Plot vs. Character in Geek Culture

[Oromous]

So, I came across an interesting review of X-Files season 6's third episode, Triangle, written by Darren of them0vieblog, where he discussed the different ways fandoms appreciate genre television like Star Trek or The X-Files. In the review, he talked about how traditionally, certain fans would place more emphasis on nonromantic elements of these TV series like plot development, plot consistencies and worldbuilding, whereas other fans would care more about character development, character consistencies and character relationships. An obvious example of this fan divide is in this X-Files episode, Triangle, where Mulder kissed a 1939 version of Scully while trapped in the Bermuda Triangle. The "noromo" fans would argue that the entire episode was merely a dream sequence that happened in Mulder's imagination, thus insignificant and even non-canon. However, the shippers would claim that it is of significance because it showed the kind of intimacy Mulder was willing to express towards Scully, and that this character examination is far more important than whether if the events of the plot happened in reality.

And I think this divide in how we appreciate these stories goes beyond just whether if you care about shipping or not. It's really a matter of whether if you think that good character development could justify any compromise in plot inconsistencies or even plot mediocrity. For example, in my review of X-Files: Fight the Future, I was the movie a pretty average score (3/5 stars in my Letterboxd review) because I felt that it wasn't of significance to the overarching "mytharc" of the TV series, or the main plot. It didn't really contribute much development in Mulder's pursuit of "the truth," and it even led to some pretty contrived methods of fixing plot inconsistencies in the season 6 premiere that tried to tie up the loose threads of the movie. On the other hand, shippers of Mulder/Scully might not care that much about that and might say that movie is great just because of what it explored in the Mulder/Scully relationship (specifically that almost-kiss in the hallway).

In the context of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, an example would be whether if you like an episode with a nonsensical plotline if it develops a shipping that you like (Bangel/Spuffy). There are a lot of episode discussions that place more emphasis on talking about the character relationships rather than the plot consistencies (or plot quality), for example, and it makes sense because it's a character-driven show. On the other hand, you have an episode like The Gift and one might talk more about the metaphors of the plot (myself) rather than whether if Buffy's actions made sense or not (pretty much everyone else). So you can see that there's a difference there in how we approach geek culture storytelling where we define if an episode or a movie is good or not based on the plot and its themes or the characters and the relationships.

In the end, I guess for myself, I do care more about the themes of a show like Buffy more than character relationships or even whether if their actions made sense or not, which is also why I tend to talk more about metaphors and moral messages than shippings (though I do occasionally touch on them). If the overarching plotlines of a season are satisfying enough, I would usually give it a high rating, regardless of how my favorite characters have developed, even if problematic character portrayals (like Scully's forced pregnancy in season 4 and 5) might hurt that score.

But what about you? What's your approach? Would bad character writing make you hate a show even if the plotline and its themes are written very well? Do good characters justify the sacrifice of a satisfying plot?

 

[thrasherpix]

Long story short, I prefer consistency, be it of characters or world building.

I want to feel like I know the characters rather than guessing what they're going to be like this week because they have a different writer (as opposed to character growth) or want to change the characters so that they can get that really cool scene or drama or ship that they have in mind (TV Tropes describe more than one writing tactic that screws up the consistency to get what they want in all of this as it's too common, including in Buffy and Angel), and I want to feel like I know the world rather than knowing the rules (like are vampires a merge of their old selves with the demonic or a demon inhabiting a corpse?) and even past events can be changed on a whim. I'm comforted when I hear that a series has a "series Bible" that the writers are to become familiar with before writing, and that as the show grows, so does the series Bible.

Some shows, including Buffy and Angel, I can actually usually guess who wrote the majority of the episode because of how the characters were, and sometimes even what the characters believed or felt about each other. Others have told me they've noticed the same thing. (As long as the consistency isn't fragile then this can actually be a fun game.)

 

[Oromous]

Long story short, I prefer consistency, be it of characters or world building.

I want to feel like I know the characters rather than guessing what they're going to be like this week because they have a different writer (as opposed to character growth) or want to change the characters so that they can get that really cool scene or drama or ship that they have in mind (TV Tropes describe more than one writing tactic that screws up the consistency to get what they want in all of this as it's too common, including in Buffy and Angel), and I want to feel like I know the world rather than knowing the rules (like are vampires a merge of their old selves with the demonic or a demon inhabiting a corpse?) and even past events can be changed on a whim. I'm comforted when I hear that a series has a "series Bible" that the writers are to become familiar with before writing, and that as the show grows, so does the series Bible.

Some shows, including Buffy and Angel, I can actually usually guess who wrote the majority of the episode because of how the characters were, and sometimes even what the characters believed or felt about each other. Others have told me they've noticed the same thing. (As long as the consistency isn't fragile then this can actually be a fun game.)

But what about tonal consistency? Say that, you've been following a show for years because of its horror vibes, and then suddenly, the show shifts gear into blatant comedy (both season 4 of Buffy and season 6 of The X-Files are clear examples of this), would you feel betrayed or that the show is no longer something you would want to watch?

Similarly, if you like a show or even a film series because of a character, such as Spider-Man and Peter Parker, would you watch every Spider-Man movie regardless of their nonsensical plots that might not interest you? No matter how idiotic those plots might be?

It's interesting that a lot of X-philes complained that the show went into a more comedic route during its sixth season, such that the insertion of a laugh track wouldn't be out of place at all. In fact, the sixth season of The X-Files might as well have such an opening:

So it begs the question of what appeals to people more: the plot, the genre, or the characters.

Heck, that's the reason Chris Carter's Millennium never really got the footing it needed because of its constantly changing tone between seasons 1, 2 and even 3, switching between serial killer procedural to apocalyptic existentialism to X-Files knock-off. And if someone still sticks around, is it for Lance Henriksen's portrayal of Frank Black or is it because of this fluidity in the show's changing genres, or is it the larger themes of apocalypticism?

Is character-driven drama sufficient to hold the audience's attention? Some shows purely exist just to explore character dynamics alone, with the plot being thin and forgettable. Slice-of-life shows explicitly fall into this category, shows like Hey Arnold! and As Told By Ginger where the plot is mundane rather than fantastical, exploring character struggles rather than extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Priceless]

I ship character first and foremost. Plot is great and the stories have to have depth and meaning, or the characters don't work for me. But at the end of the day, it's character that builds story. Shows like Charmed and Supernatural are fun and have a ton of shipping options, but the characters lacked depth, the stories had no deeper meaning, the show had no overall message, or none that I could see. So I guess if a show blends the two, great stories and interesting characters who grow and change, then I'm not bothered by the inconsistencies within the plot.

 

[Oromous]

I ship character first and foremost. Plot is great and the stories have to have depth and meaning, or the characters don't work for me. But at the end of the day, it's character that builds story. Shows like Charmed and Supernatural are fun and have a ton of shipping options, but the characters lacked depth, the stories had no deeper meaning, the show had no overall message, or none that I could see. So I guess if a show blends the two, great stories and interesting characters who grow and change, then I'm not bothered by the inconsistencies within the plot.

But what about shows within genres that might not interest you? For example, a show like The Sopranos might have tons of character depth, but for a viewer like myself who has very little interest in mafia crime drama (The Godfather being one of the most boring movies of all time for myself), it would hold very little interest and would most certainly not be on the top of my watchlist after I finish my current '90s line-ups (Kevin Sorbo's Hercules and Lucy Lawless' Xena would be likely potentials instead because of my interest in Greek mythology, and Batman: TAS and X-Men: TAS because... well, superheroes). So it's clear that it takes more than good character writing to make someone watch a show. Someone who's only interested in medieval high fantasies like Lord of the Rings might not necessarily be interested in science fiction fantasies like Star Trek or even modern superhero fantasies like Arrow or Gotham.

Beyond the shipping, this is something I'm more interested in discussing, just how much meaning a show's plot and genre would mean to an audience member like yourself even if it contains great character writing and great shipping potentials.

Even the famous shipping that's #SuperWhoLock has a mixed combination of genres where the fans won't necessarily enjoy either of the three shows, namely Supernatural, Dr. Who and Sherlock respectively; I've only seen the last of which. So it's interesting whether if someone deeply invested in shipping would force himself to watch something he normally doesn't enjoy, i.e.: Sherlock is a more gritty and grounded detective thriller while Supernatural seems to be supernatural drama of the more fantastical ilk.

 

[nightshade]

Surely you wouldn't watch a show without knowing at least the genre it was in first, especially one that you haven't seen before, however you might not know about the characters or shipping before watching it.

 

[Oromous]

Surely you wouldn't watch a show without knowing at least the genre it was in first, especially one that you haven't seen before, however you might not know about the characters or shipping before watching it.

True, but let's say a friend recommends watching a terrific show solely because of the character depth, but that show belongs in a genre you have no interest in; would you still give the show a chance? And if you like the characters in the show enough, would you become more open to other character-driven dramas as well that are outside your range of genre interest?

What I'm asking isn't really whether if you'd know what genre you're getting into, or whether if you'd like the characters before watching the show, but rather, if character or plot (by extension the plot's genre) would appeal more to people into picking up a show in the first place, or even sticking to it if it ever changes genre midway. How much value do people place in either factor is what I'm asking. Even if you know what genre you're going into, the showrunner might suddenly decide to take the show in a completely different direction. What would keep the audience watching? For Buffy, the answer seems to be the characters indeed.

 

[Priceless]

But what about shows within genres that might not interest you? For example, a show like The Sopranos might have tons of character depth, but for a viewer like myself who has very little interest in mafia crime drama (The Godfather being one of the most boring movies for me of all time), it would hold very little interest and would most certainly not be on the top of my watchlist after I finish my current '90s line-ups (Kevin Sorbo's Hercules and Lucy Lawless' Xena would be likely potentials instead because of my interest in Greek mythology, and Batman: TAS and X-Men: TAS because... well, superheroes). So it's clear that it takes more than good character writing to make someone watch a show. Someone who's only interested in medieval high fantasies like Lord of the Rings might not necessarily be interested in science fiction fantasies like Star Trek or even modern superhero fantasies like Arrow or Gotham.

I like The Sopranos, so I can't really comment. That show interested me not because of the crime element, because I'm not a fan of realistic violence on tv, but the characters were interesting to me. I think there is a difference between thinks like LoTR which is based on a book, so is not original and original shows. But I also think there is probably a big crossover in people who will watch LoTR and Star Trek and Arrow. Age may come into it too. Someone who loved Star Trek may have aged out of watching Arrow/Gotham, which seem a bit cheesy to someone who is older then the demographic those shows are aimed at, which I assume is teens.

Even the famous shipping that's #SuperWhoLock has a mixed combination of genres where the fans won't necessarily enjoy either of the three shows, namely Supernatural, Dr. Who and Sherlock respectively; I've only seen the last of which. So it's interesting whether if someone deeply invested in shipping would force himself to watch something he normally doesn't enjoy, i.e.: Sherlock is a more gritty and grounded detective thriller while Supernatural seems to be supernatural drama of the more fantastical ilk.

I think there is probably a big crossover in these three shows, although they are very different, the premise is the same - each week we have a problem and we have to solve it. Either it's about demons who have to be vanquished, an historical event that's been subject to alien invasion, or an intricate crime that has to be taken apart and solved by logic. I like all three shows though I don't think any of them are 'great', because the characters rely too much on the story. I like the characters, but they are overshadowed by overblown plots and story lines because the writing is about plot, not about character. If you like plot more than character, these shows are definitely for you because they are plot heavy. Without a problem to solve, what would any of these characters do? They'd be pretty dull people I think.

 

[Oromous]

I think another way to look at such a plot vs. character discussion is this: The Simpsons has ran for 31 years now and the common consensus is that it has lost its initial appeal. That appeal originally was its satirical take on American culture and your typical nuclear family values. But as time went on, that satire lost its bite and the jokes were just not clever or funny anymore. However, I could still name one or two Simpsons fans who have watched all 32 seasons because of the characters' charm and quirks, because the Simpsons family is still America's favorite family. These are characters who have been fleshed out over a long time in spite of the lack of continuity in the plot, so it's clear that good characters (or at the very least, charming ones) could still be worth suffering through a show, even if it's vapid, shallow and pandering to celebrity culture and trending politics. In a more extreme opposite, Family Guy is still running, but that's likely more attributed to its shock humor plot than any existing character charm.

Another example is the '90s sitcom, Friends, with some of the most nonsensical plotlines you'd ever encounter (affording an apartment in New York with their menial low-wage jobs being the least of them), and even though the whole "Will They/Won't They" plot routine had gotten stale after the first three times, people still stuck around for the characters, and not just for the more popular Chandler and Monica either but also the deeply annoying Ross and Rachel, to see their favorite shipping get their happy end. So it's genuinely surprising what fans could stomach just for the sake of characters, me being one of them.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

or even modern superhero fantasies like Arrow or Gotham.

What's interesting about Gotham is that it did change tone between Season 1 and 2 and it was for the better. Season 1 tried to do a realistic gritty take on the Batman mythos and it didn't quite land, the writers even admitted this so they embraced the more comic book elements and it became a much better show that lasted for 5 seasons. Bruce also became a lot less annoying. The Riddler and Penguin were particular highlights of the series.

As for the thread question, I think it's important to have a balance of both. OUAT shows what happens when plot is prioritised over character. The half season arcs (from Season 3 to Season 5) just rushed the characters through without them actually developing as individuals, they'd often reset Rumple back to villainy whenever they needed a placeholder villain between each arc villain, and everything just seemed rushed. RumBelle kept breaking up and reuniting as and when plot demanded it rather than it being character driven. Emma's character development went out the window just to push CaptainSwan. The second half of Season 3 was the worst for Regina with the OutlawQueen ship which made no sense, then they had her use light magic to defeat Zelena despite never using it before or after that occasion.

The redemption of both Regina and Zelena feels unearned and they never really face the consequences of their actions. When some of their victims do show up wanting revenge, they are the ones portrayed as the villains whilst Regina and Zelena are played as heroes who defeat their former victims. Both the victims were males who were children when they encountered Regina and Zelena and yet Regina and Zelena don't even apologise, they're just "Oh poor me, my actions from my dark past have consequences which have just now come back to bite me".

However, all character and no plot can be boring. Fans like characters engaging in normal moments,, it's what makes characters endearing, however too much normalcy and the story just stands still. An episode about a character going about their normal day isn't as exciting as a character starting their day normally but then something happens.

Also consistency is important otherwise it takes the audience out of the story eg don't say a character is allergic to something one minute, then have them eat that food to which they are allergic without having a reaction because it serves the plot.

 

[Oromous]

As for the thread question, I think it's important to have a balance of both. OUAT shows what happens when plot is prioritised over character. The half season arcs (from Season 3 to Season 5) just rushed the characters through without them actually developing as individuals, they'd often reset Rumple back to villainy whenever they needed a placeholder villain between each arc villain, and everything just seemed rushed. RumBelle kept breaking up and reuniting as and when plot demanded it rather than it being character driven. Emma's character development went out the window just to push CaptainSwan. The second half of Season 3 was the worst for Regina with the OutlawQueen ship which made no sense, then they had her use light magic to defeat Zelena despite never using it before or after that occasion.

I think it's a shame, because these contrivances that the plot required could be seen in The X-Files as well, where the Cigarette Smoking Man needs to conveniently disappear for a little while, or even worse in season 6, there's a need for a skeptic so Scully's experience in the Fight the Future movie became insignificant as she became skeptical again in spite of having been literally impregnated and almost killed from the inside by an alien entity. And yet, in spite of all these problems, the key difference between these two shows is how well The X-Files was able to handle the chemistry between Mulder and Scully, showing the compelling bond between them in the midst of frustrating government schemes that threaten their lives. I don't think OUAT has ever had that level of compelling character writing as none of the characters are really as memorable as some of the greatest pop cultural icons one could think of that's beyond The X-Files; they definitely couldn't reach the quality of Buffy characters, that's for sure, but I think even Ross and Rachel from Friends were remembered fondly by more people than those of OUAT. It's a great shame for what potential the OUAT characters could have had.

However, all character and no plot can be boring. Fans like characters engaging in normal moments,, it's what makes characters endearing, however too much normalcy and the story just stands still. An episode about a character going about their normal day isn't as exciting as a character starting their day normally but then something happens.

I think it all comes down to the writing though. Wasn't Seinfeld essentially a show about nothing? The characters alone seem to carry the show, so it seems that such a format could indeed work out.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I don't think OUAT has ever had that level of compelling character writing as none of the characters are really as memorable as some of the greatest pop cultural icons one could think of that's beyond The X-Files; they definitely couldn't reach the quality of Buffy characters, that's for sure, but I think even Ross and Rachel from Friends were remembered fondly by more people than those of OUAT. It's a great shame for what potential the OUAT characters could have had.

Agreed. OUAT had the potential to be remembered for years after it ended because it had such a passionate fandom (much like Buffy). However the writing really failed the show to the point that even fans were hoping it would end sooner rather than later. You could pick through each season for the wasted potential, and though it was a novel idea to have the curse break at the end of Season 1 rather than making it the series goal, it's clear that they had no plan beyond that point. There are some powerful moments throughout the show, and it would be a disservice not to mention them, but the heavy focus on plot and not character development does let the show down. For example, Baelfire is killed in Season 3 and, given that he was the whole reason the curse was created (though this was later changed), you'd expect his death would be given a heavy focus for at least one episode (kind of like The Body) however there was one montage scene and that was it, he was barely mentioned ever again.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

I am fed up with starting to read a thread that has my interest then you guys seem to think its okay to add in OUAT, which I have no idea what that mean, so I won't be reading this thread again.

 

[TriBel]

Sherlock is a more gritty and grounded detective thriller

...isn't how I'd describe Sherlock. In fact, it isn't how I'd describe Doyle's original text either.

mafia crime drama

...isn't how I'd describe The Sopranos. What's Broadwalk Empire (for instance)

But as time went on, that satire lost its bite and the jokes were just not clever or funny anymore.

Is that right? Genuine question? I get that the jokes might be a bit stale but satire's a form of irony - generally known as "the postmodern sensibility". When society proves itself to be perverse, cynical, ironical, post-truth etc. it becomes difficult for any art form that relies on these devices to critique it. So I'd argue not that The Simpsons became less but that society became more (like The Simpsons). Unless this is your point?

plot vs. character

Do you need the "vs"? The Wire didn't privilege one over the other. Dickensian in terms of plot and characterization was how it was described. In some cases, it isn't it possible to bridge inconsistencies in plot/characterization with metaphor? Can't there be a transcendent or more abstract truth? Works for me with BtVS.

that show belongs in a genre you have no interest in

Is genre that rigid...that pure? Some shows (BtVS was one) are difficult to define in terms of a single genre. Doesn't genre risk foregrounding certain aspects of the text over others?

Other than that, I've just realised I don't watch enough TV.

 

[Mr Trick]

For me with TV in general its more about the characters than the plot more so in the modern serialised form of TV. With the old school case of the week style the characters didn't really change too much week from week, and because it was normally a different case each week how much you enjoyed the episode would be more down to the story of that episode. There are examples like Columbo where he was such a likable, colourful character that fans no doubt enjoyed the show for him more than the cases themselves. The X-Files is a good middle ground of this because the MOTW episodes were typically stronger than the more serialised ones and were what the show was built on, but then the Mulder-Scully relationship is what most people talk about and there's a whole host of stand out supporting characters.

Sitcoms is a genre where the characters are the most important thing. Even the weaker episodes of Seinfeld are made more watchable because I like the main cast and characters. In Cheers the setting of the bar and the regulars who pass through it are what make the show tick. So mostly for me it is about characters because they sustain the story or comedy over long term. They are my way into the world. I guess they give it its emotionally pull or relatability.

 

[Oromous]

...isn't how I'd describe Sherlock. In fact, it isn't how I'd describe Doyle's original text either.

Well, if you've seen my posts often enough, you'd come to know that I tend to (mistakenly) use generalized terms in very broad strokes, so it takes a bit of patience to discern what I really meant in my texts.

So when I say "grounded" or "gritty," I was referring to the realistic setting that Sherlock contains (as opposed to the time travel in Dr. Who or the existence of Lucifer the fallen angel in Supernatural).

My bad. I struggle with my English sometimes.

...isn't how I'd describe The Sopranos. What's Broadwalk Empire (for instance)

I haven't seen The Sopranos, so I wouldn't know, but I was referring to my impression of it (it at least seems to be some kind of mafia drama on the surface; I don't know anything else beyond that). But it still doesn't peak my interest because of such a setting.

Is that right? Genuine question? I get that the jokes might be a bit stale but satire's a form of irony - generally known as "the postmodern sensibility". When society proves itself to be perverse, cynical, ironical, post-truth etc. it becomes difficult for any art form that relies on these devices to critique it. So I'd argue not that The Simpsons became less but that society became more (like The Simpsons). Unless this is your point?

Nah, my points don't tend to be that profound in context. 😆 You do make a nice point, but the fact remains that the comedy doesn't work as effectively anymore and it's a series of which its cancellation is long overdue. However, my point was that The Simpsons could still survive on its viewership because it's a character-driven comedy even in its modern incarnation where jokes are introduced for the sake of a cheap laugh. The characters still retain their appeal well enough for someone to justify watching the series for another 30 years.

Do you need the "vs"? The Wire didn't privilege one over the other. Dickensian in terms of plot and characterization was how it was described. In some cases, it isn't it possible to bridge inconsistencies in plot/characterization with metaphor? Can't there be a transcendent or more abstract truth? Works for me with BtVS.
Is genre that rigid...that pure? Some shows (BtVS was one) are difficult to define in terms of a single genre. Doesn't genre risk foregrounding certain aspects of the text over others?

I guess I should've clarified a little more of what I was trying to discuss.

The "vs." in the thread title wasn't really referring to plot and character as separate elements that are mutually exclusive; rather, it's referring to the importance fans place on plot vs. the importance they place on character. Let's go back to the initial example I brought up in my opening post: The X-Files movie, Fight the Future. As I said, the plot of that movie is inconsequential to the TV series and it's hardly innovative or that big of a deal, which was why I dismissed the movie as mediocre. However, there might be people who do think the movie is good because of the character drama between Mulder and Scully and what ultimately unfolded (the almost-kiss).

Similarly, when it was initially released, I thought The Avengers (2012) was a fun superhero movie but thin on plot, and therefore, I wasn't impressed. It's literally just another alien invasion movie. However, the main appeal here is clearly the characters, not the plot, and their interaction with one another. Also the fact that these comic book superheroes (well-known to comic book fans) have been brought together on-screen for the first time... but that's a whole other subject altogether.

So yeah, that's what I was driving at, trying to explore how stories with generic plots could still be entertaining with great characterization, and whether if the same could be said for the opposite, fantastic plots full of profound imagery but lacking in any interesting characters. It's interesting because, in spite of the close relationship plot has with character (one couldn't really work without the other), there are still many examples out there (like the ones I mentioned in earlier posts) where the plot is pretty dumb but the compelling characters alone make the experience worthwhile.

Similarly, you have a movie like Inception that, while it still has decent characters, its main appeal is the crazy worldbuilding it has about dreams and our subconsciousness. In fact, regarding the latter category, there are a lot of people out there who would be satisfied alone with a fun plot even if the characters are kinda generic; Ready Player One feels like this case, where the entire movie is just one huge montage to '80s pop culture. There were a lot of exciting things happening in the movie like giant Gundam battles and Godzilla appearing... but I just couldn't really care about the characters or their motivations. Or how about this: The Purge. Cool concept that asks what people would do if crime is legal for one day, but its characters are clearly not well-thought-out. Another example would be Aliens vs. Predator, which received the criticisms it rightly deserves, but you can see how people would still pay to just see the xenomorph and the yautja (the predator) fight it out even though the characters are forgettable. Emphasis on plot over character. But if people are paying for it, does that mean there's merit to plot-driven movies like this where "cool stuff happening" is enough to entertain someone? That's the kind of question I wanted to ask and explore.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I am fed up with starting to read a thread that has my interest then you guys seem to think its okay to add in OUAT, which I have no idea what that mean, so I won't be reading this thread again.

Perhaps instead of posting a rude comment, you could start by nicely asking the people in the thread not to use abbreviations? Or report the post and let the staff make the request? I'm sure no one was doing it to intentionally exclude others from the conversation.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

What's Broadwalk Empire (for instance)

Not to go too far off topic, and with a short response relying on monosyllabic words, is that worth watching? I think I stopped after the second season, there was just something missing that prevented me from really getting into it. Were subsequent seasons more of the same or was it leading to something more?

 

[gwenogjones]

I'm a character person rather than a plot person I think. I'd watch the scoobies watch paint dry - I argue there's no such thing as a bad episode of Buffy simply because I love spending time with these people.

When it comes to the X files, I'm a huge season 6 fan - it's my favourite by a wide margin. I just watched the friends opener posted above - and I wanna watch that show! I hate the myth arc episodes, they're so convoluted and just when you think maybe you understand, then something that makes no sense happens (I don't see how anyone can say the X files film doesn't develop the myth arc - it's all myth arc. It's got black oil and bees - that's the entire myth arc summed up in 4 words). I started an X files rewatch during lock down (now on season 8) and I had to knit during the myth arc episodes so I would pay attention to the screen and not mess around on the internet and not really watch. Now I think I understand the myth arc but ... I'm not sure it was worth understanding. But all the motw episodes of the show (thankfully the bulk of them) are great. I love the funny ones the best. X files is very tonally dissonant from one episode to the next, and I don't mind that at all, because I enjoy Mulder and Scully's relationship throughout and I enjoy the monsters. That's what I'm watching for. For all I hate the myth arc, I love the smoking man and Krycek and am always pleased to see them. So I definitely watch this show for character not overarching plot - though I do enjoy the monsters and the mysteries.

I can't stand any form of star trek - but the one I can tolerate the most easily is DS9, and when you compare its format to the others of the franchise - it's essentially a soap opera set in space. It places much more emphasis on character and relationships than the shows where they're just plodding from planet to planet setting phasers to stun.

Charmed I can tolerate more easily than star trek, because I prefer fantasy and magic to space, but I'm not a fan because I just don't really care about the characters. I certainly wouldn't choose to watch them. Unless it was the episode with Cordelia in, but then I'm watching for Cordelia ... so still a character thing.

But for all that I appreciate character first and foremost - I still expect the plot to be consistent. I don't like retcons or things that don't make sense. I don't like breaking the plot for character any more than I like breaking character for plot. I expect consistency in both plot and character in good story telling - compelling characters driving a consistent plot. Half my problem with the myth arc of the X files is that just when I think I've got my head around it, they introduce something else and I can't for the life of me work out how they link up - even though Mulder is acting like they do, and I'm not even convinced Chris Carter really knows how they link up, he just wanted to throw in another bit of conspiracy. I'm not convinced it's a consistent plot, what's there is confusing - and Mulder and Scully tend to work separately in those episodes so - Krycek aside - I'm left with nothing to enjoy.

I like genre television because I prefer fantastical stories to realistic ones but I have to care about the characters to keep following the plot. If a plot is interesting but I don't care about the people involved - I'm not sticking around. But all inconsistencies are as bad as each other. Anyone can write a story where the characters have no internal consistency and do and say completely opposite things to what they did and said before and where the plot breaks down or rewrites itself - but if writing stories is your job, then I expect you to be able to tell a consistent story where characters follow along a coherent plot making decisions that are in line with who you have written them to be. It's not supposed to be easy - but anything less is not good writing and I don't give either a pass.

 

[Oromous]

(I don't see how anyone can say the X files film doesn't develop the myth arc - it's all myth arc. It's got black oil and bees - that's the entire myth arc summed up in 4 words)

It doesn't develop the myth arc so much as retread its familiar elements... while pretending like nothing it said in the movie are of importance in the season 6 opener, with the violent beast-like alien (in the movie) revealed to be just the pre-mature form of yet another generic grey alien. So in a way, yes it technically developed the myth arc... while also returning it to its familiar roots. It's pretty much why season 6 (or rather, the movie itself) feels like the start of how the myth arc is just meandering around with no end in sight, just circling round and round, pretending there's something new when it's just something old again.

And even ignoring how season 6 cleaned up the plot-threads of the movie, nothing that the movie said felt that new or genuinely novel. Yes, it contains all the familiar elements of the myth arc, but we've already seen all those things before and it's not reinvented in any new ways whatsoever. It's return to status quo by the end of the movie (literally since the X-Files is reopened in the ending).

Anyway, I agree that the myth arc ended up one convoluted mess that's more trouble than it's worth. The X-Files should've ended with season 5 and continued on to a series of movies like Chris Carter had originally intended.