posted
I recently discovered an older (1999-2002) TV series that I fell in love with and watched in its entirety in under a month. (In a way, I like old TV shows better because you don't have to wait for next week.) Many of you have probably seen it since it's Scifi and would probably appeal to the crowd here..."Roswell" is the name. It's three seasons long, is about aliens from the 1947 crash living and attending high school in Roswell (it has teen appeal), and it's very romantic.
Anyway, I watched and enjoyed the show. It came to a conclusion at the end of season 3, which was nice. (Although there was definite spin-off potential.) But I couldn't help but notice that there was obvious missed potential throughout the show....threats that were dealt with a little too easily and could have become much more, etc.
So I watched the commentary. Turns out, the writers and directors were quite aware of the things I saw but that they were in constant fear of being cancelled and were writing a few episodes ahead at a time. Also, the TV station, the WB in this case (the same people who screwed up "Smaillville" beyond repair) tried (with varying success) to dictate how the show would go.
So I guess I'm a little sad about this. "Roswell" is not unique in its problems by any stretch of the imagination, but it's one I was interested in enough to actually watch DVD commentary on and I found myself mourning the loss of what the show could have been had the writers really been able to carry out their vision.
Another show that had studio problems rather than writing problems was Babylon 5 -- and in this case, the creator really did have a five season arc in mind. They even got their freedom in season 2 but fear of being cancelled after season 4 screwed up season 5 to the point that I don't rewatch that one.
The WB seems to be one of the worst. I understand that they were responsible for many of the decisions that ruined Smallville for me. (I still remember seasons 1-3 fondly.)
Anyway, this is mostly just a rant. Feel free to join in, if you've got other examples.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The new Night Stalker had real potential, but started slow. If the pilot had been as well-written as some of the later episodes, it could have been great.
A friend of mine and I exchange recommendations of canceled shows regularly since Firefly got the ax (I didn't have television back when it was on).
She'd say, "Watch Firefly" and I'd say, "Try Farscape." Most of these end in painful places because of dropped funding. I recently watched a fabulous but very old show called "Profit" that was critically lauded and canceled in the same breath, and my friend said I should watch "Action!" which follows a very funny but foul movie producer.
I think the problem is that most people don't want TV that is intelligent and surprising. (I will now destroy my credibility by quoting Futurama)
Fry: "That's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."
Squandered potential in ongoing series... I would have to say that Lost missed some great opportunities along the way. I think that one and Prison Break shared the problem of not knowing where they were going when they started. Dead Zone is crippled by having a team of writers assigned episodes in a planned arc, when some of them don't really seem to be very good, while others do much better. I'm actually glad they give people who suck a chance to improve. Supernatural is in some ways the opposite of the X files for me-- the over-arching storyline about the Winchester family and the yellow-eyed demon is compelling, but the one-off episodes can be really mixed.
This is why I've been into British TV lately. They know when to quit, and with most series lasting eight to twelve episodes a year, they don't spread the talent to thin.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I recently discovered an older (1999-2002) TV series that I fell in love with and watched in its entirety in under a month. (In a way, I like old TV shows better because you don't have to wait for next week.) Many of you have probably seen it since it's Scifi and would probably appeal to the crowd here..."Roswell" is the name.
I loved Roswell. I never saw it when it was on, but I did the same thing you did. To this day, I snarl whenever I see Claire on Lost, because I think of her more as Tess. And I don't know if you watch Numb3rs, but Diane Farr (Amy in Roswell) is phenomenal on that show.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Another show that had studio problems rather than writing problems was Babylon 5 -- and in this case, the creator really did have a five season arc in mind. They even got their freedom in season 2 but fear of being cancelled after season 4 screwed up season 5 to the point that I don't rewatch that one.
It was a legitimate fear. They were cancelled after the 4th season. And then it was picked up by another network. But I agree about Season 5. There were actually some really cool things during that season (Lyta Alexander is one of my favorite characters), but it was Claudia Christian leaving the show, and not the network thing, that really ruined the last season for me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been saying for years now that American TV should follow the British model (as Olivet mentions above).
Or at the very least do a modified version of it.
All story pitches that get greenlit for a pilot should, in addition to the pilot, have an outline (mainly key story arcs) for 20, 40 and 60 episodes. If they are seen as something that really has the potential to go big, then it should be a 1 season, 3 season and 5 season story arc, including any resets they thing they might need.
But the normal planned cycle for a show (at least for hour-long shows; 30 minute sitcoms should have a separate plan*) should be 20-40 episodes. And that's it. Especially in an era of DVDs and Tivo and downloads, it seems to me that doing shows in complete story blocks makes a lot more sense. There are quite a few shows that I refuse to commit to because I don't know if they'll be around or not and I have lukewarm feelings about them (something like Lost or even Prison Break -- I'm always going to get suckered into the quirky shows like Wonderfalls, Freaks and Geeks, Firefly, Andy Barker PI, etc.).
If after a successful run, the producers and writers feel they have enough for another run, then they should be given the chance to do it (assuming the show was a success).
What the networks would then do is create a stable of writers, producers, directors and actors and really market them and repackage them into new product that fits the landscape. That already sort of happens on an ad hoc basis, but they'd be a bit more organized about it -- and market it.
*Which would be 12-28 fully written episodes (rewrites can happen, but they need to prove they have material) and shows only get renewed if they can prove they can bring the funny for another 14 or so episodes.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I can't recall watching a show on Fox in years and years.
Lisa -- I watched Lost before I watched Roswell so I don't have a problem with Claire. I can see how you might if you'd seen it the other way around. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I think the problem is that most people don't want TV that is intelligent and surprising. (I will now destroy my credibility by quoting Futurama)
Fry: "That's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."
Futurama's brilliant -- that only helps your credibility.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the major problem with most American shows is that they're not written then made, like you would with a novel or a movie. They are constantly a work in progress.
This means that producers, the money etc., feel the need to get involved. It's not a story, it's their own private money-making system. They don't like the way the story is going, they tell the writers/directors to change it. No other medium has a death threat hung over the heads of the creative team in quite the same way. Those in charge possibly think that keeping the makers of the show on their toes makes the show better- instead, it just makes it more scattered.
Sidney Lumet said he can tell when his movie is going to be good because it feels like "everyone is making the same movie." I'd venture to say that it's the same with tv. If the producers are constantly changing the situation, no one can really get together because they're all thinking about their next job, how to keep their job and their creativeness intact.
If the ratings are poor on the pilot, that's it. Shows have to pull in numbers immediately, or that's it. The actual quality of the show is irrelevant.
Is is REALLY bad for quality, because it means that a writer like Joss Whedon, who puts a lot in to a show like Firefly only to have it cancelled, is getting screwed creatively- of course, this happens everywhere but I think with a novel or a movie, there's always another person you can go to. Once a tv show is made and cancelled, that's kind of it.
Luckily, J.W. has other outlets. It's like you come up with something really great only to have some idiot telling you it's going to be scrapped. Next time around, are you really going to invest yourself or your time so much? The way the industry works encourages people to spew out ideas and hope for the best.
It's also very disheartening to a viewer. I'm not going to watch a show if I know that two episodes in it's going to be cancelled. I means that people don't invest as consumers either, until they know there's at least a season to go on.
Sooner or later, no one's making anything worth watching because nobody's watching because anything worth watching is subject to some boardroom in the sky.
I think British tv works because they order 12 or 13 episodes at once. They say: "We're going to make these episodes and they are going to have an arc and then we'll see what happens." This gives the writers and directors a definite arc to work within. It gives everyone a sense of creative freedom within the time they are allotted for writing and shooting.
This also means that instead of pulling 30 shows out every season, British tv only picks, say, 5 major shows. Resources and time and publicity are more focused.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The weird thing is that although I completely agree with Teshi, in some ways TV is better than ever.
SF Chronicle TV critic Tim Goodman has a good column on why this is the case. And it's sort of a running thing in his work.
The issue, for me, though is that I tend to like the quirky non-cable [because I'm a prude] comedy-drama shows (sometimes with sci-fi elements). And they tend to get screwed more than the straight up dramas or the crime shows.
But here's a case in point about the BBC vs. American TV. Martin Freeman played Tim on the Office. Huge hit. Obviously a gifted comic actor. So they come up with a concept for another sitcom for him called The Robinsons and do six episodes. It's quirky and hilarious. They could maybe have done 12 episodes, but it's not really the type of thing you'd want to drag on and on and syndicate [which is what American sitcoms are all about because the money is in syndication].
Now it's understandable why something like The Robinsons would never happen in the American market -- just look at the Nielsen ratings.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that one and Prison Break shared the problem of not knowing where they were going when they started.
I think Prison Break should have been one season only. The second season was definitely lacking something and I don't think I'm going to watch the third season at all.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the special features on the Prison Break season 1 DVD, they said that they plotted out five seasons before the show began. The fact that they've got it all planned doesn't mean it'll be good, though. The second season definitely felt different, and not always in a good way. It was much more hit and miss.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not watching new shows anymore. Not until after the first season is over. I'm not going to start watching a show and like it, only to have the studio yank the show after three episodes becasue it wasn't an instant smash hit. I've said this in other threads before, but I'm sick of studios expecting tv watchers to be super loyal to their shows, but those same studios not giving the fans themselves ANY sort of regard. We get these super long hiatuses, and then when ratings drop shows get hurt. We get shows that cancelled that never even had time to materialize, so who knows how they could have gone?
I'm sick of the way TV studios do business, so I'll keep watching the shows I already love, because they are great and I don't want to miss them, but for new shows, I'll wait until the first season is over, and then I'll check it out, maybe I'll even wait to see if the second season is greenlit before I watch it.
More and more, I think that TV shows should skip networks entirely and just go right to the internet. They could form their own sites and sell episodes, or people could get a subscription for the whole season so they can watch the episodes as they come out, and then they can get the DVD set at the end of the season for a discount (so they aren't paying for it twice necessarily). Show makers should bypass the big networks, they are ruining good storytelling! And I'm sick of it. I'm already annoyed that when I get basic cable I have to pay for like 80 channels when I only watch 10 of them at most. The whole system just sucks.
I won't boycott, but I'm done being excited about new things on television. I've been burned too many times.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not unless I had waaaay more energy for looking stuff up. I knew someone on that show looked familiar from somewhere but I didn't know who and was just too lazy to look up the show and then look at every actor. Although since she is a fairly main actor on the show I suppose it wouldn't have taken that long. But I didn't know that at the time. And I probably would have done everyone but her first because I really didn't think it was her.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Futurama's brilliant -- that only helps your credibility.
It helps my geek/smart people cred, but hurts me with the implication that I only watch shows with spaceships or some sort of monster in them.
*thinks* You could make a case for that. If you extend that to include some element of the fantastic, even more so.
People should really, REALLY get your hands on Life on Mars. I think they knew it would be picked up for another season by the end of the first one, but pretty much closed out the story at the end of the second series. Such was my love for the characters that I would have kept watching them even with the overall story arc resolved, but it seems fitting that I won't have to.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Sorta kinda. I was looking at the front page there, though, and while it showed Dead Like Me, there was nothing about any of the other shows we've mentioned.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Not unless I had waaaay more energy for looking stuff up. I knew someone on that show looked familiar from somewhere but I didn't know who and was just too lazy to look up the show and then look at every actor. Although since she is a fairly main actor on the show I suppose it wouldn't have taken that long. But I didn't know that at the time. And I probably would have done everyone but her first because I really didn't think it was her.
I IMdb'd her the moment I saw her. It took me a while to get used to her with long hair, and even longer to get used to her tough-a$$ attitude. She's one of my favorite characters on that show. Then again, most of the characters on that show are among my favorite characters on that show.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Not unless I had waaaay more energy for looking stuff up. I knew someone on that show looked familiar from somewhere but I didn't know who and was just too lazy to look up the show and then look at every actor.
I don't understand this at all. I have been known to hop out of bed (while watching a DVD that is supposedly helping me fall asleep) to figure out who the heck the actor is on a particular episode or movie. (Last night it really wasBeverly Mitchell on Quantum Leap.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: More and more, I think that TV shows should skip networks entirely and just go right to the internet. They could form their own sites and sell episodes, or people could get a subscription for the whole season so they can watch the episodes as they come out, and then they can get the DVD set at the end of the season for a discount (so they aren't paying for it twice necessarily). Show makers should bypass the big networks, they are ruining good storytelling! And I'm sick of it. I'm already annoyed that when I get basic cable I have to pay for like 80 channels when I only watch 10 of them at most. The whole system just sucks.
posted
Oh! I actually knew about that one. I've been reading about it on Tapping's blog, and bits and pieces on Gateworld here and there, but I never bothered to check it out.
I'll have to take a look at it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: Futurama used to be brilliant, but now it's just the same plots, jokes, etc., over and over.
Umm... I think you're confusing Futurama with Family Guy. Futurama has been canceled for several years now (although they're working on several new TV movies), and was getting better and better right up to the end. Family Guy has approximately five jokes, which they use over and over, in every single episode.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Not unless I had waaaay more energy for looking stuff up. I knew someone on that show looked familiar from somewhere but I didn't know who and was just too lazy to look up the show and then look at every actor.
I don't understand this at all. I have been known to hop out of bed (while watching a DVD that is supposedly helping me fall asleep) to figure out who the heck the actor is on a particular episode or movie. (Last night it really wasBeverly Mitchell on Quantum Leap.)
Heh. Ericka does this all the time.
Except that she has her laptop right there with her, just tappin' away while she watches. And then she'll pause it right in the middle of the frickin' climax so she can discuss with me some discontinuity she noticed two scenes ago...
posted
Yeah, I never go to the computer right after watching. Computer time is precious in our house-- we have 4 people who all want to "use" the "puter".
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh! I actually knew about that one. I've been reading about it on Tapping's blog, and bits and pieces on Gateworld here and there, but I never bothered to check it out.
I'll have to take a look at it.
Let me know how it is. I can't get video up here. Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: [QB] Another show that had studio problems rather than writing problems was Babylon 5 -- and in this case, the creator really did have a five season arc in mind. They even got their freedom in season 2 but fear of being cancelled after season 4 screwed up season 5 to the point that I don't rewatch that one.
I did avoid this season before and only caught "sleeping in light." I'll agree that the first half of the season is totally meh, what with the lame Byron thread and all. It's VERY anticlimatic. But the rest of the season--once the raids begin and Londo is faced with the consequences of his choices--is solid gold.
And at least TNT didn't do to B5 what they did to Crusade. Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: Futurama used to be brilliant, but now it's just the same plots, jokes, etc., over and over.
Umm... I think you're confusing Futurama with Family Guy. Futurama has been canceled for several years now (although they're working on several new TV movies), and was getting better and better right up to the end. Family Guy has approximately five jokes, which they use over and over, in every single episode.
I think Dobbie was referring to the fact that it's just reruns now.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: [QUOTE]And at least TNT didn't do to B5 what they did to Crusade.
Somehow, I managed not to see Crusade and have just (as in the first disc of the show is on its way from Netflix now) decided to watch it. I understand TNT wanted "Buck Rogers in Space" or something so I'm not going into it with my expectations high, but I figure I ought to watch it anyway.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: [QUOTE]And at least TNT didn't do to B5 what they did to Crusade.
Somehow, I managed not to see Crusade and have just (as in the first disc of the show is on its way from Netflix now) decided to watch it. I understand TNT wanted "Buck Rogers in Space" or something so I'm not going into it with my expectations high, but I figure I ought to watch it anyway.
Mr. P--it's quite possible that one of the reasons Crusade sucked was because of network interference with the material (like demanding that references to the events of B5 aren't made)
But it may still be an awful show on its own right--I haven't seen it myself. And it turns out that the specific reason it got cancelled was while B5 was running, TNT did a survey which showed that B5's audience was only coming to TNT for B5, and that the regular TNT audience left when B5 came on. Conceivably B5 could've easily been the victim here. The entire show was a huge fluke in terms of what it got away with.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: \But it may still be an awful show on its own right--I haven't seen it myself. And it turns out that the specific reason it got cancelled was while B5 was running, TNT did a survey which showed that B5's audience was only coming to TNT for B5, and that the regular TNT audience left when B5 came on. Conceivably B5 could've easily been the victim here. The entire show was a huge fluke in terms of what it got away with.
Assuming that's correct, it's actually one of the most legitimate reasons for canceling a show that I've heard -- watching out for your main customer base. It's still too bad that stations don't buy shows a season at a time and let the writers make the show.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine: my wife borrowed season 1 of Roswell from my sister. Within a week I was forced at metaphorical gun point to purchase seasons two and three on Amazon.
The show just did not appeal to me, though I watched all of season one with my little sister as I had nothing better to do over the holidays two years ago.
Though to this day its an endless source of laughs for me and my wife to find a conversation where we can interject the phrase, "You saw my fantasy?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though to this day its an endless source of laughs for me and my wife to find a conversation where we can interject the phrase, "You saw my fantasy?"
LOL
Yeah, it's got a lot of feminine appeal. My husband did enjoy it, but not nearly as much as I did. In fact, I think he might have liked it better had I not forced him to watch seasons 2 and 3 back to back with no interruption.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: Honestly sometimes I should place a gag over my own mouth for some shows my wife enjoys, I ruin them with criticisms of inconsistancies and bad acting. I can still infuriate Mrs BlackBlade by asking her whenever she is watching Smallville if the shocking development of the episode is the introduction of a new color of kryptonite.
Christine: See my wife tried to force me to watch seasons 2 and 3 with her and referenced the fact that I had strongly urged her to watch the first episodes of both Lost and Heroes with me.
My counter was, "But you LIKED those shows, and you watch them now independant of my involvment, I have already seen all of season one of Roswell, if I was going to like it, I would like it by now."
Obviously if seasons 2 and 3 had suddenly vamped up the quality I suppose that's not a valid argument but she never made that point.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
