Re: Fox to Fringe fans: 'We have no intention of screwing with the sho
Clearly that's not the case, because many casual viewers of many shows have found it difficult to get into heavily myth-driven shows. That is not my opinion, it is a documented reality. I am not endorsing it, I am merely reporting that it is known to be the case. And it won't cease to be the case just because a poster on the Internet doesn't want to believe it's the case.
I'm not "assigning blame" to anything! Why do people online insist on treating every discussion as a matter of blame or fault or condemnation or something hostile and ad hominem like that? Why can't we simply have an objective discussion about the facts without reacting to it as if it were some kind of melodramatic confrontation?
I'm not "blaming" serialization. Personally I have no problem with serialization per se. What I am doing is describing a known phenomenon, which is that not every viewer reacts the same way to serialization. Some people like it, some people don't. That's all I'm saying: that the audience is diverse and you can't assume they all hold a single attitude.
So I'm not reducing this to some dumbed-down blame game, saying that one single factor is the evil behind everything. I'm saying just the opposite -- that it's a mistake to try to reduce this to some simple, singular formula that you can assume is true about the entire audience. This isn't a right-or-wrong argument. There are diverse opinions and views within the audience. A poster on a BBS has the luxury of clinging to the self-delusion that every viewer on the planet will think or react the way the poster would want them to, but a network executive has an obligation to be aware of all the diverse reactions that exist within the viewing audience, to take them all into account regardless of personal preference.
Yes, yes, yes -- I AM NOT SAYING THAT SERIALIZATION IS BAD!!!!!!! I am not making such a ridiculously dumbed-down, black-and-white argument. I am saying that life is more complex than that, that you can't pick out some single factor and say it's always good or always bad. There are many factors that have to be taken into account.
Serialization is challenging. It requires a major investment of attention and time from the viewer. And that means that in order for a serialized show to work, it needs to be able to catch and hold the audience's attention. The serialized shows that work the best are those that are exceptionally strong in other ways, able to make the audience want to invest that time and attention. So yes, an exceptionally good show can work even if it's highly serialized. BUT -- if something is challenging, that means it isn't easy to get people to want to commit to it. If a show isn't exceptional enough to overcome that resistance to commitment, then audiences will not react as positively to its serialized nature. They won't be as motivated to commit that required level of attention to the show. (Or rather, some will but many others will not, because, of course, the audience is not monolithic.) So in that context, a heavy level of serialization will be more likely to alienate viewers, and an approach that's more episodic can be more effective.
Do you see why it can't be reduced to anything as simplistic as arguing that serialization is either good, period, or bad, period? Serialization is just one factor involved in the impact of a show, one out of many that all have to be weighed against each other. Serialization in combination with high quality, a strongly charismatic cast, or other factors that promote serious audience involvement can work well. But serialization in a different context can work against a show because it's more challenging to the audience than the audience for that show is willing to accept. You have to consider the whole equation for each individual show, not just make some blanket generalization about a single factor.
Clearly that's not the case, because many casual viewers of many shows have found it difficult to get into heavily myth-driven shows. That is not my opinion, it is a documented reality. I am not endorsing it, I am merely reporting that it is known to be the case. And it won't cease to be the case just because a poster on the Internet doesn't want to believe it's the case.
I'm not "assigning blame" to anything! Why do people online insist on treating every discussion as a matter of blame or fault or condemnation or something hostile and ad hominem like that? Why can't we simply have an objective discussion about the facts without reacting to it as if it were some kind of melodramatic confrontation?
I'm not "blaming" serialization. Personally I have no problem with serialization per se. What I am doing is describing a known phenomenon, which is that not every viewer reacts the same way to serialization. Some people like it, some people don't. That's all I'm saying: that the audience is diverse and you can't assume they all hold a single attitude.
So I'm not reducing this to some dumbed-down blame game, saying that one single factor is the evil behind everything. I'm saying just the opposite -- that it's a mistake to try to reduce this to some simple, singular formula that you can assume is true about the entire audience. This isn't a right-or-wrong argument. There are diverse opinions and views within the audience. A poster on a BBS has the luxury of clinging to the self-delusion that every viewer on the planet will think or react the way the poster would want them to, but a network executive has an obligation to be aware of all the diverse reactions that exist within the viewing audience, to take them all into account regardless of personal preference.
Yes, yes, yes -- I AM NOT SAYING THAT SERIALIZATION IS BAD!!!!!!! I am not making such a ridiculously dumbed-down, black-and-white argument. I am saying that life is more complex than that, that you can't pick out some single factor and say it's always good or always bad. There are many factors that have to be taken into account.
Serialization is challenging. It requires a major investment of attention and time from the viewer. And that means that in order for a serialized show to work, it needs to be able to catch and hold the audience's attention. The serialized shows that work the best are those that are exceptionally strong in other ways, able to make the audience want to invest that time and attention. So yes, an exceptionally good show can work even if it's highly serialized. BUT -- if something is challenging, that means it isn't easy to get people to want to commit to it. If a show isn't exceptional enough to overcome that resistance to commitment, then audiences will not react as positively to its serialized nature. They won't be as motivated to commit that required level of attention to the show. (Or rather, some will but many others will not, because, of course, the audience is not monolithic.) So in that context, a heavy level of serialization will be more likely to alienate viewers, and an approach that's more episodic can be more effective.
Do you see why it can't be reduced to anything as simplistic as arguing that serialization is either good, period, or bad, period? Serialization is just one factor involved in the impact of a show, one out of many that all have to be weighed against each other. Serialization in combination with high quality, a strongly charismatic cast, or other factors that promote serious audience involvement can work well. But serialization in a different context can work against a show because it's more challenging to the audience than the audience for that show is willing to accept. You have to consider the whole equation for each individual show, not just make some blanket generalization about a single factor.
Last edited:
) and then revert to normal. But as long as something happens to the faves, plot logic, thematic consistency, normal human personalities, none of it matters. It's not the richer storytelling, which is actually rather more impoverished because it's open-ended.