(no subject)

[cblj_backup]

Busy morning was busy -- I had to rescue about eighteen things from certain doom at the hands of Friday's temp -- but I think I've put out all the fires now.

So, as promised, here is the rant! Sam addresses television writing without any formal training other than watching a lot of teevee and being reasonably clever.

Vague spoilers for Heroes all seasons and the final episode of Life on Mars.

The Story Is All
or
OKAY LET'S TAKE A BREAK FOR SOME META.

Here's the thing.

I'm not going to speak to foreign television networks because I don't know how they function, but American television is subsidised primarily by advertising and subject to public whim, so if something is a hit the networks will try to make it go as far as they can regardless of how far it should go. Case in point: The X-Files, which should have been taken off the air much sooner than it was. Did y'all know ER is still on? No, because nobody watches it, because the plots are shit. Buffy the Vampire Slayer barely limped along in the last few seasons because it missed its natural end. Joss Whedon is a bright spark so he managed to keep it rolling, more or less, but the weakness in the storyline after Buffy left high school was clearly visible.

I don't know, but I suspect, that this is the problem Lost suffered from: it was a huge hit, and all of a sudden the people who make the stories realised oh fuck, we're gonna have to do a billion seasons of this. It tamps down the instinct to write a whole story, and instead encourages fragments -- bits of story that don't matter because there's no longer a central unifying force. There can't be; if you don't know when a story's going to end you can't write towards that end with any confidence at all. After all, once you've given the big reveal, what's left?

Heroes S1 was brilliant because there was an axis, there was an event we were led to with careful intent. Heroes became a hit because the storytelling was fucking awesome. There was an active and foreshadowed climax and every character's actions for good or ill hinged on this event. We loved to watch these characters meeting and working and parting because we saw how their moral reactions influenced where they would be standing when New York went nuclear. Plus, everything they did told us just a little bit more about What Was Going To Happen Next.

With season two, because all of a sudden Heroes is the It Show, we see a much less dynamic plotline. The virus was doable, it's something that still could work after New York failed to explode, but more importantly, for the network, it was expandable. The hunt for the virus was an ongoing series of events that could take twists and turns as needed for the season rather than for the story. There was no culminating climax and I venture to state that even if there had been a full season there wouldn't have been anything like the Event that carried S1 along. It was easy to tie up season two seamlessly because season two's arc was weak to start with.

Season three, we don't even get a virus -- just a formula that the Company actually had no good reason not to destroy completely. Season three's entire arc is based on a plot hole that didn't even need to be there because Mohinder was already developing a formula. But it's a useful arc because there can always be secrets within secrets. Need a new twist? No problem! Want to bring a new character in or revive a dead one? Why not! It removes the ability to foreshadow, it removes the beautiful orchestration we saw in S1, because every foreshadowing is one more thing you have to remember with every twist and secret-within-secret. We see this pretty clearly when we see Angela Petrelli say "I know, it had to be done" after Nathan is shot, and then later discover she knew NOTHING ABOUT NATHAN GETTING SHOT. I suspect this, I suspect it very much, of being a continuity error.

A fluid story with no bottom to it cripples the plot into pointless little scenes that nobody cares about. The viewers get jaded because the viewers know when they're not being told a complete story. We're being strung along and we don't like it.

This is why I wrote the Hiatus Continuations in the way I did, though I don't know that I was conscious of it at the time. Hiatus Continuations had a resolution that left little room for continued dramatic action because it was a finished story. Far more than I wanted a happy ending, I wanted to tie up a story that depended on a single event. Once that event occurred (Peter blowing up New York -- or, in my version, Sylar blowing up Trinity) there was no point in moving forward.

In a plot-driven show like Heroes if you don't have a dynamic unifying arc then it all devolves into bullshit. And that's what was really bothering me about the "event" of S2 -- not that there wasn't one world-ending event but that there was and it wasn't a very good one. Someone pointed out to me that Doctor Who always has a single build-to event for the season as well, and I couldn't figure out why that didn't bother me, but it's because Who's events are always action-oriented and well-defined; they write each season of Doctor Who like it's going to be the last season they do, like they have to give the viewers some completion. Torchwood, on the other hand, doesn't have a single unifying arc, but it's not trying for one -- it's unabashedly episodic, purely character-driven. When it does arcs, as in the end episodes of season one, it makes sure that they're planned and executed with a complete story in mind.

This is what drove me fucking nuts about Studio Sixty, because I could see all these beautiful, energetic, active plot arcs being installed and then instead of a follow-up of any of them we got Harrie Prays Ostentatiously, Part XVIII.

Two shining examples of encapsulated television arc-writing are Life On Mars and Babylon 5. Babylon 5 set the gold standard for intelligent scifi in the nineties: it was preplanned as a five year series from the beginning and every action, every reaction, every event instigated by the characters was guided by that vision. I will say that it failed in the end, but part of the reason it failed was that the plug got pulled after the fourth season and then reinstalled with a major player missing, and there just wasn't much they could do with what was left. Season four rocked my world and the ending was perfect; I'm still of the opinion that JMS should have said "fuck you" when they gave him the opportunity to do a season five.

Life on Mars was intended to be two very short seasons and then an end, and it is a gem of a piece because it stuck to that. I might have issues with its social philosophy, but I have not a single argument to make with the quality of its storytelling. It is the perfect story and I am deeply bitter that Ashes to Ashes told us what happened to Sam Tyler, because nobody needed to know that. Sam Tyler got his story's ending; don't feed me a second ending for him, especially not that pathetic excuse for a second ending, not after the gorgeous first one you gave me. Love or hate the ending of Life On Mars, you have to admit it was a moment of impact.

I'm not going to apologise for that pun, by the way.

Heroes lost me because it's no longer the show I signed on for. I signed on for a story where each reveal has real significance and each action taken by any character is tied into something bigger than Mohinder being a dumbass and Claire being grossly incompetent at everything she does.

Rex Stout, via Nero Wolfe, said that "maintaining integrity as a private detective is difficult; to preserve it for the hundred thousand words of a book would be impossible for me, as it has been for so many others. Nothing corrupts a man so deeply as writing a book; the myriad temptations are overpowering." I can't say that I'd do any better in Tim Kring's shoes -- give me money to write stories for the next ten years and I'd have a hard time saying no. But I'd like to think I've reached a point where I can choose correctly between telling a good story that ends sooner than people would like, and telling a bad story that never ends at all.

Okay. I feel better now.

---

Post-diatribe notes:

1. Obviously, if there is wank, directed either at me or at fellow commenters, this post will lock so fast you'll hear the bolts being thrown yesterday.

2. This is, I think, going to generate a lot of thinky, and I encourage thinky. However, it's going to generate a lot of thinky in my inbox. If I don't reply, it's not because I'm ignoring you or think you haven't got a point. It's that OH MY GOD MY INBOX.

These warnings always turn out to be supremely unnecessary, but I know the one time I don't give them, something evil's going to happen.

Comments

[littlered2.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean about television shows dragging on long past their best - I love Buffy with all my heart, but I think it went downhill a lot after Season Four (although I will defend it to the death, I cannot find it in me to love Season Seven, however hard I try), and it's been the same with a lot of programmes I love. (I do still watch ER, though. And like it.) And here is a chance to be irritatingly smug about my country - I think, because of the BBC being mostly funded by licence fees rather than by advertising, producers of BBC shows find it easier to end things on a high*. As people invariably bring up when this kind of conversation starts, Fawlty Towers only had twelve episodes and is still hugely popular; more recently, The Office and Extras both had just thirteen (including Christmas specials) and are again really popular even after they've ended. If more writers felt they could stop while they were still ahead, it would probably lead to much better television.


*of course, we also have vast amounts of crap - most US exports manage to be much more popular than our attempts at drama - and many shows that have been going on for ever, but still. Moment of national pride.

[wellowned.livejournal.com]

fawlty towers was EPIC. my daddy's english, so i grew up on britcoms. are you being served and keeping up appearances...

i guess i tend to like brit tv. some of it's ridiculous (i reference Butt Ugly Martians, which was strange to see about 6 years ago), but some of it is brilliant. i like shows that can end on a season finale--torchwood, doctor who... prime suspect and all the rest.

american tv is just... too long, most of the time.

[almightyhat.livejournal.com]

*headtilts* You've actually given me something to consider, here.

See, there's a new Knight Rider show on; if you've watched any of Heroes live, I bet you've seen ads. I liked the old Knight Rider-- it's a ham and cheese sandwich on wheels, but it's fun to watch and there's a lot of potential there.

But it's highly episodic; everything is wrapped up by the end of the hour unless it's a two-parter.

The new series... okay, it has some other problems, I will give everyone that, and it's mostly problems in the shape of things the show just plain doesn't need, like the weekly doses of fanservice and the inelegantly executed will-they-or-won't-they romantic subplot and the 'hey, everybody liked that Transformers movie, right?' brand special effects. (Also I do not think it has found its feet yet, but we're six episodes in and every episode has been better than the last-- the second and sixth episodes were MILES better than the first and the fifth, even.) But the new series is also trying to build plot arcs, giving us hints and foreshadowing and things that look totally different if you go back and watch earlier episodes in light of newer episodes, which the original series never, ever tried.

A lot of the complaints I've seen are along the lines of "It just doesn't feel like Knight Rider!" and "Why do we keep running into people who know about Mike's past? This is getting ridiculous!" when it's becoming pretty clear that that's just the way the plot arc is planned out. Not saying it couldn't be done more gracefully, but like I said, still finding its feet.

So now I wonder, is the old fandom going into the new series and being frustrated that not every plot point raised in a single episode is being resolved, in order to give us a big arc-end in the thirteenth episode? Is it even a factor? The fifth episode was purely episodic; all neatly wrapped up by nine PM, and I kept hearing "This one felt more like the original series!"

So hrm. Continuity has always been my drug of choice, so I hadn't given that factor a second thought until now.

[musikologie.livejournal.com]

On that note, NBC is not renewing half of the contracts of the Knight Rider cast and asking the writers to be more in line with the old show. So... take that as you will.

[lacylu42.livejournal.com]

Lost, actually, has an end date. This is not to say that the storytelling is as good as it once was, but they are following your rule and writing to an ending.

I mention it, because it was somewhat newsworthy in the industry at the time because it's so uncommon to set an end date for a show that remains popular, as you said.

[wellowned.livejournal.com]

supernatural did, i think. kripke (the director) said he wants 5 seasons and maybe a movie and that's it. i'm kinda glad, because at least that means that they are writing to an ending. and each season itself has things (mostly) solved.

god, i haven't watched lost since the first season, though. it just took too much effort to keep up with.

[flamingsword.livejournal.com]

This is all stuff I've said before among friends, but never with this much articulation.

I get that there has to be a balance between what audiences want to see and how Tv keeps up with them. There's always going to be that lag. But I wish that TV were dynastic, with production teams having a time slot for as long as they could fill it with viewers instead of the current specific-show-based nightmare of story arc failure and lack of network support for artistic vision.

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

That is a GREAT idea -- give a hit writing team a slot, and let them fill it with whatever they come up with, turning over serials every few years. Oh god, I love that idea.

[wellowned.livejournal.com]

i agree with pretty much everything you said, actually. it's why i haven't bothered to watch heroes this season past the first episode. i just got supremely bored with it immediately. there's nothing to tie me to it.

i understand about life on mars, and i'll even give that ashes to ashes didn't need to be done. but what's more important is how they're reworking life on mars for current tv. i watched a few episodes of this premiere season, and i absolutely cannot deal with it. they've said in interviews that they want 5 seasons... and i feel there is very little that they can do to expand such a finite show.


this is probably the reason i love doctor who and torchwood so much. or, rather, british television as a whole. they write toward an ending. each season can pretty much be the end of the show, no problem. american tv just... drags on because they want to milk it for everything its worth. for some shows, like law and order (and spinoffs), csi (and spinoffs)... heck, even star trek's many guises... they can go on because there's infinite possibilities to explore. but most of the shows don't answer anything and lead nowhere.

i have no idea what my point is. except that maybe heroes should've been a movie instead.

[darkseaglass.livejournal.com]

Television is fun to watch, except when it isn't, and then I change the channel.

[almightyhat.livejournal.com]

That's what I keep telling people!

[elisi]

Oooooooh meta! *laps up*

Very good thinky thoughts. Agree with pretty much everything, except your Buffy example. IMHO the High School years were good (and innovative etc), but if the show hadn't gone beyond that I, for one, would not be the obsessive I am. BtVS was all about character development, something I think the show did beautifully in the 7 years it was on air. (Yes it stumbled on occasion, but I am very forgiving - see my love of TW!) Also I like my heroes dark and flawed and adult.

Did I have a point? Oh yes. I think that character driven shows can (if well written) carry on for almost as long as you want, whereas story driven shows need far more solid foundations. (Are you watching The Sarah Connor Chronicles? So far it's doing a nice blend.)

Am somewhat in a rush, and have not written meta in far too long, sorry that this is so incoherent.

[littlered2.livejournal.com]

Would you mind if I stole your icon? Buffy has been my favourite programme for ... *thinks back* almost ten years now, and I really should have more icons that proclaim my love.

[abusing-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I agree 100%. I stopped watching Heroes three episodes into season three. I gave S2 the benefit of the doubt, but by S3, it had gone the way of Lost - just making things up as they went along.

Mohinder getting powers and Sylar becoming pseudo-good and doing the buddy cop routine with Noah was just TOO MUCH. Thanks, but no thanks.

Not what I signed up for.

S1 will remain a high point in television, though. Brilliant.

[wellowned.livejournal.com]

it's cause sylar ate the intelligent part of claire's brain. that's why she's such a loser after the fact.

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

gip

[charlie-d-blue.livejournal.com]

I really liked what you had to say, and it has engendered some thinky thoughts, but I'll cheat and just do the quick and dirty points of my off the cuff thoughts here, which of course has everything to do with saving your inbox and nothing to do with my indomitable laziness. Of course.

My current thinking on Heroes follows along the line that most people are highly wary of mytharc in any TV because there is such a propensity for it to get carried away without considering loose ends or tightly co-ordinated reveals. Planned arcs are brilliant because everything means something, and that pretty much hypnotizes the viewer, intellectually, emotionally and visually engages them in an ongoing Rubik's cube, BSG is another example of a show that does it well, in my opinion.

The issue with Heroes is, I think, that the whole show is a mytharc, which is why S1 worked so well, and the later seasons are, well, distinctly not so compelling - a lot of the myth has already been uncovered and we're left with soap opera family reveals and attempts to essentially do the original mytharc again, only bigger. New York exploding? Let's do the world next!

On a side note, I'm pretty sure that the virus was meant to be released, were it not for the writer's strike, and I'm upset that didn't happen because it would have been brilliant for the 'big event' that had been worked up to all season to not be resolved, but to rather actually occur. In my experience, apocalyptic events like that are as a rule narrowly aborted - like we saw play out at the end of S2 - but to see the fallout of a true disaster, and how the heroes would deal with it could have been some compelling television. Alas.

Anyhow. I'm crossing my fingers for Brian Fuller.

[stardust9121.livejournal.com]

I'm crossing my fingers for Brian Fuller.

...to have Pushing Daisies picked up, or to return to Heroes?

[rui]

You're very right, this is interesting. And (watch me label myself a weaboo here) when I started watching Japanese television, I was very confused by the whole thing where their shows run for a pre-established amount of time and are then finished. And it wasn't very long, for the most part--J-drama seems to average about 12 episodes, where kids shows like Kamen Rider go closer to 45. But they have a very defined beginning, middle, and end, and it's rare for a show to be given a second season. I think we have this very different concept of television as a storytelling method than they do, as what the Japanese consider an entire show we might call a mini-series. At first I really didn't like it, because 12 episodes is just about enough time to get really attached to a cast of characters, but on the other hand, when the show ended, I felt satisfied in the ending. That's something that seems to be missing from American TV, which just keeps going and going and going longer than a storyline can really support.

I'd like to draw some sort of cultural conclusion from this, possibly about television as consumerism versus television as art/entertainment/storytelling but it kinda petered out here at the end. Someone help me out here.

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

I'm still convinced that weeabo must be one of the most ridiculous labels fandom has ever invented. :D

I think honestly it's just that American networks grab onto anything people like and immediately ride it to death, because that's where the money is to be made.

[vwlphb.livejournal.com]

Have you ever watched Avatar: The Last Airbender?

Pretty much from the first pitch meeting, it was planned as a three season story arc, and they stuck to it. The end was incredibly satisfying because you saw threads from all three seasons coming together and actually concluding. (On top of that, it was funny and well written.)

I agree that shows tend to suffer from Strong Beginning - Interesting Middle - Draaaaaggged out ending.

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

I watched Avatar last spring and it really is a great story with amazing world building.

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

See I don't think Ashes to Ashes ruins Sam's ending. Because Sam's ending was his. What happens in Alex's story is hers. It has nothing to do with Sam and his story except she's just read all his files and that's what her brain does with the info. I actually thought it was clever and interesting to put that in there. And it doesn't ruin Sam's crazy jump off the roof one bit for me. I'm sorry it does for you. :/

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

Oh, it didn't ruin Sam's ending for me; I've not even watched Ashes to Ashes. It just annoyed me that they felt they had to address it at all. If her story is hers, why bring Sam into it in the first place? I can see the need to bring him in with regard to her reading his files, because then she has a frame of reference, but other than that I can't see why we needed to know what happened to Sam after the leap, y'know? :)

[stardust9121.livejournal.com]

Heroes' sudden popularity was definitely a big part of the problem. Remember when they were going to have a new primary cast every season, with maybe only the occasional crossover? That would have necessitated a well-planned, self-contained arc every season.

Of course, with Heroes, one other thing that interfered, I think - and this is also due to Sudden Unexpected Popularity - was that the creators were so concerned with staying popular (like a transformed geek in bad high school movies) that they started listening to their fans too much. And not just listening too much, but listening primarily to the silly surface fanboy/girl chatter. Thus why we get familiar characters with no real purpose but to be familiar and some truly awful romances in S2 - that's what you get when you skim network-owned message boards and see a lot of character-worship and shipping. Also why Tim Kring keeps running around this season saying, "The fans want things faster paced! With constant action and plot twists!" and now we're getting incoherent, whiplash-inducing storytelling.

I seem to remember Russell T. Davies actually calling Heroes out on this last year.

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

Well, I mean if they'd left Heroes where it was at the end of S2 and never went back to that ensemble I'd be way annoyed, and to be fair how would they manage that really, never having the S1 characters touching the S2 characters' lives. But it is a much more novel trend, and it doesn't always have to be epic worldshaking events, either, so I could see some very personal and private battles going on in new ensemble plot arcs. So it wouldn't satisfy me as regards S1's end, but it probably would be more satisfying as regards S2 and S3.

Good on Russel for calling them out when it was required :D

[coloredvision.livejournal.com]

Having seen precisely none of the shows you're talking about here, I still wanted to agree. It seems to me that television is a curious form of storytelling in which successful shows tend toward one of two forms: Formula or Plot.

And to link it to a show I *do* watch: I think House can't decide which it wants.

I'd continue, but now I have to do actual work at work. Oh dear.

[keestone.livejournal.com]

House has a magic balance. It's got the weekly episodic plot of disease to be diagnosed plus the extended story arc of character interactions that rewards the people tuning in week after week. Bones does the same. Plus, the creators of both shows aren't afraid of changing the successful dynamic before it starts getting stale. I love those shows. :)

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

I don't think American television is set up to reward shows that tell whole, complete stories. It's set up to lock people into something for five years, and reserve the right to cancel the show at any time for any reason, so everyone ends up with just enough to keep them happy. You're only guaranteed one episode, though you'll probably get at least three as long as something disastrous doesn't happen.

British and Japanese shows are set up so that you're guaranteed a certain amount of shows unless people start calling in to complain about it, so you're able to plot out an entire self-contained story AND leave enough room that the show can be renewed for another series.

You can get some styles mixed around, for example, 24 is more of a British style series style structure than American, but Eastenders is similar to American soaps. But since most Americans have been rasied on the American style, they'll more likely prefer the American style no matter what that does to the artistic vision of the work.

[vivichick.livejournal.com]

Completely agree.
Also? Icon love

[keestone.livejournal.com]

I think aside from creative control issues, there's also a basic question of extended story arc versus episodic format (which also feeds into creative control, as the network execs want to maximize viewership for profit). One of the problems with having a story arc set over a certain amount of episodes is that you tend to lose the casual viewers and the people who didn't tune in right at the beginning and have to play catch up.

I have nothing to say about current Heroes, as I haven't watched it since season one and was complaining about it very vocally by halfway through the season. Gender and race issues aside, it was already problematic pacing-wise because the story arc for the entire season could probably have been easily told in seven episodes. It's tough to have an extended story arc told over an entire season, particularly for a show in its first season. Extended story arcs demand a lot more loyalty from their viewers, and it's tough to work with that format in weekly TV, as you lose a lot of the casual viewers who don't have a clue what's going on. Heroes tried to compensate for that with lots of flashbacks to clue in the people who weren't loyally tuning in every week.

All that aside, you can probably blame a lot of the problems on Jeph Loeb, who seems to have brought in a lot of the worst problems of mainstream Marvel/DC comic books and their tendency to keep a franchise going long long past the natural point of death by retconning everything.

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

That is the issue, definitely -- I think arc'd out stories are more satisfying but it's hard for someone to just tune in and know what's going on. The solution seems to lie somewhere in the Beeb treatment of serials -- shorter seasons certainly help, and this Torchwood miniseries should be an interesting experiment in that.

And yeah, Heroes has some serious gender and race issues. Perhaps the most bizarre of which is that of the entire S3 cast, only two of the women aren't blonde, and one of those is obviously not going to be in the show much longer. I don't even think it's outrageous, just STRANGE.

[sparkfrost.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about Heroes. I'm still watching because I do occasionally catch glimpses of the show I fell in love with, but Season 2 almost drove me away. its just, I look back to S1 where everything tied together- every move led towards the finale and you could see it happening. Whereas now? Who knows! Hiro and Ando are off with African Isaac doing god knows what, Nathan is a moron who runs into danger after Peter tells him not to, Claire has turned into a whiny brat, GAH!

The show still has SO much potential. I just wish it would live up to it. And screw the stupid formula plotline, give me something to actually worry about, yeah?

[clodia-risa.livejournal.com]

Woo Meta Rant! I will totally read this after I get back from lunch with my husband at what seems to be the local chain equivalent of a Panera Bread.

Also, I just had an awesome interview this morning with our local Literacy Council to be their administrative assistant Ianto. I'm on the short list of two, and am guaranteed at least a second interview. Good Monday!

[clodia-risa.livejournal.com]

There was supposed to be an amusing strikethrough on the AA. Must review shortcuts.

[eyeofthestate.livejournal.com]

Somehow I only just now noticed the Bowie title thing. I might have to watch these shows now just to see if the plot ties in with the songs.

Or not, if Sam's warnings are to be heeded. Plus, there's my unintentional network tv boycott to consider.

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

The plots don't parallel the songs, but there's quite a bit of music from that era in the series. :) Life on Mars was awesome, I do not warn you off it one bit! Besides, it's not network, it's Beeb and was over years ago. :D

Though there is an American LoM on the air, I haven't watched it yet.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

Total agreement. My sister is very non-fan, to the point where she's not into almost anything I like, but even she liked HEROES first season. It was solid, it was comprehensible, so who cared if the superpowers were there? There were people and consequences, and that's what she signed up for.

She's quit watching, now. Because it's gotten too stupid, she says, and when I get details, it's all the stuff they keep changing and not following up on. You can't expect to keep an audience, like you said, if they cynically realize there's no reason to care.

I loved Buffy, but yeah, they would have been better off, after Season 4, to have written to the Season 5 ending and let it go. Seasons 6 & 7 were different series, in my head. And don't even get me started on Angel. They got partially crippled because one of the actors wanted to leave and they had to write her out, but long before that, they'd taken a bizarre, stupid turn, that even though foreshadowed and everything, had no payoff for 80% of the characters. It sucked.

This feeling that a series *must* go on forever is just... yeah. People don't even *want* to watch forever! We're used to things ending after 5 or 4 or 3 years now, whether showrunners plan it or not! Sitcoms can last longer because they're just daily life, and don't require as much effort on many levels. M*A*S*H drew out 13 years of 3-year war and it still made no sense in a lot of ways, but it was do-able. Drama TV has to end or we give up!

Ahem. Long comment is long.

[gershwhen.livejournal.com]

Re: Angel. Do you mean Cordelia? Or someone else?

[pxr5.livejournal.com]

So have you seen Blakes 7?

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

I have not -- it was a trifle too early for me :) Always wanted to tho.

[midgetgems.livejournal.com]

I think I'm so used to Brit TV that I just can't hack most American dramas. I start off with great intentions, get bored about 10 episodes in, miss half the season and then tune in to the last two or three episodes.

The only problem with Brit TV is that the series are so short, and they do have a definate ending that we get oh so many god damn repeats.

We have a lot to be thankful for with Auntie Beeb (although the way things are going at the moment half my favourite shows are going to be dumbed down and that would be a shame - the beeb's just started getting into a good groove with decent comedy)

[seneska.livejournal.com]

The six episode-series we get are quite annoying, but they keep you coming back for the second series alright.

Please tell me you're not a Russell Brand fan? And Have I Got News For You is ageless comedy (at least the older ones).

xx

[(Anonymous)]

Korean "trendy dramas" have a limited, one-season run. They tell their story, and that's it. You should watch "Mixed-up Investigative Agency" (also called "Evasive Enquiry Agency")! Misfits on a treasure hunt! It's carefully-plotted, slightly insane, and totally swept-me-off-my-feet charming.

[frenchroast.livejournal.com]

A show that I don't know if you watch or not (I'm guessing not, since you've never mentioned it) that manages the balance of episodic and yet still works towards an eventual end in quite a brilliant fashion is How I Met Your Mother. It's officially set 30 years in the future, and is set up as this Dad telling his kids a reaaaaaally long story about everything that led up to how he met their mother. So technically the entire story is told as a flashback, and often the things that happen in one episode directly cause something that happens in later episodes/seasons, and they're very good about paying off the storylines. Fans of the show pay attention to everything, because loose ends will inevitably show up again to be tied up.

The continuity is carried off beautifully, and on top of that, on the very rare occasions where something is mentioned before something else that makes it out of sequence, it can be written off as the main character just confusing his memories slightly(but this has happened maybe twice over three and a half seasons so far). Sometimes they use that as a story-telling device, starting a story then having the main character go "wait, that happened later. We'll get to that."

It also allows the writers the opportunity to carry it on as long as they want without getting bogged down--they have an end goal, with every show relating to that eventual reveal, and the show could potentially end any season. However, it could theoretically last at least 12 seasons, based on the age of the kids the story's being told to.

Um, anyways, sorry, went a little too "I LOVE THIS SHOW" there, but it's just because it is one of the few American shows out there that has a grip on its storytelling.

[copperbadge.livejournal.com]

I've often been intrigued by How I Met Your Mother, because it seems like it would be immensely difficult to pull off, but it seems to be doing well in ratings as well. I should look into downloading or ordering some netflix of it...