Season 1 Formula

[RoJoHen]

One thing I have noticed that is often said about TV shows is that they have "typical first seasons." I think we all know what that means: lots of standalone episodes, introduction of the characters and the universe, very few, if any, references to the main arc of the show (assuming it has one).

For many genre shows this usually means "Protagonist vs. Random Villain-of-the-Week."

My question to you is this: How necessary is this formula?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Right now I'm watching "Supernatural," which many people say is a really good show. I am about 3/4 of the way through the first season, and while I am enjoying the mystery surrounding the main story, I just want them to get on with it! Stop fighting random monsters and tell the story.

Then there are shows like nuBSG. They jumped right in! I don't think there were really any episodes in Season 1 that weren't in some way relevant to the overall arc of the show. It wasn't really until the latter half of Season 2 that we really started getting regular standalone episodes, but even they usually did something to progress the story.

I guess I just want to know why this is such a popular trend. Is it really that difficult to introduce the audience to the show while simultaneously telling the big story? Or do show writers simply not have enough material in the first season to tell a big story? Do they have to save it for later seasons in the hopes that the show will get renewed?

 

[Spot's Meow]

I think it is possible and it usually ends up making the show better. I think TV in general is trending away from the type of first seasons you are describing. The best example is Lost, a show that dove right into the main story only seconds after the pilot began and hasn't let up since. There are side stories, but they always factor into the main story somehow and there are no standalone episodes. Well, maybe Nicki and Paulo, but we all know how that episode went over!

I think there are benefits to having episodic shows, and it works fine for comedies, but I prefer my dramas to stick to the main story. I am watching Fringe right now and getting really tired of it...I thought that this freak of the week stuff was over after they ended season 1 on such a high note, but instead of elaborating on the very interesting main story they unveiled back then, they have spent almost all of season 2 doing these standalone episodes that you might as well not even watch because they contribute so little to the main story.

It does, however, depend on what type of show you're looking for. If you want something that you can really get into, watch every week and buy the DVDs for, then the main story is really important. If I'm just channel surfing and want something interesting to occupy my time, something more episodic like Law and Order or X-Files is great.

 

[FordSVT]

I'm sure that sometimes it is the case that the creators/writers of the show aren't sure how long the show will last when they begin it, or they don't intend to create an arc-based show in the first place but once the show gets picked up it evolves that way naturally. Not everyone is JMS, writing 5-year plot outlines before the show is even picked up.

 

[mrcoaster]

The most obvious reason for episodic first seasons is to allow for more viewers to join in and start watching the show. If you get into a season-long arc (or multi-season arc) quickly and build up a storyline or mythology that people will have to catch up on to really understand what is going on, then it will be much more difficult to garner new viewers as the season progresses.

 

[Mr Light]

I do find it frustrating when a show takes forever to start its story. I would say that LOST's story didn't really being until 2X3 "Orientation". Before that point it was pretty much a bunch of people sitting around on a beach. And I say that with love

 

[Temis the Vorta]

One thing I have noticed that is often said about TV shows is that they have "typical first seasons." I think we all know what that means: lots of standalone episodes, introduction of the characters and the universe, very few, if any, references to the main arc of the show (assuming it has one).

Is this really all that common? If so, it might explain why I usually bail on a new show after the first episode (if I even get that far). The episodic format bores me. I'll make an exception for a lightly-serialized show like Chuck that is very well written and acted, but generally even light serialization isn't enough to hold my interest.

 

[RoJoHen]

One thing I have noticed that is often said about TV shows is that they have "typical first seasons." I think we all know what that means: lots of standalone episodes, introduction of the characters and the universe, very few, if any, references to the main arc of the show (assuming it has one).

Is this really all that common? If so, it might explain why I usually bail on a new show after the first episode (if I even get that far). The episodic format bores me. I'll make an exception for a lightly-serialized show like Chuck that is very well written and acted, but generally even light serialization isn't enough to hold my interest.

I think Chuck manages to give us the best of both worlds: "Villain-of-the-week" episodes that also help move the plot along. Hell, sometimes in Chuck the villain might not move the story at all, but maybe the B-plot at the Buy More or Ellie/Awesome help move a different aspect of the plot.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The secret of Chuck's success is that the writers are good at pulling comedy out of the premise and the format, so that the repetitive nature of the show doesn't seem so bad; and between Zach Levi, Adam Baldwin, Ryan McPartlin and Jeffster, they have plenty of comedic talent to work with. Most shows aren't that lucky in writing or in casting.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I do find it frustrating when a show takes forever to start its story. I would say that LOST's story didn't really being until 2X3 "Orientation". Before that point it was pretty much a bunch of people sitting around on a beach. And I say that with love

Wow, really?? I would really have to disagree with that. From the first episode it was all about the main story. Even if we didn't realize some things at the time, when you go back and watch you realize just how much every little thing ties in to everything else to create a huge puzzle that is slowly being solved. The story direction goes in unexpected ways, as it did in season 2 (and pretty much the beginning of every new season) but the preceeding stuff still fed into the main story.

 

[Candlelight]

I loved it how Babylon 5's first season appeared to be full of stand alones then you go back and rewatch it later on and BLAM! there's actually more there than you realise...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If you can't tell a good stand-alone story in forty-odd minutes you've got no business trying to drag viewers into an arc.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I do find it frustrating when a show takes forever to start its story. I would say that LOST's story didn't really being until 2X3 "Orientation". Before that point it was pretty much a bunch of people sitting around on a beach. And I say that with love

Wow, really?? I would really have to disagree with that. From the first episode it was all about the main story. Even if we didn't realize some things at the time, when you go back and watch you realize just how much every little thing ties in to everything else to create a huge puzzle that is slowly being solved. The story direction goes in unexpected ways, as it did in season 2 (and pretty much the beginning of every new season) but the preceeding stuff still fed into the main story.

Lost was immediately addictive, and a good example of why you don't need to answer any questions or present much more than teaser material for the plot and characters in order to hold people's interest. We don't need everything served up to us immediately on a silver platter. We understand that a worthwhile story takes time to develop, pace and present properly. If you demand a 44 minute self-contained story, of course you're going to get formulaic pap.

 

[bigdaddy]

I think the best example of how to have enough stand alone-ness that new viewers feel like they can join in late, but still have an arc is The West Wing. You watch and they have an arc for the season, but not so much that if you miss a few you have no clue what is going on. That arc in a way concludes in the beginning of season 2, but it dropped hints of huge things that happen in seasons 2 and 3 and even the end of season 4.

 

[Mr Light]

LOST Season 1 was almost completely about the characters' back-stories, which to me are not what the show is really about, the show is about Dharma and Cerebus and the Others and the Island. Not that this is a bad thing mind you, but looking back on it S1 is pretty mundane. Back then the Island appears to be this empty dead place... when later we learn its literally teaming with buildings and underground bunkers and tunnels!

 

[Mr Light]

Chuck is a good example of a show that handles the stand-alone problem well. Even if I don't give a rat's ass about the spy storyline, the Buy More story is always good for a hoot. I like the way the show is basically two completely separate entities like that. And Season 2, which I *just* finished on DVD, definitely did a much better job at the spy stories than S1 did.

 

[WillsBabe]

One of the things that puts me off starting to watch a new show, however interesting the trailers might look, is this tendancy for the first season to be a villain of the week type affair. It bores me and I cannot face wading through it in the hopes that the show will hit its stride late in the second, early third year. For me recent exceptions to this have been the new BSG and Lost. They had me hooked with a story to tell and intrige off the bat, although in the case of Lost I got bored with the backstory/flashback segments, which, for me, were a substitute for the villain of the week, in some ways. I forget which Henry Jenkins it is, but one of them talks about how audiences enjoy codas to stories, those are the moments that viewers really enjoy because they are the ones that we find out stuff about characters. That book was written when episodic tv was even more common place than it is now, but I think it's still relevant.

 

[Joe Washington]

This kinda reminds me of a similiar thread I've posted on here some time ago.

But to answer your questions, I think some shows prefer to feature standalone episodes because it would be easier for new viewers to plug in during the show. I have no problem with standalone episodes as long as they aren't mediocore and are driven by interesting characters.

I myself prefer a first season that grabs your attention right from the start. Whether it's an action show, a comedy show, or a drama.

I don't think it's very difficult to introduce the audience to the show while telling a big story at the same time. Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Dexter, Six Feet Under, the Shield. All of them have done this successfully. I just think some shows find easy to tell episodes with standalone plots rather than storylines go on for several episodes.

I think it's best to show parts of the big story or at least plant the seeds of it in the first season because there's the possibility the show could be cancelled before kicking off the major story stuff in later seasons.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

I think that it really all depends on the premise of the show in question, the creative team involved and the studio/network(s) connected to the show. While I certainly prefer a story arc, I've come to learn as a person who wished to write that not only is it sometimes hard to arc a story (or even really try and plan it out), but when it comes to the reality of programing these days, barring outside interference, is the show going to last beyond a few episodes/the first season? If that's the case, it's even more of a let down if the show doesn't make it beyond that point, and it's clear (either from watching the episodes or reading backstage sources) that a story arc was being shown/set up, that you will not see a continuation/conclusion of the story in question.

Then add to it further complications, a studio/network interfering (aka, sending creative "notes"), performers leaving prematurely, the size/type of writing staff (such as, is it the same group of people always, if so how big is the group, or is it just random people throughout the process) who makes the final call in the storylines in question, and who, or what, is the target audience? I've come to find that a certain type of audience just isn't going to care for continuity, an arc, etc... and certain shows simply don't allow for it (or networks), take the Law & Order SVU (or any of the series, actually) for instance, while somewhat enjoyable (I used to watch them all the time, not anymore), I don't think the premise (nor the networks or the creator(s)) would allow for an extended arc lasting over a season or more aside from character background references. Heroes, on the other hand, (having only seen the first season/volume and sporadic episodes sense) is not only a show that could use an arc, but one(s) figured out (roughly) before hand to hint/give a general direction of the series future.

In short, as much as I love a story arc, I think that there's just way to many complicating factors where people decide that it would be best to just not do an extended arc of some time. A shame really, because there's been many television shows over the years that would have been so much better in doing this.