I’ve been thinking just how much successful (or relatively successful) SciFi series resemble soap operas, if not in content, definitively in the fanaticism of their followers. Most people who follow Heroes, BSG, and Lost (to name a few) might not characterize the shows as soap operas, but that’s what they seem to me. I look at Angel, Buffy, any of the Star Trek series (except the first), and I see the same thing; you have are a set of characters who live, love, hate, make war, deal with family and friends, sometimes die, often come back from death in one form or another, and whose stories span multi-years in the telling. That is what differentiates soaps from other television drama program; the open-ended nature of the narrative… am I off the mark here?
I’m not saying this is a bad thing… OK, I am saying it’s a bad thing, but that’s just my own prejudice shining through. I prefer series with very loose narratives and strong self-contained stories. I’ll buy into a two or three show arc exploring characterization, but by en large I prefer to sit, watch, and get up at the end of the hour having reached some sort of closure. I don’t mind the occasional teasing mystery, event, or secondary plot point that makes it interesting to come back the following week, but I hate cliff-hangers, especially before a break of any kind.
“Be sure to stay tuned to see if the main character, the one the show is centered around, makes it through their latest predicament alive!”
“Come back in three weeks to see some semi-important, but not essential, character die because they asked for too much money at contract renewal.”
“Join us next fall to see if the writers have come up with an interesting way to get the hero (heroine) out of the impossible situation they placed him (her) in!”
Perhaps it is not evident to someone immersed in it in real time; perhaps it is only obvious to someone coming to it after the fact; or perhaps it’s just me becoming impatient over the years, and unwilling to sink years into a narrative. It became evident to me when I was semi-retired for a few years, and decided to check out what all the fuss was about with regards to some of the popular series I had missed while I worked. So I added them to my Netflix queue, and my wife and I began exploring the universe of the SciFi Soaps.
First was Buffy… that lasted a very short time as I did not particularly like the lead, did not care for the setting, the stories… basically I did not like it.
Angel was better, but come season three something began to change, and by season four it was in full soap mode. “OMG! OMG! You totally have to watch it because it gets really awesome in seasons five and six!!!” That’s my impression of one of the many Angel fans telling me to hang in there through the crap because it’s not regular crap; it eventually turns into a diamond. Guess what, that was the summer of 2005. The last half of Angel‘s season four is still sitting in my Netflix queue, regularly getting shoved down in favor of fare such as… well, pretty much anything. The same fate befell ST Voyager. Season 8 of SG-1 is sitting in the same queue. I finally removed Babylon 5. I never even added Stargate Atlantis to the queue because they started off in full soap mode. Don’t know about the X-Files as it never raised my interest enough to watch.
OK, I’ll admit my dark secret… I don’t even have a geek card for anyone to pull.
So, what do I like, and why? I like Firefly. “Who doesn’t?” you might ask. I’ll give you that, but here’s what I realized after the initial pain of its cancellation. I like it because it had not yet started to change. The shows were situational, and while the characters were affected by events, the events were still the primary focus of the shows, and the shows are largely self-contained. Characters grew in subtle ways, but they were still within a well defined boundary. Had they gone longer, they might have undergone drastic changes, taking them outside the realm of what made them interesting and engaging in the first place, molding them to fit into contrived dramatic situations, taking them into… the soap zone!
But that was seven (!) years ago. What about now? Well, I’ve already stopped watching Dollhouse and Fringe.
“You fool! Everyone knows Dollhouse does not start to get good until the sixth episode!”
“Idiot! You’re really missing out on Fringe because the heroine (!) started wearing makeup . . . and all you had to do is wait 15 episodes!”
I’ll live, but meanwhile I still watch Chuck and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I watch a number of other shows as well, but they do not fall in the SciFi category, or at least I don’t think so.
Chuck
The Good: interesting premise, one outside what one could even remotely consider plausible, with engaging supporting cast that is mercifully not explored beyond their antics, pretty good action, witty dialog, and situational plots which are a cross between a Man from U.N.C.L.E. and Get Smart.
The Bad: the ongoing angst between Chuck and Sarah made even more unbelievable by his occasional interest in other organisms of the female persuasion who happen to throw a smile his way. The bad thing is that we were hit over the head hard with it early on, and it left nowhere to go. Contrast that to the subtle hints we get from the Captain and Inara, from Kaylee and Simon, from Jayne and River (what? . . . it could happen! Lots of successful relationships are comprised of opposites, and some even start with one person stabbing the other).
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
The Good: the nearly unemotional terminators, the efficiency and economy of their actions, and the slow, very slow, progression they show toward human-like personal issues.
The Bad: every plot centering on some perceived personal problem or angst of the human characters.
Some may see a pattern here. A pattern where I am not particularly interested in stories involving larger-than-life contrived situations where reason-challenged individuals struggle to resolve problems arising primarily from their inability to make a decision, or their inability to accept life and deal with what has been handed them. In other words, soap operas.
But it’s not all negativity I sell; I also have suggestions.
1) Plan on shows having a beginning, middle, and end. I suggest three seasons, tops. Coincidentally this seems to be the sustainable number when considering quality as the primary goal. Have the framework worked out, along with a general sequence of events, and major plot and character milestones. Resist the temptation to drag it out. Resist the temptation to can it after one season.
2) Miniseries. We all like movies because they tell a good story at a reasonable pace, but sometimes they leave us wanting more. The studio’s response is to make sequels that by enlarge tend to suck. I say make a miniseries to begin with (three episodes maximum), and let it be.
Both of those suggestions are geared toward the “be more selective and go for quality rather than quantity” approach to art. We are beginning to see a little of this showing up in web-only projects, and I only hope it takes hold across the board. I say that because as I dig through the sludge of what is today’s TV fare I would be far happier finding a few diamonds than a rich vein of soap.
John from Jersey says
Wow. Couldn’t disagree with you more.
Jeff says
I am sure someone has told you this already, and I probably won’t be the last, but if your criteria is a defined beginning, middle, and end, Babylon 5 is EXACTLY what you’re looking for. It was defined from the beginning as 5 years in length, and the story actually got squeezed down to 4 (so you could stop there and not miss much), then re-expanded to 5 when they didn’t get cancelled. For the most part, each episode is self-contained, as well. Seems odd that you would take that off your list.
ejdalise says
My understanding of Babylon 5 is that of an epic story. The story arc is very defined, and builds through the five seasons.
“I prefer series with very loose narratives and strong self-contained stories.” The statement from the opinion piece above goes counter to the description. Also, there are five season and roughly 22 episodes per season. 110 episodes. Discounting commercials, something like 82 or 83 hours of viewing.
Let me put that into perspective . . . using an estimate of a comfortable reading speed of a minute per page, we are talking the equivalent of a 5,000page book. Let’s say I really crank, maybe we’re talking 2,500 pages.
I would rather read ten 250 page books. Actually, most of my reading has switched to short stories. Understand, that is just my preference. Incredibly, as I got on in years, my leisure time has been carved into smaller and smaller pieces. Combine that with my OCD personality, and if I did get hooked on a show like Babylon 5 I would be looking at having to neglect eating, sleeping, bodily hygiene, family, and my two friends while I power-watched to find out how it ends.
No. It’s the one hour, self contained, preferably mostly action shows I find appealing. Add a few likable (smart, witty, tough, confident) main characters with easy-to-remember names, and I am all set.
Melissa says
My two cents:
I find it rather difficult to stomach shows with the rest-set button. The best example of this would be The Simpson; any plot which occurs during a given episode has absolutely no bearing on any future episodes. There are of course exceptions, but this holds true for just about every sitcom. These are the kinds shows that can be watched once every third episode without the viewer being any wiser. I thrive on character and plot development. These shows have none. Soap Operas on the other hand have infinity circular plots. Every character will inevitably sleep with every other character, or will end up in a coma, or will die and come back only to die again.
I will admit, most American shows are written with no ending in mind, and eventually fall into the trap of circular plots. I applaud those behind the scenes of BSG for choosing to end the series before it fell into the trap. I would prefer if all shows where written in such a manner, but the truth is most American TV viewers are not loyal enough to reschedule their lives around good TV. Also, all TV is made with the bottom line in mind, not the quality of plots or characters, which is the reason for the overwhelming abundance of lackluster TV we all must endure.
Richard Amirault says
Different strokes for different follks ….
I never watched any of Buffy, or Angel, or X-Files, or any version of Stargate. I don’t watch Chuck.
I did watch, and love Babylon 5, and recently purchased the entire show on DVD (at $19.00 per season at BJ’s!) I watched all versions of Star Trek when they aired. I watched FIREFLY when it aired on TV.
I finally gave up on LOST .. in the middle of the 3rd season ending .. I just changed the channel saying “This show is stupid.”
Battlestar Galactica was great. I still watch Heros, Sarrah Connor, Dollhouse (getting *real* good as of late after a really disapointing start), Fringe and maybe more that I can’t think of right now.
Not SF, but appealing to many SF fans was the show PUSHING DAISIES which I discovered in it’s second season (now cancelled) If you want to know more about Pushing Daisies check out my latest show at http://bostonfandom.org
Rif_Luna says
I agree with you. And for the comments already posted, (and future), he is not saying that B5 or the other shows don’t have story arcs and endings, he is only saying that he has become uninterested in them.
There is nothing wrong with that, I can’t say that hasn’t happened to myself before. I also agree with limiting series runs. I especially like the fact that spanish soap operas do exactly that. I know this from family testimony, as I really don’t watch them. We just happen to be speaking of soap operas. But I do have first hand knowledge of some British shows that may or may not have planned endings, but nonetheless did end with conclusion, (Charlie Jade), to name one. I like the fact that they didn’t have a chance to screw up the show with soap opera.
I have actually made the statement before that some of my favorite and beloved sci-fi shows were space soap operas, I am glad it isn’t just me that realizes this. Thanks for the review, looking forward to more!
John says
I’ll have to disagree with this. Shows that are composed of totally self contained episodes with out any sort of seasonal arc reminds me of the shows I watched in the 70s and 80s, continually hitting the reset button for each episode. There’s no progression and eventually you figure out that you’re watching the exact same episode but they just change it up a tiny bit. Those shows tend to loose me fast.
Now there are some shows like CSI and Law and Order that do the episodic thing very nicely. I watch these shows if I feel like watching something without any baggage. They’re fun to watch and I can jump into the show at any episode and at any time during the episode and still figure out the story.
It’s about what you’re looking for: Something simple to follow with out any baggage where you can jump in and out with out fuss or muss or something more complex a little larger in it’s scope and length of story. The larger story requires a little more patience from the audience, but I believe, provides bigger pay offs for those who are interested enough to stick with it.
ejdalise says
@John
Perhaps I should rephrase what I wrote . . . I like series with a background story arc, but where the focus of a given show to be on something that is contained within that show, or at most a couple of shows. There are a number of series that do this reasonably well.
That is, there is a long story arc that frames the characters and their private motivations, but the primary impetus is to do their jobs (whatever it is) independent of their personal concerns. By doing that, the writers don’t have to make the protagonist an idiot who cannot resolve personal issues. On the contrary, the person is shown to me focused, methodical, and !gasp! able to multitask.
The problem I have with long story arcs as the focus of each episode is that invariably they stretch out problems beyond what capable individuals would allow, especially if the issues confronting them are of a personal nature (i.e. Angel and the mother of his child, and all the associated angst of the peripheral characters, Torchwood and the episodes which early on explored the “pressures” of the team members – my answer would have been to replace the people who can’t handle what they are faced with, etc.).
As a consequence, I start to view the protagonists as less-than-capable. Certainly not as capable as Michael Corleone who, although a mobster, understood problems are solved by direct action, and not by talking them to death.
Just my humble opinion.