Story of the Week: A dying format in TV?
Mark McCullough wonders if Doctor Who’s traditional story format can last in today’s serialised TV world.
Whilst looking for a new series to watch this summer, I stumbled across the IMDb’s list of top TV shows. I was pretty shocked when I looked down the list and had seen that Doctor Who wasn’t even in the top twenty shows. Imagine my horror when I noticed that was in fact placed forty-eighth! This got me thinking, questioning why what I thought was one of the most successful TV shows in the world, could be ranked so low. After a bit of thought, I reached a conclusion that the reason might be something that I have felt for a while. There’s nothing wrong with the show itself, actually there’s nothing wrong at all. The problem which I have identified is that the show seems to be a member of what appears to be a dying breed of TV series: The story of the week format.
“All of time and space; everywhere and anywhere; every star that ever was. Where do you want to start?” – The Eleventh Doctor
It’s undoubtedly the format of Doctor Who which provides the platform for its quintessential charm, without it the whole concept of anywhere any-when would simply not be possible. Perhaps it isn’t the format that most of the popular TV show seem to follow, however it works perfectly for Doctor Who. There are a few unique advantages offered by the format which would give Doctor Who an advantage over other shows, but the flip side is also true: there are ways in which the format limits the show (which is probably the reason for the low rating) that will be covered in the next section of the article. For now I’m going to focus on the positives
It goes without saying that when given a TARDIS the possibilities are endless. When penning an episode of Doctor Who, a writer is gifted the opportunity to create a completely new setting based upon whatever takes their fancy. This can mean that you could be in modern day London one episode, then at a solar marketplace in the light of a sentient sun the next, then the following episode could be set in the past during war times. It’s this variety which gives a unique appeal to writers and gives a truly limitless set-up. Unlike most shows, the location can be designed to fit a moral dilemma which again gives the writer more to play with.
Another benefit that this provides is the fact that the majority of stories are self-contained. This means that the viewer gets their resolution within the same episode, which means no weeks of waiting in between, unless dealing with a two-part narrative or the arc for the series. With a collection of stories rather than one continual narrative, the viewer can be introduced at any stage without needing any foreknowledge. This is not the case for the serialised television shows as it becomes very difficult to get a grasp of prior events without starting at the beginning. With story of the week, you can catch up whenever is convenient for you without suffering too much for it. Another advantage of this set-up is that it means you can re-watch episodes at your leisure too, because they work just as well in standalone as with their place in the series.
Finally, the biggest advantage from Doctor Who’s point of view is the fact that it can last forever as the main protagonist is not tied down to a single actor/actress and can be constantly reimagined. Likewise with no limits constrained on writers by the narrative, old ideas can be revisited, modernised or used to frame a new situation. I think that’s the reason why I love Doctor Who so much, you can get literally anything. However, that said I feel it one of the only shows still capable of succeeding in the Story of the Week format (Sherlock is more of a hybrid between the two styles). The rest of television seems to have moved the other way, so Doctor Who may not appeal to as many people as it could do. There are also evident disadvantages in the limitations story of the week enforces, these are discussed in the next section of the article.
“I’m sorry, Doctor, but you’re not here all the time. You come and go” – Harriet Jones (The Christmas Invasion)
There’s no disputing that the Story of the Week format works, and very well at that. However, it is my personal belief that the continual narrative works a lot better and is the direction in which television appears to be moving. The main advantage is that it allows the use of more characters, each with significant focus on them. To use an example, I am currently working my way through the fantastic Orphan Black, and there are at least six of what I would class as a main character. The benefit this gives over Doctor Who is that there is more scope to tell the story, more potential viewpoints and reactions to events. Furthermore with a Doctor’s companion lasting no more than three series maximum, their development is limited compared with a character from a serialised drama.
Despite that fact, each of the companions in the revived series have been very strong unique characters with a fantastic story. All however have been overshadowed by the colossus of characterisation that is the Doctor. Approaching fifty-two years since the character first graced our screen, and he is still going strong to this day (and will hopefully become a she at some point in the future too). Even still despite the Doctor’s phenomenal character, there are rivals. To use another example, critically acclaimed series Breaking Bad (and Spin-off Better Call Saul) possesses a few characters who could rival the Doctor: Walter White, Jesse Pinkman, Saul Goodman, and Mike Ehrmantraut are a few that spring to mind. The problem is that the Doctor is one character from a show which has a maximum of three main characters at a time (who also happen to be the only real constants between episodes). This is the reason why that with the greatest will in the world, Doctor Who will never generate the same level of investment peripheral characters. This in itself provides a problem if a viewer takes a dislike to a character, as it limits their sources of investment in the show.
Game of Thrones is another series which opts for the serial approach (and sits second behind Breaking Bad on IMDb’s list), which identifies another problem with the format of Doctor Who. As I am sure fans are aware, Season Five ended on a massive cliff-hanger (you can read my CultFix article in speculation of its resolution here). This cliff-hanger typified one of the biggest attractions of the series, so vast is their array of main characters that they can afford to kill off any of them at any time and still maintain the ability to tell their story. This is something Doctor Who can’t do: we can kill off a one-off or recurring character, but it’s not quite the same (and then they appear for filming of the next series, what’s that about??). Companion deaths are always a possibility, but unlike in Game of Thrones, they are saved for finales or special episodes which does detract from the shock value of said deaths especially as it is usually always announced that the actor/actress is leaving, so you know it will be their final episode beforehand.
It’s not just character deaths that are saved to the finale of the series, but key events an arc resolutions too. Of course this is logical and maximises viewing figures, and also send out the series on a high note for the year. The flip side is that it makes the show formulaic and gives it an element of predictability. Using The Flash as an example, we see something which you would have expected to make up the finale take place a little earlier allowing the last episode to focus more on its characters instead of delivering a resolution. That said, it still managed to drop the mother of all cliff-hangers. To relate to Doctor Who it would be the equivalent of the Doctor finding Gallifrey in the latter third of a series, when in reality we can almost be certain such an event will be reserved for a finale.
There are two more obvious disadvantages to utilising the Story of the Week format. The first is that there can be no natural end point to the story, because there is no consistent story strand to resolve. That means that Doctor Who will never be able to produce a finale of the quality of Ashes to Ashes, which probably still holds the honour of best episode television has ever produced. Of course having no end point is one of the best things about Doctor Who, it is always adapting and will probably last another few decades. The second is the limit in how far they can push the Doctor’s moral compass for fear of risking alienating fans from the central character. This restriction is not present in another high ranking series on the IMDb list: House of Cards. The characterisation of Frank Underwood pushes right to the limit how greyed a protagonist can become without losing the support of the audience.
Conclusion
There is nothing wrong with Doctor Who! That is not what this article is about. It is simply an analysis of the restrictions placed on the show due to the format it occupies. Arguably the inclusion of companion families like in the RTD era, or the Paternosters/River Song in the Moffat era could solve some of the issues I have picked out, or even a series based largely on Earth with more expansion on recurring characters. Another reason I have highlighted the issue is because with Torchwood, I believe that it reached its best after switching to the serial format with Children of Earth. I think something similar might be worth trying with Doctor Who, particularly when Moffat leaves in order to give the show a new freshness like what Moffat himself brought with the vast tonal shift in 2010. The content of this article is the main reason why I am extremely excited for Series Nine, because with the increase in two-part stories, I would be hopeful that the show this year will be a little more serialised.
