I'm beginning to dislike Netflix (re: Archive 81, 1899, Warrior Nun etc cancellations)

[Ryujin]

I expected as much. I might watch the animated movie, but I won't touch the re-launch. I can't see how it can possibly be worth it.

I'm hoping that they go the route of "Battlestar Galactica"; same basic premise, but different take.

 

[MGibster]

Many of what people refer to as "filler" or "throw away" episodes, in longer format shows, are exercises in character development that give a greater depth to the show. A good example of this would be in ST:TOS, "The Galileo Seven", in which a great deal is learnt about Spock. You can have that sort of thing in episodic TV but when you're doing one arc, that covers a whole 10-14 episode season, there's no room for it.

A filler episode, by definition, is one that is unrelated to the main plot arc. I'm not sure how you define a filler episode with a series like the original Star Trek where there was no wider plot arc. But then maybe saying filler episodes was the wrong thing? Deep Space Nine's crossover episode with "The Trouble with Tribbles" is a filler episode, but it's so good who the hell cares? So I would have to admit that being a filler episode isn't a bad thing. So I will withdraw my comment about filler episodes and try to better convey my thoughts without being as wordy as Snarf.

With longer seasons, very often the writers don't seem to have enough to put into a series and things just drag out. Season two of The Walking Dead has some great episodes, "Nebraska" being perhaps my favorite, but because they were obligated to produce 22+ episodes there were so many episodes where very little of consequence happened. And because they don't have enough story to stretch out into so many episodes, they fill it with pointless crap that ends up slowing things down. Did Lori really have to get in a car, go after Rick, and stupidly get into a car wreck? No. Was it the least bit entertaining? No. With tighter plot development we could probably cut 5 episodes from season 2 and not miss them at all.

 

[Ryujin]

A filler episode, by definition, is one that is unrelated to the main plot arc. I'm not sure how you define a filler episode with a series like the original Star Trek where there was no wider plot arc. But then maybe saying filler episodes was the wrong thing? Deep Space Nine's crossover episode with "The Trouble with Tribbles" is a filler episode, but it's so good who the hell cares? So I would have to admit that being a filler episode isn't a bad thing. So I will withdraw my comment about filler episodes and try to better convey my thoughts without being as wordy as Snarf.

With longer seasons, very often the writers don't seem to have enough to put into a series and things just drag out. Season two of The Walking Dead has some great episodes, "Nebraska" being perhaps my favorite, but because they were obligated to produce 22+ episodes there were so many episodes where very little of consequence happened. And because they don't have enough story to stretch out into so many episodes, they fill it with pointless crap that ends up slowing things down. Did Lori really have to get in a car, go after Rick, and stupidly get into a car wreck? No. Was it the least bit entertaining? No. With tighter plot development we could probably cut 5 episodes from season 2 and not miss them at all.

I'd be more inclined to comment something like, "Did they really need to spend an entire season on a farm?" but, then again, they lost me with the continuous murder porn pretty early on.

 

[MGibster]

I'd be more inclined to comment something like, "Did they really need to spend an entire season on a farm?" but, then again, they lost me with the continuous murder porn pretty early on.

Despite having a bonafide hit on their hands, AMC was very, very concerned about the budget. This is why season two was set on the farm, what led to showrunner Frank Darabont being fired, and which in turn led to Jeffrey DeMunn who played Dale to leave the show in protest. I guess there's a lot of moving parts to a television show and hiccups in one area will have an impact on others. The second season only had 13 episodes, but the budgetary concerns just led to a lot of meadering.

 

[payn]

Despite having a bonafide hit on their hands, AMC was very, very concerned about the budget. This is why season two was set on the farm, what led to showrunner Frank Darabont being fired, and which in turn led to Jeffrey DeMunn who played Dale to leave the show in protest. I guess there's a lot of moving parts to a television show and hiccups in one area will have an impact on others. The second season only had 13 episodes, but the budgetary concerns just led to a lot of meadering.

I know the first season was only 6 eps. AMC had a hit but I think it took awhile to materialize. Same happened with Breaking Bad but folks forget the humble beginnings.

 

[Pedantic]

A filler episode, by definition, is one that is unrelated to the main plot arc. I'm not sure how you define a filler episode with a series like the original Star Trek where there was no wider plot arc. But then maybe saying filler episodes was the wrong thing? Deep Space Nine's crossover episode with "The Trouble with Tribbles" is a filler episode, but it's so good who the hell cares? So I would have to admit that being a filler episode isn't a bad thing. So I will withdraw my comment about filler episodes and try to better convey my thoughts without being as wordy as Snarf.

With longer seasons, very often the writers don't seem to have enough to put into a series and things just drag out. Season two of The Walking Dead has some great episodes, "Nebraska" being perhaps my favorite, but because they were obligated to produce 22+ episodes there were so many episodes where very little of consequence happened. And because they don't have enough story to stretch out into so many episodes, they fill it with pointless crap that ends up slowing things down. Did Lori really have to get in a car, go after Rick, and stupidly get into a car wreck? No. Was it the least bit entertaining? No. With tighter plot development we could probably cut 5 episodes from season 2 and not miss them at all.

My friend had a theory about this last week. He proposed that, partially because of the changes streamers have made to writing teams, and usually because of full season releases and short season prestige dramas, there's been a shift in television writing norms to more closely resemble film. We're getting seasons that conform to a three act structure, but individual episodes no longer are expected to support a full closed story, or even a single narrative beat in a serialized show.

That has both the effect of making long seasons more likely to drag, as there's not necessarily enough story to support the compete runtime, and perversely limits the scope of what can be tackled, as any story "too small" for that full arc struggles to find a place when it could have been a dedicated episode previously.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My friend had a theory about this last week. He proposed that, partially because of the changes streamers have made to writing teams, and usually because of full season releases and short season prestige dramas, there's been a shift in television writing norms to more closely resemble film. We're getting seasons that conform to a three act structure, but individual episodes no longer are expected to support a full closed story, or even a single narrative beat in a serialized show.

That has both the effect of making long seasons more likely to drag, as there's not necessarily enough story to support the compete runtime, and perversely limits the scope of what can be tackled, as any story "too small" for that full arc struggles to find a place when it could have been a dedicated episode previously.

You can still get subplot stories that resolve themselves between the overall arc, but other than that I think there's something to this. Many of the Netflix Marvel shows had pronounced sags in the middle (and the two that didn't were, respectively, shorter than the others, and broken into two separate plot arcs across the season).

 

[payn]

My friend had a theory about this last week. He proposed that, partially because of the changes streamers have made to writing teams, and usually because of full season releases and short season prestige dramas, there's been a shift in television writing norms to more closely resemble film. We're getting seasons that conform to a three act structure, but individual episodes no longer are expected to support a full closed story, or even a single narrative beat in a serialized show.

That has both the effect of making long seasons more likely to drag, as there's not necessarily enough story to support the compete runtime, and perversely limits the scope of what can be tackled, as any story "too small" for that full arc struggles to find a place when it could have been a dedicated episode previously.

I do think there have been major changes to television writing in the last 25 years. However, I dont recall past television seasons being wider in scope, perversely or not. Folks will often point to B5, DS9, and/or West Wing, but these series were the exception. I see them as missing links between traditional television and what has become prestige television.

 

[MGibster]

I know the first season was only 6 eps. AMC had a hit but I think it took awhile to materialize. Same happened with Breaking Bad but folks forget the humble beginnings.

AMC knocked it out of the park the first time at bat with TWD as the first season had both high ratings and was highly rated. The pilot episode had 5.3 million viewers making it the most watched series premier in AMC history at the time. The season finale had about 6 million viewers.

That has both the effect of making long seasons more likely to drag, as there's not necessarily enough story to support the compete runtime, and perversely limits the scope of what can be tackled, as any story "too small" for that full arc struggles to find a place when it could have been a dedicated episode previously.

That's my theory as well. I just didn't recognize it until streaming shows came along with their mostly shorter seasons.

 

[Pedantic]

I do think there have been major changes to television writing in the last 25 years. However, I dont recall past television seasons being wider in scope, perversely or not. Folks will often point to B5, DS9, and/or West Wing, but these series were the exception. I see them as missing links between traditional television and what has become prestige television.

I think that's just the death of episodic television in general. The broader point is that we've gone from story arcs placed in the context of longer running shows to individual stories that span a season or sometimes an entire show.