On Hate Watching, Television Writing, and My Dwindling Love Of "Downton Abbey"

With season eight of "Doctor Who" already a few episodes deep and interviews and images featuring season five of "Downton Abbey" popping up all over my Tumblr dashboard, I've been thinking a lot about what happens when a show you used to love becomes the thing you hate watch.

Now I'm a very picky television watcher for many reasons: I don't like watching things on a television because I don't know how to work the cable in my house and prefer to be on my laptop, I can't adhere to television schedules and I don't know how to DVR, and I will often watch multiple episodes in a sitting like the millenial that I am.

Hence, I have made a rule for deciding to watch a show: Only bother with a show if you have heard from at least three trustworthy sources (friends and family with similar taste as you, reviews) that it's good and it has made it through at least three seasons without the quality decreasing.

The note about the quality remaining consistent is crucial. Shows that are canceled after only one or two seasons are either shows that are simply too good for television ("Firefly", "Pushing Daisies") or are not worth it but either way you usually won't know about them until after they're already off the air. Then you can just let history decide for you as you continue to hear about the good shows and the bad ones disappear to the television graveyard. On the contrary and in regards to shows the rule was created for, there are plenty of shows that go on for years and years with their quality gradually decreasing while their viewership remains consistent because of loyal watchers who are hoping for the quality to return, some sort of payoff, or are so attached to the characters they don't want to stop. I can't tell you how many people insisted that I watch "Lost" or "Heroes" while it was in its first season only to recant their statements over the preceding years. It was probably because of seeing how irate people got about these shows that I invented the rule.

Sometimes I even go so far as to wait until a show is almost over to start watching. With "Breaking Bad" I watched the whole show during the break between the two halves of the final season and watched the last six episodes with the rest of the world. But often if a show really seems good enough and people are really into it, I won't be able to wait the 5-7 seasons for it to be over and will start sometime around season 3 or 4 which worked out great for "Mad Men", "Dexter", and "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" which I feel remain fairly consistent in quality throughout (ignoring "Dexter"'s silly finale).

But on some rare occasions, the rule doesn't work and longevity can be the death of a good show so keep that in mind if you think a show will be longer than 7 seasons. I used the rule for "How I Met Your Mother" and by season 6 my interest had started to wan and by 8 I was completely sick of the show and stopped watching for a while, only managing to get through to season 9 on the desire to finish the show in its entirety. I actually liked season 9 a lot, more than a lot of the previous seasons, and got to be outraged with the rest of the world at the terrible ending so I guess it was ultimately worth it but there was some real pain there.

So even with the rule I've done some hate watching and I wanted to talk about three different shows that have lead me to this and what can be learned from them: "Glee", "Doctor Who", and "Downton Abbey."

Before I get into the examples, I think there are really three factors that go into how long I can feasibly hate watch something before I give it up entirely:

1.) How much did I like the show at its peak?

2.) Was the decrease in quality gradual or abrupt?

3.) In what ways did it get worse?

These are all pretty obvious but I think I may be different from other people in that I am more forgiving of an abrupt quality decrease than a gradual one. A gradual one is often more likely to be permanent and I usually won't notice that it has become the new normal until long after I wanted to quit watching from bad episodes. When I finally do, I'm angry with all the time I've wasted. On the contrary, an abrupt change is usually the result of a new story line or something happening in the show that changes it immediately and it takes a while for the writers to realize what works and doesn't work within this change. With skill, the problems can be fixed. I just like my pain acute, not chronic.

So "Glee." Perhaps it's unfair to talk about "Glee" because I didn't use the rule with it but making this mistake reminded me why I follow this rule in the first place. I watched my first episode of "Glee" on a random day in college because it was on after something else I had been watching. The show already had a ton of hype and it was only the fifth episode. The jokes were dark and peppered with musical references, the songs were fun and varied, and I enjoyed it enough to make a point to go back and watch the previous episodes.

As I continued watching however, I started to see big problems with the writing. Continuity was nonexistent and the show had no idea what type of show it wanted to be: black comedy, drama, or just something quirky. Each episode had a different writer and each of them had a different goal. Every episode seemed to wash away the previous one and the target demographic shifted from a more universal appeal to teenagers with cliche hot topic episodes and nothing but Top 40 songs. By the time season three came around with a few solid episodes followed by some mediocre ones, I decided I was done. I didn't even stop watching after a bad episode; just an average one. It just occurred to me that even the good episodes were a chore to watch. The show was never quite a favorite of mine so it didn't feel like a great loss but I ended my relationship with the show on a bitter note. Only years later did one of my friends who still watches the show tell me that it's easier to watch the show once you view it as epic theater that isn't supposed to be reality. While I love the theory, even viewing the show through that lens I'm sure I still would have stopped watching.

"Doctor Who" is a show that is more analogous to my experience with "How I Met Your Mother" but still a unique situation to most shows out there. I started watching "Doctor Who" after season 4 of the new series and really liked it. I wouldn't say that I got as into it as some people but it was still definitely important to me and I felt much more strongly about it than "Glee." Like everyone else, I was anxious to see what would come from another change in doctors and a change in management.

The thing with "Doctor Who" that makes it different from other shows is that it isn't even really a show anymore so much as it is an entity. It has permeated so much of culture around the world that it has essentially transcended the television show itself. The same could be said of things like "Star Wars", "Harry Potter", and "Pokemon." "Pokemon" is the only one of these though that is a television show and while I haven't watched it since I was about 10, I can imagine that over the years the handling of the show has changed a lot for better or for worse. This is what happens with "Doctor Who." 

I actually quite liked season 5, the first season with Matt Smith as the Doctor and Steven Moffat as the showrunner but my interest waned from there. Moffat was a very competent writer for the show in the earlier seasons and I fully understand why he was expected to be a good showrunner but it's almost as if the title made him determined to go bigger and beyond in a while that would be the show's detriment. His season length plots are nonsensical and full of holes and he does not care for consistency or canon in the slightest. This made watching the show at times exhausting. Then they ended up getting rid of Amy and Rory, who were rather interesting companions who we have followed for 2 and a half seasons, and replaced them with Clara, who has yet to prove herself to be at all engaging.

Now in season 8 we have another Doctor, Peter Capaldi, but Steven Moffat is still in charge. I watched the first episode of the season with little care for anything but Capaldi's interpretation of the character. Will I keep watching? I'll try for sure but unless they give Moffat the boot and find a new companion, it seems unlikely that I will see watching as anything other than a chore I'm performing in honor of a show that was once fun. Because of the flexible nature of the show, it always has the potential to bounce back but for now, here we are.

And then there's "Downton Abbey." I actually just let out a heavy sigh. This was one of my favorites and would still rank in my top ten favorite shows of all time if you only count the first three seasons. So what happened? 

It would be really easy to blame the entire thing on Dan Stevens, who played Matthew Crawley, deciding to leave the show but it's actually not as simplistic as that. Matthew Crawley was definitely one of the most important characters in the show and most vital to the original premise but I maintain that while the episode of his death did effectively kill the show, it was not exactly because of him.

Julian Fellowes, the showrunner, is a good writer but over the course of "Downton Abbey" it has been proven that he is not a good "television writer." Writing for television requires a different set of skills than writing a movie (as he has done many times to great success). When you write a movie there is a planned beginning and end, very little about the plot is changeable once the end goal has been met, and while actors do occasionally drop out or there are problems with production companies, a lot of things can be guaranteed throughout the making of the film. This is not at all true with television. Not planning a show many years in advance almost always ends up leading to a decline in writing usually from characters acting inconsistent and changing in odd ways or from plots becoming forced. Also, actors can and do leave (sometimes with plenty of warning sometimes with little warning) and whether or not the show can continue is heavily based on ratings and who you're working for. These are conditions that Julian Fellowes is clearly not apt to handle.

As a means of comparison, look at a television writer like Joss Whedon. He has had actors leave, get fired, get pregnant (this was the one time he failed hugely), take vacations, suffer peculiar medical problems, and die when he had other plans for them. He's also had his shows cancelled, his shows threatened to be cancelled and then not, his shows cancelled and then revived on a different network, and his shows cancelled and then continued on later in a movie or a comic book. While I wouldn't say he handled every situation perfectly, he handed so many of them so much better than other writers that he should be studied by every potential television writer for this quality. 

Fellowes does not have this quality and it's actually evident before season three, a season when three of the actors decided to leave. His original premise centers on the Crawley family's title and fortune going to a distant middle class relative they don't know. The premise then becomes more about how the world changes after the Great War. The pacing between these two ideas however is atrocious. Season 1 starts with the sinking of the Titanic in 1912 and ends with the start of World War I. When season 2 opens, time has sped up to 1916 and the season ends at 1919. This means that by the end of season 2, the idea that the world is changing is already in place and yet at the start of season 5, set in 1924, there are still characters who believe it's 10 years ago. The whole war is breezed through when it could have been drawn out through two full seasons and now, he's clearly trying to slow time as the show moves brusquely past his theme, making it obsolete. It's all written rather like someone who thinks their show is going to be cancelled and they are afraid they won't get to write everything they wanted to write. The end result is three great seasons that purposefully represent the pre-war era, the war era, and the post-war era and now mediocre fumbling ones that need a direction.

The other factor is that he didn't know how to handle the show's characters after season 3. I honestly thought I would stop watching after Sybil died in season 3, episode 5 but the fact was, even with my favorite female character gone, the writing was still good and I was still interested. The end came with the season 3 Christmas special, the last episode of the season. It was honestly one of the worst episodes of something I've ever sat through. What didn't make me bored made me angry and Matthew's emotionless death at the end was the cherry on top of that crap sundae. Without Matthew, Fellowes didn't seem to know what to do with Mary. Without Sybil, Fellowes quickly forgot about what was great about Tom. Without O'Brien, Fellowes didn't know how to make Thomas a solo act. Add in unnecessary Anna/Bates drama, a downstairs love square no one cares about, and making Edith more awesome only to continue to make her life hell and you've got season 4 in summation. 

Is the show unable to be saved? No, but it doesn't seem like Fellowes knows how to save it or even that it's in trouble in the first place or even what makes it great. A better writer could easily save this show by simply giving the people what they want. As for me, I'll keep watching mostly for Tom, Anna, and Edith and the hope that they all end up okay because I now am one of those people still watching because I want pay off and care about the characters. Really the most comforting thing is that Fellowes really doesn't seem to want the show to last more than 5 seasons so perhaps he is more self aware than I give him credit for. 

I think I'd be most happy with a Tom Branson spin off where he and his daughter move to America and he gets involved in politics again. Maybe it could talk about all the discrimination Irish immigrants had to face and what those communities were like. "Branson in Boston." Think about it, Fellowes.

And so I hate watch on as so many of us do and I try to tread more carefully next time. I only waited until season 2 of "Orange Is The New Black" so my fingers are crossed for the next few years.

"Glee" Doesn't Give Me An Ounce Of Glee.

(Originally posted on 11-16-2011)

So I was planning on writing an entry about pornography and the way society views female sexuality. Then I watched "Glee" and I felt like I wanted to complain about this more because I spent most of last night thinking about the other thing and this is fresh on my mind. Clearly I should have written the other article last night but hey, hindsight and all.

Back in May after the second season of "Glee" concluded I wrote an entry outlining the reasons why I would probably end up walking out on it during the third season. My three big problems with the show that made it so unenjoyable for me were listed as 1.) the humor being forsaken in favor of tear-jerking, 2.) a lack of diverse music, and 3.) a lack of consistency and development in the relationships and characters.

Now, the first episode of this season of "Glee" was fairly unremarkable but it was followed up by two good episodes and one okay one. Issue number two regarding the music was quickly proven to no longer be a problem as the music actually did become more interesting in terms of diversity in genre and release date. Issue number three was slowly proven to be in the progress of being fixed as relationships remained consistent with the previous season.

The most important change to this season however was a clear establishing of ongoing conflicts. We were given a lot of them but because it was implied that they would not just be a one episode theme that would be dropped immediately after, I was willing to go with all of them. They were

* Finally realizing that Quinn's behavior last season was nonsensical after her pregnancy, they brought back Shelby and reintroduced Quinn as more damaged from her experience with the ultimate goal of getting custody of her daughter. Shelby's presence would also lead to a break down into two separate glee clubs.

* Rachel and Kurt realize that they are merely big fish in a small pond and realize that they have to stand out even more if they want to go to a good school and be Broadway stars thus leading to the "race for class president" plot.

* New Directions is going to put on a production of "West Side Story" leading to smaller conflicts of casting and production (and also the wonderful Mike sub-plot).

* Sue is running for Congress on the platform of cutting school arts programs.

Aside from this there are also the contained conflicts inherent in relationships, those being:

* Will and Emma
* Rachel and Finn
* Santana and Brittany
* Kurt and Blaine (who has transferred to McKinley for convenience sake; I don't mind)
* Mike and Tina (who have always been drama free)

Of these five the only one that I can see failing at this point in time is Santana/Brittany because it has always been made pretty clear that the feelings there are uneven. And if it does, I hope it is done well and that the other ones are mostly kept because relationship drama is the most boring kind this show produces outside of intentional tearjerkers.

So what went wrong if everything was set up so well?

Mainly, the writers have plotline ADD and a tendency to relapse into bad habits of cheese and so-called "heart-warming" moments.

We are one forth, ONE FORTH, of the way through the season and already what could have been great plots are gone. The "West Side Story" plot was the one I personally enjoyed the most and somehow they were able to cast the show and have opening night in the process of three episodes with virtually no rehearsals. This makes no sense. There was a lot that could have been done here in the way of a plot that could carry them to the middle of the season (as school musical productions always do) but it was wrapped up so fast so they could presumably get onto random episodic conflicts. I say this because while I know they have sectionals coming up, there have never really been episodes about the process of sectionals. It's usually more like, "What songs? These? Okay" in the sectionals episode itself.
This also kind of blew the whole Mike sub-plot that was extensively praised by everyone. Sure, his dad still is mad at him and this may come back again but probably will be pushed into the background like it was in episode five in favor of the main characters.

The other good plot that was entirely blow was the class president plot. In the race, Rachel, Kurt, and Brittany are all running for very different reasons but the only real conflict here has been between Rachel and Kurt. Unlike the "West Side Story" plot, this plot would need to be wrapped up a lot quicker because it's for president of that year but the way it was handled was just expected and cheesy thus showing that in times of confusion the writers default to their usual bag of tricks from season two. Rachel had another attack of the ego check and realized she was in the race for the wrong reasons, backing out and supporting Kurt thus making them friends again. Now it's true that this kind of had to happen in order for the "Rachel and Kurt are trying to be stars" plot to come back and this does still put up the question of whether or not Kurt will win; I just hated the way they handled it. Remember in the first season when Rachel was unapologetically full of herself even when she was doing something nice? They really messed her character in the second season with all her "changes of heart" because now everything she says seems false. Oh wow, conceited Rachel was able to look past herself! Let's all be shocked and pat her on the back AGAIN. Is she humble or egotistical? Pick one. You can't just have her change her mind to change the plot.

Luckily, the separate glee clubs bit is still there and they are clearly now trying to turn to plot over to rivalry between them which I'm frankly sick of. There is always glee club rivalry on the show. The fact that the club is split is not as exciting a drama as you think, writers. Try harder.

The Quinn and Shelby plot is still there too with the added complication of Puck being into Shelby. I have no problem with this. It's the only thing that is really remaining believable.

The Sue subplot is so tired I can't even raise a stink. Now in the interest of political correctness her meanness has just gotten over the top to avoid viewers being up in arms about the hot topic issue of bullying in school.

There's one more problem I have with the format of the show: they are still far too aware of their teenage audience and have gone back to make teen issue themed episodes in the interest of them. Episode five was the sex episode. Episode six was the bullying episode.

First of all, both these issues were addressed before: Do "Like A Virgin", "Sexy", and the Karofsky subplot ring bells?

Secondly, I think both these episodes were handled terribly. They were both full of so much facepalm-inducing heart-warming moments it was actually hard to watch them.
The first was so pathetically formulaic in terms of plot and character, anyone who has seen all of season two could have written it. The way things played out was so predictably bad (Rachel wants to have sex to further career, Blaine approaches things wrong, they both fix crap and do it on the same night before their next performance staged in such a way as to indicate that, yes, boning improved performance and teen sex is great through an overly romanticized filter).
The second episode had the same formula of knocking down Santana using her sexuality (this has been done before right?) when really she should just have some actual disciplinary action taken against her for her bullying. Nope, best to leave this in the hands of the students to force her into something she is not ready for. She needs a therapist and a suspension. And, hey "Glee", since when is bullying wrong? Oh wait, I know. It's wrong when you decide it's wrong. Specifically, it's wrong when it involves a gay character. Oy.

So in conclusion, the music has improved and I am glad that relationship square-dancing seems to be gone but the fact is, "Glee" still can't keep a good plot afloat nor a good character progression and the humor is still riding along backseat to the drama and teen audience pandering.

And honestly, I don't get joy from the show anymore. I enjoy a good music number as much as any theater nerd (the "Rumour Has It/Someone Like You" mashup in this episode was wonderful) but there is not enough substance here to really keep me from getting bored. I am not a teenage girl and even when I was I had no use for the kind of teen drama and fluctuating characters that "Glee" provides.

Can "Glee" be saved for me? Well, I truly thought it could at the beginning of the season but the writing just keeps falling back into it's comfortable pattern it established in season two.

I do not await the next episode. Whether or not I will watch it has yet to be determined.

Reflections On "Glee" 's Second Season

(Originally posted on 5-25-2011)

Why I Am Sure I Will Be Abandoning "Glee" Somewhere In Season 3 Unless Stuff Really Changes

So Season 2 of "Glee" has ended (finally) and I have to say that the majority of the episodes this season were really . . . unwatchable at times. I found that watching it on my computer was actually the best method for "Glee" so whenever something unexciting happened, I would have the other side of my screen to amuse myself with.

Here's the thing: I liked "Glee". I watch virtually no current television so the fact that I watch "Glee" is impressive (other current TV? "Dexter" when it's on, "True Blood" when it's on (but my enthusiasm is waning), the new dubs of "FMA", . . . I used to keep up with "HIMYM" . . . I like "The Millionaire Matchmaker" way more than I should?)

The problem is, I think "Glee" had really become, if you will pardon the old-fashioned expression, "too big for it's breeches" and most of what I liked about the show, the reason I watched it, is gone. This became really clear to me the other day when I made a "Glee" playlist finally and found that season one songs outnumbered season two 2:1.


Here's why I can see myself stopping watching "Glee" soon:

1.) The humor, which is what initially drew me in, is being mitigated in favor of contrived tear-jerking moments.

The first episode of "Glee" I watched was episode 5. Why did I watch it? Mainly I thought, "Kristen Chenoweth is awesome and if she's appearing on this show it must be something." I was surprised to find the show really funny with a black sense of humor and a charming absurdity so I kept watching. The humor was also often peppered with references and such that were rather sophisticated for a show that I thought was for teenyboppers. Being that I have the pop culture knowledge of a 45 year old who stays semi-relevant, I appreciated the use of older references and jokes. Or even ones that seem out of place in a show about singing teens. One in particular that I remember was in the Madonna episode when Finn says, "Can't we do the male opposite of Madonna? Like Pantera?" I laughed my ass off but would the usual "Glee" crowd even get a metal reference? Probably not.

The thing is, in this season, it's all been toned down. The show is almost too self-aware that they might offend people and too aware of the population of preteen watching. All the absurdly funny political incorrectness and bad behavior is gone and while the references still pop up, they are few and far between. The comedy overall has taken a backseat to "drama." I put that in quotes because it can hardly make me feel anything if I can see the strings. Not to mention, the drama element has been used so much that it's now numbing. I feel like a main character could die and I wouldn't feel a thing.


2.) The music, which was once diverse and make to facilitate plot, is now overwhelmingly current pop hits that the story is built around.

Remember that first episode I watched? Some of the songs from it were: "Maybe This Time", "Alone, "Last Name", and "Somebody To Love" and while I will admit that aside from the country song that is a list of songs that I already love (classic rock and musicals? Yes, please) you can see a set of variety there. Now the songs sung on "Glee" are rather heavily made up of pop hits so current you can turn on the radio and hear them there too with the occasional musical song or, even more rare, classic rock or R&B. Pop songs aren't always the best for strong emotion but they will get the teenyboppers interested. If it weren't for "Thriller/Heads Will Roll", The Zombies, and the Fleetwood Mac songs, I would have drowned in pop entirely.

Also, often in the first season more than the second, characters would burst out into song when something happened plot-wise that would make them emotional enough to need to sing. Most of the songs sung in season two are done in a performance manner, only sometimes pertaining to the plot at hand. Moreso, these songs would be sung as part of a "theme" and everything happening would fit around this theme instead of any kind of continuous story. And while I would never accuse "Glee" of being continuous, is it wrong to want a little continuity every once in a while?

Which leads to my last point:


3.) I can't even care about anyone or their relationships.

Sarah and I have decided that it is nearly impossible to truly ship anything in the "Glee" fandom anymore. Character fluctuation has happened a lot in favor of facilitating whatever plot the writers are trying to make happen but it has reached it's extreme with this season. Aside from maybe Rachel, Finn, Kurt, Puck, and Shue, can you really accurately describe most of the cast's personalities with more than one or two words? Quinn is insecure. Santana is bitchy. Brittany is ditzy but good-hearted. Sam is a dork. Mercedes is confident and takes no crap. Whenever depth is given to a character it is usually for the episode and not really revisited so only one stark personality trait sticks out with the exception of the characters who got a lot of attention and development in season one. Remember when Artie had almost a full episode devoted to him? That kind of thing doesn't happen anymore so the characters are made simplistic in order to focus on many of them in short bursts of time.

This is also the nature of the relationships on "Glee." In season one there was a ton of development put into Rachel and Finn's relationship so when they finally got together, it actually meant something. Even Rachel's one episode thing with Puck made sense in the context of this developing idea. Also, Shue and Emma. Ditto.
This season that couple was Kurt and Blaine whose relationship was developed slowly so that when it actually happened, it would seem realistic. But there are tons of other side relationships occurring that pop up and it's hard to tell why they did. It's even harder to tell when the characters aren't developed enough to see the chemistry.

The last episode revealed that Sam and Mercedes have been secretly dating and while I saw it coming, it was only because of a brief nod to that idea two episodes earlier. While this could be a good thing in developing both of their characters, my first reaction shouldn't have been, "What the hell do they talk about together? Similarly, what do Tina and Mike talk about? And Artie and Brittany? And Puck and Lauren?" I shouldn't have to question. Is the answer, Glee club?


Anyway, I see the light at the end of the tunnel unless "Glee" can rectify some of these things and stop letting money get in the way of watchable television.

I will watch season 3 but I don't know for how long.