[ SECRET POST #4570 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4570 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Stranger Things]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[venruki]






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #654.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like it's pointless because aside from its overarching perspective, there's no real overarching story. There was no cohesiveness.

As for original, there were a number of seriously derivative storylines. If something is well-written it doesn't feel derivative, it feels like a fresh take. This felt like they were copying other, better shows.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I can see why that would bug you if you like the whole 'everything is connected' type story telling, but for me personally, I love the whole 'monster of the week'. I think that's why I fell out of caring for shows like SPN after season 6 when it tried to include everything and make a 'plot' rather than just MotW.

nyart

[(Anonymous)]

I would say it's possible to have highly episodic plot but still a cohesive thematic structure, and for developments to culminate without getting into "everything is connected" territory. Personally, "everything is connected" comes off really contrived and smug and cheesy to me, but I still want coherent arcs. moderation, you know?

Like, for all supernatural's faults, the first couple seasons DID have really strong, cohesive throughlines and themes while being bread-and-butter MotW.


(no horse in the race re: Dr. Who, I've never seen it. But it does seem like enough of a franken-franchise that it might be difficult to have that kind of balance.

Re: OP

[philstar22]

If that's what you're looking for, then Who probably isn't the show for you. But it isn't alone in that. A lot of shows don't have an overarching story. That isn't always a thing that is done. Some shows do it, some don't. It isn't a necessary ingredient for good tv.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

It's always been derivative, and other shows have derived its ideas. Transmat, anyone?

Also it's been going for over half a century so overarching storylines have never been a part of it. It was a Saturday tea-time show, no-one thought it was going to last as long as it did. Would have to be one heck of an overarching storyline to take all that in.

Still, each to her own!

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Not entirely true - the early series were a different format entirely, where you would have a serial and the plot would span a number of episodes.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah but there still (generally) wasn't an overarching plot across serials. It's just that the basic unit of a Doctor Who story was a single serial, rather than a single episode. Arguably, modern Who is actually much more serialized than the average old!Who series. Even having overarching Big Bads and call-backs the way that RTD!era Who did was outside the norm for most of classic Who's run, with a few relatively late exceptions like the Key Of Time season and the E-Space season.

It's also interesting to note that a lot of the most aggressively serialized eras in both have been very controversial (to say the least) - Trial Of A Time Lord is widely hated and Moffat's seasons 6 and 7 are definitely not, like, universally loved.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Been around since 1963, kiddo. They are copying it.