TV Tuesday: TV for Sloths or Rabbits

[yourlibrarian]

Vince Gilligan was recently quoted as saying “[Slow storytelling] is a plus in a world of very fast-paced editing and TikTok videos that are only a minute long. If the whole world were to move at that pace...that would be very sad to me. I think there is a certain percentage of the viewership… is ready for a slower pace. It’s fast food versus home cooking.”

Have you found that the pace of TV storytelling has increased? Have you seen patterns in different time periods? And how slow is slow enough for your viewing taste?

Comments

[squidgiepdx]

While I haven't read the reports myself, there was talk about a new Netflix series that they thought "was too complicated for people who are multitasking watching TV and playing on their phones at the same time" so they nixxed the more complicated storylines.

SO. DUMB. But also quite telling as a species. ::sigh::

[rocky41_7]

I do feel like there's less patience, among both execs and the audience, to let a story unfold. If it's not doing numbers on the pilot, it's unlikely to get a second season. In the past, maybe because we had less to choose from, it feels like people were more willing to let a show ramp up.

There are pros and cons--I think we all can remember shows of the past that had episodes or whole arcs of filler that felt like they were there just to eat up airtime. But I do think something is lost when a story moves too fast. I don't generally enjoy breakneck plot pacing. If the show is good, I want to dwell in it a while, I want to get to know the world and the characters and have time to wonder what's coming next.

[jo]

Like everything else, it depends. Some shows are slow, but well done, and each episode well-plotted and instrumental to advancing the story. Other shows are slow, but some episodes have definite "filler" vibes. A recent-ish example of the latter for me was "The Residence". That show was too repetitive and would have been better if it had been 2-3 episodes shorter.

What I really like with some shows is they'll have episodes of varying lengths -- maybe the pilot will be close to a full hour, but then the next ep is 45 minutes long, some even shorter than that, others back to 50-55 minutes, etc. The episodes are only as long as they need to be to tell that part of the story. Obviously, that's only possible on a streaming service. As Gilligan points out in the article, network TV has very strict timing for episodes in order to accommodate advertising.

A show is like a book -- and with books, they say the first sentence is the most important one -- got to get the reader hooked right from the start. Same with shows, except replace first sentence with first episode.

(totally unrelated to this question, but at the end of the article you linked to there were links to other articles, including one about other Scandi noir series coming up on various networks/streamers. I clicked on that cuz I like Scandi noir, and found out that there is an adaptation of Philip Kerr's Berlin Noir series coming to Apple!!! Starring Jack Lowden (Slow Horses) as Bernie Gunther!!! Best news ever!)

[yourlibrarian]

Yes, Netflix had to issue a denial that they were telling writers to recap what had happened in the show via dialogue because people were too distracted while watching.

[yourlibrarian]

Or perhaps mix it up from episode to episode -- some which move at a steady clip, some which allow for character development. But when you've got 8 hours for the story to start with, this is hard to balance.

But you're right that the most alarming speed is the way that so few shows are given a chance to catch on.

[yourlibrarian]

I agree with you about Residence. I would say 1-2 episodes shorter, but there was too much repetition as well as stuff that could have done more character development. Had there been more of the latter I think the murderer reveal would have landed better.

I also agree that with streaming, why not take advantage of varying lengths! I mean I don't want one to be 90 minutes and another a half hour, that just seems like either bad pacing, or something that is a side story. But speaking of that, shows have done this! They have done "extras" that take something in a story and go into it in a side story. Both Short Treks and Mythic Quest's Side Quest are examples. These could be backstories, an idea that couldn't be fully fleshed out to an episode, or just another perspective on things in the series.

Oh interesting! Jack Lowden seems to be doing well given his Slow Horses boost.

[jo]

Hopefully this isn't region blocked as it's a recent skit from Canadian comedy show This Hour has 22 Minutes: https://youtu.be/UFQ4sumQ9-0?si=nIV6Ixjg_cOcb4hn

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Have you found that the pace of TV storytelling has increased? <<

It's definitely faster.

>> Have you seen patterns in different time periods? <<

One distinctive feature of contemporary TV is that it assumes people will binge-watch the whole series at once. Some people do this for hours at a time. Our version is watching one episode of the current show each night over supper. An advantage of this is that it can support more complex plot threads, although not as many creators take advantage of that. But they have to avoid too much repetition. Things that were fine 20 years ago at one episode per week are now glaring at one a night or eight in a day.

>> And how slow is slow enough for your viewing taste? <<

This depends on the genre. I like my nature shows leisurely. We saw one that was largely dance footage of birds of paradise. That was awesome. Shows that are mostly about interpersonal relationships, I don't want them to go too fast either. I like most genres in the middle. That means either a moderate pace, or bits of higher activity and tension interspersed with quieter bits. Take High Potential. It has some action, some really intense stuff, but then there's also a substantial thread of family life and another on the challenges of life surrounded by idiots. When it comes to the action/adventure genre, though, I don't care if it's wall-to-wall explosions. I'm rarely watching that for the plot.

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Has it ever occurred to them that some people do that because the shows are too simple and therefore boring? That a more complex show would make viewers pay more attention to follow it?

Because that's what I've seen people doing. I used to put on nature shows as background for doing homework, precisely because it was pleasant but rarely demanded attention. Shows with a real plot I watched more closely.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I do feel like there's less patience, among both execs and the audience, to let a story unfold. <<

Absolutely. This butchers quality because so few shows are brilliant right away. They take time to grow into a sense of those characters and that world. Without giving shows that time, it's all green cheese. >_<

What's worse, this isn't just impacting TV. It's everything. Publishers can't be arsed to nurture midlist writers anymore; they want immediate bestsellers. And most of those are one-hit wonders.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

I admire Joss Whedon's ability to balance those issues. He likes to have a main season storyline, some arclets that might appear in several episodes, a mix of quiet interpersonal episodes with more action-oriented ones, and the occasional completely crazy thing that is brilliant, like that musical episode of Buffy.

Re: Thoughts

[yourlibrarian]

You're right about how it's everywhere, including films where the blockbusters dictate the schedule.

Re: Thoughts

[yourlibrarian]

Things that were fine 20 years ago at one episode per week are now glaring at one a night or eight in a day.


True. And yes, binge watching can vary per person. I have seen some short shows all in 2 days. My partner balks at an episode daily. He prefers 1-2 a week.

Yes, nature shows are definitely for relaxation in my book. Most have serious conservation messages but there's something about nature and animals that soothes. And yes, different genres can handle a different pace. (Westerns, for example, do not tend to be rushed).

I did see a difference in pace kick in around the late 2000s. The whole "walk and talk" exposition format, the idea of recapping information after each commercial break, fast scenes with fast talking, etc. I actually feel like TV slowed down in the mid to late 2000s, perhaps because we were starting to shift to streaming and cable shows and shorter seasons.