The new season of Mad Men started on AMC last night. Though I’d been looking forward to it, I gave serious thought to skipping it anyway, as the series is set up so that stories unfold very slowly, and one must pretty much watch an entire season to understand the hows and whys of a given character arc. Don’t get me long–I love the show. But it requires a commitment of time and effort to appreciate.
By contrast you have shows like NCIS, which I also love. Though NCIS has continuing stories, for the most part individual episodes are stand-alone; you generally watch them in any order and still enjoy them, and at most you may need to hear occasional explanations like “Tony took over the team during Gibbs’ brief retirement, and he’s been doing special projects for the director since Gibbs got back.”
And, of course, classic series lack even that much story continuity. There used to be a joke among fans of Star Trek that you could tell when in a season a given episode was shot by how big William Shatner’s belly was, but otherwise you could never tell; every episode stands alone.
I prefer the long arcs. I like to be surprised by shows, and that’s really hard in the stand alone format; someone always saves the day, the main characters always survive unhurt, and nothing ever changes. Babylon 5, on the other hand, had no problem drastically altering their universe in the space of a single episode. Characters came and went, wars started and ended, and people changed. It allowed me to pause between episodes and think “so where is this going,” as opposed to knowing that more of the same was coming.
Also, just how deep a story can you tell in a single episode? I’ve seen some great shows that used the standalone format, but one can only do so much in 44 minutes. For example, all of the best new Doctor Who episodes are 2+ parters save one (girl in the fireplace).
I like a combo platter. A show where each episode stands alone with a complete story, yet it also advances a long-term arc. * X-Files* did this, and *Burn Notice *does now. *Enterprise *did it for one season. I’m sure there are many other examples but those pop to mind…TRM
My experience is that shows with extended plot arcs eventually lose momentum at some point. Because the producers never know how long the show will run, resolutions get put off indefinitely, plot twists start coming thick and fast and ridiculous, characterization is compromised, and it becomes a mess. Standalone shows are more re-watchable, I think. And on shows with extended stories, the best ones (I’m thinking of the Sopranos here) usually drift through plot arcs more slowly.
I like a little of both. When every episode is stand-alone, it’s easier to watch, and doesn’t matter as much if you miss an episode or watch them out of order.
That said, I loved *NCIS’s *season-long arc with La Grenouille. Third Watch had a couple of great three or four espiode arcs that were amazing.
I think *Lost *would be the epitome of story arc shows. There’s just no way you can pop in and catch an episode here and there. You really have to start at the beginning and work your way through.
I prefer standalone episodes, because they seem less of a commitment. (Although I am committed to seeing Lost through to the bitter end.) Damages (an FX drama starring Glenn Close) was particularly annoying because it involved season-long arcs but kept flashing back and forth in time. Breaking Bad does a little of this, but the episodes basically stand on their own.
It depends on the show, I guess. On the X-Files, I always preferred the stand-alone episodes over the long story arcs, but then again I jumped into the show relatively late in its run (fourth or fifth season).
On the Sopranos, I think the extended storylines worked well. Unlike the X-Files, they didn’t have very many stand-alone episodes, so they were always talking about whatever scheme Tony was involved in that season, and it was fairly easy to keep up with what going on.
I am always frustrated when I invest some time and/or emotion in a story line that is never resolved. Since in the US series are often canceled without resolution, I prefer to not watch things that have a long arc. However, if a story is resolved each season, that is kind of cool, and I can enjoy that.
I want each episode to tell a self-contained story, to have a satisfying payoff and some kind of closure. Something, at least, should be resolved by the end of the episode. If, on top of that, you can have an ongoing story arc that really works, so much the better—though, the more arc-ey the show is, the harder it is to sample an episode or two and tell whether you’re going to like it enough to put in the time necessary to really appreciate it.
Veronica Mars, at least in its first season, did a pretty good job of having it both ways.
My favorite example of it is Scrubs. There are longer, over-reaching stories (Carla and Turk, JD’s various romantic escapades, Dr. Cox’s anger and getting in his own way, etc.), yet I can watch an episode and understand it if I haven’t seen the one before it. Well, most episodes. Occasionally, two sorta run together.
I like having arcs that are built from stand alone episodes but in the US our seasons typically twice as long as they should be in order to be really effective at it. Cable dramas, on the other hand, typically are shot for half seasons which I think is why they tend to be better with this kind of thing. It also avoids the unresolved due to cancellation problem.
ETA: Going all out on arc usually eventually loses me. I stopped watching Battlestar Galactica because I missed a few months of episodes (and once I get all the DVD sets I’ll watch the whole thing).
That is why I really loved Babylon 5, JMS wanted a specific 5 year/season story arc.
Actually, even though there was a story arc, many of the episodes were pretty much stand alone. They only had a general framework that referred to where it was in the arc overall.
I like there to be some point to an episode, some resolution or sense of accomplishment or closure.
I have enjoyed shows with an overarching story on top as long as there’s a point, a direction. I get frustrated with shows when the writers demonstrate they don’t know what they are doing or where they are going. For instance
Lost: started really good. Was intriguing, if mysterious. Wondered about the monster and such. Enjoyed seeing reflections of the same events from different character perspectives, and how the scenes tied back together. But then the show went off down the hole, and chasing the Others, and with the second set and the missing kids, and it just got lost.
Prison Break: The first season was pretty good, when it was the actual prison break going on. Then they escaped, and had to get away while being chased. But once they were out, it had to go off chasing the conspiracy, and then they got captured in a new South American prison. Writers didn’t know what they were doing, and it showed.
24: concept is interesting, all events in a 24 hour period played out real time. But when the writers can’t seem to keep consistent with what happened just the episode prior, it shows they are making it up as they go. Season 7, when Head Henchman decides to give up plan and escape to South America, then gets killed. Next episode, his son is waiting for him on the strike team. WTF?
Episodic shows are good for things like procedurals, where the essence of the show is what happens on that one event. CSI, Law & Order, etc. Or goofy sitcoms, because they’re goofy and sitcoms.
The last few shows I’ve watched are Babylon 5, Firefly, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and currently working through Battlestar Galactica, and I really got used to the continuing-storyline style. Then I recently started The Big Bang Theory, and suddenly found the standalone-episode format jarring (along with the laugh track). But all of my TV watching for the past decade or so has been on DVD, so I don’t have to worry about accidentally missing an episode.
I also go with the combo-platter mentality, but not all in one show: I watch very little “live” tv, so I like to have several shows on my plate so that I can watch what I need when I have the time. For example, I’m currently going through all of Lost with my brother, so I can only watch an episode of that when we both have time, and the overarching story is very satisfying because we can make predictions together and I can come on here and read the conversations that people had when it originally aired. I’m also watching Big Bang Theory & How I Met Your Mother with my husband, which have varying degrees of “arc” and so I can go a while without seeing an ep and I don’t have to worry about forgetting crucial details. Finally, I like that I cna access episodes of Reba, 30 Rock, Family Guy, etc. on Hulu, so I have something to hold my attention for 30 minutes while I do a load of dishes, laundry, etc., without requiring any further committment.
I like stand alone episodes. I don’t have a DVR or VCR, and my computer chair isn’t really comfortable enough to watch entire episodes at, so I don’t want to have to worry about missing a show and then having no idea what’s going on.
Come to think of it, Veronica Mars may just be the perfect example of how you can have your cake and eat it too.
Seriously. Just about every episode revolved around solving a self contained mystery, all the while clues were gathered and developments were made toward the season-long mystery. In theory it should be just as fun to catch a random episode on TV as it would to have a DVD marathon.
If I had to choose though I’d go with a character-driven arc show, only because is more intellectually stimulating and rewarding. Also the days of actually sitting in front of the TV to catch random episodes here and there are limited. DVD sets and online streaming and digital recording and such are becoming so easily available, also people are really craving more meaty experiences for their time investments.
There are certainly flaws in the format, like the previously mentioned tendency for lost direction as things drag on. But there are also plenty of weaknesses to the other approach, such as more difficulty in portraying actual character growth. It should be noted though that most of the best modern shows employ long term arcs, heck ever since F.R.I.E.N.D.S even sitcoms like HIMYM are expected to have some sort of seasonal development. The pendulum is swinging.
I’d like to see half-season arcs, or returning to past characters and situations to establish a series-long arc, with the freedom to even cross over. An arc that stretches three episodes within a season is also good.
So if there were three arcs in a season, thus:
Ep1 - Ep13: Main character’s mysterious past.
Ep9 - Ep18: Organisation Chief sets up and pulls off evil plot.
Eps 5, 7, 20: Secondary character’s relentless enemy.
Ep20 - Ep 22: Big buildup to huge finale, tying a couple of the other arcs together.
I think season 2 of Chuck successfully followed this approach.