>> |
Anonymous
>>364016 >>364063 >>364069
That wasn't really the point I was trying to make about the ensemble cast. I agree that the most successful shows of the type usually had below average fame per actor prior to the show's success. But this is not the point. What I'm trying to say is that a multiplicity of character types can successfully be jammed into a script, further allowing a large number of probable plot outcomes.
Typically, a well-defined character has a lot presumed in his definition. He has boundaries and expected responses to different situations. By being limited to one character, you only have so many probable outcomes per response to an event.
Rather than being limited to just the protagonist's story, with only his set of events, you can add another character with a different background, personality, set of goals, and other traits. This other character will have a separate set of responses that add onto and often potentially modify those of the other character. As a result, the number of potential responses increases relative to size and diversity of cast.
Now take the example of the ensemble cast, where there may be some amount of weight associated with the protagonist, but a tangent that delves into the story of another character is not unwarrented. This setup exploits the relationship between potential responses and cast diversity/size to provide a maximum volume of potential plots and action.
This is where I return to the statement about Americans liking to have everything at their disposal.
TL;DR
Every episode of an ensemble TV show provides tremendous possibilities in what kind of plot will be presented.
|