Filler Episodes

[Kage Kazumi]

Reader,

This discussion can be used for almost any type of television series: The Event, Heroes, Eureka, Warehouse 13, etc. However, for this discussion and example purposes I'll use Fringe.

So I recently was reading a review on Amazon for Fringe and read one such review where the person stated that the show, Fringe (like many other television shows) are full of a lot of "filler episodes' and they went on to say that the show(s) should just get to the point.

So lets discuss filler episodes.

To do this lets look at a video game in the sense that the main plot is like the main plot of a television series and the side quests are our 'filler episodes.' If the player plays straight through the story and plays no side quests then they get at best (example) 40 hours of game play. If they play through the game with side quests they get (example) 80 hours of gameplay.

Now look at this in the sense of your own life. Lets say someone wants to write your life story of how you became a stunt man/woman (example). However, they leave out all other experiences the person has or may have some how influenced them (our side quests or filler episodes) to become a stunt man/women. We would have a bland and emotionless story with characters who seem to have no drive.

Now as I said taking Fringe into account. If the show got strait to the point they could take the whole 4 seasons (season 4 not released yet) and make it about 2 seasons or even 1.5 seasons. Plus filler episodes can allow the viewer to get more in depth and feel what the characters are feeling or get a more sense of the characters personality and reactions to life (or main plot) in general.

v/Respectfully,
Kage Kazumi

 

[RoJoHen]

TV shows aren't video games, and they aren't real life. Depending on the type of show you're writing, filler episodes may or may not be appropriate. Shows that deal with a lot of story arcs and have a heavy mythology should probably try and avoid filler episodes if they can. It can be very frustrating to have to wait weeks and weeks to get back to the main storyline. That said, some shows can get away with it. "The X-Files" usually managed to do a great job of balancing mythology episodes with filler episodes.

As for the argument that without filler episodes you'd be getting fewer hours of the TV show, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Quality over quantity, remember.

 

[Kage Kazumi]

TV shows aren't video games

Actually they would be an interactive story. Video games have a story, books have a story, comic book stories, etc it is just a different media to tell the story. So yes I can compare and use as an example.

~How small minded humans can be.

and they aren't real life.

However, even life is a story. We are just living our own story instead of playing or watching one. So again the example is quite logical.

Look at it this way.

When people argue that a story is cliche if people stopped and looked at human (real) history it is cliche in itself. This logic also suggest that a story or the fictional world it would be on also follows this same cliche perspective we live in and make everyday.

So comparing 'filler episodes' based on this fact the examples I used are quite logical.

~Human history is cliche. So in principle a story can not be cliche because it is us who are cliche.
Keven N. P.

v/Respectfully,
Kage Kazumi

 

[RoJoHen]

There are many different ways to tell a story. Just because life has "filler episodes" and "side missions" doesn't mean it's automatically okay for a TV show to do the same. Writers should tell their stories in the best possible way. A good chunk of filler episodes in TV only exist because the networks ordered a certain number of episodes per season and the writers needed to fill in those slots. Filler episodes aren't inherently good or bad, but if a writer only needs 13 episodes to tell a story and the network orders 20 episodes, that's 7 extra episodes of stuff that the writer didn't originally intend to have. As a result, they're forced to come up with 7 extra stories whether they want to or not.

 

[Kage Kazumi]

There are many different ways to tell a story. Just because life has "filler episodes" and "side missions" doesn't mean it's automatically okay for a TV show to do the same. Writers should tell their stories in the best possible way. A good chunk of filler episodes in TV only exist because the networks ordered a certain number of episodes per season and the writers needed to fill in those slots. Filler episodes aren't inherently good or bad, but if a writer only needs 13 episodes to tell a story and the network orders 20 episodes, that's 7 extra episodes of stuff that the writer didn't originally intend to have. As a result, they're forced to come up with 7 extra stories whether they want to or not.

Yes, being a writer I know this. I simply made the topic to debate upon; like who made Earth? God or Science?

 

[RoJoHen]

I simply made the topic to debate upon

Uh-huh...and that's exactly what I'm doing.

 

[Kage Kazumi]

I simply made the topic to debate upon

Uh-huh...and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Yes, I know Captain Obvious.

Even books have filler chapters.

 

[RoJoHen]

Yes, I know Captain Obvious.

Mature.

Even books have filler chapters.

But what is your point? Yes, filler exists in all forms of storytelling. It can be good, or it can be shit. I'm not really sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.

 

[Kage Kazumi]

But what is your point? Yes, filler exists in all forms of storytelling. It can be good, or it can be shit. I'm not really sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.

Who needs a point to get the opinion of other people? After all, mine and your opinion differ. So is not such a topic that the purpose is to debate because people have different opinions?

 

[RoJoHen]

But what is your point? Yes, filler exists in all forms of storytelling. It can be good, or it can be shit. I'm not really sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.

Who needs a point to get the opinion of other people? After all, mine and your opinion differ. So is not such a topic that the purpose is to debate because people have different opinions?

But do we have different opinions? I completely agree with you that filler episodes can be worthwhile and can give us insights into the characters of a story. But I also think that filler episodes can accomplish nothing and be a huge waste of time. It all depends on the story being told and the person telling it.

So really, I don't think we do have different opinions...unless you happen to think that filler episodes are always good.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

It depends on the show. If a show has a procedural element to it then filler episodes are more appropriate. X-Files and Fringe both have a serialized storyline and standalone episodes. It would be weird if every case they investigated was all part of the same ongoing storyline so putting filler episodes in keeps it somewhat more realistic and offers downtime from the arc and can produce some more character elements. But on a show like Lost or Battlestar Galactica needs to be more arc based as it's telling one massive story so there needs to be less adventure/case of the week stuff.

 

[Starbreaker]

Captain Obvious? Really?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Heroes didn't do filler episodes. It was 100% serialized. It was also usually bad (after S1) and sometimes so incoherent, it wasn't clear what the point was, but that's not the same as filler.

Captain Obvious? Really?

Welcome to fifth grade! I believe the proper rejoinder involves "rubber" and "glue"...

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Some shows do them well. Some don't. And sometimes I can feel both ways about it.

Look at Angel Season 5. When I was first watching it during its original run on the WB, filler episodes often annoyed me because I was impatient to learn how the main arc would turn out. But when I re-watched it on DVD, I found a greater appreciation for some of the excellently crafted stand-alones they did like "Why We Fight," "Smile Time," & "The Girl in Question."

On the other hand, Torchwood: Miracle Day was all one solid story arc, yet they still did filler episodes and they were usually awful exercises in treading water, like "The Middle Men" & "End of the Road." "Immortal Sins" barely had anything to do with anything either, but at least it was a welcome return to the tone of Torchwood's earlier seasons.

 

[Kirby]

Heroes didn't do filler episodes. It was 100% serialized. It was also usually bad (after S1) and sometimes so incoherent, it wasn't clear what the point was, but that's not the same as filler.

Captain Obvious? Really?

Welcome to fifth grade! I believe the proper rejoinder involves "rubber" and "glue"...

Hey, what's that on your shirt?
**boing**

I actually had something to say about Stargate's filler episodes but screw it, reading this is more fun.

 

[ToddPence]

When Patrick McGoohan did "The Prisoner" back in the 1960's, the show was contracted for 17 episodes. McGoohan went on the record several times as saying that he really only wanted to do seven episodes of the series and he selected seven episodes of the series as the ones that "really matter". So does this make the other ten episodes of "The Prisoner" filler episodes.

 

[Dream]

Heroes didn't do filler episodes. It was 100% serialized. It was also usually bad (after S1) and sometimes so incoherent, it wasn't clear what the point was, but that's not the same as filler.

Yep, it wasn't filler. It was just bad seasons.

I think it would have helped if they did have filler episodes to get away from the serialized episodes that made no sense.

 

[the G-man]

The most glaring type of "filler ep" would be the clip show .

 

[M'Sharak]

When Patrick McGoohan did "The Prisoner" back in the 1960's, the show was contracted for 17 episodes. McGoohan went on the record several times as saying that he really only wanted to do seven episodes of the series and he selected seven episodes of the series as the ones that "really matter". So does this make the other ten episodes of "The Prisoner" filler episodes.

No, just two of them.