Breakneck Pacing

(Quote added for clarity after split to new topic - MB)

I totally agree Stuart.  It bothered me the most when a family member died and the next day everyone suddenly came down with a case of amnesia.   For instance when Carl Collins was killed it seemed as if the family just wanted to get the whole funeral thing over with.  I mean this was their brother for goodness sakes!    I think the only one who really took his death seriously and mourned him was Charity/Pansy Faye.   I realize they didn't have the time to dwell on things but it would have been nice to at least hear a mention of the deceased with a fond memory every now and then.

Agreed Cassandra - I guess my view has changed over the years, which probably has more to do with my personal tastes than any shortcoming on the show's part.

Nowadays, I find a lot of the stories in those later years gratuitous - they simply don't need that much going on - it becomes repetitious, especially when certain episodes clock up 25 scenes or thereabouts in 20 minutes...  I think that by 1970 the show needed less story but more reaction - I don't think it could cope with that much drama, but badly could have used some resonance amongst the community of characters.  I don't think that telling these sorts of stories is about shouting loudest - it's about making the events matter to the people involved.

A good example is the return of Maggie Evans from Windcliff - what an amazing cliffhanger, and yet it's so simple, just a girl walking into a bar.  But, with two months or whatever of build-up and some nicely observed "mourning" along the way, it makes a fairly ludicrous situation both real and dangerous.  For the residents, there's the shock of Maggie really being alive, for Barnabas there's the danger of him being exposed - the stakes are so high, without any special effects or supernatural elements.  For me, it's amazing that the whole of the next episode deals with the fall-out of Maggie's return - can you imagine them having the patience and confidence to tell that so simply by 1971?

I don't hate those final years of the show - far from it.  But I just wish they could have slowed down more.  Look at the 1995 episodes - they're so focussed and eloquent by comparison, an ideal template for what DS in 1971 should have been.

Nowadays, I find a lot of the stories in those later years gratuitous - they simply don't need that much going on ... by 1970 the show needed less story but more reaction - I don't think it could cope with that much drama, but badly could have used some resonance amongst the community of characters. ... I just wish they could have slowed down more.

Well, if we can believe Sam Hall's take on the last year of DS (and I see no reason not to), the push to cram more and more into each episode can be directly traced back to DC's supposed short attention span, which DC believed the DS audience shared. He feared that if the show employed anything approaching the slower pacing of the first years of the show (to great effect, I agree, Stuart), the audience would quickly lose interest and tune out. Talk about being completely out of touch with most of your audience. But interestingly, DC's attitude would seem to have been a precursor of something that would soon become all too commonplace in the entertainment industry. Just look at how many primetime dramas/theatrical movies have shared that same notion that their audience needs to be grabbed by the throat and dazzled by dizzying pacing (and often times stunts and effects) to stay tuned in/pay to see it rather than by thoughtful storytelling...

Well, if we can believe Sam Hall's take on the last year of DS (and I see no reason not to), the push to cram more and more into each episode can be directly traced back to DC's supposed short attention span, which DC believed the DS audience shared. He feared that if the show employed anything approaching the slower pacing of the first years of the show (to great effect, I agree, Stuart), the audience would quickly lose interest and tune out. Talk about being completely out of touch with most of your audience.

Not to be the devil's advocate  , but isn't that exactly what was (perceived to be) "wrong" with the first year of the show -- remember, DS was nearing cancellation with its first year of slow-moving drama.

But interestingly, DC's attitude would seem to have been a precursor of something that would soon become all too commonplace in the entertainment industry. Just look at how many primetime dramas/theatrical movies have shared that same notion that their audience needs to be grabbed by the throat and dazzled by dizzying pacing (and often times stunts and effects) to stay tuned in/pay to see it rather than by thoughtful storytelling...

Very true, and not only of cinema but this is very true, too, in literature.  For example, much "young adult" (juvenile) literature today must instantly grab the young reader with shocking "action" and strong visual imagery.  I've done some reading on this topic for a class I took, and many children's authors today consciously use a style that attempts to mimic the quick cuts and jarring movement of MTV and music videos.

As an aside, I think it's interesting that when Stephen Spielberg was trying to land the "Harry Potter" directing job, J. K. Rowling rejected his view that the opening scene should be the murder of Harry's parents by Voldemort rather than the quietly unfolding events on Privet Drive that Rowling described.

... He feared that if the show employed anything approaching the slower pacing of the first years of the show (to great effect, I agree, Stuart), the audience would quickly lose interest and tune out. Talk about being completely out of touch with most of your audience.

Not to be the devil's advocate  , but isn't that exactly what was (perceived to be) "wrong" with the first year of the show -- remember, DS was nearing cancellation with its first year of slow-moving drama.

I understand your piont, Vlad, and you're quite right that many (though I'm not among them) perceive the pacing to be too slow during the first year. But you'll note I said the first years - which, even if we were to consider that the first two, would take us to a point well beyond that where cancellation was even remotely an issue.

The breakneck pacing, where if one missed even one episode, one might have missed a plot point that might never actually be explained again, didn't really take shape with a vengeance until the last year of DS - a point which will begin soon after the complete shift of focus to 1970PT.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with telling a story with pace, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of clarity, which is what increasingly happened on DS.  If an audience member is left without a clue from missing a couple of episodes, that's bad storytelling.

The breakneck pacing, where if one missed even one episode, one might have missed a plot point that might never actually be explained again, didn't really take shape with a vengeance until the last year of DS - a point which will begin soon after the complete shift of focus to 1970PT.

Now you'll really think I'm the devil's advocate     ...

but to tell the truth, when I heard that this was the case during the last SciFi run, I thought that sounded (and was!) terribly exciting!  How rich and novel for a daily serial program to break with tradition -- break the mold -- and go its own way at breakneck speed.

(I don't really recall 1970PT having a breakneck pace, but I suppose the show might have during 1840.)

I found it exhilirating trying to keep up -- and the pace made sure I didn't miss an episode!

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with telling a story with pace, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of clarity, which is what increasingly happened on DS.  If an audience member is left without a clue from missing a couple of episodes, that's bad storytelling.

This point is frequently made, and I personally think it's a bit exaggerated.

The breakneck pacing, where if one missed even one episode, one might have missed a plot point that might never actually be explained again, didn't really take shape with a vengeance until the last year of DS - a point which will begin soon after the complete shift of focus to 1970PT.

Now you'll really think I'm the devil's advocate     ...

but to tell the truth, when I heard that this was the case during the last SciFi run, I thought that sounded (and was!) terribly exciting!  How rich and novel for a daily serial program to break with tradition -- break the mold -- and go its own way at breakneck speed.

...

I found it exhilirating trying to keep up -- and the pace made sure I didn't miss an episode!

But you have to remember, Vlad, that you came to DS in the days of VCRs - not in the days when on Friday afternoons, after you had to meet your mom when she got out of work so you could get a ride home from school, you had to constantly pester her to get the grocery shopping done quickly so you could get home to see DS. And more often than not, I ended up missing parts if not some entire episodes. I'm quite sure I was not alone in that - and the ONLY way for us to find out what had happened was if one of our friends had seen what we'd missed.

On a more serious note, as a viewer of TV shows, particularly TV serials (which all soaps are), I like to know what is going on.

I don't always catch every episode and it's unreasonable on the part of a TV executive or writer to expect me too. I should be able to pick up watching after a couple of days and not be completely and totally at sea. That doesn't mean that I want everything to proceed at a snail's pace either, but there is a happy medium.

That doesn't mean that I want everything to proceed at a snail's pace either, but there is a happy medium.

And one that I believe DS used for most of its run - before, that is,  DC went all ADS on us.

Ooooooooooooooh, I created a topic and didn't even realise

As for pacing, I'd agree with the VCR thing, which I think still applies to soaps.  Most regular viewers of a soap will probably only watch three episodes out of a week's block of five, and a good story editor will consider that when they are developing their stories.

With DS' final year, so many of the A.D.S. stories require viewers to not only have watched, but also remembered past episodes, which IMO is asking too much of the regular audience - we all duck off from watching shows to answer the phone or make coffee or whatever...  A mass-market show simply has to make concessions for that part of the audience.  It can't afford not to.

I'm not bought on the argument that all TV is being degraded into MTV-esque pap.  Soaps -- certainly in the UK and Australia -- have seen more evolution is the last decade or so than any other programming genre, and I think a lot of the speedier pacing has more to do with the audience becoming more television literate than anything else.  DS is very theatrical rather than televisual -- most of the writing is basically theatre or radio that just happens to be put on videotape, very rarely do you get outright visual storytelling.  Nowadays, the audience is clued to "read" the text with far more sophistication -- one well-placed close-up reaction shot can do the work of a whole page of dialogue, for instance.

As Robert McKee puts it, a writer's ideal is "good stories told well".  Any producer of a new DS would do well to remember that the stories are only half of the deal.

But you have to remember, Vlad, that you came to DS in the days of VCRs - not in the days when on Friday afternoons, after you had to meet your mom when she got out of work so you could get a ride home from school, you had to constantly pester her to get the grocery shopping done quickly so you could get home to see DS. And more often than not, I ended up missing parts if not some entire episodes. I'm quite sure I was not alone in that - and the ONLY way for us to find out what had happened was if one of our friends had seen what we'd missed.

You have a good point.  We do have all the episodes available to us now, which wasn't the case then.  I hadn't considered how the luxury of VCRs has made this possible.

I seem to remember missing one or two episodes during these "fast-paced" sequences (of 1840, etc.) during SciFi's last airing (hopefully I have everything on tape  ) and really didn't feel lost; but perhaps there were a handful of particular episodes that, if missed, would have left the viewer in the dark.

 

What does A.D.S stand for?

What does A.D.S stand for?

Attention Deficit Syndrome.

- the stakes are so high,

STOP!  Yer Killing me!

the argument that all TV is being degraded into MTV-esque pap.

It's not just TV that has de-volved!