TV has become the land of confusion for viewers
The idea of relaxing with a little television has lately become an oxymoron.
Without companion materials, such as a newspaper, comic book or gossip magazine, or an ability to read between bullet-fired lines, scripted TV is a land of confusion. As a result, many series have lost credibility with viewers. Call it “jumping the shark” with a new generation.
“Jumping the shark,” in fact, is a perfect example of how television has dismissed its audience. The term came about following an episode of the-then wildly popular “Happy Days” in which the Fonz (Henry Winkler) maneuvered his motorcycle over a shark, an absurd and unrealistic stunt that many believe started the sitcom on its downward spiral.
Nearly 40 years after the episode aired, TV series (and TV writers) still refer to the loss of credibility as “jumping the shark” – even though millions haven’t seen the episode, haven’t a clue what the term means, or perhaps never even heard of “Happy Days.”
That hasn’t stopped television writers from creating their own weekly sharknados (yet another disposable term). In their effort to be topical – the better to attract younger viewers – TV writers are injecting an overabundance of references to pop stars, pop culture and political figures, often at the expense of the story.
Viewers should be able to enjoy “Walking Dead,” “Gotham” and “Agents of Shield” without having to decipher winks and nods to the comic book source material. In some instances, having a vast knowledge of the comic books seems to be mandatory. I shouldn’t have to go to “Walking Dead” blogs to interpret various episodes. Unfortuately, I do.
Other series sometimes demand too much of viewers. “Madame Secretary” is an extremely well-written show that expects its audience to know details of foreign policy and intricacies of government operation. It also takes for granted that fans will fill in wide swaths of storytelling. Instead of taking us from Point A to Point B, it too often simply jumps to Point B.
Particularly confused after a “Secretary” episode earlier this month, I went to a site that provides a synopsis of episodes that have already aired. Even the blogger offered that he had to rewind and replay a certain scene multiple times to determine a reference that ultimately explained all that went before it. In other words, for some fans, the first viewing of the episode made no sense at all.
It was indicative of the current trend to have audiences fill in the blanks between fast-moving, and sometimes incomprehensible, dialogue that has permeated across the dial.
Still another off-putting trend is an increase in pop culture references. It’s one thing to drop in names of movies, TV shows and pop icons on “The Goldbergs” (set in the ’80s) and “Fresh Off the Boat” (which takes place in the ’90s), and quite another to pepper shows set in 2016 with current events that may or may not be relevant in a few years.
Other than the fashion foibles of their times, most classic series existed in a vacuum – there are few, if any references to events of the day. The story stands alone. It’s perhaps part of the reason those shows are classics.
The formula for a good sitcom or drama is identical. Tell an interesting story. Don’t sacrifice that story for topical references, and don’t assume the audience can interpret one line of dialogue as an entire chapter of backstory.
At least one current drama, “American Crime,” followed that formula with intriguing results. While it was inspired by current events, its own story unfolded in an intelligent, self-contained and evenly paced manner. Even though it was told through various viewpoints, it maintained its story continuity. Not once did it pander to its audience. Twenty years from now, it will still be worthy of watching.
In today’s TV landscape, that is high praise indeed.