TV WandaVision (1 Viewer)

[DaveXA]

Jessica Jones had 3 seasons as well.

True, forgot that. I was bummed that we never got a 3rd season of Punisher. I really like the first season of JJ with Kilgrave being the big bad. The 2nd and 3rd seasons were meh. Trish trying to play hero with the meds got stupid.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

It depends on the series. I don't feel like there was even a minute wasted in any of the three seasons of Daredevil. To me, it stayed focused every moment and had my full attention the whole time. I didn't feel there was any filler or wasted time. I thought The Punisher seasons wasted very little time, though they weren't quite as efficient as DD. Defenders was a lot of fun, IMHO, and also had very little down time "filler".

On the other hand, Iron Fist season 1 was a disaster of non-editing. Every episode dragged on endlessly as did the season, running down rabbit hole after rabbit hole and drawn out pointless scene after drawn out pointless scene. All three seasons of Jessica Jones also wasted OCEANS of time, especially all the stuff about Hogarth, all of which had absolutely nothing to do with the story in any season.

I agree with the general consensus on Luke Cage. Season 1 was absolutely "can't take my eyes off the screen" until the episode following Cottonmouth's death. That episode and all that followed simply didn't have the edge and interest of the first half. I understood the homage to the late 60s/0s blaxpoitation films that inspired Marvel to create Luke in the first place, but they could have toned that down to keep the characters less cartoony. Season 2 was a great improvement, but could have used a little judicious editing. While it kept depth and interest in its characters, there were some episodes that had needless filler.

WV definitely didn't wander at all. It was uber-focused from beginning to end, with nearly every little detail having some meaning to the overall arc..

The running time of a show doesn't really matter. I've seen short things that didn't go anywhere, and I've seen long things that held my attention every second. It all comes down to good writing and a good director who isn't afraid to cut something that doesn't fit the tempo and sweep.

let's also acknowledge that 'stream-lined' story telling is not in and of itself the 'correct' narrative choice
- there is still value in luxurious story telling. it's just that both with the multitude of streaming options and the fact that most stories are fractured narratives (multiple storylines weaving together where the ability to shorthand and drop the audience into those stories is crucial), it's the narrative coin of the realm atm
but as WV demonstrated yet again the value is in the journey, hurrying to the conclusion has little inherent value

 

[Torgo]

The Making of doc is a decent watch. They do spend the most time just talking about the first episode in far more detail than any of the others.

 

[Sun Wukong]

- there is still value in luxurious story telling. it's just that both with the multitude of streaming options and the fact that most stories are fractured narratives (multiple storylines weaving together where the ability to shorthand and drop the audience into those stories is crucial), it's the narrative coin of the realm atm

I don't really think that's solely it. TV is still kind of finding it's footing as a serialized narrative medium, and is still burned by the legacy of 22-24 episode count network TV seasons that for much of TV's history weren't telling a cohesive story.

This is largely because for most of it's history network TV shied away from serialized storytelling. If you watch a show from the 50's through the 80's, every episode exists in a vacuum. The idea was you may have new viewers every episode, and you couldn't burden them with plot lines from previous episodes or they would get confused and tune out. So at best you would have the occasional recurring character on a show, who often had plenty of exposition as to who they were every time they showed up. Even if a season finale ended on a cliffhanger, the new season often just hit the reset button in some way. Star Trek: The Next Generation had to famously fight tooth and nail for the handful of two-parter episodes they had because execs believed everyone would be too confused to keep up.

This starts to change by the 90's with stuff like Twin Peaks and X-Files. Of course, Twin Peaks didn't last that long, and X-Files, while having the over arching "mythology" episodes that were telling a serialized story, was still mostly monster of the week/standalone episodes each season. So by this point, it's sort of a half and half scenario. Shows are more willing to tell serialized stories, but they were still burned by 22-24 episode count orders and you were maybe getting half actual story, half standalone episodes. If even that. But this does improve over the course of the 90's. Going back to Star Trek as an example, Star Trek: Deep Space 9 starts with lots of standalones, but by the end of that show is telling a very serialized, focused narrative about the Dominion War. It kind of works as an evolutionary chart of how TV was changing.

By the early 2000's you're getting things like Lost and the advent of Tivo/DVR had made networks more willing to take risks in terms of serialization/long term storytelling. But you're still frequently seeing what is essentially 10-12 episodes of actual story stretched out over 22-24 episode seasons. These lengthy episode counts were only ever about money and advertising dollars, and were more frequently burdensome to telling coherent stories. It's not like this approach was the world wide standard, either. TV from the UK had long been telling serialized stories with more limited episode counts. These massive seasons where not much of consequence happened for half or more of the episodes were very much an American phenomenon.

So when HBO enters the original prestige programming battlefield in the late 90's/early 00's the fact they were going with 13 episode counts for things like The Sopranos was a game changer. They were telling twice the story with half the episodes. No filler or bloat designed to appease advertisers or hit syndication minimums. And there's a reason the "Golden Age of Streaming TV" has more or less followed that model.

Or to put it more simply: if you've got enough story for 15 or 20 episodes, great. Tell it. But the story should dictate the episode count/runtime, not the other way around as it did for the vast majority of television's history up to this point. And I do feel like Netflix shows in particular start out with an episode count and runtime that often creates more space that needs to be filled than their shows have story to fill it, even with 10-12 episode seasons. A lot of those shows could be two episodes shorter and be better for it.

 

[Bronson]

I don't really think that's solely it. TV is still kind of finding it's footing as a serialized narrative medium, and is still burned by the legacy of 22-24 episode count network TV seasons that for much of TV's history weren't telling a cohesive story.

This is largely because for most of it's history network TV shied away from serialized storytelling. If you watch a show from the 50's through the 80's, every episode exists in a vacuum. The idea was you may have new viewers every episode, and you couldn't burden them with plot lines from previous episodes or they would get confused and tune out. So at best you would have the occasional recurring character on a show, who often had plenty of exposition as to who they were every time they showed up. Even if a season finale ended on a cliffhanger, the new season often just hit the reset button in some way. Star Trek: The Next Generation had to famously fight tooth and nail for the handful of two-parter episodes they had because execs believed everyone would be too confused to keep up.

This starts to change by the 90's with stuff like Twin Peaks and X-Files. Of course, Twin Peaks didn't last that long, and X-Files, while having the over arching "mythology" episodes that were telling a serialized story, was still mostly monster of the week/standalone episodes each season. So by this point, it's sort of a half and half scenario. Shows are more willing to tell serialized stories, but they were still burned by 22-24 episode count orders and you were maybe getting half actual story, half standalone episodes. If even that. But this does improve over the course of the 90's. Going back to Star Trek as an example, Star Trek: Deep Space 9 starts with lots of standalones, but by the end of that show is telling a very serialized, focused narrative about the Dominion War. It kind of works as an evolutionary chart of how TV was changing.

By the early 2000's you're getting things like Lost and the advent of Tivo/DVR had made networks more willing to take risks in terms of serialization/long term storytelling. But you're still frequently seeing what is essentially 10-12 episodes of actual story stretched out over 22-24 episode seasons. These lengthy episode counts were only ever about money and advertising dollars, and were more frequently burdensome to telling coherent stories. It's not like this approach was the world wide standard, either. TV from the UK had long been telling serialized stories with more limited episode counts. These massive seasons where not much of consequence happened for half or more of the episodes were very much an American phenomenon.

So when HBO enters the original prestige programming battlefield in the late 90's/early 00's the fact they were going with 13 episode counts for things like The Sopranos was a game changer. They were telling twice the story with half the episodes. No filler or bloat designed to appease advertisers or hit syndication minimums. And there's a reason the "Golden Age of Streaming TV" has more or less followed that model.

Or to put it more simply: if you've got enough story for 15 or 20 episodes, great. Tell it. But the story should dictate the episode count/runtime, not the other way around as it did for the vast majority of television's history up to this point. And I do feel like Netflix shows in particular start out with an episode count and runtime that often creates more space that needs to be filled than their shows have story to fill it, even with 10-12 episode seasons. A lot of those shows could be two episodes shorter and be better for it.

I didn't expect to wake up this morning to a history exposition

 

[Sun Wukong]

I didn't expect to wake up this morning to a history exposition

I didn't except to write one, but I haven't slept in over a day and I started typing and then that just happened. It may not even make any sense. I may or may not be aware of what I typed. Who knows.

 

[Eeyore]

Jessica Jones had 3 seasons as well.

I liked Jessica Jones more than most people. The reason that I preferred Marvel to DC when I was a kid was because the characters were flawed. They were dealing with issues just like we would. They did a good job showing how a powered person might struggle.

 

[Wisco Steve]

WandaVision Director Matt Shakman Confirms Jimmy Woo's Missing Person Will Be Revealed

WandaVision director Matt Shakman confirms the secret identity of F.B.I. Agent Jimmy Woo's [...]

comicbook.com

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I liked Jessica Jones more than most people. The reason that I preferred Marvel to DC when I was a kid was because the characters were flawed. They were dealing with issues just like we would. They did a good job showing how a powered person might struggle.

Same
Plus David tenant was a GREAT villain

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I don't really think that's solely it. TV is still kind of finding it's footing as a serialized narrative medium, and is still burned by the legacy of 22-24 episode count network TV seasons that for much of TV's history weren't telling a cohesive story.

This is largely because for most of it's history network TV shied away from serialized storytelling. If you watch a show from the 50's through the 80's, every episode exists in a vacuum. The idea was you may have new viewers every episode, and you couldn't burden them with plot lines from previous episodes or they would get confused and tune out. So at best you would have the occasional recurring character on a show, who often had plenty of exposition as to who they were every time they showed up. Even if a season finale ended on a cliffhanger, the new season often just hit the reset button in some way. Star Trek: The Next Generation had to famously fight tooth and nail for the handful of two-parter episodes they had because execs believed everyone would be too confused to keep up.

This starts to change by the 90's with stuff like Twin Peaks and X-Files. Of course, Twin Peaks didn't last that long, and X-Files, while having the over arching "mythology" episodes that were telling a serialized story, was still mostly monster of the week/standalone episodes each season. So by this point, it's sort of a half and half scenario. Shows are more willing to tell serialized stories, but they were still burned by 22-24 episode count orders and you were maybe getting half actual story, half standalone episodes. If even that. But this does improve over the course of the 90's. Going back to Star Trek as an example, Star Trek: Deep Space 9 starts with lots of standalones, but by the end of that show is telling a very serialized, focused narrative about the Dominion War. It kind of works as an evolutionary chart of how TV was changing.

By the early 2000's you're getting things like Lost and the advent of Tivo/DVR had made networks more willing to take risks in terms of serialization/long term storytelling. But you're still frequently seeing what is essentially 10-12 episodes of actual story stretched out over 22-24 episode seasons. These lengthy episode counts were only ever about money and advertising dollars, and were more frequently burdensome to telling coherent stories. It's not like this approach was the world wide standard, either. TV from the UK had long been telling serialized stories with more limited episode counts. These massive seasons where not much of consequence happened for half or more of the episodes were very much an American phenomenon.

So when HBO enters the original prestige programming battlefield in the late 90's/early 00's the fact they were going with 13 episode counts for things like The Sopranos was a game changer. They were telling twice the story with half the episodes. No filler or bloat designed to appease advertisers or hit syndication minimums. And there's a reason the "Golden Age of Streaming TV" has more or less followed that model.

Or to put it more simply: if you've got enough story for 15 or 20 episodes, great. Tell it. But the story should dictate the episode count/runtime, not the other way around as it did for the vast majority of television's history up to this point. And I do feel like Netflix shows in particular start out with an episode count and runtime that often creates more space that needs to be filled than their shows have story to fill it, even with 10-12 episode seasons. A lot of those shows could be two episodes shorter and be better for it.

My argument is that streaming and the metric ****ton of choices, has caused an over correction - I think shows are eschewing quieter, introspective moments for fear of boredom and people will just opt for ‘tighter’ stories
It’s like eating at a high turnover restaurant- no time to indulge and meander through courses

breaking bad could get away with a bottle episode, but I don’t know if any other show that would risk it

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I doubt the citizens of Westview would view her giving up her self-made/imaginary family in an invented world they were forced to participate in as a sacrifice that was made for them.

Anyway I think it is a valid critique to say that as the season progressed it became clear Wanda was doing some pretty terrible things to the citizens of Westview to nurse her own personal losses, and at the end it's like "Hey - at least you beat Agnes!" Definite disconnect, especially given the entire set-up of Civil War - they even had "Lagos" as one of the TV commercials

Thought about your post today listening to an interview with the show runner
She said that Grief was the villain of the story
I think that’s an interesting way to frame it

 

[DaveXA]

Thought about your post today listening to an interview with the show runner
She said that Grief was the villain of the story
I think that’s an interesting way to frame it

That's pretty apt. I like it.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I don't really think that's solely it. TV is still kind of finding it's footing as a serialized narrative medium, and is still burned by the legacy of 22-24 episode count network TV seasons that for much of TV's history weren't telling a cohesive story.

This is largely because for most of it's history network TV shied away from serialized storytelling. If you watch a show from the 50's through the 80's, every episode exists in a vacuum. The idea was you may have new viewers every episode, and you couldn't burden them with plot lines from previous episodes or they would get confused and tune out. So at best you would have the occasional recurring character on a show, who often had plenty of exposition as to who they were every time they showed up. Even if a season finale ended on a cliffhanger, the new season often just hit the reset button in some way. Star Trek: The Next Generation had to famously fight tooth and nail for the handful of two-parter episodes they had because execs believed everyone would be too confused to keep up.

This starts to change by the 90's with stuff like Twin Peaks and X-Files. Of course, Twin Peaks didn't last that long, and X-Files, while having the over arching "mythology" episodes that were telling a serialized story, was still mostly monster of the week/standalone episodes each season. So by this point, it's sort of a half and half scenario. Shows are more willing to tell serialized stories, but they were still burned by 22-24 episode count orders and you were maybe getting half actual story, half standalone episodes. If even that. But this does improve over the course of the 90's. Going back to Star Trek as an example, Star Trek: Deep Space 9 starts with lots of standalones, but by the end of that show is telling a very serialized, focused narrative about the Dominion War. It kind of works as an evolutionary chart of how TV was changing.

By the early 2000's you're getting things like Lost and the advent of Tivo/DVR had made networks more willing to take risks in terms of serialization/long term storytelling. But you're still frequently seeing what is essentially 10-12 episodes of actual story stretched out over 22-24 episode seasons. These lengthy episode counts were only ever about money and advertising dollars, and were more frequently burdensome to telling coherent stories. It's not like this approach was the world wide standard, either. TV from the UK had long been telling serialized stories with more limited episode counts. These massive seasons where not much of consequence happened for half or more of the episodes were very much an American phenomenon.

So when HBO enters the original prestige programming battlefield in the late 90's/early 00's the fact they were going with 13 episode counts for things like The Sopranos was a game changer. They were telling twice the story with half the episodes. No filler or bloat designed to appease advertisers or hit syndication minimums. And there's a reason the "Golden Age of Streaming TV" has more or less followed that model.

Or to put it more simply: if you've got enough story for 15 or 20 episodes, great. Tell it. But the story should dictate the episode count/runtime, not the other way around as it did for the vast majority of television's history up to this point. And I do feel like Netflix shows in particular start out with an episode count and runtime that often creates more space that needs to be filled than their shows have story to fill it, even with 10-12 episode seasons. A lot of those shows could be two episodes shorter and be better for it.

You missed Babylon 5. That was serialized. DS9 actually stole a bit from B5.

 

[Saint_Ward]

WandaVision Director Matt Shakman Confirms Jimmy Woo's Missing Person Will Be Revealed

WandaVision director Matt Shakman confirms the secret identity of F.B.I. Agent Jimmy Woo's [...]

comicbook.com

He's just being coy.

 

[Scorpius the Allfather]

You missed Babylon 5. That was serialized. DS9 actually stole a bit from B5.

I knew about that story but I more recently learned that that executive had the B5 bible for an entire year. A year! No way they didn't steal the inspiration from them but it was different enough for me to not really think ill about that plus they had a truce so it's all good. Patricia Tallman was on both shows but DS9 was more of a stuntwoman role.