Last month I attended the National Popular Culture Conference in Washington D.C. and took part in many conversations about the state of television. It’s both an exciting and a terrifying time to be a television scholar.
The televisual landscape has changed right before our eyes and many of us have probably never really stopped to really think about just how different thing are now compared to even a few years ago. When I was a child television was revolutionalized with the advent of the remote control and the VCR. These two inventions provided viewers with a freedom they had never had before. The remote control brought about the ability to channel surf (leaving one untethered to a network’s pre-planned line-up) and the VCR provided viewers with the freedom to escape the constraints of pre-assigned viewing times. Around the same time came cable and soon viewers had not only these technological gadgets that allowed them to manipulate their viewing experiences, but a whole lot more to consider when personalizing that viewing experience: more channels meant more options.
Fast forward to the 21st century. The number of stations one has to choose from in the cable and satellite age is staggering. DVRs have replaced VCRs allowing for a made-for-me television experience like none before (providing viewers with much more storage space than the VCR that came before it). Television programs have been topping film sales in the DVD/BlueRay market, and watching television in box sets has brought about the practice of “binge viewing” (watching an entire season or series at one time, providing a completely different experience free of the delayed gratification found from waiting out a network’s intentional cliffhangers and tentative dénouements). It’s also not just the networks and normal cable stations churning out the programming, now providers are launching their own shows (Direct TV just premiered their new program, Rogue, this past month) and Netflix is creating new programs for their customers (e.g. House of Cards) and bringing back old programs (e.g. Arrested Development). Besides for how and what we watch, where and on what we watch is different in this age also. We almost shouldn’t say we’re “watching TV” anymore because often times we are watching programs on our computers (by means of Hulu plus and the like), or streaming them to our iPads and Smart Phones for consumption on the go.
While all of these possibilities have been great for the average viewer, they have dismayed network producers. The old model of television watching envisioned the stationary viewer watching a program (or series of programs) on a network station like ABC, NBC, or CBS. This viewer, ideally, would sit nicely on his couch and not only watch the program at hand, but also the commercials in between and the promotional spots before and after the show. The point was never to provide the masses with free television programming but to use that programming as a way to sell products. It was the commercials we were supposed to watch. Since many people rarely watch television live and skip commercials when watching on delay, or watch the programs online with different advertisements, or watch much later on DVD without any advertisement whatsoever, this means that networks are having a harder time finding advertisers to back certain programs. Knowing that all of these variables are at play, networks are needing either convincingly popular shows (that will still draw big advertising dollars) or cheap productions (e.g. reality television, talk shows, game shows). This environment has hurt certain genres (e.g. soap operas) and has caused the networks to gamble less on new programs. As a result primetime dramas on network television are suffering.
In my research I’ve always focused primarily on network television – perhaps because of the legacy behind it, because of its reach, or because I’m cheap and don’t pay for premium channels like HBO and Showtime (but do fork out the dollars for Netflix so I can watch their programming a season behind everyone else!) I’ve never thought I was missing out by studying shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox – I felt I had a lot of great shows to choose from. And I still think that. The mass popularity of ABC’s Lost (2004-2010) reinforced my belief that network television could be just as smart and innovative (and cinematic) as cable shows. I loved that the network let the writers of Lost do their thing – creating a complicated narrative that stretched over six years – even (at the end) at the expense of some viewers. The (forensic) fandom that Lost inspired made networks greedy for more “smart” television shows and when it went off the air in 2010 many were pitched as being the “next Lost” (some explicitly). And now, three years later, I still know at the start of every season which network show is trying, and failing, to earn that honor.
To be clear, I don’t think it’s for lack of good ideas. All of the shows that were trying to be what Lost was had great potential. I was devastated when ABC’s FlashForward was canceled in 2010 after just one season. The show was about a worldwide blackout where people lost consciousness for minutes and saw glimpses into their futures. The first season was a countdown to that foreseen future and the theme of fate vs. free will (familiar to Lost loyalists) played out well as viewers watched to see if those destinies would pan out or if people still had some control of their lives. The final episode mapped out (literally – there was a drawing on a wall) the next six years of these blackouts up to a final “end day.” I was excited thinking that it meant the show had a purposeful six year arc and looked forward to watching it unravel. And then it was not renewed.
The following year NBC launched The Event (2010-2011) which also only lasted one season. The premise was interesting (although the characters and acting left something to be desired). It was a story about a government cover up of an alien landing (an entire community had been imprisoned for decades with others from their population living undetected – despite not aging – within human cities). It used the Lost-trademark of the flashback devise to help with backstory and character development. I was disappointed (but not surprised) when it was canceled because it could have gone somewhere interesting.
This past year two more Lost-like shows hit the network airwaves. In the fall NBC debuted Revolution, another creation by J.J. Abrams. It tells the story of the aftermath of a global blackout that leaves the world without electricity. This futuristic United States is divided into various warring territories and amidst the dystopic backdrop of crumbling landmarks (e.g. a decimated Wrigley Field is one of the earlier buildings we see) life carries on with communities living as they would have in the age of the Revolutionary War. But, it’s more complicated than it might seem. The main characters hold the key to renewing the world’s electricity and the tyrannous leader of the region will stop at nothing to get that power (which would lead to world domination). There are many nods to Lost that Abrams fans will pick up on. Besides for the flashback device, certain scenes seem to allude to the ancestor text (e.g. the ancient computing systems that underground scientists use to communicate with one another conjure up the computers within the various Dharma stations on the island). Although things could change in a few weeks when the cancelation announcements come out, as of now the ratings for Revolution are strong enough for it to make it to season two.
The other new Lost-like show of this year, ABC’s well advertised Zero Hour, only lasted three episodes before cancelation. I really enjoyed the premise and was extremely disappointed when it was canceled. (In truth it was this cancelation that sparked this particular blog post). I described this show, having foolishly encouraged people to watch it, as National Treasure meets TV. It focused on a man racing around the world, deciphering clues to find his abducted life and stumbling upon a secret that will alter history (and perhaps endanger mankind). With flashbacks to Nazi Germany and references to the “new Apostles” who had gone to great measures keep something powerful from Hitler, the mystery behind the program was quite involved and intriguing. But apparently I was one of the few that thought so.
This issue that all of these shows have is that they are striving for the narrative complexity of Lost but trying to avoid what Lost did – alienate fans by making them wait too long for answers. (Some also credit Lost’s increasing complexity in seasons four, five, and six – as the show went from the present/flashback model to that of flashforwards and flashsideways and all sorts of temporal disruption – as having lost viewers). However, in trying to walk this fine line, new shows are moving storylines along too quickly – forcing action and answers rapidly down viewers’ throats – which, apparently, is just as unappealing as letting the narrative carrot dangle too long.
As an English teacher I know all too well the typical plot diagram and I believe it makes a narrative work: exposition provides necessary backstory (and allows us to invest in characters), the inciting action provides us with the initial conflict and “hooks” us into the storyline, the rising action slowly builds suspense, the much awaited climax is the big pay off we wait for, and the falling action and resolution quickly tie the narrative up and leave us with a sense of closure. This works particularly well for novels and films. However, for a television season that will stretch out for 20-some hours and a series that might stretch out for multiple years, this is harder to follow. Instead a drama should have one overarching narrative that follows that plot diagram to a degree, but within it should be a series of smaller staggered plot diagrams that rise and fall with various sub-plots, episodes, and seasons. The impatience of network television today means that shows are never allowed to linger long in those early plot “stages.” While we expect the first few chapters of a book to be set-up, television shows are not given that luxury. If your pilot is all exposition – you’re dead in the water. But if you jump straight to a climax of sorts, you haven’t done the necessary work to invest your viewers. It seems to be a lose-lose situation at present so I don’t envy television writers.
So the result of this is that the networks keep waiting for the magic show that will land them big numbers and bring back the era of “must see TV” and “water cooler” conversations. And they keep failing. Every season another new set of dramas start and stop. Meanwhile, the cable shows (and not just the pay stations – think of the success of AMC’s Mad Men and Walking Dead and PBS’s Downton Abbey) are dominating the ratings. With better funding coming their way they are able to take more risks with shows and give shows longer to develop and draw in crowds. (They also do a plethora of other smart tactics that networks can’t do – like airing their programs in multiple timeslots, holding viewing marathons of previous seasons before a show returns for a new season to garner new viewers). As a consequence of all of this, for the first time ever, no network program was nominated in the category of “Best Drama” at the last Emmy Award Ceremony. That is telling.
What does all of this mean? Well for me it means I should change my research focus, stop analyzing primarily network shows, and stop waiting for the next Lost to appear. (I need to fight the urge to be like Jack crying out “We have to go back!”). And for me, and others, it means we should invest a lot less time in the new shows that the major networks are releasing each fall and winter because chances are we’re simply wasting hours of our lives (and DVR space) on narratives that will never reach resolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment