Episodic or Serial

[Owain Taggart]

Both are good depending on the approaches. But personally, I think I prefer serials with light episodic arcs that run as secondary plot points. They have a bit of both in them. Good example of a good episodic show would be Hell on Wheels. It's self-contained, but has an internal consistency from episode to episode that moves the story arc forward.

 

[Starbreaker]

Characters are what's most important for me in a TV show. I want to be able to come back week after week and feel engaged with what's going on. My favorite shows from the past decade or so have been Lost, The Walking Dead, Battlestar Galactica, and Game of Thrones. Lost and Game of Thrones managed to have the best characters while also having gut wrenching cliffhangers week to week. Battlestar Galactica had some great characters even though the plot meandered, and then TWD keeps me coming back even though the characters are mostly disposable simply because I find the plot interesting.

Before serial TV became a real thing, I watched CSI, Criminal Minds, NCIS, and Law & Order: SVU pretty frequently. I still do, but it's not something I have to watch immediately when it airs like I do a more serial show.

I think the sweet spot is Luther. It switched stories every 3-4 episodes so you wouldn't get bored with the same serial killer.

 

[Lance]

Another thing I've found is that episodic shows are sometimes easier to revist in retrospect. Serialized shows are nice and exciting the first time you watch them, because they rely on keeping the story going and (in theory) escalating towards a big payoff at some future point, but going back and rewatching serialized shows when you already know what the payoff is can lead to a lot of earlier episodes feeling like they're running on the spot, when on first viewing they felt like they were actually building up to something.

Episodic TV, on the other hand, is a much more passive experience. And, therefore, in retrospect it's easier to revisit later and appreciate on its own terms, because you're getting a nice neat package that is tied up in one instalment.

At least that's been my experience anyway.

 

[auntiehill]

I think the sweet spot is Luther. It switched stories every 3-4 episodes so you wouldn't get bored with the same serial killer.

I can't argue with that. I adored the show. There was definitely a long-running continuity--the ethics investigation into Luther, the relationship with Alice, the ex-wife's boyfriend, etc--but having a new killer, a new crime spree to deal with changed it up enough. I freakin' LOVE Luther. I can't wait for it to come back.

 

[Owain Taggart]

An example of a good serialized show would be The Shield. It gives you the daily lives of these officers at the barn, but it does it such a way that's so seamless. Each season builds upon the developments of the last, but there's almost no delineation between seasons in the way their stories are presented. Things that are brought up usually take several episodes to be addressed, and even then, sometimes when you think it's all been dealt with, resurfaces later, sometimes even seasons later. It makes everything feel more dynamic. But the downside is that you definitely can't come in on it later and expect to understand what's happening.

 

[tomswift2002]

I think only a few shows have managed to pull of the serialized format successfully. Mostly I'm referring to Babylon 5 (although that's only for the first four seasons, the fifth, while I know the reason why, it just didn't seem to go with the rest of the series: it was like an epilogue that was set after the series) and Season 1 of the Disney Zorro series where you had 39 episodes, but 13 dealt with the head guard of the Spanish army, while the remaining 26 were 2 different arcs dealing with the same story. But I've found with the serialized series of the past decade that the seasons start and finish real strongly, but then the middle 6 or 7 episodes really drag and add very little to the overall story. Shows like Fringe, Smallville and Gotham could've probably been done where the arcs lasted over 13 episodes instead of 22.

 

[Mudd]

I prefer episodic.

If you can't tell me a good story now, why do you think I'm coming back later?

 

[MacLeod]

I prefer episodic.

If you can't tell me a good story now, why do you think I'm coming back later?

One way to look at serialised shows is like chapters in a book. Do you only read the first chapter in a book?

You could expand on that further for some of the more serialised shows is each season is like the next book in the series.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ That's exactly right. I was going to say that asking if I prefer serial or episodic is like asking if I prefer novels or short stories. I really have no preference. In theory, TV should be the same with both serial and episodic being equally valid-- in real life, of course, episodic TV is more about solid storytelling and serialized TV is more interested in creating water-cooler buzz. But that's the politics of the market and not reflective of the format itself.

That being said, most of the stuff I rewatch is older TV shows, which are very episodic. Have Gun, Will Travel, Route 66, Columbo, Star Trek, Alfred Hitchcock, stuff like that-- self-contained stories with a lot of punch. It's kind of a lost art these days, unfortunately.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It is a good point though that a lot of serial shows flame out if they don't have a planned endgame. Lost and Battlestar Galactica, amazing through the first few seasons then disappointing payoff. Sopranos, after a couple seasons you notice distinct patterns emerging in order to preserve the status quo and keep the show going. Dexter, great first couple of seasons then the writers changed up and got ridiculous.

Serial shows that have been successful for the entire run are ones that started out with a planned endgame.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

One way to look at serialised shows is like chapters in a book. Do you only read the first chapter in a book?

If I don't like that first chapter, yup, since you know you're just getting the same story as the book goes on. Why would you keep reading if you don't like it?

With episodic, if I don't like an episode, the next will most likely be different enough to warrant another watch. Because that story from the previous episode is done and they can try something new.

On almost all levels, I prefer episodic. If you get some arcs threaded through there, even better, but (in general) don't bore me with a single lazy story for a whole season (or series).

 

[JirinPanthosa]

One way to look at serialised shows is like chapters in a book. Do you only read the first chapter in a book?

If I don't like that first chapter, yup, since you know you're just getting the same story as the book goes on. Why would you keep reading if you don't like it?

With episodic, if I don't like an episode, the next will most likely be different enough to warrant another watch. Because that story from the previous episode is done and they can try something new.

On almost all levels, I prefer episodic. If you get some arcs threaded through there, even better, but (in general) don't bore me with a single lazy story for a whole season (or series).

If the book comes highly recommended, sure I'll keep reading it. I know having an attention span longer than it takes to watch a Youtube video is out of fashion, but in the areas of literature and television, one can be quite rewarding.

And to return to your analogy, if the first episode of an episodic show was terrible, would you really watch another one? Sure, if you saw five great episodes then one terrible one you would, but if Shades of Grey was the only episode of Star Trek you ever saw, it sounds to me like you would never come back to the series.

 

[sidious618]

Episodic tends to mean "procedural" which I have all of zero interest in so I'm going to go with serial.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

And to return to your analogy, if the first episode of an episodic show was terrible, would you really watch another one? Sure, if you saw five great episodes then one terrible one you would, but if Shades of Grey was the only episode of Star Trek you ever saw, it sounds to me like you would never come back to the series.

But Star Trek is episodic, I know the next episode won't even be close, I knew that before I started watching it, and you can tell simply by watching an episode. Will it be a courtroom drama episode a la "Drumhead"? Will it be a soul searching character piece like "Family"? Or will it be a fun historical adventure like "Q-pid"? When you know a show is episodic like that (with the added bonus of being sci-fi where anything is possible), you know you can't judge it after a single episode.

You know what you're getting into after an episode of "True Detective" and you know they won't end the episode by solving the crime. You don't know the details, obviously, but you pretty much know if you'll like it or not. It's not about attention span. It's about "Is this single story interesting enough to keep me interested". And for the record, True Detective was. "Homeland"? Not so much. The longer that story went on, the more inept it makes everybody you're supposed to be rooting for look. For example. It took me a few seasons before I bailed, though. Should have quit on the first chapter.

 

[MacLeod]

One way to look at serialised shows is like chapters in a book. Do you only read the first chapter in a book?

If I don't like that first chapter, yup, since you know you're just getting the same story as the book goes on. Why would you keep reading if you don't like it?

With episodic, if I don't like an episode, the next will most likely be different enough to warrant another watch. Because that story from the previous episode is done and they can try something new.

On almost all levels, I prefer episodic. If you get some arcs threaded through there, even better, but (in general) don't bore me with a single lazy story for a whole season (or series).

But just because the first chapter of a book is poor doesn't mean the rest of it is.

This is why some shows fail the instant gratification that some people want rather than waiting for a pay off later.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

This is why some shows fail the instant gratification that some people want rather than waiting for a pay off later.

It's still not a question about instant gratification. It's more about "I don't like this story, I'm glad the next episode will have nothing to do with it" for a show that's not serialized. You don't get that luxury otherwise. In a serialized format, you're stuck with the same story, like it or not, where the pay off might not even matter by the time you eventually get to it.

 

[MacLeod]

This is why some shows fail the instant gratification that some people want rather than waiting for a pay off later.

It's still not a question about instant gratification. It's more about "I don't like this story, I'm glad the next episode will have nothing to do with it" for a show that's not serialized. You don't get that luxury otherwise. In a serialized format, you're stuck with the same story, like it or not, where the pay off might not even matter by the time you eventually get to it.

Both our points are valid, but how do you know if you like a story until you've seen it all? Though there is a third option the semi-serialised approach which shows like B5, DSN, SG-1 used. Where each episode tells it's own story for the most part as opposed to say the more heavily serialsed shows like each season of 24.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It is a good point though that a lot of serial shows flame out if they don't have a planned endgame. Lost and Battlestar Galactica, amazing through the first few seasons then disappointing payoff. Sopranos, after a couple seasons you notice distinct patterns emerging in order to preserve the status quo and keep the show going. Dexter, great first couple of seasons then the writers changed up and got ridiculous.

Serial shows that have been successful for the entire run are ones that started out with a planned endgame.

Exactly. And that's why B5 is still the champion of all serialized shows. He knew from the beginning where he was going and how he was going to get there.

 

[MacLeod]

^You can add Lost in to tha mix started off great the first couple of seasons maybe the first 3 were good but then it seemed as if they were dragging it. Whilst B5 had a five year plan, which unfortunantly had to be condensed in the fourth year before the eleventh hour renewel.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Episodic.

Often times, in hindsight, a serial could've been condensed into far fewer shows and been much better paced and better told that way. Stretching a story out doesn't necessarily mean that it adds greater nuance, either. They often sag in the middle with strange, out-of-left-field elements just to keep the story alive until they can pick up the main thread again and bring it to it's "dramatic" conclusion. I have a Life. I just don't have the time to commit to watching specific shows in specific order, anyway. Or the interest, frankly ...