Do you think that TV shows tend to get two carried away in subplots?

[ironpony]

It really seems that way when watching shows I find. Like when watching Dexter, it's suppose to be about a serial killer who works for the police and no one knows that the main killer they are trying to catch is him.

I don't care about the love and sex lives of every police character in the show on the side. Same thing other shows like The Shied, NYPD Blue, etc. Who cares about the love life of every police character?

Or in a show like Riverdale, the first scene is about solving a murder, but they go into all these other subplots concerning other characters, which don't seem to have anything to do with the plot really.

Or on How to Get Away with Murder, the first season is quite interesting with a murder plot going on, but then they throw in subplots, like one of the killers being concerned about whether her boyfriend might be gay for example. Is this going to play into the murder plot later? Apparently it did not, and was completely forgotten about by the next season. So why even have it in the first place.

That is what I like about a show like Breaking Bad, is that it doesn't have any subplots. The DEA agents like Schraeder's coworkers, do not have subplots involving their sex lives and romantic drama, and neither do the supporting criminal characters either really. It just stays on point almost the whole time accept one subplot in the first season that could have been cut. But other than that, on point the whole time, with almost no subplots, accept for the ones that tie directly into the story, and add to the pay off and consequences.

So why don't other shows format it like that?

[average joe]

I think a little subplot goes a long way. Some seem to serve mostly to extend an episode or season in hopes of keeping viewers watching. I miss the days when writers managed to tell an entertaining story in 30 or 60 minutes. But I think you and I are in the minority as not many people seem to be complaining about that.

[Yoda]

It's deliberate. In a lot of cases they're taking broad plot lines and spreading them out over more episodes than are technically required, which means side plots and padding. It's not as bad as it used to be, but it's still a thing for most shows.

That said, if it's done well it makes the world feel real, and creates more interesting story opportunities and callbacks later.

[ironpony]

Well I think if the subplot works it's way into the main plot for a pay off that is already planned from the beginning then it can work, but I feel like writers are not doing that. For example, I mentioned how in How to Get Away with Murder, the girl finds out that her boyfriend might be gay, has some drama about this, but then it's completely forgotten about by the next season.

I bet the writers didn't even have an ending in mind for this subplot, and were not planning on tying it into the main murder plot. They just decide to write by their seat of their pants on subplots a lot it seems.,

[GulfportDoc]

As Yoda said, I think these side stories or subplots are just filler in order to embellish a series that does not have a dense enough story. Some of them are to show PC or SJ cred, the most favored now seems to be homosexual romances. Doesn't matter if they're trite or boring, they're going to by-God get 'em in there.

But I agree that the side stories are superfluous and oftentimes confusing. Not realizing right away that we're being shown an unnecessary side story, the tendency is to wonder what it has to do with the main narrative, and to think erroneously that it's critical to that story.

But when Netflix, Amazon or FX or comes along and says, "We need a series of 8 episodes", the producers are going to give them 8 episodes, even if the story only requires 4 or 5..:)

~Doc

[lenslady]

I agree with Yoda that, when done well, the side stories can enrich a series. Well written shows, like Law&Order SVU, and older successful (imho) series like Cagney and Lacey, House, Monk - all had subplots and evolving story arcs that made the characters more knowable and interesting to watch.

However, with earlier series in these genres - Dragnet, Perry Mason, The Fugitive, Murder She Wrote, Rockford Files - every episode was the complete package. You could tune in to any one episode and thoroughly enjoy it without the distraction of subplots. In fact, after thinking about this question, I believe that one reason I watch a lot LESS new tv shows these days is because of the soap opera-ish quality of the series.

The idea, I suppose , is to get you hooked on the series , but for me, it often has the opposite effect, Grey's Anatomy is an example for me of a series that became so cloyed with the doctors' tangled love lives, I just abandoned watching. Even a series I enjoy, like Bull, is weakened by dramas of too many secondary characters, and the characters themselves are not all that interesting. When they killed off a character last season, I barely remembered who she was- the writers put so little effort in establishing a character's personality than to jump- starting these over zealous subplots.

So, while these story arcs can be enjoyable for a series you are loyal to, they actually prevent this viewer from exploring a new series. It is not engaging me if I need a scorecard and have to do Google research as to who is who, and who's done what to who, and why he and she are speaking to and/or no longer speaking to each other or .....whoever. I sat through this off -putting experience recently with a new spy drama that had a strong main story; but was so densely interwoven with subplots, I vowed never to rewatch. I just wanted to enjoy a story I could comprehend, not to need cliff notes on the characters.

My word to these writers/producers- if you want to lure me to tune in:
just get ON with the show.

[ironpony]

I was also told by someone that the reason why a lot of these unnecessary subplots exist is because the producers are contractually obligated to give every supporting character a certain amount of screen time in each episode. But when you watch a show like Breaking Bad, there are whole episodes without the supporting characters in even. They only come back when the plot needs them too, most of the time. There were a couple of times, it didn't seem to make much of a difference but just a couple, instead of constant.

So if Breaking Bad can get away without being contractually obligated, why can't other shows?

[Yoda]

Because it's really hard to do well. Breaking Bad is exceptional in its narrative momentum. The staff was constantly writing themselves into corners and then finding brilliant ways out of it. It was also on cable, which operates on a different business model and has historically featured significantly shorter seasons than network shows, which are better incentivized to fill time. That's changing, bit by bit, but it's changing in some parts of the industry faster than others.

But even BB isn't immune to it. Nothing ever really happens with Marie's kleptomania, and even in retrospect it doesn't inform her character much.

[ironpony]

Yep that is what I meant by the one subplot that is unresolved as Mari's kleptomania, which should have been cut altogether. When you say it doesn't inform her character as much, do you mean that she is not utilized as much for the story?