There's a lot that goes into a show. Some of it is fantastic and makes your eyes light up every time someone mentions the title. Some of it is regrettable and makes you grimace when someone mentions it. Sometimes, a show just takes a while to "get its feet under it," so to speak. Sometimes a show starts out strong and then fails so hard you are left wondering, "What did I ever see in this show?"
Some shows are fascinating from the outset; other shows, you couldn't care less about the characters and the outcome.
So what makes the difference? What is it about shows that make you roll your eyes and cringe? What do your favorite shows get right that keep you so attached to every level of the story arc?
Here are at least five key features of each sort... at least, as far as I can make out.
So what makes the difference? What is it about shows that make you roll your eyes and cringe? What do your favorite shows get right that keep you so attached to every level of the story arc?
Here are at least five key features of each sort... at least, as far as I can make out.
1. Ambiguity ANYWHERE
Example: Revenge, Buffy, White Collar
Uh-oh.... Seriously? Did I just do that? Did I really start off my Top Five Worst list with a Joss Whedon's show??
Please don't mistake me; I am a Whedonite who agrees that "Joss is BOSS" in absolutely everything he comes up with... But face it, what writer/creator has total control over every single episode? You are going to see shows listed as bad examples that I actually really liked... These are just some things that either didn't get me interested, or the problem I believe killed the show in itself.
Ambiguity is the worst. I'm talking characters switching sides, Romantic TriTangles where neither option is good and it's obvious to the viewer, but one or more parties are flaky and insist on vacillating between each other... Random Plot Devices of Total Convenience that show up just when the character could use it with no explanation or precedent—or when things just happen because the writers are trying to drum up attention for their show.
White Collar was one of those that was exciting and entertaining for about two whole seasons. I would have sworn I was a fan. The premise was solid, the story arc was good, the characters were AWESOME (I thoroughly enjoyed the relationship between Ellie and Peter--television could really use more solid couples like that, amen?)
Then Ambiguity hit, and suddenly the relationship between the characters that the first two seasons had worked so hard to build completely kicked the bucket, and suddenly, I decided that if the writers didn't care about keeping that around, I didn't care about watching them go through it all over again.
Buffy managed to avoid ambiguity for a good long while... But let's face it, the Initiative was basically borne of a desperate push to find something that had the potential to threaten Buffy's security and success, give her an Angel Rebound who would seem to betray her, and carry with it the potential to keep the show going... But because of Ambiguity, the Initiative story arc ended in one season and nobody had improved much. And don't get me started on the Continuity Nightmare that is Dawn Summers... *shudders*
What's a show to do? With a good PLOT (see below), a show has a simple enough premise to not have to resort to Ambiguity. Questions can be answered as the show moves along--and it's okay to leave some questions unanswered, because that's part of the mystery that will keep viewers watching one night a week, and thinking about the show for the other six days.
2. Attack of the Nebulous Origin Story Arc
Example: Heroes, Chuck
Ahhh, Origin Stories... The "White Whale" of Screenwriting. Very rarely do they actually work out--very often some "creative genius" with more "creative" than "genius" will get his turn on home plate, and then it's conspiracy within conspiracy with a bunch of complex character integrations and liberally slathered with angst-ridden motivation seasoned with technical balderdash--and in the end, the back-story ends up being the Kiss of Death that detracts from and kills the "present" storyline, at which time the TV show basically jumps off a cliff to end the viewers misery and NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT EVER.
So it was with the vainglorious Heroes. It was all fun and games, till somebody decided that the whole "leaping evolution" tagline deserved some airtime, and then somebody threw in the conspiracy angle, and fell into the "here's what it looks like when used for evil" Cliche that basically trashed everyone else in the cast because the villains were too powerful, the "heroes" were either corrupted or killed off (or mortally wounded but kept alive just so the villains would have somebody to do evil against) and it gradually just got darker and darker till someone turned out the lights and locked the door.
Chuck at least managed to float by for a long while on its own premise without bothering the Origin Story line... but then conspiracy created unnecessary paranoia and suddenly this "one-time singularity" actually had copies made, and the bad guys got their hands on the copy, and instead of "Ooh! What are they going to do next?" we were treated to a re-vamped version of the first story arc that was more like "Oh brother, here we go again!"
What's a show to do? When starting out, a show's PREMISE should give itself two options: either the writers sit down and figure out a reasonable Origin Story together (and this is vital... it's never a good thing when the viewer can sense if a different writer is controlling the story!) and leave it at that, OR create a premise that is broad enough to accommodate a reasonable Origin Story addition at a later point in the story. Then, when the Origin Story does find its way into the show, a good PREMISE will also provide ways for the Arc of the Origin to connect back with "current events" and still maintain relevance--there's nothing that ruins a good show like an overly complex origin story that ends up having little or no bearing on the original story arc.
3. The Friends-With-Superpowers Complex
Example: Arrow, The Tomorrow People
THIS. This is quite possibly the most GAG-INDUCING, SORRY EXCUSE FOR A PLOT TWIST EVER INVENTED BY LAZY SLIPSHOD WRITERS WHO SHOULD STICK TO DAYTIME TV!
Seriously... if it was just one or two shows where this happens, I would just blame the network--but the scenario crops up EVERYWHERE. You know the one...
In a show dealing with superpowers, it's usually the guy who has a secret alter-ego and a love interest. He realizes that, as much as he has always wanted a relationship with the Love Interest, and they were getting closer, suddenly he gets an attack of the FWS Complex, and all he can think about is how the bad guy is going to kill her to get to him... so, what does the manly-man with the superhuman powers do? He pushes her away! He sends her off on her own... which means she falls into a stupid trap set by the villain, because she was never properly informed to avoid such a thing, and of course the guy has to go rescue her, and totally compromises his own safety to prove himself to her and rectify this situation of his own making, and they end up together anyway, secrets exposed, and the super-powered boyfriend either mortally wounded (if it's a cliffhanger episode) or the couple pledging to harbor no secrets from each other (unless something seriously bad is going to happen, in which case either party feels totally justified in going back to keeping secrets, and the whole mess starts over again...)
EARTH-TO-NETWORKS: Having issues with the fact that you're having to move shows to the "Time-Slot-of-Death" because of lack of viewers? THIS IS WHY. STOP DOING THIS, AND MAYBE VIEWERS WILL STICK AROUND.
This terrible Killer was positively rampant in the Arrow series. Oliver keeps his secret from Laurel, and Thea... and his mother... and Laurel's father... and Roy... and Tommy... GEEZ, GUY! What these people don't seem to understand is that everybody knows that a Hero-With-A-Burden will have better chances when supported by a team, NOT isolated! Of COURSE terrible things happened to him... but it was mostly self-imposed, which does NOT invite sympathy for the "poor victimized hero." There is "Victim-Of-Circumstances"... and then there is "Hoist-On-His-Own-Petard." He had it coming... and the fix is actually quite simple, if he can stop moaning about it and do something... but that would also require some actually creative story arc development...
Tomorrow People was no better, in spite of all the hype and obvious potential--and whaddayaknow, I am fairly certain that THIS is what killed the show. The secrets Stephen was keeping from his girlfriend (but notice how accepting she was when he actually got around to telling her!!), the secrets Stephen's mom was keeping from him (WHAT THE WHAT?? Now that was a lazy-butt reveal!!), the secrets Stephen and Cara were keeping from John (totally uncalled for.... John/Cara was a GREAT PAIRING! There was no reason to split them up!) and all the nebulous little side complications that happen because the right people with the right information kept it to themselves instead of telling the people who were in danger!! 'S Death! DEATH, I SAY!
What's a show to do? Second only to the nature of the premise and the continuity of the plot, the integrity of a show's PEOPLE must be worth following! A good story needs heroes worth fighting for, and heroes who know what is worth fighting for, and a supporting cast worth defending, who will stand alongside the hero as staunchly as he stands in defense of them! When the hero is wimpy, the villain cliche, the love interest passe, and the community oblivious--it's a recipe for total disaster. We're better off watching infomercials. At least those people pretend to care about the silliest little things!
2. Attack of the Nebulous Origin Story Arc
 |
| "Look, sweetie, I know we have a perfectly good premise and a great opportunity for character development, but first let me go back and fashion a whole conspiracy back-story for the perfectly fine mysterious condition that functions well enough in the story just to create tension and angst and throw in a villain where otherwise none existed..." |
Ahhh, Origin Stories... The "White Whale" of Screenwriting. Very rarely do they actually work out--very often some "creative genius" with more "creative" than "genius" will get his turn on home plate, and then it's conspiracy within conspiracy with a bunch of complex character integrations and liberally slathered with angst-ridden motivation seasoned with technical balderdash--and in the end, the back-story ends up being the Kiss of Death that detracts from and kills the "present" storyline, at which time the TV show basically jumps off a cliff to end the viewers misery and NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT EVER.
So it was with the vainglorious Heroes. It was all fun and games, till somebody decided that the whole "leaping evolution" tagline deserved some airtime, and then somebody threw in the conspiracy angle, and fell into the "here's what it looks like when used for evil" Cliche that basically trashed everyone else in the cast because the villains were too powerful, the "heroes" were either corrupted or killed off (or mortally wounded but kept alive just so the villains would have somebody to do evil against) and it gradually just got darker and darker till someone turned out the lights and locked the door.
Chuck at least managed to float by for a long while on its own premise without bothering the Origin Story line... but then conspiracy created unnecessary paranoia and suddenly this "one-time singularity" actually had copies made, and the bad guys got their hands on the copy, and instead of "Ooh! What are they going to do next?" we were treated to a re-vamped version of the first story arc that was more like "Oh brother, here we go again!"
What's a show to do? When starting out, a show's PREMISE should give itself two options: either the writers sit down and figure out a reasonable Origin Story together (and this is vital... it's never a good thing when the viewer can sense if a different writer is controlling the story!) and leave it at that, OR create a premise that is broad enough to accommodate a reasonable Origin Story addition at a later point in the story. Then, when the Origin Story does find its way into the show, a good PREMISE will also provide ways for the Arc of the Origin to connect back with "current events" and still maintain relevance--there's nothing that ruins a good show like an overly complex origin story that ends up having little or no bearing on the original story arc.
3. The Friends-With-Superpowers Complex
 | |
| I mean, really... is it too much to ask a guy with superpowers to just MAN UP AND FACE THE VILLAIN?? Or at least maybe TELL HER THE TRUTH?? Or maybe resolve to STICK AROUND AND PROTECT HER INSTEAD OF LEAVING TO "KEEP HER SAFE"??? "And the Wimpiest Super-powered Boyfriend Award Goes To.... |
THIS. This is quite possibly the most GAG-INDUCING, SORRY EXCUSE FOR A PLOT TWIST EVER INVENTED BY LAZY SLIPSHOD WRITERS WHO SHOULD STICK TO DAYTIME TV!
Seriously... if it was just one or two shows where this happens, I would just blame the network--but the scenario crops up EVERYWHERE. You know the one...
In a show dealing with superpowers, it's usually the guy who has a secret alter-ego and a love interest. He realizes that, as much as he has always wanted a relationship with the Love Interest, and they were getting closer, suddenly he gets an attack of the FWS Complex, and all he can think about is how the bad guy is going to kill her to get to him... so, what does the manly-man with the superhuman powers do? He pushes her away! He sends her off on her own... which means she falls into a stupid trap set by the villain, because she was never properly informed to avoid such a thing, and of course the guy has to go rescue her, and totally compromises his own safety to prove himself to her and rectify this situation of his own making, and they end up together anyway, secrets exposed, and the super-powered boyfriend either mortally wounded (if it's a cliffhanger episode) or the couple pledging to harbor no secrets from each other (unless something seriously bad is going to happen, in which case either party feels totally justified in going back to keeping secrets, and the whole mess starts over again...)
EARTH-TO-NETWORKS: Having issues with the fact that you're having to move shows to the "Time-Slot-of-Death" because of lack of viewers? THIS IS WHY. STOP DOING THIS, AND MAYBE VIEWERS WILL STICK AROUND.
This terrible Killer was positively rampant in the Arrow series. Oliver keeps his secret from Laurel, and Thea... and his mother... and Laurel's father... and Roy... and Tommy... GEEZ, GUY! What these people don't seem to understand is that everybody knows that a Hero-With-A-Burden will have better chances when supported by a team, NOT isolated! Of COURSE terrible things happened to him... but it was mostly self-imposed, which does NOT invite sympathy for the "poor victimized hero." There is "Victim-Of-Circumstances"... and then there is "Hoist-On-His-Own-Petard." He had it coming... and the fix is actually quite simple, if he can stop moaning about it and do something... but that would also require some actually creative story arc development...
Tomorrow People was no better, in spite of all the hype and obvious potential--and whaddayaknow, I am fairly certain that THIS is what killed the show. The secrets Stephen was keeping from his girlfriend (but notice how accepting she was when he actually got around to telling her!!), the secrets Stephen's mom was keeping from him (WHAT THE WHAT?? Now that was a lazy-butt reveal!!), the secrets Stephen and Cara were keeping from John (totally uncalled for.... John/Cara was a GREAT PAIRING! There was no reason to split them up!) and all the nebulous little side complications that happen because the right people with the right information kept it to themselves instead of telling the people who were in danger!! 'S Death! DEATH, I SAY!
What's a show to do? Second only to the nature of the premise and the continuity of the plot, the integrity of a show's PEOPLE must be worth following! A good story needs heroes worth fighting for, and heroes who know what is worth fighting for, and a supporting cast worth defending, who will stand alongside the hero as staunchly as he stands in defense of them! When the hero is wimpy, the villain cliche, the love interest passe, and the community oblivious--it's a recipe for total disaster. We're better off watching infomercials. At least those people pretend to care about the silliest little things!
4. Triple Threat: Obvious Villain, Cliché Villain, Misunderstood Villain
1) Cliché villain, the one who goes around with a perpetual sneer, dressed in black, and goes out of his way to trip little old ladies and kick puppies. Violence gets very old very fast. If you know that the sight of a character means that "There will be blood tonight!" then the appeal wears off.
The Cliche Villain has little purpose except to be evil. There really isn't a good reason for them to exist except to serve as the other side of the Good/Evil dichotomy. A Cliche Villain is easy to spot because they are the ones propelling the plot--always one step ahead, always fouling things up, always killing, always provoked... And when one Cliche Villain is stopped, another one must be waiting in the wings to take his/her place, or the plot dies because the heroes have nothing else to do.
 |
| Don't Let The Villain Drive.... |
The villain in Revolution was painfully obvious, which was fine, I could stomach it... but then he starts killing off his own allies (of which there are precious few--I realize that cold-blooded murder makes you look badass, but it also helps out the other side by weeding down your numbers) and they had the gall to throw in a Mysterious Newcomer Who Makes All Sorts of Promises But Is Really Reporting To The Bad Guy Cliche, complete with letting the villain get the powerful thing that will cost the good guys a LOT of good people to reclaim... Yeah, stupid.
In Once Upon A Time--Pretty much every villain was Cliche. Again, this I could handle (mostly), because it's a fairy tale; fairy tales have their own special breed of cliche. But the brand of cliche that the show developed serves as an example of something else that happens when you let the Villain drive the plot: it means the premise--however solid and wonderful--has to change, because a Cliche Villain will not contribute to the premise in any way. The Cliche Villains in Once Upon A Time include: Queen Cora and Jafar. They received sob stories of a forlorn childhood to make us sympathetic, but they were both so weak as characters that they made awful villains that fouled up the show and totally warped the premise (at least in Cora's case... all of a sudden there's a Refuge of Enchanted characters that didn't get hit with the Curse--removing the need for real-world alter egos--and there is a motivation for Regina's evilness so she can no longer be regarded as the Evil Queen she had always been, and there's Neverland and a way to world-hop that no one even thought of before but Cora was somehow planning this the whole time, and so the premise of "Fairy Tale Characters In The Real World" is no longer relevant or pertinent because the setting changes so much...) to the point where the show grinds to a halt with all the grace of a downed elephant.
2) Obvious villain—little more than a placeholder to make the good guy work hard to be good; his sole purpose is to serve as the other side of the dichotomy: "Hero is good, and I am a villain, so I must stop Hero and I must do bad things because Bad Things is what Villains do." (See Also: WHUMP DUMP)
 |
| Really? NOW? What about before? Were you just misunderstood? Hojeez... |
Example: Alphas, White Collar
I loved the premise behind Alphas, I really did. I really thought that the Syfy network writers went back and took a good hard look at Heroes and figured out where it went south and embarked on a mission to redeem the premise of genetic mutation increasing certain natural abilities to superhuman levels... and the team of protagonists were wonderful (and in some cases, adorable!)... but then they had to go and pair them off with an "Obvious Villain" that--with just a teensy more preparation and room to grow, probably would not have been thus... but due to the Cancellation Massacre in which the least provocation of a promising show gets the knife while half-arsed shows squeeze under the radar for yet another season of banality... there just wasn't time to build up the villain or attract any more strong actors to boost the show, and so here you have it.
White Collar's villains just make me sick--they're mostly our own government who make it their singular goal to screw up the life of FBI agent Burke and bag themselves a petty CI, just because they can--and half the time, Neal finds something that the government is hiding, so their attacks are just basically covering their own ass...ets! I thought "we" were supposed to be the good guys... and yet it's the criminals who provide the most help to the protagonists on this show. Bad form!
3) Misunderstood Villain—the WORST. Not because of the bad things they do, but because I take it as a sign that the writers are just being villains themselves by setting a character up as the villain, then turning it around and making him seem like one of the good guys. Again, the truest picture of good and evil is that good characters always have good morals, and evil characters have bad morals—the best morals of an evil character is only a farce of goodness, and it doesn't last. And please for the love of pie would you stop selling that, "Evil is made because of heartless parents and a miserable childhood." There are so many characters who are in just as miserable a situation, but they chose good; the villain chose bad, and there's no two ways around that!!
 |
| NO. Sorry sweetie, butNO EXPLANATIONS JUST NO YOU'RE THE VILLAIN DEAL WITH IT!! |
I had SUCH high hopes for The Tomorrow People. It was like Alphas: Revisited. A simplified version of the sort of concept that had been so badly mishandled so many times in the past. A villain who was absolutely willing to be as evil as evil could be (played by the guy best known as SPN's Lucifer, for crying out loud!) and a promising cast where the token female character was already paired up, so there wasn't going to be any latent sexual tension or stupid mistakes made because new guy got stupid over veteran girl.
But no... Not only did this villain end up being the Evil Uncle (which would have been totally fine) and have a Compromising Secret Girlfriend (which was less okay... but I could live with it; the good guys would need leverage against someone so evil, right?)... but then... As it turns out, he wasn't the bad guy, there was somebody way worse, just so the guy who used to be bad actually looks marginally good, but actually, this was all just a farce, and he just basically handed the good guys over to the really bad guy, and there is civil unrest among the good guys because they're fighting over the least little thing and lying to each other, and.... and.... and...
Once Upon A Time has one thing it's good at: creating a back-story for pretty much every single villain that paints them as "misunderstood." It's the whole, "There is a little good in every one--just some people can't help that they become evil." Umm, I beg to differ. We viewers are perfectly okay just feeling sorry for the good guys; if you would stop turning your villains into redeemed "half-goods" you might find that maybe you don't need ANOTHER FRANCHISE after all...
What's a show to do? A well-scripted show (see PALAVER below) paints clear lines around villainy and heroism. Decide who's going to be the bad guy, and stick with it. Don't force the heroes into darkness while trying to push the villains into the light--that creates a mediocre kind of grey pallor to the whole story and has the compound effect of making us feel justified in railing against the heroes (Darn it, Charlie! He told you to stay put!) and sympathizing with the villains (Aww, maybe Regina isn't so bad after allSTOP IT SHUT UP SHE'S THE EVIL QUEEN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOBODY ELSE SHE WAS FINE ALL BY HERSELF AS THE MAIN VILLAIN IT TOTALLY WORKS WHY DO YOU KEEP DOING THAT STOP!!!) neither of which is at all conducive to GOOD storytelling.
5. The Whump-Dump
 |
| Blah, blah, blah.... is that really the best you could come up with?? |
Example: Once Upon A Time, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Revenge
This category refers to the overindulgence of all things painful and angsty: death, illness, fraud, affairs, conspiracy... On the scale of Suffering there is a fine line between heart-rending and ludicrous, and some writers just don't get that the more you compound the "whump" on a single character (hitting him before he's quite recovered from the previous hit), the faster you accelerate toward that line.
"Again with a Joss Whedon show? Girl, you got issues!"
Hear me out: I'm not saying that it 'a a bad show for making this mistake... But I can say that "Whump Dumping" is the reason I stopped watching all three of these shows.
As far as AoS goes, I regret to point out that I could tell when it was no longer Joss running the show. He has a very distinctive style, and every right in the world to produce a show like this... But it pains me that apparently nobody else can quite pull it off like he does. It started out really strong... Then WHUMP hit, and you had characters starting affairs, senseless in-fighting—GUESS WHAT! The hunk guy is the double agent who betrays everybody and hooks up with (Plot Twist!) NOT the cute chick, but the older one! WhatTheWhat???—and everything goes sideways and the objective that you thought the show was going to have ( at least the way they built it in all of the promos and premise and whatnot!) turns out to be a minor side-story taking a backseat to the steamy, angsty, Whump-driven plot arc that only got exciting when Nick Fury showed up or when they made references to the latest Ironman or Captain America film.
Revenge is a show that I started watching because of the premise ("based on The Count of Monte Cristo" they said) and I really enjoyed the characters...
Then WHUMP—and you had extensive following of the gay guy who seems to be on the heroine's side till he starts getting into blackmail for himself, and relationships falling apart right and left and the heroine has to end up doing a lot more bad things to stay ahead of the villainess who is just getting stronger and more ruthless as the heroine gets careless in her emotions... Yeah, not much fun anymore.
And Once Upon A Time....
....*sigh*....
Please just refer to the above meme. Where most shows might let the good guys win for most of the season, and then tank it all in the very last two or three episodes to signal the start of a new story arc for the next season... Once has the gall to drag the characters through the muck for half a season, give the illusion of success tainted by the assurance of impending doom for about three episodes, and then dunk the storyline into darkness and evil and misery for the remainder of the season. Humans being the fickle, hope-clinging innocents they are, we cherish those three episodes of goodness and wait anxiously through truly noxious floundering on the part of the plot, just in case the "whump" wears off and we can glimpse the characters actually receiving some kind of normalcy and happiness in spite of the glowering, pacing, conniving villain. But no.
What's a show to do? A show where the writers and creators and show-runners have all sat down and hashed out a plausible story arc with carefully timed POSITIONING will not have to fall back on the endless cycle of Whump-Dump to keep the show going. Like any healthy competition or well-written literature, the trick is not to show all your best material in the first go. Keep a few trump cards, and let them out one at a time. Get a solid story going, with plenty of loose threads, but don't run around tying them off in the first season! Use each season to focus on one aspect of the premise that was introduced in the pilot. As that arc comes to a close, start dropping hints for the next one, so that the story doesn't have to feel like it died and you exhumed the corpse just to squeeze another season out of it. Nothing is worse than feeling like the new season of a show is little more than a reanimated zombie with no real coherent plot and a hankering for sucking the life out of all the characters.
Well that's over with. Onto better things! What makes the awesome shows so awesome?
Keepers
1. Simplified Premise
Examples: Perception, Firefly
A great show will have a premise that pits a sympathetic character against intriguing odds in an easy-to-grasp scenario: A professor of neuroscience with paranoid schizophrenia ends up consulting with the FBI as his phenomenal knowledge of the human brain (and the very entertaining hallucinations prompted by various clues) make him a valuable asset to some bizarre cases. Five hundred years in the future, when humans from earth have expanded and populated other galaxies, a rebel military captain and his first mate go on the run from the authorities and pick up a colorful crew of people from various backgrounds with their own issues that everyone has a chance to work through, together.
A solid premise is broad enough to include various other scenarios without ever changing it's most basic elements. In Perception, you have interesting threads where one finds out that a consistent hallucination of the main character is actually based on someone from his past, and for a time, he gets confused as to which one is the hallucination and which is the real woman--or there is unexpected developments in the life of the FBI agent he works with, and who defends him to those who would discard him because of his condition. In Firefly, you have space ships, lasers, futuristic gizmos--but no aliens, because the premise is based on Earth-inhabitants populating the galaxy, not a potentially-endless list of made-up creatures.
2. Worthy People
Examples: Castle, Intelligence
The next thing a good show has, and every show needs is a cast of well-constructed characters: heroes with worthwhile morals, unscrupulous yet clearly-defined villains, and a supporting cast who is there to do more than fill in the blank space around the set or supply exposition for the plot.
A good hero will at least have some characteristic that is marginally worth emulating: His sense of duty, his protection instinct, his emotional strength, and the depth of character development all should reflect a hero worth rooting for. He should be a strong leader, but not above asking for help when he obviously needs it. If the hero is a woman, she should be firm but not prickly, soft but not weak, supportive, and astute. The best characters come out when an actor fully embraces the role, so that even the nonverbal reactions are entirely realistic and credible. Flaws are fine, so long as the wrong actions have clear consequences, and the characters are motivated to work through those flaws to become better.
The villain is best (and most dangerous) when it is focused on attaining or obtaining something that the hero has. A villain with simple, clear motives that can be explicitly stated without spoiling the whole show is a wonderfully chilling thing.
In addition, you might not have noticed this, but in the best shows, the strongest characters are not necessarily the main characters. A show rises and falls by the might of the secondary characters. Without proper backup, the hollow hero dukes it out with the vile villain and goes out in a blaze of empty glory because we don't even care. These are the "nobody" actors, the "also starring" of the opening credits—sometimes they even fill the role of "viewer stand-in", letting the melodramatic hero know what we're all screaming at our screens. A show without that is lifeless, dull, and as stale as week-old white bread—and only half as "filling." These are characters who both bring out the best and point out the worst in the hero; characters that are ready to step up when the time comes and the hero is out of commission; actors who are comfortable enough in their own role as an individual character instead of a "set piece" that they enter into the role with gusto to match the main characters. To be honest, in some of my favorite shows, the secondary characters practically "steal" it. I could care less if the hero is there—but if just one of the "team" goes missing from the show, I find less and less compulsion to keep watching.
In the show Castle, comedy heavy-hitter and all-around seasoned actor Nathan Fillion teams up with screen-veteran Stana Katic to create a marvelous leading couple who are neither cliched nor constantly divided. It's the very rare instance (any more) when a good-looking couple actually manage to work well together and it's not just scripted chemistry. The "villains" of the show are of course the criminals whom the NYPD must investigate, pursue, and prosecute. Also involved, from time to time, are ghosts from Detective Beckett's past, in a recurring story arc that serves to develop her character, not just a marketing ploy. They are supported by a delectable mix of small-time and big-ticket actors, all of whom receive their moments to shine and participate in the action of the show. Every actor embodies their role with the same vigor, no matter how much screen time they get.
The cancellation of Intelligence was unfortunate indeed, because really, Josh Holloway and Megan Ohry did a fantastic job as the leading couple--again with plenty of easy chemistry, total conviction in their roles, and I would say that the character of Gabriel Vaughn is among the most moral I've seen on TV. (Not completely moral, mind--but comparatively so). The villains of Intelligence were expertly defined: a lot of shows that deal with government surveillance make Big Brother out to be this nebulous, malevolent, corrupt bogeyman that hates other countries and wants just to control every little thing. By containing that field of national surveillance in a person we can respect, Intelligence skillfully turned the focus off of surveillance in general and emphasized the real issue: not what it is, but how it is used. The villains were not "government in general" but those specific officials who based their choices and decisions on bad moral character. The good guys were interested in protecting the safety of others; the bad ones were only interested in controlling the power to inflict danger on others. What really made the show, though, was the spectacular cast of supporting characters. From the director of CyberCom--a woman with enough backbone to do her job, tempered with the femininity to make the right calls in spite of the pressure to do the heartless thing--to the father-son duo responsible for the microchip technology that is the central plot device of the show--geeky, nerdy, hilarious, and adorable--to the "desk jockey" who actually steps up to save the hero on occasion and always comes through, even risking his job to help the hero when the wrong guys start calling the shots.
3. Compelling Plot
Examples: A Gifted Man, Grimm
When evaluating a show, ask yourself: what's the message this show is trying to communicate? What kind of story is it trying to tell? What's the point of all this action? If the answer is some kind of nebulous summary of the types of characters you have on there, or if you have to mentally skip over episodes because they don't quite fit into any particular definitive plot arc that you can summarize--chances are the show is short on plot.
A good show has a plot that is presented in the pilot episode, and then followed closely in every finale and premiere after. A solid plot has room to breathe and allow the actors to embody the roles they are in, allows the viewer to become more acquainted with the characters they care about, one that allows the cast to grow and develop and change as real people do. A nice plot works well in a continuing arc (one that spans several episodes) or an episodic arc (those "standalone" episodes that are a self-contained story, but also contribute to the overall grand arc of the show). A good plot will have a compelling goal which the viewer understands and will want to follow the hero through till the very end. A show with a great plot will compel the viewer to watch every single episode because of its quality, without resorting to any of the Killers I listed above.
I was completely devoted to A Gifted Man while it aired--so much so that I didn't believe it or understand when word came out that there wasn't going to be a second season. What do you mean there is no second season?? It was a perfectly good plot! It developed wonderfully! The characters were fantastically realistic! The individual episodes had mini-arcs of their own, and yet everything was driving toward an overall goal that will hereafter never be realized!!!! The pacing, the reactions, the changes, the motivations, the message, the purpose--everything was nicely balanced and freshly innovative. I still cannot find anywhere that lists a good reason why CBS could not possibly let the show finish.
Meanwhile, a solid plot is exactly why Grimm is still running strong into its fourth season! Granted, it took about six episodes to really get rolling--but some shows are still blundering around the starting gate by the end of the first season! The show functions on the premise that there are people with paranormal natures that are the anthropomorphic characters of the folk/fairy tales we all know and love, written by the Brothers Grimm, whose descendants have the ability to see these invisible natures in the people who have them--and from there, the plot expands to involve a not-too-complex array of various creatures--each one introduced and designed with a specific purpose that either refers to a legend or myth or has something to contribute to the plot, not just because the writers wanted to add shock-factor to it--and lore involving antique keys (which is still open to exploration, even at this point) and a select number of highly-specific and well-developed villains (one in particular has basically lasted for all three seasons, and still is as much of a threat as ever, without overplaying the motivations!) The story is still being told--and as someone who has seen every episode at least twice, I can tell you that there is very little chance of stagnation here!
4. Balanced Palaver
Examples: Castle, Supernatural
Okay, I admit I used the archaic word because I wanted to continue the alliteration. But really, what I am referring to is what goes on between the characters when the conversation doesn't necessarily need to involve the events of the story. It's in this banter that the true character—part actor, part role—comes out.
Ask yourself: what are the characters saying when the script isn't talking? Is there a fair amount of nonverbal reactions to different things? I'm a big fan of quips—when two actors can get snarky with one another, it really feels more like they're comfortable in their roles. When the delivery is evenly paced and logically placed, you know it's a winner. When the details of a plot or a mystery can come out in a way that is completely natural, like a conversation you might have in a real-life situation, that's good banter. When the characters aren't making lame cracks or inappropriate jokes, when the dialogue can be meaningful and thought-provoking as well as humorous, that's a good show.
Seeing as the leading man is the King of Quip himself, look no further than Castle for a supreme example of excellent banter. It may be a bit theatrical, but I assure you, his portrayal of the writer schtick is not a very long stretch from the way we writers tend to behave in our heads. From the wacky suspect profiles he whips out with complete conviction, to the tender moments between him and Beckett as they work through the relationship together, to the way every actor responds to the others in a way that provides insight into their distinct personalities--the banter is perfectly poised and delivered.
Though not as avid a follower as most fans of this show, I have to say one of the things that keeps me coming back to Supernatural is the phenomenal writing that continually blows my mind with a simple, innocent assertion delivered with absolute conviction in a heart-rending context. A single line from this show can make me laugh every time I hear it or make me so aggravated I want to punch something. The timing is every bit as precise, though the show is naturally quite a bit darker than Castle, which means a lot less humor and a lot more intense emotions--but the humor is still there, and the banter is every bit as balanced.
5. Diversified Position
Examples: Grimm, Person of Interest
I kind of hinted at this under "Plot," but the fact is that "Position" is both distinct and every bit as important. While "Plot" more speaks to the beginning and the end of an arc, "Position" is what deals with everything else in between: pacing, arc development, the way each episode sets up the episodes after it, continuity, and character back-stories.
If the show pursues a story arc, the good ones will take the time to get you acquainted with the characters, and when they introduce a new character, it is because that character has immediate bearing on the story. A good story arc is the adequate balance of simplicity and intrigue: it follows a logical speed of development, it presents the main facets of the plot first, saving others for later, and keeps the audience wanting and coming back for more. Good preparation answers the most basic questions with sweeping details, and yet still shows promise of more details to come. Good writing can figure out what the audience would want to know and use that to draw in the viewers, instead of boring them with useless information which appeals only to the most committed nerd.
A show with good positioning will maintain a steady timeline of continuity without ever crossing itself or packing too much into the "history" portion. Good back-stories are the ones that explain the conclusions the character has already reached in the "present" arc, not the ones created merely to add a new villain or over-complicate the current plot to justify its existence. They are compelling stories that bring the viewer up to speed, not boring, drawn-out affairs that give useless information about a character that shows up maybe a couple times and then disappears from the show without an explanation or murmur.
The positioning on Person of Interest has me totally enthralled. What started as a largely-episodic show suddenly morphed into a larger story arc, seamlessly integrating back-stories for all the main players that drew connections between characters that still resonated with the sort of character I know them to be in the "present" arc, even though it might have been true that such a connection was not even in the works when the show first began. And now, as it gears up for the fourth season, all of the building and development of the show in the first three seasons has it perfectly poised for a strong new season that could--if such fantastic writing continues--last for another three.
The same goes for Grimm. The positioning has been fabulous all the way through. The timing of the "episodic" arcs amid the sweeping seasonal arcs has been enough of a "breather" without slowing down the pace of the show at all. Grimm is dealing out the back-history lore with measured deliberation, using the pieces of the history and retrospective flashbacks to push the current story ever onward. Not an iota has been wasted on cheap thrills or daytime-grade frills where it would be painfully obvious that "for this scene, the writers just stared at each other with dumb looks on their faces." Key decisions were made with conclusions that defied the cliche (boyfriend with dangerous secret decides to own up to his girlfriend, and this has only increased their chemistry; when a "bad" character gets roped into a love triangle that threatens the hero, the character--though he was infinitely more compelling than the average-looking hero--decides to back down in favor of the hero; a potentially powerful villain becomes an even stronger ally through credible motivation instead of just a teary flip-flop scam) and with the addition of a wonderful new character, and yet another inventive challenge for our hero, I am eagerly awaiting the developments in store for Season 4!
So there you have it. Five Killers, Five Keepers; I know there are many more than what I have listed here--more things that shows do so wrong or so right, and even more shows that employ the Killers and the Keepers. I don't pretend that this is a definitive list; I wanted to keep it basic for the sake of post-length--but feel free to add your own two cents in the comments! What are some show "killers" that break a show, in your opinion? What are the "keepers" that are the reason you're so committed to the fandom?
And Once Upon A Time....
....*sigh*....
Please just refer to the above meme. Where most shows might let the good guys win for most of the season, and then tank it all in the very last two or three episodes to signal the start of a new story arc for the next season... Once has the gall to drag the characters through the muck for half a season, give the illusion of success tainted by the assurance of impending doom for about three episodes, and then dunk the storyline into darkness and evil and misery for the remainder of the season. Humans being the fickle, hope-clinging innocents they are, we cherish those three episodes of goodness and wait anxiously through truly noxious floundering on the part of the plot, just in case the "whump" wears off and we can glimpse the characters actually receiving some kind of normalcy and happiness in spite of the glowering, pacing, conniving villain. But no.
What's a show to do? A show where the writers and creators and show-runners have all sat down and hashed out a plausible story arc with carefully timed POSITIONING will not have to fall back on the endless cycle of Whump-Dump to keep the show going. Like any healthy competition or well-written literature, the trick is not to show all your best material in the first go. Keep a few trump cards, and let them out one at a time. Get a solid story going, with plenty of loose threads, but don't run around tying them off in the first season! Use each season to focus on one aspect of the premise that was introduced in the pilot. As that arc comes to a close, start dropping hints for the next one, so that the story doesn't have to feel like it died and you exhumed the corpse just to squeeze another season out of it. Nothing is worse than feeling like the new season of a show is little more than a reanimated zombie with no real coherent plot and a hankering for sucking the life out of all the characters.
Well that's over with. Onto better things! What makes the awesome shows so awesome?
Keepers
1. Simplified Premise
Examples: Perception, Firefly
A great show will have a premise that pits a sympathetic character against intriguing odds in an easy-to-grasp scenario: A professor of neuroscience with paranoid schizophrenia ends up consulting with the FBI as his phenomenal knowledge of the human brain (and the very entertaining hallucinations prompted by various clues) make him a valuable asset to some bizarre cases. Five hundred years in the future, when humans from earth have expanded and populated other galaxies, a rebel military captain and his first mate go on the run from the authorities and pick up a colorful crew of people from various backgrounds with their own issues that everyone has a chance to work through, together.
A solid premise is broad enough to include various other scenarios without ever changing it's most basic elements. In Perception, you have interesting threads where one finds out that a consistent hallucination of the main character is actually based on someone from his past, and for a time, he gets confused as to which one is the hallucination and which is the real woman--or there is unexpected developments in the life of the FBI agent he works with, and who defends him to those who would discard him because of his condition. In Firefly, you have space ships, lasers, futuristic gizmos--but no aliens, because the premise is based on Earth-inhabitants populating the galaxy, not a potentially-endless list of made-up creatures.
2. Worthy People
Examples: Castle, Intelligence
The next thing a good show has, and every show needs is a cast of well-constructed characters: heroes with worthwhile morals, unscrupulous yet clearly-defined villains, and a supporting cast who is there to do more than fill in the blank space around the set or supply exposition for the plot.
A good hero will at least have some characteristic that is marginally worth emulating: His sense of duty, his protection instinct, his emotional strength, and the depth of character development all should reflect a hero worth rooting for. He should be a strong leader, but not above asking for help when he obviously needs it. If the hero is a woman, she should be firm but not prickly, soft but not weak, supportive, and astute. The best characters come out when an actor fully embraces the role, so that even the nonverbal reactions are entirely realistic and credible. Flaws are fine, so long as the wrong actions have clear consequences, and the characters are motivated to work through those flaws to become better.
The villain is best (and most dangerous) when it is focused on attaining or obtaining something that the hero has. A villain with simple, clear motives that can be explicitly stated without spoiling the whole show is a wonderfully chilling thing.
In addition, you might not have noticed this, but in the best shows, the strongest characters are not necessarily the main characters. A show rises and falls by the might of the secondary characters. Without proper backup, the hollow hero dukes it out with the vile villain and goes out in a blaze of empty glory because we don't even care. These are the "nobody" actors, the "also starring" of the opening credits—sometimes they even fill the role of "viewer stand-in", letting the melodramatic hero know what we're all screaming at our screens. A show without that is lifeless, dull, and as stale as week-old white bread—and only half as "filling." These are characters who both bring out the best and point out the worst in the hero; characters that are ready to step up when the time comes and the hero is out of commission; actors who are comfortable enough in their own role as an individual character instead of a "set piece" that they enter into the role with gusto to match the main characters. To be honest, in some of my favorite shows, the secondary characters practically "steal" it. I could care less if the hero is there—but if just one of the "team" goes missing from the show, I find less and less compulsion to keep watching.
In the show Castle, comedy heavy-hitter and all-around seasoned actor Nathan Fillion teams up with screen-veteran Stana Katic to create a marvelous leading couple who are neither cliched nor constantly divided. It's the very rare instance (any more) when a good-looking couple actually manage to work well together and it's not just scripted chemistry. The "villains" of the show are of course the criminals whom the NYPD must investigate, pursue, and prosecute. Also involved, from time to time, are ghosts from Detective Beckett's past, in a recurring story arc that serves to develop her character, not just a marketing ploy. They are supported by a delectable mix of small-time and big-ticket actors, all of whom receive their moments to shine and participate in the action of the show. Every actor embodies their role with the same vigor, no matter how much screen time they get.
The cancellation of Intelligence was unfortunate indeed, because really, Josh Holloway and Megan Ohry did a fantastic job as the leading couple--again with plenty of easy chemistry, total conviction in their roles, and I would say that the character of Gabriel Vaughn is among the most moral I've seen on TV. (Not completely moral, mind--but comparatively so). The villains of Intelligence were expertly defined: a lot of shows that deal with government surveillance make Big Brother out to be this nebulous, malevolent, corrupt bogeyman that hates other countries and wants just to control every little thing. By containing that field of national surveillance in a person we can respect, Intelligence skillfully turned the focus off of surveillance in general and emphasized the real issue: not what it is, but how it is used. The villains were not "government in general" but those specific officials who based their choices and decisions on bad moral character. The good guys were interested in protecting the safety of others; the bad ones were only interested in controlling the power to inflict danger on others. What really made the show, though, was the spectacular cast of supporting characters. From the director of CyberCom--a woman with enough backbone to do her job, tempered with the femininity to make the right calls in spite of the pressure to do the heartless thing--to the father-son duo responsible for the microchip technology that is the central plot device of the show--geeky, nerdy, hilarious, and adorable--to the "desk jockey" who actually steps up to save the hero on occasion and always comes through, even risking his job to help the hero when the wrong guys start calling the shots.
3. Compelling Plot
Examples: A Gifted Man, Grimm
When evaluating a show, ask yourself: what's the message this show is trying to communicate? What kind of story is it trying to tell? What's the point of all this action? If the answer is some kind of nebulous summary of the types of characters you have on there, or if you have to mentally skip over episodes because they don't quite fit into any particular definitive plot arc that you can summarize--chances are the show is short on plot.
A good show has a plot that is presented in the pilot episode, and then followed closely in every finale and premiere after. A solid plot has room to breathe and allow the actors to embody the roles they are in, allows the viewer to become more acquainted with the characters they care about, one that allows the cast to grow and develop and change as real people do. A nice plot works well in a continuing arc (one that spans several episodes) or an episodic arc (those "standalone" episodes that are a self-contained story, but also contribute to the overall grand arc of the show). A good plot will have a compelling goal which the viewer understands and will want to follow the hero through till the very end. A show with a great plot will compel the viewer to watch every single episode because of its quality, without resorting to any of the Killers I listed above.
I was completely devoted to A Gifted Man while it aired--so much so that I didn't believe it or understand when word came out that there wasn't going to be a second season. What do you mean there is no second season?? It was a perfectly good plot! It developed wonderfully! The characters were fantastically realistic! The individual episodes had mini-arcs of their own, and yet everything was driving toward an overall goal that will hereafter never be realized!!!! The pacing, the reactions, the changes, the motivations, the message, the purpose--everything was nicely balanced and freshly innovative. I still cannot find anywhere that lists a good reason why CBS could not possibly let the show finish.
Meanwhile, a solid plot is exactly why Grimm is still running strong into its fourth season! Granted, it took about six episodes to really get rolling--but some shows are still blundering around the starting gate by the end of the first season! The show functions on the premise that there are people with paranormal natures that are the anthropomorphic characters of the folk/fairy tales we all know and love, written by the Brothers Grimm, whose descendants have the ability to see these invisible natures in the people who have them--and from there, the plot expands to involve a not-too-complex array of various creatures--each one introduced and designed with a specific purpose that either refers to a legend or myth or has something to contribute to the plot, not just because the writers wanted to add shock-factor to it--and lore involving antique keys (which is still open to exploration, even at this point) and a select number of highly-specific and well-developed villains (one in particular has basically lasted for all three seasons, and still is as much of a threat as ever, without overplaying the motivations!) The story is still being told--and as someone who has seen every episode at least twice, I can tell you that there is very little chance of stagnation here!
4. Balanced Palaver
Examples: Castle, Supernatural
Okay, I admit I used the archaic word because I wanted to continue the alliteration. But really, what I am referring to is what goes on between the characters when the conversation doesn't necessarily need to involve the events of the story. It's in this banter that the true character—part actor, part role—comes out.
Ask yourself: what are the characters saying when the script isn't talking? Is there a fair amount of nonverbal reactions to different things? I'm a big fan of quips—when two actors can get snarky with one another, it really feels more like they're comfortable in their roles. When the delivery is evenly paced and logically placed, you know it's a winner. When the details of a plot or a mystery can come out in a way that is completely natural, like a conversation you might have in a real-life situation, that's good banter. When the characters aren't making lame cracks or inappropriate jokes, when the dialogue can be meaningful and thought-provoking as well as humorous, that's a good show.
Seeing as the leading man is the King of Quip himself, look no further than Castle for a supreme example of excellent banter. It may be a bit theatrical, but I assure you, his portrayal of the writer schtick is not a very long stretch from the way we writers tend to behave in our heads. From the wacky suspect profiles he whips out with complete conviction, to the tender moments between him and Beckett as they work through the relationship together, to the way every actor responds to the others in a way that provides insight into their distinct personalities--the banter is perfectly poised and delivered.
Though not as avid a follower as most fans of this show, I have to say one of the things that keeps me coming back to Supernatural is the phenomenal writing that continually blows my mind with a simple, innocent assertion delivered with absolute conviction in a heart-rending context. A single line from this show can make me laugh every time I hear it or make me so aggravated I want to punch something. The timing is every bit as precise, though the show is naturally quite a bit darker than Castle, which means a lot less humor and a lot more intense emotions--but the humor is still there, and the banter is every bit as balanced.
5. Diversified Position
Examples: Grimm, Person of Interest
I kind of hinted at this under "Plot," but the fact is that "Position" is both distinct and every bit as important. While "Plot" more speaks to the beginning and the end of an arc, "Position" is what deals with everything else in between: pacing, arc development, the way each episode sets up the episodes after it, continuity, and character back-stories.
If the show pursues a story arc, the good ones will take the time to get you acquainted with the characters, and when they introduce a new character, it is because that character has immediate bearing on the story. A good story arc is the adequate balance of simplicity and intrigue: it follows a logical speed of development, it presents the main facets of the plot first, saving others for later, and keeps the audience wanting and coming back for more. Good preparation answers the most basic questions with sweeping details, and yet still shows promise of more details to come. Good writing can figure out what the audience would want to know and use that to draw in the viewers, instead of boring them with useless information which appeals only to the most committed nerd.
A show with good positioning will maintain a steady timeline of continuity without ever crossing itself or packing too much into the "history" portion. Good back-stories are the ones that explain the conclusions the character has already reached in the "present" arc, not the ones created merely to add a new villain or over-complicate the current plot to justify its existence. They are compelling stories that bring the viewer up to speed, not boring, drawn-out affairs that give useless information about a character that shows up maybe a couple times and then disappears from the show without an explanation or murmur.
The positioning on Person of Interest has me totally enthralled. What started as a largely-episodic show suddenly morphed into a larger story arc, seamlessly integrating back-stories for all the main players that drew connections between characters that still resonated with the sort of character I know them to be in the "present" arc, even though it might have been true that such a connection was not even in the works when the show first began. And now, as it gears up for the fourth season, all of the building and development of the show in the first three seasons has it perfectly poised for a strong new season that could--if such fantastic writing continues--last for another three.
The same goes for Grimm. The positioning has been fabulous all the way through. The timing of the "episodic" arcs amid the sweeping seasonal arcs has been enough of a "breather" without slowing down the pace of the show at all. Grimm is dealing out the back-history lore with measured deliberation, using the pieces of the history and retrospective flashbacks to push the current story ever onward. Not an iota has been wasted on cheap thrills or daytime-grade frills where it would be painfully obvious that "for this scene, the writers just stared at each other with dumb looks on their faces." Key decisions were made with conclusions that defied the cliche (boyfriend with dangerous secret decides to own up to his girlfriend, and this has only increased their chemistry; when a "bad" character gets roped into a love triangle that threatens the hero, the character--though he was infinitely more compelling than the average-looking hero--decides to back down in favor of the hero; a potentially powerful villain becomes an even stronger ally through credible motivation instead of just a teary flip-flop scam) and with the addition of a wonderful new character, and yet another inventive challenge for our hero, I am eagerly awaiting the developments in store for Season 4!
----------
So there you have it. Five Killers, Five Keepers; I know there are many more than what I have listed here--more things that shows do so wrong or so right, and even more shows that employ the Killers and the Keepers. I don't pretend that this is a definitive list; I wanted to keep it basic for the sake of post-length--but feel free to add your own two cents in the comments! What are some show "killers" that break a show, in your opinion? What are the "keepers" that are the reason you're so committed to the fandom?
No comments:
Post a Comment