How I learned to stop settling and demand quality trash

[beer_good_foamy]

This gets kind of pretentious and ranty, much like me.

You know the joke? Two men are out walking in the desert. Suddenly, a lion appears and starts to circle them, clearly seeing them as dinner. One of the men quickly gets out a pair of running shoes and puts them on. The other guy says, "Do you really think you can outrun a lion in those?" The first guy replies "I don't have to outrun the lion, I just have to outrun you."

So, this article: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. I went into a bit of a rant over on sueworld2003's journal, and I thought I'd better expand on it. Because this article really annoys me on several points that go way beyond the TV series in question - not just as a Whedon fan, but as a fan of well-written meta and criticism in general, and about popular entertainment in particular. And also, about the tired old argument that good shows always have shaky first seasons.

The one that fans are most likely to jump on (and rightly so, IMO) is Bowman's statement that the first season of Agents of SHIELD so far is just as good as the first seasons of Buffy, Angel and "what little of Firefly we got to see." Note that she says "if you compare them", but then she doesn't actually do that - she just states it as a fact and moves on. Lazy. Likewise, there's the bit at the end where she claims that Agents of SHIELD gives the audience that old worn-out-by-mindless-repetition phrase "what they need, not what they want" (which I actually kind of agree with as a concept, but it's often horribly misused and if nobody else used it for the next 10 years I'd be ecstatic) in terms of themes of, um, family and government and heroism (how original), but can't actually give a single example of what it says about those themes.

But the bit that really annoys me, and that I've seen in more than one article defending the (not as awful as some people seem to think but also not remotely special so far) show: That people who don't like it just need to relax and change their expectations, it's just a spy show with standard characters, it's not meant to be anything more than that, so why on Earth wouldn't you watch it?

This, of course, is a lesson that's been hammered into lazy critics, and you better believe it's been hammered into producers, writers and marketers, that quality is a function of expectations and delivery. If you set out to make an ambitious, multi-layered, challenging work, and you don't stick the landing, the end result is worse than if you set out to make a dumb action movie and succeed in making a dumb action movie. There's definitely something to that, but... let me get back to that.

Yes, a lot of good shows had shaky starts; to quote some famous examples, Seinfeld; The Simpsons, Buffy and Angel, and even M*A*S*H took a while to find their footing, and common wisdom holds that none of them would have survived past the first season today. But what everyone always seems to forget in that discussion is the vast number of shows that had shaky, unfocused, or even outright crap first seasons... and then never improved, either because they were cancelled or because they found a target audience that, like the proverbial fifty million flies, liked to eat shit. (Charlie Sheen has based his entire career on that over the last 15 years.) Sometimes, things that suck just keep sucking - especially if nobody asks them to stop.



Also, when we talk about shows that improved after their first season... We can probably argue at great length whether this is a good thing or not, but the fact (and yes, this is a fact, notice that I'm about to back it up) is that the media landscape has changed a lot in the last 15-20 years. When Seinfeld came on, it had to compete with what was on the other major network channels at the same exact time as it was on, and with some second-best pilot that could take its slot if it was cancelled. (Well, and with things like people switching off the telly and doing something else instead, but fuck those losers.) That was it. Part of the reason many shows didn't get axed in the first season was that comparatively, they weren't doing as badly as the alternative.

Fast forward to 2013, though, and Agents of SHIELD isn't just competing with what's on the other major networks on any given night at eight o'clock. Or even with what's on the other major networks plus the dozens of cable channels with original programming or reruns of popular shows that have sprung up in the meantime. They're competing with DVD box sets, Netflix, YouTube, torrent downloads, and any other number of ways to watch shows that aren't still working out what they want to do, whether the main cast works, what the main storyline is, etc. (And that's just the competition in the 42-minute-segment; in a wider sense, they're also competing with Kindles, with movies, with PS4 consoles, with game apps...) And what they're competing for is your time. In that situation, you have to ask yourself if a show simply being Not Awful, and possible to improve at some unspecified future point, is enough. To return to the joke at the beginning, there are a hell of a lot more lions out there, and new shows can't just settle for outrunning the slowest ones. If a show does a decent job of building a basis for a great third season in its first shoddy season, good for it; that's still not an argument why I should spend time on it now when I can just as easily watch something that already is great.

Is that fair to people just starting out in the business, or to ambitious storytellers wanting to tell something different? No. It's definitely not, and new TV shows will have a much harder time working out how to balance ratings and story. They need to know, when they shoot the first episode, where they want the show to go and then have the guts and the muscle to stick with it. It can be done - just look at Breaking Bad. It can also be blown spectacularly - just look at what happened to Dollhouse. Personally, though, I'll take an ambitious failure over a tired hit any day.

So we're back to the expectations + delivery = quality issue. And here's the thing that really annoys me about this article: while that formula is true, it's not the same for me as it is for the producers of the show. Their expectation is to make a passable spy series to tide people over between MCU movies; mine is to spend an hour watching something that entertains me. And I don't owe it to a brand new TV series to change my expectations of what I consider good entertainment. I have absolutely no problem with people whose expectations are met by Agents of SHIELD now liking it. If that's what they want, more power to them. But when this article tells me to be impressed by the fact that the show aims for mediocrity and hits it, it really annoys me. As if if you set the bar low enough, and then clear that bar (if only just), then people are somehow obliged to stop whining and think it's good. And I don't buy that, just like I don't buy that people are obliged to think, say, Fifty Shades of Grey is shit just because it doesn't live up to literary standards it never tries for. (It is shit for not even living up to the very lowest of standards, but that's another matter.) I have only so many hours to spend on books, movies, music and television each week; I will spend them on things that meet my expectations. If I'm not the target audience for this show, then don't tell me it's my fault and I need to change.

Here, I could get pretentious and whine about the spreading idea that asking more than simple entertainment makes you pretentious, and how the idea that there's nothing wrong with simple entertainment (which I agree with - did you see all the Buffy the Vampire Slayer fanfic back there? Or all the AC/DC references?) has somehow morphed into the idea that any simple entertainment is therefore good. And I firmly believe that there is good and bad toilet humour, there are good and bad slasher movies, and there are good and bad action TV series. Machete was a great movie; Machete 2: Machete Kills is not. I am the consumer, I have the right to have expectations, and I have the right to demand quality trash - if for no other reason, then because if I don't get it, there's nothing to stop me from getting it somewhere else. I wanted to like Agents of SHIELD, but so far it does nothing for me; if you want to convince me that this show really will be good, then convince me; use your words; don't just tell me I'm wrong not to already see it, and that it's unrealistic of me to expect quality I know is out there. If a new show doesn't win me over, that's its problem, not mine.

Which is kind of my opinion of the "trust the men in suits to know what's best for you" theme of Agents of SHIELD too. Howaboutthat. And to anyone who says entertaining TV can't challenge that notion, I can recommend this little show called Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Phew. Rant over.

""Take that legislative agenda and shove it up your ass"" (Watch on YouTube)

Comments

[next_to_normal]

UGH I saw that article and was so hoping someone would go ahead and tear it to shreds so I didn't have to. So, thanks. :)

Likewise, there's the bit at the end where she claims that Agents of SHIELD gives the audience that old worn-out-by-mindless-repetition phrase "what they need, not what they want" (which I actually kind of agree with as a concept, but it's often horribly misused and if nobody else used it for the next 10 years I'd be ecstatic)

I have so much rage and loathing for that phrase. I will give a million dollars to anyone who can tell me what the actual fuck that even LOOKS like in TV storytelling. Or any medium, frankly, because that's the thing about entertainment - it is, sort of by definition, WHAT YOU WANT. If you don't want it, you turn the TV off. You put the book down. You hit the little X in the corner of your browser. And guess what? There are no consequences! (Except that maybe you won't get a few pop culture references, which I think we can all live without.) We need food. We need water. We need oxygen. We do not need television. Or Joss Whedon.

I know what Joss intends it to mean. He likes to think that his shows give us the ~hard truths and don't just pander to the audience's base desires (which is patently false - he can pander with the best of them *cough*Bangel*cough*), as though he is doing us some kind of ~favor by creating the TV equivalent of your mother making you eat your lima beans before you're allowed to leave the dinner table. Who the fuck wants to watch THAT? The fact is, his storytelling may be more challenging intellectually or philosophically or morally or whatever-ally than the average show (though that is also debatable), but he IS giving audiences what they want - albeit sometimes very small audiences - or he wouldn't have so many rabid fans. (Although, not giving audiences what they want would go a long way toward explaining why so many of his shows get canceled, lol.)

...Oops. I was gonna let you do the ranting, and then I went and ranted anyway.

That people who don't like it just need to relax and change their expectations, it's just a spy show with standard characters, it's not meant to be anything more than that, so why on Earth wouldn't you watch it?

I am still baffled that people continue to use this argument when there is SO MUCH GOOD TV right now. And sometimes it's TV CRITICS saying it, which is the most bizarre of all. Do they not understand how this "competing for your time" thing works? They should, they watch more TV than anyone, and their job is to help you evaluate which TV is worth your time.

I could do nothing but watch TV for the rest of my life and still never watch all the good shows that are being made. Why would I waste my time on something that requires me to lower my expectations?

(To be fair, I am still watching Agents of SHIELD and it is getting better. But that is a calculated decision on my part that my investment in the Marvel universe at large and my belief in the talent of the people involved will eventually make it worthwhile. But I also recognize that every hour I spend watching AOS is an hour I am not watching The Wire or something, and I fully understand people who think that's a poor decision, and I certainly don't expect everyone else to have the same cost/benefit calculation I do.)

Sometimes, things that suck just keep sucking - especially if nobody asks them to stop.

I would like to frame this.

And I don't owe it to a brand new TV series to change my expectations of what I consider good entertainment.

I would also like to frame this, and draw hearts around it and cover it with sparkles.

Also you get bonus points for punctuating your rant with a West Wing clip.

[beer_good_foamy]

Thanks!

I have so much rage and loathing for that phrase. I will give a million dollars to anyone who can tell me what the actual fuck that even LOOKS like in TV storytelling. Or any medium, frankly, because that's the thing about entertainment - it is, sort of by definition, WHAT YOU WANT. If you don't want it, you turn the TV off. You put the book down. You hit the little X in the corner of your browser. And guess what? There are no consequences!

I kind of agree, but I think the problem with the phrase is that it gets interpreted as an either/or kind of deal. To largely c&p what I said over at my LJ, because it's Sunday and I'm lazy, I think there's a very large grey zone between the two, and most worthwhile books/series/films/etc fall somewhere in there. Anyone who just preaches is a bore, anyone who writes pure wish fulfillment is a hack; there needs to be a (damn, this word still feels besmirched by Season 8) balance. The writers, producers, filmmakers and musicians that I love all have in common that they keep surprising me, keep showing me things I didn't know would happen, showing me other perspectives, tossing me curveballs; if all I wanted was exactly what I knew I wanted, then I could write it myself. There shouldn't be, and luckily rarely is, a binary choice between either being entertained or being made to think. What we need is stories that surprise, thrill and challenge us; what we want is stories that entertain us while doing that. The two aren't opposites.

I am still baffled that people continue to use this argument when there is SO MUCH GOOD TV right now. And sometimes it's TV CRITICS saying it, which is the most bizarre of all.

Yeah. That's why most people still giggle whenever they hear someone call themselves a "TV critic", good writers like Sepinwall et al notwithstanding. The word "critic" should imply that there's some form of thinking applied.

To be fair, I am still watching Agents of SHIELD and it is getting better.

I agree, it's gone from ineptly dull and clichéd to competently dull and clichéd. But I still haven't seen anything in it I haven't seen done better by other shows, I still haven't seen anything in it that convinces me that the idea behind it is more than just a pure marketing decision - "We need something to keep fans interested between movies."

Also you get bonus points for punctuating your rant with a West Wing clip.

Heh. There were actually a few West Wing references in this post before I trimmed it a bit, but I couldn't cut that last one. ♥ Josh Lyman.

[elisi]

*applauds*

(I was irked about the comment re. being 'as good as Firefly'. I've not seen Agents of SHIELD, but... nope, no way.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

But it says so right there! It must be true!

Stuff like this is why people still laugh whenever someone calls themselves a "TV critic".

[dragonyphoenix.livejournal.com]

I was irked by that same comment. I adore Firefly. I rewatch it regularly. I saw one episode of AoS and see no reason to watch another.

[shapinglight]

Hear!Hear!

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

:)

[dragonyphoenix.livejournal.com]

Yep, I have better things to do with my time.

Interesting timing. I've been trying to give Battlestar Galactica, on DVD, a go but into the second season I've decided there's just nothing there that interests me enough to watch it. I know plenty of people who think it's fantastic. Great, good for them. I also have friends who adore paranormal romance. I don't read that either.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I'm never sure whether to recommend BSG. At times, I thought it was an absolutely brilliant show, despite some stretches that didn't work as well... but the ending is so bad, it almost makes me wish I hadn't invested that much time in it.

Nobody has to like everything. But so much that's written about this show comes across less like "If you don't like it, just don't watch it" and more like "If you don't like it, change what you like." Because evidently, getting a better audience is easier than making a better show.

[molly_may]

Here via snickfic, to wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said.:) The idea that Agents of SHIELD is, at this point, as good as Buffy, Angel, or Firefly in their first seasons would be laughable if it weren't so insulting to all those far superior shows. Even Dollhouse with it's notoriously rocky start had, by this point in it's run, aired "Man on the Street" and "A Spy in the House of Love", two terrific standouts in a series that was clearly finding it's footing. In contrast, AoS has shown a complete lack of ambition in it's storytelling, and has so far failed to make any of the characters compelling. I'm still watching, more or less, mostly because I WANT to like it, but it's certainly dropped to the bottom of my TV-watching priorities.

I have the right to demand quality trash

Yeah, exactly, and the fact is, there is a lot of quality trashy entertainment out there to choose from, so why waste time on the mediocre stuff? I'm currently watching and enjoying both Sleepy Hollow and Arrow, both genre shows, both "trashy" in the sense that neither is attempting to be the next Breaking Bad or Mad Men, but both are really good at what they're trying to do, which is tell an entertaining, compelling story about characters the audience cares about. Agents of Shield needs to figure out how to do that, fast.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

AoS has shown a complete lack of ambition in it's storytelling

Exactly, and that's what I really don't get about it. It's not even trying. They know that they have a readymade fandom in Whedon fans and MCU fans, and they seem to settle for just going through the motions of pretending they're putting on a show, as if fans were obligated to watch as long as they don't actively drive them away. It's one step above just showing a still image of Clark Gregg's face for 60 minutes once a week.

I just started watching Sleepy Hollow, and I have some issues with it, but it's fun in a way AoS isn't. Some shows are intellectually challenging, some are just entertainment, a blessed few are both, but AoS seems to have gone with this weird compromise of being neither.

[a2zmom.livejournal.com]

Here's one of my biggest problems with the show. I found it boring. It's that simple.

She claims that Buffy's first season wasn't very good. Yeah, it was often cheesy I'll grant you that. But it had one of the most amazing cold opens of a new show I've ever seen. I had no idea who SMG was, so when the sweet school girl turned out to be the vampire and mirdered the guy my jaw dropped and I was hooked for life.

AoS hasn't done one surprising thing in the few epsiodes I saw, not one character was partcularly interesting, not even the dialog was memorable.

You know what superhero show is good fun - Arrow, surprisingly enough. Great supporting cast, fast moving plots adn good action to boot.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I found it boring. It's that simple.

See, that's the problem. You just need to change your expectations so you enjoy being bored! :)

[sueworld2003.livejournal.com]

"I am the consumer, I have the right to have expectations, and I have the right to demand quality trash - if for no other reason, then because if I don't get it, there's nothing to stop me from getting it somewhere else."

Well said.

I saw this inane comment over on Whedonesque in regard to that article and thought of you..

"For all those (here and in the wider world) who are disappointed because AoS isn't living up to your expectations, a question: is that disappointment the responsibility of the show and its producers/writers/actors/etc.? Perhaps, maybe, just possibly, it's your expectations that need to be reworked."

Talk about desperate! *g*

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Amazing, isn't it? You don't need to make a good show, just convince the fans to like mediocre shows. It's like that old hospital joke: "This place would work perfectly if it weren't for all those pesky patients getting in our way!"

ETA: And thanks for reccing!

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I mean, "some good shows have shaky first seasons" is NOT AN ARGUMENT to watch a shaky first season. "Some good shows have shaky first seasons" can be used as a supporting argument if the show becomes good in season two to win over people who gave up in season one.

I think the outright this-is-the-worst criticism that MAoS gets is more extreme than I would do, though I am a few episodes behind, and am yep pretty bored, but it's not comparable to Buffy or Dollhouse or Angel's first season, let alone Firefly's. But even if it were, how about EXPLAINING WHY IT IS AS GOOD, what brilliant storytelling is it doing that we're missing, specifically? And yes to everything else.

I mean, I think "don't be so hard on the show, it's its first season" is a fine argument to defend fans of the show against people attacking their preferences, or whatever, because yeah, I think people have a right to like something on the expectation that it'll get better without being labeled sheep because of it, it's the idea that people should change how they themselves view the show and view *television as a whole*.

Also: look, Dr. Strangelove is one of my top ten favourite movies. And the first couple times someone used a riff on "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love X," I was charmed by the reference, but I feel somehow this has gotten way overused. It probably always was, but it seems to be constant, and I'm kind of grumpy about that. And, I guess, sorry, you're using *Dr. Strangelove* to explain to people how you should lower your expectations of speculative fiction about world-threatening military power?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

"Some good shows have shaky first seasons" can be used as a supporting argument if the show becomes good in season two to win over people who gave up in season one.

Yep. And I'll be happy to listen to it a year down the line, if Agents of SHIELD suddenly develops legs of its own.

I think the outright this-is-the-worst criticism that MAoS gets is more extreme than I would do

Absolutely; it's not an awful show, it's just flat and unimaginative. As someone put it, it's a giant flaming ball of adequacy. It's a show that seems to have been conceived, written and produced by focus groups (and I say that as someone who thought Jed & Maurissa did great work on Dollhouse).

because yeah, I think people have a right to like something on the expectation that it'll get better without being labeled sheep because of it

Absolutely. Reading this rant again, it does feel a bit like I'm arguing against having patience with a story that takes a while to set up, and that's really not what I want to do. But there still needs to be something there to make the wait worthwhile. It's one thing to have a story that leads you along for a while only to ambush you with a surprising turn of events - it's another to do nothing and hope that people stick with you until you start getting ideas on what to do with this series the higher-ups handed you after a lengthy brainstorm on how to keep the franchise alive in between movies.

And, I guess, sorry, you're using *Dr. Strangelove* to explain to people how you should lower your expectations of speculative fiction about world-threatening military power?

Heh. Good catch, that hadn't occurred to me. Somehow I don't think the irony of it quite struck the blogger either.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

SO MUCH YES! There's just too much good TV and other media out there to waste my time with something that doesn't catch my interest. I have MAoS several chances, mostly because of the Whedon name, and it just continues to disappoint me. And I watch A LOT of TV. Not just Emmy-bait, either, but trashy, fun (don't admit I love it) TV and MAoS is just... yawn.

And speaking of quality shows worth your time, I'm wondering if you've seen The Good Wife or Justified? They're my picks for best shows currently on the air. TGW especially is having what I'd argue is its best season thus far; it gets really ambitious in Season 5. You know how The West Wing made walking through hallways an exciting venture? Same with TGW.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Seconding The Good Wife and Justified. For the Good Wife - you can actually start with S5 and not be lost. The best tv shows this year are : Breaking Bad,
Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, Justified...

Scandal is also fascinating - because it's sort of satirical and frenetic take on The West Wing and political thrillers. The second season's last 14 episodes are hilarious. Actually...Scandal reminds a lot of The West Wing but a very dark and twisted West Wing and on speed. But skip S1. That is good example of a television series with a shaky first season (I gave up on the first season of Scandal) came back saw the last 14 episodes of the second season and got hooked, after various people rec'd it on my flist providing very good reasons to see it and enough to spark curiousity. Although the soap opera/romantic elements may annoy people.

And I agree with angeria, I am a tv-slut, I watch a daytime soap - and I find MAoS to be the worst scripted drama that I've seen on tv (and oddly the most offensive.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I read your rant (very well-articulated by the way, most rants aren't), and then the post that sparked it. The post that sparked it is rather amusing considering that it accomplishes the exact opposite of the author's intent. Assuming of course that I'm interpreting her intent correctly and she wanted to encourage more people to watch SHIELD, especially the nay-sayers and nit-pickers, and not just piss them off. You never know on the internet.

As you state - instead of explaining why she likes it or how it has improved and backing it up with legitimate examples - she attacks what she assumes are the main reasons people do not like it, which is sort of counter-productive.

Some of the irritating assumptions she makes:

It is not a Marvel movie, nor is it an excuse to trot out the bargain basement Marvel heroes in order to attract a bit of uber Marvel fan glee.

I don't think anyone expected it to be. I certainly didn't. But I did expect it to be at least on the same par as Heroes, which by the way was excellent in its first season but rapidly ran down hill from there. Or No Ordinary Family - great pilot, sort of slid downhill. Or The Tomorrow People - okay pilot steadily improving.

if you have allowed yourself to invest in the team,

What if you just don't like or find anyone on the team remotely interesting?

The bar was set high for S.H.I.E.L.D. and I feel, for a first season show, it’s on track. It didn’t come out of the gate like season one of Lost, but if we compare it to past Whedon shows, it is better than Buffy season one, better than Angel season one, better than Dollhouse season one and roughly on par with what little of Firefly we got to see.

This is a matter of opinion. Not everyone liked Firefly (it was cancelled in the first season for a reason, lack of viewers.) Sorry, S1 Buffy, S1 Angel, and S1 Dollhouse actually were more compelling than Firefly or Shield. Why? The characters and the quippy dialogue. Buffy S1 - had several compelling characters and plot-twists, plus it was just different from everything else. Marvel Agents of Shield in contrast feels a bit paint-by-numbers and similar to too many other things on, it doesn't stand out, and doesn't really give me any reason to make time for it. Angel S1 - had some compelling characters. And Dollhouse was just plain out there - nothing else like it on tv and I had no idea what they were going to do next. MaOS - has none of that.

So..no, it's not better than the other series first seasons, it's actually worse. It's like someone watched those other series first seasons, removed everything from them that made them halfway compelling and said let's do this - in regards to SHIELD.

Besides, people will watch a show regardless of how shaky it is, if they like or find the characters and stories interesting and compelling. If they don't, it's gone. I've seen shows with excellent pilots and well-written plots get cancelled because people didn't find the characters compelling. It's a subjective thing - which you really can't predict, analyze or understand much to the considerable chagrin of network executives.

The Whedon way of doing things, and the best way, is to give the audience what they need, not what they want.

Wildly successful tv series such as Scandal, Vampire Diaries, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, Once Upon a Time, The Walking Dead, Homeland, and The Good Wife disprove this. In today's world - you give the audience exactly what they want - it is fast plotting, and tight plotting, you don't do a slow build, you don't preach on the net or in interviews or on screen, you put interesting and cool characters that have chemistry together, and you make it organic to the characters.

Right now, they need to calm down because what they’re getting may not seem impressive taken in pieces, but I know that for me at least, when I stepped back and really looked at the show in front of me, I saw the makings of something special.

No where in her post do I see anything that convinces me that this has the makings of something special.

Instead she appears to be just attacking people like myself who gave up? Which is sort of counter-productive to her aim.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

The post that sparked it is rather amusing considering that it accomplishes the exact opposite of the author's intent.

I know, right? Rather than explaining how the show isn't bland and mediocre, she essentially says it's supposed to be bland and mediocre and that this somehow makes it worth watching. In my book, that's not an argument that wins me over.

I don't think anyone expected it to be. I certainly didn't.

Exactly. I didn't know what to expect of this show at all, except that it would be good. It's not. And according to this blogger, it shouldn't even have to be.

What if you just don't like or find anyone on the team remotely interesting?

Then clearly you need to convince yourself to like them against your own better judgment. Because reasons. "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" and all that crap.

In today's world - you give the audience exactly what they want - it is fast plotting, and tight plotting, you don't do a slow build, you don't preach on the net or in interviews or on screen, you put interesting and cool characters that have chemistry together, and you make it organic to the characters.

I get what you mean, but I don't entirely agree that that's what the need/want dichotomy says. I think there's a very large grey zone between preaching and pure entertainment, and most worthwhile books/series/films/etc fall somewhere between the two. I would cite both Mad Men and The Wire (to some extent Homeland, and more often than not, Buffy) as shows that get that balance right. The writers, producers, filmmakers and musicians that I love all have in common that they keep surprising me, keep showing me things I didn't know would happen, showing me other perspectives, tossing me curveballs; if all I wanted was exactly what I knew I wanted, then I could write it myself. There shouldn't be, and luckily rarely is, a binary choice between either being entertained or being made to think. And I would argue that The Wire is a perfect example of a slow build - 5 seasons worth! - done right. What we need is stories that surprise, thrill and challenge us; what we want is stories that entertain us while doing that. The two aren't opposites.

No where in her post do I see anything that convinces me that this has the makings of something special.

Exactly. Instead, we're supposed to convince ourselves to not want something special. And I have no interest in that.

[deird1]

Preach!

I gave up on AoS at the end of the first episode, when I realised that I knew nothing whatsoever about anyone's personalities. I'm not going to waste my time trying to care about a show that won't try to make me care about it...

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

It has improved a bit, but that just means it's a slightly more competent dull cliché storm than it was at the beginning. When the biggest thing they can come up with for the mid-season cliffhanger is... what they came up with, they're clearly reaching.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Good points.

Look I'm not asking for greatness. I'm looking for a reason to watch. A hook, a character, a sense of humor, genuine surprise. Great shows have all, but passable mediocre has to provide at least one.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I'm looking for a reason to watch.

Exactly. Except according to this blogger, apparently, if you don't see a reason it's your own fault for wanting a reason. It should be enough that the show is out there and not even trying.

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

I haven't started on AoS. I figured I'd wait until there was some positive buzz on the f-list about it, and go from there.

The positive buzz didn't happen.

You were basically quoting my media textbook up there - media vies for our time, and we evaluate how we are going to spend our time through paratexts - promos, the previous work of the creators, really good ad campaigns (one of the best ad campaigns I've ever seen was for District 9, because it really stirred your curiosity. A fancy seal and Coulson's head does nothing for me). Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D had two things going for it: Whedon and Marvel, and relied on those to get people watching. Its paratexts didn't get me interested, but it did get pretty high ratings for its premiere, so it must have worked. However, it doesn't have the quality to keep up those ratings - I believe this week was an all-time low (maybe they needed to do A Very Special Episode where Coulson learns the meaning of Christmas?).

I think there's something to the accusation that Joss is only capable of a certain number of character archetypes and he repeats them in all of his original work.

I'm watching a lot of Arrow these days - it's great superhero TV and I am in love with Felicity Smoak, who is more than the cute techie girl. This pretty much sums up why I'm watching Arrow (season 1 on Netflix btw) and not AoS.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I love the word "paratext", jsyk. :)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D had two things going for it: Whedon and Marvel, and relied on those to get people watching.

Which is fine - much like, say, The Sarah Connor Chronicles depended on the Terminator name to get people watching. But then at some point you have to start telling your own story as well; the reason to start watching isn't the same as the reason you keep watching.

I think there's something to the accusation that Joss is only capable of a certain number of character archetypes and he repeats them in all of his original work.

Definitely, but AoS doesn't even really have that IMO. Even if the show is improving, I'm still not getting the feeling that Joss, or Jed & Maurissa, or anyone except for Marvel's marketing department is telling this story. Every single character, every single event comes straight from Scriptwriting For Dummies with no serious attempt to breathe life into it. It's not a story of its own, it's a bunch of live-action action figures.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Excellent points and very well put. I think this is something that often comes in fandom, where fans seem to expect other fans to like everything their idol does. But while I consider myself a Whedon fan, that only means that I will regularly take a look at his new shows/comics/movies not that I will automatically love all of it.

I think shield is not original enough to be good and I would have thought so no matter who made it.

I have no idea about the people who make Sleepy Hollow but the fun it is to watch speaks of itself.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

I think shield is not original enough to be good and I would have thought so no matter who made it.

And at the end of the day, that should be all there is to it. It used to be that if you didn't like a show, people told you to stop watching it. And now I'm being told that I somehow owe the show to adjust my expectations downwards so I can keep watching it? Why, exactly? When did I sign the contract that says I'm obliged to watch stuff that bores me?

[twilightofmagic.livejournal.com]

Rant on. Excellent rant and what a great clip from West Wing. Makes me want to marathon it and completely demonstrates in 50 seconds what a Whedon product could be, but isn't when we're talking about Agents of Shield. I blame at least in part poor casting. But the writing in the clip and delivery of those actors? Superb. What a Whedon product should be.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

It's funny, both Whedon and Sorkin seem a bit happy to settle for doing "light" storytelling lately - The Newsroom is hardly The West Wing. But at least it wants to tell a story. AoS, for the most part, just seems like a placeholder.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

Seconding infinitewhale upthread, this reminds me exactly of your Jar Jar Binks analogy re: S8.

Everyone's been talking about fictional series here but I have an example of "reality tv", which I normally loathe. They all have the same format and they bore me to tears. Last night we tried watching Oddities, about an antique show in NYC that carries the weirdest stuff (antique gallstones, mummified cats, etc); and it was dull. Not horrible, just not engaging. The one about Dogfishead Ale brewery put me to sleep, literally. So then we decided to give Dirty Money a try - a reality show about two brothers who are flea market vendors in NYC; one of them takes the antiques and junk they find and turns some pieces into one of a kind works of art. It was so much fun we watched 2 or 3 eps in a row. And yet it follows the same format as every other Discovery channel reality show.

I would have never in a million years thought I'd be watching one of these shows. But it's so enjoyable I want to spend time with these guys; whereas the others, I tuned out after one episode. I don't have the time to wait for it to "get better" and if there's something out there that already is better, why should I?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. My main problem with most of the "reality tv" I've seen is that it's even more paint-by-numbers script-bound than most "scripted" drama. That said, if the characters are interesting enough, obviously it makes a difference, but watching clichéd characters act out clichéd plots is just as boring whether they're fictional characters created on paper, or "real" characters created in the editing room.

I recently saw a new documentary* about the fishing industry called Leviathan, which ends with a looooong scene of an exhausted fisherman falling asleep in front of the TV. The show he's watching? The Deadliest Catch, with a narrator trying to describe fishing as THRILLING and DRAMATIC and STAY TUNED FOR MORE DRAMA RIGHT AFTER THESE MESSAGES... whereas the real fisherman is just a guy doing backbreaking manual labour.

* If you can call it that; it's all very surreal and nightmarish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQxcfTZmob4). It is brilliant, though, partly because it doesn't even try to force everything into any sort of narrative.