June 23-27, 2008

[cct]

Enjoying this discussion...

Sylph, you're saying that even though serials are "out there," it doesn't mean they are successful. To a certain extent, this is true, but look at the top five dramas/comedies for the television season that just concluded:

1. Desperate Housewives--serial

2. House--serial

3. CSI--not serialized

4. Grey's Anatomy--serial

5. NCIS--not serialized

Of course the top two are American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which may or may not be "serialized" depending on your point of view.

Therefore, of the top five television shows, 60% are serialized.

Is there a limit, as the article says, on how much serialization we can take? Perhaps. As a regular television viewer I'm used to it. Although I grew up on a steady diet of all-your-problems-and-cases-solved-in-thirty-or-sixty-minutes, my viewing habits have changed so much that I find television shows that are not serialized quaint, and usually dull. I don't think that soap operas losing viewership has to do with our lack of appetite for serialization. Of course, there's the opposite tack that perhaps, at one time, soaps were our ONLY item of serialization, and now that our serialization tummies are FULL, we'll throw up.

[Sylph]

I guess I'm saying that there should be a controlled diet of serials. Not too many, not to little.

And yes, cct, I find the formula "one episode - one story" dull, too. That's why I wouldn't call House a serial and I wouldn't call Grey's a serial (I actually loathe the show). Grey's is a dramedy (I loathe that term, too), which per se doesn't mean that if something is a dramedy, it's not a serial. It's just that the tone of that show doesn't allow me to see it as a serious dramatic serial.

[cct]

Now I see what your definition of serialized is, Sylph. Grey's and House are not as serialized as AMC or B&B. Instead of all the threads still dangling and loose at the end, Grey's and House managed to at least tie off a few knots by the end of the episode. (Although Grey's, IMHO, lands squarely in the drama category.) I suppose with this definition, there are very few shows out there that are serials, as the soap operas are.

I just think we are too fragmented in our choices of television watching. With the proliferation of cable, we saw the first drop in viewership (late 80's). Now I think we are seeing a generation of "story-watchers," literally dying off. My grandmother was the one who hooked me on AMC; my other grandmother watched the CBS shows. Both have passed almost ten years ago now. Without those grandmothers, no one is out there to pass this on. And the stigma will certainly keep enough people away from trying it on their own.

[Sylph]

Sure, all these shows, including CSI franchise and the like, have at least one story (usually a minor one) that propagates through the whole season. Bu as I said, I wouldn't call them serials: if something has a "one episode - one story" format, then for me that's not a serial. Wikipedia's definition:

Serials

in television and radio are series, often in a weekly prime time slot, that rely on a continuing plot that unfolds in a serial fashion, episode by episode. Serials typically follow main plot arcs that span entire seasons or even the full run of the series, which distinguishes them from traditional episodic television.

Yes, add the disgust with the genre of daytime soaps to the frustration and you have a winning formula. No one watched these shows anymore. Maybe this is a sort of an addition for psychologists to study: why people can't quit their favourite soap even when it's abysmal.

[MichaelGL]

With the exception of the Men demo, OLTL is doing quite good in the demos.

[Jess]

That is true. Serial formats often start out strong and do not last too long. Soap operas are out there for 40 years and the same stories are retold. In many instances, the same characters are on for years and years and years. Dallas and Dynasty are the last seriels that I can think of that lasted even close to a decade.

I think if soap viewing was not based on what people enjoy and strictly on habit, there would not be these week to week ups and downs. Look at Young and the Restless, did a half a million of its habited viewers die in recent months? What you are seeing in soaps over the past two years is not random variability. It is declines that are statistically significant.

I also don't think that because we see attrition in serials, serials should be done away with. It's just a simple statement that serials do not have the longetivity. CSI and Law and Order, in my opinion are not serials in the same sense that Brothers & Sisters, Desperate Housewives, Lost are. CSI and Law and Order do not carry stories from one episdoe to the next over the course of a year or a number of years.

[EricMontreal22]

No but SERIALIZED elements are common to nearly everything on TV now. EVen an 80s book on soaps I has mentions how the "new" sitcom Cheers uses some serilization techniques to keep watchers wanting to watch each week. Now it's hard to think of one sitcom that doesn't (Maybe According to Jim but I don't watch)

Back in the 60s thru 70s and into the 80s every drama and sitcom could be watched nearly in any order. Character's realtionships didn't change and if they did change within an episode they'd basically have to return to square one by the end of the episode cuz each story had to start from the same place. EXCEPT with soaps (and the odd nigthtime soap)

[EricMontreal22]

OK I forgot L&O and CSI in my list--they're pretty stand alone case by case (though they have more continuation than Perry Mason ever did)

But lotsa serials have run close to or over a decade besides just Melrose and 90210. NYPD Blues, Hillstreet Blues (often call,ed liek Cheers, the first of its kind to adapt serial elements), St Elsewhere, ER, Buffy/Angel, Smallville, SHowtime/HBO/F/X shows,

Shows with serialized elements like sitcoms that ran for ages were Frasier, Friends, Will and Grace, etc (the Daphne Niles thing in Frasier, Ross and Rachel, etc 60s and 70s sitcoms didn't have stuff liek that carry over episodes.

[SteveFrame]

I know. For some of the series it didn't matter much at all, but I notice all the time watching Golden Girls how they could have benefitted from serializing some things.

They were constantly screwing around with some of the history of the characters as they went along but of course it didn't matter because it was a comedy but as a fan of the serialized format - it is noticeable to me alot.

****************************

And I guess I have a broader definition of soap opera than some but I see a lot of the shows as soaps that some don't. I don't see Law & Order & CSI as one but I do ER, Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Brothers & Sisters, Nip/Tuck and so many others that are popular right now.

[Jess]

I see where you are going with that. And yeah, I agree.

I do not think shows with serialized elements are similar to soap operas in design, however. I do agree that shows do contain more serialized elements now. I probably would argue about Friends, Will and Grace being amongst those, however. There were bouts of serialization with those shows, but would not say a lot of the sitcoms have serialization as a defining feature.

But I can see where ER (in particular) and other dramas do have that characteristic. I think the difference is that ER, St. Elsewhere, Hillstreet Blues (I'd call the first to carry that to primetime) used serialization to define characters, if that makes sense. Lost, Desperate Housewives are a little different in that I think they are set up so that one show leads to the next. Hillstreet Blues had little stories within stories -- subplots I guees. Those little stories lasted throughout the year or even history of the show. However, most weeks, the dominate feature of the show was not the serialization.

I also classify shows like Grey's Anatomy, Lost, Brothers &Sisters as more soaps. I think it was Steve Frame who said that too.

By the way, I loved Hill Street Blues.

[MarkH]

Again I agree with almost every word you say. I would call each of these a "serial", and maybe even a soap opera. They are DEFINITELY continuing dramas.

[EricMontreal22]

ALan Ball in a great piece I wish I had saved, snapped at a journalist who said that Six Feet Under wasn't a soap opera or something--saying it was PRECISELY a soap opera and he was proud of it. I loved him even more after that.

[Sylph]

You obviously haven't read all my posts that followed. Even though something has serialised elements, it doesn't mean it is a serial. And why on Earth is everyone using the capitals when the text can be italicised and bolded?

I find him, his American Beauty and Six Feet Under laaaargely overestimated. I watched the show, but I found it unbearable with all its gloom, sickness and plain awfulness. A terrible show.

[Jess]

I was never a fan of Six Feet Under, but I did enjoy American Beauty. It was dark and it was gloomy, but it was so different at the time, it was done and I thought very creative. The acting was excellent too. I never found watching a paper bag blow around so interesting. I'm going to rent it and watch it again at some point to see if I find it as interesting now as I did years ago.

You know, I tend to think of that movie more as interesting than enjoyable.

[cct]

sorry, Sylph. It may be my fault EVERYONE is using capitals and not bolding and italicizing. Being relatively new here, I just realized you could do this. Not all boards have this feature.

I think we have to agree to disagree on Six Feet Under, though. I thought first season was one of the most brilliant seasons of television. I was invested in each and every character. It was definitely a serial. What about Sopranos; serial or no?