People don't expect TV to be art. People expect to be entertained and not have their intelligence insulted with glaring plotholes, retconning major things at random and abandoning subplots.
In older shows, this was less of a problem because the episodes were more often standalone stories; freak of the week style. The conflict was solved in 45 minutes. New shows are not meant to be like this. People expect longer arcs; if not a season, then at least a few episodes. People expect previous episodes to matter. People expect characters to learn from (or at least remember) previous events. In that regard, older shows were a lot more like movies. Characters were often given less development because their growth wasn't the point. The point was to have static roles that would deal with the monster, criminal case, discovery or whatever of the week. Movies are the same; they compress a character into 90 minutes on average, and the characters are written the way they need to be for this story.
Many long running franchises have adapted to the changing expectation of viewers. Star Trek was fairly alien of the week and gradually developed longer arcs in TNG. Law & Order and spinoffs started as criminal of the week and added more background and personal life subplots to their main characters. Just to name a few examples. "Old" shows are not doomed to suck and be "too old school". Inconsistent writing is not old school. It's just plain bad. If you want to retcon, forget or ignore previous content, write a show that has a gimmick doing that - time travel, memory loss, whatever. It's still possible to make standalone episodes. It's not a question of "art or not art", it's just two different concepts for shows. Falling Skies tried to be the character-driven, long story arc "modern" show, but failed.
reply
share