What do you think about the "Monster of the Week" formula?

What do you think about the "Monster of the Week" formula?

I miss it.

I only hate it when one monster is like, remarkably cooler than anyone prior or since.

Sometimes, it's fine, and sometimes, it's not.

Monster of the Week formulas are fun if the monster designs are consistently interesting.

Can lead to interesting moments and characters.

I don't see the problem. Wouldn't you just like that one monster a lot then?

Perfect for episodic series but bad for ones with plotlines.

Well yeah, but then you never see him again. Like Demongo

I didn't really miss Demongo personally, because Samurai Jack had a lot of cool villains.

>monsters are varied and cool
>heros learn/gain something from fighting them and they use it in later fights
>heros sometimes lose and have to come up with a new strategy for a rematch

I think people rag on it too much. Episodic is not bad, and putting your characters in unique individual situations can really show off their friendships and characterization. Some of the most distinctive episodes of arc-based series came from MotW episodes, and in the cases where the shows go for more of an arc, sometimes you just miss the MotW episodes.

Of course, the writing could just be shit.

Cases where MotW episodes were GoaT:

>Scar from Battlestar Galactica
>The spider episode from Evangelion
>almost every episode of Samurai Jack
>Most of Batman: The Animated Series

I'd say Sym-Bionic Titan but I think the episodic style of the show actually turned off quite a few people. It didn't get to the meat quick enough.

There is one show which never did MotW right, though. Babylon 5. I can't remember one good MotW episode there.

Consider Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which was simultaneously episodic, and arc-based. In the form of old TV-serials, you have a bunch of self-contained arcs, which sometimes tended to repeat themselves.

>There is one show which never did MotW right, though. Babylon 5. I can't remember one good MotW episode there.
Because you focus and remember about the grand story-arc involving the First Ones and their grand intergalactic war shenanigans. It's what people liked about Babylon 5.

Partially, but mostly the episodic plots just weren't that good.

>doctor franklin gets into Fight Club
>random chompy monster gets on B5

Then again, once I looked it up I just remembered that effective episode where Franklin gets a kid killed via surgery.

B5 always had the shitty episodic A-plot and the overarching B-plot. Even the DVD movie died it, with the shitty exorcism bit and the 'will you kill Baby Hitler' plot.

Love it

That was a GOAT episode.

I like how it shows the creativity of the writer, and it builds tension and suspense towards the last few monsters, like they're the ones the series was building up to. Plus it leaves a lot to discuss over what was best and what wasn't.

I fucking love it

Depends. If plot is good, it's good.

But most of them are just formulatic. Like, since you posted Samurai Jack, it's half the time Jack just slashes some robot and calls it a day half of the time, that's garbage if you are older than 10.

> stalking jack in the abandoned steam factory

the sad look jack gives at the end is what makes the entire episode.

The problem with it is that you can only have so many new ideas for monsters that are actually good, so a lot of episodes end up being completely forgettable because the monster of the week is boring.
Just look at Part 3 of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure; occasionally you get really great fights like Pet Shop and Darby the Gambler, but for every Pet Shop there's shit like Tower of Grey and Blue Moon that nobody remembers.

>tfw you start to miss episodic action shows as time goes by

I feel like "monster of the week" is used as a derogatory term more often than just a descriptor.
People seem to think it's inherently lazy or bad writing.
I like when the monster is just a catalyst to get the story of the episode started instead of the entire episode being about fighting a monster but thats just me.

>bad for ones with plotlines.
Worked fine with mystery inc

It should be clear why it tends to be used negatively. Old shows used that format, and the main character in those old shows very rarely, and sometimes even never ever changed or learned from their experience, because status quo was God.
Good story-writing where the character somehow does noticeably change from battling a monster of the week, even if it's kinda slow, is appreciated.

>Tower of Grey
How can you not remember it?

I think it’s more demanding than an overarching narrative plot

I think the monster of the week formula would be best if used more sparingly, like a maximum of 7 times per 26 episodes.

Mystery Inc isn't so incredibly episodic in how their mysteries take place. I'm currently rewatching it. They all play into a greater mystery narrative of them learning the past and Mr. E egging them on. It also fleshes out the setting because Crystal Cove is an odd ass place that thrives on people dressing as monsters for one illegal reason or another.

I only think it didn't work out so well for parts of Part 3 because the idea of stands was still being expanded out, so some more stock battles were in there. The later parts which folow the monster of the week format have great fights in them, it just seems to be a case of getting the groundwork for the idea done before Araki was really able to get crazy with his ideas.

It's uninspired and poor writing.

It sucks if executed in a show that focuses only on the action and has very little about character and plot development simultaneously to the conflict of the week plotline.

Honestly, the ones I don't remember are always in the middle. Like, who gave a fuck about the Judgement and Sun fights?

The Sun was at least memorable, I have no idea who Judgement is

I like it, especially when it helps to emphasize that the main villain is a special kind of threat.
Not Sup Forums, but early Dexter did it well

Most of their monsters were bland and forgettable. I love the show, but it really fell short in that department.

>Esidisi has fire powers
>Red Hot Chili Pepper has electricity powers

man don't mock esidesi

first off that shit was written in like the late 80s, and at least his personality was fun
>Gimme half a second to sob really fucking hard real quick k we good
and he had his lava veins gimmick instead of just shooting fire or something, not to mention the stage itself with the spikes.
Esidesi was not just "dude with fire powers"

can't say much about rhcp tho

I actively hated it as a kid because it meant that the shoe was just going no where and I could never get invested in it. It's why I didn't like Samurai Jack when I was 9. There was one show that kind of opened my eyes to the whole formula. Weirdly enough it was Extreme Dinosaurs that pointed it out and opened my eyes, and actively ruined the show and most shows for me. I can't recall the specific episode, but at the end of it, they beat the evil dinosaurs, said their "SEND YOU BACK TO THE ICE AGE" joke, and all laughed, then there was a post-fight celebration where the dinosaurs were having fun and the human character had approached them. Then she asked "So, when are we gonna send them back to the Ice Age, like, for good?", then the entire party just looked at her like she said she got cancer or something. Then the dinosaurs said a joke and proceeded to party. The next episode never addressed this and continued the week to week fights.

Extreme Dinosaurs ruined the format for me because I realized how shit and lazy it typically is in the long run. A episode or episodes is fine, but a long lasting 20+ episode season and it's almost nothing but? Nah. Why bother.