Pre-planned SF shows or...?

[Christopher]

The argument against episodic television with a continuing cast is that the characters do not change at all. Star Trek can be viewed in any order with no effect to the characters--they are absolutely constant from one episode to the next. That's not real life where people change a little bit. That some--even most--serialized shows take character change to an unbelievable extreme is probably true. I can't say I find a lot of television compelling, and of most serialized programs this is no exception.

Again, you're confusing the extreme with the norm. That description applies to some episodic shows, but there are hundreds of episodic shows about which that is not true, such as ST:TNG, STS9, Xena, Firefly, plenty of others. You're describing one approach to episodic shows, but that is not the only approach.

The problem is that people today mistakenly equate "serialization" with "continuity," and therefore assume that "episodic" means "lacking continuity." As I've tried to explain, that's absolutely untrue. Episodic and serial are terms describing the structure of a story. Episodic shows tell a distinct story in each installment, while serialized shows tell only part of a story, sometimes multiple stories, in each installment. There is absolutely no reason why an episodic show can't have continuity from one self-contained story to the next, can't have characters remembering past experiences, growing and changing, having ongoing relationships, etc. And there is absolutely no reason why a show can't have episodic and serial elements at the same time. (Contrary to the abuse of the terminology in fandom, Babylon 5 was actually an episodic show, not a serial. It had an ongoing arc, but 2-parters aside, each installment told a self-contained piece of that greater whole, with a beginning, middle and end within the same hour. In order to be a serial, it would've had to have each plot spread out over several episodes. For instance, instead of there being a discrete episode called "Soul Hunter," the complete story about the Soul Hunter would've been spread out across multiple episodes along with other parallel storylines.)

 

[ATimson]

There is absolutely no reason why an episodic show can't have continuity from one self-contained story to the next, can't have characters remembering past experiences, growing and changing, having ongoing relationships, etc.

There's no reason they can't, but until recently they generally didn't, lest the all-mighty god of Syndication cast his wrath upon the producers.

 

[Harvey]

Again, you're confusing the extreme with the norm. That description applies to some episodic shows, but there are hundreds of episodic shows about which that is not true, such as ST:TNG, STS9, Xena, Firefly, plenty of others. You're describing one approach to episodic shows, but that is not the only approach.

Judging from what I've seen of television, what I'm describing is the norm, and what you're describing is the extreme, as far as the long history of television is concerned.

But, you're also right when it comes to more recent television, I think. In the past 10-20 years, things have changed A LOT when it comes to television, no question. In that period, my analysis doesn't work.

But let's cast aside that. I concede the point. What's of interest to me is your premise that Babylon 5 isn't a serial. I'm not sure I absolutely buy it. It seems to me that any successfully structured piece of television has episodes that are complete works in and of themselves. Your example of "Soul Hunter" as an indicator that Babylon 5 isn't a serial isn't the best--in the first two year (and, to a lesser extent, in the final three years, too) Babylon 5 was split between episodes that advanced the arc, and episodes that stood alone. "Soul Hunter" is the latter. It's much more difficult to look at an episode such as "The Coming of Shadows," and come to the same conclusion.

If your definition holds, excluding 24 (and even 24, since the second or third season, is always structured to reach a climax at the end of every episode), is there even a true serial (by this definition) on television?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

(Contrary to the abuse of the terminology in fandom, Babylon 5 was actually an episodic show, not a serial. It had an ongoing arc, but 2-parters aside, each installment told a self-contained piece of that greater whole, with a beginning, middle and end within the same hour. In order to be a serial, it would've had to have each plot spread out over several episodes. For instance, instead of there being a discrete episode called "Soul Hunter," the complete story about the Soul Hunter would've been spread out across multiple episodes along with other parallel storylines.)

But let's cast aside that. I concede the point. What's of interest to me is your premise that Babylon 5 isn't a serial. I'm not sure I absolutely buy it. It seems to me that any successfully structured piece of television has episodes that are complete works in and of themselves. Your example of "Soul Hunter" as an indicator that Babylon 5 isn't a serial isn't the best--in the first two year (and, to a lesser extent, in the final three years, too) Babylon 5 was split between episodes that advanced the arc, and episodes that stood alone. "Soul Hunter" is the latter. It's much more difficult to look at an episode such as "The Coming of Shadows," and come to the same conclusion.

There was a lot of episodic and serialized storytelling going on in Babylon 5.

Moreover, "Soul Hunter" contained elements of the overall five-year arc. The threads in that episode: Sinclair's connection to the Minbari ("They're using you. They're using you." and "We were right about you."), Delenn's chrysalis plans ("You would plan such a thing. You would do such a thing."), Delenn's ties to the Grey Council ("She is satai. She is satai."), and the death of Dukhat. The A-Plot of the Soul Hunter was self-contained but it laid the groundwork for threads that would carry over into the rest of the series.

Nearly every episode of Babylon 5, whether self-contained or not, had threads of the five-year arc. A Ranger appeared in the background long before one was integral to the story ("The Coming of Shadows"). JMS designed the episodes with the idea that they could be watched individually, and thus have their own beginning, middle, and end -- like any well-written chapter or scene.

Threads to the larger tapestry would be laid within those episodes, be it the A-plot, the B-plot, some bit of dialog, or something/someone in the background.

And it did have plot spread throughout several episodes not just in the two-parters, even if it was picked up years down the line. For example, the breakaway from Earth and the Earth Civil War. The groundwork for that was laid in the second season with "All Alone in the Night" or even further with the assassination of President Santiago.

The actual "plot" of Babylon 5's declaration of independance stars in the tag of "Messages of Earth" and is carried through to "Ceremonies of Light and Dark." A four-episode stretch. Parallel to this storyline were the stories of Londo and G'Kar. The repercussions of Sheridan's decision aren't fully seen until the end of the fourth season when the Earth Civil War kicks into full gear and that storyline carries over several episodes.

 

[Christopher]

There is absolutely no reason why an episodic show can't have continuity from one self-contained story to the next, can't have characters remembering past experiences, growing and changing, having ongoing relationships, etc.

There's no reason they can't, but until recently they generally didn't, lest the all-mighty god of Syndication cast his wrath upon the producers.

If by "recently" you mean "20 years ago." Most of the examples I'm hearing for shows that lack continuity date back to the '60s or '70s. It's an outdated argument.

But let's cast aside that. I concede the point. What's of interest to me is your premise that Babylon 5 isn't a serial. I'm not sure I absolutely buy it. It seems to me that any successfully structured piece of television has episodes that are complete works in and of themselves. Your example of "Soul Hunter" as an indicator that Babylon 5 isn't a serial isn't the best--in the first two year (and, to a lesser extent, in the final three years, too) Babylon 5 was split between episodes that advanced the arc, and episodes that stood alone. "Soul Hunter" is the latter. It's much more difficult to look at an episode such as "The Coming of Shadows," and come to the same conclusion.

You're missing the point. B5 is a classic example of why it just doesn't work to try to force every show into either the "episodic" or "serial" cubbyhole, because it was both. It was an episodic serial. It was a series that had long-running story arcs, but the storytelling was structured in an episodic manner, meaning that each individual installment told a different story than the one before it or the one after it. There were continuing character and plot threads running through the series, but still, each individual hour had its own distinct focus and told a tale that started at the beginning of the episode and concluded, or at least reached a point of temporary closure, at the end. For instance, when Bester showed up, he usually wasn't around for three or four consecutive episodes, his story advancing a little bit at a time in parallel with half a dozen other story arcs advancing a little bit at a time. No, he's show up for one episode and whatever he was doing would be the primary focus of that episode, and his visit would be resolved at the end of the hour and he'd go away until some later episode. Then the next episode might focus on G'kar and Londo and a conflict between them that would come to a point of climax within that hour. Then the next episode might focus on a crime spree down in the bowels of the station, and Garibaldi would catch the bad guy at the end of that hour. There were definitely larger arcs tying the whole series together, but the format of the series was usually episodic. In order for it to be a pure serial, all those threads would've had to be running simultaneously across multiple episodes, not one after the other in separate episodes.

Of course, there were times in the series where it was more serial than at others. And there were times where there was a serial subplot (say, Dr. Franklin's walkabout) running underneath the usual one-main-plot-per-episode structure. But plenty of shows vary from more episodic to more serial over time. DS9 was mostly episodic, but it had six serialized episodes at the start of the sixth season and ten serialized episodes at the very end. ENT's first two seasons were episodic, but its third was more serialized (but more so toward the end of the season than the beginning) and its fourth was divided into stories of 1, 2, or 3 episodes in length, an innovative approach. Angel's first three seasons were episodic with strong continuity, but the fourth was one big serial. And so on.

Pure episodic and pure serial represent the extremes. But most of reality lies between the extremes, by definition. It's useless to try to cubbyhole every show into one of two simplistic, exaggerated categories when countless shows contain elements of both in varying degrees.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

You're missing the point. B5 is a classic example of why it just doesn't work to try to force every show into either the "episodic" or "serial" cubbyhole, because it was both.

A point that I also made in the post before yours.

However, to be fair, in your previous post you stated that Babylon 5 wasn't a serial but an "episodic show" not a hybrid that used elements from both storytelling styles. So if a point was missed, it's because the original point wasn't clear until the most recent post.

Emphasis mine
(Contrary to the abuse of the terminology in fandom, Babylon 5 was actually an episodic show, not a serial. It had an ongoing arc, but 2-parters aside, each installment told a self-contained piece of that greater whole, with a beginning, middle and end within the same hour. In order to be a serial, it would've had to have each plot spread out over several episodes. For instance, instead of there being a discrete episode called "Soul Hunter," the complete story about the Soul Hunter would've been spread out across multiple episodes along with other parallel storylines.)

 

[Christopher]

However, to be fair, in your previous post you stated that Babylon 5 wasn't a serial but an "episodic show" not a hybrid that used elements from both storytelling styles. So if a point was missed, it's because the original point wasn't clear until the most recent post.

The problem is that "serial" can be used to mean two different things. In my earlier post, I was hewing to the formal, structural definition: a serial is a story where any given story arc is spread out across multiple installments. In that strict, literal sense, B5 was structured episodically rather than serially. This morning I guess I decided to be a little more flexible and allow for an alternative, looser definition of "serial" to mean an overall developing continuity.

Let me try to synthesize it more coherently: I think there's a difference between a show that is a serial and a show that has serialized elements. There's no denying that B5 had a strong element of serialization, but in the strict sense, its structure was mostly episodic. Ultimately, it would be wrong to try to fit the show into either label. And it's a mistake to try to define shows in general by sticking simplistic labels on them. Labels are more a way of avoiding analysis than performing it. And B5 is one of those shows that defies stereotyping.

Anyway, the original point I was using B5 to illustrate is that there's no reason in the world why an episodic show can't have strong continuity. I was refuting the blatantly erroneous statement that an episodic show is one that has no continuity or change, ever. Calling a show episodic doesn't mean it lacks continuity, merely that its stories are told sequentially in discrete units rather than in parallel and spread out across many installments. B5 is an illustration of an episodic show that is very, very rich in continuity and growth. DS9 is another. Xena is another. Plenty of animated series also qualify: Gargoyles, X-Men, the '90s Spider-Man, the current Spectacular Spider-Man, Justice League Unlimited, etc. etc.

 

[Harvey]

Well-stated, Christopher. The point that Babylon 5 told episodic stories with a serialized structure has been well-defended. Like middyseafort, I mistook your argument, which you have restated, as something slightly different.

I certainly don't have anything more to state on the subject. If only that could keep me from coming back to this thread again and again!

 

[stj]

Reverting back to the thread topic, preplanned SF shows are better, as are all preplanned shows.

Despite the formal correctness of the arguments about a continuum between serialized and episodic, people will continue to talk about serialization being better, and episodic being bad, because serialization is so powerfully associated with character-driven (aka soap opera) writing. Viewers who want stories about silly putty characters who undergo all sorts of sensational changes will want serialization, even if what they get is technically from to the middle of the spectrum. And viewers who want stories to have some sort of logic will notice serialized stories get silly, even if the show is has many episodic elements in its structure.

What's been called in this thread "continuity" has been acknowledged in television for decades. Even Westerns like Bonanza and Gunsmoke took note of changes in characters. The consistent tendency to argue for serialization is not a desire for continuity but a desire for a particular kind of continuity, best achieved in a serial.

 

[DWF]

Reverting back to the thread topic, preplanned SF shows are better, as are all preplanned shows.

Despite the formal correctness of the arguments about a continuum between serialized and episodic, people will continue to talk about serialization being better, and episodic being bad, because serialization is so powerfully associated with character-driven (aka soap opera) writing. Viewers who want stories about silly putty characters who undergo all sorts of sensational changes will want serialization, even if what they get is technically from to the middle of the spectrum. And viewers who want stories to have some sort of logic will notice serialized stories get silly, even if the show is has many episodic elements in its structure.

What's been called in this thread "continuity" has been acknowledged in television for decades. Even Westerns like Bonanza and Gunsmoke took note of changes in characters. The consistent tendency to argue for serialization is not a desire for continuity but a desire for a particular kind of continuity, best achieved in a serial.

You can't say what viewers want nobody knows for sure what viewers want and pre-planned shows can fall apart just as easily as episodic shows can in fact even faster.

And no serial shows don't always have a better continuity, you need only look at the two differnt Dalek histories on Doctor Who to see that, not to mention the various retcons on Battlestar Galactica, and Heroes is something of a mess continuity wise.

It's probably best to go half serial half episodic, Blake's 7, Stargate SG1 and The X-Files are good examples of the half and half plan working.

 

[chrisspringob]

Forgive me, but I thought the point of this thread was not "which is better: serial or episodic?", but "If you are going to have continuity and ongoing storylines, is it better to plan the story in advance, or to make it up as you go along?"

 

[stj]

^^^Unplanned serials like Heroes have their plots turn into a mess. Shows with more planning do much better on that score. They are the small minority. The question is, why do so many people insist on the superiority of serialization, completely ignoring the catastrophic mess practically all serialized shows ended up as? In this thread, and elsewhere, the defenders of serialization talk about character development. Almost all such serials have a particular kind of character driven writing, including that huge group of serialized shows, the soap operas. Soaps, daytime or nighttime, alone constitute such an enormous amount of programming that they must be considered typical.

The objection that there is a continuum between serialized and episodic is quite true, but doesn't address the real issue, the kind of character development that in practice requires a rather large amount of serialization. Conversely, so called episodic shows (the argument that they too are on a specturm is true, but irrelevant to the real disagreement) are objectionable to many because the emphasis on story logic and resolution doesn't address the character development desired. It is also true that the guest characters on these kinds of shows undergo quite a bit of character development. Their stories really are turning points in their lives and leave permanent changes.

How can I not conclude that the serialization defenders don't just want character driven stories---which is a loaded way of presenting the questions anyhow, since in a good plot the characters have reasons for their actions!---they want their favorite characters to undergo trials and tribulations? They want soap.

 

[DWF]

Unplanned serials like Heroes have their plots turn into a mess. Shows with more planning do much better on that score.

Is there any proof at all that Heroes was an unplanned serial? It was meant to something of a live action comic book in that vein it was a serial from the start. The strike messed up the second season but it was a planned series.

 

[stj]

^^^To my amazement, it occurs to me that you might be right. I can only say that Heroes season one made sense. And Heroes seasons two and three, didn't. I had always assumed that they planned a lot while developing the series. Then, when they didn't kill off the characters they had originally meant to kill off, they started winging it, with the usual results. But you're right, that's more assumption and deduction than commonly acknowledged fact.