• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Episodic versus serialised storytelling

Springer

Regular
I've been watching Games of Thrones recently - no spoilers please, I've only watched up to the end of the second season so far – and although I'm enjoying it, I can't help but think how the serialised storytelling is slowing the pace of the story down. Case in point: Jon Snow and the rest of the Night Watch have left the Wall and are heading north at the start of the second season. They pitch up at some crazy guy's house for a bit, then bump into some wildlings and Snow manages to get himself caught. What could have been told over a couple of episodes took the entire season to tell! Comic book readers call this 'decompressed' storytelling, or writing for the trade. With serialised TV, it feels they are making it for the DVD boxset, not for the people watching one episode a week on TV. I can't help thinking that I'm starting to miss episodic TV where you could say "this was the episode where..." rather than these drawn out plotlines.

So B5 dabbled with both episodic and serialised story telling, but even then the bulk of its major arc episodes were episodic to a large degree. Do you think 'arc stories' have gone too far down the road of serialisation or should we go back to B5's method of telling an overall story across many individual, episodic stories?
 
I've been watching Games of Thrones recently - no spoilers please, I've only watched up to the end of the second season so far – and although I'm enjoying it, I can't help but think how the serialised storytelling is slowing the pace of the story down. Case in point: Jon Snow and the rest of the Night Watch have left the Wall and are heading north at the start of the second season. They pitch up at some crazy guy's house for a bit, then bump into some wildlings and Snow manages to get himself caught. What could have been told over a couple of episodes took the entire season to tell! Comic book readers call this 'decompressed' storytelling, or writing for the trade. With serialised TV, it feels they are making it for the DVD boxset, not for the people watching one episode a week on TV. I can't help thinking that I'm starting to miss episodic TV where you could say "this was the episode where..." rather than these drawn out plotlines.

So B5 dabbled with both episodic and serialised story telling, but even then the bulk of its major arc episodes were episodic to a large degree. Do you think 'arc stories' have gone too far down the road of serialisation or should we go back to B5's method of telling an overall story across many individual, episodic stories?

The thing to remember here is that the trend is now towards shorter seasons, with more packed into them. One season of Game of Thrones is typically only 10 episodes, with those episodes often clocking in at a full hour. Compare that to B5’s 22 episode seasons, and it becomes clear why there’s so much ‘arc’ stuff packed into Game of Thrones. I don’t think this is necessarily ‘decompressed’ TV, if anything it’s more focused TV with less filler. I’ll admit that it has a very different vibe to the ‘story of the week’ approach that was so prevalent in 80s/90s TV shows. Personally, I like a good mix, a tightly woven continuous plot that also has room for ‘character moments’ and deviations.

There’s definitely more ‘arc’ TV out there now, stuff that works great for binge viewing on Netflix, but I can still think of plenty of TV that still does the ‘episodic’ thing alongside that. Breaking Bad comes to mind, same with the rebooted BSG. Both had clear arcs (well, ‘clear’ is a strong word when talking about BSG), but they also managed to do some very effective episodic stories within that larger format. It think it depends on the nature of the show, and the story that’s being told.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, Springer, what the hell are you doing to keep my computer from being able to quote you? It'll quote anyone else, just not you. Weird.

Anyway, I think the serialization and arc stuff really depends on the story. Some lend themselves to it, others don't. For instance, "House of Cards" is really tight, and benefits from that format. On the other hand, "Mad Men" feels as though it's plotted by a drunk guy who keeps losing pages from the manuscript. Yeah, I know people love it, but it's a sloppy-assed narrative.

"Falling Skies" seems to have fallen prey to this. The basic story was never all that good, but their newly-fractured storytelling includes scenes of no importance just so we'll remember thus-and-such character exists for when tehy turn up later on. "Lost" had a lot of problems with this, trying to keep two timelines in play simultaneously, which resulted in a lot of "Walking in the woods" episodes where nothing of consequence happens. Conversely, "Once upon a Time" (Made by the same people) seems to do this much better, but they sort of over-attenuated the storyline in the early 2nd season, and lost a lot of focus because of it.

I've often debated which format is better, though. Standalones, or Arcs? Standalones are still pretty common (Cop shows mostly), while arc-driven shows are usually based around some kind of conflict or mystery, the resolution of which is theoretically interesting enough to hold viewers. But once the show is done and the mystery's resolved, which sells better on DVD? 110 planet-of-the-week episodes you can haul out and watch in any order, or 110 chapters to get to the conclusion of a mystery you already know?

I don't know. I'm asking.
 
Seriously, Springer, what the hell are you doing to keep my computer from being able to quote you? It'll quote anyone else, just not you. Weird.

Anyway, I think the serialization and arc stuff really depends on the story. Some lend themselves to it, others don't. For instance, "House of Cards" is really tight, and benefits from that format. On the other hand, "Mad Men" feels as though it's plotted by a drunk guy who keeps losing pages from the manuscript. Yeah, I know people love it, but it's a sloppy-assed narrative.

"Falling Skies" seems to have fallen prey to this. The basic story was never all that good, but their newly-fractured storytelling includes scenes of no importance just so we'll remember thus-and-such character exists for when they turn up later on. "Lost" had a lot of problems with this, trying to keep two timelines in play simultaneously, which resulted in a lot of "Walking in the woods" episodes where nothing of consequence happens. Conversely, "Once upon a Time" (Made by the same people) seems to do this much better, but they sort of over-attenuated the storyline in the early 2nd season, and lost a lot of focus because of it.

I've often debated which format is better, though. Standalones, or Arcs? Standalones are still pretty common (Cop shows mostly), while arc-driven shows are usually based around some kind of conflict or mystery, the resolution of which is theoretically interesting enough to hold viewers. But once the show is done and the mystery's resolved, which sells better on DVD? 110 planet-of-the-week episodes you can haul out and watch in any order, or 110 chapters to get to the conclusion of a mystery you already know?

I don't know. I'm asking.

I tend to derive far more pleasure from a well realised arc based show. That goes for both characters and plot. Watching something like ‘The Wire’ required some serious investment to stay focused on events and track what characters were up to, but it was riveting, intelligent TV. When it comes to SF TV I’ve found that I end up re-watching B5 far more than any other show, and it’s a good deal more satisfying than say TNG, precisely because it does have a beginning, middle and end. Plus, the characters actually develop, instead of a big reset button at the end of every episode. Something like TNG has it charms, but a sustained re-watch is rare in my household. I get tired of it too fast without a coherent yarn to follow.

That isn’t to say that arc based shows don’t have their issues. The arc has to be good. It has to know where it’s going. You are right to point out that shows like Lost and BSG really stumbled on that count. If the resolution of your story isn’t satisfying, or the ‘big reveal’ isn’t interesting enough, the entire thing fizzles and loses the viewer’s interest.

It really depends – something like ‘The Prisoner’ is fairly ‘stand alone’, but succeeds beautifully because it has a continuing theme (escape) and mystery (the island). The individual episodes stand up very well as tight, well plotted stories, and it all adds up to something more in the grand scheme of things. Shows like this are very rare.

In terms of which DVDs sell better? My best guess is that stand alone (perhaps with some very light season long arcs) does best in terms of sales. See shows like SG1, Friends, TNG. These were all big sellers.
 
Oh, I definitely prefer arc stories to pure standalones like TNG had. What I was meaning was that if you look at an arc episode of B5, it was still very much about something: the Centauri emperor's visit to B5, Sheridan going to Z'Ha'Dum, etc. In most cases you could say what an episode was about, so it retained a degree of episodicity (is that even a word??) while still telling an arc story. Watching Game of Thrones, it goes to the extreme of arc storytelling - no episode is about any one thing, and all the plot lines are spread out across the whole. It's great when watching the box set, but I imagine it might feel a little bit slow watching from week to week. It's also not something you can dip in and out of on DVD as well as you can with B5.

As an aside, how good is Peter Dinklage in Game of Thrones? I hope the guy has won an Emmy for it. I'd love to just plonk Tyrion Lannister into B5 and see him interact with Londo and G'Kar.
 
I see what you mean about GOT, it’s presented as one continuous story, and the way it flits between characters means that there isn’t necessarily a key concern for any one episode. You are correct in pointing out that B5 managed to do both arc building and self contained stories within the same episode. I think it’s perhaps the classic A Plot / B Plot structure that allows this. Some episodes that would have otherwise rather poor, are improved greatly because of a strong B-Plot. Something like ‘TKO’ from Season One is a pretty silly hodgepodge of 80s clichés, but the Ivanova B-plot gives it real emotional depth.

And yes, I could see Peter Dinklage playing an amazing Centauri minister of some sort!
 
This is a reply to Ubik's comments about his enjoyment of B5 vs. TNG re-watches etc:

For whatever reason I can't seem to quote anyone anymore, but I agree with all of that. I think for most people the sweet spot is more towards the 'standalone' side of the arc, with the bulk of an episode being self-contained, but the subplot or even C-plot being tied to some big finish at the end of the season, just to generate continued interest.

In the case of "The Prisoner," I think that beyond the "Escape" theme (Which is really no more developed than it is in Gilligan's Island), the theme is really one of "What is man's responsibility to society?" 6 could simply have gone to live in the woods, but he grew increasingly concerned with the plight of the people around him, particularly when he realized some of his actions were hurting them. Also - this one is more explicit in the finale - it's about the kinds of revolution: The spastic rebellion of youth, the rebellion of privelege that bites the hand that feeds it, or the rebellion of individuality, "The right of a man who has earned the right to be called a man."

Which is my longwinded way of saying, "I think The Prisoner works because while the show isn't really arc-driven, the entire thing deliberately functions as a philosophical allegory. With fistfights and a big evil beachball."

Somewhat off topic, I'm sorry, but I find it kinda' fascinating.
 
Oh, I definitely prefer arc stories to pure standalones like TNG had. What I was meaning was that if you look at an arc episode of B5, it was still very much about something: the Centauri emperor's visit to B5, Sheridan going to Z'Ha'Dum, etc. In most cases you could say what an episode was about, so it retained a degree of episodicity (is that even a word??) while still telling an arc story. Watching Game of Thrones, it goes to the extreme of arc storytelling - no episode is about any one thing, and all the plot lines are spread out across the whole. It's great when watching the box set, but I imagine it might feel a little bit slow watching from week to week. It's also not something you can dip in and out of on DVD as well as you can with B5.
.

Huh. I can quote Springer again, but not Ubik. Weird.

Anyway, what you're talking about is one of the principle reasons I don't like "Mad Men." The episodes have no real structure, no beginning, middle, or end, they're just a bunch of stuff that happens.
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top