Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Why the Model of Network TV is Failing


Earlier today I was thinking about the show Heroes, the NBC superhero drama. The show was hailed as amazing in the first season and subsequently went down the drain over the course of three more years. I was wondering what contributed to the show's downfall and while there is a lot (terrible writers, stingy creator, network's creative influence) one of the big things that contributed to the show's downfall was the model of network television. Though not to the extent of Firefly, Heroes moved time slots a few times and had several randomly placed hiatuses that most definitely hurt the show. This is of course done to help spread out the season of twenty-two episodes over the course of eight months. All it winds up doing though is allowing people to forget their show exists. This leads to bad ratings, which leads to cancellation. 

The bigger issue of the network TV model, is the number of episodes. Twenty-two episodes per season is insane for a serialized drama such as Heroes. You ever wonder why shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, and True Blood (to name a few) are always talked shows? It's because they air on cable channels, whose seasons run a small number episodes (ranging from six to twelve usually) and all air at once. These small amount of episodes allow writers and showrunners to write compelling stories that people continue to talk about long after the season is over. Short cable seasons also allow better control of the story. Because a show only takes place over ten or twelve episodes, the writers can make sure that something major and exciting is happening in every episode.
Breaking Bad is lauded over for it's storytelling quality, no doubt due to the shorter amount of episodes it has to work with.
By comparison writers and showrunners who work on network shows have to somehow stretch their story over twenty-two episodes and accommodate  for these "seasonal" breaks that networks have. This creates filler episodes, or one-offs that have no overall meaning to the show or its characters. Lost fans should be familiar with these episodes (they were usually given to Kate, poor girl). This went on for three seasons before both the writers and ABC realized it wasn't working and made the switch to having smaller seasons. Season four was sixteen episodes, while seasons five and six were seventeen. The show's premiere was also moved to January (February for season six). This allowed the writers to tell the story they wanted without having to shove in useless "story" or interrupt the pace of the story for random hiatuses.

Now this obviously only applies serialized shows. CBS for example has lead the networks in ratings for several years doing everything I think a network shouldn't be doing. Why? Because they're shows are built for it. CBS has had very few serialized shows and they've all failed (like Jericho). Instead CBS' line up includes shows like NCIS, CSI, and How I Met Your Mother. These are all shows that never require you to tune in every week. You can catch an episode whenever you like and realize that almost nothing has changed from the last episode you watched, whenever that was. The trade off here is in quality. While How I Met Your Mother is critically acclaimed, CBS' detective shows are usually paint by numbers in how they work and are thereby predictable and boring.

Slowly but surely networks are starting to see the light. Whether they want to or not they're beginning to realize that shows are better watched all the way through. This is why you see shows that only run during the winter season (September-December) and shows that premiere in the spring and run until May. The only time you'd see a break at this point are major holidays like Thanksgiving (in which case no one is watching TV anyways). My hope is that as time goes on, network execs will realize the power that cable has over them in the case of word of mouth and overall quality and do something about it. I've enjoyed too many shows that fall victim to awful ratings due to too many breaks or quality issues.

Haven't you?

Monday, September 3, 2012

Thoughts on "Asylum of the Daleks"


*SPOILERS ABOUND!*

*******************************************************
I thought about doing a more formal review, but I don't think I have enough to say to constitute a full review. Instead I'm just going to jot down some thoughts I had about the episode. 

Overall I really enjoyed the episode, it was definitely... unique, I think. I liked how Amy and Rory got pulled back into helping the Doctor, though I'm not sure how they wind up back with him the next episode. My hope is that after that episode they decide to stay with him so we don't have to waste time getting them to the TARDIS in later episodes. And while it was nice to see Amy again, I think her and Rory got back together way too quickly. I thought that the failure of their marriage (so to speak) was going to last several episodes, possibly the entire season. Granted it could be that things aren't as fixed as well as we're led to believe, but everything looked fine and dandy by the end of the episode.

The Daleks are an interesting beast. They're one of the Doctor's oldest foes, meaning he's fought them for centuries. Yet after all this time he gets caught rather easily by them. I figured there'd be a more elaborate plot in place for them to snatch the Doctor, but perhaps time constraints got in the way and the writers simply wanted to get to the meat of things. If that's the case then fair enough, I can certainly understand not wanting to waste time. 
The concept of the episode was pretty interesting. The Daleks are scary creatures when they're "normal" but the lost causes or the insane by even Dalek standards are even more interesting. This made the Daleks scary for a change, something I never really saw them as before. I rather enjoyed the scene where the Doctor comes across the worst, or most "mentally damaged" Daleks only to find out that he's the one who made them like this. 

Of course one of the most fascinating aspects of this episode was Oswin Oswald, the Dalek who thought she was human. I'm extremely impressed with Moffat's ability to keep this fun twist a secret because of course Oswin Oswald is none other than the Doctor's next companion. My assumption is that she will join the Doctor before she even boards the Alaska. All the mentions of wanting to see the stars and remembering her, that's the only way I can see it happening. What's nice is she's different from all the other companions (of the 2005 series) in that she's not from our time. She's from the future (I don't really count Jack as a companion), and the Doctor has a reason to bring her aboard the TARDIS. 

I do wonder though why, if the Daleks needed genius, Oswin was in the asylum in the first place? I get not being able to handle the "reality" of being a Dalek, but shouldn't the conversion taken care of that? Other puppets had their memories wiped and stored away. Why was she different? Also what made her so dangerous that she was literally kept in the core of the asylum? Wouldn't the Daleks in the asylum use her as a way to escape? That seems like what they were trying to do, but then why was she locked up? It's weird and confuising. These are questions I wished were answered because I doubt we'll get them as the season continues on. 

That said the emotional implications of Oswin as a Dalek were fascinating. There's this weird disconnect you see when the Doctor realizes the truth about Oswin. He's disgusted at the sight of her. This goes back to something I wish the show would explore more often and it's that the Doctor is not a good person. He's just as insane and potentially evil as the villains he faces. There's a line in beginning of the episode when the Doctor is talking to the Dalek Prime Minister about the beauty of hatred and the PM wonders if that's why they've never been able to kill the Doctor. While they oppose him, he is the embodiment of everything they worship: hatred. How about the fact that all the Daleks in ICU were the ones who fought him in wars? Or when Oswin asks him, "Why do they hate you so much?" 

What a strange and fascinating scene that last one is, no? It's weird to feel almost sympathetic for Oswin (considering what she is). 

Remember me.
What did you guys think about the episode? Maybe YOU have the answers to my questions!