chase_acow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chase_acow) wrote2007-10-27 07:35 pm
chase_acow) wrote2007-10-27 07:35 pm
Serial Show Structure and Atlantis
I've thought about this a little bit, but I'm very bad at applying the rules of academia to fandom. So, instead of a well written, cohesive essay you get me rambling and probably contradicting myself. I just needed to jot this down so I can hopefully let it go.
When you have a weekly television show, I guess there are only about two ways to go about making the episodes and storyline.
One - It could be a far reaching arc that connects episode one to episode twenty, and often employs such techniques as continuance, and character call backs. Sure there will be subplots and the occasional stand alone episode but everything is incredibly cohesive. Same main cast vs the same main obstacle and it's a journey you take with the characters where you can definitively see them grow and change. Examples include Buffy and Angel,and most soap opera style dramedies (almost everything on the CW actually).
Two - The season is made up mostly of standalone episodes, the timeline of which can be changed at the drop of a hat because though there is a tenuous linking throughout there is little structure. It's easier for the casual viewer to skip a few episodes or join in during the middle of the season, and so there's less connection to the characters. Examples include House, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, and CSI.
"Stand alone" episodes are actually good for character development. I think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's season two episode The Zeppo which gives time to Xander and follows him around for the POV. We learned a lot more about Xander in that one episode than in any other and it's a good one. But when that's all it is, I find it so hard to connect the characters to one another and then to me in any meaningful way.
What I dislike most about Stargate Atlantis is that except for certain cast changes, you could pick out an episode from the second season and easily insert it into the third and vice versa. I'm too needy in the storytelling department to be wooed by a beautiful cast alone. In episodes like Reunion and Travelers we find out more about the characters, but is it actually character development? At the end of the show, are we, or more importantly the character actually in a different place (either mentally or even physically) than when the episode started? It often seems to me like the development happens off screen or in between episodes and we're just supposed to assume it happens by filling in the blanks ourselves.
Am I being unreasonably harsh here? I honestly can't tell anymore. Feel free to tell me I'm a dope, I really don't mind if you think I am.
On a related note:
I suppose it would be a little tacky to start up a postcard campaign for Joe Mallozzi? Something like:
Joe M - How are you such an asshole? No really.
I swear, my next Atlantis post will be happier, because I can find things to enjoy and that's what I'm going to focus on for the rest of the year. Seriously, hold me to it.
When you have a weekly television show, I guess there are only about two ways to go about making the episodes and storyline.
One - It could be a far reaching arc that connects episode one to episode twenty, and often employs such techniques as continuance, and character call backs. Sure there will be subplots and the occasional stand alone episode but everything is incredibly cohesive. Same main cast vs the same main obstacle and it's a journey you take with the characters where you can definitively see them grow and change. Examples include Buffy and Angel,and most soap opera style dramedies (almost everything on the CW actually).
Two - The season is made up mostly of standalone episodes, the timeline of which can be changed at the drop of a hat because though there is a tenuous linking throughout there is little structure. It's easier for the casual viewer to skip a few episodes or join in during the middle of the season, and so there's less connection to the characters. Examples include House, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, and CSI.
"Stand alone" episodes are actually good for character development. I think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's season two episode The Zeppo which gives time to Xander and follows him around for the POV. We learned a lot more about Xander in that one episode than in any other and it's a good one. But when that's all it is, I find it so hard to connect the characters to one another and then to me in any meaningful way.
What I dislike most about Stargate Atlantis is that except for certain cast changes, you could pick out an episode from the second season and easily insert it into the third and vice versa. I'm too needy in the storytelling department to be wooed by a beautiful cast alone. In episodes like Reunion and Travelers we find out more about the characters, but is it actually character development? At the end of the show, are we, or more importantly the character actually in a different place (either mentally or even physically) than when the episode started? It often seems to me like the development happens off screen or in between episodes and we're just supposed to assume it happens by filling in the blanks ourselves.
Am I being unreasonably harsh here? I honestly can't tell anymore. Feel free to tell me I'm a dope, I really don't mind if you think I am.
On a related note:
I suppose it would be a little tacky to start up a postcard campaign for Joe Mallozzi? Something like:
Joe M - How are you such an asshole? No really.
I swear, my next Atlantis post will be happier, because I can find things to enjoy and that's what I'm going to focus on for the rest of the year. Seriously, hold me to it.
no subject
R.e. the other stuff, are you as annoyed with SG-1 as you are with SGA? I marathoned about six seasons of SG-1 in a couple of months two summers ago, and something that I noticed was that there was character development...but only across the span of seven seasons. By the end of SG-1's ten seasons, I can say that yes, the characters are, at the end of the series, at a different place than they were at the beginning, but only marginally, and only because they had ten seasons to tweak here and there. (And also, in my opinion, because the actors themselves changed the way they played the characters. Or, okay, Michael Shanks did. Daniel changed. The others...kinda. Sort of. A very tiny bit.)
I don't look for massive character development or deep and meaningful and complex story arcs in the Stargates. Imho that's not the kind of show they're producing. Sometimes that's annoying to me, but in this case not so much because I look for other things from the Stargates, and I get those things. (Good sci fi, interesting standalone stories, cool f/x, characters who despite being relatively 2D are still engaging...)
I don't think you're being harsh, but I do think that you're possibly looking for something in SGA that's just not there, nor will it ever be there. But that's imho.
no subject
Sometimes that's annoying to me,
I meant, in some shows the lack of character development etc is annoying.
And...you know, sorry. If anything else doesn't make sense, I can elaborate.
*sigh*
no subject
Honestly, I haven't watched all the first eight seasons of SG-1. I've seen every episode from season 7-10 and most of season one and four. But I don't watch the earlier seaons very often now. I know that it's like the most unpopular fannish opinion ever, but I don't think I like Jack/RDA very much.
Part of it is what I described above, as far as seasons went, on the the whole the didn't grab me and demand that I watch them all in a row. I think you pegged the nail on the head with what you had to say about the character/actors, especially Michael/Daniel.
Stargate is definitely a "take it how it is" show, and it does many things right just like you said. It's just that, to paraphrase from another amazing sci-fi show which had everything probably including the kitchen sink - it could be more. I'm not trying to compare it with Farscape, but sometimes I wish I could. : )
Ugh, I was trying to write this while my kid was talking to me.
You did way better than I would have when my kidlet brother or grandma is talking to me. I invariably end up saying something about JFlan's hair to them and typing that I need to go get milk. : )
no subject
Farscape is a pretty high bar, for comparison. And it may have spoiled us for other shows. Although, god, still pretty much hate season 4 (hey kids, lets switch one annoying red headed alien for another, younger one! Whee! :P)
Still, as far as shippiness goes, you couldn't do better than Aeryn and Crichton. So, really, wasn't so special that SG1 brought the actors in, then put them with other people? WTF?
OK, I'm rambling. Did I have a point? I may be too tired to know. *facepalm*
no subject
So, really, wasn't so special that SG1 brought the actors in, then put them with other people?
Aw but they were already getting ragged on for becoming "Fargate". I almost wished they had changed the name of the show during Season nine to Stargate: Command. It might have made things easier to move on with the new cast and badguy.
I like what the did with the characters' relationships, there's a lot of room for play. Personally as much as I love Cameron, I don't think that "Mitchell" could quite compete with "Crichton". It would have been a little weird.
Did I have a point?
Points are for the top of JoeM's head. We don't need no stinkin' points in order to have a good conversation! : )
no subject
Which is not a defense of him; I'm just saying that for me, his attitude is a relief, a nice change sort of.
R.e. SG v. Farscape, I get what you mean. I tend to compartmentalize tv shows (and movies and books) a little differently, though. I.e., if I want to watch Farscape, then I'm not going to turn on Stargate. If that makes sense. Or...hm, how to explain better. Well, if you're familiar with the movies Batman Begins and The Fantastic Four: BB is a serious dramatic vision of Batman, made to be atmospheric and introspective as well as superheroey. F4 is a bright shiny tongue in cheek sort of drama, made to be fun and comic-y and ooh cool f/x and geekiness. So, if I want a serious comic book superhero movie, I will watch Batman Begins; I won't, however, watch The Fantastic Four and criticize it for not being a serious movie and decide it's not living up to its potential. You know?
I just figure, if I'm going to enjoy something, I'm going to enjoy it for what it is. And if I'm not enjoying it for what it is because it's not what I want it to be, I'll look for something to watch that is what I want it to be.
Er.
Um.
*flaps* I cannot make seeeeeeeeeense. Argh. *whines*