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
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! : )