A couple of weeks ago, Carla had some thoughts on NBC’s The Event. Specifically what was the titular event and how has the dearth of information about said event over the course of the season hurt the show’s ratings. The comments seemed to come down mostly on the negative side as people laid blame for the show’s failures on everything from a lousy pilot episode to bad casting choices. I don’t think the pilot was bad at all, but I do have one major casting peeve — Sarah Roemer. She cannot seem to deliver a line or go through any scene without some kind of smirk on her face. For the longest time, I thought she was in on whatever the aliens had in store for us just because of her expression. Turns out she was as in the dark as the rest of us.
But what really is the problem with The Event (besides Roemer)? I don’t think it’s the pilot — we’re well beyond that at this point in the season to keep holding that against it — or the story itself. I’ve been intrigued enough all season to keep tuning in and I’m pretty satisfied that what the event is has been sufficiently revealed (to date, anyway). What I think is the real problem is the fact that viewers today want answers to any show with a central mystery and if they don’t have those answers by the credit roll of episode two then they are done and out, complaining that the show took too long to answer those burning questions.
Besides Lost, how many shows with central mysteries have survived for more than a season in the last few years? The TV landscape is littered with the remains of shows like FlashForward, Invasion, Surface, Threshold, Jericho, Journeyman … even Lost took a hit when more questions were posed season after season instead of answers revealed. We’ve just become a society that simply needs instant gratification when it comes to storytelling on TV and we can’t seem to enjoy watching a plot unfold slowly, teasingly over the course of a season (unless it’s on a premium cable channel where viewers are willing to pay for that kind of storytelling). Do you buy a book, read the first and last chapter and put it away? Of course not! A TV series needs to be thought of as a book with twenty-two chapters (give or take) and each chapter will either reveal small tidbits of information or give us more character development. All of the story’s intrigue is not going to be revealed in the first chapter of a book, so why do we expect our serialized TV dramas to do the same? If all is revealed in the pilot — the first chapter — then what is the point of coming back for more?
Look at the most popular scripted dramas on TV right now. Do you see any serialized stories that need to be followed week after week to understand what’s going on? You can consider Grey’s Anatomy somewhat serialized, but these are relationship stories that — unless someone dies or leaves the show suddenly — you can pick up fairly easily if you miss an episode. Then you have shows like the CSIs, the NCISes, the Law & Orders, the Criminal Minds — shows that purposely avoid any real long-term story commitment and instead focus on the crime each episode with the characters just being players in the game of solving the crime. We do get to know a little of their relationships as the years pass, but these procedurals pretty much keep any serialized storytelling to a minimum. Desperate Housewives is probably the only successful serialized drama on the air at the moment.
With daytime soaps vanishing from the television landscape, will that spell the end for primetime serials as well? I grew up watching shows like Dallas (which is due for a reboot on TBS), Knots Landing, Dynasty and Falcon Crest and I enjoy The Event and have enjoyed some of its fallen counterparts as well. But have we seen the end of the serialized drama, at least those with a mystery that requires answers? I hope not because I like being drawn into these worlds, to see stories unfold, to see mysteries deepen that make me want to tune in each week. Is it too late for The Event? More than likely, but I truly hope that viewers will once again discover the joys of long-form storytelling before these shows become extinct.
Clacked by Chuck Duncan 
on Apr 19, 2011 @ 14:00 EST5EDT
You seem to be the only one that liked that huge mess of a pilot that The Event had. It was horrible. It wasn’t the viewers wanted answers right away, it was just so badly done that the viewers NBC had (which were like 13 million) ditched because it was so bad.
It’s not like more sci-fi shows where the audience slowly starts ditching the show, The Event had the viewers and they left incredibly quickly because the show is a pile of shit. Within a month the show lost 50% of the audience, I don’t think that’s because everyone wanted answers every second, people just hated the garbage of a show.
*POST AUTHOR*
… sigh …
The sad thing is, this is one of the things television can do that movies can’t: reveal a story over time, and allow characters to develop. “The Event” has its problems, for sure. But I hope there’s a future for serialized dramas beyond nighttime soaps. You’re also specifically talking about sci-fi type storylines. There are shows like “Parenthood” that I don’t consider a soap, but I do consider to be a drama with ongoing storylines.
*POST AUTHOR*
Yes, I’m specifically referring to any show with some kind of overarching mystery that goes beyond the personal relationships of a show like Parenthood. Viewers are more comfortable, I think, with those kinds of stories as opposed to a mystery that is dangled before them and drawn out week after week without much revealed. That’s where viewers get antsy now because they either don’t have the patience to let the story unfold, or they fear that the network will pull the plug before any kind of answer is presented. Brothers & Sisters also sticks to that soap formula of storytelling where it’s more about the characters than about a central mystery. Those kinds of shows are more accepted by viewers these days, although the show that had the best critical reviews of the season, Lonestar, which hearkened back to the days of Dallas didn’t make it past the third episode. I think that surprised a lot of people.
To me, it seems like all the serials have moved to cable, and maybe that’s a better place for them, giving them more time to develop an audiene. Shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Killing, Damages (perhaps not a great example, but one of my favorite shows), True Blood, etc… They’re all serialized.
My problem with a lot of the “mystery” shows you mentioned (I’m thinking specifically of The Event and Flashforward) is that they almost seemed to think that intrigue was enough. After a few episodes of The Event I realized that none of the characters were developed or interesting enough to keep me watching. I watched the entire season of Flashforward, but there were so many flaws and wrong turns that were evident, and at the heart of it, the main characters were unbearable.
I completely agree with you, Bob. It’s the characters that turned me away. To have any interest in the story, you really need a compelling character or two. The Event bores me because I don’t care if any of them live or die. The same happened with Flashforward.
I think networks have their heads shoved so far up their reality asses that they are incapable of separating the good from the bad in the heaps of mystery dramas any longer. Overall, I guess that’s ok, because I prefer them with swearing and less restrictions on cable, anyway.
maybe the problem is that the seasons are too long …
maybe if they broke the seasons down into two sets of 13 episodes then they would spend more time on actual story and less time on pointless dreck … this works well for the UK … and it works fantastically for USA/TNT … why not the US major networks?
case in point. Being Human … the UK version told the same story in half the episodes … and moved at a much quicker pace. If the US networks took this approach and scripted their shows so that story lines resolved in 13 episodes and then they went onto the next story line … then things would be much better
Yes. All of the cable shows I mentioned only have 10-13 episodes per season. It really is a much nicer number, and if anything leaves you wanting for more, which can be a good thing.
*POST AUTHOR*
I couldn’t agree more (I did give a shout out to premium cable shows) that these shows do thrive on cable better than the networks. And I’ve argued now for a couple of years that the networks need to consider doing shorter seasons like cable or British shows (some Brit shows even go off the air for years before coming back for more). Look at how successful The Walking Dead was at 6 episodes. Then you have shows like The Sopranos which even took a year off between seasons and people still tuned in when it came back. The networks need to adopt that model of production, produce shorter seasons so writers can produce a dozen really great scripts instead of two dozen mediocre ones and air the episodes weekly – not four in a row then take it off the air for four months.
I’m not sure I agree completely, but I’d modify to say this:
Maybe the problem is that shows are shoehorned into two lengths: 13 episodes, or 22. Some stories, some genres, some writers work well in a 22 episode structure, but others could/should be shorter (or longer … I wouldn’t want to see 24 (the show) done in 22 episodes, as an example)/
Vampire Diaries does it successfully in 22 episodes … they may even do 24.
*POST AUTHOR*
One of my favorite shows! I agree it is successful and I want to tune in every week, but they have to contend with much lower ratings expectations than NBC, CBS or ABC. Would it have survived on any of the other broadcast networks I wonder? They also haven’t been prone to dragging the story out or not giving the viewers a payoff episode after episode. You never know who might die next, and I think that’s what keeps viewers coming back – people really are invested in the characters and that is maybe something the other failed shows haven’t been able to pull off because they are too concerned about the show’s mythology. The whole Klaus plot this season has been the big mystery, but it hasn’t been as shrouded or barely hinted at as some other shows that take the slow-burn approach to their storytelling.
I’d throw Pretty Little Liars in the hat, too. Of course, it’s not on one of the major networks, so it’s a different standard, but it’s definitely got that mystery element that’s been slowly unraveling throughout the series.
When reading Chuck’s post, Vampire Diaries jumped out at me as a show that has been successful. It moves quickly answering questions and moving on, yet always leaving somethings hanging out there.
Fringe is another example of a show that is heavily serialized that has done an amazing job at moving the story forward. Ratings aren’t great, but enough to get renewed!
One thing that both of those shows have is strong leadership. I’ve interviewed EPs from both shows and they talk about telling the story in chapters or themes. That I think really helps keep the story moving along. They know where they are going so they don’t drag it out. Plus, they both have amazing casts as well.
*POST AUTHOR*
Yes, Fringe is another rarity that has survived with the mystery being dangled before the viewers. I think it helps that they can also do one-off shows, like The X-Files used to do, that have absolutely no mythology. You could also put Supernatural in that category too with the whole Apocalypse thread running throughout the show’s first five years, but they also did one-off episodes that newbies to the show could enjoy. I think strong leadership and a lack of network interference also helps with the vision for the show. Once people start tuning out because they feel like they’re not getting answers they want, the networks have a tendency to pull the show off the air, fiddle with it and bring it back “new and improved” but by that time it’s been gone so long that only the die-hard fans are still watching.
Great post. I recently started watching Damages, the first season of which (if you haven’t seen it) kind of works backwards to find out how the main character got to where she is in the pilot. A very good show, but it might not have held my interest had I not been relying on the instant gratification of my Netflix queue.
I read an article somewhat recently (like within the last 2 months) that talked about exactly what you discussed in your post, using Damages as an example of shows people just won’t have the patience to watch. I can’t remember who wrote it though.
*POST AUTHOR*
Damages is in my queue too. I keep hearing how good it is. If it’s got a compelling story that grabs me, then I’m good even if I don’t care all that much for the characters. I really haven’t had any attachment to any of the characters on The Event but I really want to see where the story goes. If they could have just done a better job of developing the characters, maybe people wouldn’t have grown weary of waiting for more clues about the event itself. But even as much as people liked the characters on Lost, viewers still began to lose interest as the mythology got deeper and deeper with no apparent resolution in sight … even when the resolution was in sight! It’s a tough balancing act, and the major networks don’t help with their track record of not giving shows a chance to develop. No one wants to get hooked on a new fall show they know will be cancelled before Christmas.
Shorter seasons, as Gordon suggested, would definitely be the way to go. I’m enjoying “The Event,” but I have to agree that none of the characters are really very compelling. I actually liked many of the characters on “Flash Forward” better and enjoyed the series more, but I guess I’m in the minority. I’m used to that.
If not shorter seasons then these shows should be planned as a one-off with a definite resolution at the end. Perhaps knowing there will be a definite payoff would keep some viewers hanging on. My favorite form of drama is the serialized type, but as I said before I’m used to being in the minority when it comes to television preferences.
*POST AUTHOR*
I started watching FlashForward but I never connected with the characters and then it went on hiatus and I lost track of it. I do have the DVD though so I will get to it some day.
I’m for shorter seasons. I don’t think the networks are interested in one-off’s anymore. The age of the mini-series is pretty much over and the last time CBS tried a one-off with Harper’s Island, it didn’t work out so well. NBC was also developing a show, Day One that went from series to one-off to TV movie to never getting aired. Networks don’t want to spend the money to produce something with a limited run anymore, especially if it would be hugely successful. Then they’d want to continue the story and run it into the ground, or until they stopped making money from it.
There is 2 kinds of viewers, those who watch TV just because there is nothing else to do that night, they randomly watch what they stumble upon.
and the second kind of viewers are those who like to invest their time in what they watch and will follow from start a series/show and never miss an episode, they will have a vpr and subscribe to pay channels like HBO so they don’t miss anything.
I think there is more viewers of the first kind then the dedicated ones and that’s why huge series that need a close follow up didn’t take with them and since the stations need to pay for those shows then they got cancelled more freely and then they produced easy watching show that don’t need weekly watching to understand them.
Maybe the answer is to shorten the series, in the UK it seems to work, I don’t know, but its very frustrating when you start to watch a show and because the ratings is bad they cancel it, this don’t help when you stat watching and think that well maybe I shouldn’t watch this new show since it will be probably cancelled.
. . . . .
The pilot for The Event was not bad in the least. I’ll go as far to say it was one of the better pilots in the last few years. It was engaging, exciting, mysterious and let us wanting more. Thing is … it didn’t deliver.
Lost, indeed, got caught in that hole. And it recovered. And got caught again. Back and forth and back and forth. In the end, it recovered … just not to the satisfaction of a lot of us.
I’m going to chalk up the repeated stumbling of serialized shows to story as well as a fickle public. I’m all aboard the “let’s see where this goes” train on a particular show, even holding tight until the end of the season if that’s what it takes. But the show has to throw you a bone every once in awhile. You can’t have mystery upon mystery upon mystery, ad nauseum, piled high without leaking some answers – or coming out in the open with them flat out. I’ve got to want to come back. I’ve got to have some indication that something’s going to get resolved or revealed or that makes sense, not perpetual malarkey times ten.
No Ordinary Family, while flawed in its own ways, satisfied me for what it was. It tossed confuzzlement out there … intrigue and cliff hangers at the end of episodes and through the season. And it wrapped up many things in the end. Yes, it was a bit too light and fluffy, but I didn’t have a problem with the way the writers were handling the serialization of it. All roads lead to the end journey that I’ve probably seen the last of NOF, but I hold out hope. Foolishly perhaps, but I still hold it.
Cool serialization for me? Homicide: Life On The Street. What a spiffy show that was. Nice little encapsulations intermixed with longer arcs of story that completely satisfied. I didn’t hear a smidge of grumbling about that show.
And the public and their ADD tendencies? Blame the internet. Blame the fact they need to know right freakin’ now when stuff goes down. I’m constantly yelling at people to keep to themselves when it comes to the startling conclusion or who’s going home or what the hell happened on a program. I’ll find out soon enough. If you want to gloat that you know what took place, tell it to someone else … not me. The public is a big, huge problem where serialized shows are concerned. Can you imagine being a writer one a show and have to put up with all the talk and slander and whining and moaning that overloads the social networks, et al about a show or episode? You gotta have a thick skin if you’re a writer.
And the public needs to cool their jets. I’d love to launch some of their asses back to the 60’s and see how they like it there. No instant snacks, remote controls or DVRs for them!
Abbreviated seasons? They’re okay. We recently (relatively speaking) concluded one of the shortest seasons in history (The Walking Dead) and everyone and his brother is champing at the bit for more. But I believe that example is an exception to the rule. Won’t work for a lot of new shows.
*POST AUTHOR*
Thanks, I knew I wasn’t the only person who was intrigued enough with the pilot to continue to give the show a chance!
I absolutely hate when spoilers for shows are posted online the second something is revealed or as the last of the credits has rolled. The argument is that they aren’t spoilers if the show has aired, but in this age of DVRs, not everyone has had a chance to see the show as it was broadcast.
The Walking Dead was an aberration as far as a TV season is concerned but who knew it was going to be what it was. It was more like a mini-series from the 70s and 80s that was so successful it spawned a regular series. But, you can’t deny that premium cable does it right with 13-episode seasons. Look at True Blood, Dexter and Spartacus, to name a few. The writers and producers also know with cable that they’re getting a guaranteed run of at least 13 episodes to tell a good story and if successful out of the gate, renewals come early enough to start planning another season. On broadcast, a show gets an initial 13-episode order and if lucky enough will get the back 9 pickup. But if ratings are bad, the initial 13 episodes might not even see the light of day and that is really part of the reason viewers don’t like to tune in to these types of shows. Who wants to get invested in a plot that may be cancelled by the sixth episode? So viewers tune out if they don’t get answers to their questions fast enough and the networks pull the plug because viewers tune out and those who want to get involved in the story won’t watch because they don’t want the rug pulled out from under them yet again. It’s a vicious cycle.
And I’m glad you mentioned the 60s. I was also going to mention a classic show from the 60s that was totally dependent on its main mystery, The Fugutive. If the identity of the one-armed man had been revealed to the viewers within the first season, who would have wanted to keep watching? And think about Twin Peaks. People were glued to their sets wanting to know the identity of Laura Palmer’s killer and were enraged when there were absolutely no answers by the end of the first season. They came back for a second season, but the pressure was so great to reveal the killer that they had no choice but to do so … and the minute we all knew who killed Laura Palmer no one cared about the show anymore. Looking at The Event now, if too much information had been given would that have sustained interest or would the viewers have said, “Oh” and tuned out anyway? I do agree with earlier comments that you have to have engaging characters, great writing and a vision of where your show is going if you want to sustain a mystery to bring people back and in cases like this, I still believe that guaranteed 13-episode seasons are the way to go – and you’ll only get that on cable.
. . . . .
I almost mentioned Twin Peaks, Chuck … a show I believe wouldn’t cut the mustard in today’s market.
Yep … The Fugitive. They just don’t make’em like that anymore …
Twin Peaks! Squee!
But The Killing is doing it well. A 21st century Twin Peaks? (I never watched, just going off comments from other Clackers)
The TV networks are to blame for the demise of Flashforward
and The Event. Just when each series was getting really
interesting, they took it off the air for weeks or months.
the networks must have a long-term commitment to a seies.
By the way, I think Sarah Roemer is one of the most charming
things about “The Event.”
*POST AUTHOR*
I agree about those enforced hiatuses. Same thing with the first season of V – it was on for four weeks then off for four months. I don’t know why networks think those are such great ideas. Just give the show a short season and play it all the way through for 13 weeks and leave viewers wanting more come next season.
As for Sarah Roemer, I think you’re in the minority. The general consensus (at least around here) has been that she was one of the worst things about The Event because she seemed to only have that one smirky expression. It drove me nuts, although I thought she did improve once we all found out that the character didn’t know what was going on. She played distressed better than puzzled.