I prefer episodic TV with character arcs - stuff like Buffy or Farscape. Long plot arcs are rarely interesting.
'Wagon Train to the Stars'? Really?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
It's interesting that you say that. I've often said that Buffy was what really turned me on to long plot arcs. The series transitioned over the first few seasons from being very episodic (freak-of-the-week) to being more focused on longer arcs. But the great thing about it was it's intensely character-driven nature, and the fact that every single major character changed markedly from their first appearance to their last.
I mean, yes, it was a soap-opera. But anyone who's seen Buffy can remember how poignant it was to watch the title character go through rather dramatic phases while remaining essentially the same person. Her period of surprisingly deep self-loathing during the middle part of the series comes to mind.
I do agree that there has to be a balance. If every episode doesn't have it's own perceptible problem and payoff, that's just sloppy pacing. Heavens—I draw a daily comic strip, and I really try to imagine each 2-4 panel strip as its own entity, with its own little cliffhanger, even though the story itself is a long and very complex arc.
I think another factor in the episodic nature of TV series in the past was that, when the show was sold into syndication, the stations airing it wanted to be able to air random episodes without worrying about what order they were in.
I'd say I have a slight preference toward episodic shows, maybe 60-40. That's probably because it's what I grew up with. I also enjoy being able to watch a random favorite episode of, say, TOS, the Avengers, or Kung Fu on DVD without needing to remember whole plot arcs.
I'd say I have a slight preference toward episodic shows, maybe 60-40. That's probably because it's what I grew up with. I also enjoy being able to watch a random favorite episode of, say, TOS, the Avengers, or Kung Fu on DVD without needing to remember whole plot arcs.
My preference for episodic is simply that to do it very well requires great skill and discipline. It's the film equivalent of a short story, and TV drama has never been as compelling as it was in the days of anthology drama series.
Someone on the writing staff at TNG told me that of the unsolicited submissions they received the least likely to be of any use were the scripts presented as two-parters - and they got a lot of these (supposedly one industrious or obsessive fan shipped them twenty-six scripts at onces - he'd written a whole season for them!). Basically, if one is an inexperienced writer submitting to a TV series that's an hour long and can't come up with a story that fits into an hour it's probably not because of too grand a vision.
Someone on the writing staff at TNG told me that of the unsolicited submissions they received the least likely to be of any use were the scripts presented as two-parters - and they got a lot of these (supposedly one industrious or obsessive fan shipped them twenty-six scripts at onces - he'd written a whole season for them!). Basically, if one is an inexperienced writer submitting to a TV series that's an hour long and can't come up with a story that fits into an hour it's probably not because of too grand a vision.
^^LOLZ at the 26-script submission, Dennis. Having done a little writing myself, I can definitely see what you're saying--the more experience you get, the better you get at editing yourself down. It would have been fun going through their slush pile, to say the least.
I'm of two minds on the story arc/episodic split. I like the short story analogy, and I can see the merit in that. I definitely prefer shows like Doctor Who to be more episodic, and it's one of the strengths of TOS as well.
But I also really like shows like The Wire, which can tell a really great story over a whole season (or seasons). Lost, too, though frankly it was more for the characters and the acting than the story itself.
I guess it comes down to execution--if the writers can create a compelling world and story that the actors convincingly bring to life, I'd be happy watching either kind of show.
I'd have to say that if they ever bring Star Trek back, I'd be really happy with an updated version of the TOS idea, which is probably what we'd get. Seeing some seven-season epic saga of the fall and rise of the Federation in the wake of a Borg/Dominion alliance would be pretty brutal. Seeing Kirk & company exploring strange new worlds with different interesting guest stars each week (and 1 or 2 recurring villains)? That would be pretty cool.
I'm of two minds on the story arc/episodic split. I like the short story analogy, and I can see the merit in that. I definitely prefer shows like Doctor Who to be more episodic, and it's one of the strengths of TOS as well.
But I also really like shows like The Wire, which can tell a really great story over a whole season (or seasons). Lost, too, though frankly it was more for the characters and the acting than the story itself.
I guess it comes down to execution--if the writers can create a compelling world and story that the actors convincingly bring to life, I'd be happy watching either kind of show.
I'd have to say that if they ever bring Star Trek back, I'd be really happy with an updated version of the TOS idea, which is probably what we'd get. Seeing some seven-season epic saga of the fall and rise of the Federation in the wake of a Borg/Dominion alliance would be pretty brutal. Seeing Kirk & company exploring strange new worlds with different interesting guest stars each week (and 1 or 2 recurring villains)? That would be pretty cool.
What killed me was shows like MASH, which toward the end had a lot of A/B story episodes. I made me wonder about writers who apparently couldn't think up enough story to flesh out to a lousy 22 minutes!
Again, though, it takes a lot of skill to tell stories both well and briefly - the A/B structure in a half-hour sitcom is no joke! 
For whatever reason, the good writers nowadays seem to be gravitating towards serialized shows - Breaking Bad, Dexter, Sons of Anarchy. Maybe it's because of the cachet of cable, which is getting all the critical acclaim and winning all the awards. Probably it's because there's a lot more you can do when writing a serialized story vs having to always wrap things up in 40 min.
There are a few semi-episodic shows I can think of that are well written - Chuck is much better written than its thin premise would imply and Curb Your Enthusiasm is consistently strong. But both of those have definite plot threads and in the case of Chuck, the characters also show development over time.
Since the good writers are writing the serialized shows, we're all getting the idea that serialization = good writing. Maybe that's not true in the abstract but it's overwhelmingly true in the real world. I can't think of a single example of a wholly episodic show that is any good or that I can even tolerate watching. I tried watching Law & Order: LA, but the whole canned police procedural thing just bores the shit out of me.
There are a few semi-episodic shows I can think of that are well written - Chuck is much better written than its thin premise would imply and Curb Your Enthusiasm is consistently strong. But both of those have definite plot threads and in the case of Chuck, the characters also show development over time.
Since the good writers are writing the serialized shows, we're all getting the idea that serialization = good writing. Maybe that's not true in the abstract but it's overwhelmingly true in the real world. I can't think of a single example of a wholly episodic show that is any good or that I can even tolerate watching. I tried watching Law & Order: LA, but the whole canned police procedural thing just bores the shit out of me.
M*A*S*H had a cast of a good 7-8 people most of the time. Tough to service that many characters with just one story each and every week. A couple stories servicing 2-4 characters makes much more sense for both the storytelling and the actors' schedules.
I agree that crafting a single, short story can be more difficult than telling one that's long and drawn-out. But each method has its own goals. As we can see in most Star Trek (TOS and TNG especially) episodic stories tend to have a simple sort of moral, if they're trying to say anything at all. To explore more complex ideas (especially in an entertaining way) simply requires more time.
This sort of thing was handled in an indirect way, for example, in TNG. As the series progressed, Picard accumulated a few artifacts in his office that were reminders of experiences he had had—a blanket draped over the back of his chair, a flute. Essentially, Picard was iconic; he could be transplanted into any number of situations, and in those situations would represent a certain personality, moral viewpoint, and aspect of human character that could be somewhat appreciated by a casual viewer. But a dedicated fan might feel the benefit of knowing him less as an icon and more as a person, with flaws, nuances, and complexities.
If you take TOS, however, I would suggest that because of its doggedly episodic, stand-alone format, there's really no such parallel. Arguably, one understood the character of Kirk, Spock, or Bones just as well after watching one episode as all three seasons. The characters were so strongly iconic that many people feel that they basically understand Kirk, for example, even if they've never watched an episode. The downside of this, though, is that one misses out on an emotional bond that might make the show more deeply compelling. I mean, one of the reasons that "City on the Edge of Forever" is so well-loved is that it just begins to explore Kirk as a complex character.
This sort of thing was handled in an indirect way, for example, in TNG. As the series progressed, Picard accumulated a few artifacts in his office that were reminders of experiences he had had—a blanket draped over the back of his chair, a flute. Essentially, Picard was iconic; he could be transplanted into any number of situations, and in those situations would represent a certain personality, moral viewpoint, and aspect of human character that could be somewhat appreciated by a casual viewer. But a dedicated fan might feel the benefit of knowing him less as an icon and more as a person, with flaws, nuances, and complexities.
If you take TOS, however, I would suggest that because of its doggedly episodic, stand-alone format, there's really no such parallel. Arguably, one understood the character of Kirk, Spock, or Bones just as well after watching one episode as all three seasons. The characters were so strongly iconic that many people feel that they basically understand Kirk, for example, even if they've never watched an episode. The downside of this, though, is that one misses out on an emotional bond that might make the show more deeply compelling. I mean, one of the reasons that "City on the Edge of Forever" is so well-loved is that it just begins to explore Kirk as a complex character.
Or the show (in sixty minutes) can simply present a compelling idea and it's up to the viewer whether they want to examine the idea in more detail.
You know, I think a big reason both The Trouble With Tribbles and Mirror, Mirror are such popular episodes is because they both do such a good job of giving everyone in the crew something to do -- which was the exception more than the rule on TOS.
I prefer the single story to the A/B of later Trek, tho someone pointed out in a different thread that the good character development stuff happened in the B story. True. And in later Trek, A was often just adventure (danger-escape) or advancing a long story arc about fictional empires. Many of the A stories of TOS and TNG were good stories, told in the Trek universe. I think that was GR's original goal, come to think of it.
On the other hand, another episode that was great at giving everyone something to do was "Spock's Brain" (due to the absence of Spock from most of the first half of the story). And that's, err, not as popular an episode.
On the other hand, another episode that was great at giving everyone something to do was "Spock's Brain" (due to the absence of Spock from most of the first half of the story). And that's, err, not as popular an episode.
I actually like some of the first half quite a bit, though -- especially that scene where the crew is trying to deduce which of the three planets Spock is on. It's really only towards the end that the story dissolves into total camp.
That part had my mind reeling as I tried to understand the anthropological implications of life in that particular system. Especially considering that the most primitive of the planets was, as it turned out, post-apocalyptic.
But I'm sure there have been Trek BBS discussions on that.
Reminds me of my mom, who thought that "Smallville" was a show about little people . . . .
Makes me wonder what some folks thought “Naked City” was going to be about . . .
Even CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM predominantly tells season long arcs (Larry invests in a restauarant in season three, Larry stars on Broadway in THE PRODUCERS in season four, Larry writes a SEINFELD reunion special in season seven). Because it is situational comedy, most episodes can be viewed out of context, but that deprives the view of the joy of running gags and stories that build over multiple episodes.
Similar threads
- Locked
