The return of monsters-of-the-week?

[The3]

Lately, we geeks seem to have a much shorter attention span (for lack of a better term) and much less patience when it comes to our entertainment. For the sake of this discussion, I’ll pick on Falling Skies, because it seems to be a relatively current topic of criticism here and elsewhere. A lot of folks are lodging complaints with the way that it has developed into a very slow narrative burn that doesn’t actively grab them with awesome stuff happening week in and week out.

This example is a microcosm of a much larger phenomenon, though. In general, it seems like a lot of slow burn genre shows are having much more trouble today than they did in the past. I’m by no means saying that this is good or bad, but it makes me curious about why this might be the case. I have a two-part theory I wanted to throw out to see what people think, and also see what different opinions are out there.

I think the first contributor is that, in my opinion, the bulk of recent sci-fi/fantasy on television has spoiled us with its pace. We’ve gotten used to energetic monster-of-the-week storytelling (e.g. Warehouse 13, Eureka, Sanctuary, Dr. Who). Sure, these shows tend to have season arcs as well, but what brings much of the audience back each week are the self-contained stories. Don’t get me wrong – I love these shows and think they are fantastic television. However, they set a bar for story development and pacing that’s very difficult to live up to for shows with grander stories, and make audiences impatient.

Shows that hinge upon a single, ongoing arc and often take several episodes between major plot points are having a much harder time. Some, like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, are thriving, but that success has to be largely attributed to the fact that they had established fanbases before they ever hit the screen. At the same time, you have things like Torchwood: Miracle Day and Falling Skies that are doing okay by the numbers, but not really exploding like they could and making networks hesitant.

Now, in addition to the flooding of monster-of-the-week shows, (and I know this will be really controversial) I blame BSG & Lost. Before the super fans begin the flogging, let me disclaim that I’m one of the people that actually really liked the way that both of these shows ended. That puts me in a tiny minority, though, and that’s why I think these shows have made the road rougher for their successors.

Both BSG & Lost were shows that not only succeeded critically, but also smashed traditional genre barriers by reaching unprecedentedly huge audiences. That meant insane numbers of watchers investing their time week after week, year after year as these stories slowly unfolded. But unfortunately (depending on perspective) the two shows ended in ways that seem to have alienated the majority of their audiences. I suspect that the results of this is that audiences have become trigger shy. Fans are more reluctant than they were five years ago to invest dozens of hours or more in a story when they might get “burned” in the end.

So, that’s my two cents. My very long two cents. What do you all think, though? are there other factors that you think contribute to this shift in programming style? If you’re a fan of one style or the other, what reasons do you prefer what you prefer? Am I totally full of craaaaap altogether? This subject really interests me, so I’m curious to hear perspectives from all sides.

[frakkintalos]

I don’t think it’s any show that can be blamed. It just so happens that those shows (BSG and LOST) played the game better than others. There are so many factors that make a show successful. There are always risks. For example, once you hear Steven Speilberg is connected with a show you think , “Success!” Not necessarily. From what I can tell, they are throwing a ton of money at Falling Skies but IMO, it is choking on cliches and hokey dialogue. I cannot connect to any of the characters and the main story has me staring at my VCR clock. Now, I have expressed my opinion. It is MY opinion. If you dig the show and you’re getting something out of it. Great, continue to watch and enjoy. I will not compare Falling Skies to other shows (since I’ve already done that somewhere else). I will allow it to stand on its own. It doesn’t do it for me.

But enough of that.

Back to success. A show has to gain an audience, make a connection with that audience, impress the suits, impress the columnists, win a Peabody giggle, get folks talking about it at the watercooler double giggle, and make money. It’s a saturated market, as well. There are no longer 9 channels and only 4 with something of interest on. There is streaming and DVD sets and free cable markets and paid cable markets and viral videos and …you feel me… Tons and tons of competition. If you don’t make me laugh in the first minute and your a comedy show. CLICK. If you don’t tackle a current issue with allegory and you’re a sci-fi show. CLICK. That’s the perception of the viewers and that’s how the suits run the business.

I no longer feel like, “Oh my favorite show is gone.” There is another that will pop up next Fall. Maybe, in my old age I’ve become fickle. I’m not sure. I just know that I grew up with Vanilla or Chocolate and now there’s a mega-ice-cream-shop with aisle after aisle of flavors that you can drive a semi down.

[The3]

Agreed, totally. With the market saturation now, shows have a definite responsibility to succeed on a bunch of different levels if they want to stick around.

That said, though, my original questions stand. Making the viewer laugh in the first minute, tackling current events…it’s obviously all vital for shows to succeed in general. What seems to be going on right now is different, though. Shows that do these things successfully are still faltering, and one of the only common denominators seems to be whether they follow the mythos-driven format or the self-contained story format. As for blaming specific shows, I guess I might have been a little too pointed (wrote that post on about 2 hours sleep). My point is that the last couple genre shows to reach massive, mainstream success while using the mythos-driven format went out as such spectacular failures (in public opinion) that it really makes you wonder if there’s a connection to the current format shift.

[Oddball]

Hmm … “Monster of the Week”, self contained, episodic with little/no story arc between episode. I call this “Law and Order” television. This type of TV is often by design. It allows, flexibility in writing staff, actors and increases the resale (rewatch) value of the product. Continuity’s job is eased since the resolution at end of episode is complete.

The “Story Arc” television is what I call “West Wing” television. In this genre you have to watch the entire canon or else the story loses context. The pluses are , if done well (WW, BSG) the viewer will hop on for a long and fulfilling ride. If done poorly (Kings, Flash Forward) the product wavers and fails.

I can’t answer you question as to why the emergence of contained episodic product as of late, but I would guess it’s driven by $$. If the mythos is not built correctly from the start, or is altered (loss of actor, writer, director, caterer) in season 2+ the loss of $$ could be frightening. It may be safer to encapsulate the episodes and keep on churning until the shark jump occurs (then churn some more).

As a side note, in the 90’s “X-Files” tried to sit the fence on this. They had their “monster” episodes and their “cancer man, black oil eye, alien baby, abduction” episodes. My GF at the time (wife now) would show up and my apartment to watch, if “monster” episode we’d watch, if it was a “cancer man” episode we’d find other things to entertain ourselves.