|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 24, 2009 11:17:38 GMT -8
Perhaps more clearly: I won't watch something I find sucky just in the hopes that it will get better, but I won't avoid watching something that got better because I found it sucky at first. That is, however, made rather difficult in this day and age of overarching story arcs. Or "mythologies," as the creators and fans like to call them. For example, when I tried out Lost. The A story, about Sawyer and a pig, was painfully clichéd and predictable. Someone else with whom I talked about the episode later said, "From my perspective, we learned three surprising things about Sawyer." From my perspective, the episode showed him as macho man stereotype #4. The rest of the episode showed characters I didn't know discussing events I hadn't seen. Okay. Understood. Sadly, there were no reference points for me as a newbie to latch onto and follow the thing. I watched one episode of Lost and never looked back. In the same coversation as above, that person said, "Yes, okay, but that's the continuity. You should try to get the rest of the episodes and start from the beginning. Then you'll get what they are talking about." Okay, understood. However, the one episode I had seen had not given me a single reason to WANT to seek out and watch the beginning of Lost. Without the backstory, I was totally (pardon the pun) lost. Now, that was the first season. I've heard good things about the later seasons of Lost. However, I'm not going to bother with it. Because based on the experience of that one episode, I'd need to start from the beginning. That's more time and effort than I'm willing to give to a TV series. Or rather, I'm expected to fork over serious cash to buy the DVD boxes and catch up if I want to join in. Which is something I might seriously regret, based on what I have seen. Like comics, serial TV has the obligation to be accessible to new viewers. Okay, they might not have the obligation, but if they are not accessible, then I can not, even if I want to, join the show later on. Heroes has the same problem. If I'd checked it out a couple of episodes in, I would have found it inaccessible and decided to ignore it, never mind what else I hear about it later. Dollhouse, to get back to the topic at hand, seems to have the same problem: it has a mythology. Which means, to my understanding, that if I want to give the show a second chance some episodes down the road, I can expect to not understand a thing and be turned off again. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Mar 24, 2009 19:33:16 GMT -8
I haven't watched it at all because I tend to wait for DVD's when it comes to series at this point.
That said, here's part of the problem with the "One show to get it right" theory.
Star Trek The Next Generation. Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Babylon 5.
If you graded these three fairly classic SF geek shows on one pilot episode, none of them would have survived, with the one coming closest being DS9.
None of them even really started to hit their stride until Season 2. Hell, watching first season TNG is an excercise in agony. It was uniformly horrible.
Let's take it further. WKRP in Cincinati. MASH. Barney Miller. Happy Days. Hill Street Blues. St Elsewhere. ER. NYPD Blue. All fairly classic series, none of them started out well, and all significantly changed by the second season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Mar 24, 2009 19:39:37 GMT -8
Yeah, jumping into Lost or Heroes without watching from the beginning or giving it a few episodes probably wouldn't work. OTOH, both of those were good from the beginning, IMO, and not shows that started out bad or bland and then turned better.
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 24, 2009 23:47:03 GMT -8
That said, here's part of the problem with the "One show to get it right" theory. Star Trek The Next Generation. Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Babylon 5. Half agreed. TNG's pilot showed pretty well what the series was about, and IMO it became increasingly unwatchable (= preachier) over time. DS9, however, I agree completely. The show's entire first season was horrible, and didn't get good until Brooks shaved his head and became a tough-guy leader. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 24, 2009 23:57:56 GMT -8
Yeah, jumping into Lost or Heroes without watching from the beginning or giving it a few episodes probably wouldn't work. OTOH, both of those were good from the beginning, IMO, and not shows that started out bad or bland and then turned better. Disagree on Lost, see earlier post. Then again, I've read that book about Disney under Michael Eisner and therefore know that during the first season or so, Lost was just making up shit without any plan at all. The point, however, remains this: A lot of shows these days, especially genre stuff, are designed to tell a longer story. If you come in late, you don't get it. You're not likely to enjoy it. What the producers ask demand of latecomers is that they invest a lot of money to buy the DVDs in order to catch up on what they might have missed. The question is (sticking with one example): a lot of people said that Lost is good. I tried one episode, and was majorly underwhelmed. People keep telling me that Lost is good. Based on the one episode I saw, I can tell that it won't do me any good to just start watching now; I don't have any of the backstory. I'd have to invest something around €100 on the DVD boxes to catch up. But what if I still don't like it? What if I spend all that money only to discover that my initial impression was right? Nobody's going to give me a refund, least of all the people who insisted I watch it because they say it's good. That's why TV series need every episode to be a jumping-on point. Having something like Heroes's or Dexter's or BSG's "Previously on" is helpful. Or, you could do what Buffy and Dexter did: there is no overarching storyline over the entire series, just season to season. That way, if I miss out on Dexter season 1 (to use that as an example), I can try on season 2 for size, which might encourage me to buy the season 1 box. That's why I think it's important to not only get it right straight off the starting line*, it's also important to have accessible jump-on points. *Slightly off-topic, but I have to say that I liked it better when TV shows had feature-length pilots. It gave the show more time to introduce the characters and premise. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 24, 2009 23:59:46 GMT -8
Let's take it further. WKRP in Cincinati. MASH. Barney Miller. Happy Days. Hill Street Blues. St Elsewhere. ER. NYPD Blue. All fairly classic series, none of them started out well, and all significantly changed by the second season. They probably changed by the second season because the people behind the shows realized that what they had at the beginning wasn't working. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Mar 25, 2009 8:31:12 GMT -8
Yeah, jumping into Lost or Heroes without watching from the beginning or giving it a few episodes probably wouldn't work. OTOH, both of those were good from the beginning, IMO, and not shows that started out bad or bland and then turned better. Disagree on Lost, see earlier post. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That it was good from the beginning? That you could get into it by watching a few (consecutive) episodes? The point, however, remains this: A lot of shows these days, especially genre stuff, are designed to tell a longer story. If you come in late, you don't get it. You're not likely to enjoy it. What the producers ask demand of latecomers is that they invest a lot of money to buy the DVDs in order to catch up on what they might have missed. Or borrow them. Or rent them. Or watch reruns. Or read online summaries. They want you to buy the DVDs, presumably, but you're not demanded to do so. There are other ways to catch up. That's why TV series need every episode to be a jumping-on point. Having something like Heroes's or Dexter's or BSG's "Previously on" is helpful. Or, you could do what Buffy and Dexter did: there is no overarching storyline over the entire series, just season to season. That way, if I miss out on Dexter season 1 (to use that as an example), I can try on season 2 for size, which might encourage me to buy the season 1 box. I think some showmakers are a bit excited that they get away with any kind of long-term storytelling after decades of self-contained episodes where you always had to return to the status quo at the end. Yeah, I know it hasn't been that way for a while, but the memory lingers. Slightly off-topic, but I have to say that I liked it better when TV shows had feature-length pilots. It gave the show more time to introduce the characters and premise. That I definitely agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 25, 2009 9:12:12 GMT -8
Disagree on Lost, see earlier post. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That it was good from the beginning? That it was good. As I said, the one episode I saw sucked big time, not a single original idea in it. And I stand by it, you get one shot, maybe two. You're falling into the Jesse Baker/Mark Peyton way of thinking: that I'm the one who is supposed to work to make the entertainment accessible, instead of the ones who produce it. I disagree on that too. Entertainment is a product. The producers want to sell it to me, never mind in which form. Thus, it's their job to make me want it, and to make it accessible for latecomers. If they fail at that part of their job, hey, there are plenty of others out there who want my time, attention and money, and who are perfectly willing to be accessible. I mention Jesse and Mark here as (value-free) examples because - Jesse has frequently espoused the concept that comics don't need to be made accessible for new readers, if latecomers want to start reading comics, they had better do their homework and get caught up and - Mark was pretty much the loudest voice in regards to The Monarchy, which Paul brought up earlier. (And BTW, I don't watch TV, period. I have to get the DVDs [borrowing/renting also costs money, BTW] or torrent the episodes.) |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Mar 25, 2009 11:46:49 GMT -8
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That it was good from the beginning? That it was good. As I said, the one episode I saw sucked big time, not a single original idea in it. And I stand by it, you get one shot, maybe two. And saying the whole show is bad because you weren't impressed with the one episode you watched doesn't strike you as a bit arrogant? Those of us who did watch it from the beginning and did enjoy it (I don't much anymore), are we just too stupid to realize that the show is bad because you can't jump in somewhere in the middle and have as full an experience? Note that I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but you're making a general statement of truth, not of opinion. You're falling into the Jesse Baker/Mark Peyton way of thinking: that I'm the one who is supposed to work to make the entertainment accessible, instead of the ones who produce it. No, Jens, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that there are other ways of catching up than spending €100, which was what you said. That just isn't true. My point is that if you want to catch up on the shows there are other ways than buying the DVDs.I'm most definitely not saying that you should be required to do this, or anything like that. I'm just saying that the shows are the way they are, and if you want to jump in somewhere in the middle then you can do so without spending oodles of money. I disagree on that too. Entertainment is a product. The producers want to sell it to me, never mind in which form. Thus, it's their job to make me want it, and to make it accessible for latecomers. If they fail at that part of their job, hey, there are plenty of others out there who want my time, attention and money, and who are perfectly willing to be accessible. (My emphasis.) Actually, that's not their job. Their job is to make money for the producers. Whether they do this by keeping the same audience through the show's lifetime or by adding new viewers as the old ones leave doesn't matter. They're making a product. If you don't want it, that's fine, but you don't get to decide what they make. If they think there's a market for a show that has a five-year arc and it turns out they're right, that doesn't mean they're doing something wrong. That means they're doing something right! They're not obliged to accomodate your wishes on this - perhaps they would get more viewers if it was more accessible to late adopters, but perhaps it wouldn't be as good for the longtime viewers and they'd lose more of them instead. And it's funny you bring up Jesse as an example, because the way you're arguing about this is a little bit like the way he sometimes argues about comics storylines: since they don't do it the way he wants them to they are Wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Mar 25, 2009 15:28:21 GMT -8
Let's everyone remember to use our indoor voices.  |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Mar 25, 2009 22:52:10 GMT -8
Let's everyone remember to use our indoor voices. Er, yes, point taken. I don't know why this is getting to me. Maybe I'm channeling work frustration into it. I should probably go lie down instead.  |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 26, 2009 1:30:35 GMT -8
And saying the whole show is bad because you weren't impressed with the one episode you watched doesn't strike you as a bit arrogant? Not at all. Saying something is good or bad is always a value judgement, and at least for me always understood to be purely subjective. I'm not going to repeat what I said earlier. The inaccessibility was just one factor. Disagree. Or not. I remember X-Files and Babylon 5 as being the first two series to go with a long-range plan. Okay, maybe not X-Files, but they had a mythology and at least claimed to have a long-range plan in mind. Despite this, X-Files managed to remain completely accessible. If X-Files was able to successfully juggle both accessibility and long-term planning, why can't contemporary shows. Actually, as I type this, the reason why they don't do that becomes apparent to me: genre TV is borrowing a couple of pages from comics. Like comics, they are no longer interested in immediately accessible storytelling. Rather, just as comics are currently created for the TPB, genre TV is produced for the eventual DVD release. Heh. I genre TV is just comics with moving pictures instead of stills. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 26, 2009 1:43:56 GMT -8
And it's funny you bring up Jesse as an example, because the way you're arguing about this is a little bit like the way he sometimes argues about comics storylines: since they don't do it the way he wants them to they are Wrong. Actually, I disagree with this statement. Perhaps because you are getting emotional about it while I am not. To summarize my position ("I", "me" and "my" being placeholders for "general audience"): - If you create a mass media entertainment product, you have no right to tell me, "Please stay with it for a while, it will get good later." Your job is to hook me, me being the general audience, right out of the gate. - Because you have one, maybe two, chances to get and hold my attention. There are too many other mass media entertainment products competing for my attention. You need me more than I need you. - If you create a mass media entertainment product, part of your job is to make it accessible. That can be done by that "previously on..." summary as they did on BSG, Dexter or Heroes. That can be done in a lot of other ways. If you don't make it accessible, I reserve the right to have and maintain a low opinion of your product. Without giving it a second chance. - Because you want me to pay attention to you. You have no right to expect me to expend effort and expense to catch up with what you're doing. It's different if I like what you do enough to want to, but you have to right to expect me to. - If you think you can get away with not being accessible, with seizing and holding a limited audience, goody for you. Of course, that turns you from mass media entertainment product to niche entertainment product, but if it works for you, goody for you. - Just don't whine (*coughdollhouseandsuits*) if you aren't up to it. You can't have your proverbial cake and eat it too. Now, if you are an inaccessible show with heavy backstory and convoluted storytelling that would be so much better if I just gave you a chance to find your pace... ... I'm on that other channel, watching something else. Because, you know, your choices may not be right or wrong. But the end result is that I'm not interested. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Mar 26, 2009 1:56:02 GMT -8
I'll drop this now, but I'd like to point out that this type of statement Perhaps because you are getting emotional about it while I am not. does not help to keep the discussion polite. Accusing someone of being irrationally emotional while claiming the cool-headed high ground for yourself just pisses people off. Anyway, as usual, we agree on more points than we disagree on, and I think I'll leave it at that and get back to building up some more work frustration instead. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 26, 2009 2:09:22 GMT -8
Accusing someone of being irrationally emotional while claiming the cool-headed high ground for yourself just pisses people off. My wife does that all the time, so I get what you mean. I wasn't claiming high ground, though. She claims she points it out when it happens to get me to step back, take a deep breath and refocus. I figured, try her approach and see if it works on someone else. The thing is, we're talking about television here. Which is nothing at all to get emotional about. Anyway, the other reason why I pointed it out was because you seemed to misrepresent/misunderstand what I was saying. |
|
