What makes early 2000s-2010s shows bingeable?

Introduction 

I was watching The Summer I Turned Pretty with my mom the other day, and I thought to myself, why am I watching this? When was the last time I watched a recent show that I actually liked? I do in fact have a lot of shows that I've really liked lately. The only problem is that they aren’t quite “new.” They are all shows that came out at least ten or more years ago. So once again, I’m brought up with another question: Are new shows just... bad?

Everytime I thought of a show I liked, the show had come out 10 or so years ago. I thought I was alone in this theory of mine, but it turns out many share this weird epiphany. In fact, when I pitched this story idea to my fellow journalists, many agreed with me. So to sum up my questions: Are new shows bad, and if they are, what exactly makes them so horrible? 

What makes a good TV show?

First let's get into what makes a show good. Not good in a way where you have to watch it just for the sake of watching, but a genuinely good show that has viewers vying for the next episode. The markings of a good show have these four factors: a good plot, compelling characters, decent world building, and building an emotional connection with the audience. Some could argue that there are other factors, but these seem to be the main four when it comes to the bare bones of good television. All of this seems to be absent in present shows.

Absence of Filler episodes

So, let’s tackle a big issue that affects all of the factors at once: run time. New shows have seasons that get progressively shorter and shorter, with each season having only 10-12 episodes. Older shows such as Supernatural, Gilmore Girls, and How I Met Your Mother all have wildly different plots and genres, yet they share one thing in common: filler episodes. They all have filler episodes. What are filler episodes? They are stories that don't quite contribute to the plot of the show, but instead feature sub-plots on other characters or side adventures. These episodes are important to the show as they help deepen the understanding of the characters, story and world building, while creating a connection with the audience. This is notably missing in new “modern” shows.

all photos taken by Isabella

But does the absence of filler episodes really impact a show's watchability? The answer is yes. Take Supernatural as an example, this show is infamous for its odd filler episodes; however, despite the absurdity of some of the episodes, we begin to understand the characters more. Through subplots, we deepen our understanding and emotional connection to the show. Filler episodes give the chance for the audience to fall in love with the story.

Instead of making quick assumptions about the show with the short amount of content we have, longer seasons force us to really digest what we’re watching. To put it into simpler terms, if we thought of consuming content in the literal sense, watching filler episodes are like appetizers or drinks that go along with our meal. Without them, we would be going into the main course too quickly, making ourselves full and unsatisfied for the little portion we got.

A good example of a show that should've been explored more is Wednesday, a show with only 16 episodes within two seasons. In contrast, Supernatural had, with its first two seasons, a total of 44 episodes. Both shows have relatively the same episode length. Wednesday introduces an interesting take on the classic Addams Family. However the show falls short in the fact that it never really fleshes out its worldbuilding, leaving viewers confused about what can and can't happen in the confines of the world. The reason why the reviews of the show come out so polarizing is because content is seemingly being shoved down our throats, causing the audience to make a quick decision on their opinion of the show.

Plot and Characters 

With some of the greatest TV concepts happening years ago and laying the foundation for daytime television, modern shows today have hit a roadblock of creativity. The reason why certain shows are iconic now is because they created a new format of entertainment. A lot of shows nowadays are building on the same trope with some twist, making up for its lack of originality. Same tropes and style formats can get boring overtime, leading us back to the origins of the cliche. Similar shows that use the same trope rely on ragebaiting or viewers who enjoy hatwatching. By taking their trope and leaving some cliffhanger at the end to keep viewers engaged. Not exactly using any originality, but easy tricks for engagement.

It's the same with characters nowadays. We’ve all seen the same characters over and over again, following a specific recipe without adding a new spin to the archetype. Solely relying on plot points for character “development” without showing how a character would be affected after a plot point. It makes the character seem a bit empty and redundant. The reason we get so attached to these characters is because they used to be extremely fleshed out. 

Conclusion

Now, am I right about everything in my article? No. There absolutely are some shows that have come out in the last couple of years that are really good, such as Abbott Elementary. But you have to think that Abbott Elementary does take a lot of good aspects from older comedy shows while adding a new spin that makes it interesting. New shows that still have their own spark of creativity and humor feel all the more original instead of recycled.

Now I may be a bit biased, but TV ratings have changed and the way content is being consumed and produced is much different. Modern events are constantly affecting the fictional stories we consume. With all the change in the past two decades, is it really so crazy to think that TV has changed? But what do you, fellow viewers, think? Is it the end of good shows, or simply the end of a TV era?