Interesting article about serialized programming

[stj]

Characters in episodic television shows are not stagnant in two senses. First, they are generally consistent, which is just like people in real life. It is the notion of character growth held by the soaps which is stagnant, stuck in a naively youthful view of humanity.

Second, the guest characters in episodic shows have things of permanent consequence happen to them. They count too. The proponents of serialization need to explain why their stories somehow have no interest.

When a guest character has an epiphany, we can assume it actually makes a change. In a serial, epiphanies have to be repeated over and over, which devalues the whole idea of an epiphany. How many times has Walter White discovered that he is unhappy with his life and breaking bad can be a thrill?

When a guest character changes the course of his life, we can assume he really changes it. In a serial, usually the character has to go back so the exciting story can be repeated. For example, Lost, which again is one of the better written serials, made Locke into a joke by repeatedly inflicting disillusionment upon him.

Children and adolescents do in fact change rapidly. Adults do not. Only time changes adults, but even it only does so slowly and undramatically. (Well, there are claims about religious conversion but there's a lot of fraudulent claims made in that quarter.) Thinking that people change in the fashion they typically do in serialized television shows reflects the adolescent's experience with personality growth, and inexperience with the stability of maturity.

 

[Harvey]

If epiphanies and change are excluded to the realm of guest characters, what's the point of producing that story as part of a television series with continuing characters? Why not produce an anthology series? Why not produce a television movie or a feature film?

What's the point of killing off James T. Kirk's older brother when his death will not only be forgotten by the end of the episode, but by the next commercial break? How many times does Detective Matthew Sikes find an old friend reintroduced into his life only to have that character betray him before the end of an episode? These deaths and betrayals mean nothing, because they happen to guest characters who have never been seen or mentioned before and will never be seen or mentioned again. They mean nothing, because the grief, shock, and whole range of emotions they should cause in the principal characters will be gone by the following week's episode, if not earlier.

And that is the advantage of serialized storytelling. An audience can get to know guest characters that are supposed to be important to the lives of principal characters by seeing them actually be important to those lives on screen over time. And after a death, a betrayal, or some other key event, principal characters can react with a reasonable amount of grief and other emotions and deal with these emotions over time. It's infinitely more interesting to see Colonel Saul Tigh deal with the death of his wife, a recurring guest character, over the course of several episodes than it is to see Kirk bounce back from whatever trauma is inflicted upon him each week with no ill effects. Worse, try sitting through the death of Doctor Carson Beckett, a three season regular on Stargate Atlantis, when the aftermath is given less attention (until the inevtiable event episode marking his return!) than the death of Sam Kirk.

Which is not to blindly praise the serial format. As products of the film business, they can go on for much, much too long. 99 out of 100 television executives would rather run a serial past it's sell-by date than watch it wind down naturally if it's a path to more short-term profit. To this end, mysteries can be forever dangled in front of audiences rather than answering them in a reasonable amount of time. I'd much rather read a Sherlock Holmes story than suffer through the incongruous mess that is Heroes.

 

[stj]

If epiphanies and change are excluded to the realm of guest characters, what's the point of producing that story as part of a television series with continuing characters? Why not produce an anthology series? Why not produce a television movie or a feature film?

"Series" and "serial" are closely related, as the very sound should tell you. A series has continuing characters to get viewers to invest in seeing those characters each week. A serial postpones telling the whole story solely to bring viewers back to find out what happens. In both cases, it is business, not art. Movies have more cachet as artistic achievements for the good reason that they aren't just another instalment in a series, but a complete story of a key moment.

These deaths and betrayals mean nothing, because they happen to guest characters who have never been seen or mentioned before and will never be seen or mentioned again. They mean nothing, because the grief, shock, and whole range of emotions they should cause in the principal characters will be gone by the following week's episode, if not earlier.

In effect, you're presuming the conclusion. You're saying the viewer is supposed to care only about Harris Yulin's impact on Kira in Duet. You're saying The Visionary is pointless because it's about an adult son who isn't ever seen, before or after, in the entire run of DS9. I'm saying the obvious: That the stories of a guilt stricken accountant or a grief obsessed writer are interesting in themselves, not as milestones in the growth of the regular characters. They could have been done as anthology episodes or possibly television movies, which is part of why they were better episodes. They were complete stories, which always have more impact than incomplete ones.

And citing the example of Tigh killing his wife? When I tuned back to the finale to see the trainwreck, there she was!
You don't generally get that kind of idiocy in an episodic series.

In the Star Trek episode, The Conscience of the King, Kirk had a personal connection to Kodos. I suppose the story enriched Kirk by creating more backstory (although I never understood how it was supposed to fit in with the relatives on Deneva, I think it was.) But the real impact came from Kodos and his daughter, not Kirk. Kevin O'Reilly could have been the survivor and the story would have been as good. Making Kirk an intimate part of the story was just a commercial necessity, appealing to the part of the audience who tuned in to see William Shatner as Kirk.

The whole notion that a series should be a serial about the angst of the favorite characters is part and parcel of the serialized is better shibboleth. But it's nonsense.

 

[Harvey]

"Series" and "serial" are closely related, as the very sound should tell you.

Don't be so patronizing. It's not conducive to others taking you seriously.

A series has continuing characters to get viewers to invest in seeing those characters each week. A serial postpones telling the whole story solely to bring viewers back to find out what happens.

A serial allows plot and character to grow and change over the course of several episodes. The purpose of a well-written serial isn’t to string viewers along with an endless series of cliffhangers towards a never-ending goal. That might be the purpose of a serial like 24, but it would be difficult to find people who would dare call it well-written. The purpose of a well-written serial is to tell a complete story over a longer period of time than an episode of television or a feature film will allow. I’d challenge you to argue that the feature film versions of Edge of Darkness or State of Play are superior to the serials they’re based upon. Indeed, these serials have been embraced by critics as prime examples of the form in which complex, detail-driven stories are told over the course of several episodes, while the feature adaptations have been dismissed for their dilution of the narrative and the characters.

In both cases, it is business, not art. Movies have more cachet as artistic achievements for the good reason that they aren't just another instalment [sic] in a series, but a complete story of a key moment.

I wish more movies were made that retained that character. Sadly, the very business you’ve described has pushed films in the very direction of sequels, prequels, and never-ending franchises. Consider that of the top ten grossing films of 2009, five are sequels to established franchises. One, Sherlock Holmes, is based on an established literary franchise, and is intended to become the first installment in an ongoing series. Two others, Avatar and The Hangover, are also being turned into franchises. That’s eight out of ten of the top grossing films of last year that are franchise films.

In effect, you're presuming the conclusion. You're saying the viewer is supposed to care only about Harris Yulin's impact on Kira in Duet.

Not really. I’m saying that viewers don’t care about characters who are supposed to be integral to the lives of the principals when in fact they’ve never been seen or mentioned before. Harris Yulin’s character has never met Kira before the episode, so why should we have seen him previously? If the episode introduced the Occupation of Bajor only to forget such an important detail by its conclusion, then it would be an example of the pitfalls of episodic storytelling.

You're saying The Visionary [sic] is pointless because it's about an adult son who isn't ever seen, before or after, in the entire run of DS9.

Visionary was an episode about O’Brien experiencing flashes of the future, so I assume you mean The Visitor. And since it’s about Jake Sisko (a principal character) and his relationship to his father (a principal relationship of the series), both of which have been developed over the course of three seasons, I fail to see how the episode does anything but support my argument. If it was about Sisko’s previously unmentioned and unseen son’s sacrifice for the sake of his father, then you’d have a point.

I'm saying the obvious: That the stories of a guilt stricken accountant or a grief obsessed writer are interesting in themselves, not as milestones in the growth of the regular characters. They could have been done as anthology episodes or possibly television movies, which is part of why they were better episodes. They were complete stories, which always have more impact than incomplete ones.

And I’m saying the obvious. The complete story of a serial is the entire series, not an individual episode.

And citing the example of Tigh killing his wife? When I tuned back to the finale to see the trainwreck, there she was!
You don't generally get that kind of idiocy in an episodic series.

You’d be hard pressed to find a recent science fiction series, episodic or serial, that doesn’t engage in such “idiocy” as reviving a deceased character. At least in the context of Battlestar Galactica it was both organic to the series mythology and served to complicate Tigh’s character arc in an interesting way.

But, if there’s any idiocy, it would be arguing with you over that series, so I’ll leave it be.

The whole notion that a series should be a serial about the angst of the favorite characters is part and parcel of the serialized is better shibboleth. But it's nonsense.

Did anyone but you make that claim? I suggested that it’s more reasonable that the death of a family member or the betrayal of a close friend (among many other possibilities) would produce emotions unlikely to be resolved in 42 minutes of television.

 

[stj]

Don't be so patronizing. It's not conducive to others taking you seriously.

It's not talking down to you to explain the obvious if you've missed it. Many of the problems of episodic series are shared by open ended serials. In both cases, there is a problem in and of itself in keeping on after the story is already told. Stories with resolutions generally are better.

A serial allows plot and character to grow and change over the course of several episodes.

The kind of character growth displayed by open ended serials are nonsense, not worth doing at all. The plots of open ended serials are ghastly. Again you're asserting the conclusion as a premise.

The purpose of a well-written serial isn’t to string viewers along with an endless series of cliffhangers towards a never-ending goal.

A weasel word is one that allows someone to escape refutation by pretending that they said something else. In your case here, "well written" means that any counter examples would simply be dismissed.

That might be the purpose of a serial like 24, but it would be difficult to find people who would dare call it well-written.

I've never seen 24. But even I know that each season has an end. I say that contorting a plot to stretch out 24 episodes is almost certainly bad writing. But you say the serial form allows a plot to change and grow. I say that 24 hour changes in the characters would be melodramatic hokum. But you say the serial form allows characters to change and grow. The thing is, I (and everyone whose actually read what I wrote) know why I suspct 24 is drivel without benefit of actually seeing it. But no one here could figure why you think 24 is a badly written serial.

The purpose of a well-written serial is to tell a complete story over a longer period of time than an episode of television or a feature film will allow.

The distinction I drew in my first post (#15 in the thread, dated Feb 2, by the way,) between closed ended and open ended serialization is far preferable, as it actually means something. You and others really are claiming that open ended serialization is intrinsically superior. Your difficulty is making a real case, instead of surreptitiously incorporating unspecified "well written" serials as the only ones that, very conveniently for you, count.

Incidentally, ignoring what I've written several times is rude. At least address my arguments.

Quite aside I’d challenge you to argue that the feature film versions of Edge of Darkness or State of Play are superior to the serials they’re based upon. Indeed, these serials have been embraced by critics as prime examples of the form in which complex, detail-driven stories are told over the course of several episodes, while the feature adaptations have been dismissed for their dilution of the narrative and the characters.

Edge of Darkness I know nothing about in either form. The plot of State of Play does not actually work in the US setting, neither in the politics nor the journalism. The core story of the journalist and his politician school friend actually was better in the US version, just because Crowe and Affleck had more presence. The critics who didn't notice that the clunky way the plot wasn't adapted to a new setting weren't troubling to do much analysis. The first time you see a story is usually the best, so critics, who unlike most of us get to see foreign films and television, tend to reflexively praise the original versions as the good ones, I think.

The feature film adaptation of The Singing Detective was superior I think to the English miniseries. But honesty compels me to add this might be exceptional, since both feature film and miniseries were written by the same man, for once.

I wish more movies were made that retained that character. Sadly, the very business you’ve described has pushed films in the very direction of sequels, prequels, and never-ending franchises. Consider that of the top ten grossing films of 2009, five are sequels to established franchises. One, Sherlock Holmes, is based on an established literary franchise, and is intended to become the first installment in an ongoing series. Two others, Avatar and The Hangover, are also being turned into franchises. That’s eight out of ten of the top grossing films of last year that are franchise films.

My rule of thumb is that the sequel is half as good as the first, the third one third as good, the fourth, well, you guessed it, one fourth as good. As in television, the purpose of making a movie series is to bank on audience loyalty. According to you, these series would be better if they were serialized, so that the plots and characters would grow and change. I say that's crazy. I say instead, if you insist on playing it safe and making a series, make the episodes the best stories you can. Changing Sherlock Holmes' personality throughout the movie series would not just fail, but would be downright offensive.

Not really. I’m saying that viewers don’t care about characters who are supposed to be integral to the lives of the principals when in fact they’ve never been seen or mentioned before. Harris Yulin’s character has never met Kira before the episode, so why should we have seen him previously? If the episode introduced the Occupation of Bajor only to forget such an important detail by its conclusion, then it would be an example of the pitfalls of episodic storytelling.

This is so confused it's not clear what you're really saying. Every remark you've made previously has focused on the effects of secondary characters on the leads. My point, illustrated by this example, is that guest stars can be the lead characters, and this can be a great thing. Duet is not a great episode because it's wonderful character development for Kira. (Fans of The Man in the Glass Booth can argue with people who've actually seen The Man in the Glass Booth.) The episode would have been a good one if Harris Yulin had been interrogated by Rene Auberjonois.

Insisting that serials can give all the backstory isn't a counterargument at all. It's not even clear that backstory is preferable to simple story. Worse for you, it's just not true that open ended serials give all the backstory. Huerta's long time relations with the Prado family were asserted, not shown in seasons one and two, for example.

Visionary was an episode about O’Brien experiencing flashes of the future, so I assume you mean The Visitor. And since it’s about Jake Sisko (a principal character) and his relationship to his father (a principal relationship of the series), both of which have been developed over the course of three seasons, I fail to see how the episode does anything but support my argument. If it was about Sisko’s previously unmentioned and unseen son’s sacrifice for the sake of his father, then you’d have a point.

The man on screen who made the sacrifice was previously unseen and was never seen again. The Visitor (Visionary is so obviously the superior title I can never keep it straight,)
is not about the Jake Sisko played by Cirroc Lofton. Frankly, given the special role the Prophets play in Benjamin Sisko's life, it is impossible to rationalize the purported events as somehow real in the show's fictional universe. This episode would have been a good one if the writer hadn't been named Jake Sisko, but had been a visiting writer hoping the Prophets could help him.

And I’m saying the obvious. The complete story of a serial is the entire series, not an individual episode.

It's impossible to believe this. If you really thought this, you would be much more impressed, or perhaps depressed, at how many open ended serials end badly, even the better written ones. The plots are ridiculous, the characters undergo bizarre evolutions (even if they end up back where they started so they can do it all again,) and the endings can undermine every theme of the series.

You’d be hard pressed to find a recent science fiction series, episodic or serial, that doesn’t engage in such “idiocy” as reviving a deceased character.

I don't think there's a point there, unless it's, "Don't count'em out til you see the bodies rot."

Did anyone but you make that claim? I suggested that it’s more reasonable that the death of a family member or the betrayal of a close friend (among many other possibilities) would produce emotions unlikely to be resolved in 42 minutes of television.

The notion of resolving emotions is kind of peculiar, whether it's in 42 minutes of television, or in 42 hours of television. It does in fact imply a very soapish view of drama as emo. A commitment to the soap opera format does naturally follow.

 

[Harvey]

Incidentally, ignoring what I've written several times is rude. At least address my arguments.

It’s not incidental, really, and my apologies.

It seems that our principal disagreement, and where I’ve lost track of your argument a bit, is over what constitutes open-ended serialization. You seem to think shows including Lost, The Wire, Battlestar Galactica, and Farscape are all open-ended serials. I must confess I’ve never liked much of what I’ve seen of Lost, but the producers and the network announced their intention to end the series after six seasons years ago, no? David Simon pitched the final two seasons of The Wire and chose an ending during the third season of that series. The fourth and fifth seasons of Farscape were pitched as the show’s last (of course, low ratings turning the proposed fifth season into The Peacekeeper Wars instead).

The first time you see a story is usually the best, so critics, who unlike most of us get to see foreign films and television, tend to reflexively praise the original versions as the good ones, I think.

This is an interesting point, although I can’t subscribe to any of your examples. The Singing Detective made a far more interesting miniseries than it did a feature film (IMO). I also think of The Departed, which was highly praised, though I much prefer the Hong Kong original Infernal Affairs. Then again, I saw the original first in that case as well.

According to you, these series would be better if they were serialized, so that the plots and characters would grow and change.

Actually, what I said was that I wished more feature films were, as you put it, “a complete story of a key moment,” and not “another installment in a series.” I could have been clearer on that point.

My point, illustrated by this example, is that guest stars can be the lead characters, and this can be a great thing. Duet is not a great episode because it's wonderful character development for Kira. (Fans of The Man in the Glass Booth can argue with people who've actually seen The Man in the Glass Booth.) The episode would have been a good one if Harris Yulin had been interrogated by Rene Auberjonois.

I feel like I’m repeating this point endlessly. Viewers don’t care about characters who are supposed to be integral to the lives of the principals when these characters have never been seen or mentioned before. I’m not arguing that guest stars can’t be central to the episodes in which they appear. That’s just silly.

I would dispute that Duet would be as good if it were not Kira conducting the interrogation. The episode hinges on her history during the Cardassian occupation and her blind hatred of Cardassians as a result. If Odo was conducting the interrogation, the episode would be over in fifteen minutes, because he would behave methodically and without anger or prejudice. Harris Yulin would still be great, though. There’s a man that deserves more work.

Worse for you, it's just not true that open ended serials give all the backstory. Huerta's long time relations with the Prado family were asserted, not shown in seasons one and two, for example.

You provide a good example of bad writing that I’ve already criticized: a long-time and important relation that is suddenly introduced, but has never been seen or heard about in the past. That the serial format allows for writers to avoid this cliché is by no means a guarantee that they will. Since my point has never been to blindly praise serials, but rather to praise what can be done with the format, I see no discontinuity.

The man on screen who made the sacrifice was previously unseen and was never seen again. The Visitor (Visionary is so obviously the superior title I can never keep it straight,)is not about the Jake Sisko played by Cirroc Lofton. Frankly, given the special role the Prophets play in Benjamin Sisko's life, it is impossible to rationalize the purported events as somehow real in the show's fictional universe. This episode would have been a good one if the writer hadn't been named Jake Sisko, but had been a visiting writer hoping the Prophets could help him.

Tony Todd may have taken over for Cirroc Lofton at a certain point during the episode, but the man was always Jake Sisko. The episode hinges on Jake’s love for his father, which wouldn’t be nearly effective if he was a random visiting writer.

You do, of course, make two points which I agree with. Visionary is a better title, and it’s a shame a previous episode already used it. Secondly, your point about the Prophets is spot on, and there’s really no way to rationalize the criticism away. However, that’s the price you pay when your leading man is the chosen Emissary of the Gods, er, Prophets.

It's impossible to believe this. If you really thought this, you would be much more impressed, or perhaps depressed, at how many open ended serials end badly, even the better written ones. The plots are ridiculous, the characters undergo bizarre evolutions (even if they end up back where they started so they can do it all again,) and the endings can undermine every theme of the series.

Most of television depresses me, to be honest. Rarely does a series live up to the full potential of the medium.

I've never seen 24. But even I know that each season has an end. I say that contorting a plot to stretch out 24 episodes is almost certainly bad writing. But you say the serial form allows a plot to change and grow. I say that 24 hour changes in the characters would be melodramatic hokum. But you say the serial form allows characters to change and grow. The thing is, I (and everyone whose actually read what I wrote) know why I suspct [sic] 24 is drivel without benefit of actually seeing it. But no one here could figure why you think 24 is a badly written serial.

If by “each season has an end,” you meant to indicate that each season has a twenty-fourth episode that manages to last for 42 minutes, you’d be correct. But insane cliffhangers which the audience has come to understand will be dealt with in the following season by a throw-away line of dialogue or two (if they are addressed at all) have become the norm since the second season (not incidentally, the last time the show was very good). Even at the end of a season, it’s a prime example of the failure of open-ended serialization which you criticize.

 

[stj]

Obviously the first season of Dexter was a serial since it was in multiple episodes. It was a closed ended serial since the main story was finished in the last episode of the first season: Dexter made his choice between someone who accepted him as serial and his adoptive family. Then, they went on. That choice, sensible economics that it is, inevitably weakened the show because open ended serials strain the plot, strain the characterizations, and undermine the theme.

Dexter is one of the better written serials, not least because the preposterous premise suits the melodrama of the serial form. Even so, seasons two and three repeated the stories of season one. (I suspect season four repeats it yet again until the final episode, which sets up season five.)
Dexter repeating his choice of season one doesn't devalue season one the way making the opposite choice would, but it goes far to making seem trivial, old hat. (I suspect season five is setting up for Dexter to choose murder over family, which would pretty much undo the whole series. I suppose I'll see, eventually.)

This deterioration in quality is due to the desire to continue a series instead of telling the story. But I would object that it was not bad writing to omit the Huerta/Prado backstory. Including that in season one would have been bad writing because season one was very tightly written. Shoehorning something for two years away into a season that really had practically no throwaway material would have been a doubtful decision indeed.

There was a natural way to fit in the Prados, which was that they were some of the unnamed political connections first season Huerta relied upon instead of excellence. Third season would have been merely the occasion when some of her backers were seen around the precinct by the regulars. The problem with this simple solution was that first season Huerta, a political animal par excellence, had been sloppily rewritten into someone whose bonds with the Prados were supposed to affectionate ones. The problem with that, to put it another way, is that Huerta had not previously been that kind of woman. But in open ended serials the characters grow and change, even if in ways that are unbelievable.

The serials that set an ending date are paying tribute to the intrinsic superiority of closed ended serials. They basically are changing formats so they can go out with a bang, or so they hope. I will note that we now know that Lost had a season about inputting numbers lest the world would be destroyed except that it wasn't true, and another season about Ben manipulating Jack into performing spinal surgery, except that Ben's plan was more Rube Goldberg than Machiavelli. We now find out that the whole series is about the conflict between Mark Pellegrino and a puff of smoke. Season six may be closed ended but the whole series is open ended and it is pretty messy. The thing about Lost is that it is genuinely inventive, which is rarer than you might think.

But on reflection perhaps the easiest way to epitomize the difference between closed ended and open ended serialization is Heroes season one and the rest. Season one was about save the cheerleader, save New York, Peter being a hero, HRG being a family man villain making a choice. It all came together in a climax. Good stuff. Then, they kept the characters around after the story was over.

The Singing Detective miniseries may have been more interesting, not least because of its relatively exotic background to US eyes. But the feature film was more intense.

I thought The Departed was awful. How Infernal Affairs was supposed to be better I wouldn't know. But the dramatic interest in The Departed was the notion that the two moles were becoming their roles, that "character" is not destiny. The US movie had huge gobs of Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery, which he did very well. It was still too pointless to be diverting.

 

[Harvey]

Dexter is one of the better written serials, not least because the preposterous premise suits the melodrama of the serial form. Even so, seasons two and three repeated the stories of season one. (I suspect season four repeats it yet again until the final episode, which sets up season five.)

I have no idea when it comes to season four, which I haven't seen yet. However, I would propose that season two is far less of a repeat of season one than you claim. Season one is a complete serial in the sense that it tells the story of the Ice Truck Killer, and is about Dexter's choice between a sibling like him (Rudy/Brian) and a 'normal' sibling (Debra). Season two is a complete serial in the sense that it tells the story of the Bay Harbor Butcher and Dexter's choice between a love interest like him (Lila) and a 'normal' love interest (Rita).

Yet, the first and second seasons tell one story together in many other respects. Doakes' suspicions in the first season give rise to an all-out confrontation with Dexter. LaGuerta's political struggles for her job begin in the first season, but are finally resolved in the second season. Debra's search for recognition as a police officer begins in the first season (indeed, the very first episode) and are resolved when she is promoted to Sgt. at the end of the second season. The flashback structure which begins the first season slowly reveal Dexter's past over two seasons, finally revealing the truth about Harry's death at the end of the second season (which leads Dexter to decide to go his own way from Harry's code). In season one, Dexter and Rita were able to overcome their emotional baggage, and be intimate. In season two, they overcome their emotional baggage and are able to commit to each other. Finally, the second season confronts Dexter with the reality of his fantasy that closes the second season--his discovery by the public.

The first season really has little resolution. LaGuerta is in professional limbo. Doakes has become obsessed with finding out Dexter’s dark secret. Rita has begun to suspect Dexter. “Dearly Damaged Debra” is suffering from emotional trauma. And so on, and so forth. The second season concludes all of these stories. If the fourth (and fifth) seasons turn out to be as much of a mixed bag as season three, at least we’ll have a satisfying piece in seasons one and two. Only having the first season would hardly be as satisfying.

There was a natural way to fit in the Prados, which was that they were some of the unnamed political connections first season Huerta relied upon instead of excellence. Third season would have been merely the occasion when some of her backers were seen around the precinct by the regulars. The problem with this simple solution was that first season Huerta, a political animal par excellence, had been sloppily rewritten into someone whose bonds with the Prados were supposed to affectionate ones. The problem with that, to put it another way, is that Huerta had not previously been that kind of woman. But in open ended serials the characters grow and change, evenif in ways that are unbelievable.

It’s Maria LaGuerta in both the filmed and novel versions of the character, not Huerta.

The problem with LaGuerta is that she wasn’t conceived as a very complex character, which is not all that surprising, given her short life in the first novel. Basically, she’s a political animal intent on promotion, she has a history with Doakes, and she hits on Dexter. In season three, her job is secure, Doakes is dead, and Dexter is in a relationship. The writers floundered to give her character something to do, and they did it by giving her some new backstory that didn’t fit. In season four, apparently the writers still don’t know what to do with the character.

Desiring to give the main characters something to do is symptomatic of all television, not just serialized television, as you said yourself when you brought up Kirk in The Conscience of the King. When it comes to Dexter, really, most of the secondary characters aren’t that interesting. LaGuerta, Angel, Masuka, and Quinn basically are their jobs by the third season, which should be fine, since the series is called Dexter and is at its best when told from the first person perspective of the title character. But for some reason (perhaps the actors desiring to have something to do) the writers have been trying to keep these characters personally invested in the narrative.

I’m not convinced that including LaGuerta’s personal backstory, even if only briefly, could not have been done with ease in the first season. However, it seems to me that there was a perfectly logical progression in LaGuerta’s story that the writers completely ignored—trying to prove Doakes’ innocence in the third season. Her storyline could have still intersected with the Prados on a professional level (the political ties from season one you mentioned). Of course, the writers didn’t tell that story because it would mean an end to Dexter’s story, or an end to LaGuerta’s (or she would find nothing and come off as very stupid). I think they also wanted to make LaGuerta more sympathetic for whatever reason (perhaps the actress demanded it), but these notes never ring true in light of the character’s previous two seasons.

Actually, the more I write about the third season, the more I dislike it.

The serials that set an ending date are paying tribute to the intrinsic superiority of closed ended serials. They basically are changing formats so they can go out with a bang, or so they hope. I will note that we now know that Lost had a season about inputting numbers lest the world would be destroyed except that it wasn't true, and another season about Ben manipulating Jack into performing spinal
surgery, except that Ben's plan was more Rube Goldberg than Machiavelli. We now find out that the whole series is about the conflict between Mark Pellegrino and a puff of smoke. Season six may be closed ended but the whole series is open ended and it is pretty messy. The thing about Lost is that it is genuinely inventive, which is rarer than you might think.

My only experience with Lost was a second season episode. On the island, the crash survivors are menaced by some cheesy looking villains in the dark. In the flashbacks, Jack and his father are involved in some silly melodrama that had little to do with the narrative or theme of the present-tense material. Perhaps I’ll give the series another chance at some point, but for now, I’ll stand back and see if its current fans find its conclusion to be even remotely satisfying.

The Singing Detective miniseries may have been more interesting, not least because of its relatively exotic background to US eyes. But the feature film was more intense.

I like the original miniseries and Robert Downey Jr. enough that I’ll return to both at some point. The British setting doesn’t strike me as very exotic, however. I’ve robably seen as many British television series as I have American programs, thanks to my mother’s inordinate interest in British television during my childhood. But I suspect that’s rather unusual.

I thought The Departed was awful. How Infernal Affairs was supposed to be better I wouldn't know. But the dramatic interest in The Departed was the notion that the two moles were becoming their roles, that “character” is not destiny. The US movie had huge gobs of Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery, which he did very well. It was still too pointless to be diverting.

The Hong Kong version doesn’t include the implausible love-triangle of the American version, nor does it provide for the audience-satisfying death of the Matt Damon character in the end. There’s a lot of spiritual subtext that isn’t in the American version, since it is about Catholics and not Buddhists. The Jack Nicholson character does far less scenery-chewing, too. The Mark Whalberg character was an addition to the American version, as well. Most of all, Christopher Doyle’s cinematography is far, far better than anything in the Scorsese film.

In short, I found The Departed to be a loathsome film, but the original is well worth your time. It also produced a prequel and a sequel, which are equally fascinating but plagued by byzantine plotting.

 

[stj]

In State of Play, I think most about the story between the politician and the journalist and their friendship, not the journalism procedural. In Singing Detective, I think most about the writer, not the other patients. In Dexter, I think most about Dexter. The other things add a lot of interest but the core story makes or breaks it for me. The feature film versions and the first season Dexter resolve the core story.

For Dexter, the difference between choosing siblings in first season, then choosing lovers in second season is too trivial to make it a different story. We might as well claim that season three is even better because Dexter chooses between alter ego MIguel and his own Harry trained ego.

As to LaGuerta (would that were the last time I misremember someone I know perfectly well, which is much, much more embarrassing in real life,) it would have been impossible for her to identify Dexter as the Bay Harbor Butcher because 1.Doakes is in fact a vigilante killer, of at least one Haitian FRAPH member. 2.Amazing to say, the bodies of neither of the couple who murdered the immigrants they were smuggling (the Castillos?) were found/identified, meaning that the kid's ID of a white killer couldn't save Doakes' posthumous reputation 3.The only sane candidate for killer of Doakes is the real Butcher. Anyone positing a third killer would be laughed at. Dexter has an unimpeachable alibi for the murder of Doakes. Having LaGuerta continue to investigate would just be poking at plot holes.

All this is mentioned merely to remind us that open ended serials get their plots screwed up, as well as their characters. LaGuerta isn't even the worst. The new Harry, a cliche manifestation of Dexter's unconscious is easily the worst. I repeat, Dexter is still one of the better written ones. The writing in open ended serials is generally terrifyingly incompetent, unless you aren't interested in rational plotting, character consistency or thematic coherence.

After season one, the only really meaningful story that they could have told would be about what Dexter decides to do with his life, which means coming to terms with what Harry did to him. That story is being worked on at glacial pace, with season two's revelation that Harry committed suicide, and season three Deborah finding out about his affair, then investigating. The artificial delay in progressing, much less resolving, this story is weakening the series (in my opinion of course lest anyone forget that I'm not giving someone else's opinion.) And I still contend that open ended serials that tell stories to take up time, instead of taking time to tell stories, are an intrinsically weaker form.

 

[Kegg]

The problem about Dexter's subsequent seasons (again haven't seen S4) is that the conflict is basically less primal. The Ice Truck Killer is his alter-ego. He's quite literally Dexter's other self; Dexter without the code of Harry.

While the second season did excellently twisting the scenario around by making Dexter the season's 'villain' but in the process ran rapidly through a lot of the show's other interesting material; the third season didn't have as strong a concept.

When it comes to Dexter, really, most of the secondary characters aren’t that interesting. LaGuerta, Angel, Masuka, and Quinn basically are their jobs by the third season, which should be fine, since the series is called Dexter and is at its best when told from the first person perspective of the title character. But for some reason (perhaps the actors desiring to have something to do) the writers have been trying to keep these characters personally invested in the narrative.

The major misstep of season three all around. I'd point specifically to Masuka's story about him trying to reshape his image and get people to like him. I understand the actor had done nothing but crack off-colour jokes for two years; but this sudden petty office politics angst is not what I watch a series about a politely affable homocidal killer for.

That Doakes was dead is therefore unfortunate; his death was the most dramatically useful but he was also one of the show's most interesting supporting characters. Season three suffers a fair deal by his absence.

In short, I found The Departed to be a loathsome film, but the original is well worth your time. It also produced a prequel and a sequel, which are equally fascinating but plagued by byzantine plotting.

Bingo. I like Scorsese, really, and it is a shame he'd never got an Oscar, with unforgivable lapses like Dances With Wolves beating out Goodfellas and so on but for the Departed? Really?

 

[Harvey]

In State of Play, I think most about the story between the politician and the journalist and their friendship, not the journalism procedural. In Singing Detective, I think most about the writer, not the other patients. In Dexter, I think most about Dexter. The other things add a lot of interest but the core story makes or breaks it for me. The feature film versions and the first season Dexter resolve the core story.

I think you're being too limiting by reducing State of Play and The Singing Detective to such a narrow focus, but that's a matter of taste, of course. I don't think there's any serious argument to be made that someone could watch Dexter and not be principally focused on the title character. As the star player, he has the most screen time, is named in the title, and is the only character of which the audience is privy to his thoughts and fantasies. But I think I'm repeating myself.

For Dexter, the difference between choosing siblings in first season, then choosing lovers in second season is too trivial to make it a different story. We might as well claim that season three is even better because Dexter chooses between alter ego MIguel and his own Harry trained ego.

Only if your view of each season is so reductionist. Even if a viewer is principally focused on Dexter, as most probably are, the first season still ends with both Rita and Doakes suspecting Dexter and Dexter entertaining the fantasy of his secret identity being revealed.

Also, when did I indicate season two was even better in any sense than season one? In any event, season three is, in my opinion inferior, an opinion which I think I've supported.

As to LaGuerta... it would have been impossible for her to identify Dexter as the Bay Harbor Butcher because 1.Doakes is in fact a vigilante killer, of at least one Haitian FRAPH member. 2.Amazing to say, the bodies of neither of the couple who murdered the immigrants they were smuggling (the Castillos?) were found/identified, meaning that the kid's ID of a white killer couldn't save Doakes' posthumous reputation 3.The only sane candidate for killer of Doakes is the real Butcher. Anyone positing a third killer would be laughed at. Dexter has an unimpeachable alibi for the murder of Doakes. Having LaGuerta continue to investigate would just be poking at plot holes.

LaGuerta was obviously being influenced by her loyalty to Doakes, and was being laughed at in the season two finale for her views. I remain disatisfied by her character in the third season.

The new Harry, a cliche manifestation of Dexter's unconscious is easily the worst.

Agreed on Harry. There's no reason for him to remain present except for the cast and crew's loyalty to James Remar.

After season one, the only really meaningful story that they could have told would be about what Dexter decides to do with his life, which means coming to terms with what Harry did to him. That story is being worked on at glacial pace, with season two's revelation that Harry committed suicide, and season three Deborah finding out about his affair, then investigating. The artificial delay in progressing, much less resolving, this story is weakening the series (in my opinion of course lest anyone forget that I'm not giving someone else's opinion.)

It seemed to be going at a reasonable pace in season two to me. Dexter being investigated, not unreasonably, made it difficult for him to deal with moving on in his life.

Season three seemed to put on the breaks, a sign the writers don't have a timetable to end the series.

When it comes to Dexter, really, most of the secondary characters aren’t that interesting. LaGuerta, Angel, Masuka, and Quinn basically are their jobs by the third season, which should be fine, since the series is called Dexter and is at its best when told from the first person perspective of the title character. But for some reason (perhaps the actors desiring to have something to do) the writers have been trying to keep these characters personally invested in the narrative.

The major misstep of season three all around. I'd point specifically to Masuka's story about him trying to reshape his image and get people to like him. I understand the actor had done nothing but crack off-colour jokes for two years; but this sudden petty office politics angst is not what I watch a series about a politely affable homocidal killer for.

That Doakes was dead is therefore unfortunate; his death was the most dramatically useful but he was also one of the show's most interesting supporting characters. Season three suffers a fair deal by his absence.

Season three wasn't helped by introducing a rather boring replacement (Quinn) and further sidelining Angel, who was fairly central in the first season, as a character.

Bingo. I like Scorsese, really, and it is a shame he'd never got an Oscar, with unforgivable lapses like Dances With Wolves beating out Goodfellas and so on but for the Departed? Really?

Par for the course for the Oscars, alas.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Veronica Mars was a hybrid, with standalone Crime-of-the-Week episodes and a Crime-of-the-Season arc (or crime-of-the-half-season) but the major crimes were continued for too long and the show was cancelled because the writers agreed to pander to the suits and introduce more teenage angst, thereby focusing more on the relationships and less on the crime.

The biggest problems, regardless of which type of show it is, is that the suits interfere too much. They try to change the format to suit the demographic and end up losing everything.

 

[Harvey]

As to LaGuerta (would that were the last time I misremember someone I know perfectly well, which is much, much more embarrassing in real life,) it would have been impossible for her to identify Dexter as the Bay Harbor Butcher because 1.Doakes is in fact a vigilante killer, of at least one Haitian FRAPH member. 2.Amazing to say, the bodies of neither of the couple who murdered the immigrants they were smuggling (the Castillos?) were found/identified, meaning that the kid's ID of a white killer couldn't save Doakes' posthumous reputation 3.The only sane candidate for killer of Doakes is the real Butcher. Anyone positing a third killer would be laughed at. Dexter has an unimpeachable alibi for the murder of Doakes. Having LaGuerta continue to investigate would just be poking at plot holes.

I was thinking a little more on this point last night. It still seems perfectly reasonable to me that LaGuerta might begin to suspect Dexter was the real Bay Harbor Butcher, despite the reasons you list. LaGuerta knew that the Butcher had to be one of their own, in the police department. This narrows down the lists of suspects a great deal. Any half-hearted search of Dexter's home or work computer would likely discover that he has a habit of researching the life stories of the Butcher's victims (and further missing persons since) in the days and weeks before they went missing. A search of Dexter's apartment would reveal the same thing Doakes discovered: Dexter's slides. Worse, these had been taken as evidence, which makes Dexter's renewed possession of them rather suspect. A proper investigation into the FBI's surveillance footage of the dock where Dexter keeps his boat would reveal an evening of footage at one of the docks had been deleted, and possibly recover the footage, since all we saw Dexter do was hit delete. Even if the footage could not be recovered, it would certainly lead any investigator back to the dock, where they would discover Dexter's boat. Angel mentions that it's one of the only docks where a member of the police department could afford to keep a boat, so this may turn up several suspects, but in any event Dexter would be included. A further inquiry to whatever medical board where Dexter procures the drugs he uses to sedate victims would reveal his alias, which would lead straight to him. The only reason this wasn’t discovered during the second season was that Dexter tampered with the email, erasing his alias.
Is this all poking at plot holes? Perhaps it is, but, there are several avenues of investigation that would make Dexter suspect if someone entertained the crazy thought that Doakes wasn’t the Bay Harbor Butcher. As LaGuerta did at the end of the second season.
Apologies for taking this thread so far out of the direction of science fiction, and for being unable to format this post into paragraphs--odd computer issues.

 

[stj]

Also, when did I indicate season two was even better in any sense than season one? In any event, season three is, in my opinion inferior, an opinion which I think I've supported.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought season two was better than season one. I'm not quite certain now why you don't think so, after the issue of one vs. two has been raised. I do, because I think the core story, Dexter's choice, is fundamentally the same, repeated to fill time with the same old fun. You seemed to think the supplementary stories you correctly identified above could serve as the meat of the series. Whereas I tend to think the core story is like the cutting edge of the knife: A dull one renders the whole thing useless.

The points about La Guerta being able to prove Dexter was the killer are of course correct. The majority require that he be an official suspect, so that pesky requirements about search and seizure of evidence could be met. Fortunately for the extended plot, Doakes hopelessly compromised the chain of evidence by illegally seizing the slides. The series wasn't quite clear whether the slides were a new set (Dexter has magical powers to identify the mulititudes of murders amongst us!) or stolen from evidence. Either way points to yet another sanity defying turn in the plot.

I'm the one who says that open ended serials result in this kind of plotting, though, so I'm not quite sure of the point. It is bad plotting. If you're going to watch an open ended serial, you pretty much have to overlook bad writing, an inevtable result of the form's intrinsic deficiencies. Unless you regard bad plotting as trivial, not part of any reasonable definition of bad writing?

As to the badness of season three, again, I think it's fundamentally bad because it's the third iteration of a story and even writers as good as Dexter's are hard pressed. That said, Miguel Prado's story is beautifully done (and acted extremely well, so much so that I rate Smits over Hall!) To me it makes sense to nonetheless condemn third season, because Dexter's story is the cutting edge of the series, but the blade is getting worn down. I'm not sure what you have against it.

 

[Harvey]

Certainly fair, on all counts.

I find season one and two to be generally of equal quality. Then again, I don't find Dexter's conflict with Doakes or his relationship with Rita to be supplementary. LaGuerta's struggle to keep her job is a supplementary narrative.

Dexter would not necessarily be LaGuerta's suspect as she begin the process of quietly searching for a Bay Harbor Butcher who was not Doakes. However, his acquisition of the drugs and the deletion of the video footage of the dock where he kept his boat would make him suspect. These plot turns only worked in Dexter's favor in season two because Doakes impulsively dug his own grave. Rather convenient for Dexter, but also organic to the characters.

My only question to you being, what I have against what? The third season? I think I've listed my problems with it enough times.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I tend towards serialised shows, but I do like some episodic too. A good show is a good show regardless of whether it has an on going arc or not. I enjoy House and it's pretty much what I hate on TV. Repetitive, predictable formula, but the characters are fun and it usually makes me laugh.
One of my favourite shows of all time, Red Dwarf, is a sitcom and very much an episodic show. But my other favourites would be stuff like Farscape, Buffy, Dexter, B5, DS9, etc. all have serialised aspects to one extent or another.

But TV is definitely my preference over movies nowadays precisely because you can have a 10/20/30 hour story where you can care about the character, feel like you know the characters, and see the life they lead, I find it increasingly hard to care about character in movies where you have no time to know the characters before they're thrust in to a story that you're supposed to care about.