Is Out There's Bold Departure from Cliffhangers a Game-Changer or a Risky Mistake?

*Warning – contains spoilers for all six episode of Out There, available on ITVX now*

Martin Clunes’ latest series, titled “Out There,” is fully streamable on ITVX, and though it represents a significant shift for the main actor, there’s an element of nostalgia to it as well.

The point isn’t that this storyline feels familiar to Ozark in its concluding stages, as there are some striking similarities; rather, it’s the way Out There manages to keep you guessing that makes it so captivating.

Rather than making a statement about its content, it’s more about discussing its design, particularly the choice to avoid a common narrative device that has become nearly expected in today’s storytelling – the suspenseful ending, or cliffhanger.

Indeed, I must admit that cliffhangers are nothing new under the sun; they’ve been a part of storytelling for ages. In fact, it was during the 1980s, when the hit TV series Dallas brought them into the limelight.

However, it can’t be ignored that in recent times, there has been an overflow of such productions. This shift towards serialized content is largely due to the emergence of premium television and streaming platforms.

In simpler terms, the success of continuous viewing (binge-watching) largely depends on suspenseful endings (cliffhangers), compelling you to keep watching. As the variety of entertainment options grows, traditional TV shows have adopted similar strategies to ensure viewers remain engaged and return each week for more content.

Indeed, there are certain conditions to consider, and some scripted programs continue to follow an episodic structure. Many sitcoms adhere to this pattern (though it’s becoming less common with the rise of dramedies), as well as series that typically consist of individual episodes that can be largely self-contained, such as most murder mystery shows and Doctor Who.

As a movie aficionado, I must admit that thrillers have a knack for delving deep into extended narratives, where each installment seamlessly builds upon the last. Interestingly enough, Out There follows suit, but it skillfully places its dramatic highs and lows at unexpected, intriguing moments throughout the series.

In other words, it’s important to note that Out There doesn’t completely avoid cliffhangers. Instead, there are subtle hints or hooks at the end of each episode, like the police officer Crowther spotting Johnny with a bag in episode 1 and Johnny encountering Kenny in episode 2.

It’s likely that when the final credits played for those two episodes, you felt the conclusions were somewhat sudden and unexpected.

In truth, they didn’t come across as abrupt; instead, it seemed like a brief interruption within the narrative. Our minds, however, are conditioned to anticipate tension escalating towards the end of an episode, culminating in a climax and a cliffhanger that leaves us eager for more, which is usually resolved in the following episode.

In Out There, things don’t follow the typical pattern of drama. For example, the peak tension in the second episode occurs not at the beginning or end, but right smack in the middle. This happens when Nathan discovers Johnny’s drug trafficking activities and discards Rhys’s stash, which triggers a heated confrontation and significantly alters the show’s plotline.

At that moment, it grew uncertain about the direction the series was taking or how the main pair’s situation might deteriorate further.

In this series, the intensity builds consistently, with dramatic peaks occurring unpredictably. Each installment concludes not with significant advancements or intriguing cliffhangers, but with a subtle, tantalizing twist instead.

In my perspective, the conclusion of this series leaves me more contemplative than amazed. It doesn’t wrap up all the loose ends or offer a heart-pounding cliffhanger that keeps fans on their toes till season 2 premieres. Instead, it invites deeper reflection and discussion among viewers.

Stepping into the bustling world of endless entertainment choices, where patience is often tested by lengthy waits between episodes, taking such a bold step can be quite daring indeed. (Movie reviewer)

Consider contemplating on the series “Severance” once again, a captivating thriller making its comeback. The initial season of this show was released three years ago, a period that usually sees viewer interest wane. Yet, there’s an exceptional factor that has kept fans eagerly awaiting new episodes – the nail-biting cliffhanger.

As the start of season 2 approached, many viewers found themselves searching for summary videos or choosing to rewatch all of season 1, as they struggled to recall the events that transpired during the previous season.

As a dedicated fan, the one moment that stuck with me, keeping my curiosity piqued, was when Mark exclaimed “She’s Alive!” just before the screen went dark – a tantalizing hint of the gripping drama and, more importantly, potential solutions, yet to unfold.

If we are fortunate enough for Out There to make a comeback, may it happen more swiftly. However, it’s intriguing that Ed Whitmore and his team working on Out There decided to set the show’s tempo at this particular speed.

In episode 3, it’s particularly striking when Johnny unexpectedly takes the life of a drug dealer named Kenny, forcing him to phone his dad, saying, “Dad, I believe I may have just taken someone’s life.

Instead of being surprised by ITV revealing that crucial moment in the show’s trailer, it seems reasonable to assume that if you had been watching without knowing the time, you might have anticipated a sudden blackout.

Dramas are designed to unfold in a particular manner, with each segment featuring significant events, unexpected twists, but the most monumental incidents are typically saved for the climax of each episode or installment.

It’s worth considering new approaches in dramas, as they can provide a breath of fresh air amidst the abundance of scripted television today, where many shows start to feel repetitive and similar.

The question is, is this a gambit which works for Out There?

I believe it’s a yes, but I must admit there’s an adaptation period involved, and I have concerns that some audiences might not afford the series that patience.

Admit it, there’s never enough time, and we always have alternative forms of amusement at our disposal.

It’s often pointed out (including by Stephen Merchant) that streaming show projects are typically deemed successful if they captivate viewers right from the beginning, featuring a significant event or climax to kick things off, and even more so if such intensity is maintained for each subsequent episode.

As a devoted movie enthusiast, I can tell you that there’s barely any room for gradual story development in the fast-paced world of streaming thrillers. You won’t often stumble upon an episode ending without a nail-biting cliffhanger that leaves you eagerly anticipating the next installment.

I’m worried that despite viewers enjoying the initial episode of Out There, they might feel unsatisfied because not much seems to have transpired, and there may not be enough intrigue to lure them to watch episode 2.

Perhaps, I (alongside many entertainment professionals) may have underestimated the viewers’ involvement, assuming they require less engagement due to this program airing on ITV rather than streaming platforms like Netflix or Apple TV+. Time will tell if the show achieves success, serving as the true testament of its appeal.

Regardless of the situation, from a dramatic perspective and based solely on its quality, I believe it’s a risky move that ultimately succeeds.

The program doesn’t just offer a distinctive feel, character, and rhythm that sets it apart from typical shows, providing a welcome shift in perspective. It additionally introduces an element of surprise, a quality that many other series struggle to deliver.

Should an episode conclude with Nathan facing off against Rhys, audiences might anticipate that the subsequent segment will revolve around the suppliers tracking down Nathan, seeking to retrieve their merchandise or exact revenge.

Instead, leaving Johnny at the train station leaves us uncertain about the final destination, as multiple possibilities remain open.

Initially, it might seem that Johnny will get trapped in the system as a dealer, but there’s also a chance that the initial assumption was wrong. In truth, the story of Out There often twists and turns, challenging our assumptions.

In terms of dramatic impact, if the next scene had concluded with Johnny informing Nathan that he had just killed someone, viewers would have missed out on the powerful scene that unfolded afterward – superbly performed by both Clunes and Mark Lewis Jones – as it was presented to us.

The deliberate approach they take when swiftly intervening to safeguard Johnny and carefully consider their strategies carries a mix of tender and unsettling emotions. It’s essential that this unfolding drama takes place within the same episode, given space to develop without feeling like repetitive prelude before reaching the main events.

In a different thriller series, such a dramatic, exaggerated scene might occur. However, in this case, it seems more like a realistic and down-to-earth moment, as if we’re watching a traditional drama where an unforeseen, shocking, and tragic event has just transpired.

When Martin Clunes got the part and the intricate storyline combining true-to-life challenges, suspenseful plot twists, and a countryside farm setting was revealed, it became apparent that Out There was going to take some daring steps.

Reflecting on the film’s conclusion, I must acknowledge the strategic choice made in its structure, a decision that, creatively, seems to have proven fruitful. However, the crucial point remains: will viewers find it worthwhile to stay engaged and enjoy the fruits of this creative endeavor?

2025-01-21 12:04

Is Out There’s Bold Departure from Cliffhangers a Game-Changer or a Risky Mistake?

Read More