Showing posts with label 24. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 24. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
This fiction doesn't seem real
SPOILER - If you have not watched Homeland Season Two (2012), move along. Move along.
I always get a kick out of when a supposedly unrealistic storyline is panned, only to have it pointed out that the basis of the story actually did happen in real life.
Jason Alexander complained to Larry David that George Costanza was behaving unrealistically in particular situation until David told Alexander that the situation actually happened to him and he behaved in the manner written in the script.
I can remember at the end of West Wing Season Six some found it unrealistic that Matt Santos would nominate Leo, with his health problems, as his vice president. It was pretty simple to point out Dick Cheney, who has had five heart attacks, won two elections for veep.
Though you may want to see an example actually found in the press...
An episode of Newsroom ran featuring election night 2010, where the Tea Party swept into Congress. Will posed a question about the debt ceiling and was trashed in this review for being clairvoyant, indicative of the show being written sanctimoniously with the benefit of hindsight, even though there were similar questions at the time about whether the GOP would threaten the debt ceiling.
Homeland Season Two strode into bizarre territory with its storylines, including international blackberry texting to warn about attacks, chasing down a terrorist with nothing but a pipe, and a car accident with Friday Night Lights Season Two-esque consequences.
One of the almost too unbelievable storylines was the Abu Nazir terror network trying to murder the veep via hacking into his pacemaker. In quite possibly the most -24- scene of the series, exactly that occurs. It's ridiculous, but also highly entertaining and exciting and memorable, as shows often are with a lead or secondary character's death.
In this past Sunday's 60 Minutes, a piece focusing on Vice President Dick Cheney's health says "not that ridiculous..."
In 2007, when Cheney needed his implanted defibrillator replaced, Dr. Reiner ordered the manufacturer to disable the wireless feature - fearing a terrorist could assassinate the vice president by sending a signal to the device, telling it to shock his heart into cardiac arrest.
Cheney goes on to directly address his perception of the Homeland scene.
Well, I was aware of the danger, if you will, that existed but I found it credible. Because I know from the experience we had and the necessity for adjusting my own device that it was an accurate portrayal of what was possible.
Who'd have thought that? I generally have a high level of suspending disbelief for television, especially my favorite shows. If Breaking Bad wants to make a leap to bring the plot along, they get the benefit of the doubt. If Homeland wants to do an absurd hit and run, I'll see where it goes.
Truth stranger than fiction. So I allow a lot of latitude when watching a show, rather than point out seemingly obvious flaws. Because, after all, it is fiction. And a hit and run may actually be a plot device used to drive a wedge between the politically chummy Brody and veep families.
More than the realism of plot points, I'm interested in watching how carefully constructed characters react to these plot points. The better the characters are constructed, the more lenient one can be with the plot's realism. Frankly, I find it a lot more offensive to the brain when a character is acting out of character or a continuity error occurs than when the fictional plot doesn't seem like non-fiction.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Take a Page from 24
On demand television watching, like Orange is the New Black from Netflix, and marathon DVD sessions are re-shaping how people watch television, providing a format for serialized television not previously available.
Networks shouldn't give up on dramas though, just re-think them. I think cable is also going to have to re-think how they do things in a few years when the market becomes oversaturated with serialized (especially gritty ones, an overused term if there was one) dramas* as every network not only gets in the game, but gets in the game enough to consistently air a show year-round. How to make your show stand out? And how do you give viewers impetus to finally turn on your show when they have the convenience of doing so whenever they damn well please?
* Already evident by some shows being a poor man's version of other successful shows. Some flash with a red alarm as being Very. Important. and discussing Real. Issues. While there's no cap on the number of anti-heroes there can be, all the anti-heroes are not created equally.
One way ABC re-thought Lost was to air episodes consecutively. Season One, with 24 episodes, aired from late September to late May, a traditional television schedule spanning about 32 weeks. This of course means repeats and pre-emptions which could push viewers away when they start missing episodes or watching them out of order.
So they played with the model. Season Three aired episodes six consecutive weeks in the fall and picked up again a few months later, airing the remaining 17 episodes consecutively. Following the negotiation of a series end date * the only case of episodes not airing in consecutive weeks was due to the writers' strike **.
* An incredibly contentious issue that nearly resulted in the producers leaving. They wanted an date, the network did not, which hamstrung a lot of their creative efforts.
** Season Four in eight and six week blocks, and Seasons Five and Six in 16 and 17 week blocks, respectively.
No doubt Lost was a tough show to get into due to the serialization, and not made easy to hang onto due to scheduling. Even the pilot which seems like an obvious two hour long premier aired over two separate weeks. Adaptation allowed them to keep loyal viewers though.
It is easier to keep watching a show than it is to start a new one. Despite pleas from friends and offers of DVD boxes, show recommendations are most often met with, "yeah I gotta get into that." And if it doesn't take after the first episode, those pleas are often followed with "but you gotta wait a few episodes before it takes off."
After a certain age it's easy to stop wanting to make friends. Why should I, you may think. I already have my friends. Why bother putting in the enormous effort to meet new people. Why spend the time over several weeks of one episode at at time to meet Ray Donovan* when when I'm already buds with Jessie Pinkman and Roger Sterling, and have several seasons of Raylan Givens sitting there if I ever decide to move back home?
* Even with all the television I watch, this is the only new show I've 100 percent bought into in 2013. One more has potential. Gotta watch episode two. I just wish I could hear Elmore Leonard's thoughts on it.
If simultaneous release is not an option for cable and broadcast networks, I propose mini-events where they air, say, the first three or four episodes in a single night or over a weekend. Three may work best with the 8-11 prime time slots (or 9-12 if they are worried about airing certain content any earlier*). Three episodes would also work with a three act structure and may benefit how the writers plot the season. Instead of a (largely) stand alone pilot, they could do more with three hours of television.
* Networks are working on that. Cable networks pretty much work at their own discretion. I'm reminded of an quote from an incredulous Dan on SportsNight "We have ACTUAL standards and practices?!"
Three episodes would more quickly get viewers invested in the characters. It would also remove some of the pilot-y things that make pilots pilots. Writers would not have to cram so much introductory stuff about characters into a single hour. They could be more subtle. Viewers could record and watch a meatier section of the season together, or at their convenience throughout the week, as is more often their preference.
24 did this in Season Four and it became their highest rated season. While not necessarily causal, I imagine it didn't hurt. I figure if viewers are going to tune out after the first hour they will do so whether it is weekly or in a single night. But for the population who is going to like the show and is willing to invest, this is a way to make a show more appealing to start. You may have a list of shows already existing that you want to start watching. How do you establish priority, and how does a network make theirs the most appealing to prioritize. It is a way to capture those viewers and bring them into the fold when there are so many other sources competing for their attention and ultimately get them to watch as the show airs from that point on (and maybe buy the DVDs too).
Networks shouldn't give up on dramas though, just re-think them. I think cable is also going to have to re-think how they do things in a few years when the market becomes oversaturated with serialized (especially gritty ones, an overused term if there was one) dramas* as every network not only gets in the game, but gets in the game enough to consistently air a show year-round. How to make your show stand out? And how do you give viewers impetus to finally turn on your show when they have the convenience of doing so whenever they damn well please?
* Already evident by some shows being a poor man's version of other successful shows. Some flash with a red alarm as being Very. Important. and discussing Real. Issues. While there's no cap on the number of anti-heroes there can be, all the anti-heroes are not created equally.
One way ABC re-thought Lost was to air episodes consecutively. Season One, with 24 episodes, aired from late September to late May, a traditional television schedule spanning about 32 weeks. This of course means repeats and pre-emptions which could push viewers away when they start missing episodes or watching them out of order.
So they played with the model. Season Three aired episodes six consecutive weeks in the fall and picked up again a few months later, airing the remaining 17 episodes consecutively. Following the negotiation of a series end date * the only case of episodes not airing in consecutive weeks was due to the writers' strike **.
* An incredibly contentious issue that nearly resulted in the producers leaving. They wanted an date, the network did not, which hamstrung a lot of their creative efforts.
** Season Four in eight and six week blocks, and Seasons Five and Six in 16 and 17 week blocks, respectively.
No doubt Lost was a tough show to get into due to the serialization, and not made easy to hang onto due to scheduling. Even the pilot which seems like an obvious two hour long premier aired over two separate weeks. Adaptation allowed them to keep loyal viewers though.
It is easier to keep watching a show than it is to start a new one. Despite pleas from friends and offers of DVD boxes, show recommendations are most often met with, "yeah I gotta get into that." And if it doesn't take after the first episode, those pleas are often followed with "but you gotta wait a few episodes before it takes off."
After a certain age it's easy to stop wanting to make friends. Why should I, you may think. I already have my friends. Why bother putting in the enormous effort to meet new people. Why spend the time over several weeks of one episode at at time to meet Ray Donovan* when when I'm already buds with Jessie Pinkman and Roger Sterling, and have several seasons of Raylan Givens sitting there if I ever decide to move back home?
* Even with all the television I watch, this is the only new show I've 100 percent bought into in 2013. One more has potential. Gotta watch episode two. I just wish I could hear Elmore Leonard's thoughts on it.
If simultaneous release is not an option for cable and broadcast networks, I propose mini-events where they air, say, the first three or four episodes in a single night or over a weekend. Three may work best with the 8-11 prime time slots (or 9-12 if they are worried about airing certain content any earlier*). Three episodes would also work with a three act structure and may benefit how the writers plot the season. Instead of a (largely) stand alone pilot, they could do more with three hours of television.
* Networks are working on that. Cable networks pretty much work at their own discretion. I'm reminded of an quote from an incredulous Dan on SportsNight "We have ACTUAL standards and practices?!"
Three episodes would more quickly get viewers invested in the characters. It would also remove some of the pilot-y things that make pilots pilots. Writers would not have to cram so much introductory stuff about characters into a single hour. They could be more subtle. Viewers could record and watch a meatier section of the season together, or at their convenience throughout the week, as is more often their preference.
24 did this in Season Four and it became their highest rated season. While not necessarily causal, I imagine it didn't hurt. I figure if viewers are going to tune out after the first hour they will do so whether it is weekly or in a single night. But for the population who is going to like the show and is willing to invest, this is a way to make a show more appealing to start. You may have a list of shows already existing that you want to start watching. How do you establish priority, and how does a network make theirs the most appealing to prioritize. It is a way to capture those viewers and bring them into the fold when there are so many other sources competing for their attention and ultimately get them to watch as the show airs from that point on (and maybe buy the DVDs too).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)