I've written about this in a lot of my reviews, but I did want to compile my general opinions on the matter in a single post so I don't have to constantly reiterate it whenever the topic comes up. I don't like the term "filler", or at least how it's been used lately. I constantly see the term used to describe episodes that don't contribute to the overall plot, episodes that the viewers don't like, and even episodes that do contribute to the plot but aren't those big "Wham episodes" that really push the story forward. And look, I get that. I love big plot developments and climactic season finales as much as the next person, but they wouldn't be nearly as impactful if the show didn't have any room to breathe. And with TV seasons being so much shorter nowadays, it really feels like the medium is losing that breathing room that really makes it special.
So what really is filler? For me, it's when a TV show is blatantly padding itself out for one reason or another. It's most obvious in the case of an anime, especially when it's adapted from a manga. If an anime caught up to the manga it's adapting, or just started an entirely original arc, that's probably filler. In the case of live-action TV, the necessity for filler is usually warranted by a lack of budget. That's how we get stuff like clip shows and bottle episodes. And then there's the weird cases, like the first season of 24, which was originally intended on having 13 episodes before ultimately getting the full 24. It's pretty obvious the showrunners needed to find ways to extend the season's conflict, which is why we ended up getting that godawful amnesia plot. Still, this doesn't technically mean that filler can be bad, per se. For every TNG's Shades Of Grey, there's also a Breaking Bad's Fly, an episode that uses the show's limitations to great effect and is so gripping and well-shot that I tend to forget it mostly takes place in a single room.
Addendum: Sailor Moon had an entire filler arc in the Makai Tree arc, 13 straight episodes of anime-exclusive content. However, the fact that it is filler doesn't make it bad, it's still a really solid streak of episodes with fun villains, creative episode premises, and some of the best utilization of the side cast.
However, I absolutely do not think that just any episode that doesn't have any big plot developments can be classified as a filler. The term filler implies that the reasoning for an episode to be made is to pad out a show or season, so the only real way to know if an episode is "filler" would be to look at the production behind it. But I think my biggest issue with the term is that it's used derogatorily, as if to describe any episode that the viewer doesn't think is good enough. Once again, I love big plot-heavy episodes but episodes that don't progress the plot all that much still have a very important place in TV. The existence of these types of episodes allow more chances to flesh out the characters and the show's world itself. For example, I love it when TV shows start off episodic but slowly get more serialized over time. I wouldn't get as attached to the plot stuff if I didn't have all those standalone episodes to get attached to the cast and learn more about the world.
But most importantly, standalone episodes like these gives the cast and crew a chance to experiment, which usually leads to some of the best episodes in all of television. For example, Avatar's Tales Of Ba Sing Se and The Ember Island Players are some of my favorites in the series despite being almost entirely standalone, with the former especially being one of the most beloved by fans. The X-Files' Monster Of The Week episodes are often considered to be even better than the Myth Arc episodes. Not to mention Buffy's Dopplegangland, Psych's Last Night Gus, Farscape's A Constellation Of Doubt, Fringe's White Tulip, and of course, The Sopranos's Pine Barrens (often considered to be one of the best episodes of TV period). An episode not progressing the plot doesn't make it bad at all, it lets the crew develop the characters and experiment a bit. I've seen some people describe these as "good filler" but, I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense!
Still, those are all legitimately great episodes. What if an episode doesn't progress the plot and I don't like it? Well, I still wouldn't call it filler. I'd just call it a bad episode. For example, the Ronaldo episodes in Steven Universe suck, but it's not because they tend to not progress the overall story, it's because they focus around an unlikable character (I actually really like most of the Beach City episodes, by the way). Passing off every episode you don't like as filler feels like an easy way to undercut any genuinely interesting and productive discussion on the quality of an episode. Since I'm probably in the minority when it comes to this topic, TV seasons have gotten a lot shorter, with many being around 6-10 episodes nowadays. And honestly, I kinda hate that. Sure, now every episode develops the overall plot and the pacing is usually really tight, but I feel like we're losing a core part of what I love about TV. And that's being able to invest a lot of time in a show's world and the characters that inhabit it. These "filler episodes" can help me learn more about characters I previously didn't like or found under-developed, they can let the writers take risks and do things that they wouldn't be able to with just a few episodes, and they feel like an integral part of their respective shows regardless. Shows like Star Trek, Buffy, The X-Files, Farscape, Agents Of Shield, and Person Of Interest wouldn't be what they are without their Monster Of The Week episodes, I don't even think I'd love them as much.
Once again, there are definitely many cases where the showrunners have to pad out a season due to concerns over a lack of budgeting, adaptation of the source material, or an obligation to reach a certain amount of episodes per season. But calling every episode that doesn't progress the story a "filler" episode implies the cast and crew didn't put the same effort and care into it that they put into any other episode, that it's a throwaway they had to do out of obligation rather than an artistic choice, which is rarely actually the case. Maybe they wanted to develop the characters, do something different, or just give the show time to breathe. And if you still don't like an episode beyond it not having any plot progression, then just explain why it's bad. As for me, I'll continue to watch every episode and take them all as they are, regardless of whether or not they have a big impact on the plot.
No comments:
Post a Comment