31 replies to this topic

[Ambler]

What do you look for in a television drama? I’m thinking about:

Plot
Characters
Obstacles
Endings

Thanks.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Why? Are you trying to write one?

[jrcjohnny99]

Well if you're looking at television, then the most important thing is engaging characters with believable arcs.
Naturally you should study the best written shows of recent years; The Sopranos, The Wire, House, Mad Men, Lost etc

[Tybre]

I would agree with jrc. Believable -- and engaging -- characters, as well as well thought storylines. Personally that's part of why I love the revamped BSG. BSG gets everything right. The characters don't feel like cardboard, I actually give a damn about what's going and can both follow what's going on without predicting every last little thing, and BSG also delivered a very fine ending. One friend was expecting they would never find Earth, which imo would have been a massive cop-out, and another friend thought they would find Earth and everything would be sparkles and rainbows. But it wasn't. Oh yes, they find an "Earth", our Earth, but it's far from perfect. I would say score is essential as well. Without good music, even the best written of scenes can fall flat. That said, there are certain scenes which call for music and those that do not, so it's also important to know when to hit mute on the music. Also, as a slight tweak to jrc's comment, study the acclaimed shows of the past five to ten years. See if you can't find something there.

[DaveBond21]

The perfect television drama should contain the following elements:-


- A robot dog

- A UFO landing

- A fatal accident involving a runaway lawnmower

- Crazy monkeys who have some sort of weird disease

- Sexy girls lying around a swimming pool

- A bad guy with green hair

- A car chase where one of the cars flies off a cliff and lands inside a plane.

- Cars driving into dustbins

- Machine gun fire and karate

[Ambler]

Why? Are you trying to write one?

I've written a few, one of which got past the starting gate at the BBC but was lost in the fall out of Charles Denton's departure. I'm thinking of having another go.

Well if you're looking at television, then the most important thing is engaging characters with believable arcs.
Naturally you should study the best written shows of recent years; The Sopranos, The Wire, House, Mad Men, Lost etc

Yes, I'm aware of those shows, and have my own opinions on them. What I'm hoping to do in this thread is get other people's perspective on what makes successful TV drama.

as a slight tweak to jrc's comment, study the acclaimed shows of the past five to ten years. See if you can't find something there.

The production climate is very poor in the UK at the moment and the acclaimed shows are rarely the ones that attract high ratings. Given that, DaveBond21's suggestions might well prove popular.

Thanks to everyone for their input. More welcomed!

[Trident]

Phew. quite a task you set yourself there: what do we look for in a tv drama? The thing is, at least I think it is, that those smash hits, from Sopranos (character) to Lost (plot/character) to 24 (action/format) all had success for quite different reasons. They delivered in most cases something that the audiences themselves didn't know they wanted to see until it appeared on the screen and grabbed them by their collars. So it's really not easy to perdict anything much in this business.

Perhaps one common denominator would be to have believable characters, not just types. They must have ambivalence, feelings, convictions, doubts, a life of their own even if the screen doesn't show all that.

But then again that's not a rule without exception. I think 'Life On Mars' and later 'Ashes To Ashes' to a large extent works and is successful because of it's concept of pitting the everyday characters (Sam, Alex) against the cardboard caricatures that Hunt and colleagues represent in the show. Actually, Hunt's gang is very much what tv characters used to be until, let's say maybe 'Magnum, PI'. After that, there slowly emerged a new kind of charcter that nowadays would have to be depicted quite close to 'reality'. But the reason people watch the two shows is IMHO that they want to see the -kickin' brute Hunt and his men (not so far from 'The Professionals') shocking the hell out of Sam and Alex (which of course represent our own current pc world). This is the source the two shows take their basic energy from.

Now, is this something anybody would have guessed could be a success? Well, obviously the producers thought so, but I myself wouldn't have bet a penny on it had I just read the concept on paper. Of course it's not just this idea that made the hit but also the realization, the cast, directors, producers and so on. Or would anybody have guessed the reboot of 'Battlestar Galactica' could be anything but a major failure? Or 'Monk', a show about an almost dysfunctional character (who nonetheless is always treated with respect by the writers, never giving him up to simple slapstick)? Look how all these took off. There's really no knowing what will satisfy the audiences, keep them coming back for more.

If you have an idea you believe in, stick with it, work on it and try to sell it to the powers that be at BBC or wherever. Don't cater to what others think they want in a tv show. If you're not convinced yourself then chances are you won't convince others of your project.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I think the best TV dramas are the ones which show real innovation, things that have never been done before. I suppose it depends on subject matter, but it's good to think outside the box and approach a topic from a different angle than has been done in the past. With regards to characters, I believe there should always be one which your target audience could relate to or sympathise with. There should always be some kind of suspense or insecurity, particularly in the middle of the episode/film. Endings-wise, it depends entirely on whether you wish to leave it open for a sequel, or if you feel certain issues are best left unresolved, or if you feel the ending should wrap up with a happy or sad ending for certain characters. Then again, there's always the classic "It was all a dream..."

[Ambler]

If you have an idea you believe in, stick with it, work on it and try to sell it to the powers that be at BBC or wherever. Don't cater to what others think they want in a tv show. If you're not convinced yourself then chances are you won't convince others of your project.

I’m afraid that is not my experience. Management types tend to be career-focussed so it’s natural for them to wish to emulate current successes. An example of this is science fiction; for years it was impossible to pitch a SF show to the BBC because of Dr Who and Blakes Seven. Then the X-Files was a hit and the BBC was suddenly willing to listen. (Unfortunately the expensive failure of Jed Mercurio’s Invasion: Earth queered that particular pitch.)

I think the best TV dramas are the ones which show real innovation, things that have never been done before. I suppose it depends on subject matter, but it's good to think outside the box and approach a topic from a different angle than has been done in the past.

I agree, but they’re also the hardest to sell. Part of what I’m attempting to do here is come up with a bit of ammunition to use when the BBC unleash the results of their focus groups.

Anyway, to summarise:

1. you wish to see something that’s not been done before (!) and with believable/engaging /sympathetic/likable characters,

2. The shows The Sopranos, The Wire, House, Mad Men, Lost BSG, Life On Mars, 24 and Monk have been cited as being innovative and/or well-written.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I want to see puns. Realistic characters, plus dark comedy with puns, and see how the realistic characters react to that.

[Scrambled Eggs]

If you have an idea you believe in, stick with it, work on it and try to sell it to the powers that be at BBC or wherever. Don't cater to what others think they want in a tv show. If you're not convinced yourself then chances are you won't convince others of your project.

I’m afraid that is not my experience. Management types tend to be career-focussed so it’s natural for them to wish to emulate current successes. An example of this is science fiction; for years it was impossible to pitch a SF show to the BBC because of Dr Who and Blakes Seven. Then the X-Files was a hit and the BBC was suddenly willing to listen. (Unfortunately the expensive failure of Jed Mercurio’s Invasion: Earth queered that particular pitch.)

I think the best TV dramas are the ones which show real innovation, things that have never been done before. I suppose it depends on subject matter, but it's good to think outside the box and approach a topic from a different angle than has been done in the past.

I agree, but they’re also the hardest to sell. Part of what I’m attempting to do here is come up with a bit of ammunition to use when the BBC unleash the results of their focus groups.

Anyway, to summarise:

1. you wish to see something that’s not been done before (!) and with believable/engaging /sympathetic/likable characters,

2. The shows The Sopranos, The Wire, House, Mad Men, Lost BSG, Life On Mars, 24 and Monk have been cited as being innovative and/or well-written.

If we're talking specifically about the BBC, then for whtever reason, I hope to see something topical from them. I'm a lot more likely to switch on to something like the recent "Freefall" (which was terrific btw) than another costume drama.

It seems to me that the BBC are aware that theres an audience for that. The recent week long Torchwood (also brilliant) was incredibly silly, but also touched on a few real world issues.

Maybe with the success of The Wire (how the beeb must wish they'd done something comparable, or at least had the good sense to pick it up less than seven years after it started...) theres going to be an effort to produce more "state of the nation" type drama?

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I want true quality. It's that simple for me.

[Ambler]

If we're talking specifically about the BBC, then for whtever reason, I hope to see something topical from them.

Well, topicality is an interesting addition to the list. It can make a show thrillingly 'of the moment' but also date it very quickly.

I want true quality. It's that simple for me.

It's not that simple for the writer. Would you mind expanding on 'true quality' in the context of:

Plot
Characters
Obstacles
Endings

[Trident]

If you have an idea you believe in, stick with it, work on it and try to sell it to the powers that be at BBC or wherever. Don't cater to what others think they want in a tv show. If you're not convinced yourself then chances are you won't convince others of your project.

I’m afraid that is not my experience. Management types tend to be career-focussed so it’s natural for them to wish to emulate current successes. An example of this is science fiction; for years it was impossible to pitch a SF show to the BBC because of Dr Who and Blakes Seven. Then the X-Files was a hit and the BBC was suddenly willing to listen. (Unfortunately the expensive failure of Jed Mercurio’s Invasion: Earth queered that particular pitch.)

Yes, I'm afraid you're right about this civil-servant/safe-bet approach, not just at the BBC but at most major broadcasters. But I'm also pretty sure it's exactly this approach that, sooner or later, is going to strangle every creative force in tv entertainment. I can see the results of this practically everyday on German tv and it's nothing less but shameful. Nearly every remotely successful format/theme is endlessly re-hashed until it's hard to stomach the results any longer. The innovative formats, dramas and shows are long since done by foreign broadcasters and producers.

But endlessly re-hashing the tried and tested formats most likely won't bring that noteable results. Somebody has to take risks, or we'd only see reruns of Perry Mason.

I think the best TV dramas are the ones which show real innovation, things that have never been done before. I suppose it depends on subject matter, but it's good to think outside the box and approach a topic from a different angle than has been done in the past.

I agree, but they’re also the hardest to sell. Part of what I’m attempting to do here is come up with a bit of ammunition to use when the BBC unleash the results of their focus groups.

Anyway, to summarise:

1. you wish to see something that’s not been done before (!) and with believable/engaging /sympathetic/likable characters,

2. The shows The Sopranos, The Wire, House, Mad Men, Lost BSG, Life On Mars, 24 and Monk have been cited as being innovative and/or well-written.

Hm, not been done before, that will be next to impossible. If you take a closer look, most things have been around longer than we'd suspect at first glance. A real-time drama like '24'? Ok, that was pretty innovative in this very form. But '12 Angry Men' has done the same trick. As has 'High Noon'. Long before Kiefer Sutherland had been born. The twist was here to apply this technique to a tv series. A whole series, not just single episodes of one, as have done 'M*A*S*H' and 'Seinfeld' for example.

What made this particular series so 'new' wasn't just this technique alone. innovative was also the main character, who was far from showing the typical 'fighting machine' physique. And who was also far being one-dimensional. His private life was a shambles, his marriage barely rescued after an affair with his colleague (very politically incorrect; think major sexual harassment!) and his daughter threatened to drift into sex, drugs and terrorism. All of this has been done at some point in the annals of tv history. But mixture here was new. Or percieved as new, which is just as good to start with.

But also look at the downside. If 'new' is the only attraction a show has, it's destined to become 'old' pretty quick. Frankly, the last three seasons of '24' I've just watched for old times sake. If you have something innovative and it's a hit you also want to stay innovative. Otherwise it's often better to end it while you're still ahead. Too many tv shows have over-stayed their welcome with audiences.

[Scrambled Eggs]

If we're talking specifically about the BBC, then for whtever reason, I hope to see something topical from them.

Well, topicality is an interesting addition to the list. It can make a show thrillingly 'of the moment' but also date it very quickly.

Not necessarily. I think you were the bloke who described himself as a "Nigel Kneale groupie"? Quatermass and the Pit has a topical element doesn't it? The ending was a nod to the race riots that were becoming an issue at the time. Thats the sort of thing I mean, not Have I Got News For You style "funny this week, noone gets it two months later" style.

[tdalton]

What I most look for in any TV show (not just dramas, but any kind of show) are good characters. I think that there are only so many stories that can be told in visual entertainment, and the vast majority of them have been told (there's been countless police, medical, spy, etc. shows), but it's in what's put around them that can make them work.

I think that unless the basic concept of a new show is so original and different from anything that's come before, it's all in how the story is told to the viewer is what matters, and for me, that starts with the characters. With TV, viewers get to spend much more time with the characters than they do in film, so it's necessary for the viewer to identify with the characters and to enjoy watching them each week.

All of the shows that I have ever really enjoyed have always had, first and foremost, great actors and great characters that made the show worth watching each and every week.

[Ambler]

If we're talking specifically about the BBC, then for whtever reason, I hope to see something topical from them.

Well, topicality is an interesting addition to the list. It can make a show thrillingly 'of the moment' but also date it very quickly.

Not necessarily. I think you were the bloke who described himself as a "Nigel Kneale groupie"? Quatermass and the Pit has a topical element doesn't it? The ending was a nod to the race riots that were becoming an issue at the time. Thats the sort of thing I mean, not Have I Got News For You style "funny this week, noone gets it two months later" style.

Well, that's a good point, and shows the power of science fiction as a genre. Kevin Smith summed it up rather well:

'Extremely well done Science Fiction has always been most powerfully effective when it lays out humanity naked and shows us ourselves, warts and all. Whether it’s “Planet of the Apes”, “Star Trek”, or almost anything by Phillip K. Dick, the best sci-fi isn’t simply laser-beam driven shoot-‘em-ups between good guys and bad guys; it’s the abyss we look into and see someone awfully, sometimes painfully familiar looking back from. There will always be a place in Science Fiction for the Joseph Campbell-described archetypical hero’s journey of the “Star Wars” saga, but what Sci-Fi does best is allow the author to comment on what it’s like to be a human being – the shame, the miracle, the sacrifice, the desire, the grand heights, and the abject lows. And if an author can accomplish this in stealth mode – be entertaining while not calling attention to his or her loftier goals – so much the better.'

What I most look for in any TV show (not just dramas, but any kind of show) are good characters. I think that there are only so many stories that can be told in visual entertainment, and the vast majority of them have been told (there's been countless police, medical, spy, etc. shows), but it's in what's put around them that can make them work.

That seems to be a generally held view, but what really excites me is the unexpected plot twist.

Of course, the great stories have strong characters and plots.

EDIT: typo

Edited by Ambler, 29 July 2009 - 05:26 PM.

[tdalton]

What I most look for in any TV show (not just dramas, but any kind of show) are good characters. I think that there are only so many stories that can be told in visual entertainment, and the vast majority of them have been told (there's been countless police, medical, spy, etc. shows), but it's in what's put around them that can make them work.

That seems to be a generally held view, but what really excites me is the unexpected plot twist.

Of course, the great stories have strong characters and plots.

I also get really excited about great, unexpected plot twists. They do, however (for me anyway), have to happen to characters that I'm interested in watching.

The best example of a show that incorporates the both the unexpected twists and great characters that I can think of is CHUCK. I know it's not a drama (it's mainly a comedy, although there's also quite a bit of drama as well), but most of the dramas that I watch are procedurals that generally lack the plot twists because there's no real running plotline from one episode to the next. Anyway, I think a show like CHUCK perfectly blends the two, as there are some great plot twists along the course of a season, but what makes me really care about those plot twists are the brilliant characters that are on the screen. The show also has one of the best casts that I've seen on TV in years, which contributes greatly to that as well. I keep coming back to CHUCK because I love the characters that are on the screen, but it's also those characters that, for me, make the twists work as well (and I think that this could be said for all shows).

Just my two cents on the subject.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I think the greatest british TV drama's came from the eighties. America since struck gold with things like ER and West Wing.
What I don't like is everything spelled out in five minutes as though everyone on the sofa is the village idiot. I like character journeys and complexities. I think TV should take advantage of its medium and take its time, not always telling stories over two hours akin to a movie. I suppose it depends on what you have in mind and who your target audience is.

[tdalton]

I think the greatest british TV drama's came from the eighties. America since struck gold with things like ER and West Wing.
What I don't like is everything spelled out in five minutes as though everyone on the sofa is the village idiot. I like character journeys and complexities. I think TV should take advantage of its medium and take its time, not always telling stories over two hours akin to a movie. I suppose it depends on what you have in mind and who your target audience is.

I definitely agree on TV shows needing to take their time in telling their stories, but on the flip side, I completely understand the need for the writers/producers/creators of these shows to get as much of the story that they want to tell crammed into fewer episodes than it probably should take. Understand that because the networks nowadays (at least in the US) do not give shows any time at all to do these things. You have to be a hit right out of the gate, or you're gone from the schedule so quickly that if someone blinked, they missed your show. I think that this is part of the reason for shows treating the audience in such a way that borders on disrespectful, but it's the only way, often times, that they can tell as much of their intended story as they can.

I wish the networks would give great shows more of a chance to keep things going. I think that if one looks at the current TV landscape, there are a lot of shows that were right on the borderline of being cancelled last season that had no business being on the borderline. CHUCK and CASTLE come to mind in that category, and thankfully they're back, but it happens too often in TV. SHARK was a brilliant show a couple of years ago, and was cancelled inexplicably only a season after being the most watched new show of that particular year. The networks need to give shows more of a chance, and I think that once they do that, we'll see the quality of TV increase even more because writers and the creators of these shows will have more time to tell their stories rather than trying to cram ratings-grabbing shock tactics into their shows just to get eyes on the screen.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I agree talton.
It must be difficult for writers I imagine, in an industry predicated on ratings and getting the audience hooked in the first five minutes before the remote control button is pushed.
I definitely think audiences are treated almost disrespectfully in some dramas, but I guess it reflects the world we live in now.

[Tybre]

I think the greatest british TV drama's came from the eighties. America since struck gold with things like ER and West Wing.
What I don't like is everything spelled out in five minutes as though everyone on the sofa is the village idiot. I like character journeys and complexities. I think TV should take advantage of its medium and take its time, not always telling stories over two hours akin to a movie. I suppose it depends on what you have in mind and who your target audience is.

I definitely agree on TV shows needing to take their time in telling their stories, but on the flip side, I completely understand the need for the writers/producers/creators of these shows to get as much of the story that they want to tell crammed into fewer episodes than it probably should take. Understand that because the networks nowadays (at least in the US) do not give shows any time at all to do these things. You have to be a hit right out of the gate, or you're gone from the schedule so quickly that if someone blinked, they missed your show. I think that this is part of the reason for shows treating the audience in such a way that borders on disrespectful, but it's the only way, often times, that they can tell as much of their intended story as they can.

I wish the networks would give great shows more of a chance to keep things going. I think that if one looks at the current TV landscape, there are a lot of shows that were right on the borderline of being cancelled last season that had no business being on the borderline. CHUCK and CASTLE come to mind in that category, and thankfully they're back, but it happens too often in TV. SHARK was a brilliant show a couple of years ago, and was cancelled inexplicably only a season after being the most watched new show of that particular year. The networks need to give shows more of a chance, and I think that once they do that, we'll see the quality of TV increase even more because writers and the creators of these shows will have more time to tell their stories rather than trying to cram ratings-grabbing shock tactics into their shows just to get eyes on the screen.

I certainly agree, though I can understand where networks are coming from. As a voice actor friend of mine once said, TV shows are essentially glorified commercials. They don't make money off of airing a show on the network. But higher ratings means more people like it, and if more people like it, more people are likely to buy products such as the DVDs and any knick-knacky tie-ins they cook up, which is where networks and studios make their money. Shame, really. Some great shows have been cancelled well before their time because of it, but I suppose that's television for you.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Shame, really. Some great shows have been cancelled well before their time because of it, but I suppose that's television for you.

I also wouldn't be surprised if its the case that loads of projects were not even green lit because of fears the audience wouldn't 'get it' either.

[Salomé]

What do you look for in a television drama? I’m thinking about:

Plot
Characters
Obstacles
Endings

Thanks.

For me it's really all about the characters. Take Firefly for instance, the setting could easily be moved from sci-fi to a post-civil war western, and it would still work just as well, as long as the core values and personalities of the characters remain intact. I've been known to watch shows just for the believable portrayal of certain relationships. I think that is an underrated skill in screenwriting. Quite a lot of TV drama relationships seem contrived. Many times I have seen a portrait of a sibling relationship that made me wonder if the writer(s) was/were (an) only child.

[Ambler]

Apologies for not attending to this thread. I've been away on business.

For me it's really all about the characters. ... I've been known to watch shows just for the believable portrayal of certain relationships. I think that is an underrated skill in screenwriting. Quite a lot of TV drama relationships seem contrived.

If a show emphasises character it runs the risk of turning into a soap. (That was the fate of the initially promising nu-Battlestar Galactica; by S4 the writers had completely lost sight of where the show was going with entire episodes failing to advance the main plot. Producer Ronald D. Moore defended this failing by saying BSG was a 'character-based show'.)

So at what point does a character-based show become a soap? It's an interesting question.

Edited by Ambler, 15 August 2009 - 01:22 PM.

[Salomé]

What I actually meant was that a believable portrayal of relationships is a big plus, regardless of the genre. I'm not saying I'm just interested in shows like Grey's Anatomy, where all of the main protagonists end up having some sort of relationship with each other by its conclusion, and in turn the plot borders on the level of absurdity you'll find in your average soap opera.

I actually meant the opposite. Lets say I'm watching a sci-fi show set in a dystopian future, following the adventures of a group of survivors. Suppose they're brother and sister. If the writers' take on that relationship feels faux to me, then there is a good chance I'll quickly give up on the show.

[Tybre]

Apologies for not attending to this thread. I've been away on business.

For me it's really all about the characters. ... I've been known to watch shows just for the believable portrayal of certain relationships. I think that is an underrated skill in screenwriting. Quite a lot of TV drama relationships seem contrived.

If a show emphasises character it runs the risk of turning into a soap. (That was the fate of the initially promising nu-Battlestar Galactica; by S4 the writers had completely lost sight of where the show was going with entire episodes failing to advance the main plot. Producer Ronald D. Moore defended this failing by saying BSG was a 'character-based show'.)

So at what point does a character-based show become a soap? It's an interesting question.

I guess you just have to be conscious of whether or not you're taking it too far.

[Ambler]

I actually meant the opposite. Lets say I'm watching a sci-fi show set in a dystopian future, following the adventures of a group of survivors. Suppose they're brother and sister. If the writers' take on that relationship feels faux to me, then there is a good chance I'll quickly give up on the show.

But to take your example, there's no set relationship between siblings so who's to say what's fake? My brother and I were regularly knocking hell out of each other right into our 30s. (Very juvenile and competitive, but we couldn't help ourselves.) However, the relationships between, say, the Wright brothers or the Brothers Grimm were somewhat more fruitful.

In other words, what's fake to you may not appear fake to others. Besides, I have the sinking feeling that many people watch drama to find some sort of reaffirmation of their own lives ...

[Ambler]

An interesting debate here about the pros and cons of procedural stories verses extended story arcs.

[Salomé]

I'm glad to see Deadwood get a mention there. If you haven't watched that series, you need to do so right away. Go online right now and order the box set. Do it!