I’m a geek. I assume this is common knowledge, but it doesn’t hurt to restate the obvious. I was reminded of my geek-like status this weekend, as I curled up on my sofa with an entire Whedonverse of comic books: the last two Buffys, all the Angels, and the first Serenity.
Now, it’s been fairly well-established that I am Joss Whedon’s bitch (although even I won’t defend Season 6 of Buffy). I think he possesses a unique creative sensibility, and, since the death of Angel, I have sorely missed having a Whedon show to look forward to each week.
Reading the Angel comics reminded me of one thing Joss did better than anyone: he hurt the audience. No, really. He frequently killed off likable characters, or corrupted them in some way, or forced Riley on us for an entire season. He never seemed to be bound by what the audience wanted, and the shows were stronger for it.
Lots of shows kill off good characters, but they’re usually given lengthy arcs leading up to that sacrifice, providing a sense that the death has been dramatically earned. Not so with Whedon — any fan of his shows can remember several times when characters were there one minute, gone the next. Whedon once claimed that he gave the audience what they needed, not what they wanted. Arrogant as hell, sure, but it worked for him. It was one of the reasons I tuned in each week, why I would refuse to answer the phone or the door for that hour. (Also, see above re: geek.) I never knew what would happen, and every episode had the potential to surprise.
Most shows don’t hurt the audience. They don’t want to take the risk. I remember watching an early episode of Lost, when Ethan hangs Charlie in the jungle. He seemed to be very dead, and I was quite excited by this — and, at that point, I didn’t even have anything against Charlie. Neither was it my dormant gothic tendencies asserting themselves; I was excited to think that this was a show that would dare to kill off its main characters. It would mean that anything was possible. Of course, once they cut him down, he sputtered his way back to life, and no number of dead Shannons or Ana Lucias could make me forget that cop-out. The show didn’t dare to hurt me.
Veronica Mars had its moments, but, of course, it’s canceled. Prison Break throws twist after twist at its viewers, but it’s only hurting me by keeping T-Bag alive for another season. Even my beloved Dexter can be a fairly predictable serial killer. Show after show aims for dramatic impact without really daring to cross that line and upset its viewers.
It’s television’s weakness. In order to keep their audience, shows need to please the viewers and are therefore wary of taking risks. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how many cliff-hangers or crazy twists or new characters a show brings in; if they’re not willing to shock the viewer, the emotional impact will always be limited. You want to gut us? Give us what we don’t want. We’ll thank you for it later.
What shows hurt you so good? And are there any current shows that would benefit from being a bit more Whedon-esque?
Share This
March 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Alias was one of those that could have used some of that. How many times did they ‘kill’ someone off only to have them reappear later? I couldn’t even dredge up a tear for Vaughn in the end, it was so obvious.
But you’re right, shows do need to do this more often. Although I am thankful Lost didn’t kill Charlie just then, otherwise the moment later on in season 3 wouldn’t have happened. And that one hurt. (Um also…Libby?? Poor Hurley.) I actually think they’ve done ok with deaths on this series. Although don’t include Eko in that, cos that was rubbish.
Quantum Leap still hurts (bigger geek than you). He never got home! He never met Al! WTF?
Other than that it’s still the Whedonverse that has hurt me the most. Wesley and Fred alone will keep me going for years.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
The first series of 24, before it got too far-fetched and ridiculous. Though the moment everyone remembers is the revelation that Nina is a mole and her shooting of Bauer-wife (I think her name was Teri?), it was actually the point halfway through the series where Jack shoots Nina and leaves her for dead. I was open-mouthed when I watched that, and it really brought home for me that no-one was safe. The tension from then on was really high.
I think that though Lost hasn’t always got it right, the deaths of Ana-Lucia and Libby were really shocking. Also, the way that Charlie eventually dies was incredibly painful - his Greatest Hits had me bawling. Having the guts to clearly signal that a major character isn’t going to make it and being able to still have that death be emotional is pretty good going.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Carrie, you’re absolutely right about Alias. I think I yawned when they killed off Vaughn. We all knew that nobody on that show stayed dead.
Yes to 24’s first season! Even though the show has gotten progressively more ridiculous, they do still keep the audience on its toes.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
While there is room for improvement, Lost is definitely better at killing of its characters than some of the other shows we could mention. And even Joss didn’t always get it right: yes, Fred’s death scene had me bawling, but having to finish the season with Evil Blue Fred pretty much ruined the effect for me.
What about Heroes? I know these people have super powers, but not everyone can or should be conveniently regenerated back to life. Nathan’s self-sacrifice at the end of season one was negated by his supernatural return at the beginning of season two. And don’t get me started on HRG.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Erica, that’s a good one. I think Heroes is the poster child for shows that get it wrong. Characters that actually stay dead should be the rule, not the exception!
I think Lost has definitely had several shocking moments over its three seasons — I suppose I just haven’t cared that much about the characters that died, and so the deaths didn’t affect me, other than in a “huh, didn’t see that coming” sort of way. If they took away Hurley, for instance, that would have much more impact than the death of a tertiary character. (Note to Lost writers: please don’t kill Hurley.)
March 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
There’s been many times when I’ve not been surprised by 24, but equally as many where I have. Edgar’s death, Dina killing her son’s girlfriend then getting shot and so on. None of them had quite the impact of the first season though, and by season 6 they were really pushing it to be shocking.
I do occasionally think that Russell T Davies could well do with following Whedon a little closer when it comes to being a little ruthless, for both Doctor Who and Torchwood. Much as I like both shows, I do occasionally feel as though it’s about what he would really like as a fan.
We need more Whedon on telly, is Dollhouse coming soon?!
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 am
It’s still scheduled to air in the autumn, Dave. We’ve got to hang on another six months!
March 25th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Yes, not being afraid to hurt the audience, this is exactly where so many shows and movies fail… While many shows these days are slowly moving away from the old sit-com standard of having every plot element resolved by the end of the episode in such a way that there is never any plot progression to the show as a series, too many shows are too afraid of taking any real risks. We get plot creep in the better shows, not plot change, and so forth…
Whenever I try to express this idea, I end up with twisted, overcomplicated sentances like the one above. I think “hurting the audience” sums up this idea wonderfully.
Life can happen slowly and quickly. Dramatic changes happen unexpectedly and with tremendous consequences. While it is nice watching characters and plots develop slowly over time, with the occassional big plot turns happening, usually with much hype, during the sweeps and season openers and finales, it would be nice for more shows to catch their audiences off guard more often. Too often would be just as unrealistic and too little, but never is just plain wrong.
Random though… Those damn, weekly “E.R. Events” continually hyped by NBC…
March 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I had the exact same reaction to Charlie’s early “death” on Lost - had he really been dead, the impact would have been incredible. No-one and nothing would be safe. And while that show has knocked me through an emotional hoop many times, it’s pretty clear that they’re sticking to the safe route of not killing off the major characters (for the most part).