Random meta-y ramble on TV shows and ensemble writing
So, to spare you all, this is going to be behind a cut. Basically, this is going to be me rambling about the shows that I like, and ensembles. The ones that work, the ones that don't; why they work and when they don't. Mainly, these shows are ensemble or focus on two characters.
Shows discussed ,even if only briefly: Andromeda, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Castle, Criminal Minds, Dark Angel, due South, Firefly, Jonathan Creek, Leverage, Numb3rs, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, Star Trek (all of them ;)), Torchwood, Xena
(note before hand - added now, because I have actually reread - and am paranoid, and don't want this meta/ramble to sound all knowing - it's all my opinion, and what works for me - I know a lot of things don't work for me, but work for other people and vice versa - I am reminded of that a lot when watching stuff with my family.
So, what I say under the cut? It's all my opinion, on what works for me - I may be wrong, you might disagree with me, and that's fine. I just wanted to put this out there. Feel free to throw things at me if you disagree.)
So, when watching season six of Criminal Minds and thinking about it, I realized that it suffered, for me, because the ensemble writing that used to be so good seems to have gone. Characters got focused on, and the others lost out. They might have had parts, but nothing memorable, or they vanished at some point for no reason. Yes, that happened sometimes in the earlier seasons as well, but I didn't always notice it (I did the other night, rewatching the perfect storm, notice that at some point Hotch just vanishes, then reappears). It didn't affect my viewing.
I am one of those people who adores a well written ensemble. It's why Star Trek The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine will always be higher up my list than TOS, Enterprise or Voyager. Sure there were characters that still suffered, but the focus was on the crew, whereas the focus of the other three seemed to be on half of the crew. The crew being the people in the promotional shoots, the ones in the credits, rather than the actual whole crew. Because that really would be a difficult ensemble to write, unless you're writing Firefly or Andromeda, where the crew is tiny ;)
Ensembles can be difficult. I've seen eight said to be too many. But then I've watched things where the ensemble is that many, or a little more; Star Trek The Next Generation, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Numb3rs; where the larger ensemble doesn't affect the quality as much as it should if eight is too many.
The thing I remember best from writing for the virtual season of Torchwood, was that everyone talked about how hard it is to write more than one pov. At the time, I had always written multi-pov fic, something I haven't so much since, so it surprised me, but I learned a lot as the others talked about it. It gave me some understanding of other people's writing processes as well, especially when it comes to characters.
There's a reason why so many TV shows only focus on one or two leads, with the small group of reoccurring. It's easier to write, and keep straight, the pov of two characters, especially as a unit of writers, then it is to write six or more. Certain reoccurring characters can appear in only the episodes written by certain writers, or only when a certain arc is in play. More to the point, your reoccurring characters don't actually have to be fully formed characters.
There was a meta entered for a challenge on leverageland, that talked about how Sterling isn't really a character. We know very little about him and he serves only as a foil for Nate. It's very true, but I hadn't actually thought about it. Sterling, as a reoccurring character, works. We don't need to know anything about him but what the main characters choose to tell us, because we aren't meant to be invested in him as a character.
That said, we also never really learned anything about Tara, but again, we weren't meant to invest in her. She was there to serve a purpose, to invoke a reaction from the main cast and to illustrate the nature of the relationship between them.
As a small ensemble (I call five small ;)) Leverage works, each character within the ensemble has a purpose (as we are reminded every week ;)), and that's what makes the ensemble work.
The thing is, and this is something that the writers of Criminal Minds seem to have forgotten, the key to an ensemble is for each character to have a place. Each one serves a purpose that the others don't, has a skill that makes them fit a certain part.
It's why the five man band appears in shows so often, I kinda want to stick in a link to tv tropes, but I won't. ;)
Stargate had this, in SG-1 and Atlantis. Main cast, you had the boss and the four man team, each with their role. There wasn't much overlap, even though ultimately all of them ended up having to be fighters, due to the nature of the series. You had the extra of the doctor who appeared when needed.
Honestly, sci-fi seems the best able to support ensemble better, writers seem to be able to deal better with ensembles if they can remind themselves every week of what role a character plays. If that sounds bad, it's not meant to, it's just an observation.
Babylon 5: while awesome, does that. You the viewer are never left in any doubt as to who these people are. There's the boss, his second in command, the security chief and the doctor. Then there's the four ambassadors and their aids. The fact that the titles of the characters is mentioned almost every time we meet them works to remind us of the part they have in the ensemble.
Star Trek The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine: again, we are told their ranks, and shown their roles in every episode they're in. We know what role they fill.
Ditto Battlestar Galactica.
Firefly is slightly hazy about the roles people play, ranks aren't included in people's names all the time, but we still get shown their part. What I actually love the most about Firefly as an ensemble is that somehow it manages to find a place for a preacher and a companion to fill every week. That said, from watching it with my da, who adores old westerns, it makes sense. Because Firefly is a western, as well as sci-fi, there's space for those two characters that, if it was Star Trek would only really appear as reoccurring. Babylon 5 is a little different though (Kosh and Book would get along very very well, though you could argue for a Kosh/River parallel as well).
Shows that focus on two characters don't actually need to define the roles of each character so clearly. They can exchange roles, and generally step on each other’s toes, and the writers will manage it without having to dump one of them from the main storyline of the episode.
Jonathan Creek focuses almost entirely on Jonathan and whichever woman is helping him that series. He plays 'man of knowledge' while the woman sneaks around the inadvertently finds clues. Most of the time. Maddie got to play Jonathan's part at least once, and Jonathan had to play hers. It works in the format of the show, just as it does in other two character focused series like Dark Angel (Max being all super human and Logan filling the gaps she couldn't), Xena (xena was the warrior, gabrielle the thinker) and due south (benton was jonathan, the rays were maddie).
I love those shows. I love the relationship that exists between the two characters, the relationship that is actually the key part of those kinds of shows. For a two character show to work for me, the characters have to balance each other, each has an equal share of the plot for each episode. You notice when they aren't there for an episode and the reoccurring characters often have to group together to fill the space left by the other main, or where the relationship between the two mains are strained, the reoccurring have to support the mains.
Xena did that a lot, you'd have an episode where Joxer would be around, or Ephiny, making up for whatever was missing.
The problem is, shown most clearly in Criminal Minds, is that where there's no clear way to demark the parts that characters play, you end up with an unbalanced ensemble.
I haven't mentioned Castle before now, because to me, it actually works fairly well as an ensemble. Yes, Castle and Beckett are the focus of the show, but they're managed to define the supporting cast just as well, so they are actually serving parts that necessary to each episode. It's the way that crime ensembles tend to be done. Numb3rs did as well, though they struggled a bit in the first season.
With Castle it's a different situation than Criminal Minds. It's not a team of people who almost all fill the same role. You have the same kind of format as in the sci-fi ensembles. There's the boss, the lead pair (one a cop, one an outsider), the 'junior' pair and the ME (which is important, which is why we always see an ME, even if we don't always see Laney). Then we have the addition of the family of one of the lead pair, who also serve a function. Each character has a place in the story, a set part to fill, something that only they can bring to the table.
With Numb3rs, there's something more of the same difficulty there is with Criminal Minds. We have the, from season two, four or five FBI agents, the three academics and the father. Don's position is clear, in that he's the boss, as is Megan's while she's in the show. Charlie on the other hand shares with Amita and Larry. Ditto David, Colby, Liz and Nikki.
If it were any other ensemble that I've discussed, you could argue that they aren't all needed. You could have just had Don, Charlie, Alan, Megan and David. It would have worked. It would have been an easier show to write for, with less characters to have to write consistently, and find a part for, in each story.
The thing is, as an ensemble show, Numb3rs is the one I actually love the most. And those writers? All kinds of awesome, because they all managed to write a good enough ensemble that each character filled a place, you didn't miss them (on story terms) if they weren't there, but when they were there? There was a reason. They weren't just there to make sure the actor was in that episode. They stayed true to the characters, and you couldn't interchange the dialogue so much.
The first and second series suffered a bit, but season three onwards? They really had it. I miss that show.
Each character had something they were good at, or a role to fill. Nikki was the new girl, who challenged the others. Amita and Larry both had things that they could do better than Charlie, and served as his advisors and support. Colby was David's partner, they fit together. David did the talking and looking FBI, Colby did the running and looking laid back. David had more of the procedure and filling in for Don, while Colby had the weapon's knowledge (which meant he got to help out the academics, and act as the bridge, more so after Megan left). Liz was the ex-drugs and undercover. They all had strengths they brought to the table and used.
An example of an ensemble show that failed me? Torchwood.
It started out ensemble. The doctor, the tech, the support, the police officer and the boss. They all had their roles, and they had something they brought to the table that was necessary and got used at some point. THAT is why Children of Earth is a different show for me. Children of Earth has two leads, Gwen and Jack, Rhys and Ianto are support along with Frobisher, Lois and Johnson. They fill the holes that Gwen and Jack can't.
It bothers me because the roles that Owen and Tosh filled no longer exist as actual roles. Ianto is able to provide both of the parts that they did, despite it not being his strength. In Children of Earth it's less roles and more emotional and motivation that the characters fill, rather than the roles that are the basis of ensemble.
Ensemble Children of Earth would have required a scientific or practical solution to the issue. Two leads Children of Earth needed an emotional one. The science doesn't have to make sense because in a two leads series, it doesn't need to. It's all driven by emotion.
The thing is for me, sci-fi like Doctor Who works as a two leads show. The science isn't the point, it's all emotional and the quest. In a show like Star Trek or Stargate, two leads doesn't work so well. Reimage Babylon 5, with the same storyline, but focused only on Delenn and Sheridan, and it doesn't work. It couldn’t have run as long, sustained as many storylines, or had as complex an arc.
So now I go back to Criminal Minds. Which is really the show that led to me writing this meta/ramble.
The problem with Criminal Minds, is that they have given the characters roles, they just seem to keep forgetting them.
Garcia, JJ and Hotch have very clear roles. Roles that we are reminded of all the time. Hotch is the boss, JJ the media liaison and Garcia the tech analyst. Garcia and JJ are the outsiders from the main group. The others, well this is where the struggle comes. Typically it seems to fall to this: there's the genius, the old guy, the angry black guy and the girl. The problem is, those aren't roles. Well, the genius kinda is a role, but the other three? Not so much.
What roles have they been given in show?
Well, Rossi is the old guy (like Gideon), BUT Rossi is also the old hat, the man with experience, the one who walked away and acts as the bridge between outsiders and the team. He's also the cults guy. It came up a lot in season three and four. Not so much since. (Yes, the finale lines are still bothering me).
Morgan. Morgan is the guy with the damaged past, the one who is in it because he wants to make a difference, to stop it happening again. He's the physical one. He's also the obsession crimes, and the bomb guy. Again, this was mentioned a lot early on. He's the more subjective one.
Emily, yeah, she's the girl. The soft one, the one who goes in to make people trust her. Who gentles people. She's also the girl that's good at languages, and while she's never been the go to for any particular subject, she's a good all rounder. She's the objective, but human about it one. We only got her languages in season six because of the Doyle storyline.
Reid. Reid is the genius, the one who fits in better with the team than the victims. The one who is scared of what could be. He's the one who is good at psycho- linguistics and geographic profiles. Mentioned a lot early, season six the geographic profiles seem to get shared.
Hotch even has his own specialist subjects - he's the hostage negotiation guy. The stereotypical FBI guy. The cool customer, who knows just the right words to say to convince you. He's the ex-lawyer and ex SWAT guy. Which, gasps, actually gets used a lot in season six (which is weird, cos with him being the boss, he doesn't have to have his other skills used so much. In fact, Morgan has kinda been fitting the 'boss position' a lot because of that).
Season six suffers, to me, because the roles aren't there. JJ's role has vanished and honestly I'm not sure her duties have gone. Mainly, it's the case distribution bit that baffles me the most now. It seems that they just get assigned to cases now most of the time. Or Hotch has a whole scary lot more work, but none of the excess amounts of folders, judging from his office.
Reid seems to be given everything science-y and the profiling doesn't really happen. They make leaps, don't really talk to the families of the victims, and the show focuses a lot more on the killers, and the killing its self.
And, from fics, what bits of fandom discussion I've seen and talks with friends, a lot of people don't remember that each of the characters were given things that were their strengths. Everyone just remembers the emotional motivations of the characters, which is what the writers have focused on in season six.
The problem is, while the emotions are important, in an ensemble like Criminal Minds, the plot suffers because of the focus on the emotions. We're getting emotional resolutions, not profiling ones.
I really hope that we get back to the season three/four type of ensemble writing in season seven, but I don't know if it will actually happen.
That's all just my opinion and take on it though, you're all free to have a POV or to correct me, or ask questions :)
Shows discussed ,even if only briefly: Andromeda, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Castle, Criminal Minds, Dark Angel, due South, Firefly, Jonathan Creek, Leverage, Numb3rs, Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, Star Trek (all of them ;)), Torchwood, Xena
(note before hand - added now, because I have actually reread - and am paranoid, and don't want this meta/ramble to sound all knowing - it's all my opinion, and what works for me - I know a lot of things don't work for me, but work for other people and vice versa - I am reminded of that a lot when watching stuff with my family.
So, what I say under the cut? It's all my opinion, on what works for me - I may be wrong, you might disagree with me, and that's fine. I just wanted to put this out there. Feel free to throw things at me if you disagree.)
So, when watching season six of Criminal Minds and thinking about it, I realized that it suffered, for me, because the ensemble writing that used to be so good seems to have gone. Characters got focused on, and the others lost out. They might have had parts, but nothing memorable, or they vanished at some point for no reason. Yes, that happened sometimes in the earlier seasons as well, but I didn't always notice it (I did the other night, rewatching the perfect storm, notice that at some point Hotch just vanishes, then reappears). It didn't affect my viewing.
I am one of those people who adores a well written ensemble. It's why Star Trek The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine will always be higher up my list than TOS, Enterprise or Voyager. Sure there were characters that still suffered, but the focus was on the crew, whereas the focus of the other three seemed to be on half of the crew. The crew being the people in the promotional shoots, the ones in the credits, rather than the actual whole crew. Because that really would be a difficult ensemble to write, unless you're writing Firefly or Andromeda, where the crew is tiny ;)
Ensembles can be difficult. I've seen eight said to be too many. But then I've watched things where the ensemble is that many, or a little more; Star Trek The Next Generation, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Numb3rs; where the larger ensemble doesn't affect the quality as much as it should if eight is too many.
The thing I remember best from writing for the virtual season of Torchwood, was that everyone talked about how hard it is to write more than one pov. At the time, I had always written multi-pov fic, something I haven't so much since, so it surprised me, but I learned a lot as the others talked about it. It gave me some understanding of other people's writing processes as well, especially when it comes to characters.
There's a reason why so many TV shows only focus on one or two leads, with the small group of reoccurring. It's easier to write, and keep straight, the pov of two characters, especially as a unit of writers, then it is to write six or more. Certain reoccurring characters can appear in only the episodes written by certain writers, or only when a certain arc is in play. More to the point, your reoccurring characters don't actually have to be fully formed characters.
There was a meta entered for a challenge on leverageland, that talked about how Sterling isn't really a character. We know very little about him and he serves only as a foil for Nate. It's very true, but I hadn't actually thought about it. Sterling, as a reoccurring character, works. We don't need to know anything about him but what the main characters choose to tell us, because we aren't meant to be invested in him as a character.
That said, we also never really learned anything about Tara, but again, we weren't meant to invest in her. She was there to serve a purpose, to invoke a reaction from the main cast and to illustrate the nature of the relationship between them.
As a small ensemble (I call five small ;)) Leverage works, each character within the ensemble has a purpose (as we are reminded every week ;)), and that's what makes the ensemble work.
The thing is, and this is something that the writers of Criminal Minds seem to have forgotten, the key to an ensemble is for each character to have a place. Each one serves a purpose that the others don't, has a skill that makes them fit a certain part.
It's why the five man band appears in shows so often, I kinda want to stick in a link to tv tropes, but I won't. ;)
Stargate had this, in SG-1 and Atlantis. Main cast, you had the boss and the four man team, each with their role. There wasn't much overlap, even though ultimately all of them ended up having to be fighters, due to the nature of the series. You had the extra of the doctor who appeared when needed.
Honestly, sci-fi seems the best able to support ensemble better, writers seem to be able to deal better with ensembles if they can remind themselves every week of what role a character plays. If that sounds bad, it's not meant to, it's just an observation.
Babylon 5: while awesome, does that. You the viewer are never left in any doubt as to who these people are. There's the boss, his second in command, the security chief and the doctor. Then there's the four ambassadors and their aids. The fact that the titles of the characters is mentioned almost every time we meet them works to remind us of the part they have in the ensemble.
Star Trek The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine: again, we are told their ranks, and shown their roles in every episode they're in. We know what role they fill.
Ditto Battlestar Galactica.
Firefly is slightly hazy about the roles people play, ranks aren't included in people's names all the time, but we still get shown their part. What I actually love the most about Firefly as an ensemble is that somehow it manages to find a place for a preacher and a companion to fill every week. That said, from watching it with my da, who adores old westerns, it makes sense. Because Firefly is a western, as well as sci-fi, there's space for those two characters that, if it was Star Trek would only really appear as reoccurring. Babylon 5 is a little different though (Kosh and Book would get along very very well, though you could argue for a Kosh/River parallel as well).
Shows that focus on two characters don't actually need to define the roles of each character so clearly. They can exchange roles, and generally step on each other’s toes, and the writers will manage it without having to dump one of them from the main storyline of the episode.
Jonathan Creek focuses almost entirely on Jonathan and whichever woman is helping him that series. He plays 'man of knowledge' while the woman sneaks around the inadvertently finds clues. Most of the time. Maddie got to play Jonathan's part at least once, and Jonathan had to play hers. It works in the format of the show, just as it does in other two character focused series like Dark Angel (Max being all super human and Logan filling the gaps she couldn't), Xena (xena was the warrior, gabrielle the thinker) and due south (benton was jonathan, the rays were maddie).
I love those shows. I love the relationship that exists between the two characters, the relationship that is actually the key part of those kinds of shows. For a two character show to work for me, the characters have to balance each other, each has an equal share of the plot for each episode. You notice when they aren't there for an episode and the reoccurring characters often have to group together to fill the space left by the other main, or where the relationship between the two mains are strained, the reoccurring have to support the mains.
Xena did that a lot, you'd have an episode where Joxer would be around, or Ephiny, making up for whatever was missing.
The problem is, shown most clearly in Criminal Minds, is that where there's no clear way to demark the parts that characters play, you end up with an unbalanced ensemble.
I haven't mentioned Castle before now, because to me, it actually works fairly well as an ensemble. Yes, Castle and Beckett are the focus of the show, but they're managed to define the supporting cast just as well, so they are actually serving parts that necessary to each episode. It's the way that crime ensembles tend to be done. Numb3rs did as well, though they struggled a bit in the first season.
With Castle it's a different situation than Criminal Minds. It's not a team of people who almost all fill the same role. You have the same kind of format as in the sci-fi ensembles. There's the boss, the lead pair (one a cop, one an outsider), the 'junior' pair and the ME (which is important, which is why we always see an ME, even if we don't always see Laney). Then we have the addition of the family of one of the lead pair, who also serve a function. Each character has a place in the story, a set part to fill, something that only they can bring to the table.
With Numb3rs, there's something more of the same difficulty there is with Criminal Minds. We have the, from season two, four or five FBI agents, the three academics and the father. Don's position is clear, in that he's the boss, as is Megan's while she's in the show. Charlie on the other hand shares with Amita and Larry. Ditto David, Colby, Liz and Nikki.
If it were any other ensemble that I've discussed, you could argue that they aren't all needed. You could have just had Don, Charlie, Alan, Megan and David. It would have worked. It would have been an easier show to write for, with less characters to have to write consistently, and find a part for, in each story.
The thing is, as an ensemble show, Numb3rs is the one I actually love the most. And those writers? All kinds of awesome, because they all managed to write a good enough ensemble that each character filled a place, you didn't miss them (on story terms) if they weren't there, but when they were there? There was a reason. They weren't just there to make sure the actor was in that episode. They stayed true to the characters, and you couldn't interchange the dialogue so much.
The first and second series suffered a bit, but season three onwards? They really had it. I miss that show.
Each character had something they were good at, or a role to fill. Nikki was the new girl, who challenged the others. Amita and Larry both had things that they could do better than Charlie, and served as his advisors and support. Colby was David's partner, they fit together. David did the talking and looking FBI, Colby did the running and looking laid back. David had more of the procedure and filling in for Don, while Colby had the weapon's knowledge (which meant he got to help out the academics, and act as the bridge, more so after Megan left). Liz was the ex-drugs and undercover. They all had strengths they brought to the table and used.
An example of an ensemble show that failed me? Torchwood.
It started out ensemble. The doctor, the tech, the support, the police officer and the boss. They all had their roles, and they had something they brought to the table that was necessary and got used at some point. THAT is why Children of Earth is a different show for me. Children of Earth has two leads, Gwen and Jack, Rhys and Ianto are support along with Frobisher, Lois and Johnson. They fill the holes that Gwen and Jack can't.
It bothers me because the roles that Owen and Tosh filled no longer exist as actual roles. Ianto is able to provide both of the parts that they did, despite it not being his strength. In Children of Earth it's less roles and more emotional and motivation that the characters fill, rather than the roles that are the basis of ensemble.
Ensemble Children of Earth would have required a scientific or practical solution to the issue. Two leads Children of Earth needed an emotional one. The science doesn't have to make sense because in a two leads series, it doesn't need to. It's all driven by emotion.
The thing is for me, sci-fi like Doctor Who works as a two leads show. The science isn't the point, it's all emotional and the quest. In a show like Star Trek or Stargate, two leads doesn't work so well. Reimage Babylon 5, with the same storyline, but focused only on Delenn and Sheridan, and it doesn't work. It couldn’t have run as long, sustained as many storylines, or had as complex an arc.
So now I go back to Criminal Minds. Which is really the show that led to me writing this meta/ramble.
The problem with Criminal Minds, is that they have given the characters roles, they just seem to keep forgetting them.
Garcia, JJ and Hotch have very clear roles. Roles that we are reminded of all the time. Hotch is the boss, JJ the media liaison and Garcia the tech analyst. Garcia and JJ are the outsiders from the main group. The others, well this is where the struggle comes. Typically it seems to fall to this: there's the genius, the old guy, the angry black guy and the girl. The problem is, those aren't roles. Well, the genius kinda is a role, but the other three? Not so much.
What roles have they been given in show?
Well, Rossi is the old guy (like Gideon), BUT Rossi is also the old hat, the man with experience, the one who walked away and acts as the bridge between outsiders and the team. He's also the cults guy. It came up a lot in season three and four. Not so much since. (Yes, the finale lines are still bothering me).
Morgan. Morgan is the guy with the damaged past, the one who is in it because he wants to make a difference, to stop it happening again. He's the physical one. He's also the obsession crimes, and the bomb guy. Again, this was mentioned a lot early on. He's the more subjective one.
Emily, yeah, she's the girl. The soft one, the one who goes in to make people trust her. Who gentles people. She's also the girl that's good at languages, and while she's never been the go to for any particular subject, she's a good all rounder. She's the objective, but human about it one. We only got her languages in season six because of the Doyle storyline.
Reid. Reid is the genius, the one who fits in better with the team than the victims. The one who is scared of what could be. He's the one who is good at psycho- linguistics and geographic profiles. Mentioned a lot early, season six the geographic profiles seem to get shared.
Hotch even has his own specialist subjects - he's the hostage negotiation guy. The stereotypical FBI guy. The cool customer, who knows just the right words to say to convince you. He's the ex-lawyer and ex SWAT guy. Which, gasps, actually gets used a lot in season six (which is weird, cos with him being the boss, he doesn't have to have his other skills used so much. In fact, Morgan has kinda been fitting the 'boss position' a lot because of that).
Season six suffers, to me, because the roles aren't there. JJ's role has vanished and honestly I'm not sure her duties have gone. Mainly, it's the case distribution bit that baffles me the most now. It seems that they just get assigned to cases now most of the time. Or Hotch has a whole scary lot more work, but none of the excess amounts of folders, judging from his office.
Reid seems to be given everything science-y and the profiling doesn't really happen. They make leaps, don't really talk to the families of the victims, and the show focuses a lot more on the killers, and the killing its self.
And, from fics, what bits of fandom discussion I've seen and talks with friends, a lot of people don't remember that each of the characters were given things that were their strengths. Everyone just remembers the emotional motivations of the characters, which is what the writers have focused on in season six.
The problem is, while the emotions are important, in an ensemble like Criminal Minds, the plot suffers because of the focus on the emotions. We're getting emotional resolutions, not profiling ones.
I really hope that we get back to the season three/four type of ensemble writing in season seven, but I don't know if it will actually happen.
That's all just my opinion and take on it though, you're all free to have a POV or to correct me, or ask questions :)