A Look at the Conflicting Value of TV Recap Shows

Scene from Game of Thrones

It was announced today in lieu of Game of Thrones' upcoming season that HBO would launch a new recap series called After the Thrones. It only makes sense that the prestigious cable channel would find ways to attract fans of the George R.R. Martin series for longer than an hour a week. In fact, it almost seems like something that would've happened in the first few seasons, if just because of how immediately successful the show has been. With that said, After the Thrones is far from the first recap show about a TV show. AMC has ran quite a few in the past few years for both The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad - two additional zeitgeist hitting shows. But is there any value in making recap shows in the place of more original content? It's kind of a mixed bag.

One of the perks that has made this arguably the golden age of television is the evolution of recap culture. It first came into fruition starting around Lost in the early 00's. The idea of fans congregating online's primitive state meant that discussions could be held regarding an episode's quality as well as theories on what's coming soon. It would be wrong to suggest that recap culture hasn't in some way impacted how TV has been made. It has strengthened cult shows and created the hit-and-miss idea of nitpicking content scene by scene and often word by word. Recap culture can further conversations, but it isn't without its detractors.

In the modern sense of recap culture, there's certain things that are common. Websites like The A.V. Club and HitFix run almost daily essays on modern episodes to shows that are deemed worthy of discussion. For those unable to work for these websites, the internet is filled with podcasts by loyal fans who take apart each episode with an average running time longer than their source material. Even in the case of Game of Thrones, there's several approaches that include talking about everything involving the books, and going in without prior knowledge. This is best seen in Vanity Fair's Joanna Robinson's two shows about Game of Thrones, which includes spoiler-free A Cast of Kings and spoiler-full A Storm of Spoilers. Still, the combinations are endless, and it is almost a worthwhile compliment to any series if you're bombarded with at least a dozen recapping podcasts.

So, what value does putting it on TV have? For starters, podcasts have limitless time to dissect anything that is halfway interesting. There is no requirement and, as in the case with a few 11/22/63 shows, can run over three hours long. While I admire fandom and feel that every good critique is worthy of its length, there is something exhaustive about hearing every detail. What does TV have over podcasts? The answer is simple. Besides accessibility to an audience who already is sitting on their couches, there is a certain brevity and access to content that isn't to the Average Joes who are heard only in the audible world. Though to be fair, creators of shows such as Outlander and Better Call Saul do have their own podcasts, but that's besides the point.

For the sake of argument, one can easily turn to what AMC did to bank on the recent success of The Walking Dead - which may be their premiere show based solely on viewers. In an early season, The Nerdist's Chris Hardwick took the mantle to host a show highlighting various things about the episode, including zombie kills and personal stories from cast and crew of the series (and various famous fans). This became so popular that it evolved from a half hour show to a full hour and even inspired a Breaking Bad version with Hardwick called Talking Bad. They both served the same function to their shows. It was merely fan service with a few extra incentives. However, it also was crucial in building intrigue for future episodes, including in the case of Talking Bad where creator Vince Gilligan would sprinkle ambiguous hints for the next episode. 

There is no possible way to be as concise on a show like The Talking Dead. With a mixture of commercials and interviews, it wouldn't be plausible to spend half of the running time determining what the tertiary hand gesture meant. The shows exist to unite fans and to hopefully strengthen communities by having them comment through social media. Considering Hardwick's ability to interest audiences, it makes sense why he has become the stock representation, having been lampooned on both Maron and Comedy Bang! Bang! for these nonsensical shows. 

The only real issue to question is why have these on at all? In some cases, it creates a conflict regarding pacing of an evening of TV. While AMC has always been criminal with ending on time, the addition of Talking Bad and the new series Low Winter Sun meant that the ability to catch reruns weren't so simple. If you missed the 10 o'clock show, you'll have to wait until 11:30 at earliest for the next one. While this is partially Low Winter Sun's fault, it does mess with hour long dramas by having them run on half hour marks that are inconvenient to recording. To make matters worse, it only works after the show because even if it aired the following day, or less so two hours later, the audience has dispersed. Considering how much great TV is out there, it almost makes the question of "Is this worthwhile?" more than valid. It just depends on how much you love the show.

I have no expectations for After the Thrones, except to express my general interest in the show. To me, Game of Thrones is quintessentially a show I enjoy more as a discussion topic than as deep TV. Seeing episodes like "The Red Wedding" have value because of how much you can talk to your friends about the cool scene. The famous "Shame" moment from last season has been referenced to death in pop culture. Even if I think that there's a shallow soap opera quality to Game of Thrones, it is one that I think is appealing solely because you can connect with friends and discuss its overall merits. It's generally why I listen to Robinson's podcasts and read recaps. I know it's silly, but it's a silly thing that we all like.

Which I think will give it some edge for HBO. The cast of Game of Thrones is far richer than The Walking Dead, and the average plot is more fascinating. It also helps that HBO is a commercial-free channel, and thus can have longer discussions that allow for further depth. I am sure that it will structurally will be no different from Talking Dead, but the rabid fan base of Game of Thrones definitely provides some chances at making the community far more interesting. True, it poses the question as to what good the recap show has, but HBO's already unconventional release of new episodes is enough to not make it seem far fetched.

I do think that there's value in TV recap shows, even though I think that podcasts do a far more successful job in explaining why a show is fascinating to begin with. My one irrational worry is that every popular show has this additional show that clogs networks and makes great original programming less frequent. Of course, the frequency of these shows is currently rare and only saved for shows that immediately fill up 20 pages on Twitter and raise questions about our social interests. I worry that every nonsensical show will get it - which will be the breaking point (though I wish that Mad Men got something). For now, I'm sure that After the Thrones will appeal to fans. My only hope is that it doesn't set a precedent for every show like it.