How do you define filler?

Submitted by monkeyskin t3_zv8gje in television

It seems to be determined by what your expectations of what TV is meant to do. The traditional model provides half a years worth of weekly episodes each with a start, middle and end to a story with characters you enjoy. The evolution that started on cable and into streaming takes one story and tells it over fewer episodes.

So for me, episodic TV designed to stand on its own only offers good episodes and bad episodes. Filler is what you get when you take a 3 hour story and stretch it over 6 hours.

I’d also argue that TV’s evolution is basically mimicking books and films. The Wire is praised for its novelistic structure, and many if not all of the recent Netflix biographical dramas would have been movies not that long ago. Whereas the shows that endure most with audiences are reruns of The Office and Friends, shows that largely stuck to the 24 a season model that you can dip in and out of. (Disclaimer, I love The Wire.)

Which brings me back to what we all expect a TV show to do. Should a show be one tightly told story (that’s still longer than the movie version would have been), or the latest riff on a theme from artists you enjoy (and like musicians, not every new episode / song is going to be their best yet).

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

IAmTheClayman t1_j1nreg8 wrote

If it’s serialized, the answer is easy: any episode that doesn’t meaningfully move the plot or character relationships forward. That’s not an indicator of quality mind you - the episode “Ember Island Players” from Avatar: The Last Airbenders is total filler, but it also happens to be one of the funniest episodes in the series and a fan favorite.

Now if you’re talking episodic TV the answer is harder. If there isn’t an overarching plot, wouldn’t every episode technically be “filler?” I think in that case people do actually use the term as an indicator of quality, with bad episodes labeled as filler so that future watchers can know whether those episodes are skippable

32

Cool_Till_3114 t1_j1nuc28 wrote

One thing we don't really get anymore in these short seasons of shows are the sort of ridiculous filler episodes where only fun stuff happens and the characters just decompress. Things like "200" from SG-1 are the best example, but that one was over the top.

15

monkeyskin OP t1_j1nuk8h wrote

Avatar’s a great show to highlight. Very serialised in that there is an overall three act structure to the story told, but it still made plenty of time for episodes that didn’t really move the story forward (or had 1 key Zuko scene at most).

Tales of Ba Sing Se, Sokka’s Master, Zuko Alone, the blood bender ep are all great episides that would be cut from a Netflix version for being filler, but they all contain vital character moments that carry through the show. They deepen the series rather than keeping the plot moving and only having time for surface level characterisation.

I guess ultimately i see people use filler as a pejorative, when those eps can be among the most rewarding for long time viewers. The interrogation episode of Brooklyn 99 with just Jake, Holt and an excellent guest star foil could not have worked early in a short season show, but is an amazing half hour deep into the shows run.

3

IAmTheClayman t1_j1nv1q0 wrote

I love that episode! But I think that’s an example of an episode that comes off as filler, but is actually critical to Jake and Holt’s relationship when you really stop and analyze it

2

monkeyskin OP t1_j1nwycp wrote

Totally agree. All these memorable, fan favourite episodes that people act as an interruption to their binge.

I don’t mean to sound too bent out of shape over it. I just don’t get the attitude and hope show creators don’t take it as an absolute.

1

MulciberTenebras t1_j1o3637 wrote

One of the downsides of The Legend of Korra having shorter seasons (thanks to Nickelodeon ineptitude) was there were no "filler" episodes to show more character moments with the new cast.

They never got a "Tales of Republic City" or a "Ember Island Players" style episode... they got a damned clip show becuase Nick cut the final season's budget and said either make it or have one less episode (and a cut in staff pay).

1

ABashfulTurnip t1_j1ow43w wrote

See I'd disagree that these episodes are filler as they contain important character moments and situations even if they aren't wall to wall plot development. Sokka's Master he not only gets an amazing sword and trains properly to realise his own ability, but the others also realise his worth by the simple fact he isn't around to help them on their journey.

The Blood Bender episode gives Katara a whole new technique that she does use on occasion in later episodes.

Even the Ember Island players episode forces the characters to make realisations about their fate and what's coming in the future.

​

To me Filler is separate to just slower "Casual" episodes because it must fit inside a neat little box and not effect the rest of the story. It's most evident in Anime as it means that new characters must disappear by the end and no new techniques or information can be found that would affect the future plot. it literally "Fills" a gap but must contain no substance.

1

monkeyskin OP t1_j1p4t5w wrote

I no I agree with you, can see that my comment was not written as I intended. I don’t think those eps are filler, they’re very important to the characters and their subsequent actions, but if this were a trimmed down 10 episode season they’d be the first to get cut because they would be wrongly viewed as filler as they don’t focus on the overall plot. Which would be a massive loss to the show.

1

Ziko577 t1_j1nzvvd wrote

> Now if you’re talking episodic TV the answer is harder. If there isn’t an overarching plot, wouldn’t every episode technically be “filler?” I think in that case people do actually use the term as an indicator of quality, with bad episodes labeled as filler so that future watchers can know whether those episodes are skippable

That's my hangup on those type of shows that lack a plot like Family Guy for example. That show does have some continuity but characters don't age at all visibly despite holidays and birthdays coming up frequently (google floating timeline and you see what I mean there), references to older stuff do happen from time to time, etc. These shows thrive on that honestly.

1

RunningToStayStill t1_j1ouw37 wrote

It's meant for quick and easy consumption without much mental energy, the TV dinner of television.

2

argross91 t1_j1o56u8 wrote

A lot of bottle episodes fall into that category. They don’t move the plot but are super fun

1

Chlodio t1_j1qoqms wrote

>That’s not an indicator of quality mind you - the episode “Ember Island Players” from Avatar: The Last Airbenders is total filler

I'd argue it's not filler. The play recap is essentially a plot device to make the characters reflect on their action which builds momentum going to the finale. Like Zuko laments about how poorly he treated his uncle during season 1, which is an aspect that hadn't been brought up earlier. So, when they reunite, it all clicks. Therefore it is arguably part of his story arc.

1

ElectricPeterTork t1_j1nvjwh wrote

"A stupid concept the Anime dorks came up with that is misapplied to 99% of what people say it is."

I will say an old clip show actually is filler, because that was its purpose... it filled the slot when time and budgets were tight and an episode was contracted to be delivered.

But that's about it.

16

Skavau t1_j1nvwe2 wrote

There was a Walking Dead episode purely focused around a character trying to cook food and deal with a rat, and another character crashing their motorcycle in the forest.

100% filler. It was completely pointless. It was a pandemic-influenced episode, but it was completely useless.

12

OkTangelo3282 t1_j1o5cq8 wrote

TWD is one of my favorite shows ever and I’ve rewatched the series several times. That episode is exactly what I consider to be filler and I will always skip it.

3

bobbyOrrMan t1_j1sl6zj wrote

I love the show but it definitely had too many episodes. Not just the end of season 10 during lockdown, but also previous seasons went on too long. Especially season 7 which was just one long miserable slog. They should have moved quickly into the Negan war.

1

monkeyskin OP t1_j1nwl0d wrote

I’ll rewatch the first Simpsons clip show (April Fools Day) but never again the rest.

3

ElectricPeterTork t1_j1nwz89 wrote

Fox actually wanted two clip shows per season to pad out the episode order, since it was their biggest show and more episodes = more ad money.

After the second clip show, the producers told 'em to forget it.

4

bobbyOrrMan t1_j1sl2yh wrote

Yeah I heard that on the commentary tracks. Groening and a couple of the writers mentioned it. Clip shows are cheap and usually good for ratings. I'm glad it did not continue.

1

Olandew t1_j1rw7bj wrote

Anime adaptation filler comes in a different flavor than what others are calling bottle or recap episodes.

The entire Bount story arc, episodes 64 to 109, of Bleach is filler. It didn’t happen in the source material. It didn’t move the plot forward. All character progression over that sequence of episodes were the result of temporary regressions that were reverted by the end of the arc. It was 45 episodes that, even if we allow for things like “cute character moments”, was just spinning a wheel between the planned story beats of the original material. To make it worse, all of the stuff within the arc is normally considered non-canon. I couldn’t tell you for certain if anything original to that episode run is relevant or mentioned in the recent Thousand Year Blood War, but at the time it was content added to fill the space during the time it took for more chapters of the source material to come out.

It’s why I don’t really mind episodes in a run that don’t push a plot forward. But if I can skip FOURTYFIVE episodes and miss nothing? That’s the filler I don’t want.

1

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_j1nvme3 wrote

About the only "filler" for me would be seasons churned out after the show's quality has declined, but while a portion of the audience has remained due to loyalty. The show has nothing left to say, but can still earn for someone.

An episode can be analogous to a chapter in a novel, or it can be analogous to a short story complete in itself. So a season can be analogous to a full novel, or a collection of short stories. Either sort of book can be padded with material that's only tangentially related to the designated subject.

6

monkeyskin OP t1_j1nwdyp wrote

It’s wild that HBO practically came straight out of the gate with a pair of shows that epitomise the best of those approaches (The Wire taking the chapter approach and The Sopranos treating their seasons as a collection of short stories building to a greater whole). As many shows that I’ve enjoyed over the two decades since (Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul), most are either trying to replicate their success or just making long movies.

1

Jsmith0730 t1_j1nsc5a wrote

The first show that comes to mind is The Blacklist. Great at the beginning but should have ran for four, maybe five seasons tops. Even the main arc became filler after awhile.

3

BRtIK t1_j1ntbjz wrote

To me filler only truly exists in TV shows.

Because a proper movie shouldn't have any filler because they shouldn't have enough time to be showing something completely separate from the story being told and only relating to the story indirectly.

But filler most commonly seen in animes is anything not directly related to the story that they tell over the course of an episode or more.

So basically if they take an entire episode or more to tell a side character or a non main character's backstory then that is filler

If they tell the back story within the episode while telling the main story then that is not filler.

3

A_Lively t1_j1osnwq wrote

I feel like for way too many movies the 2nd act is mostly filler.

1

dantemanjones t1_j1nykwl wrote

An episode that you could remove without noticing. There is no impact to the overall plot. No characters are changed in any way. It's never referenced again.

Many shows like sitcoms and procedurals are designed this way. Filler is not inherently good or bad. Often when it's an adaptation of something, I find the filler to be bad. But in some shows, filler is the best stuff. I couldn't care less about the overarching X-Files plot, but the episodic episodes ruled.

3

Skavau t1_j1nr84g wrote

>Whereas the shows that endure most with audiences are reruns of The Office and Friends, shows that largely stuck to the 24 a season model that you can dip in and out of. (Disclaimer, I love The Wire.)

True, but this is more noting that older sitcoms are just sticking (and partially sucking the life out of newer sitcom potential). A 24-episode procedural format works much more effectively for sitcoms that often function as semi-background noise.

That isn't really directly competing or scratching the same itch as shows like Dark, or The Wire, or Game of Thrones.

2

lt_dan_zsu t1_j1nuzwi wrote

An episode is filler if it doesn't advance the plot meaningfully in a show that is meant to have a plot that progresses week to week.

2

skaliton t1_j1o0u1f wrote

If you remove the entire (episode/arc) and the story isn't affected in any meaningful way it is filler.

For an easy situation: Imagine you are making a series about Robinhood. It starts as him as a child training to be an archer until he eventually fights the sheriff of Nottingham. Throughout the series his bounty goes up as he becomes more renowned. If you add 5 episodes that focus on him teaching a child to fish and at the end of the arc he realizes the kid sucks at it so he steals the prize money to give the kid anyway then it is filler. It doesn't add to the plot when it gets back to the main story

2

AutoModerator t1_j1npbmj wrote

The 2022 Edition of the r/television Favorite Shows Survey is now open!

You may vote by clicking here.

If you have any questions or concerns, please comment here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Petrichor02 t1_j1nsflw wrote

For me it’s an episode that doesn’t contribute to the overarching narrative or important, required character development for the plot to make sense. So an episode that is 99% irrelevant to the plot and has no character development but 1% of it does contribute to the plot, that’s not filler to me (though it may still be skippable).

1

AtheonsLedge t1_j1nubeq wrote

bottle episodes. might as well sit in a corner with a bucket on my head.

1

monkeyskin OP t1_j1nvfx2 wrote

Bottle episodes are not inherently bad. They can use the time to deepen the characters and their relationships with each other, or just be low stakes entertainment. They could also be garbage, but if you don’t enjoy any are you watching all shows primarily for plot and just want it over and done with?

4

Iperovic t1_j1nztu3 wrote

Something that doesn't move the plot forward, especially if it doesn't reveal any useful background information either

1

unitedfan6191 t1_j1o9erj wrote

I’d define that word as episodes that feature characters acting wildly out of sync with their usual rhythm in a way that makes no sense and does nothing for the long term growth of that character.

Almost all shows with a traditional 22-episode format have them so I don’t look too down on the better shows having a few fluff episodes a season because TV show writers have deadlines and orders from above to churn out episodes and I think the very best make the best out of a not-ideal situation.

Even shows like Seinfeld and Frasier and Parks and Rec had some episodes which seemed less than essential but they still offered fantastic entertainment even in those episodes so I’m fine with a little fluff here or there as long as it’s quality.

1

bros402 t1_j1oejav wrote

Serialized: No plot movement at all - the main plot not even mentioned

Episodic: An episode that seems totally out of place - the characters don't act like themselves, everything feels off.

1

Actual-Ice-610 t1_j1ogbhz wrote

Most of the final season of Better Call Saul

1

anasui1 t1_j1poc5j wrote

I define filler in shows I like as "more goods to watch", so not a bad opinion at all

1

bobbyOrrMan t1_j1skx1u wrote

Any tv series were they do basically the same thing over and over qualifies as filler. Eventually MASH stopped being original and they knew they had to kill it off.

Shows like Friends and Threes Company are ALL filler. They never have one original idea. You're just watching a group of people you like either sitting around and doing nothing, or getting up going outside and doing..... nothing.

Critics whined that Seinfeld was a show about nothing. But if you ACTUALLY PAID ATTENTION you would have noticed in every single episode they are doing something. And its something different each time. And that made it a hell of a lot better than most sitcoms up to that point.

1