Do we really need mythologies anymore

[RJDiogenes]

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.

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. I understand what you're saying, but it's still true that it's the constant novelty-- or illusion of novelty-- that is the appeal of most arc-based storytelling.

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.

You're obviously feeling defensive, since I never said anything about intelligence.

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.

That's exactly what I said. Except that you're trivializing episodic writing to stack the deck. They are not "the same thing over and over" (unless they're badly written), they are complete and concise short stories that use the same characters and setting from episode to episode.

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.

If I don't think something is worth my focus, it bores me, too. This applies to arc-based storytelling as much as episodic storytelling. It's characters and story and writing that interests me-- I don't care if it's a 10-minute short film or a 5-season novel for TV.

Episodic formats have a nice, soothing quality to them. People watch them because they are predictable.

Again, it depends on what you're looking for. If you care about the writing, it doesn't matter that Holmes and Watson are back at 221 B Baker Street or that Kirk and Spock are back on the Enterprise at the end of every story-- if you care about whether a major character might die this week or a secret agenda might be revealed then the episodic format isn't for you-- but that's a triumph of form over substance.

 

[sidious618]

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.

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.

 

[xortex]

Character arcs are one thing but Trek doesn't need story arcs. It's story is hey what's out there beyond the farthest star. It's mythology are the strands that run thriugh it - the through lines and light motifs as they say in opera and the answers to that question as well as it's ongoing plot lines and races and elements that make it distinctively Trek and not anything else. There's no klingons in Star Wars, etc. and there's no light sabers in Trek though Trek could certainly bolster it's premise with more religious, philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings and continuity to improve it's overall consistancy if not a redefining and reworking, revising of the premise altogether to stand it on it's head in some wierd Bragesh way to reimagine it.

 

[Sindatur]

Arcs aren't the problem, it's the planning and the pacing that are the problem.

I agree, you should make your Season Finale, adaptable to be a Series Finale if necessary, and try to clean almost everything up from this season by the end of it, and start to unravel something for the next season.

So, you need to know going in, what you want to accomplish, where you want to go, and how long you will take to get there, and it shouldn't be so closed ended that you can't either do more seasons with a new arc or do a spinoff in the same universe. The Network needs to understand this arc is planned for X number of years, and that taking it longer than that will water the show down, but, they need to know if it's a hit, they'll be able to milk it longer via a spinoff, or a new arc (IE: A 5 year gets to end, show is still real strong, present them with a follow story of at least two years, and have them guarantee that 2 years, so your audience who has stuck with you through 5+ years doesn't get shafted; or have a spinoff idea ready to offer them if you can't continue the primary show)

The frenetic pace, unfortunately is necessary for today's audience, they don't want to watch a show not move along arc-wise each week, unless there is a "Shiny Gold ball to attract their attention". I do agree, you shouldn't throw out 15 plotlines and advance each one only 1 or 2 minutes a week. You do need to pace properly. Throw 3 or 4 or 5 plotlines, let them develop each week, and lead into the next 3 or 4 or 5 as they resolve themselves. As well as planning your arc by the season, you also need to plan it according to rerun breaks. If Plotline A leads to plotline D, don't throw plotline D out on day 1 and let it languish for a year, let Plotline A play itself almost out, and open up the reveal of plotline D, you still get there in the same amount of time, but, it's much more entertaining to watch it unfold.

Maybe 22 - 26 episodes a season, is a burden, 13 episode seasons often have much tighter arc pacing

And of course, you need characters the audience can relate to, cheer on, love to hate, or something that entertains them and keep the characters growing. I think SGU's biggest problem for me was I couldn't enjoy any of the characters for the first season. Rush, Greer and Young, I thought really hurt the show, there was nothing that made me want to watch those characters (Though by second half of Season two I really enjoyed Rush and Greer, and I absolutely love the character Mr Gold/Rumplestiltskin on Once Upon a Time, so, it's certainly wasn't the actor in the case of Rush, it was writing). Nothing wrong with having a character or two you don't like or want to see get killed, that makes the show better and give you drama and tension to play off. But, when you want to see the entire cast blown up, there's something wrong with the character writing

 

[JoeD80]

Nope, it's accurate. Arc based, or ongoing at least, TV shows have character arcs which episodic television does not.

Stand-alone stories don't mean that a reset button has to be pushed. A show like House brings new stories in every week but the characters have certainly changed and are not in the same place from episode-to-episode.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

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.

In my opinion, anyhow.

Same here.

 

[Kegg]

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'd easily concur with Eliyahu - the characters made the series for me and are BSG's strong point, not to be detracted from at all... although I do think the mythology needed work. As I elucidated earlier a major problem with many TV mythologies is they aren't planned out in advance, and if BSG knew all the 'answers' to the Cylons and the religion issues by the time they were scripting the miniseries the series might have flowed a little better than it did.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

No, mythology/mythos is merely the background universe elements and history that stories draw upon.

I just call that "background." A mythos series is a specific sub-genre of sf/f, in which the story hinges on the protagonist(s) and the audience learning about some Big Secret that Holds The Answers to Everything. Once the answer is known, either the story ends or needs to change in some fundamental way.

There have been enough of these kind of series to warrant their own label, because they pose specific problems, namely their tendency to drag their feet about revealing that game-changing secret. Which is exactly what the OP is complaining about, and therefore the topic of this thread. Mere background isn't going to make a story unwieldly or draggy - that only happens if the "background" is actually the point of the story.

Alcatraz, The Event, FlashForward and now Revolution are mythos series, but Once Upon a Time isn't, because the audience and practically all of the characters know the curse is the problem and the question is a pragmatic one - how to overcome it. If the series were told only from Emma's point of view, and the audience really didn't know if the townspeople might be lunatics who believe in a magical curse, then it would be a mythos series.

Grimm isn't a mythos story either. Nick needs to learn things he doesn't now understand, but it's not really One Big Secret. Nick can learn everything there is to know about Wessens but it won't require that the format of the series be utterly upended.

 

[TheGus251]

Mythology is absolutely key to making a show more involving, memorable, addictive and full of depth. Unfortunately it is not something that is particularly suited to tv - hence the many sci-fi shows that have dome much better on dvd release like Firefly.

In short, the fans love mythologies as they deeping their bond with the show, the tv executives hate mythologies because they alienate new viewers

 

[Harvey]

So the canon of Sherlock Holmes takes a lot less effort than Days Of Our Lives?

I have no problem dismissing soap operas on aesthetic grounds, but the assumption that their audiences casually and effortlessly consume such programs betrays a complete lack of understanding of those audiences.

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?

Most of the great classics of TV have been episodic-- they relied upon good and concise writing.

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.

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.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Shows that end up on DVD need to start on TV. If they can't survive in the TV ecosystem, there won't be much on DVD (ie, Firefly). Unless you mean direct to DVD series? Do they exist and are they worth watching?

Fans don't love mythologies in and of themselves - shows like Alcatraz, The Event and FlashForward, that botch the mythology aspect in various ways, have been torn to shreds, here and elsewhere, by fans. That's the whole problem, how to do such a tricky structure well.

 

[MacLeod]

Do people tire of shows with a more episodic format. "Law & Order" would certainly fit the role of an episodic show yet that lasted 20 years. But whilst it had an episodic nature the characters changed somewhat. So there was a certain continuity to it, other episodic shows are more lax with continuity. Which can damage the show.

We then have arc based shows were the story builds over the course of a season(s) and is ended in an episode or two. Perhaps some of the new seasons of DW fill this like the 'bad wolf' name being dropped. Missing an episode won't kill you

We then have the really heavy arc based shows, the mythology shows like Lost, where you ask the aduaince questions every week, maybe answer one every know and then but eave more to be answered. B5 might fit this but DSN might be somewhere inbetween an arc and mythlogy show.

 

[Harvey]

Direct to DVD series don't exist; the home video market fell apart a few years ago and continues to decline. It can't support that kind of thing. Where we do see original programming showing up now, outside of television, is through streaming services (where, not coincidentally, much of the home video audience has gone).

 

[MacLeod]

The biggest draw back to a direct to DVD/BR series is cost. Most people aren't willing to fork out on spec. They actually want to veiw something before buying it. Sure they might pick up something to try as part of a Buy One Get One free or 3 for £x deal.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Do people tire of shows with a more episodic format.

It all depends on what people you mean. Look at all the cop shows, lawyer shows, and sitcoms on CBS, most or all of which are episodic.

Person of Interest has something of a serialized arc, but not enough for me to stick with it. That's a good example of a show whose format was simply too static to interest me, long-term. With a far more serialized approach, and more development of the sci fi angle of a computer database that "knows all," I might have stuck with it. Isn't there more you can do with an omniscient database story than just tell standard cop-show stories about vengeful mobsters and devious CIA agents? Snore.

Now look at the sci fi/fantasy shows either returning or new on broadcast - Once Upon a Time, Grimm, Fringe, Revolution, 666 Park Ave., Zero Hour, Beauty & the Beast, Arrow - all are strongly serialized or in the case of the new ones, will need to be.

Do No Harm is a question mark, it may have case-of-the-week doctor show elements, but I'm not sure how well that will synch with the Jeckyll & Hyde main story. If they're smart, they won't try to shoehorn a sci fi series into a doctor show format. That will just alienate fans of either genre.

That's just on broadcast. Cable viewers overall are more interested in serialized drama.

 

[RoJoHen]

There are three different types of TV viewers:

1) There are those that come home from work at the end of the day, and they watch whatever is on...or whatever they're used to watching. My mom gets home from work and puts on TNT. She doesn't care what show is on; she just puts on TNT and leaves it on while cooking dinner, doing her school work (she's a teacher), etc. This, in my opinion, is why shows like Law & Order keep going. They have a steady viewership because the majority of their audience is watching out of habit. Most of these shows, in my experience, have a more episodic nature. Perhaps the characters evolve over time, but there is no grand story arc or mythology to worry about. You can start watching it any time and completely understand what's going on.

2) There are those that watch TV because of specific shows. They make sure they have nothing to do on Tuesday night at 8pm because they need to catch the latest episode of Whatever. These are the riskier shows, and these are the shows that tend to have more of a mythology. Their viewers are loyal because they care about the story and the characters. They need to see what happens next, and a story arc or cliffhanger is what keeps them coming back for more. These shows are hard to maintain steady viewership; Fans in the beginning may not like the direction of the show and stop watching. It is also hard to gain new viewers because there is often a lot of backstory that makes it very difficult to just jump in the middle.

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.

 

[Sindatur]

Shows that end up on DVD need to start on TV. If they can't survive in the TV ecosystem, there won't be much on DVD (ie, Firefly). Unless you mean direct to DVD series? Do they exist and are they worth watching?

This is true, but, I suspect the point was, in today's world, where you only get 1 hour a week, spread over 9 months, with breaks, if you don't get each episode just right, you're likely to piss off the audience and they will leave. When you can view something on DVD (Or streaming) at your own pace (maybe several per day or week), most people are alot more forgiving of an episode that fails, because they don't have to feel like they waited a week (or more) for a non-satisfying episode, and they have to wait another week and hope the next one will be satisfying.

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. One or two or even 3 bad episodes in a row isn't such an iunsulting crime.

 

[JoeD80]

2) There are those that watch TV because of specific shows. They make sure they have nothing to do on Tuesday night at 8pm because they need to catch the latest episode of Whatever.

I find that a lot of my friends that weren't into TV much have now jumped in to enjoying serial-type shows specifically because of DVR and not having to find a specific time to watch it. They can be casual about it like picking up a book at page 100 after having not read it for awhile.

 

[sidious618]

Nope, it's accurate. Arc based, or ongoing at least, TV shows have character arcs which episodic television does not.

Stand-alone stories don't mean that a reset button has to be pushed. A show like House brings new stories in every week but the characters have certainly changed and are not in the same place from episode-to-episode.

Well House turned into a pretty awful show that makes bad attempts at characterization but I'd say it's somewhat serialized as opposed to completely episodic.

 

[RoJoHen]

2) There are those that watch TV because of specific shows. They make sure they have nothing to do on Tuesday night at 8pm because they need to catch the latest episode of Whatever.

I find that a lot of my friends that weren't into TV much have now jumped in to enjoying serial-type shows specifically because of DVR and not having to find a specific time to watch it. They can be casual about it like picking up a book at page 100 after having not read it for awhile.

Ah yes, I forget about DVRs. I don't even have cable on my TV, so a DVR has never really appealed to me.