Personally, true episodic stuff doesn't really work for me outside of like, a comfort show. It's why I find it hard to go back to some of those older cartoons I used to like, unless I'm just looking for something fun and nostalgic. I really need there to be some kind of progression of narrative to keep me invested. But I do recognize the drawbacks of true serialization as well. Especially with something like Game of Thrones or Lost. Which is why I like stuff like Doctor Who do much, because it is that hybrid between episodic and serialization. Series/season arcs, especially series arcs that build off each other, are my absolute faves. That's why I love Buffy so much. Each season had its own somewhat-contained narrative, and each new season drew off of things from previous seasons, but almost always had some kind of ending. Most of the TV shows I watch are like this: Legends of Tomorrow, How to Get Away With Murder, the 100, even Supernatural when I was into that, there were usually lingering plot threads, but the overall conflict of the season gets wrapped up. And then you have things like Steven Universe, which are episodic more often than not, with some of the mostly self contained stories building lore or following plot threads, with big event episodes that continue furthering the narrative. I love shows like that because it keeps me hooked and invested, but a lot of the episodes stand out on their own. I can watch an episode or two that I remember liking without needing to be involved in the full story. That's not something you can really do with true serialized stories, you sorta need to just start at the beginning, and end at the finale.
And for stuff like Star Trek, I think the good episodic ideas have been done. I kind of think that was the problem with the later ST shows before the reboot. VOY had some really interesting ideas, but they could only explore them for two episodes at most, then everything had to be reset. ENT often felt let they were trying to milk the last drops out of episode ideas that were already handled better in the earlier shows
This discussion has made me realise why I love limited series' so much. When done well, they reduce the risks associated with serialisation while reaping the benefits.
I like episodic series, because you can just watch an episode from anywhere in the series run and enjoy it. I like serialized series for their well written fleshed out stories that come to an awesome conclusion. I’ve been rewarding DS9 this year and it’s great. I’ve also been watching favourite episodes from TNG. The two series are very different, but both fantastic.
How ironic. I've been rewatching TNG and DS9 too. (Unfortunately not a Voyager fan). DS9 is my favourite but i'm enjoying Prodigy and looking forward to Strange New Worlds. Back to episodic with that one.
Episodic series is the reason Voyager stuck with me and DS9 not. It was in the days each Saterday at 7 and often around that time dinner was served (=no tv) And with no videorecorder and VHS tapes unaffordable at that time you just missed out. With the arc story teling of DS9 it always got me frustrated because I couldn't keep up. Now I watch often a whole season in a weekend.. aah how the times have changed :D
I love the episodic nature of Voyager and TNG and meeting new aliens cos I love wondering what's out there and look forward to seeing all the different species... I get a bit bored with serialised sci fi when they are just dealing with the same aliens in a long conflict... it often then becomes a story about a conflict that could really just be set anywhere
I’m going to propose some terms: Light serialization: the big story is happening in the background for most of the episodes. Over-arching plot is a smattering of details and plot points dropped throughout the season. ie: Buffy DS9 Free-flow (Medium?) Serialization: Episodes pick up from the last, but each episode is it’s own story. Overarching plot is a zigzagging flowchart of sequential events that eventually get wrapped up. ie: 24, Lost, Breaking Bad Hard serialization: Every episode is one piece of a larger picture, are not much of a story within themselves. Overarching plot is the plots of all the episodes combined into one long narrative. ie: Stranger Things, Discovery, House of Cards.
@Tom Meehan Yeah, I like shows in all 3, but Hard Serials are more difficult to get right and I’ll more often watch them to the end out of stubborn curiosity than out of pure enjoyment.
I in general personally prefer serialised shows because I get to see a long-term story unveil with character arcs that I'm invested in. While episodic shows, I watch them just to relax and I don't care much for them. While Doctor Who blured the line between the two that I honestly don't think it fits neatly into those one of those two boxes.
@@scpatl4now Doctor Who is a quirky show that has no rules and does whatever it wants which includes not being canonically consistent with itself (not even including the expanded media). Bluring the line one day, episodic the next and serialised the next. You don't know what you're getting each week. It's what makes Doctor Who, Doctor Who.
Doctor Who’s always blurred the line. The Classic Series was somehow both serialised and episodic, as stories rarely connected beyond their main characters and the Magic Box and possibly an arc between them that’s rarely mentioned, but every story was multiple episodes long.
Ugh yes, this! All art is subjective, and there is no "superior" way to tell a story. Every method has its strengths and weaknesses-- what matters is understanding the story you're trying to tell and what method will best suit it. The execution of telling those stories is a separate thing and doesn't negate one way of storytelling as being "weaker" or more "inferior" to another. This is not some good/bad binary, for crying out loud.
I feel like seasonal serialisation is a good balance. Most streaming series seem to be going that way, like "Stranger Things", and the new MCU shows. Tell a complete, season-long, story, and make sure to wrap things up well enough that, if further seasons are bad, the audience can still enjoy the good seasons as stand-alone stories. It's how I feel about Westworld. The first season is some of the best television I've ever watched, but I can take or leave the second and third seasons, without feeling like it damages what I liked about the first season.
I agree. Give me something like Torchwood: Children of Earth, Broadchurch Series 1, Daredevil Season 1/3, Jessica Jones Season 1, Watchmen, Westworld Series 1, or Chernnobyl where the writers have come up with this really brilliant stand alone stories that are accessible to both newcomers and those already familiar with the source material, that will always retain their quality no matter what happens next.
Great point! West World Season One is a good example of a season done well. The subsequent seasons are meh, but it doesn't invalidate the well constructed season one.
Yeah. Because a showrunner can't tell how long a series is going to run. They can only see that they have a season to work with. So they can't fashion a three or five-season arc going in. They'll either wind up with nothing to do for 2 additional seasons or have to cram two seasons into four episodes when it's canceled early. Another option is what Dr. Who used to do: mini-arcs. Write arcs for two to four episodes and end it.
Thank you! When I told my friends I didn’t like Force Awakens when it first came out, the response was ‘Well, it just hasn’t been finished yet, you have to wait to see where it’s going.’ Like… no. If an experience is bad, it is bad, regardless of whether it is incomplete
No matter what, I like continuity, specifically character-based continuity. I hate stagnated characters, or seeing something really interesting and character-defining get undone just because it’s the format of the show. Rigorous adhesion to the status quo is one of my biggest storytelling gripes, as I believe reinvention is vital to keeping things fresh. But I’m also all for more restrained episodes that don’t tie into the overarching plot in a huge way. Basically, I definitely prefer serialized storytelling, but the most important part of that is for the characters to change and grow even if the rest of the things around them don’t.
It really depends on the execution. I find the main problem is that these failed attempts at serialization stems from writers and creators (or maybe the networks) wanting to be "the next X." Whether that would be "the next Game of Thrones, the next Lost, the next Gravity Falls, the next Avatar" etc. It's wanting prestige just for the sake of it, yet they may not even have a set game plan before it airs. And since shows may or may not be allowed to continue after a few seasons, they ought to have a Plan A and Plan B depending on how many seasons they get story-wise. As for episodic, each episode clearly has its own identity, whether it be via a villain or specific plotline.
There's a logic and advantage to haveing a semi episodic format , string up few episodes in to a story. use the story to decide where your going with the main plot.
In my experience, I've found that if a fun, episodic show thrills me, I love to keep going back to a certain episode or two because I know, "this was the x episode, and that was the y episode." But if I've seen a serialized show where it only sells itself based on its twist in a given episode, then once I find out what that twist is, then I've no reason to go back to it because that source of tension is forever diffused.
I vary. Like, I do enjoy a show that you can just jump in anywhere, but I also want characters to grow, and actually learn lessons and be changed by the things they learn. I think Duck Tales (2017) hit a pretty good mix of this for what they were doing, but a lot of shows don't. Comparatively, serialized stories require a lot of dedication and time and energy on my part, so I often end up putting them off and putting them off because I just don't have time to dedicate myself to a longer story. I also like to wait until a couple of seasons are out of certain shows because I've been burned so many times by something sounding like it had a good premise, being ok in season 1, then completely tanking later on and leaving me feel like I wasted part of my finite life on something pointless. The shorter seasons of some shows has been helpful in this regard, but even then I just don't have the energy for it a lot of the time.
I prefer the mix of episodic with a story in the background for the final, like Buffy, Supernatural ect. I really miss the first season of Dr Who, where they’re just exploring new places. I‘m really annoyed by the disregarding of so called filler episodes, only because they don’t continue the main story. Sometimes these episodes can show us a lot of the main characters.
I will never forgive the cancellation of Star Gate Universe, which is great example of the risk of a serialized show not being allowed to conclude as the writers planned.
@@scpatl4now indeed. I’m in the middle of a rewatch of that series just now. I do enjoy its serialised nature, but I know it will devastate at its final few episodes because of the lack of payoff.
Fun fact: in Australia, serialised tv is actually closer to the norm when it comes to children’s shows. Even if a show makes more than one season, it’s a bit unusual for them to keep the cast (Round The Twist was notorious for this: the characters were a cast equivalent to the Ship Of Theseus, despite the characters not changing). Some of the shows even get a bit more creative and only have a premise survive between seasons (Mirror Mirror had a time portal between two years, Spellbinder had travel between two or three worlds). It helps that these shows are usually filmed in a big block, preferably before all the kids can age. Spellbinder also filmed in Australia (for the scenes set in our world), Poland (Spellbinder World) and China (Land of the Dragon Lord).
Soaps in the UK are a hybrid of serialised and episodic. Its crazy how each episode is essentially a never ending serialisation but the format acts episodic so a newcomer can start watching and pick things up very quickly
I really like miniseries. You’ve got the longer run time of a season for breathing room to tell a good story, but you also have to wrap it up with a satisfying ending instead of dragging out season after season (cough*NCIS*cough). The way people watch tv now, binging on steaming when they want to, I think the streaming format really lends to that form of miniseries.
I much prefer serialized shows way more thean episodic, as I love seeing the character development. The only shows that I prefer episodic are Hey Arnold and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
A lot of modern serialised shows seem to suffer from the same problem which is not enough story to fill the running time, Netflix shows especially. They end up padding out the episodes until the last five minutes and then there’s a cliffhanger in order to get you to come back for the next one. I’ve quit many shows in the past few years because they’ve dragged the story out to the point of boredom
All other things being equal, I tend to get the most satisfaction out of a show that alternates between stand-alone episodes and episodes that are part of a larger arc. That's not to say I can't enjoy shows that are one extreme or the other or ones that sort of blur the line (see Nick Alexander's highly accurate description of Steven Universe's structure below), and there are even specific very episodic or very serialized shows I've enjoyed more than specific ones that alternate, but alternating like that is my favorite *structure* personally. That's also not to say it affects my enjoyment much if a show that alternates in the way I described sometimes has the a mostly one-off episode briefly reference the arc or an episode in either category reference a prior stand-alone episode ("Gravity Falls" did that from time-to-time).
A really interesting example is the two Dirk Gently adaptations. The UK version that aired on BBC4 about 10 years ago was an episodic mini-series, starring Stephen Mangan as Dirk; a very low budget series but you got a fair bit of variety; you would get one episode about conspiracy theories and horoscopes, and then another about love and AI, however there wasn't much in the way of character development; the main focus was comedy, which the series executed well for the most part since that's a huge strength of Mangan as an actor. The US version that came a few years later with Samuel Barnett as Dirk had a much bigger budget and was heavily serialised, with each season being centred around a different case with heavy sci-fi/fantasy elements; it's got loads of developed central characters, and although it's a really ambitious adaptation that goes in a completely different direction (Focusing on drama and big character arcs, and a bit less on humour) it does sometimes fall down under the weight of that ambition, but you do at least care about the characters even if not all their arcs really land properly. Also the showrunner of the US Dirk Gently series turned out to be a sexual predator and that ended up being part of the reason why the show got cancelled, which is likely a much bigger issue. (And makes it even more unsatisfying that the show ends on a cliffhanger for a few characters) The US show has a really loyal and dedicated fanbase, whereas I think the fanbase for the Stephen Mangan show has over the years kind of become merged with that of Douglas Adams' original novels, because the series only ever came out in the UK. It's tough to compare because neither series is really seen as the "definitive" adaptation; there is an animated Dirk Gently series currently in the works though, so we'll have to see how that one turns out.
Interesting. I was a big fan of the US version. I didn't know about the showrunner though, I just assumed it got canceled because it was to quirky for a large audience (as often happens with shows I like).....also because even for me the second season was noticeably weaker than the second. Still loved it though. Barnett and Elijah Wood were both great.
@@palisade32 Well, it aired on BBC America in the States and only once all the episodes had aired it'd be released on Netflix in Europe/Asia all at once a few weeks later; it was always going to be unlikely that the show would become a huge hit because it was never advertised particularly strongly, and it's a Douglas Adams adaptation that's not Hitchhiker's Guide, so there wasn't going to be much of a built-in audience in the US that would seek it out. (Although with that said, the fact that it's so different to the books probably made the appeal to a new audience a lot more successful) And I agree that Season 2 of the US series is really patchy: Ken and Friedkin's character arcs are just super abrupt and their motivations don't make a whole lot of sense. Sam and Elijah gave really strong performances but for me Fiona Dourif absolutely killed it as Bart; the way Max Landis treated her behind the scenes was absolutely horrific though, and kind of makes me glad that it ended up being cancelled if that was the only way to get rid of him from the show. From what I've been told, the animated series is basically being made by the producers and Stoopid Buddy Stoodios (Who made Robot Chicken, among other things) and they are trying to do a a kind of "Into the Spiderverse/No Way Home" multiverse kind of thing with an animated Dirk (Who it sounds like Sam Barnett will be coming back to voice? Not sure about that) interacting with characters from previous Dirk Gently adaptations, like the US show or the original novels. However, things have been quiet for a while on that; we got some concept art at the end of last year but they've really been delayed by the pandemic. So unfortunately we've only got piecemeal details for a series that may/may not end up happening; fingers crossed though.
In my Oppinion, a good Hybrid is the best option. Like Gravity Falls for example, in that Case the first Series was more episodic, while the second leaned more heavily into serialisation. That doesn't make the second season better than the first one though, at least not in my eyes (that finale was a blast though, I must admit). Both Forms of Entertainment have their merits and flaws. An example for Serialisation done well would be for example the man in the High Castle or Good Omens. I absolutely loved those shows and would rewatch them any chance I get. I wouldn't exactly describe the finales as breathtaking, but as long as it's not terrible, a finale won't ruin a show, at least not for me. A good example for a great episodic show is Futurama. That managed to have an incapsolating viewing experience, without relying on a episodic structure in the slightest (and even the Simpsons, whatever you may think of them, manage drama and story very well, without any overarching narrative). Just one last example, which is a very interesting Hybrid: Merlin. The first 2-3 Series where definitely more episodic, rather similar to Doctor Who in ways of narrative structure, actually. There was a villain or Magical Being of the Weak, the threat got disposed of or otherwise dealt with, and we where more or less back to status quo. But, starting in Series 3, and certainly the last two Series (4-5), relied much more heavily on the overarching narrative, as they grew to realise what a stretch they had to go if they wanted to retell the Arthurian Legend to the bitter end. And they managed the transition quite well without losing the audiences attention, keeping most of their viewers who had originally fallen in love with an episodic show glued to the screens right until that crushing finale. Most Fans, including me, loved that final series just as much as the first few, if not more, and towards, the end they hardly had anything episodic what soever. And yet, in the beginning, it received almost exactly as much praise, even though the formula was very different. So you see, a show doesn't necessarily have to stick to what it was originally for it to be good. And good writing is good writing (or in certain cases lack of good writing *cough* Chibnall), no matter the format or structure of the show Note: I sincerely apologise for any mistakes or bad grammar, english isn't exactly my native language, so be understanding 😁🙏
With all the chaos of the pandemic, episodic shows like Buffy, Star Trek, Law and Order have been my go to because of the comfort of a formulaic and predictable shows
With a show like Doctor Who, serialized storytelling isn't really a necessity. Mainly because the majority of the time, expect for the Chibnall era, the singular episodes of DW are entertaining Both can work but certain shows suit a certain method
Thank you for mentioning soap operas. The epitome of serialized television, and the moment I saw that you'd be comparing and contrasting serialized and episodic television, my brain went straight to soaps. I was raised on soap operas, and yes, they can be very confusing to come in on, or even leave for a while and then come back to. Give them three days, though, and you'll have the basics. When I read the five GoT books way back just after book 5 came out, I joked that I could keep up with all the different POVs because I'd been raised on soap operas and their convoluted storylines. It's worth noting that Doctor Who, especially in its early years, was a hybrid of episodic and serialized stories. Each story was self-contained, but they fed from one to another. During Hartnell's first couple seasons, each episode had it's own title, so "An Unearthly Child", as we think of it today, was really just that first 25 minutes, and then moved on to "The Cave of Skulls". Yes, the first story was conceived of as a 4-episode story, and all made under the same production code, but that first episode stands on its own perfectly well. And at the end of the fourth episode, we see the TARDIS land on what we'll learn is Skaro, leading directly into "The Daleks". You really do get the idea that the first 13 episodes especially are one long story that takes place over several different settings.
Classic (i.e. pre-1989) _Doctor Who_ was right in the middle of the serialized and episodic storytelling -- with several short, self-contained, adventures in a single season. But each adventure spanned several (shorter) episodes, punctuated by cliffhangers. A lot of the time, this worked *pretty* well. Some of the time, it was a disaster (aka "Dragonfire"). But overall, the lack of cliffhangers is what I miss most about Modern _Who_ . Being surprised by the existence of cliffhangers at all was what got me hooked on _Doctor Who_ in the first place, way back in the 1970s/80s.
Part of the brilliance of J. Michael Straczynski was that he did build in "off ramps" into Babylon 5, in case circumstances forced him to change how he planned to tell the story, giving him the flexibility he would turn out to need.
I think in Doctor Who that one-part stories tend to have less potential to be as good as multi-part stories, unless they are series openers or quirky stories like Blink.
I picked up some insight, as to why serialised television used to he a lot less common, from readrong the Fifty Year Mission books on the hist oh of Star Trek. The writers back then wanted to do more serialised stories but producers krept resisting, in part becusee they where afraid it would make the shows hard to sell for syndication. The writers on Deep Space Nine did get to do a bit of serialisation (in part because the higher ups treated that show like a black sheep) but the franchise didn't fully embrace it until the modern era.
I enjoy both types of storytelling. I love the episodic stories of Supernatural and X-Files as much as I adore the serializing storytelling of Mr. Robot. I do get annoyed at the statement that Russell should make Doctor Who serialized from now on. I’m fine with the experiment, but I admire Doctor Who’s ability to be something new every week and not have to tie into everything that’s come before. That, and it relies entirely on liking the main writer. Chibnall is not my favorite writer, so I wind up going into each episode worried he’ll fall into his Chibnallisms.
I like the well done hybrid. Avatar, She are, Voltron, or miniseries like Good Omens or Dark Crystal Age of Resistance. Have an ending in site and plan it out so that you learn more watching the first episodes after you’ve watched the last episode, and can still enjoy it. But for pure episodic, that’s where cooking competition shows come in. If I want 100% pure formula wrapped up in 50 minutes with no backstory necessary, I’ll watch Chopped on the Food Network.
Great video. Both forms are useful for different types of stories and themes. Episodic stories typically are better for analyzing singular concepts, whereas serialized stories are usually better for complex concepts. While these are not hard and fast rules, shows which lean heavily into only one of these formats very seldom violate these rules. Hybrid shows, such as Buffy, DS9, or B5, usually cover singular concepts in a given episode and then tie them together as part of the larger serialized plot.
What is truly important to a television series is to have a mapped out idea of how the whole story unfolds. Going in and making a show and then not have an idea of where it is going.
Another big exception to serialised TV writers not having things planned out in advance are Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, the creators of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Like, if they didn't already have everything planned out in advance for both of those shows I'd better very surprised, cause everything ties up so very neatly, and there are so many callbacks and setups that it's just incredible. And for me, I enjoy different styles for different reasons. I enjoy the serialisation of the Muppet Show to see in how many different ways they can realise the formula, I enjoy the aforementioned BB and BCS for their amazing, long narratives and imagery. I also enjoy sitcoms, like Friends or ALF, just cause they feel cozy and fun, but I wish that more sitcoms had _as_ much of an overarching plot as Friends did. Like, you can't deny that where things started and where they ended up were two completely different situations and it was a real journey. I really wish I could've said the same for ALF, which annoyed me with how inconsistent it was in its own history over the course of its measly 4 seasons.
IMO the real advantage of episodic storytelling is that it gives you a break from the serialized story. It's no coincidence that the best seasons of X-Files were when there were like 5 or 6 "arc" episodes per year. That's one thing I find is really missing from shows like Star Trek Discovery, is one-off episodes that tell their own stories with the season arc as a b-plot or background element, which shows like DS9 and Babylon 5 were full of. One recent show I thought struck a nice balance was WandaVision - each episode (before the last few) told its own story but also added to the larger season story..
Supernatural to me had one of the best serious finales ever 1 of the best endings to a long running TV series. I think the greatest thing about supernatural is they were not afraid to poke fun at themselves they were not afraid to go very it's raining to go very very deep dark Meta And they weren't afraid to self acknowledge fan fiction. So for those who have not seen the show I highly recommend
HUH? you saw tweet the other day too. This is fun thing to discuss, overall I feel like as long as the writers know how to handle the character and story investment/progression in each style it doesn't matter. The writer just has to write it that way
Interesting topic, and I agree with most of your points. You mentioned one minor point that hits one of my buttons though. This was when you said that some episodic series could get repetitive. I strongly agree with this. My main examples are the three series _The Fugitive, Starman,_ and _The Incredible Hulk._ Not only were the plots highly repetitive, they were interchangeable between the three series. Each had a protagonist being hunted by a lone antagonist. The protagonist would stop in a town, help one or more people, the antagonist would show up and almost catch him, but he'd get away in the end. Same thing next episode. The only real difference between the series was that the protagonist in _Starman_ was Starman and his son. Let's see - a guy seeking a one-armed man who murdered his wife, an alien wanting to get acquainted with his son, and a guy you really didn't want to get angry. (You wouldn't like him if he got angry!) They didn't have to be, but unfortunately, cookie cutter through and through. Anyway, my time is running out on this soapbox, so back to your regularly scheduled comments. (Apologies to anyone for whom I just spoiled all three series. 😶 )
Remember Serialisation is not new (probably in television it is). Charles Dickens wrote his novels as serials, as did Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas (both of 'em). There were serialised films for kids during the Thirties and Forties which greatly influenced modern films. It seems it just took a while for television to catch up. (Well kinda).
I've always seen Doctor Who as a hybrid series - most episodes can be watched (or two parters) and a little story will wrap up within with some over arching background plot. That's why the quality of each episode has always varied wildly with different writers, tones etc. Personally I still see the new series as a hybrid but kinda repackaged with a nice new label. Episode 2 was largely a self contained and wrapped up story with some other things happening on the periphery. The trouble being that whilst you can build to a higher goal - if the journey is not interesting then you've failed. I understand things can remain unsolved but you have to WANT to see them solved. I so desperately wanted to like this new season and I'm gonna see it through but so far those set ups are not piquing my interest. I'm tuning in out of a sense of duty and fairness. Great video as always!
I think it's abundantly clear now what the pitfalls with completely serialised television are, and that's why it's weird that the same mistakes being made. It's not as if Broadchurch's first episode had all the metaphorical plates being chucked into the air at once, but I guess that's the mystery side of it being a counterbalance. This is also why I think the Sontaran episode was better, since it has that focus on one element while other elements are being moved into position.
As with all things, it depends on the execution. Vincent and the Doctor would be a terrible serial, but it's a wonderful standalone episode. Flux is too big for a single 90 minute two parter, so it's a full on serial. If Doctor Who had more episodes a season, it could balance a big, intricate arc together with standalones - stuff like War of the Sontarans. Series 6 combined both extremes - standalones and serialisation, and I think it worked well. Series 12 was a bit too much of the serialisation, leaving the standalones feel disconnected. Flux is 100% serial, and it's working well so far IMO. The best ideal, as in all things, is balance. I want the Vincent and the Doctors, and I want the big grand Flux storylines that evolve throughout the season.
My favorite example of finding the balance between Episodic and Serialized will forever be Burn Notice: The A plots are episodic (except for season finals) while the B plots are serialized.
I've always found that episodic makes it easier to explore lots of different ideas, as well as to really flesh out the characters. You can tell lots of small stories and focus on different plots and characters as needed. It's also much easier to shrug off a few bad episodes, because they don't impact the overall story too much. But if there's no forward momentum at all it can feel stagnant, so the sweet spot for me is mostly episodic but with season long arcs. I think Star Trek DS9 had the best balance between the two: one-off episodes to do smaller stories, with lasting consequences for major events, and occasionally doing longer involved arcs when the story called for it.
I always preferred the serial format because I love cliffhangers although you know The Doctor survives but you always want to know how they get out of dangerous situations but you never know what becomes of the companions I do wish they would get rid of next time trailers though because they kind of spoil it. Also another reason is it fleshes out the story alot more which is probaly why I enjoyed this series alot more than previous they should had done this back in 2005. When RTD takes over if he's got any sense he should return the serial format back the episodic episodes alright it's just it's not as exciting without a cliffhanger.
my friend and i both love a murder mystery, but i prefer more serialization and they just want a nice episodic thing. So they watch Inspector Morse, Ripper Street, Criminal Minds etc but my favourites are more like Broadchurch and Shetland. For me it's that it has to mean something when you catch the killer. The reveal in Broadchurch after 8 episodes is devastating and you're like "it's THAT PERSON? oh my GOD!!" and that's made all the more powerful by the fact that we've grown to know them as part of the community in the town. crime shows that are episodic introduce about 3 characters, give them a wee bit of exposition each, and most of the time I haven't even learned their names before it's revealed that oh, this guy's the killer. but i can also see why they prefer episodic storytelling so
@@cookieface80 well i guess arguably, but unravelling the mystery of the killer is still the central plot point around which everything else revolves so i'd consider it a murder mystery still
Surprised you don't bring much up Classic Who's format of serialized adventures since Flux seems to be modeling itself off of that somewhat. I feel like some stories should be allowed some breathing room in serialization. The beginning being rather tepid and maybe uneven works to make sure they don't let off all the fireworks at once so to speak.
I love episodic shows and i wish shows like supernatural and x files stuck a bit more to their episodic strength than to the serial plot :( esp spn is bad but tbh x files plot is annoying and confusing most of the times and idk I really don't need to see Scully dying of cancer
This was a good video. Serialisation has been around forever in literary form. Think of the old penny dreadfuls. Varney the Vampire...went on for years, and it was much harder to check consistency/continuity back then! And let's not forget that classic Who stories were also serials, usually of six-or-less episodes. I'm really more of a film person than a tV person. Episodic TV can seem sort of shallow and most TV serials just seem to go on for too long (in my opinion) and lose their way at some point, inevitably. I'm probably more likely to go for episodic television as for me it's akin to reading short stories, which are among my favourite things. That's also why I'm a huge fan of anthology type shows like the aforementioned Twilight Zone and outer Limits, night gallery, Black Mirror, and the newer and mostly pretty cool Inside Number 9.
Oh man, I feel like if I had time to sort out the muck in my brain about this topic, it would be a thing to behold. The serialization of movies such as Marvel properties and using the excuse that it’s part of a bigger story so wait until the story is over to judge if it’s good? I despise that. I like Marvel movies as much as the next guy but dragging the mental luggage from one movie to the next is frustrating. Especially if a bad movie is integral to the plot of another supposedly good movie that I want to see. I know you were addressing TV but I’ve got WORDS on the movie end of things. Well, more like frustrated noises that I hope one day may manifest into something useable.
the whole point you made about the story needs to be good is so true....but the idea of good, we must keep in mind, is subjective...either you like it or you don't....not every one will be pleased...and that is fine...example....my opinion of the last season of game of thrones..... >>> the over all season was weak...but i loved how the last episode ended...i personally thought Bran was the best choice for the kind of king they all really needed, a king with a heart....of the show watchers...the break down of how people wanted the story to end......the monstrous people were backing Cerci to win....the heroic hearted people wanted John Snow to win.....the adventurous wanted Arya to win....the strong people wanted Danarius to win....the kind hearted wanted Bran... >>>>>> my point is that i personally liked how it ended....but i realize and accept that other people did not....and that is just fine....you like it or you don't....and remember, you never have to watch it again if you did not like it....if that is your choice...like i have a friend who refuses to ever give the Xander-Anya wedding episode of Buffy a second watch....that's his choice...and it's just fine
I typed a bunch of stuff below, but before that, I just want to say, Vera, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter a whit that an episode is part of a serialized season, if that episode, or all the episodes leading up to the payoff, leave the viewer so uninvested in the story that they don't keep watching. I haven't followed a show that was airing on a periodic release schedule since season 6 (or was it 7?) of _The X-Files_ ended. Not the whole show, because it should have ended sooner than it did. Their crew used to call the episodic shows their "Monster of the Week" episodes, versus the Main Arc (Mulder's search for his sister and the great conspiracy). Their best writer was, of course, Vince Gilligan (yes, the _Breaking Bad_ one), and his MotW eps were definitely so good that they always furthered and enhanced the character development of every main character that appeared in them, somehow. Anyway, with a show like that, where the whole premise is that weird shit happens and they never know when a case could lead to The Truth (which is Out There, as you know), _most_ of the time I enjoyed the MotW eps just as much as the Main Arc. For me, it was mostly about Mulder and Scully. For the last 5 - 7 years, I just don't even bother watching new series until they've run their course completely, and then I binge them on whatever streaming service. It definitely makes me lean more heavily toward the serialized end when I know I can actually follow and remember what's happened from one episode to the next. I watched _Breaking Bad_ this way, and I'm waiting for _Better Call Saul_ to finish out so I can get started on it soon.
Season by season serialisation I think works really well. Stuff like Stranger Things, where even if you didn't like S2 & S3, you can still watch S1 and have it be a fairly self-contained season, or you can start at S3 and understand fairly well what's happening as almost everything from the previous season got tied up fairly neatly. I don't think Doctor Who would ever become fully serialised because the show relies on change far too often for that to be attainable, but I do feel like riding that line rather than being strictly episodic would likely do the show a lot of good, especially when it comes to revitalising it.
I feel serialized storytelling works great for binging like Stranger Things but most dramas that air weekly are a mix of episodic and serialized which works as it keeps viewers interested.
I don't have much of a preference because I grew up with both extremes as well as hybrid shows. Most of the cartoons that I watched as a kid were episodic, but there were a few like Gargoyles and The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin that were serialized. On the live action side of things, shows like Family Matters and Full House were completely episodic with the exception of two part episodes. Same with the first season of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is still my favourite show of all time, was a hybrid show. It was episodic but there were storylines that carried on from episode to episode like Worf's discommendation from Klingon society, Q's testing of the crew, renegade Klingons attempting to destroy the alliance between the Federation and the Klingon Empire with the help of the Romulans. The Borg.
Serialised television is far more common in the UK, especially with shows like Coronation Street, EastEnders, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks etc. In fact, it's the most popular form of dramatic storytelling for many viewers. These shows are shown generally any time between 6.30 to 8.00 in the evening, and viewed by millions of households across the country. In short, regular television consumers are more than comfortable with the serialised format. Admittedly, I've not watched a great deal of soap over the last decade or so, but I fondly recall such characters as Jack & Vera Duckworth, Hilda Ogden, Den & Angie Watts, Ethel Skinner, even Jackie Corkhill from Brookside, whose actor, Incidentally, plays Dan's mum in Doctor Who. Audiences remember these characters, and the trials and tribulations they go through, with great fondness and sympathy. The Alan Bradley/Rita Fairclough storyline which ended with the former being killed by an oncoming tram (1986) or, more recently, Mike Baldwin, who had developed Alzheimer's, dying in arms of arch-rival Ken Barlow, are still talked about today, and are seminal moments of British television. Doctor Who's executive producer Matt Strevens, in the most recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine, has this to say about Flux's serialised format: "In terms of form, and structure, I would say the storytelling - especially in Chapter Three - really does take the show in a new direction. It's very ambitious, and it credits the audience with sophistication and intelligence. Which is something we always do, of course, but with this, it's very much asking you to trust the show and go on a ride. Not everything is given to you in the moment. As with a lot of television now, it credits the audience with a degree of patience - that they're not going to know quite what's going on." Make of that what you will, but it seems clear that every decision made for Doctor Who: Flux is utterly deliberate. Strevens has also, elsewhere in the magazine, described Chris Chibnall as a 'fearless' writer. Fearless in the sense that he's happy to ignore the wrath of fandom in order to take the show in the direction he sees fit. Which is what's needed on a show like Doctor Who, frankly.
I agree with your sentiment but in fairness the shows you named are all also soaps, which as Nathaniel stated, might be considered the very epitome of serialised storytelling, actually one continuous story made up multiple stories if you think about - I'm trying not to, it makes me dizzy! 🥴 Not a criticism btw just an observation. You're right though, the characters and events become part of popular culture, I don't even watch soaps anymore but I know who you were talking about (the Brookie catch on Dan's mum was a great one!). I'm trying to think of non-soap dramas that are standalone, as the latest trend seems to be serialised, the likes of Line of Duty, The Bodyguard, The Missing etc. I can think of maybe Vera or Midsummer Murders as ones that are episodic and it doesn't matter where you drop in or out. Are there are any other UK dramas that are episodic?
@@hotdog1214 My point was, when she mentioned soaps, she was talking about the American soaps, which are mostly shown in the early afternoon. UK soaps, on the other hand, are primetime viewing, and as such the audience is more used to the long-form multi-strand serialised format. Doctor Who: Flux is small fry in comparison, frankly. As for your second point, I can't think of any other dramas that have individual episodes not connected to a larger thread, although there may be some children's dramas that do that. The new Worzel Gummidge comes to mind, but the episodes aren't regularly scheduled. As I say, other than that I don't think so.
@@andrewbowman4611 Fair point, I get that and agree, I guess we take it for granted that most of our soaps are on at primetime but in the US they are daytime, hadn't really thought of it that way but yes, nice observation. 👍 I'm quite happy to flip-flop from episodic to serial TV, just as long as the story is well done (although the latter is a drag if you missed the cool train and have to watch 40 episodes to catch up!) so maybe that's why; we've been conditioned from an early age!! 😨😋😂
In my opinion serialised shows can be really good. Although too many seem to go on too long once the original story has been told e.g. riverdale Episodic is also great, but often the storytelling can be quite rushed. I also find episodic follows the typical story structure more, everything starts out fine, characters run into a problem, problem gets resolved, end of episodes. Serialisation can mix up the order, have more shorter, side stories and take more creative License, however they have to engage audiences for much longer and can drag if not done well. (Certain episodes of handmaids tale can do this) And finally my favourite serialised programs are Coronation Street, EastEnders and Emmerdale My favourite episodic are dr who and law and order uk
With the glut of "nerd" television these days, I honestly want more of an episodic approach. It feels like creators want to rely on this ONGOING EPIC narrative approach. Which is good...if I had no other things going on in my life, and didn't need sleep. The biggest stories I want are just small arcs, and that's it. Personal preference, and for those that enjoy ongoing narratives, good! ... I also think a lot of this stems from 30 years of shifting comic storytelling as well. And that drives me up the wall.
I like storytelling in general. As long as the format fits the story, I'm ok with that. One of the last impactful entertainment bits I consumed was a single season anime called Anohana. It is probably one of the greatest bits of media I've consumed, totally recommend it.
I do wonder if the fact that the current season of Doctor Who is limited to 6 episodes is what is driving some of their choices, particularly in the overstuffed first episode. If they had a few more episodes, would they have been able to tease some of the plots out a little slower. As it stands though, the first episode was frenetic in trying to give us all the info that they think a viewer would need to know to understand the players impacted by The Flux. It doesn’t come across as effective storytelling as an individual episode, and wonder if there could have been a way to trim some of the elements out of the serialised story. I was intrigued enough myself to keep watching, but purely in a wtf are they doing and how are all these elements going to connect ultimately. Why were the weeping angels involved? Why are we seeing people from multiple time periods in episode 1, without them explaining how they impact the story? Every choice in episode 1 was deliberate, and I hope we don’t have to wait to Ep6 to find out how they all connect. I do prefer the hybrid episodic / serialised nature of shows like Buffy. What Buffy did well was that it had time in the individual episodes to make you care about the main players, but the season arc was revealed slowly, culminating in the big story at the end of the season. Each season had its own story arc, so there weren’t any loose threads at the end of the season that had to be picked up the following year. It knew the story it was telling, and each episode was able to build toward that goal. The issue with many serialised or hybrid shows is when they lose track of whatever story they want to tell. What should be a self contained story that is told in 1, 2, 3 seasons gets dragged out beyond its natural end, or is cut short due to cancellation, leaving viewers unsatisfied. To do serialised well, there needs to be a clear vision, and show runners who are on board to keep it on track. If you lose sight of that goal, you risk losing your audience on the journey.
Although I fall definitively on the serialised side of things, it's extremely hard and rare for a continuing serialised show to have a satisfying ending with little to no bloat or filler. That's why, when I think of my favourites, it's usually mini-series or anthologies. Awake (with Jason Isaacs), The Terror season 1, Now They See Us and Altered Carbon season 1, to some extent. The only multi-season example I can think of is The Good Place. I think, the best shows come out of a mix of the both. A great example is Person of Interest. Although apparently starting off quite episodic, it's more of a slow burn and introduction into the world that also uses the episodic aspects of the show for a more meta viewing and analysis of the themes. It then flowers into something quite serialised with built in weight from the episodic beginnings.
Got Infinity Train flashbacks when she brought up "getting cancelled before you finish". Anyway, I'm going to be that guy and say I prefer a mix of both serialised and episodic storytelling when they compliment each other. Infinity Train is kind of like this, but also Steven Universe and DuckTales were episodic whilst also revealing overarching stories, and they both turned out well in my opinion.
Mandalorian is episodic and serialized. There's a bigger story, but each episode is a self contained story. Invincible is the opposite. Every episode is part of the main story, same with Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Each leads to the next and each is built upon what happened before. Like a long-ass 6 hour movie.
Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes manage to showcase what can go wrong and what can go right with having a series-long mystery planned out from beginning to end before you start. LoM didn't get its third season, so it was left incomplete and hanging... until A2A was commissioned, and did the big reveal. When it works, it's so, SO much better than making it up as you go along and hoping that the big mystery reveals itself to you before everyone else. But how often does it not?
I see the good of both episodic and serialized. My main problem with serialized is if I'm in the mood, say, to watch an ep of GOT, well, how do I choose an ep? It's going to be silly out of context. But, with episodic shows, no problem, pick a fave ep and watch it. But, I agree on the risks of serialized shows. I can think of two opposing examples of done right and done wrong. Torchwood: Miracle Day was just bad. For one thing, they could easily have cut it down to five eps and be a much tighter story. But, I guess that wasn't long enough for them, they wanted to make it ten eps. Without already having that vested interest in the characters, I doubt I would have watched past the first ep, it was so badly done. For a good example, I'd say Black Sails. While, the first season was clearly trying to be GOT on water, the characters were interesting enough to make me want to stick with it. Each season got better and better and the ending paid off well.
I'd say that the best serialized show, one that's pretty recent, is Mr. Robot. That was all planned, and is absolutely air tight when it comes to its serialization. Truly amazing and you should absolutely check it out! As for one that's currently airing, you should also check out Succession.
I think the middle ground that Shows like Buffy did is probably what MOST shows to be. Full serialised I love the ones I watch and I’ll get very invested in the story BUT I won’t watch many of them and I’ll almost never go back and watch an episode in isolation. Where as I can pick out an episode of Buffy and enjoy it even if I haven’t watched any other episode in years.
Isn't it a little early to talk about Doctor Who and its approach to serialized storytelling? Unless you're referring to classic who as opposed to series 13
Modern Who has been doing serialised since it's return, not just season 13. It's just been doing it in the background of episodic content but it's there. It could even be argued that two-parters are serialised, although I personally think that's stretching it a bit.
Some things probably do need to be serialized. The idea behind Star Trek: Voyager required serialization. They start at point Z and need to end at point A. As viewers, we need to feel we're taking that journey. If everything's the same week after week, the show feels like it's running in place. They probably needed to start each early season with some idea of how to get home. If renewed, the plan fails (for reasons), and there's another season. But each season needed an arrow running through it
While I probably liked the episodes so far more than you do, I raised the same concerns and got the same type of replies. Yep, not everything needs to be explained and resolved *right away*, since that's what mysteries are all about. But now there's one third of a season behind us, and I still can't tell what the actual plot is what the story is about. It's impossible to sum up with a few sentences - and even with two or three paragraphs I'd struggle. Everything goes right, left, up, down, sideways, waysides - but there's just no center, apart from the main characters being involved in almost all of them.
I love LOST and loved the ending (I’m actually rewatching the series now with my siblings) but I think it’s incredibly funny that in their series bible they promised the show wouldn’t be serialised. This is literally what the pitch bible says: “IS IT SELF-CONTAINED OR SERIALIZED? Self-contained. Seriously.”
Blake's 7 had season/series arcs at a time when TV shows (apart from soaps) were very self contained. In the first series everything was set up over the first three or four episodes over a slow burn. Phoenix was an Australian police procedural that aired over two series/seasons in the early 1990's. Apart from setting out to be a much more gritty and realistic portrayl of police work, it differed from other police shows with the one investigation taking place over a whole series, instead of each episode being a separate case.
Theres definatley a spectrum, the middle of which Doctor Who usually falls around. The latest season skews closer to the serialised end but definatley isnt at either extreme.
I tend to prefer serialised but I'm not against the occasional episodic series. Or heck even a combo of both. As for Doctor Who I can see why Chibnall decided to try and make Series 11 episodic. It provided an immediate and refreshing contrast to the heavily serialised era of Moffat (which I love.) Thing is though S11 kind of half asses the episodic bit near the end where the Stenza and specifically Tzim-Sha are kind of treated like a main antagonist from a serialised season would be which flat out doesn't work. S12 is a sharp return to a more serialised format and honestly I think that's because Chibnall as a writer feels more comfortable writing serialised stuff. This definitely seems to be backed up as S13 feels like the most relaxed and not awkward in terms of writing I've ever seen from Chibnall's tenure yet. I'd be all for a proper Episodic series of Doctor Who but perhaps under a different showrunner
I generally prefer shows with a kind of episodic template but that do have a overarching story, like supernatural (at least the earlier seaons) and dr who (again, at least the earlier seasons) where, for at least the majority of episodes you don't have to watch everything but you're kind of rewarded if you do, kind of like the MCU but in tv. I like sort of relaxing and just watching characters I love just sort of live and do things that will wrap up in the end but I do like having them grow and change and learn as the story moves foward.
A truly good serialised show should have a degree of episodic story telling in it, and each season needs a conclusion of sorts as well as seeds to lead on to the next season. It really annoys me how common cliffhanger endings are, especially how it is usually obvious a few episodes in advance that the season won't end in a satisfying way.
I was really hoping What If would be a purely episodic series, the anthology only loosely linked by The Watcher seeing the events play out and serving as our guide, so when the final two episodes tried to wrap everything up into a grand crossover I just checked out. Maybe it was my fault for wanting the show to be something it wasn't (the two episodes are my least favorites after Zombies, that episodes I just thought was straight up bad), but I really hope that in the future if they serialize What If episodes, it's through sequels to individual episodes that can have their stories continued in interesting ways, instead of through big crossovers
i think i agree with most everything you said. favorite serialized was braking bad and episodic i guess probably star trek and if i had to pick only one series i guess next generation.
I prefer the middle ground approach like B5 and Buffy. My biggest complaint these days is season length. Shows did 20-22 episode seasons for many years (at least in the US) and did so successfully. I'm sure there are good arguments as to why they have been getting increasingly shorter for years now but I'm not sure what can really justify less content. Maybe you should do a video on this topic.
I always loved the serialized stories in 24. Since each 24 hour season followed a single day, you could reset each season, and tell a slightly different story. I also think Star Trek Enterprise got better in its third and fourth seasons when it shifted to more serialized stories.
I think binging shows lends itself to serialized shows. I can watch a plot moving forwards hour after hour but I've been watching Sabrina the teenage witch recently and I only watch a few episodes at a time because I have a much lower threshold for how many times in a row I can watch a spell go awry and need to be fixed in a comical way. Both are good but lend themselves to different viewing habits.
I think Doctor Who season 13's format is a very deliberate choice . I don't know if you know this but there's been a series running for 6 seasons on the BBC with 5 to 7 episodes per season forming a complete story, yet with an overall background arc. It has a bent cop/institutional corruption theme and it's called Line of Duty, and it's the most successful drama the BBC has done this century, possibly the most successful ever in the UK. Even I who don't normally like cop shows found it so compelling I binged watched the whole lot in two weeks. Shoehorning Doctor Who into the same format will have taken next to no effort and is a totally logical executive decision. BTW the new master is a bent cop. Or rather an ex-bent cop now. Oh and Azure was a key figure in an organized crime syndicate but now teaches children how _not_ to be criminals.
Regarding NuWho, it wants to have it both ways with its "Mystery Box" storytelling, which I am so sick of (drop a a scene about the season finale every episode or so). Buffy employed a version of this well: it had mostly episodic storytelling with an overarching season plot (its "Big Bads"). The fact that the series was confined to Sunnydale made this possible. I don't think this would work for Doctor Who, where there is a ship that can go anywhere in time and space. Frankly, I think variety is best for a show like that: if it's a one off, that's cool, a two-parter, even better, if there is some writer who wants to try a War Games-esque serial with five one-hour parts, let them (which isn't really what Flux feels like, Flux feels like a 6-episode Mystery Box with a shiny bow, although I am enjoying it.) Hope RTD starts to meander away from the box.
I like a bit of both, but lean towards serialised. I hate when a serialised show I like gets cancelled early though. Recently happened to Final Space which I loved.
IIRC Jesse in Breaking Bad was meant to get Walter off the ground and then leave the show, but they liked Aaron Paul's realization so much he became integral to the rest of the show.
An example of how having to make a hard pivot with a serialized program can be a massive problem would be the Falcon & the Winter Soldier series. If memory serves, they originally had a ‘manufactured pandemic’ subplot that had to be completely scrubbed out and replaced, which ended up making the series very disjointed and uneven.
I prefer a mix. I wish Doctor Who would go back to having episodes where The Doctor and the companion(s) arrive on a planet, see problems and by the end make the problems better. I'm getting fed up with story arcs about the Doctor's "past"
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
Personally, true episodic stuff doesn't really work for me outside of like, a comfort show. It's why I find it hard to go back to some of those older cartoons I used to like, unless I'm just looking for something fun and nostalgic. I really need there to be some kind of progression of narrative to keep me invested. But I do recognize the drawbacks of true serialization as well. Especially with something like Game of Thrones or Lost. Which is why I like stuff like Doctor Who do much, because it is that hybrid between episodic and serialization. Series/season arcs, especially series arcs that build off each other, are my absolute faves. That's why I love Buffy so much. Each season had its own somewhat-contained narrative, and each new season drew off of things from previous seasons, but almost always had some kind of ending. Most of the TV shows I watch are like this: Legends of Tomorrow, How to Get Away With Murder, the 100, even Supernatural when I was into that, there were usually lingering plot threads, but the overall conflict of the season gets wrapped up. And then you have things like Steven Universe, which are episodic more often than not, with some of the mostly self contained stories building lore or following plot threads, with big event episodes that continue furthering the narrative. I love shows like that because it keeps me hooked and invested, but a lot of the episodes stand out on their own. I can watch an episode or two that I remember liking without needing to be involved in the full story. That's not something you can really do with true serialized stories, you sorta need to just start at the beginning, and end at the finale.
And for stuff like Star Trek, I think the good episodic ideas have been done. I kind of think that was the problem with the later ST shows before the reboot. VOY had some really interesting ideas, but they could only explore them for two episodes at most, then everything had to be reset. ENT often felt let they were trying to milk the last drops out of episode ideas that were already handled better in the earlier shows
Totally agreed. I love the balance between episodic/serialized Doctor Who typically holds. It’s magical honestly.
This discussion has made me realise why I love limited series' so much. When done well, they reduce the risks associated with serialisation while reaping the benefits.
I like episodic series, because you can just watch an episode from anywhere in the series run and enjoy it. I like serialized series for their well written fleshed out stories that come to an awesome conclusion. I’ve been rewarding DS9 this year and it’s great. I’ve also been watching favourite episodes from TNG. The two series are very different, but both fantastic.
How ironic. I've been rewatching TNG and DS9 too. (Unfortunately not a Voyager fan). DS9 is my favourite but i'm enjoying Prodigy and looking forward to Strange New Worlds. Back to episodic with that one.
Episodic series is the reason Voyager stuck with me and DS9 not. It was in the days each Saterday at 7 and often around that time dinner was served (=no tv)
And with no videorecorder and VHS tapes unaffordable at that time you just missed out. With the arc story teling of DS9 it always got me frustrated because I couldn't keep up.
Now I watch often a whole season in a weekend.. aah how the times have changed :D
I love the episodic nature of Voyager and TNG and meeting new aliens cos I love wondering what's out there and look forward to seeing all the different species... I get a bit bored with serialised sci fi when they are just dealing with the same aliens in a long conflict... it often then becomes a story about a conflict that could really just be set anywhere
I’m going to propose some terms:
Light serialization: the big story is happening in the background for most of the episodes. Over-arching plot is a smattering of details and plot points dropped throughout the season. ie: Buffy DS9
Free-flow (Medium?) Serialization: Episodes pick up from the last, but each episode is it’s own story. Overarching plot is a zigzagging flowchart of sequential events that eventually get wrapped up. ie: 24, Lost, Breaking Bad
Hard serialization: Every episode is one piece of a larger picture, are not much of a story within themselves. Overarching plot is the plots of all the episodes combined into one long narrative. ie: Stranger Things, Discovery, House of Cards.
Good breakdown of those categories
@Tom Meehan Yeah, I like shows in all 3, but Hard Serials are more difficult to get right and I’ll more often watch them to the end out of stubborn curiosity than out of pure enjoyment.
I in general personally prefer serialised shows because I get to see a long-term story unveil with character arcs that I'm invested in.
While episodic shows, I watch them just to relax and I don't care much for them.
While Doctor Who blured the line between the two that I honestly don't think it fits neatly into those one of those two boxes.
I think Doctor Who is at its best when it blurs the lines between the two.
@@scpatl4now
Doctor Who is a quirky show that has no rules and does whatever it wants which includes not being canonically consistent with itself (not even including the expanded media).
Bluring the line one day, episodic the next and serialised the next. You don't know what you're getting each week. It's what makes Doctor Who, Doctor Who.
Doctor Who’s always blurred the line. The Classic Series was somehow both serialised and episodic, as stories rarely connected beyond their main characters and the Magic Box and possibly an arc between them that’s rarely mentioned, but every story was multiple episodes long.
Ugh yes, this! All art is subjective, and there is no "superior" way to tell a story. Every method has its strengths and weaknesses-- what matters is understanding the story you're trying to tell and what method will best suit it. The execution of telling those stories is a separate thing and doesn't negate one way of storytelling as being "weaker" or more "inferior" to another. This is not some good/bad binary, for crying out loud.
I feel like seasonal serialisation is a good balance. Most streaming series seem to be going that way, like "Stranger Things", and the new MCU shows. Tell a complete, season-long, story, and make sure to wrap things up well enough that, if further seasons are bad, the audience can still enjoy the good seasons as stand-alone stories.
It's how I feel about Westworld. The first season is some of the best television I've ever watched, but I can take or leave the second and third seasons, without feeling like it damages what I liked about the first season.
I agree.
Give me something like Torchwood: Children of Earth, Broadchurch Series 1, Daredevil Season 1/3, Jessica Jones Season 1, Watchmen, Westworld Series 1, or Chernnobyl where the writers have come up with this really brilliant stand alone stories that are accessible to both newcomers and those already familiar with the source material, that will always retain their quality no matter what happens next.
Great point! West World Season One is a good example of a season done well. The subsequent seasons are meh, but it doesn't invalidate the well constructed season one.
Yeah. Because a showrunner can't tell how long a series is going to run. They can only see that they have a season to work with. So they can't fashion a three or five-season arc going in. They'll either wind up with nothing to do for 2 additional seasons or have to cram two seasons into four episodes when it's canceled early. Another option is what Dr. Who used to do: mini-arcs. Write arcs for two to four episodes and end it.
Thank you! When I told my friends I didn’t like Force Awakens when it first came out, the response was ‘Well, it just hasn’t been finished yet, you have to wait to see where it’s going.’ Like… no. If an experience is bad, it is bad, regardless of whether it is incomplete
No matter what, I like continuity, specifically character-based continuity. I hate stagnated characters, or seeing something really interesting and character-defining get undone just because it’s the format of the show. Rigorous adhesion to the status quo is one of my biggest storytelling gripes, as I believe reinvention is vital to keeping things fresh. But I’m also all for more restrained episodes that don’t tie into the overarching plot in a huge way. Basically, I definitely prefer serialized storytelling, but the most important part of that is for the characters to change and grow even if the rest of the things around them don’t.
It really depends on the execution. I find the main problem is that these failed attempts at serialization stems from writers and creators (or maybe the networks) wanting to be "the next X." Whether that would be "the next Game of Thrones, the next Lost, the next Gravity Falls, the next Avatar" etc. It's wanting prestige just for the sake of it, yet they may not even have a set game plan before it airs. And since shows may or may not be allowed to continue after a few seasons, they ought to have a Plan A and Plan B depending on how many seasons they get story-wise. As for episodic, each episode clearly has its own identity, whether it be via a villain or specific plotline.
There's a logic and advantage to haveing a semi episodic format , string up few episodes in to a story.
use the story to decide where your going with the main plot.
In my experience, I've found that if a fun, episodic show thrills me, I love to keep going back to a certain episode or two because I know, "this was the x episode, and that was the y episode." But if I've seen a serialized show where it only sells itself based on its twist in a given episode, then once I find out what that twist is, then I've no reason to go back to it because that source of tension is forever diffused.
I vary. Like, I do enjoy a show that you can just jump in anywhere, but I also want characters to grow, and actually learn lessons and be changed by the things they learn. I think Duck Tales (2017) hit a pretty good mix of this for what they were doing, but a lot of shows don't. Comparatively, serialized stories require a lot of dedication and time and energy on my part, so I often end up putting them off and putting them off because I just don't have time to dedicate myself to a longer story. I also like to wait until a couple of seasons are out of certain shows because I've been burned so many times by something sounding like it had a good premise, being ok in season 1, then completely tanking later on and leaving me feel like I wasted part of my finite life on something pointless. The shorter seasons of some shows has been helpful in this regard, but even then I just don't have the energy for it a lot of the time.
I prefer the mix of episodic with a story in the background for the final, like Buffy, Supernatural ect. I really miss the first season of Dr Who, where they’re just exploring new places.
I‘m really annoyed by the disregarding of so called filler episodes, only because they don’t continue the main story. Sometimes these episodes can show us a lot of the main characters.
Torchwood - Children of Earth ... one of the best serialised story....
I love the overarching narrative.
DS9, Stargate SG1 and Atlantis, the West Wing. All among my favourite shows.
I will never forgive the cancellation of Star Gate Universe, which is great example of the risk of a serialized show not being allowed to conclude as the writers planned.
@@scpatl4now indeed. I’m in the middle of a rewatch of that series just now. I do enjoy its serialised nature, but I know it will devastate at its final few episodes because of the lack of payoff.
Fun fact: in Australia, serialised tv is actually closer to the norm when it comes to children’s shows. Even if a show makes more than one season, it’s a bit unusual for them to keep the cast (Round The Twist was notorious for this: the characters were a cast equivalent to the Ship Of Theseus, despite the characters not changing). Some of the shows even get a bit more creative and only have a premise survive between seasons (Mirror Mirror had a time portal between two years, Spellbinder had travel between two or three worlds). It helps that these shows are usually filmed in a big block, preferably before all the kids can age. Spellbinder also filmed in Australia (for the scenes set in our world), Poland (Spellbinder World) and China (Land of the Dragon Lord).
Soaps in the UK are a hybrid of serialised and episodic. Its crazy how each episode is essentially a never ending serialisation but the format acts episodic so a newcomer can start watching and pick things up very quickly
I really like miniseries. You’ve got the longer run time of a season for breathing room to tell a good story, but you also have to wrap it up with a satisfying ending instead of dragging out season after season (cough*NCIS*cough). The way people watch tv now, binging on steaming when they want to, I think the streaming format really lends to that form of miniseries.
I much prefer serialized shows way more thean episodic, as I love seeing the character development. The only shows that I prefer episodic are Hey Arnold and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
A lot of modern serialised shows seem to suffer from the same problem which is not enough story to fill the running time, Netflix shows especially. They end up padding out the episodes until the last five minutes and then there’s a cliffhanger in order to get you to come back for the next one. I’ve quit many shows in the past few years because they’ve dragged the story out to the point of boredom
All other things being equal, I tend to get the most satisfaction out of a show that alternates between stand-alone episodes and episodes that are part of a larger arc. That's not to say I can't enjoy shows that are one extreme or the other or ones that sort of blur the line (see Nick Alexander's highly accurate description of Steven Universe's structure below), and there are even specific very episodic or very serialized shows I've enjoyed more than specific ones that alternate, but alternating like that is my favorite *structure* personally.
That's also not to say it affects my enjoyment much if a show that alternates in the way I described sometimes has the a mostly one-off episode briefly reference the arc or an episode in either category reference a prior stand-alone episode ("Gravity Falls" did that from time-to-time).
A really interesting example is the two Dirk Gently adaptations. The UK version that aired on BBC4 about 10 years ago was an episodic mini-series, starring Stephen Mangan as Dirk; a very low budget series but you got a fair bit of variety; you would get one episode about conspiracy theories and horoscopes, and then another about love and AI, however there wasn't much in the way of character development; the main focus was comedy, which the series executed well for the most part since that's a huge strength of Mangan as an actor. The US version that came a few years later with Samuel Barnett as Dirk had a much bigger budget and was heavily serialised, with each season being centred around a different case with heavy sci-fi/fantasy elements; it's got loads of developed central characters, and although it's a really ambitious adaptation that goes in a completely different direction (Focusing on drama and big character arcs, and a bit less on humour) it does sometimes fall down under the weight of that ambition, but you do at least care about the characters even if not all their arcs really land properly. Also the showrunner of the US Dirk Gently series turned out to be a sexual predator and that ended up being part of the reason why the show got cancelled, which is likely a much bigger issue. (And makes it even more unsatisfying that the show ends on a cliffhanger for a few characters) The US show has a really loyal and dedicated fanbase, whereas I think the fanbase for the Stephen Mangan show has over the years kind of become merged with that of Douglas Adams' original novels, because the series only ever came out in the UK. It's tough to compare because neither series is really seen as the "definitive" adaptation; there is an animated Dirk Gently series currently in the works though, so we'll have to see how that one turns out.
Interesting. I was a big fan of the US version. I didn't know about the showrunner though, I just assumed it got canceled because it was to quirky for a large audience (as often happens with shows I like).....also because even for me the second season was noticeably weaker than the second. Still loved it though. Barnett and Elijah Wood were both great.
@@palisade32 Well, it aired on BBC America in the States and only once all the episodes had aired it'd be released on Netflix in Europe/Asia all at once a few weeks later; it was always going to be unlikely that the show would become a huge hit because it was never advertised particularly strongly, and it's a Douglas Adams adaptation that's not Hitchhiker's Guide, so there wasn't going to be much of a built-in audience in the US that would seek it out. (Although with that said, the fact that it's so different to the books probably made the appeal to a new audience a lot more successful) And I agree that Season 2 of the US series is really patchy: Ken and Friedkin's character arcs are just super abrupt and their motivations don't make a whole lot of sense. Sam and Elijah gave really strong performances but for me Fiona Dourif absolutely killed it as Bart; the way Max Landis treated her behind the scenes was absolutely horrific though, and kind of makes me glad that it ended up being cancelled if that was the only way to get rid of him from the show.
From what I've been told, the animated series is basically being made by the producers and Stoopid Buddy Stoodios (Who made Robot Chicken, among other things) and they are trying to do a a kind of "Into the Spiderverse/No Way Home" multiverse kind of thing with an animated Dirk (Who it sounds like Sam Barnett will be coming back to voice? Not sure about that) interacting with characters from previous Dirk Gently adaptations, like the US show or the original novels. However, things have been quiet for a while on that; we got some concept art at the end of last year but they've really been delayed by the pandemic. So unfortunately we've only got piecemeal details for a series that may/may not end up happening; fingers crossed though.
@@GeriatricFan1963 fingers crossed 🤞 BTW, I agree, Dourif as Bart was my favorite character by a mile.
In my Oppinion, a good Hybrid is the best option. Like Gravity Falls for example, in that Case the first Series was more episodic, while the second leaned more heavily into serialisation. That doesn't make the second season better than the first one though, at least not in my eyes (that finale was a blast though, I must admit). Both Forms of Entertainment have their merits and flaws. An example for Serialisation done well would be for example the man in the High Castle or Good Omens. I absolutely loved those shows and would rewatch them any chance I get. I wouldn't exactly describe the finales as breathtaking, but as long as it's not terrible, a finale won't ruin a show, at least not for me. A good example for a great episodic show is Futurama. That managed to have an incapsolating viewing experience, without relying on a episodic structure in the slightest (and even the Simpsons, whatever you may think of them, manage drama and story very well, without any overarching narrative). Just one last example, which is a very interesting Hybrid: Merlin. The first 2-3 Series where definitely more episodic, rather similar to Doctor Who in ways of narrative structure, actually. There was a villain or Magical Being of the Weak, the threat got disposed of or otherwise dealt with, and we where more or less back to status quo. But, starting in Series 3, and certainly the last two Series (4-5), relied much more heavily on the overarching narrative, as they grew to realise what a stretch they had to go if they wanted to retell the Arthurian Legend to the bitter end. And they managed the transition quite well without losing the audiences attention, keeping most of their viewers who had originally fallen in love with an episodic show glued to the screens right until that crushing finale. Most Fans, including me, loved that final series just as much as the first few, if not more, and towards, the end they hardly had anything episodic what soever. And yet, in the beginning, it received almost exactly as much praise, even though the formula was very different. So you see, a show doesn't necessarily have to stick to what it was originally for it to be good. And good writing is good writing (or in certain cases lack of good writing *cough* Chibnall), no matter the format or structure of the show
Note: I sincerely apologise for any mistakes or bad grammar, english isn't exactly my native language, so be understanding 😁🙏
With all the chaos of the pandemic, episodic shows like Buffy, Star Trek, Law and Order have been my go to because of the comfort of a formulaic and predictable shows
With a show like Doctor Who, serialized storytelling isn't really a necessity. Mainly because the majority of the time, expect for the Chibnall era, the singular episodes of DW are entertaining
Both can work but certain shows suit a certain method
Thank you for mentioning soap operas. The epitome of serialized television, and the moment I saw that you'd be comparing and contrasting serialized and episodic television, my brain went straight to soaps. I was raised on soap operas, and yes, they can be very confusing to come in on, or even leave for a while and then come back to. Give them three days, though, and you'll have the basics. When I read the five GoT books way back just after book 5 came out, I joked that I could keep up with all the different POVs because I'd been raised on soap operas and their convoluted storylines.
It's worth noting that Doctor Who, especially in its early years, was a hybrid of episodic and serialized stories. Each story was self-contained, but they fed from one to another. During Hartnell's first couple seasons, each episode had it's own title, so "An Unearthly Child", as we think of it today, was really just that first 25 minutes, and then moved on to "The Cave of Skulls". Yes, the first story was conceived of as a 4-episode story, and all made under the same production code, but that first episode stands on its own perfectly well. And at the end of the fourth episode, we see the TARDIS land on what we'll learn is Skaro, leading directly into "The Daleks". You really do get the idea that the first 13 episodes especially are one long story that takes place over several different settings.
Classic (i.e. pre-1989) _Doctor Who_ was right in the middle of the serialized and episodic storytelling -- with several short, self-contained, adventures in a single season. But each adventure spanned several (shorter) episodes, punctuated by cliffhangers. A lot of the time, this worked *pretty* well. Some of the time, it was a disaster (aka "Dragonfire"). But overall, the lack of cliffhangers is what I miss most about Modern _Who_ . Being surprised by the existence of cliffhangers at all was what got me hooked on _Doctor Who_ in the first place, way back in the 1970s/80s.
Dragonfire’s cliffhanger I find funny simply for the fact that it’s a literal cliffhanger
Part of the brilliance of J. Michael Straczynski was that he did build in "off ramps" into Babylon 5, in case circumstances forced him to change how he planned to tell the story, giving him the flexibility he would turn out to need.
I think in Doctor Who that one-part stories tend to have less potential to be as good as multi-part stories, unless they are series openers or quirky stories like Blink.
There's still a difference between a 2 parter and a season long story arc.
I picked up some insight, as to why serialised television used to he a lot less common, from readrong the Fifty Year Mission books on the hist oh of Star Trek. The writers back then wanted to do more serialised stories but producers krept resisting, in part becusee they where afraid it would make the shows hard to sell for syndication.
The writers on Deep Space Nine did get to do a bit of serialisation (in part because the higher ups treated that show like a black sheep) but the franchise didn't fully embrace it until the modern era.
I enjoy both types of storytelling. I love the episodic stories of Supernatural and X-Files as much as I adore the serializing storytelling of Mr. Robot.
I do get annoyed at the statement that Russell should make Doctor Who serialized from now on. I’m fine with the experiment, but I admire Doctor Who’s ability to be something new every week and not have to tie into everything that’s come before.
That, and it relies entirely on liking the main writer. Chibnall is not my favorite writer, so I wind up going into each episode worried he’ll fall into his Chibnallisms.
shows like X files, buffy ext is what I call episodically serialized tv.
I like the well done hybrid. Avatar, She are, Voltron, or miniseries like Good Omens or Dark Crystal Age of Resistance. Have an ending in site and plan it out so that you learn more watching the first episodes after you’ve watched the last episode, and can still enjoy it. But for pure episodic, that’s where cooking competition shows come in. If I want 100% pure formula wrapped up in 50 minutes with no backstory necessary, I’ll watch Chopped on the Food Network.
Great video. Both forms are useful for different types of stories and themes. Episodic stories typically are better for analyzing singular concepts, whereas serialized stories are usually better for complex concepts. While these are not hard and fast rules, shows which lean heavily into only one of these formats very seldom violate these rules. Hybrid shows, such as Buffy, DS9, or B5, usually cover singular concepts in a given episode and then tie them together as part of the larger serialized plot.
What is truly important to a television series is to have a mapped out idea of how the whole story unfolds. Going in and making a show and then not have an idea of where it is going.
Another big exception to serialised TV writers not having things planned out in advance are Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, the creators of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Like, if they didn't already have everything planned out in advance for both of those shows I'd better very surprised, cause everything ties up so very neatly, and there are so many callbacks and setups that it's just incredible.
And for me, I enjoy different styles for different reasons. I enjoy the serialisation of the Muppet Show to see in how many different ways they can realise the formula, I enjoy the aforementioned BB and BCS for their amazing, long narratives and imagery. I also enjoy sitcoms, like Friends or ALF, just cause they feel cozy and fun, but I wish that more sitcoms had _as_ much of an overarching plot as Friends did. Like, you can't deny that where things started and where they ended up were two completely different situations and it was a real journey. I really wish I could've said the same for ALF, which annoyed me with how inconsistent it was in its own history over the course of its measly 4 seasons.
IMO the real advantage of episodic storytelling is that it gives you a break from the serialized story. It's no coincidence that the best seasons of X-Files were when there were like 5 or 6 "arc" episodes per year. That's one thing I find is really missing from shows like Star Trek Discovery, is one-off episodes that tell their own stories with the season arc as a b-plot or background element, which shows like DS9 and Babylon 5 were full of.
One recent show I thought struck a nice balance was WandaVision - each episode (before the last few) told its own story but also added to the larger season story..
Supernatural to me had one of the best serious finales ever 1 of the best endings to a long running TV series. I think the greatest thing about supernatural is they were not afraid to poke fun at themselves they were not afraid to go very it's raining to go very very deep dark Meta And they weren't afraid to self acknowledge fan fiction. So for those who have not seen the show I highly recommend
HUH? you saw tweet the other day too. This is fun thing to discuss, overall I feel like as long as the writers know how to handle the character and story investment/progression in each style it doesn't matter. The writer just has to write it that way
Dont forget classic Who, a series of self-contained serials.
Interesting topic, and I agree with most of your points. You mentioned one minor point that hits one of my buttons though. This was when you said that some episodic series could get repetitive. I strongly agree with this. My main examples are the three series _The Fugitive, Starman,_ and _The Incredible Hulk._ Not only were the plots highly repetitive, they were interchangeable between the three series. Each had a protagonist being hunted by a lone antagonist. The protagonist would stop in a town, help one or more people, the antagonist would show up and almost catch him, but he'd get away in the end. Same thing next episode. The only real difference between the series was that the protagonist in _Starman_ was Starman and his son. Let's see - a guy seeking a one-armed man who murdered his wife, an alien wanting to get acquainted with his son, and a guy you really didn't want to get angry. (You wouldn't like him if he got angry!) They didn't have to be, but unfortunately, cookie cutter through and through. Anyway, my time is running out on this soapbox, so back to your regularly scheduled comments. (Apologies to anyone for whom I just spoiled all three series. 😶 )
Remember Serialisation is not new (probably in television it is). Charles Dickens wrote his novels as serials, as did Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas (both of 'em). There were serialised films for kids during the Thirties and Forties which greatly influenced modern films. It seems it just took a while for television to catch up. (Well kinda).
I've always seen Doctor Who as a hybrid series - most episodes can be watched (or two parters) and a little story will wrap up within with some over arching background plot. That's why the quality of each episode has always varied wildly with different writers, tones etc. Personally I still see the new series as a hybrid but kinda repackaged with a nice new label. Episode 2 was largely a self contained and wrapped up story with some other things happening on the periphery. The trouble being that whilst you can build to a higher goal - if the journey is not interesting then you've failed. I understand things can remain unsolved but you have to WANT to see them solved.
I so desperately wanted to like this new season and I'm gonna see it through but so far those set ups are not piquing my interest. I'm tuning in out of a sense of duty and fairness.
Great video as always!
I think it's abundantly clear now what the pitfalls with completely serialised television are, and that's why it's weird that the same mistakes being made.
It's not as if Broadchurch's first episode had all the metaphorical plates being chucked into the air at once, but I guess that's the mystery side of it being a counterbalance. This is also why I think the Sontaran episode was better, since it has that focus on one element while other elements are being moved into position.
As with all things, it depends on the execution. Vincent and the Doctor would be a terrible serial, but it's a wonderful standalone episode. Flux is too big for a single 90 minute two parter, so it's a full on serial. If Doctor Who had more episodes a season, it could balance a big, intricate arc together with standalones - stuff like War of the Sontarans. Series 6 combined both extremes - standalones and serialisation, and I think it worked well. Series 12 was a bit too much of the serialisation, leaving the standalones feel disconnected. Flux is 100% serial, and it's working well so far IMO. The best ideal, as in all things, is balance. I want the Vincent and the Doctors, and I want the big grand Flux storylines that evolve throughout the season.
My favorite example of finding the balance between Episodic and Serialized will forever be Burn Notice: The A plots are episodic (except for season finals) while the B plots are serialized.
I've always found that episodic makes it easier to explore lots of different ideas, as well as to really flesh out the characters. You can tell lots of small stories and focus on different plots and characters as needed. It's also much easier to shrug off a few bad episodes, because they don't impact the overall story too much. But if there's no forward momentum at all it can feel stagnant, so the sweet spot for me is mostly episodic but with season long arcs. I think Star Trek DS9 had the best balance between the two: one-off episodes to do smaller stories, with lasting consequences for major events, and occasionally doing longer involved arcs when the story called for it.
I always preferred the serial format because I love cliffhangers although you know The Doctor survives but you always want to know how they get out of dangerous situations but you never know what becomes of the companions I do wish they would get rid of next time trailers though because they kind of spoil it. Also another reason is it fleshes out the story alot more which is probaly why I enjoyed this series alot more than previous they should had done this back in 2005. When RTD takes over if he's got any sense he should return the serial format back the episodic episodes alright it's just it's not as exciting without a cliffhanger.
my friend and i both love a murder mystery, but i prefer more serialization and they just want a nice episodic thing. So they watch Inspector Morse, Ripper Street, Criminal Minds etc but my favourites are more like Broadchurch and Shetland. For me it's that it has to mean something when you catch the killer. The reveal in Broadchurch after 8 episodes is devastating and you're like "it's THAT PERSON? oh my GOD!!" and that's made all the more powerful by the fact that we've grown to know them as part of the community in the town. crime shows that are episodic introduce about 3 characters, give them a wee bit of exposition each, and most of the time I haven't even learned their names before it's revealed that oh, this guy's the killer. but i can also see why they prefer episodic storytelling so
Isn't Broadchurch more of a drama than a murder mystery anyway?
@@cookieface80 well i guess arguably, but unravelling the mystery of the killer is still the central plot point around which everything else revolves so i'd consider it a murder mystery still
Surprised you don't bring much up Classic Who's format of serialized adventures since Flux seems to be modeling itself off of that somewhat.
I feel like some stories should be allowed some breathing room in serialization. The beginning being rather tepid and maybe uneven works to make sure they don't let off all the fireworks at once so to speak.
I love episodic shows and i wish shows like supernatural and x files stuck a bit more to their episodic strength than to the serial plot :( esp spn is bad but tbh x files plot is annoying and confusing most of the times and idk I really don't need to see Scully dying of cancer
This was a good video.
Serialisation has been around forever in literary form. Think of the old penny dreadfuls. Varney the Vampire...went on for years, and it was much harder to check consistency/continuity back then!
And let's not forget that classic Who stories were also serials, usually of six-or-less episodes.
I'm really more of a film person than a tV person. Episodic TV can seem sort of shallow and most TV serials just seem to go on for too long (in my opinion) and lose their way at some point, inevitably. I'm probably more likely to go for episodic television as for me it's akin to reading short stories, which are among my favourite things. That's also why I'm a huge fan of anthology type shows like the aforementioned Twilight Zone and outer Limits, night gallery, Black Mirror, and the newer and mostly pretty cool Inside Number 9.
Oh man, I feel like if I had time to sort out the muck in my brain about this topic, it would be a thing to behold. The serialization of movies such as Marvel properties and using the excuse that it’s part of a bigger story so wait until the story is over to judge if it’s good? I despise that. I like Marvel movies as much as the next guy but dragging the mental luggage from one movie to the next is frustrating. Especially if a bad movie is integral to the plot of another supposedly good movie that I want to see. I know you were addressing TV but I’ve got WORDS on the movie end of things. Well, more like frustrated noises that I hope one day may manifest into something useable.
Thank you Vera for the video. I wanted to see this because Flux didn't get me much. But is better than seasons before.
the whole point you made about the story needs to be good is so true....but the idea of good, we must keep in mind, is subjective...either you like it or you don't....not every one will be pleased...and that is fine...example....my opinion of the last season of game of thrones.....
>>>
the over all season was weak...but i loved how the last episode ended...i personally thought Bran was the best choice for the kind of king they all really needed, a king with a heart....of the show watchers...the break down of how people wanted the story to end......the monstrous people were backing Cerci to win....the heroic hearted people wanted John Snow to win.....the adventurous wanted Arya to win....the strong people wanted Danarius to win....the kind hearted wanted Bran...
>>>>>>
my point is that i personally liked how it ended....but i realize and accept that other people did not....and that is just fine....you like it or you don't....and remember, you never have to watch it again if you did not like it....if that is your choice...like i have a friend who refuses to ever give the Xander-Anya wedding episode of Buffy a second watch....that's his choice...and it's just fine
I typed a bunch of stuff below, but before that, I just want to say, Vera, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter a whit that an episode is part of a serialized season, if that episode, or all the episodes leading up to the payoff, leave the viewer so uninvested in the story that they don't keep watching.
I haven't followed a show that was airing on a periodic release schedule since season 6 (or was it 7?) of _The X-Files_ ended. Not the whole show, because it should have ended sooner than it did. Their crew used to call the episodic shows their "Monster of the Week" episodes, versus the Main Arc (Mulder's search for his sister and the great conspiracy). Their best writer was, of course, Vince Gilligan (yes, the _Breaking Bad_ one), and his MotW eps were definitely so good that they always furthered and enhanced the character development of every main character that appeared in them, somehow. Anyway, with a show like that, where the whole premise is that weird shit happens and they never know when a case could lead to The Truth (which is Out There, as you know), _most_ of the time I enjoyed the MotW eps just as much as the Main Arc. For me, it was mostly about Mulder and Scully.
For the last 5 - 7 years, I just don't even bother watching new series until they've run their course completely, and then I binge them on whatever streaming service. It definitely makes me lean more heavily toward the serialized end when I know I can actually follow and remember what's happened from one episode to the next. I watched _Breaking Bad_ this way, and I'm waiting for _Better Call Saul_ to finish out so I can get started on it soon.
Season by season serialisation I think works really well. Stuff like Stranger Things, where even if you didn't like S2 & S3, you can still watch S1 and have it be a fairly self-contained season, or you can start at S3 and understand fairly well what's happening as almost everything from the previous season got tied up fairly neatly.
I don't think Doctor Who would ever become fully serialised because the show relies on change far too often for that to be attainable, but I do feel like riding that line rather than being strictly episodic would likely do the show a lot of good, especially when it comes to revitalising it.
I feel serialized storytelling works great for binging like Stranger Things but most dramas that air weekly are a mix of episodic and serialized which works as it keeps viewers interested.
I don't have much of a preference because I grew up with both extremes as well as hybrid shows. Most of the cartoons that I watched as a kid were episodic, but there were a few like Gargoyles and The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin that were serialized. On the live action side of things, shows like Family Matters and Full House were completely episodic with the exception of two part episodes. Same with the first season of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is still my favourite show of all time, was a hybrid show. It was episodic but there were storylines that carried on from episode to episode like Worf's discommendation from Klingon society, Q's testing of the crew, renegade Klingons attempting to destroy the alliance between the Federation and the Klingon Empire with the help of the Romulans. The Borg.
Serialised television is far more common in the UK, especially with shows like Coronation Street, EastEnders, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks etc. In fact, it's the most popular form of dramatic storytelling for many viewers. These shows are shown generally any time between 6.30 to 8.00 in the evening, and viewed by millions of households across the country. In short, regular television consumers are more than comfortable with the serialised format. Admittedly, I've not watched a great deal of soap over the last decade or so, but I fondly recall such characters as Jack & Vera Duckworth, Hilda Ogden, Den & Angie Watts, Ethel Skinner, even Jackie Corkhill from Brookside, whose actor, Incidentally, plays Dan's mum in Doctor Who. Audiences remember these characters, and the trials and tribulations they go through, with great fondness and sympathy. The Alan Bradley/Rita Fairclough storyline which ended with the former being killed by an oncoming tram (1986) or, more recently, Mike Baldwin, who had developed Alzheimer's, dying in arms of arch-rival Ken Barlow, are still talked about today, and are seminal moments of British television.
Doctor Who's executive producer Matt Strevens, in the most recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine, has this to say about Flux's serialised format: "In terms of form, and structure, I would say the storytelling - especially in Chapter Three - really does take the show in a new direction. It's very ambitious, and it credits the audience with sophistication and intelligence. Which is something we always do, of course, but with this, it's very much asking you to trust the show and go on a ride. Not everything is given to you in the moment. As with a lot of television now, it credits the audience with a degree of patience - that they're not going to know quite what's going on." Make of that what you will, but it seems clear that every decision made for Doctor Who: Flux is utterly deliberate. Strevens has also, elsewhere in the magazine, described Chris Chibnall as a 'fearless' writer. Fearless in the sense that he's happy to ignore the wrath of fandom in order to take the show in the direction he sees fit. Which is what's needed on a show like Doctor Who, frankly.
I agree with your sentiment but in fairness the shows you named are all also soaps, which as Nathaniel stated, might be considered the very epitome of serialised storytelling, actually one continuous story made up multiple stories if you think about - I'm trying not to, it makes me dizzy! 🥴 Not a criticism btw just an observation. You're right though, the characters and events become part of popular culture, I don't even watch soaps anymore but I know who you were talking about (the Brookie catch on Dan's mum was a great one!).
I'm trying to think of non-soap dramas that are standalone, as the latest trend seems to be serialised, the likes of Line of Duty, The Bodyguard, The Missing etc. I can think of maybe Vera or Midsummer Murders as ones that are episodic and it doesn't matter where you drop in or out. Are there are any other UK dramas that are episodic?
@@hotdog1214 My point was, when she mentioned soaps, she was talking about the American soaps, which are mostly shown in the early afternoon. UK soaps, on the other hand, are primetime viewing, and as such the audience is more used to the long-form multi-strand serialised format. Doctor Who: Flux is small fry in comparison, frankly.
As for your second point, I can't think of any other dramas that have individual episodes not connected to a larger thread, although there may be some children's dramas that do that. The new Worzel Gummidge comes to mind, but the episodes aren't regularly scheduled. As I say, other than that I don't think so.
@@andrewbowman4611 Fair point, I get that and agree, I guess we take it for granted that most of our soaps are on at primetime but in the US they are daytime, hadn't really thought of it that way but yes, nice observation. 👍
I'm quite happy to flip-flop from episodic to serial TV, just as long as the story is well done (although the latter is a drag if you missed the cool train and have to watch 40 episodes to catch up!) so maybe that's why; we've been conditioned from an early age!! 😨😋😂
In my opinion serialised shows can be really good. Although too many seem to go on too long once the original story has been told e.g. riverdale
Episodic is also great, but often the storytelling can be quite rushed.
I also find episodic follows the typical story structure more, everything starts out fine, characters run into a problem, problem gets resolved, end of episodes. Serialisation can mix up the order, have more shorter, side stories and take more creative License, however they have to engage audiences for much longer and can drag if not done well. (Certain episodes of handmaids tale can do this)
And finally my favourite serialised programs are Coronation Street, EastEnders and Emmerdale
My favourite episodic are dr who and law and order uk
Vera, you made this Saturday great....your videos always lift my spirits
With the glut of "nerd" television these days, I honestly want more of an episodic approach. It feels like creators want to rely on this ONGOING EPIC narrative approach. Which is good...if I had no other things going on in my life, and didn't need sleep.
The biggest stories I want are just small arcs, and that's it. Personal preference, and for those that enjoy ongoing narratives, good!
... I also think a lot of this stems from 30 years of shifting comic storytelling as well. And that drives me up the wall.
I like storytelling in general. As long as the format fits the story, I'm ok with that. One of the last impactful entertainment bits I consumed was a single season anime called Anohana. It is probably one of the greatest bits of media I've consumed, totally recommend it.
I do wonder if the fact that the current season of Doctor Who is limited to 6 episodes is what is driving some of their choices, particularly in the overstuffed first episode. If they had a few more episodes, would they have been able to tease some of the plots out a little slower. As it stands though, the first episode was frenetic in trying to give us all the info that they think a viewer would need to know to understand the players impacted by The Flux. It doesn’t come across as effective storytelling as an individual episode, and wonder if there could have been a way to trim some of the elements out of the serialised story.
I was intrigued enough myself to keep watching, but purely in a wtf are they doing and how are all these elements going to connect ultimately. Why were the weeping angels involved? Why are we seeing people from multiple time periods in episode 1, without them explaining how they impact the story? Every choice in episode 1 was deliberate, and I hope we don’t have to wait to Ep6 to find out how they all connect.
I do prefer the hybrid episodic / serialised nature of shows like Buffy. What Buffy did well was that it had time in the individual episodes to make you care about the main players, but the season arc was revealed slowly, culminating in the big story at the end of the season. Each season had its own story arc, so there weren’t any loose threads at the end of the season that had to be picked up the following year. It knew the story it was telling, and each episode was able to build toward that goal.
The issue with many serialised or hybrid shows is when they lose track of whatever story they want to tell. What should be a self contained story that is told in 1, 2, 3 seasons gets dragged out beyond its natural end, or is cut short due to cancellation, leaving viewers unsatisfied. To do serialised well, there needs to be a clear vision, and show runners who are on board to keep it on track. If you lose sight of that goal, you risk losing your audience on the journey.
Although I fall definitively on the serialised side of things, it's extremely hard and rare for a continuing serialised show to have a satisfying ending with little to no bloat or filler. That's why, when I think of my favourites, it's usually mini-series or anthologies. Awake (with Jason Isaacs), The Terror season 1, Now They See Us and Altered Carbon season 1, to some extent. The only multi-season example I can think of is The Good Place.
I think, the best shows come out of a mix of the both. A great example is Person of Interest. Although apparently starting off quite episodic, it's more of a slow burn and introduction into the world that also uses the episodic aspects of the show for a more meta viewing and analysis of the themes. It then flowers into something quite serialised with built in weight from the episodic beginnings.
Got Infinity Train flashbacks when she brought up "getting cancelled before you finish".
Anyway, I'm going to be that guy and say I prefer a mix of both serialised and episodic storytelling when they compliment each other. Infinity Train is kind of like this, but also Steven Universe and DuckTales were episodic whilst also revealing overarching stories, and they both turned out well in my opinion.
Mandalorian is episodic and serialized. There's a bigger story, but each episode is a self contained story.
Invincible is the opposite. Every episode is part of the main story, same with Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Each leads to the next and each is built upon what happened before. Like a long-ass 6 hour movie.
Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes manage to showcase what can go wrong and what can go right with having a series-long mystery planned out from beginning to end before you start. LoM didn't get its third season, so it was left incomplete and hanging... until A2A was commissioned, and did the big reveal.
When it works, it's so, SO much better than making it up as you go along and hoping that the big mystery reveals itself to you before everyone else. But how often does it not?
I see the good of both episodic and serialized. My main problem with serialized is if I'm in the mood, say, to watch an ep of GOT, well, how do I choose an ep? It's going to be silly out of context. But, with episodic shows, no problem, pick a fave ep and watch it.
But, I agree on the risks of serialized shows. I can think of two opposing examples of done right and done wrong. Torchwood: Miracle Day was just bad. For one thing, they could easily have cut it down to five eps and be a much tighter story. But, I guess that wasn't long enough for them, they wanted to make it ten eps. Without already having that vested interest in the characters, I doubt I would have watched past the first ep, it was so badly done.
For a good example, I'd say Black Sails. While, the first season was clearly trying to be GOT on water, the characters were interesting enough to make me want to stick with it. Each season got better and better and the ending paid off well.
I'd say that the best serialized show, one that's pretty recent, is Mr. Robot. That was all planned, and is absolutely air tight when it comes to its serialization. Truly amazing and you should absolutely check it out! As for one that's currently airing, you should also check out Succession.
Both can work really well . Depends of what kind of story you are telling. I like the ones that mix up both styles
The Fonz was originally a guest/recurring character in Happy Days but over time he came to run the show HEEEEEEEEYYYYYYY!!!!
I think the middle ground that Shows like Buffy did is probably what MOST shows to be.
Full serialised I love the ones I watch and I’ll get very invested in the story BUT I won’t watch many of them and I’ll almost never go back and watch an episode in isolation. Where as I can pick out an episode of Buffy and enjoy it even if I haven’t watched any other episode in years.
Isn't it a little early to talk about Doctor Who and its approach to serialized storytelling?
Unless you're referring to classic who as opposed to series 13
Modern Who has been doing serialised since it's return, not just season 13. It's just been doing it in the background of episodic content but it's there. It could even be argued that two-parters are serialised, although I personally think that's stretching it a bit.
Hi Vera! LOOOOVE THE NEW INTRO!
The first episode felt like they put the introduction of each episode that is to come together and made it to one episode in a clunky way.
Some things probably do need to be serialized. The idea behind Star Trek: Voyager required serialization. They start at point Z and need to end at point A. As viewers, we need to feel we're taking that journey. If everything's the same week after week, the show feels like it's running in place. They probably needed to start each early season with some idea of how to get home. If renewed, the plan fails (for reasons), and there's another season. But each season needed an arrow running through it
While I probably liked the episodes so far more than you do, I raised the same concerns and got the same type of replies. Yep, not everything needs to be explained and resolved *right away*, since that's what mysteries are all about. But now there's one third of a season behind us, and I still can't tell what the actual plot is what the story is about. It's impossible to sum up with a few sentences - and even with two or three paragraphs I'd struggle. Everything goes right, left, up, down, sideways, waysides - but there's just no center, apart from the main characters being involved in almost all of them.
I love LOST and loved the ending (I’m actually rewatching the series now with my siblings) but I think it’s incredibly funny that in their series bible they promised the show wouldn’t be serialised. This is literally what the pitch bible says:
“IS IT SELF-CONTAINED OR SERIALIZED?
Self-contained.
Seriously.”
Blake's 7 had season/series arcs at a time when TV shows (apart from soaps) were very self contained. In the first series everything was set up over the first three or four episodes over a slow burn.
Phoenix was an Australian police procedural that aired over two series/seasons in the early 1990's. Apart from setting out to be a much more gritty and realistic portrayl of police work, it differed from other police shows with the one investigation taking place over a whole series, instead of each episode being a separate case.
Theres definatley a spectrum, the middle of which Doctor Who usually falls around. The latest season skews closer to the serialised end but definatley isnt at either extreme.
Doctor who episodic original run except maybe key to time or as it was 4 or so many parts a serial?
I tend to prefer serialised but I'm not against the occasional episodic series. Or heck even a combo of both. As for Doctor Who I can see why Chibnall decided to try and make Series 11 episodic. It provided an immediate and refreshing contrast to the heavily serialised era of Moffat (which I love.) Thing is though S11 kind of half asses the episodic bit near the end where the Stenza and specifically Tzim-Sha are kind of treated like a main antagonist from a serialised season would be which flat out doesn't work. S12 is a sharp return to a more serialised format and honestly I think that's because Chibnall as a writer feels more comfortable writing serialised stuff. This definitely seems to be backed up as S13 feels like the most relaxed and not awkward in terms of writing I've ever seen from Chibnall's tenure yet. I'd be all for a proper Episodic series of Doctor Who but perhaps under a different showrunner
I generally prefer shows with a kind of episodic template but that do have a overarching story, like supernatural (at least the earlier seaons) and dr who (again, at least the earlier seasons) where, for at least the majority of episodes you don't have to watch everything but you're kind of rewarded if you do, kind of like the MCU but in tv. I like sort of relaxing and just watching characters I love just sort of live and do things that will wrap up in the end but I do like having them grow and change and learn as the story moves foward.
A truly good serialised show should have a degree of episodic story telling in it, and each season needs a conclusion of sorts as well as seeds to lead on to the next season.
It really annoys me how common cliffhanger endings are, especially how it is usually obvious a few episodes in advance that the season won't end in a satisfying way.
I was really hoping What If would be a purely episodic series, the anthology only loosely linked by The Watcher seeing the events play out and serving as our guide, so when the final two episodes tried to wrap everything up into a grand crossover I just checked out. Maybe it was my fault for wanting the show to be something it wasn't (the two episodes are my least favorites after Zombies, that episodes I just thought was straight up bad), but I really hope that in the future if they serialize What If episodes, it's through sequels to individual episodes that can have their stories continued in interesting ways, instead of through big crossovers
i think i agree with most everything you said. favorite serialized was braking bad and episodic i guess probably star trek and if i had to pick only one series i guess next generation.
I prefer the middle ground approach like B5 and Buffy. My biggest complaint these days is season length. Shows did 20-22 episode seasons for many years (at least in the US) and did so successfully. I'm sure there are good arguments as to why they have been getting increasingly shorter for years now but I'm not sure what can really justify less content. Maybe you should do a video on this topic.
I always loved the serialized stories in 24. Since each 24 hour season followed a single day, you could reset each season, and tell a slightly different story. I also think Star Trek Enterprise got better in its third and fourth seasons when it shifted to more serialized stories.
I think binging shows lends itself to serialized shows. I can watch a plot moving forwards hour after hour but I've been watching Sabrina the teenage witch recently and I only watch a few episodes at a time because I have a much lower threshold for how many times in a row I can watch a spell go awry and need to be fixed in a comical way. Both are good but lend themselves to different viewing habits.
I think Doctor Who season 13's format is a very deliberate choice .
I don't know if you know this but there's been a series running for 6 seasons on the BBC with 5 to 7 episodes per season forming a complete story, yet with an overall background arc.
It has a bent cop/institutional corruption theme and it's called Line of Duty, and it's the most successful drama the BBC has done this century, possibly the most successful ever in the UK. Even I who don't normally like cop shows found it so compelling I binged watched the whole lot in two weeks.
Shoehorning Doctor Who into the same format will have taken next to no effort and is a totally logical executive decision.
BTW the new master is a bent cop. Or rather an ex-bent cop now.
Oh and Azure was a key figure in an organized crime syndicate but now teaches children how _not_ to be criminals.
Regarding NuWho, it wants to have it both ways with its "Mystery Box" storytelling, which I am so sick of (drop a a scene about the season finale every episode or so). Buffy employed a version of this well: it had mostly episodic storytelling with an overarching season plot (its "Big Bads"). The fact that the series was confined to Sunnydale made this possible. I don't think this would work for Doctor Who, where there is a ship that can go anywhere in time and space. Frankly, I think variety is best for a show like that: if it's a one off, that's cool, a two-parter, even better, if there is some writer who wants to try a War Games-esque serial with five one-hour parts, let them (which isn't really what Flux feels like, Flux feels like a 6-episode Mystery Box with a shiny bow, although I am enjoying it.) Hope RTD starts to meander away from the box.
I like a bit of both, but lean towards serialised.
I hate when a serialised show I like gets cancelled early though. Recently happened to Final Space which I loved.
IIRC Jesse in Breaking Bad was meant to get Walter off the ground and then leave the show, but they liked Aaron Paul's realization so much he became integral to the rest of the show.
I prefer serialized to episodic because it keeps me motivated to watch more. Obviously, it has to be executed well.
An example of how having to make a hard pivot with a serialized program can be a massive problem would be the Falcon & the Winter Soldier series. If memory serves, they originally had a ‘manufactured pandemic’ subplot that had to be completely scrubbed out and replaced, which ended up making the series very disjointed and uneven.
good breakdown i loved it keep going ❤
Avatar the last airbender does both and it's great
I prefer a mix. I wish Doctor Who would go back to having episodes where The Doctor and the companion(s) arrive on a planet, see problems and by the end make the problems better. I'm getting fed up with story arcs about the Doctor's "past"