![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tari_rooI love my show. My personal laptop's wallpaper is Dean, my screensaver (which rotates through my My Pictures folder) has more spn pics than anything else and my lj header has a good deal of Dean.
Fear not, this is not a post where I express my love and then go 'but...' - oh no. Far from it. This is more a rumination about how tv shows have changed and why sometimes I think they lose steam or wobble a little plot wise.
I grew up watching the good ole staples like McGyver, the A-Team, Air Wolf and Knight-Rider. They were pretty good shows back then, for what they were, even if they have not aged all that well and watching them now is often hilarious and sad. The central formula for the 80s was quite simple - a interesting hook/gimmic followed by one shot episodes centered around the hero. McGyver was the cool 'spy but not a spy' with mad skills for building things and the early seasons ran through the gambit of the usual plots around people, towns, kids and ladies in distress. It was formula, it was watchable, it was great - at the time and for what it was.
Audiences have changed though and these days I think we prefer a more 'invested' type of tv plot. The same formula as the 80s - an interesting hook/gimmic/idea but now with longer running subplots and mysteries, more depth and thought. H50 is a good example of this - each season will have episodic arcs but there is a season long arc, usually about Steve and his mysterious family but the team have theirs as well. The gimmic of a mixed team on Haiwaii, the team bonding etc, draws us in and we stay for the long arcs and interaction between the characters. This is a great formula too and many shows, including SPN and SG1 follow the same premise. Come for the idea, stay for the characters.
Sometimes though - if you are really luckily, your 'show' runs for several seasons and develops a theme, or mutiple themes, a mythos of its own. It takes on more than entertainment value as you become invested in the characters and their stories. Some series can grab you in season one and others it takes a while to hook you, but for those series with legs and purpose that 'investment' can last seasons and as a fan, you spend a great deal of time thinking about and watching the show.
Now, lets examine Lost. It was potentially a ground breakting TV series and I use the word potentially only because I lost in interest in Lost. (pun intended) around season 2. It felt like the ultimate series with the ultimate plot arc, where each season arc fit into the over plot of the show, with each episode having its own story but being so tightly linked to the overall plot that you felt like you were watching a very long movie rather than a tv series. It had potential, had depth, it had mystery upon mystery.
What went wrong? The writers themselves did not know where they were ultimately going (I stand corrected on this but I think they even admitted to that in an interview). That was the fundamental flaw (imho) with Lost - they didn't know where they were going. As a viewer, who is going to invest in hours, months, years of viewing time, you kinda need to trust the writers know where they are taking you.
Joss Whedon - tv series wunderkind - got it right most of the times. He had an overall idea for Buffy and Angel, knew where he wanted to go and we went there happily with him. It sometimes didn't work - like in Dollhouse, but on the whole, I feel we respond to a firm, 'this is were we are going' approach. If we don't like where the show is going, we check out and wave farewell - sometimes with reluctance.
Back to Supernatural, my 'show' for so many years. Now matter what various interviews and fan wank has speculated on, I never got the impression that the show had a clear - 'this is where we are going' - it felt more like the writers exploring the characters and plots and themes as they went into each season. Which meant that like so many long running shows, newer seasons 'forget' about the olders seasons. If I am digress for a moment and mention SG1. I have watched two tv shows that have run for ten seasons or more - Friends and SG1. You can't really compare the two as their format/content is so different, but as a natural result of its length, SG1 in season ten (for me) was a very different show than season 1 - and not just because Jack had left. It was exploring different ideas, had different character interactions.
What's wrong with that? I hear you say. Well, there's a good chance that the ideas and character interactions in season ten would not have intrigued you had they been the premise of season 1 and are too different to 'why' you started watching. For me, SPN is in a unique category in that I will watch until the last episode out of pure loyalty. But there are other long running shows that I stopped watching in the later seasons because the story/characters/ideas were so different/over explored from where it started. Shows like Highlander, Grey's Anatomy, NCIS.
My point, if I have one, is this. Long running shows, even if they outlive the original arc planned out for them, need to have a planned end point. There should a clear picture in every writer's head on a set end point, a goal (preferrably a happy one) to reach. I think it makes for better writing, better story telling. Even formulaic, mindless continuation of the same type of episode doesn't cut it anyone *cough NCIS cough*. Maybe tv channels and producers will get it right eventually, but somehow I doubt it. Judging by what shows last and what gets cancelled, I think long running shows will often hit that hurdle - entering foreign, 'we have no idea where we are going' territory and they are often the poorer for it.
*hugs SPN and Dean*
Fear not, this is not a post where I express my love and then go 'but...' - oh no. Far from it. This is more a rumination about how tv shows have changed and why sometimes I think they lose steam or wobble a little plot wise.
I grew up watching the good ole staples like McGyver, the A-Team, Air Wolf and Knight-Rider. They were pretty good shows back then, for what they were, even if they have not aged all that well and watching them now is often hilarious and sad. The central formula for the 80s was quite simple - a interesting hook/gimmic followed by one shot episodes centered around the hero. McGyver was the cool 'spy but not a spy' with mad skills for building things and the early seasons ran through the gambit of the usual plots around people, towns, kids and ladies in distress. It was formula, it was watchable, it was great - at the time and for what it was.
Audiences have changed though and these days I think we prefer a more 'invested' type of tv plot. The same formula as the 80s - an interesting hook/gimmic/idea but now with longer running subplots and mysteries, more depth and thought. H50 is a good example of this - each season will have episodic arcs but there is a season long arc, usually about Steve and his mysterious family but the team have theirs as well. The gimmic of a mixed team on Haiwaii, the team bonding etc, draws us in and we stay for the long arcs and interaction between the characters. This is a great formula too and many shows, including SPN and SG1 follow the same premise. Come for the idea, stay for the characters.
Sometimes though - if you are really luckily, your 'show' runs for several seasons and develops a theme, or mutiple themes, a mythos of its own. It takes on more than entertainment value as you become invested in the characters and their stories. Some series can grab you in season one and others it takes a while to hook you, but for those series with legs and purpose that 'investment' can last seasons and as a fan, you spend a great deal of time thinking about and watching the show.
Now, lets examine Lost. It was potentially a ground breakting TV series and I use the word potentially only because I lost in interest in Lost. (pun intended) around season 2. It felt like the ultimate series with the ultimate plot arc, where each season arc fit into the over plot of the show, with each episode having its own story but being so tightly linked to the overall plot that you felt like you were watching a very long movie rather than a tv series. It had potential, had depth, it had mystery upon mystery.
What went wrong? The writers themselves did not know where they were ultimately going (I stand corrected on this but I think they even admitted to that in an interview). That was the fundamental flaw (imho) with Lost - they didn't know where they were going. As a viewer, who is going to invest in hours, months, years of viewing time, you kinda need to trust the writers know where they are taking you.
Joss Whedon - tv series wunderkind - got it right most of the times. He had an overall idea for Buffy and Angel, knew where he wanted to go and we went there happily with him. It sometimes didn't work - like in Dollhouse, but on the whole, I feel we respond to a firm, 'this is were we are going' approach. If we don't like where the show is going, we check out and wave farewell - sometimes with reluctance.
Back to Supernatural, my 'show' for so many years. Now matter what various interviews and fan wank has speculated on, I never got the impression that the show had a clear - 'this is where we are going' - it felt more like the writers exploring the characters and plots and themes as they went into each season. Which meant that like so many long running shows, newer seasons 'forget' about the olders seasons. If I am digress for a moment and mention SG1. I have watched two tv shows that have run for ten seasons or more - Friends and SG1. You can't really compare the two as their format/content is so different, but as a natural result of its length, SG1 in season ten (for me) was a very different show than season 1 - and not just because Jack had left. It was exploring different ideas, had different character interactions.
What's wrong with that? I hear you say. Well, there's a good chance that the ideas and character interactions in season ten would not have intrigued you had they been the premise of season 1 and are too different to 'why' you started watching. For me, SPN is in a unique category in that I will watch until the last episode out of pure loyalty. But there are other long running shows that I stopped watching in the later seasons because the story/characters/ideas were so different/over explored from where it started. Shows like Highlander, Grey's Anatomy, NCIS.
My point, if I have one, is this. Long running shows, even if they outlive the original arc planned out for them, need to have a planned end point. There should a clear picture in every writer's head on a set end point, a goal (preferrably a happy one) to reach. I think it makes for better writing, better story telling. Even formulaic, mindless continuation of the same type of episode doesn't cut it anyone *cough NCIS cough*. Maybe tv channels and producers will get it right eventually, but somehow I doubt it. Judging by what shows last and what gets cancelled, I think long running shows will often hit that hurdle - entering foreign, 'we have no idea where we are going' territory and they are often the poorer for it.
*hugs SPN and Dean*
