Plot-driven or character driven? (all shows)

[Wolfie Gilmore]

This is inspired by something discussed in the VIP thread...

Thinking about the shows you watch, would you say they were primarily driven by plot or by character? Or equally by both? Some shows seem more obviously focussed on plot...Babylon 5, in which the arc is king...Heroes, which is always pushing forwards, always twisting and turning, and doesn't have much time to pause and reflect in "character moments". BSG is fairly plot driven. I wonder...is it shows that focus on more "universal" themes that tend to be more involved with plot?

Buffy and Angel balance both fairly equally, I feel. The arc serves the characters, the characters serve the arc. Except when things get stupid and the characters get screwed over (*cough*Cordyseasonfourofangel*cough*)

I feel that the majority of shows focus more on character than plot though - or perhaps, character IS plot in them...because so many shows are about how people feel as much as what they do. They're about relationships and families...this is US shows I'm talking about primarily. Though a show like (new) Doctor Who is in the same vein: it's all about the relationship between the Doctor and his companion(s) (or sometimes the Doctor and the Master. Or the Doctor and the universe.). Sure, there are some plot twists and turns, but they almost feel like a backdrop to the feelings and conversations and all that human jazz.

What do you think re the shows you watch? More plotty? More character led?

[Veverka]

The arc serves the characters, the characters serve the arc. Except when things get stupid and the characters get screwed over (*cough*Cordyseasonfourofangel*cough*)

Yeah. Good point. Lol.

Something I have always loved about the Jossverse shows is the character driven nature of them, rather than the plot drive, but I think for a show to be consistently strong, there needs to be a balance.

But really, it doesn't matter for me how interesting the plot is, if the characters don't do it for me, I'm not interested. The 'verse has a lot to do with it too, I have to say. Which may be one reason I'm not so interested in Desperate Housewives- I've seen Neighbours, so a street setting... doesn't do it for me. (Possibly a poor example, I'm sure DH is better than Neighbours!

People have said to me "Oh, you won't like Firefly", however, and they have said this based on the idea that the 'verse won't be my cup of tea, whereas to me (in contradiction to my earlier scoffing at a street 'verse) the verse is more than the location, and its success is dependent on the well roundedness of it, as well, of course, on the characters and the story the characters have to tell.

I'm trying to think of a plot driven show I have been interested in that has held my interest... but I can't. I suppose VM might lean a little towards the plotty side, but still the characters, even if they don't always drive it, have lots to tell. Plus, in season one the plot was so tight that it worked. Season three however... grrr. I mean really, if you're going to cut half the characters out of half the season, it's hardly going to have the potential to be character driven, is it?!

House, which I know was mentioned in the other thread, bores the crap out of me, coz a) he's an ass, and b) the audience is just expected to deal with that and watch him be a jerk and not develop every episode! (Sorry House fans... I know you are many!) All because it's plot driven, which I think is to its detriment, especially when House solves the case every damn time- at least, all the times I have seen it. (Feel free to correct me here.) Mind you, it's a funny and enjoyable show, but I don't spend my week wondering what's going to happen next week.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

House, which I know was mentioned in the other thread, bores the crap out of me, coz a) he's an ass, and b) the audience is just expected to deal with that and watch him be a jerk and not develop every episode! (Sorry House fans... I know you are many!) All because it's plot driven, which I think is to its detriment, especially when House solves the case every damn time- at least, all the times I have seen it. (Feel free to correct me here.) Mind you, it's a funny and enjoyable show, but I don't spend my week wondering what's going to happen next week.

Yes. House is ENTIRELY driven by House being an ass. Which I love, but I can see why one might not like it. For me, it's a single character study, with some incidental characters (do love Wilson also) plus a plot that basically repeats each week (bizarre disease, House almost kills the patient before curing them). It's like a greek tragedy, repeated over and over...only the tragedy is House, not the life of the patient. Though, sometimes he does move forward and change a little. But not a great deal. However, his stasis is something I find very enjoyable, because it offers up some of the best jokes I've heard in years.

Interesting point about the 'verse...I'll have to think about that further.

[Llywela]

I'm with Veverka on the House issue. I find it plot-focused rather than character-focused. The same basic formula each episode, of course, with little or no ongoing aspect to the plot. But each episode revolves around the case-of-the-week and House's reaction to it, rather than the plot being a tool with which to explore the characters, which is more or less how a character-driven show would be defined.

Having said that, though, season three has gone a lot further toward developing the non-central characters than any previous season.

*thinks* It is season three that's currently airing in the UK, isn't it? The most recent season? Anyway, that's the one I mean. But that character development still feels peripheral to the main focus of the show, which is case-of-the-week and House being House. It's actually a fairly traditional approach to TV - wasn't that a problem the Star Trek franchise, for eg, used to always run into? They'd want ongoing plots and developments, but the networks insisted on standalone episodes only, so that casual viewers wouldn't be put off. House is pretty easy to just dip in and out of, in that sense, in the way that networks always used to enjoy. Whereas the majority of shows have increasingly moved toward having intricate ongoing storylines - whether mytharc-based or character-based - that regular viewers can really get their teeth into, while casual viewers just have to take their chances.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

I'm with Veverka on the House issue. I find it plot-focused rather than character-focused. The same basic formula each episode, of course, with little or no ongoing aspect to the plot. But each episode revolves around the case-of-the-week and House's reaction to it, rather than the plot being a tool with which to explore the characters, which is more or less how a character-driven show would be defined.

That's an interesting take on it. I think what I mean by it being character driven rather than plot driven is that all that matters really is House's reaction - the plot is there to show us more of his Houseiness. Kind of a showcase for his asshatterie.

Having said that, though, season three has gone a lot further toward developing the non-central characters than any previous season.

Haven't seen that yet, must do.

House being House.

Hah! That totally sums up the show.

It's actually a fairly traditional approach to TV - wasn't that a problem the Star Trek franchise, for eg, used to always run into? They'd want ongoing plots and developments, but the networks insisted on standalone episodes only, so that casual viewers wouldn't be put off.

Yes. It's only in recent years that they've worked out that people do actually have the patience to follow a storyline (especially if they're of the dvd buying sort), and that an ongoing, satisfying story will keep them coming back and back for season after season.

I agree that with House and shows like it, in terms of catching the casual viewer, the old way still works. House is an odd show for me...because I think that large portions of it (the plotting, the minor characters) are a bit rubbish...and yet, the main character makes me laugh so much that I don't care about the rest.

[Llywela]

Yes. It's only in recent years that they've worked out that people do actually have the patience to follow a storyline (especially if they're of the dvd buying sort), and that an ongoing, satisfying story will keep them coming back and back for season after season.

I do find myself wondering from time to time, though, how hard the programme makers still have to fight the networks on some of their more intricate ongoing plotting. Because everything I hear about the networks suggests that it is still casual viewers, capture thereof, that matter most to them. And it seems like there's a kind of inherent conflict there with the way programme makers like to work in terms of plot and character development. It's why that 'previously' segment at the start of each episode has become so important! It must be a really fine balance to try to strike - being generic enough to capture the interest of casual viewers while still getting into the real nitty gritty of ongoing plot/character-development to satisfy regular viewers.

I tend to divide the shows I watch into two main categories - the bubblegum shows that I watch on a surface level and can dip in and out of without worrying too much if I miss one here and there. House would be one of those - I don't worry if I miss an episode because I know nothing important will have happened that I can't catch up on almost immediately. And then there are the more development-based shows where it matters a lot more to me that I watch every episode as it airs and really pay attention to everything that's going on, the kind of shows that invite thought and re-watching, there are so many subtle nuances woven into them.

Maybe that's the divide. Less character versus plot, and more standalone versus development?

[tangent]

As far as i can tell (and i may be completely wrong) a lot of american shows suffer from execs pulling the plug if the numbers start to suffer.

If then i was an american program maker i think i would shy away from making to much of an intricate far reaching plot as it would be difficult to know that your going to get the room to see it through to the end.

There are exceptions of course but a lot of modern american shows seem to either try to grow organically (i.e letting one bit lead on to another just because that's where it goes) or to hint vaguely at an overall arc without revealing enough details that it can't be changed completely later (lost?)

Maybe this is a contributing factot to why a lot of shows tend to be more character based than plot driven

[Llywela]

That's kinda what I mean - the trend over the last...decade, I suppose, has been toward mytharc plotting and ongoing character development, but it's a risky move as the networks rarely give their new shows time to really get established and build up strong foundations. Firefly being a good example of that. But most of the really popular shows at the moment do have ongoing storylines that regular viewers can really get their teeth into and find satisfying - look at Heroes, for example. Supernatural, Lost...they all have strong ongoing aspects that may not be terribly easy for new viewers to pick up the threads of, especially as they build up seasons and history. Even if, as you say, these aspects are kept vague so that they can be changed as the go along, if need be. So it must be a really tricky line to walk, trying to strike that balance, wanting to appeal to casual viewers at the same time as wanting to really build on the foundations already laid.

[Ehlwyen]

Actually I think most US tv networks are pretty fair at giving shows a chance to reach and engage viewers. Except Fox. Since its inception in the late 80s it has always expected shows to "put out or get out". Fox wants instant hits and buzz. They want to be hip and edgy. So either a show strikes it hot and buzzworthy immediately or they believe it will never take off. Fox doesn't want to settle with solid ratings and pass on "the next biggest thing" because they didn't have any room in their schedule.

Fox is great because it will take a risk on a sci-fi, supernatural, un PC, or otherwise "different" type show. I'm sure Fox hoped Firefly would immediately create a BTVS size buzz, but when it didn't, Fox let it go.

Boringly enough, I need a mix of characters and plot. Though I can't imagine watching a show for plot for too long if I couldn't stand the characters. Whereas if I like characters ( or love at least one) I can hang in a lot longer after plot and story goes annoyingly bad.

[Jenni Lou]

Wow, a lot of interesting posts here. Lots I agree with. What I have to say...

I like both kinds of shows as well as those that successfully intermingle the two devices. Character is a must though. Without a good character the plot will surely suffer as a result. Like Law & Order, for instance, which is a procedural drama and one with very, very little character development. I actually do quite like a number of the characters on the show and they make it more enjoyable for me, but the series can stand alone on its plot alone. Of course, each episode is self-contained so.... However, I much prefer the eps that feature Jerry Orbach than those that feature Dennis Farina and as a matter of fact, if an ep with Farina comes one, I am more likely to skip it entirely. So character does matter.

As for House, I find it more plot driven but it is character driven. Without the House character the show just becomes yet another procedural. The same can be said for Bones. The characters make that show more interesting. I prefer Bones to CSI whereas my fiance prefers the inverse. It's a matter of what substance you crave moe than the other, I suppose.

So my final say on the matter is....I like it all. The success stems from the execution of the writing and the acting. Both can work if you have the right people behind it. I like a ton of tv shows and I go both ways. But overall, I think I probably like more character-based shows than plot-driven ones. But there are exceptions. Like Lost and The X-Files. Great characters fill out the story but the mythology is what makes it golden.

[Rosamunde]

I generally prefer character-driven, although you have to really like the characters for a character-driven story line to work. I hate almost everyone on Desperate Housewives, so even though it's character driven, I don't like it. I actually think it's a better written show than Grey's Anatomy, yet I prefer Grey's Anatomy because I really quite like a lot of the characters there. Some hospital shows are very plotty, whereas Grey's is more about developing characters. Agreeing with the above that House is character-driven. I quite like it on an episodic basis, just as I quite like dipping into old episodes of Star Trek when they show that at 3am on BBC and I can't sleep. I wouldn't want to watch House on a weekly basis, but I like Hugh Laurie and the mystery-solving-ness of it.

I'm easily bored by plot-driven shows, particularly really action-y ones. I can't stand we-have-to-release-this-crazy-toxin-into-the-air-which-might-kill-everyone-but-if-we-don't-terrorists-will-blow-up-our-children type of shows. Veronica Mars was much more watchable because while it was about solving crime, they were often much more believable crimes than the global sort. Maybe I just don't think big enough, but I want the world to stay saved for at least two consecutive episodes. I think Lost tried to do both - be both plot and character driven - and while it failed on a massive scale it's mildly interesting that someone attempted to do that.

If you're doing fantasy or sci-fi I think a good myth and good characters are all that's important. Even if I think some of the plots on Doctor Who are completely daft, I'm going to keep watching because I like the ideas behind it and the characters. I don't think a lot of character-driven shows really pull it off all that well, although they're amazing when they do. For me, Six Feet Under is one of the few shows that managed to remain entirely engaging while focusing solely on characters.

Mostly, I watch comedy, which is completely character driven, I think. Shows like Black Books, Green Wing, the Mighty Boosh, never had any plot to speak of, but worked entirely because of the in-jokes we associated with the characters. Comedic characters don't have to develop to be engaging, although some shows like Sex and the City straddle both worlds. Most of them -- in my eyes -- which try to straddle both comedy and development completely flop, but, as with that other point I think I might have made -- when they do they're great.

[Jenni Lou]

Gosh, there are so many Lost haters on this board. It's so sad. At least I have my Francy.

24 is probably another good example of a plot-driven show that still relies heavily on (a least one) character. I think it's safe to assume without Jack Bauer there would be no show. I think it's also interesting to note that as the seasons have passed and other characters fell by the wayside, the series has sort of suffered for it. SO while it's the plot that makes 24, it is the characters that sustain it, imo.

[Rosamunde]

Gosh, there are so many Lost haters on this board. It's so sad. At least I have my Francy.

24 is probably another good example of a plot-driven show that still relies heavily on (a least one) character. I think it's safe to assume without Jack Bauer there would be no show. I think it's also interesting to note that as the seasons have passed and other characters fell by the wayside, the series has sort of suffered for it. SO while it's the plot that makes 24, it is the characters that sustain it, imo.

I don't *hate* Lost -- I do watch it every week -- it's just that it continually dissapoints me. There's so much I feel it could explore and it just doesn't. I love a good mystery, but they're only fun when you feel the will one day be revealed, whereas I have no faith that even the writers of Lost have sorted out what's going on.

Lost does try to straddle plot and character, though -- it relies heavily on plot, but through its use of flashbacks it does try to make thing character-based as well.

I'm not a fan of 24 either (I seem to be Miss Disgusted today!) but I think it's interesting how devoted fans are to the character of Jack Bauer. To the causal viewer, the show looks like it's purely based on action, but the fans really seem to care about Jack, which suggests there's more than meets the eye.

[Jenni Lou]

I don't *hate* Lost -- I do watch it every week -- it's just that it continually dissapoints me. There's so much I feel it could explore and it just doesn't. I love a good mystery, but they're only fun when you feel the will one day be revealed, whereas I have no faith that even the writers of Lost have sorted out what's going on.

I'm not a fan of 24 either (I seem to be Miss Disgusted today!) but I think it's interesting how devoted fans are to the character of Jack Bauer. To the causal viewer, the show looks like it's purely based on action, but the fans really seem to care about Jack, which suggests there's more than meets the eye.

Lost: But they have sorted it all out. The only reason it feels as though there is so little revelation is because the writers didn't know how long the series would run. Now that ABC has let them set an end date, the mysteries should be solved at an even pace. There is a total of 48 eps left. 3 seasons of 16 eps each. I also feel as though there is some disparity in the series but I think it has succeeded more than it has failed. It just so happens that there are plenty of people who feel the opposite...which is perfectly fine. I am a die-hard fan; I just adore the show and cannot wait for February. I listen to several Lost podcasts and everything. /fandom geek

Damon and Carlton have always contended that the mythology of Lost was always pre-determined, that it was--for the most part--mapped out. I, for one, believe them. They seem disheartened by the fact that so many people doubt that they know where the story is going. I just believe them. I've heard them talk about this so many times that I feel inclined to. They seem genuine about it and personally, I don't think they could go into a series like this without having the basic mythology pretty fleshed out; I know I couldn't. I'll stop now. I love my Lost and must defend it!!

24: And yes, fans do care about Jack Bauer. And like I wrote, without him there would be no 24. If they somehow switched lead characters the show would die. Hell, there are a ton of fans who stopped watching after Tony Almeida died. It just goes to show you that even plot-driven series still need characters to rely on.

[Maria]

[QUOTE= Ehlwyen
Boringly enough, I need a mix of characters and plot. Though I can't imagine watching a show for plot for too long if I couldn't stand the characters. Whereas if I like characters ( or love at least one) I can hang in a lot longer after plot and story goes annoyingly bad.[/QUOTE]

This is true for me too. In a perfect world of TV entetainment, I need to have a good plot and at least one character I can believe in. But then I tend to lose interest in the show when I realise I dislike the characters or even the actors.

For instance, I enjoy watching The Smoking Room on BBC. I don't really care that I'm just watching a group of smokers talking because I love these characters even the annoying ones. Seinfeld is a very popular show but I can't stand some of the characters sometimes so I just stopped watching.

I love Prison Break because of both the plot and the characters. But I don't know if I can keep watching if for some reason the two main characters Michael or Linc become something they're not supposed to be, say ala ( do I need to cough?) Cordy S4.

I loved Lost when it started and even if I disliked Michael I continued to watch. Then they brought in Anna Alicia and that was it. When she was gone, I made an effort to watch again and then Jack started getting on my nerves with his martyr syndrome. And then I felt the plot was thinning but recovered. Lost has a fantastic plot and luckily many characters to like. So I guess I have a love-hate relationship with this show.

[Jenni Lou]

Oh Seinfeld! Best comedy eva! The characters are supposed to be despicable. That's the charm. It is an acquired thing; it took me a few years before I actually started to like it. But Seinfeld is definitely fueled by its characters and their amoral sense of self-entitlement. After all, it the show "about nothing."

I can watch Seinfeld eps over and over again. I think it is utterly hilarious and genius in its indignity.

Hateful characters are nothing new though....House, Jaye from Wonderfalls, Archie Bunker...it's how they play off the other characters and the plot that matters, I guess.

[Heather]

I'm with Veverka on the House issue. I find it plot-focused rather than character-focused. The same basic formula each episode, of course, with little or no ongoing aspect to the plot. But each episode revolves around the case-of-the-week and House's reaction to it, rather than the plot being a tool with which to explore the characters, which is more or less how a character-driven show would be defined.

Having said that, though, season three has gone a lot further toward developing the non-central characters than any previous season.

That IS an interesting way of thinking. My problem with House, however, is that there really isn't an overall plot to the show. It's the same formula in every episode, the same concept...Though some characters have developed (Cameron, Chase, etc...), too. But others have either regressed or just...not made any progress (House, House, HOUSE...). I've yet to see all of the show but Season 3 did make an attempt to have an overall storyline for the first few episodes but then that disappeared before mid-season and things got back to normal. House is pretty much...not character driven OR plot driven in my mind, honestly. It's just...House.

Supernatural is undoubtably a character driven show. I mean...nobody can debate that. Alias would probably be considered character driven. At least to me it would be. So is Grey's Anatomy (...*grumbles*...).

Smallville is...both, to me. Because the story is big and is the driving factor here but the characters are moving it along. So it's kinda...dead even for me. Which is kinda interesting for some reason...The same thing can be said of Lost, in my opinion. It goes both ways. And Veronica Mars, too. Gilmore Girls, too, can be considered both in my eyes. I don't know why...but it seems pretty split because sometimes it's heavily focusing on the characters and other times it's focusing on the story. And OTHER times it's off an a totally random tangent but yeah.

Heroes is definitely a story driven show.

I dunno, overall, whether I mainly watch story driven or character driven shows. I prefer a lot of story or at least a dominant storyline so that the characters, should they bore or annoy me, don't ruin the show (...*grumbles again*...) but I think most of the ones I watch are pretty dead even between story and character driven-ness.

[Ehlwyen]

Oh Seinfeld! Best comedy eva! The characters are supposed to be despicable. That's the charm. It is an acquired thing; it took me a few years before I actually started to like it. But Seinfeld is definitely fueled by its characters and their amoral sense of self-entitlement. After all, it the show "about nothing."

I can watch Seinfeld eps over and over again. I think it is utterly hilarious and genius in its indignity.

Hmm...I would have said I liked Seinfeld for plot. I never really found any love for the characters (actors), but loved the way that the events of the show would wind and twist with ironic and dumb luck problems. And considering the Seinfeld curse of the actors and new sitcoms, I have to wonder if many people found the plot and events so inticing rather than the actors/characters.

[Jenni Lou]

It's the same formula in every episode, the same concept...Though some characters have developed (Cameron, Chase, etc...), too. But others have either regressed or just...not made any progress (House, House, HOUSE...).

That's because it is more of a procedural, imo. Bones, too. They are medical and crime dramas and their first order of business is to attend to a patient or victim. There is character development in both shows; there almost has to be. But the thing about House--particularly--is that if his character changes dramatically and sees the error of his ways and becomes this super nice guy then the procedural elements suffer. House badgers patients until he finds his solution. If he doesn't badger, there is no solution, imo. The cornerstone of the series is essentially, "Everyone lies." House just pokes around until the truth oozes out, so to speak.

I think we could all argue over where House fits in all day and night. Maybe we should split the difference and say its both. Although, I still agree that's mostly plot-controlled. It's just that the plot only lasts one ep.

Hmm...I would have said I liked Seinfeld for plot. I never really found any love for the characters (actors), but loved the way that the events of the show would wind and twist with ironic and dumb luck problems. And considering the Seinfeld curse of the actors and new sitcoms, I have to wonder if many people found the plot and events so inticing rather than the actors/characters.

Yeah, I hear you on that. But that it's the nature of the very characters themselves that propels the crazy plots. If they weren't so inherently amoral to begin with then most episodes wouldn't work at all.

[Cinderela]

That's because it is more of a procedural, imo. Bones, too. They are medical and crime dramas and their first order of business is to attend to a patient or victim. There is character development in both shows; there almost has to be. But the thing about House--particularly--is that if his character changes dramatically and sees the error of his ways and becomes this super nice guy then the procedural elements suffer. House badgers patients until he finds his solution. If he doesn't badger, there is no solution, imo. The cornerstone of the series is essentially, "Everyone lies." House just pokes around until the truth oozes out, so to speak.

I think we could all argue over where House fits in all day and night. Maybe we should split the difference and say its both. Although, I still agree that's mostly plot-controlled. It's just that the plot only lasts one ep.

Yeah, I hear you on that. But that it's the nature of the very characters themselves that propels the crazy plots. If they weren't so inherently amoral to begin with then most episodes wouldn't work at all.

I think I could weigh in and say I would have to admit that House is both. And, I think we'll find out in the upcoming season when House starts all over with a completely new staff.

What hooked me on House was a line from (I think, the pilot) where House says "I didn't become a doctor to HELP people, I became a doctor to FIGHT disease." That sums up the entire character for me. I'm attracted to the freshness of the character of Greg House as opposed to all the other sweet, smooth bedside manner doctors on TV. And I'd take House as a doctor any day over a sweet lovable idiot.

For me, I'll almost always take character driven. I can swallow almost impossible, unbelievable plot twists as long as the characters are true to themselves. I hate it when writers twist characters to serve plot issues.