The Return of the Multi Episode Stories.
Rocketpop
Posts: 1,350
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I've personally found this current series experiment with single storyline episodes to be a letdown - before we generally had a couple of 2 parters per series - but I'd personally love to see the return of longer stories told over 3 or 4 episodes (complete with cliffhanger endings!!). I do find all these single story episodes rather rushed and often seem to suffer with weak easy endings. So mix up a series and allow stories to be told to a length that suits them, give them room to breathe and flesh them out - not every plot needs to be told at brake neck pace.
What are other people's view on this?
What are other people's view on this?
0
Comments
But then Moffat can't win. Either its too arc heavy or too slow paced and inter connected or its too stand alone and doesn't carry enough weight story wise. S7 feels like a reaction to the criticism levelled at 6 and yet now he is being criticized for that. Like I say. Lose lose situation. Which is why he should always stick to his own vision. I have no evidence to back it up, its just a feeling I get, but I don't think he has in S7. Good as it is there is something of the compromise about it. For me anyway.
I think abandoning two parters was a mistake. Sure. When they're bad it really is annoying (The flesh two parter) but at their best (S6 opening) there is nothing finer.
In my opinion, a return to longer stories will alienate the causal viewer and wouldn't be good for the show at all.
I'm not saying we can't have multi-part stories, but I think making every story multi-part would be a very bad idea.
45 minutes is long enough to tell a simply story - but not every story is simple, certainly not Sci-Fi. I agree give us longer stories over several episodes. If they stick to the 13 episode series, lets have a couple of 4 episode stories, and some 2 parters and the odd single episode. People who say people no longer have the attension span for multi episodes are talking rubbish - a well told story will alway hold people.
There appears to be differences in what people interpret as an 'arc' - certainly your version is more specific than mine, and mine is more specific than some.
Arcs, as I know of them, aren't just foreshadowing of a finale, nor are they something as vague as a phrase repeated like a catchphrase.
Mickey's transition from being discarded by Rose and mocked by the Doctor to being a valued freedom fighter having moved on from her, is an arc - a change in the character over a series of episodes. Similarly, Amy's transition from wanting to run away from her wedding to realising what Rory means to her, and also Rory managing to pull himself out of the shadow of the Doctor.
The crack in time caused by the TARDIS explosion is most definitely a arc, one in the plot. It's the basis for the Doctor's meeting with Amy, the way they defeat the Weeping Angels, the reason that Amy loses Rory, as well as being the focus of the finale. It's one story thread, spread out over the whole series.
With regards to Mickey and Amy i'd say that was basic character progression/growth, not really a story arc as such.
I agree. There's a distinction between a character's arc and an arc plot. Maybe a fine distinction, but one I'd certainly make.
I wouldn't really label two-parters as being 'arcs', either. They're just one story split over two episodes. An arc is more of a central story line which progresses throughout the season.
I don't mind either way, to be honest. An arc done well is a good thing and done badly is a bad thing. A two-parter done well is a good thing and done badly is a bad thing.
I wouldn't mind a couple of two-parters, though. It gives them the ability to go more epic with a story and I like epic
An arc is a recurring theme which links individual episodes to the finale. Multi-part stories are one single adventure told through several episodes, leaving virtually nothing resolved by the end of the early episode(s) and continuing in the next.
In old-Who, the first episode merely set out the premise, met the monster and created the tension, although they would be three or four 30 minute shows. With 45 minute episodes, 2 or 3 is perfect.
The crack was an arc that tied the series together, but within that series how much more fleshed out and interesting the Weeping Angels episode would've been had it not had to resolve itself within the third act of a single episode (that is, 30 minutes setup and 15 minutes denouement). The problem with nu-Who is that within a single episode, the adventure must be wrapped up in 15 minutes, which often feels rushed and leads to the less clever 'deus ex machina' plots. With two episodes you double the third act.
For me, it would be better within a 12 part series, to have 6 to 8 individual adventures but with an over-riding series arc tying to the finale.