Structure of An episode what makes it work?

A television show is essentially a bed time story. Your mum (or now the box) read you last nights chapter last week and you have spent all that time wondering what will happen in the next instalment. Some issues were resolved last chapter, but new conflicts and situations have arisen that need to be faced and of course there was the whole cliff hanger situation, where a man, women or even better a small child is dying, will die, needs an operation, just broke up with their partner. ect

Most fictional television series have a reasonable premise that some writer has thought up. Plane Crash on an Island, Police department with good-looking detectives, hospital with doctors with chiselled jawlines and models pretending to be nurses, biker gang, escaping a prison ect ect. However to make these premises properly succesfull takes week after week of tidy episodes.

In 45 minutes a writer has to:

-create a mini story within a much larger one (being the season, which is still within the entire series)

-resolve last weeks cliff hanger (but it shouldn’t be resolved too much so a contingency for future episodes, in other words little charlie doesn’t die in the car crash, but catches cancer, which could give him only a month, or something similar)

-keep the relationship between the characters freash and edgy, while retaining the old themes that the audience has already grown to love. As in throw a cat amongst the pigeons, but let it settle they throw in the next one.

-create a new cliff hanger, which can be resolved in next weeks episode.

-keep reminding people that something massive is going to happen at the end of the series, without giving too much away.

-throw a few jokes as a breather between the action or sexual tension or whatever maybe going on.

Thats is a list I’m sure a seasoned writer could add to, but because the big bucks that are in television the tightness of the half an hour serial that has evolved as a kind of recipe for success. People want to watch television for something different, but they also want to know what their getting  and what they want to come away with, which can be a fine line.

Why do Cartoon’s always hit their peak around season 6-9?

Family Guy, the Simpson’s and South Park would be three of the most popular influential comedies of the last decade. They have the flexibility to create characters that are perfect parodies and are uninhibited by any plot line or scenario that would be too extreme or high budget for another comedy using people actors.

All three use different approaches at humour with South Park being more storyline based, with the whole episode focusing on some form form of ridiculous hypocrisy where as Family Guy and the Simpson’s are more gag based, with family guy often neglecting a storyline at all just bouncing from one pop culture reference to the next.

Whenever I’ve discussed the best seasons of these with mates who are avid watchers we have always agreed on the same thing. The period from season six to nine is when these Cartoon consistently pull out gems of episodes and after that period while brilliant episodes will hit our screen’s they become increasingly more sporadic.

For South Park this when there humour expanded from the crudity of the first few seasons to every episode having a hilarious view pointing out the hypocrisy of the latest craze of American life, with ten year old Stan and Kyle acting the voice of reason much like Lisa in the Simpsons and Brian the dog in Family Guy.

The challenge for these Cartoons is not to make brilliant episodes, but to keep making them. All show reach their limit with quality, trying not to make it wane it another.

Great fictional television should invite you to imagine being apart of the characters world.

Ever gone to bed at night after watching an invigorating fictional television series and imagine you are part of the characters world. Ever closed your eyes and imagine bantering away with your favourite character, will playing an instrumental role in whatever be there quest.

 

A quality tip for tv writers and producers, (I’ve been dishing them out a lot lately).  If you don’t want to be apart of characters world or, least at wonder what it could be possibly like,( because in Band of Brothers Case I’m not to fused to go to war), then no one else will.

TV is all about world building. Shows invite the family or the individual to be part of inner workings of the characters. We want to be mates with our favourite characters, seduce the best looking characters and be apart of their amazing, quirky or supernatural adventures.

When watching TV we want to dive into the screen and escape the humdrum of our own life. What’s more the reason TV works so effectively for the viewer in episodic form is, because we want to grow with the people in the series. Just like in our own lives, we meet someone for the first time in the first episode, we judge them, decide whether we can’t stand them or love them and overtime our feelings might change as we understand the complexities and motivations behind the character. By season seven or eight we look back at the first season and think wow remember the first time I met you and how far you’ve developed.

One reason why Entourage is so addictive, especially to young fanciful blokes, is the way they they become attached to the characters. We all know a women slaying Vince, a sensible reliable, but wining E, a fat quite achiever Turtle and a insecure show off, Johnny  Drama. The viewer can look at the characters and imagine it was them and their four mates living the dream in Hollywood. By far the best character is Ari Gold, because you hate him at the start, but begin to love the fact he truly doesn’t give a fruit cake about anyone and it becomes a weirdly admirable trait. Now that is solid script work. If you can keep a viewer like myself addicted for seven seasons, hating and loving one particular character.

The average daily life of the viewer is very repetitive and properly exciting or mind blowing things can be sporadic at best. TV is there to sink into and imagine being in a word so vastly pleasurable and interesting, that you will subconsciously soak up all the advertising messages that run in between, but that’s another blog.

Quality: How does the word fit into television.

‘The term quality is tossed about with great frequency but little regard for its disparate meanings among the popular press and interest groups on the one hand and among television industry scholars on the other,’ (Jaramillo 2002).

What makes a quality television show.

Outside television, the word quality generally refers to an objects durability, how well it’s made and how effective it works.

A television show like Jersey Shore fits the above criteria.  It has sound production values, is popular and endured for a number of season , yet you would never hear a critic utter the word quality in any review of the series. It has instead been described as  trashy, debauturous unsophisticated and by many Italian-Americans completely unfit for out tv screens.

With television, scholars, critics and a majority of viewers seem to have an elitist influenced view on what they perceive as quality television.

If a show is to be perceived as quality it almost has to be able to be studied, pulled upart and if the show does not educate us through providing a window into history or present world dilemma’s, such as documentaries and factual mini-series, it has to portray a unique and intriguing  commentary on issues and emotions we face in life. Even highbrow comedies need to have a level of pun-sophistication, or ironic social commentary  to be considered quality programs. Or alternatively it can be extremely well written featuring Sherlock Homesesque plot twists and red herrings, second guessing even the most cunning viewer.

If a show has a small budget and only lasts for a handfull of episodes, yet fills part of the above criteria it is strangely still is well in it’s merits to be considered a quality program.

Why isn’t quality equated with success in television? My guess would be for much of the time we watch television to unwind and give our brains a rest from rat race of the working day.  And something trashy like Jersey Shore, for many people would be perfect for that. There’s no need to think, study analyse or concentrate. Just watch stupid people do stupid things and garner inner gratification and enjoyment from watching them.

Obviously television provides more than a medium to rest our heads and ‘dumb down,’ but commercial networks the money making exercise that is creating television, trashy can mean multiple series and high ratings.

Only HBO seem to have combined quality and popularity by building  reputation for a reliable avenue to visit for the most critically acclaimed series.

The Wire, Soprano’s, Boardwalk empire and all come from this force of quality fictional drama, yet it still doesn’t guarantee complete success.  The Wire never achieved high ratings yet is regarded as one of the best series of all time, creating a refreshingly real account of Baltimore life.

‘The term quality is tossed about with great frequency but little regard for its disparate meanings among the popular press and interest groups on the one hand and among television industry scholars on the other,’ (Jaramillo 2002).

Quality it seems will always remain an intriguing vagary in the context of television.

Dealing with fan’s. How to get as many onside without alienating the rest?

Harry Jenkins said in Textual Poachers, (1992) Fan cultures are a problem for ‘legitimate culture,’ because if their insistence on muddying boundaries.

He is absolutely spot on in his reasoning as to why it’s so difficult for television executives to accurately garner, which people, demographics ages, personality and interests will become interested in a Television show.

Someone who considers themselves a scholar of elite, quality television who won’t miss a documentary or world movie on SBS, could easily become addicted to the advertising saturated Master Chef.

While some viewers my gravitate towards certain genre’s popular television show will transverse a number of niche markets.  This makes it difficult for scholars and expecially producers to understand the reasons behind the success of the show (obviously for the producers they want to repeat it’s success with another series), because it would be a multitude of reasons why each individual would gravitate to it.

Take the British Top gear, one of the most successful shows of the past decade, which has had it’s format sold world wide. How did this motoring show well outside it’s niche market? From my observation is catered to a variety of fans without alienating its niche car loving market. It ticked the box a for a wide range of viewers:

-Those who love seeing sleek sports cars only the tinniest percentage of people can afford, burn around a test track.

-People who love watching  silly adventures with a whole range of beat-up out of date cars.

- People who either like Jeremy Clarkson’s blatant, outrageous claims, or James May’s quite, bumbling charm and whatever Richard Hammond offers (women might be able to provide an answer to that question.)

People who don’t like cars, but you still like hilarious englishmen, with a touch of sophistication , will still be catered for.

Perhaps that’s the secret to success when it comes to attracting a large fan base. Make sure there are a range of themes to a show to attract a wide audience without alienating your fan base.

How that can be done is the answer every producer would be looking for.

Just for Brian

Just a heads up to help you mark my posts and comments.

All four of my posts are the one’s I want you to mark.

I commented on Zach McAuley’s blog under his post “TV transnationalism.”.  As you can see at the side I’m having a couple of problems with these widget things for some reason it made heaps of links to Zach, but if you click anyone of them it should be fine.

I’m still trying to add everyone in tute, but I can still access them fine if I click on your blog and go through the links on your page.

cheers

Wilfred. The bong smoking, disagreeable Aussie Icon..

The American Wilfred is barking mad (excuse the deplorable pun), but for this post I’m going to focus on the Australian Wilfred and try and nut out why it’s such an intriguing Australian comedy.

It’s the sort of series that works perfectly for tv. Half an hour stories, that episode after episode, explore the complex relationship with Adam the timid, worried, frankly batting out of his league boy friend and Wilfred the sociopathic dog.

For a movie you need more than a premise, you need a story, and if a movie doesn’t have a fleshed out story able to develop over an hour an a half mimum, that’s when you have a rubbish movie on you hands like Dude Where’s my Car.

Wilfred’s just an intelligent premise that we can all relate to. The familiar story where you pick up this girl, she takes you home, she’s gorgeous, but you meet her dog, who decides he hates you with an unbridled pashion, but the girls thinks he’s just the cutest little muchkin and there is a snow flakes chance in hell of her being persuaded otherwise.

Here’s episode I part one.

This would be hard to stretch into a movie, but TV caters for this beautifully because over each episode the tetchy relationship between man and supposedly man’s best friend can be built upon.

Wilfred is such an iconic Australian comedy style. More than just challenging the cliché’ of mans best friend the humour comes our observations of the characters and their eccentricities rather than, just continuous one liner gag real you see in the American comedies.

I much prefer  Australian and British humour over American, because it’s more of a reflection of reality, albeit a surreal one, but during show’s like Wilfred  and  The Inbertweeners  in the England we find ammusment from the pyche of the characters and how they react differently or perhaps the same in the situations presented to them. American comedies like Two and a Half Men or How I met your mother is just the onslaught of pithy one-liners with limited character development. In real life people don’t talk in jokes, where in these American comedies it’s like the characters are cardboard cut outs with the writers best gags of the day being recorded out of their mouthes.

I won’t be as cynical to admit I’ve never laughed at one of these shows. Some of the plots can have quite clever twists and occasionally they come up with a portion of ironic comedy gold , but you may as well watch a stand up comedian like Michael McIntyre.

 I’ll leave you with a quote from Wilfred.

“I’m on the way out mate… my hips fucked, I can’t shit properly my times up Adam.”On the face of it it’s not outrageously clever or humourous, but in the context of Wilfred’s the bong smoking, half pissed demeanour, whose ridiculous assumptions about Adam and life in general permeate the show.

I believe it was one of the best lines of session 1.

That’s where TV comedy gold comes from. Not two zany couples trying to live in the same house, but a premise we’re all familiar with that with a bit of rare thinking can be expanded into an intriguing comedy.