DS9: Fillers done right

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-mov...v-seasons-shorter-filler-episodes-1235056801/

Move this to general if you want. I posted it here because the article writer uses DS9 as an example.

 

[Paul Weaver]

But if you watch a half-dozen unquestionably mid stories about the relationship between Captain Benjamin Sisko and his teenage son Jake, then the fourth season episode “The Visitor” — set in an alternate timeline where Sisko vanishes in a freak accident and Jake throws away most of his adult life trying to rescue his dad — is about as tearjerking as an hour of TV can get. It’s hard to imagine it having the same effect without Ben and Jake being such constant presences in the audience’s lives leading up to it.

Absoultely. Not just DS9 (which did more with character growth), but TNG had these. I was watching "Imaginary Friend" the other day, and it had a scene with Crusher talking to Ogowa

This was just a token scene to keep the "every character in almost every episode", as it was mainly a Troi episode, but it grew both characters and made me feel that stories were progressing in the background even though I wasn't witness.

I find it similar to the "treknobabel" filler. It builds the world and makes it more believable to me.

DS9 did well in that it could tell longer stories over the course of seasons and shift those larger arcs, but it was still episodic. I feel the problem nowadays is that writers often want to tell a single story. In many cases that works well, but I want a compendium of short stories.

Some series do drag on a lot, because they stretch a single story over too much repetition, but try to keep that in every episodes. I'm thinking of Flash season 4 and 5 for example. You can have still have arcs and ongoing stories without having them in every episode, the Winn arc in DS9 went from season 1 to 7 and she was only in 14 episodes.

I found myself nodding along with this entire article (well except for skipping Ferengi episodes), especially the end:

> It’s all an unfortunate side effect of the Ten-Hour Movie problem, where too many people making shows today mistakenly believe that all that matters is the plot, and anything not advancing said plot is inessential

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

It depends on the type of story you want to tell, and how much time you're portraying. Though some of the best writing can squeeze flashbacks of days past into a single hour of in-universe time (think life flashing before your eyes, someone re-telling the story of how we got here to other characters, etc)

 

[Paul Weaver]

This afternoon I watched "Profit and Loss". A stand alone episode on the face of it, one of those that "doesn't grow the plot", in the "pre dominion" era of DS9.

It grows the Odo/Quark relationship and characters, it reinforces Odo's view about Justice being more important than Law, it showing that Quark isn't just in it for the money - not just in his pursuit of guest-star of the week but also in selling food to Bajorans during the occupation.

It adds to the Garak intrigue, showing that he is an exile, that has a murky past and really does want to go home. It shows he can be perfectly charming and friendly while shooting you with a phaser

It even adds into Sisko's position -- ultimately he has to answer to the Provisional government.

An episode like that would never be made in an 8/10/13 episode season. Cut DS9 down to modern lengths and the stuff we love wouldn't be half as good.

You have to show, not tell. Don't tell us that Odo and Quark have a love/hate relationship, show us over years, earn that "It was written all over his back" line.

Same with the episode before, "Playing God". Forget the main plot, you can cram that into short episodes. Give us the filler. Don't just say that OBrien has issues you don't get on a starship, show us him chasing voles. Don't just tell us that Ben and Jake have a healthy father/son relationship, don't leave it all to specific episodes like Explorers either, show us it with small scenes about Jake's crush on a dabo girl.


The power of having to find something for everyone to do in the episodes leads to getting to know the characters a little better, and that's the type of thing I miss from modern scifi shows.

 

[Frontis]

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-mov...v-seasons-shorter-filler-episodes-1235056801/

Move this to general if you want. I posted it here because the article writer uses DS9 as an example.

Thank you for the article. I totally agree.
Wtih just 10 episodes per season you couldn't dive in so deep, connect with the characters so strong and tell so many good story arcs. It's why I love DS9 more than SNW or Picard. I wish they had more episodes and content, too. The potential was there.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I think shows where we already know many of the characters from previous works fare better than shows introducing mostly brand new characters that we have no background for.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

It grows the Odo/Quark relationship and characters, it reinforces Odo's view about Justice being more important than Law, it showing that Quark isn't just in it for the money - not just in his pursuit of guest-star of the week but also in selling food to Bajorans during the occupation.

The episode continues to explore the nature of Quark's live life after Q Less. He is attracted to dangerous women who might not conform to Ferengi ideals.

 

[Farscape One]

I completely agree that the shorter seasons, especially the arc-heavy ones, have lost a lot of the character beats and flavor of the characters. DISCO was bad with this. PICARD was only partially successful with this. (Some parts of season 1 and the entirety of season 2 just didn't work.) SNW and LDS, though, each have done a good job of having those character beats within those episodes, despite having only 10 episode seasons. PRODIGY has done a fantastic job of having those character episodes along with an arc. (And did an even better job of this for season 2.)

At the end of the day (for me, anyway), we watch a show because we are invested in the characters. More so if the setting feels real and lived in.

Using DS9 as the example: so much of why this world feels so real are the little scenes and moments. Like in "PLAYING GOD", when Dax delivers a box to O'Brien (who has been trying to rid the station of the vole problem) and says it's from Bashir, he opens it and a letter says, "It worked in Hamlin." And finds a flute. Dax smiles at this. In just 30 seconds, we see that these people know how to have fun with each other.

Or at the beginning of "EQUILIBRIUM", Sisko is cooking dinner for his senior staff. In that one scene, we learn Bashir hates beets, Jake didn't really apply himself with a keyboard (the stare from Ben says "You say you weren't very good at it but you really didn't try"), we get a funny bit from Odo when he is stirring the souffle, and we get to see how approachable and how much Sisko cares for those under his command.

Hell, "IN THE CARDS"... a near flawless episode, and it had NO life or death stakes. It was a young man trying to get his dad a gift. That's it. That's basically the plot. But it gave us so many wonderful character beats and moments and humor and was just an uplifting episode overall. There is no way that would have been produced in the current era of tv, and we would have missed out on this gem.

DS9 had episodes that ran roughly 44 minutes and 50 seconds (and this is counting the theme song, though not the end credits), but they were able to utilize every minute FULLY by showing us those little things that make the world feel real and lived in. A streaming series that is not beholden to a broadcast schedule should be able to do the same thing, even with shorter seasons. But they seem to be more focused on the plot than in making the characters and the setting feel real.

 

[at Quark's]

I still don't know what to think of fillers. On the one hand, when DS9 ran, I thought they were an unnecessary interruption of the main arc, but then again, when I watched ENT S3, I found that sometimes it almost got too heavy for me, and I would have appreciated a somewhat lighter, fluffier 'breather' in between.

Of course, if fillers are done well, they'll still add flavour and characterisation to the world and the characters.

 

[Tosk]

I thoroughly dislike the notion that episodes that tell stand-alone stories are "filler".

Episodes are made to be watched and enjoyed, not treated as though it's some race to the finish line.

(That's not to say every ep is a winner. Far from it.)

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I was a little shocked that under the entry for "filler" in tvtrope.org, the Mirror universe is listed as an example. The reason? It allowed the writers do to something without affecting the main plot. What main plot? Certainly, Gene Coon was conscientiously developing elements to build elements of the universe, but it is a stretch to say he had a grand narrative in mind. However, I think it is a but much to say what happens in the Mirror Universe was unrelated to what ever happened in the main. As much as crazy stuff happened, the characters were looking at some modified version of themselves. Kirk lives his life as a despot, but comes to appreciate the need for constant, reasoned advice in his leadership. In DS9, Kira sees herself as a product of a different type of resistance movement, one revolting against that same reason, which corrupts her soul. The comparisons say something about the characters, and should be regarded as a means of exploring how they have evolved.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I thoroughly dislike the notion that episodes that tell stand-alone stories are "filler".

Episodes are made to be watched and enjoyed, not treated as though it's some race to the finish line.

(That's not to say every ep is a winner. Far from it.)

The underlying notion, that filler is sub-par, is ridiculous.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-mov...v-seasons-shorter-filler-episodes-1235056801/

Move this to general if you want. I posted it here because the article writer uses DS9 as an example.

Article is paywalled.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Article is paywalled.

Not for me. https://archive.is/smkdM might help if you can't read it

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I dunno how I could read it the first time, then. Free sample?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I dunno how I could read it the first time, then. Free sample?

Could be, Laura. I’ll keep checking until my monthly free one comes up.

What’s the gist of it?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Not for me. https://archive.is/smkdM might help if you can't read it

Ah, cheers. That’s really helpful and thoughtful of you.

Reading now.

 

[Paul Weaver]

I thoroughly dislike the notion that episodes that tell stand-alone stories are "filler".

Episodes are made to be watched and enjoyed, not treated as though it's some race to the finish line.

(That's not to say every ep is a winner. Far from it.)

They're filler if you think of a series as telling a single story, and they don't progress that story. That type of storytelling I think became popular with shows like 24 and Lost.

Personally I prefer something somewhere between the two extremes. In scifi I think SG1 balanced it really well, especially in the first 8 series. I think some of the Arrowverse didn't, it felt a slog to defeat the big bad of the series (the "big bad per season" concept is linked to the long arcs, but I think it started off in Buffy), rather than delight in the individual episodes

 

[Farscape One]

SUPERNATURAL was great with the balanced storytelling... arc episodes with 'side quests', as my wife has called them, peppered throughout.

Some of the best episodes ARE the side quests. (That goes for STAR TREK, STARGATE, SUPERNATURAL, etc.)

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I always thought filler was less about not progressing a story and more just that in old seasons there could be anything up to 26 slots to ‘fill’ in a seasonal TV schedule.

I’ve never thought of it as being a pejorative used to express that an episode somehow ‘doesn’t matter’.

Though maybe they are one and the same?