Complexity Without Commitment
THIS IS NOW a little late, too -- but in case you missed it, Dave Itzkoff had a very high-value writer-wonky preview of J.J. Abrams Fringe in the NYTimes last Sunday. What really caught my eye were a couple of paragraphs about the balancing act of serial vs. standalone elements, and what Abrams has learned over the years. This is exactly the stuff that everybody creating series after J.J. has to deal with now, because, let's face it -- to some extent his shows created the taste in the audience that demands complexity....sometimes.
IF you’ve ever been utterly baffled by a television show that J. J. Abrams had a hand in creating — too confused to follow the serpentine plot twists of “Lost” or “Alias” or, heck, even “Felicity” — know that Mr. Abrams, the prolific writer, producer and director, has been annoyed too. With you.
I just got tired of hearing people say to me, over and over, ‘Yeah, I was watching it, but I missed one, I got really confused, and I stopped watching it,’ ” he said in a recent phone interview.“The evolution from your ideas and expectations and intent to what actually occurs in the series is a massive gulf,” Mr. Abrams said. “It’s a best-effort scenario. But I think that’s what a series is anyway.”
The solution to such narrative puzzles, Mr. Abrams and his colleagues said, is to have a game plan with clearly defined goalposts that can be moved around as a season and a series unfold. Know the ending to your series when you begin it; hope your show continues in perpetuity but always be prepared to wrap it up. (In this spirit the producers of “Lost” announced last year that the series would conclude at the end of its sixth season, in 2010.)
In the case of “Fringe” its creators say they have figured out a finale — naturally, they declined to describe it — that could be deployed at any point in the series. “If we’re canceled at Episode 13,” Mr. Orci said, “we’ll tell you at Episode 13, and if we go on, you could literally find this out in seven years.”
Recollections differ as to how much of the increasingly complicated “Fringe” story line was pitched to executives at Warner Brothers and at Fox when the series was ordered. “You always have to be on the up and up with your studio and your network,” Mr. Burk said. “There’s too much at stake, and they’re taking the biggest gamble.”
But Mr. Abrams cautioned against too much candor. “There are certain details that are hugely important,” he said with some mirth, “that I believe, if shared, will destroy any chance of actually getting on the air. These are the kinds of things that scare people away.”
The whole article (link above) is well worth your time.

6 rumbles:
mr abrahms, you bad man.
Build links to your blog with RSS Instant Feed of 6,000+ Links! Widgets so you can share the data too!
I call bull. They have changed Lost so many times it is now a confusing mess, too many questions left unanswered and to say they always knew what they were going to do, is crap. Same thing happened with Alias. Great first two seasons, then downhill fast with reincarnation/giant red balls etc.
Call bull as much as you want. The article walks through some of those changes (SD 6, for example) and lays out how "knowing the goalposts" doesn't mean knowing every detail.
That may be a hard thing to accept if you're not approaching it from a craft point of view, but that doesn't make Abrams approach or thoughts on the subject any less interesting.
And I'm afraid you're just out of step on Lost. Ratings are up, critics are back. They righted that ship as soon as they busted out the flashforwards.
Y'know, I know perfectly well I'm anything but an "average" (or whatever word you want to use) viewer, but every so often I smack headlong into an unexpectedly pointed reminder.
To wit: I absolutely, positively cannot wrap my mind around giving up on something I'm interested in because I'm one episode behind on mytharc revelations. If I'm already getting bored with it, sure, that might jog me out of the inertia.
Or if it's near the beginning and I don't have a handle on it yet. But even then it'll probably take missing two to make me give up. (e.g., eps 3 and 4 of Charlie Jade dropped off my TiVo while my summer was chock-full of Things Away From The TeeVee, and I knew there was no way I was going to be able to follow it after that, so I'll have to give it a try later.)
That's about as close as I can get to grasping "I missed one and got confused" as a valid reason for stopping watching something entirely. Especially in this day and age, when one episode of a TV show (particularly one as heavily pushed as Lost) is so easy to come by. Heck, when I got bored and gave up on the darn thing, it was all I could do to avoid it!
But then, this is why I'm not the sort of person they ask about these things, and never will be. Such is life.
Saying "knowing the goal posts but being able to move them" is a copout. They have zigged too many times for me to believe them anymore. One example, 'Ben' was supposed to be a 3 eps role. Now he has spent two seasons as the main bad guy? I agree the flashforwards were a brilliant idea, but I know for a fact that was not planned at the beginning, therefore changing many storylines.
I think I'm pissed off because I loved Lost so much I feel cheated.
Also, I read the Fringe script. Yawn.
Seasons 3 and 4 were outstanding story wise, so how you could be disappointed is strange. If anything , season 1 beat around the bush and felt more like a reality show, with all of the petty episodic problems, that Lost isn't actually what you liked, it's just what the first season offered you.
The first season was like the first chapter in a book. If you don't like the rest of the book, fine, but you should realize that what you're 'into' is the exposition phase of complex stories, and not the down-and-dirty later acts/chapters/seasons of such stories.
Post a Comment