If you were to evaluate a TV Show, what would you base it on?

[Deathslayer7]

So I have to write an essay on some type of evaluation, and I choose Supernatural (a TV Show).

And i was wondering if others might have some ideas as to what I might be able to judge any TV Show on, not just Supernatural.

So far i have this:

character development
plot development
originality

[DomaDoma]

But what about the episodic comedies? They don't need any development.

[turkishproverb]

Goal of the series in terms of creative intention
How well it achieves said goal.
The things mentioned by deathslayer7 as they pertain to the above

[Deathslayer7]

Goal of the series in terms of creative intention
How well it achieves said goal.
The things mentioned by deathslayer7 as they pertain to the above

can you elaborate on that? Not sure i quite understand.

[turkishproverb]

can you elaborate on that? Not sure i quite understand.

IF a show is intended to be campy, than from a proper critical perspective you have to judge if the campiness was appropriate to subject matter as presented, and if they succeeded in merging the campiness into the final product. Not rate it because you hate campiness.

IF a play is intended as comedy, you can't say it is crap because it fails to take something it is satirizing seriously.


There are exceptions, but that's a little more complex, requires literary/theatre analysis classes.

That help?

[Deathslayer7]

I think i get the overall meaning.

Can't really explain it though. Not sure how to put it in words.

[Deathslayer7]

I think this what you mean.

If the writer puts in a funny remark or something that the audience is supposed to laugh at but doesn't, that doesn't necessairly mean that the show failed.

Is that what you mean?

[afroakuma]

I would also evaluate it on self-awareness, self-sufficiency and self-sustainability:

Self-Awareness: Does the show know where it has been?
Can it build on that to define where it's going? This is the showrunner's job, the plothole-filling, the shoutouts to prior episodes. A character having two birthdays and no Christmases would be an example of a failure in this category.

Self-Sufficiency: Does the show rely too much on current events and pop culture? Could it stand alone as entertaining/involving/humorous to someone who hadn't seen a newspaper all week? I'm sure I don't need to point to an example of a failure in this category.

Self-Sustainability: Does the show have a high concept? This is an industry term for a show with a very simple but compelling description. Alternately, could a first-time viewer come in on episode 12 or 20 and get involved? Do the characters and concept stand above the story enough to be understood by the channel-surfing Joe? Does the show still maintain a reasonable fidelity to this premise?

[turkishproverb]

I think this what you mean.

If the writer puts in a funny remark or something that the audience is supposed to laugh at but doesn't, that doesn't necessairly mean that the show failed.

Is that what you mean?

Yes and no. A truly unfunny comedy also only works if it was intended to be unfunny to the target audience. It's a confusing rule system really.

[Deathslayer7]

I'm pretty sure that rule system depends on what type of show it is also. In this case, Supernatural is a horror/suspense/action type.

[Deathslayer7]

also, I like those afroakuma. I might use the self-sufficiency one.

although it would fail on the last category. :smalltongue:

[afroakuma]

:smallwink: You're welcome.

[Jorkens]

IF a show is intended to be campy, than from a proper critical perspective you have to judge if the campiness was appropriate to subject matter as presented, and if they succeeded in merging the campiness into the final product. Not rate it because you hate campiness.

IF a play is intended as comedy, you can't say it is crap because it fails to take something it is satirizing seriously.
I think if you're doing criticism properly, the intention of the author is irrelevant. If something is an incredible, moving, well balanced, well crafted tragedy, then it doesn't matter if the author was actually trying to write a slapstick comedy...

Hence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy

[turkishproverb]

I think if you're doing criticism properly, the intention of the author is irrelevant. If something is an incredible, moving, well balanced, well crafted tragedy, then it doesn't matter if the author was actually trying to write a slapstick comedy...

Hence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy

Yea, but that is where the exceptions come in. Its complicated. I've taken multiple courses on the subject and still find it hard to put into words. ITs not always about what the Auther is trying to do so much as what the play/movie/book is trying to do and how well it succeeds.

[Jorkens]

Yea, but that is where the exceptions come in. Its complicated. I've taken multiple courses on the subject and still find it hard to put into words. ITs not always about what the Auther is trying to do so much as what the play/movie/book is trying to do and how well it succeeds.
Isn't it more that if it's trying to do one thing and fails then it's unlikely to do something else with any degree of panache? I mean, a really badly written tragedy may be 'so bad it's funny', but it's unlikely to have uniformly good comic timing, pacing and so on...

[Jorkens]

Self-Sufficiency: Does the show rely too much on current events and pop culture? Could it stand alone as entertaining/involving/humorous to someone who hadn't seen a newspaper all week? I'm sure I don't need to point to an example of a failure in this category.
:smallconfused:
Not sure I see why this is neccessarily a bad thing. It's in the same category saying a show is bad because it assumes its audience is reasonably intelligent and so stupid people might not get it.


Self-Sustainability: Does the show have a high concept? This is an industry term for a show with a very simple but compelling description. Alternately, could a first-time viewer come in on episode 12 or 20 and get involved? Do the characters and concept stand above the story enough to be understood by the channel-surfing Joe? Does the show still maintain a reasonable fidelity to this premise?
Is this really important from an artistic point of view? Or just from a commercial one? Again, it doesn't seem entirely fair to say something is artistically unsuccessful because it assumes that the audience will actually be paying attention to it.

[afroakuma]

Firstly, I only stated that they were methods of evaluating a TV series.

Self-sufficiency is important primarily because not doing so is a writers' crutch. It's quick, cheap and easy, and it will not work half as well on a rerun. 10 years down the road, if resurrected, it'll be woefully dated and contribute nothing to culture. As an artistic evaluation, it's like trying to make a 50's iconography collage using pictures of Marty from Grease. Absolutely irrelevant and without merit, where only someone who was in on the gag at the time would catch it out.

As for self-sustainability, it is in fact very important from an artistic view and one of the first things to get tossed from a commercial view. I said it included characters who rise above the concept, which includes personal consistency, development and relevance to the story. Maintaining a reasonable fidelity to the basic premise is in fact a core artistic assessment - if it goes off its own rails to be like every other show, it has lost any quality of art it may have had in a bandwagoning attempt to commercialize using proven audience grabbign methods.

[TheEmerged]

I have to say one of the most fun evalutations of TV shows I ever did was for an educational media course I took back in the late 80's. The class agreed on a list of 25 morals we believed were pretty universal across cultures. We were then told to get a list of 5 TV shows 'actually watched' (professor's term) by the age group we were planning to teach - the 10-13 group in my case -- and rate those shows according to how well they did on those 25 morals. We had to rate the show as either a plus, minus, "wash" (the show gave mixed signals on that moral), or NA, and we had to watch 3 episodes.

It was hilarious really. The so-called "family shows" (Little House On the Prairie in my case) universally came up horribly, while the "hyper violent cartoons (TMNT in my case) tended to come up better.

[EvilElitest]

hey i'm watching it right now

But i'd check out actual movie/tv/book reviews to figure out what to review it on
from
EE

[Krrth]

For me: Entertainment. It can have great plots, beleivable characters, and well written stories, but if it doesn't entertain me, I will not watch it.

On the flip side, I've watched shows that failed in more than oneof the three areas above that I enjoyed, so I kept watching them.

[Deathslayer7]

thanks for all the ideas guys. I got what i needed. Will have to write it up during this weeked. Most likely Saturday or Sunday as tomorrow is Halloween. :smallsmile: