What makes a good TV show?

What makes a good TV show? A good plot? Good dialogue? Good character development? All three?

Some of my favourite TV shows are carried by the strong dialogue, but don't have much plot / character development. For example, Modern Family, Suits, and Psych.

Psych arguably has one of the best two-character chemistry ever seen on TV. Shawn and Gus (James Roday and Duke Hill) interact so naturally on the show it hardly seems scripted... and indeed, sometimes it isn't! From the blooper reels, you can see that many lines are actually improvised on-set by the two of them, especially their back and forth banter. I'm not sure what else is scripted (their spontaneous pop culture references?), but it sure made for an entertaining show.

One of their running gags is how Shawn would introduce Gus, with a WIDE variety of (sometimes outright ridiculous) nicknames. I'm still not sure whether this is scripted or James Roday just rattles off the first thing on his head. Judging from the way Gus reacts (he sometimes plays along naturally, sometimes has a wtf? reaction, so I would think it's improvised? lol)

It's precisely of this strong chemistry / dialogue that made the show last as long as it did - I think it was somewhere around the 4th or 5th season (or maybe later? can't remember) where the show all but abandoned its main premise (Shawn being 'psychic') and became more of a two-bit comedy act with some romance with Juliet and the hilarious Lassider, but it still carried on for a few more seasons.

Suits puts up a strong challenge for 'best two-character chemistry' against Psych, for the stellar performances of its two male leads, Harvey and Mike (Gabriel Macht and Patrick Adams). Their interactions are sharp and witty, their pop culture references roll off their tongues naturally. What puts this show above Psych for me is that this sharp writing (of dialogue) extends to almost all its characters - Jessica, Louis, Donna (sorry, I think while Rachel is hot, she's a boring character with the lousiest lines). While it is a 'serious' legal drama, every episode has its fair bit of funny lines and witty one-liners uttered by any of the main characters.

There is a general theme for each season (e.g. power struggle with Daniel Hardman, within the firm, with whoever), but I won't give any huge points for 'plot/character development' for this show.

Modern Family is a recurrent hit season after season for its relatable family comedy mockumentary style. Apart from its special mockumentary style (not unique, since Arrested Development already did this before), the big strong suit of this show is its witty dialogue. I think almost 80% of lines are actually some form of wordplay /puns, so I really admire the creativity of the writers to consistently come up with such brilliant scenes peppered with hilarious puns or jokes. Of course, it has the backing of a strong cast who convincingly portray all sorts of emotions, and the fan favourite Phil Dunphy, brilliant played by the talented Ty Burrell, who steals every scene he's in.

So these are TV shows driven by strong dialogue, but with little plot / character development. How about a good plot?

A show with good plot needs to well-written - appropriate drama, good pacing, believable scenes. Two of my favourite shows, LOST and Prison Break, fall under this category.

LOST has a very ambitious narrative structure. It abandons the traditional linear storytelling and adopts character-centric episodes with a flashback format which alternates with scenes on the island. Using this unique narrative structure, it somehow manages to seamlessly advance the main story on the island, and provide compelling backstories for most of its characters. I don't know if you ever stopped to marvel at the genius it takes to do this well, but it is truly a masterclass of good writing.

LOST's strong suits are aplenty - deep character development/background, good drama, decent mystery, suspenseful writing, and the fan-appeasement through easter eggs peppered throughout the episodes. This is one show where it's better to watch it live (e.g. week after week) rather than marathon it after it has finished its run - I recall being left in utter suspense after each cliffhanger ending, and googling for the fan theories and speculation.

The now-famous final shot of Season 1

Unfortunately, I (and many others) feel like it was probably too smart for its own good, and ran for 1-3 more seasons than it should have. I know many people who gave up on the show somewhere in seasons 3 or 4, as it was getting too confusing. I personally stuck with it through all 6 seasons, but I can't say I can confidently explain some of the plotlines involving the Dharma Initiative and whatnot.
Nevertheless, it still remained a fairly popular show through its 6 seasons, and ended with a reasonably satisfying ending (though it remains widely debated).

Prison Break uses a not-so-new idea (escaping from prison) but paints a very compelling story with it - a brilliant structural engineer tries to rescue his maligned brother who was on death row from prison. The strength in the show was its ability to build up suspense and tension and advance the plot purposefully with each episode. This is the kind of show which you don't want to stop watching, simply because of how intense the episode ends, it just makes you want to keep going.

[SPOILER ALERT]

I liked how the show transitioned from escaping from Prison (Season 1) to WHAT do you actually do after you escape (Season 2). A fairy tale ending of 'running away into the sunset' simply isn't believable, and I appreciate the realistic handling of this - the Fox River 8 becomes a national manhunt for the FBI. What I didn't like was how the show went full circle back to its 'prison break' roots in Season 3, with the new Panama season, and I think eventually the show began its decline from there.

I still loved the show - there was unmistakable tension and dramatic scenes still, but it just lost the kick and original appeal of the original premise. Also, the overall series didn't exactly have much character development, but that isn't really a big fault of the show.

[SPOILER ALERT END]


How about a show with good dialogue, strong character development, and good plot?

[Spoiler alert for Breaking Bad]

Breaking Bad is one such show - the introduction, growth, development, and decline of Walter White is Character Development 101 at its best. The gradual change is believable, strongly written, and seems almost inevitable, as Walter lets his pride slowly transform him into an anti-hero of sorts.
The show has the support of a few other strong characters - Jesse is brilliant as a problem 'teen' (not quite), who follows Walter in his character arc (His character was meant to be killed off in Season 1, but the showrunners decided to keep him after seeing how good the actor was).

The introduction of Gus was one of the show's golden eras - Giancarlo Esposito is an undisputed star of the show the moment he was introduced, with his polite, professional demeanor, masking his cold, steely personality, accentuated with his precise diction. He's one of my favourite TV villians, and the way the show ended him was fitting, well-written, and chilling (check out how he adjusts his tie just before he collapses). This scene was one of my favourites, not just because of Gus, but because of the  performance of the silent Hector - the amazing portrayal of emotions purely through his eyes. Just watch the wheelchaired man's eyes go from sorrow, surrender, to resilience, anger, pure hatred.

[end of spoiler alert]


The point of this whole post was actually to talk about The Walking Dead. [spoilers ahead]

I started watching The Walking Dead recently, and just finished the third season. I wanted to find out why this show was such a big hit. Indeed, the first season was brilliant and intense - I was at the edge of my seat almost the whole time, and the episodes felt tightly written. However, the show began to take a strange swerve off course, spending an entire season in a farm and then an entire season in the prison.

The problem with the show was that each season felt like a different show. The theme / focus seemed to shift - from zombie-centric to character-centric to... I'm not even sure what. This problem was a real one - I realised it was because the show actually changed showrunner twice (for a total of 3 showrunners)

The show suffered when it chose to focus on unlikable characters (ugh, Andrea) and painting them as a central character when no one really cared about them and they were just plain annoying. That episode in Season 3 which was entirely a chase between the Governor and Andrea felt like an utter waste of time. The show is plagued with loopholes like the magical forest which can sometimes takes days but at other times take hours to travel, and somehow characters end up meeting each other in it. Also, characters often mention 'we are short on ammunition' but in a later scene expend a few bullets meaninglessly.

Zombies also became relegated for human drama, which is an understandable development (since humans probably get used to it and more mentally equipped to deal with zombies), but part of me wishes for the same zombie intensity as Season 1. Huge props to the make-up artist chief who designs all these zombies though, quite impressive how they think of new ways to present zombies, as well as new ways to kill them.

As for character development, Rick's narrative arc from a stoic, righteous leader of the group - to a battle-hardened, slightly mentally unhinged character, was moderately convincing (though some other critics thought otherwise). However, the character of Merle was managed horribly. From his original introduction as a racist blabbermouth bully, to his reintroduction as a more mellow, strategic expert in Season 3, the jump was simply not believable. To make it worse, the writers 'ended' the character in the most ridiculously lame way ever, in some kind of sudden self-vindication/redemption quest as he took on Governor himself in a poorly executed mission (why would you snipe random soldiers and give away your location, and not just take your first shot at the Governor?)

It seems like each character changes its arc every time a new showrunner took over, which sets up a very choppy viewing experience. I was originally considering giving up on the show, but after reading some online posts, I decided to give Season 4 a chance. Let's hope it gets better.

Three Psychological Problems Plaguing my News Feed This Elections

I was generally quite apathetic in the 2011 General Elections, but this time round I've been reading and watching some videos and articles with interest. I'm rather annoyed though by how several flawed styles of thinking keep resurfacing on my Facebook news feed.

I'm not here to debate issues - I'm neither sufficiently eloquent nor knowledgeable. I've just noticed three psychological errors that people commit this GE, and I'm here to call them out.


1) Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to seek out information that supports our personal beliefs, and ignore / overlook / discredit information that opposes our beliefs. This is RAMPANT all over my newsfeed. If I was to draw a comic that illustrated them, it would be someone plugging their fingers into their ears and they're going 'ngah ngah ngah ngah'.

I am right you are wrong no information you present will change my views ngah ngah ngah ngah.

To cite an example, a common criticism I've seen of the government is that 'They don't listen to the people'.

This post is flawed for other reasons, but let's just focus on the confirmation bias part.

But how true is that? Do the government just sit in their ivory towers and ignore the common populace? Let's just examine one case study.

How many of you have heard of the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS)? If you haven't, you can head over here to check it out.

To give you a flavor of what it is, it is a THREE-year long project (still ongoing) by the Ministry of Defence to improve the hotly debated and controversial issue of National Service (NS).
It consisted of a year long consultation period, in which there were focus groups, surveys, town hall sessions, website/Facebook interactions, dialogues within NS units, and more, all to gather feedback about NS from the population. What followed next is they took all these feedback, deliberated them, and put forth 30 recommendations that would improve many facets of NS, such as to improve identity & purpose, support & recognition, and administration & communication.

If this is not public consultation, or 'listening to the people', I don't know what is. This is just one ministry - I know for a fact that other ministries have been having regular public consultations (especially the social ones).

So the bottom line is, the government IS listening. Whether they get the solutions right is a different matter altogether, but you CAN'T say that they are not listening. Insisting that they don't listen is just holding fast to your confirmation bias and being an irrational human being.

Take your fingers out of your ears. Explore the alternatives. Are your beliefs really true?


2) Being Emotional Creatures

Jonathan Haidt, a renowned moral psychologist, once said (paraphrasing his argument): "People tend to rely on their emotions (or as he calls it, 'moral intuitions') rather than conscious reasoning to make moral judgments". You can read more about this in his article, 'The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail'.

Other than trying to sound smart by quoting a famous person, the point of quoting this is to say that apart from moral judgments, this rule seems to apply to politics too. Many people are letting their emotions rule them and lead them to weak conclusions. If they could be dispassionate for a second, they may realise that their conclusion/arguments aren't that great.

The above Facebook post I linked would be a great example in itself. The poster saw that it was pitiful and sad that the elderly had to work so hard, and concluded that the government was at fault and wasn't listening.
Another example would be the populist policies that some of my FB friends are supporting. Populism is basically pushing for policies that appeals to the interests of the general population (without considering the general feasibility of the policy).

E.g. A particular party promising $500 every month to both elderly and youths. Say what?

This works because it pushes emotional buttons in people, while offering simplistic solutions. Some examples:

• Should the elderly be suffering, working 10 hours a day, collecting cardboard? NO! We pledge to implement minimum wage, and give them $300 a month in grants too! (Watch this video by DPM / Finance Minister Tharman to understand why this doesn't work)
• Are you happy that the foreigners are taking our jobs and overcrowding our trains? NO! We should stop taking in foreigners! [throwback to confirmation bias - ignoring the fact that the govt has indeed tightened up on foreign labour intake]

The bottom line is this - there are no simple solutions to some of our biggest problems. If there were, the thousands of civil servants working on them would have thought of them. Every solution is a complex, multifaceted one, that will impact different groups of people in different ways. Let's not let our emotions rule us, and draw hasty conclusions, such as supporting simplistic solutions.

[ASIDE: I used to work in a policy department in a Ministry, so let me explain the general process of how a small policy change / proposal gets implemented/approved. A minion (me) would first draft an elaborate paper that considers the background, impetus for change, presents recommendations and why, all well-researched from many sources. This draft is then critiqued (i.e. heavily edited or discussed and changed) by the minion's boss. That next piece is then critiqued by the boss's boss, in preparation to present it at a forum (basically a meeting of leaders). That piece is then discussed at that forum, and either approved or endorsed to proceed to the next forum, depending on how big the issue is. It is not uncommon for a policy paper to go through 2-3 fora before it is approved. And I'm leaving out many details/steps such as consultations with other departments / agencies, public consultation, internal discussions, etc.

TLDR: There are many fora through which a policy paper has to pass through before it can be approved, to canvas a wide range of perspectives and views before a policy is passed.

So if you think that the government doesn't consider each policy carefully, you are horribly mistaken. End of ASIDE.]

.
.

.
.


.
.

3. An empty point.

I don't really have a third point, but people like things to come in threes, so I started off that way.

Here's a kitten to distract you from the abrupt ending of this post.

Click me to see cute cats and dogs squeezing into random things!

What do people think about when they run?

What do people think about when they run?

I don't like running, so this is something I always struggle with. The "occupy my mind for more than 10 mins"  thing. This is roughly what goes through my mind every time:


Huff. Puff. This seems OK. Comfortable pace. Let 's go.

Wonder what I'll do after this.

OK this is getting hard.

OK control your breathing.  One, two puff... One two puff..

Maybe I can go get a nice cold drink.. What should I get.  I deserve a snack after this.

Oh god I'll never finish this.

Just look straight and keep my strides constant.  Come on. I can do this.

Damn that aunty just passed me.

-random thought about whatever game I'm playing recently to try to take my mind off the exertion -

-tries to keep mind on anything but the exertion-

Thinks about how tiring this is and how nice it would be to stop

No, don't stop Alan.  Come on. Imagine what finishing this will be like..

Imagine sh cheering u on.  Go Alan. You can do it.

When am I meeting her next? Maybe I'll text her after this to tell her I finished a run

Yes. I need to finish this so I can say I finished it.  Come on.

Help I'm dying.

My Lungs my legs

Focus on the things I'm passing.. That tree.. The block of flats..

Focus on my footsteps. Maintain.  Maintain.  Resist the urge to slow down or stop

Resist!

Maybe I should stop..

No!

Keep going.

I'm only halfway there??

Ok halfway more..

Deep breaths.  Maintain constant breathing.

What can I think about to distract me.

-thinks about random game-

Gasp.

Feel like slowing down.. That bench there looks nice.

Screw the bench keep going alan

Sh will be proud of u

Imagine sh smiling

OK come on.keep going. One two puff, one two puff

Need to distract myself.

Another runner.  He's going slowly. Ha. Sucker.bye.

Passed him. I'm the best.

I'm tired, I should slow down.

Gasp. I need to stop.

No, maintain alan. come on. maintain the pace, keep going.

Imagine SH cheering you on. Go go go.

I'll have a nice cold drink after this is over.

Why is this so hard.

one two puff one two puff one two puff

-more or less can't think of anything else apart from dying or controlling my breathing / pace the rest of the way -