What are we actually looking for? (In a scifi show)

[ChosenOne54]

Doctor DW Who is crap because it's poorly written, self-indulgent garbage, not because it retains plot states across episodes.

You shouldn't generalize like that. Sure, it has it's fair share of poorly written, self-indulgent episodes, but at the same time there are a lot of really creative, well-written, and interesting episodes. For a series that's been around since the 60s, you can't expect it to not take a wrong step here or there.

[Crazedwraith]

Doctor DW Who is crap because it's poorly written, self-indulgent garbage, not because it retains plot states across episodes.

You shouldn't generalize like that. Sure, it has it's fair share of poorly written, self-indulgent episodes, but at the same time there are a lot of really creative, well-written, and interesting episodes. For a series that's been around since the 60s, you can't expect it to not take a wrong step here or there.

Given the way he's written the title I assume he's only referring to NuWho under Moffat.

Ironically people aren't complain that it retains plot states across episodes but because it doesn't and The doctor doesn't spend every episode hunting down the big bad of the season.

[ChosenOne54]

Doctor DW Who? Anyway, I've actually enjoyed the past season so far, same with the fifth. The weakest NuWho seasons in my opinion were 3 and 4.

[Stark]

Nobody cares about your off-topic wailing.

Crazed wraith, D13 was reading a DW thread and this prompted him to talk about his preference for stand-alone drama. Whether or not the plot arcs are good or doesn't really matter. DW will always be more episodic than, say, Zeta Gundam or Rome, which are explicitly a single story.

Maybe that's a difference worth noting. Some shows are episodic in nature but cloud accessibility by trying to have broader plots within that framework (to greater or lesser success) while others are fundamentally a single story and not episodic at all. Scifi is generally the former; even B5 was basically episodic, which is why you can't just ignore the crap episodes - they all contain important arc stuff.

[ChosenOne54]

How was what I said off topic? I was responding to your post about the quality of Doctor Who.

[Stark]

Sigh. Being off topic is fine if it's not your entire post. You can bang on about how much you love Doctor DW Who all you want if you can contribute to the general discussion.

Aside from SGU (which I didnt watch) I can't think of any explicitly year-long story scifi shows. Maybe Farscape? Other genres are often much stronger on ongoing stories stronger than 'I hope you remember this guy from 3 episodes ago or this ep will make no sense'.

See? It's that easy.

[Ford Prefect]

Ghost and the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and was interesting in the sense that it deliberately split episodes into one of two types: 'stand alone', which is pretty self explanatory and 'complex', which related directly to the wider arc regarding the Laughing Man Incident. 2nd Gig did something similar, with 'dividual' episodes which were purely episodic and 'individual' and 'dual', which related to the two aspects of the wider arc. That said, 'jumping in at any point' is predicated on the character being so simple and changeless that they're not really worth watching. Do relationships just never change in the course of a purely episodic series? Do we never learn anything new about the characters them? Is it possible that adr can freely jump into any episode of Star Trek because he already has a great deal of familiarity with the set-up and cast?

[Stark]

In a basic way, shows with a single story follow dramatic conventions and go somewhere and end. American or episodic shows designed for syndication cash very rarely fundamentally change anything to facilitate scheduling. The arcs attempted in those shows are distinct from shows that are a single story, and possibly more annoying as it breaks expectation and it's usually very trivial shit like 'a guy comes back' or 'someone is away'.

[Stofsk]

When I think about the way TNG did its arc stories compared to say, DS9, I find I prefer the former. Stuff like Worf's discommendation and eventual redemption was an interesting plot and character arc, and it really feels like Worf changed as a character. The borg getting introduced in 'QWho' to having them arrive earlier than Starfleet anticipated and thus getting steamrolled, earth being saved at the last moment thanks to the totally lucky fortune that the Enterprise had an android crew member (think about it- if Data had never been built, if he had never been found/reactivated on his planet, if he had never joined starfleet, if he had never been a crew member onboard the Enterprise, earth would have been fucked), you can get the feeling that this was a momentous occasion that nevertheless felt like it followed from the set-up episode in a natural way.

If these two examples were done in what we consider today to be a continuous arc, I feel like it would be in danger of being overplayed. Like say the Worf example; he'd be talking about his discommendation every episode or whatever, and that would feel self-indulgent. The way it was done originally it was in one episode, it was almost a stand-alone but it had the promise that 'this plot arc will continue and be resolved later', and then every subsequent episode Worf just continues being Worf. If this was nBSG he'd take up drinking or have a failed romance with someone or feud with someone over a petty thing or whatever.

The Borg example would probably have stuff like every episode they'd go on and on about what they're doing to prepare. That has the problem of getting dull really quick. The way it happened in TNG, they meet the Borg, then there were a couple episodes (one in season two, the other in season three) which refer to the borg in a very oblique manner. Then at the end of season three, they find they have to confront the cube that was almost certainly the same one they met originally. Again, if this was a modern show, or done in a way that modern shows like nBSG or SGU did, they'd be moaning about it every episode of the season in the lead up to the finale. Except that's not really dramatic. What hit hard was in 'Best of Both Worlds' when they chat with Admiral Hanson in part 1 and he frankly admits 'hell, we're just not ready.' I don't think the drama of that moment would have been improved if throughout season three there would have been numerous status updates from Starfleet about tactical preparations. As an audience member, I can imagine that stuff is being done in the background by people at Starfleet Command, and that it wouldn't impact on ships like the Enterprise from carrying out it's week-to-week duties. I think there's something to be said for having an episodic structure for your show that has loose arcs for characters or plots rather than the kind of 'miss one episode and you'll be totally lost' phenomenon that's becoming the norm.

Now I'm not saying that this would be preferable, and since I already mentioned it I might as well also showcase DS9's precedent for continuing arcs which culminated in the Dominion War. While that was set up from all the way back in the finale of the second season, most people refer to it as the six or seven episodes from 'A Call to Arms' up to 'Sacrifice of Angels'. This was actually a pretty decent arc, and I'd say for an experiment it succeeded (Star Trek had never done any kind of story like that where the plot wasn't resolved by the end of the 45 min mark or by the end of the second part in a two-part episode). Unfortunately, what followed did not really capitalise on this, and like I alluded to above it became relatively self-indulgent in my opinion. They were still married to that idea that the show had to be stand alone-ish, so you had episodes in season six and seven that were about ferengi getting into trouble, or 'let's go to the holodeck to save our holographic chum' or whatever. Which kind of makes the whole 'oh shit we're still fighting a war for our very survival' metaplot fall flat when it gives way to those stand alone episodes. You have episodes like 'In the Pale Moonlight' that were good, but it falls between episodes like the one where Kira goes back in time to find out stuff about Dukat and her mother, and the aforementioned holodeck episode. And when they tried repeating what they did in season six with the way they ended season seven, it failed quite a bit IMO.

[Stark]

You can see a similar contrast in B5, in the change from S1 to S2. S1 seemed to be quite a traditional scifi monster-of-the-week show, with just characters and politics carrying over. By S2 they had solid linked stories that don't really make any sense by themselves (miss a few episodes an whoops they're rebels now). They still had the TV scifi staple of monster-of-the-week stuff (like, famously, King fucking Arthur) but they spread the higher plot movements throughout everything.

[Stofsk]

lol haha King Arthur...

I love how the guy was obviously suffering from PTSD but guys like Marcus were like 'zomg what if he actually IS Arthur, I mean the vorlons had Jack the Ripper on ice'.

HAHAHA holy shit, B5 also had Jack the Ripper

Anyway yeah, I know exactly what you mean. When I look back on B5, I think it was more successful when it was doing the heavy arc episodes, and less so when it was one of those stand alone episodes that nevertheless had something arc-related in it. B5, TNG, DS9 and so on also all had that A-plot mixed with B-plot and sometimes even C-plot stuff, that really becomes noticeable in retrospect. Especially when you watch an episode of TOS or classic Doctor Who, where this is just one plot. Or in the latter case, say Doctor and Sarah-Jane split up, they're still on the same plot but at different points or places. It's still all about 'shit what's going on in this village' etc. I attribute that though to the ensemble nature of the former shows. B5, TNG, DS9 etc had large casts. To justify that they did 'Troi episodes'. When it's 'Kirk and Spock plus Bones' or 'Doctor and Companion' it's easier to stay plot-centric per episode.

[Stark]

For all its faults, B5 was able to ditch characters when they weren't necessary. Not everyone had to get screen time every week (especially Bodybuilding Doctor). They still did DOCTOR EPS though.

The best part of KA ep is G'Kar being totally onboard with bashing goons and getting drunk with an obvious mental patient. The giant grins were hailrous.

[Night_stalker]

That's what I loved about B5. It had a primary plot, but at the same time, they would often work in details that would come back in later episodes.

Remember Signs and Portents? We think it's a basic plot of little importance, but later on we realize just how much it showed us.

[Ahriman238]

I kind of liked how it was handled iwith Sg-1. Have a primary story to motivate things and drive them along, but also have contained episodes. When the show started, it was about them searching for the means to defend themselves from the goa'uld, and to find their taken friends/Daniel's wife. Afterwards, it was about a search for the Harceisis, then countering the threat of Sokar, a resurgent Apophis, Anubis, the NID/Trust etc. Every storyline saw an eventual payoff, and they weren't afraid to run several simultaneously.

Babylon 5 was, of course, awesome.

[AndroAsc]

What am I looking for in scifi show?

B5. And unfortunately that's too much to ask in today's world.

What B5 did right:
1) Spaceships. It is not truly scifi until there are spaceships. Time-traveling alone doesn't make the cut.
2) Good plot development, progression within the series. Almost all other sci-fi series fail in this aspect. The peak was at Season 3-4, where you see two plots running simultaneously, so that when one conflict is over, the other is setup and ready to go. No downtime with lame episodes!
3) Action. I want to see stuff blow up, not Picard's bald-headed pacifistic excuses. I want to see fleet battles not just a ship, but many ships.
4) Focus on science/rationality, with minimal emphasis on religion/fantasy. No Bajoran bullshit here. Even the prophecy of Valen in B5 was rationalized through time-travel, and I like how B5 slapped religion/fantasy with science/rationality.