Join Greg and Diane on Mondays as we debate a TV-related issue that’s on our minds. This week: the merits of stand-alone episodes versus serialized shows.
Though I loved sinking my teeth into it, reviewing Strange Empire was a challenge because each episode was a slice of a 13-hour story. It was a little like reviewing each chapter of a book as I was reading. (Which is even more descriptive of reviewing The Book of Negroes). So when I heard that if there’s a second season of Strange Empire the episodes will be more stand-alone, I was relieved.
But at least neither CBC show used contrived cliffhanger endings that resolved in the first few minutes of the next, like the episodes of 24 and Alias I’ve seen. That’s cheating. When I love a show, I watch it every week. I hate feeling forced to watch every week. The first show I ever reviewed regularly was early season House, which some dismissed as formulaic. But the way it twisted the formula and overlaid character development on top of it were what intrigued me.
My ideal television show has episodes that are satisfyingly complete unto themselves, with continuing arcs for long-term interest that don’t gobble up all 44-ish minutes and aren’t all about the “will they or won’t they.” So yay The Good Wife and boo late-era X-Files.
I totally agree with Diane. Since she just referenced The X-Files, let me go off on a little rant. Those first and second season episodes tracking Agents Mulder and Scully were my favourites because—for the most part—they were monsters of the week (that frigging Fluke gave me nightmares) accented with the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Mulder’s sister. The black goo and conspiracy theories bogged down the show in latter seasons.
It’s a trend that has hamstrung Supernatural in recent years. Gone are the tales of the wendigo, the phantom traveler and Bloody Mary in favour of angels and demons. I love me some Castiel, but not every darned week.
On the other hand, serialized works very well for Vikings. There is, admittedly, no other way to tell the historical tale of Ragnar Lothbrok without it, but creator Michael Hirst manages to entertain with episodic plot points while staying true to the long-term journey the Viking king and his mates are on.
The same is true of Murdoch Mysteries and the relationships between its main characters. The folks on that series successfully combine a Canadian history lesson (social mores, technology and beliefs) with a murder of the week while tossing in a healthy dose of humour and character development. To me, that’s the mark of a truly great TV tale.
Do you agree with Diane and I? What do you want to hear our thoughts on? Comment below or @tv_eh.
Latest posts by Diane Wild (see all)
- The legacy of Denis McGrath - March 24, 2017
- Crash Gallery returns for a colourful, chaotic second season - February 5, 2017
- Myth or Science: The Secrets of our Senses comes to The Nature of Things - January 18, 2017