09-29-2014, 10:30 AM
So, this is not a rant, more like a meditation on the nature of TV, and some ideas I've been pondering for a while:
One thing I strongly believe is that TV series need to let go of this idea that one season of a show = one year of real time in the lives of the characters. I don’t know where this idea came from, or when it became standard practice, but it is now so entrenched that seemingly nobody questions it, anymore. It causes all kinds of problems with continuity, plotting, characterization, everything. It’s extremely limiting in terms of storytelling.
As I mentioned in another post, I don’t need to watch the characters going through all the typical phases or stages of life. I don’t need to watch them *aging.*
If you think about it, the events of one season might equal no more than a few weeks or months in the lives of the characters. What we see on the screen is not *everything* that happens in their lives, it’s just a glimpse. I prefer this “slice of life” approach, rather than this “progressing through the years” approach. Not every story is a bildungsroman or coming-of-age story.
The TBBT cast were quite young-looking in S1. They still are, except possibly Galecki. If TBBT had ended after four or five seasons, and we were given to understand that this only represented a year or two in the lives of the characters, I don’t think anyone would be saying “gosh, these people look so old, this is so unrealistic.”
Yes, human beings age, and their aging becomes visible. Again, that’s why shows shouldn’t last for a decade.
Again, my mantra is that a TV series need not have a traditional “beginning, middle, end” type of structure. We pop into the characters’ lives, and we pop out again. We stop by for a visit, so to speak. We get a peek at what they’re up to, but only a peek. We do not need to watch their entire life’s trajectory from youth to middle-age. That approach is so literal-minded and limiting.
If the characters were made younger, and the show had ended after four or five seasons, there’d be none of this “OMG, these people are 38, put down your toys and grow up.”
There’s a type of viewer who demands to see things *happen*, and I’m not one of them. I’m fine with a “show about nothing.” I’m fine with being a fly on the wall and watching the characters go about their daily routine. I don’t need weddings, babies, or big, dramatic events. IMO that is a rather old-fashioned and unsophisticated style of storytelling. We should think outside the box and explore other formats, other ways of looking at the characters and their lives. Time can speed up or slow down as needed. I just want to watch "a day in the life."
Any show about young people, if it lasts too long, will start running into this issue of “why is nothing happening, when will they grow up, move out, get a job, get married, whatever.” It creates an artificial tension and sense of urgency which are frustrating and dissatisfying to the viewer.
Showmakers and viewers need to be less literal-minded about the passage of time. M*A*S*H lasted longer than the actual war. There is no reason at all for one season of a TV series to equal one year of real time within the show's internal universe.
Yes, it would be a trifle weird if absolutely nothing had changed in the lives of the TBBT characters after 8 years…but IMO, that’s why sitcoms shouldn’t last that long, in the first place. Four seasons is just about perfect. I truly believe that the long-running sitcom is a concept that needs to die. I would like to see the TV industry experimenting with different formats. I would especially like to see more mini-series: say, a show with no more than ten or twelve episodes of one hour each, and then done. The almighty dollar is the reason why shows drag on for eight, ten, twelve years.
There have been some long-running sitcoms that never truly jumped the shark, but they still hit some bumps and snags. I am not a fan of Niles/Daphne becoming an actual thing on Frasier, for example. That should’ve remained ambiguous.
We need new, fresh, flexible types of storytelling. “Once upon a time, some people grew up and lived happily ever after” is old hat. Viewers are becoming more sophisticated and the medium of television is changing. The weddings-and-babies crowd are on the wrong side of history, as the saying goes. They need to go read a Harlequin romance novel or watch the Hallmark channel and let the medium of television be more experimental and risk-taking, less bound by tropes.
ETA: I think it's almost impossible for a comedy to go beyond three or four years and not falter, a little. A show like Law & Order can go on and on because it's plot-driven, it has a very specific formula, it's a *procedural.* There's a new case each week, you can even swap-out the characters, because what matters is the framework. Comedies are more character-driven, so they have nowhere to go but inward. This is what I mean by a show that starts to cannibalize itself.
Exactly, Queen. And I'm not saying this should've been a show for or about teenagers, but they could've closed the age-gap between Penny and the guys. The only reason I'd suggest making the characters younger is to head-off this "you're too old to be flying kites and playing games, grow up and get married!!11!!" crap.
Because apparently, to the Canons, once you're 30 your life is over and you can't have fun any more
I dearly cherish the idea of Howard standing up and being his own man. Going straight from being controlled by his mother to being controlled by B. is not "growth"....
One thing I strongly believe is that TV series need to let go of this idea that one season of a show = one year of real time in the lives of the characters. I don’t know where this idea came from, or when it became standard practice, but it is now so entrenched that seemingly nobody questions it, anymore. It causes all kinds of problems with continuity, plotting, characterization, everything. It’s extremely limiting in terms of storytelling.
As I mentioned in another post, I don’t need to watch the characters going through all the typical phases or stages of life. I don’t need to watch them *aging.*
If you think about it, the events of one season might equal no more than a few weeks or months in the lives of the characters. What we see on the screen is not *everything* that happens in their lives, it’s just a glimpse. I prefer this “slice of life” approach, rather than this “progressing through the years” approach. Not every story is a bildungsroman or coming-of-age story.
The TBBT cast were quite young-looking in S1. They still are, except possibly Galecki. If TBBT had ended after four or five seasons, and we were given to understand that this only represented a year or two in the lives of the characters, I don’t think anyone would be saying “gosh, these people look so old, this is so unrealistic.”
Yes, human beings age, and their aging becomes visible. Again, that’s why shows shouldn’t last for a decade.
Again, my mantra is that a TV series need not have a traditional “beginning, middle, end” type of structure. We pop into the characters’ lives, and we pop out again. We stop by for a visit, so to speak. We get a peek at what they’re up to, but only a peek. We do not need to watch their entire life’s trajectory from youth to middle-age. That approach is so literal-minded and limiting.
If the characters were made younger, and the show had ended after four or five seasons, there’d be none of this “OMG, these people are 38, put down your toys and grow up.”
There’s a type of viewer who demands to see things *happen*, and I’m not one of them. I’m fine with a “show about nothing.” I’m fine with being a fly on the wall and watching the characters go about their daily routine. I don’t need weddings, babies, or big, dramatic events. IMO that is a rather old-fashioned and unsophisticated style of storytelling. We should think outside the box and explore other formats, other ways of looking at the characters and their lives. Time can speed up or slow down as needed. I just want to watch "a day in the life."
Any show about young people, if it lasts too long, will start running into this issue of “why is nothing happening, when will they grow up, move out, get a job, get married, whatever.” It creates an artificial tension and sense of urgency which are frustrating and dissatisfying to the viewer.
Showmakers and viewers need to be less literal-minded about the passage of time. M*A*S*H lasted longer than the actual war. There is no reason at all for one season of a TV series to equal one year of real time within the show's internal universe.
Yes, it would be a trifle weird if absolutely nothing had changed in the lives of the TBBT characters after 8 years…but IMO, that’s why sitcoms shouldn’t last that long, in the first place. Four seasons is just about perfect. I truly believe that the long-running sitcom is a concept that needs to die. I would like to see the TV industry experimenting with different formats. I would especially like to see more mini-series: say, a show with no more than ten or twelve episodes of one hour each, and then done. The almighty dollar is the reason why shows drag on for eight, ten, twelve years.
There have been some long-running sitcoms that never truly jumped the shark, but they still hit some bumps and snags. I am not a fan of Niles/Daphne becoming an actual thing on Frasier, for example. That should’ve remained ambiguous.
We need new, fresh, flexible types of storytelling. “Once upon a time, some people grew up and lived happily ever after” is old hat. Viewers are becoming more sophisticated and the medium of television is changing. The weddings-and-babies crowd are on the wrong side of history, as the saying goes. They need to go read a Harlequin romance novel or watch the Hallmark channel and let the medium of television be more experimental and risk-taking, less bound by tropes.
ETA: I think it's almost impossible for a comedy to go beyond three or four years and not falter, a little. A show like Law & Order can go on and on because it's plot-driven, it has a very specific formula, it's a *procedural.* There's a new case each week, you can even swap-out the characters, because what matters is the framework. Comedies are more character-driven, so they have nowhere to go but inward. This is what I mean by a show that starts to cannibalize itself.
Quote:It never occurred to me that any of the characters need to settle down. I figured long-term relationships, marriage and babies were not on the ingredient list for this show
Exactly, Queen. And I'm not saying this should've been a show for or about teenagers, but they could've closed the age-gap between Penny and the guys. The only reason I'd suggest making the characters younger is to head-off this "you're too old to be flying kites and playing games, grow up and get married!!11!!" crap.
Because apparently, to the Canons, once you're 30 your life is over and you can't have fun any more
I dearly cherish the idea of Howard standing up and being his own man. Going straight from being controlled by his mother to being controlled by B. is not "growth"....