Re: "Give it a season."

Teague wrote:

You have 22, 42, or 60 minutes to tell me who the protagonist is, what they want, what the stakes are, and what's standing in their way. If you do, and those things all make sense, I'm probably interested to find out what happens. If you don't, I'm probably not.

You realize that your argument is exactly why Fox chose to not air the real Firefly pilot, and started with The Train Job instead, right?   

Teague The Fox Exec of 2000 wrote:

Joss, I know you like to say "the first six episodes are the pilot" but we've got a network to run here.  If the kids don't get it right away, you're off the air.   So screw your elaborate world-building, no one cares.  Make it an hour long, make me like the characters, make it fun and get it over with.   Capisce?

But here's the thing.  TeagueFox was right, because they're a commercial network.   They need the ratings to sell the advertising to pay for the show.   What Teague wants from a show is exactly what network tv executives demand - hit the ground running and grab the audience by the balls in the first ten minutes.  Get people watching and keep them watching or we won't even bother to air all the episodes.   

All network showrunners work for Teague, literally and figuratively.    And when they write about it on their blogs we all say "damn, that's messed up, no wonder there's nothing good on".  But that's the game.

But bear in mind that not all tv shows are created equal.   Game of Thrones and The Wire, to name two slow-starters, aren't network shows.   They're pay-cable shows.   It's nice if they get good ratings, sure.  But HBO got your money at the first of the month when you paid your cable bill, they don't live and die by ratings and ad sales.     Whether it's the movies or the late night titty shows or the original series, as long as you're getting enough monthly jollies to keep paying your HBO bill, everybody at HBO keeps their jobs.   

Which is why pay-cable stations are where you tend to find shows that build more slowly and elaborately.   HBO shows don't get canceled, they're gonna air the whole thing.  They might not renew it if it's a real dog, but they don't yank a show off the air just because the pilot didn't pull in a big number.    Also unlike a network, they're also gonna air the pilot ten times in the first week, and give the audience an even better chance to find it and get on board.

Right now I'm going through this very thing with Boardwalk Empire (another HBO one), which I'm catching up with when I can.   The pilot was great, but the next several episodes were a little disappointing.   Still good, but slow and seemingly uneventful.   And then in Episode Five it all kinda gelled and I was pulled in again.   I had the same experience with Rome, come to think of it, another HBO show that would never get greenlit by  a commercial network.

Hell, HBO just renewed Treme even though it still hasn't caught on with audiences after two seasons.   Why?  Who knows, but it's partly just because they can afford to.   I watched the first episode of Treme.  Didn't care for it, haven't gone back.   Ditto for True Blood, which is a huge hit.  I don't get it, but I don't have to.  And I suppose one of these days I'm gonna have to give Deadwood a try.  But for now, gimme more Thrones and Boardwalk and we'll still be pals, HBO.   

I just had a lengthy meeting yesterday about pitching shows to various networks, and why they're different, so this stuff is fresh in my mind.   Let's at least be glad there IS a place where storytellers can tell their not-for-everyone stories.     Carnivale and Earth to the Moon and Band of Brothers would never have gotten made at a network either.   Or as Danny said on Studio 60:  "Nations should be on HBO, not a network.  Because it's good."

Anyway, just sayin that if a show starts with the HBO logo, be semi-prepared for a slow-starter.  That's one of the reasons people take certain projects to HBO.

Re: "Give it a season."

I like this post a lot, I'll have it in mind when preparing to watch HBO/Showtime/Starz shows in the future.

Well said.

AlsoIlovetheSerenitypilotbecauseitdoeswhatIsaidIwantittodo. *ahem*

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Teague wrote:

AlsoIlovetheSerenitypilotbecauseitdoeswhatIsaidIwantittodo. *ahem*

Fair enough.  Who knows, if the FoxTeagues had thought the same way, we might be living in some Fringe-universe where Firefly ran for six seasons.

Meh, probably not.   Firefly wasn't really a good fit for network at the time.  Maybe now in the post-Lost era, it would have a shot.

Or better yet, imagine a world where Firefly was on HBO.   Holy god.

/for one thing, we would have seen Inara's breasts
/a lot

Re: "Give it a season."

Yeah, Serenity is an example of a pilot where I was immediately sucked into who everyone was, what they were doing and the world around them, while they filled me on what everyone wanted and what stood in their way, and naturally the stakes as well. An all-cylinders pilot the likes of which I've only experienced with The West Wing.

Completely incidentally, The Train Job is probably my second-to-least viewed episode. lolfox.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

fcw wrote:

Mad Men
Doctor Who (new series, not the original, which I picked up during Doc #2)
Sports Night
Heroes (although it makes this case in reverse)
Space: 1999 (I was, like, twelve)
Futurama
Lost (I was, like, forty-two)
Hill Street Blues
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Life on Earth

I've seen three of these shows -- Heroes, Futurama, and Curb Your Enthusiasm -- and of the three, only Futurama was love at first episode. Heroes had an interesting-enough pilot that I kept watching, but took some time to grow on me (and then betray me), and I can't think of any show I've hated as much as Curb Your Enthusiasm.

But that's actually a good example of the way I like to do things. I'd heard so many good things about CYE that despite loathing the pilot, I gave it another half-dozen episodes to see if it improved. It didn't, so I stopped, but at least I can say I gave it a chance. I've even occasionally watched episodes or clips from later seasons whenever Twitter starts raving about how great it was last night, just to see if maybe now it's stopped being so ugly and mean. But it's just as I remember, so you're all crazy/monsters.

(Yes, I'm probably going to check out Mad Men. No, I'm probably not going to bother with Lost.)

Another example for my own part: the pilot to 30 Rock is kind of terrible. It takes fully half the first season to hit its stride. But I'm glad I stuck with it because it's one of my fav TV shows.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Trey is very adept at grabbing all thoughts that circle around in the ether, that neither Dorkman nor I stated, and encapsulates them in a kickass way.  Great summary.
trwned

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Trey wrote:

Or better yet, imagine a world where Firefly was on HBO.   Holy god.

/for one thing, we would have seen Inara's breasts
/a lot

You magnificent bastard. Now I have THAT to think about for a while.  roll

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: "Give it a season."

Oh, also, I want to point something out....

http://www.zarban.com/teague-start.jpg

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: "Give it a season."

Trey wrote:

Or better yet, imagine a world where Firefly was on HBO.   Holy god.
/for one thing, we would have seen Inara's breasts
/a lot

Gods damn. Like I needed something else to depress me further today. sad

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: "Give it a season."

Zarban, I can't wait until you make a jpeg for Brian.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

I look like such a shithead in that picture, it was only a matter of time. All because fuckin' Herph had to go and make an awesome rug. (Which is still hanging in the middle of my living room.)

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

When people say "give it a season," they're telling you that even if the pilot doesn't make you jump out of your chair and start licking your monitor, you should stick around because it's worth it.

Because they've seen it.

How much does it piss you off, Teague, that I refuse to watch Firefly because the first episode bored me so much I shut it off in about fifteen minutes?

That's kiiinda what you're cheering for right now.

When.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

If you were bored by the pilot, you'd be bored by the show.

Which was my sentiment as of writing the first post in this thread. You're not on the hook to keep watching it if it's not your bag, and it's not my place to give you shit for it.

(Plus, you *leaped* onto Doctor Who when you first saw it, so I know you're not a stick in the mud.)

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

That's fine, then.  I'm just saying that if someone says the total narrative of a season is superior to the experience of watching the first episode, that's not invalid.   Is the entire Harry Potter movie series worthless bullshit because the first movie is kind of dull and childish?

When.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Of course not, the point I was making in the beginning was that - supposing all of the Potters were made by the exact same team - they shouldn't have assumed I'd watch the second one if the first one was sucky.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Kyle wrote:

That's fine, then.  I'm just saying that if someone says the total narrative of a season is superior to the experience of watching the first episode, that's not invalid.   Is the entire Harry Potter movie series worthless bullshit because the first movie is kind of dull and childish?

That's a really apt comparison, especially since Game of Thrones is based on a book.

"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Kyle wrote:

When people say "give it a season," they're telling you that even if the pilot doesn't make you jump out of your chair and start licking your monitor, you should stick around because it's worth it.

Because they've seen it.

How much does it piss you off, Teague, that I refuse to watch Firefly because the first episode bored me so much I shut it off in about fifteen minutes?

That's kiiinda what you're cheering for right now.

It took me a while to warm up to Firefly as well.  I must have fallen asleep half a dozen times trying to make it through the pilot.  But, I'd spent the money on the discs, and people kept raving about it, so I stuck with it.  I'm glad I did.  I can't say the pilot is my favorite episode though.  It's lacking in some of the humor the evil network insisted on for the replacement pilot, and indeed the rest of the series.  Sometimes the networks do know what they're doing.  Sometimes.

// my 1.2p

Re: "Give it a season."

Like with anything, it all depends. I've heard some people say with regard to an anime series "Oh, the first 100 episodes aren't that great, but wait until you get to this story arc!" At which point you have to wonder how much crap you're expected to suffer through to get to good stuff when you can move over to another show/book and have good stuff right away. In a way, the fact shows now almost all have these long story/character arcs is a bad thing. If Night Court didn't really get good till the second or third season, hey, you can just start watching there no problem!

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

I turned off Firefly when I first watched it, because essentially I couldn't see past the goofy Western Sci-fi theme and the obvious cheapness of stealing costumes from Starship Troopers, it was the movie that actually made me come back and give it a proper try, and I'm so much the better because of it.

Sometimes with a series you need a bit of a push. If a series comes recommended I usually give it 3 or 4 episodes and if I still don't find anything to like about it I'll just give up. I might push further, depends really on the recommendation and how similar the interests are of the friend or forum poster who recommended it.

I really disliked the pilot of Babylon 5 and the first few episodes are kinda rubbish too, with a sort of chessy appeal to them. Taken as a whole the series is without a doubt the best sci-fi series ever made, and I'm judging that mostly on seasons 3 and 4 where it becomes the best tv ever. Ignorance is bliss, but sometimes knowledge makes life richer, I'd hate to think that I could be 30 years old and never have watched that great story.

I have a similar story with The Wire.

That's 3 of the best shows ever made that I could have missed. That's why I'm willing nowadays to give things a fairer try. You never know when you could be missing something really great. And you can always come back and try again, didn't care for the new Fallen Skies pilot at all, but I'll likely give it another go later.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Babylone 5 is a good example. I enjoyed the pilot, actually, but the first few episodes were a bit uneven. Once they hit the episode with the flashback to the Battle of the Line, though, I was hooked. Mind you, at that time we didn't KNOW if it would ever get any good. When a show first airs a lot can depend on what else is on.
(At a convention years ago there was lots of bitching about TNG at a panel. The author up front looked around and asked, "Well, why the hell do you WATCH?!", to which the general reply was it was the only SF on TV. The show wouldn't have survived nowadays with that first season)

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Teague wrote:

Of course not, the point I was making in the beginning was that - supposing all of the Potters were made by the exact same team - they shouldn't have assumed I'd watch the second one if the first one was sucky.

But that's the point.  Nobody is saying that picking up a series cold and choosing to not keep watching if the pilot isn't impressive is irrational.  What I'm trying to say is that if someone ELSE decides to forge through and says "investing your time and thought into these characters will pay off for you later, I promise," then that's not a silly opinion to consider.

Say you're dating a girl I used to date, and things are going well for a few days, then she gets in your pants and gives you a really grabby handjob that just isn't all that impressive.  So you come to me and go "man, that... that wasn't all that."  If I tell you "Yeah, that part isn't exactly anything to write home about but if you stick around afterwards she'll fuck you so hard you'll think she signed some kind of deal with the devil," you wouldn't say "Nah, fuck that, the handy sucked.  I'm out."

Or maybe you would.  I'm just saying, Teague, if you want Game of Thrones to make you blow your load so hard your eyes cross and stay that way for a week, you kinda have to deal with the grabby handjob it's gonna give you first.

When.

Thumbs up +4 Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

*clap*











*clap*




*clap*



*clap*

*clap*

*clapclapclapclapclapclap*

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

Lock the thread; I think we're done here.

Re: "Give it a season."

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8465/itsfullofstars.jpg

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Give it a season."

I—

Wha—

Something—

Dicks.





Okay, I'm coming to this late because I don't check the fuckin' forum every fuckin' five minutes like apparently I should, because you guys are in here having great conversations without me which sounds impossible I know but somehow you manage it.

There are three things I haven't seen emphasized hard enough here: potential, mood and the I'm-not-doing-anything-else factor.

It's not a black-and-white thing. I mean, obviously it is: you either watch an hour of television or you don't. But whether you choose to watch a particular hour of a particular show isn't a black-and-white decision. It's got nuances to it. It's not "I'm hooked" or "fuck this." There's a middle ground there that can best be summed up as "I'm going to give you some latitude in this, counselor, but you better get to your point quickly."

Everybody's favorite example is "Lost" and it's mine too, but probably not for the same reasons. By the time that show went off the air, it seemed like all humans were watching it. Not me, though. I stuck through the whole first season and a big chunk of the second before I just stopped watching. Why? Because I thought the show had potential. Not in the sense of "You could be something great someday, kid," but just in the simple sense of "This doesn't interest me too much right now, but I suspect it may interest me more, therefore I shall give it some latitude and see if it comes to a point."

I wasn't hooked-or-not after the cold open. My interest was piqued. And that was enough to get me to stick with it for a while. Because it is my opinion that not everything has to be perfect in order for me to like it, and it's possible for me to find virtue in a thing while recognizing its flaws.

Which brings me to my second point: mood. I am one moody son of a bitch. Seriously. I'm like a completely different person from day to day, hour to hour. There are times when nothing is going to entertain me. Everything sucks, everybody's stupid, I'm basically Stan Marsh. When I'm in that kind of mood, you could sit me down in front of fuckin Amadeus and I'd be all "This is dumb, F Murray Abraham's makeup is shitty, Tom Hulce is chewing the scenery so hard he's spitting out chunks of plaster."

But I know this about myself. I've made peace with it. And what it basically boils down to is that I don't trust my own opinions. A few months ago I saw a movie that made me angry. I was so frustrated that it was almost good but not quite that it literally pissed me off. I called up my best friend to rant at him about it over the phone. I was infuriated.

Last weekend, I watched it twice. Once on Saturday, and again on Sunday. And I really loved it.

I'm an idiot, basically. I don't know what the fuck I like from minute to minute. So if I watch something and hate it, I may just be inclined to give it another chance — ten more chances — because I know I'm a moron who's constitutionally incapable of having good taste.

Which brings me to my third and final point: If I like something, I like it. If I hate it, that might mean I secretly like it, because I'm a weirdo. But the one thing I can't abide is to be bored. Roger Ebert — and he might be quoting somebody, I dunno — likes to say that the fundamental test for a movie, the bar it has to get over before it can aspire to anything else, is whether watching it is a more enjoyable experience than staring at a blank screen for the same amount of time. If a movie or a TV show or a book or whatever can't hold my attention, if my mind starts wandering, if I just can't be bothered, then I might as well be staring at a blank screen. In fact, staring at a blank screen can be better than a boring movie, because at least you can enjoy the peace and quiet without distractions.

But there are times when I've had all the peace and quiet I want for a while, and nothing else is going on, and I tune in to some variety of entertainment with the sole criterion that it be better than staring at a blank screen. If the choices are I can watch this thing that's happening in front of my face or I can count ceiling tiles, I'm going to watch the thing in front of my face as long as it's more interesting than the ceiling tiles. If that thing, after some weeks of being bored at the same time and having it just sort of happen in my presence, turns out to elevate itself from inoffensive distraction to genuine entertainment, great. But it doesn't have to. The fact that it's better than nothing is, sometimes, entirely sufficient.

So if I were running a network, I'd air anything that I loved, anything I hated, or anything that didn't bore me.

Which I guess is a really good argument for why I should never be allowed to run a network.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down