being episodic as anything I bother with anymore.