Back at the top of the year I wrote an article on the growing popularity over the past few years for TV shows that play with the conventional use of time (Playing with time ...). It prompted a nice discussion in the comments with Tom suggesting reading "Everything Bad is Good For You" by Steven Johnston.
Just a week after posting that article I ended up being pointed towards “Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television” by Jason Mittell. This essay is the answer that I was so desperately trying to grasp at in that article. It's not that long and totally worth the read if you are at all interested in why TV shows are being written the way that they are today.
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Friday, February 09, 2007
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Wishing on a star ...
Addicted though I am to almost all types of TV and film, Sci-Fi always has been and probably always will be my first love. Undoubtedly that is to do with my technical bent, but must also be the wide open opportunities the genre provides for new stories, allegorical commentary on contemporary or historical situations or visions of potentially better, or worse, futures.
When the day finally comes that I find the perfect solution for indexing and categorising my DVD collection I will surely find that the largest percentage of it is taken up with Sci-Fi. On the occasions that I am looking for something to just throw in the DVD player and enjoy it is Sci-Fi that I turn to most often. Like over the weekend when I had time in the flat to myself, always an opportunity to watch something with the volume cranked right up. What better to enjoy at ear drum splitting volumes than a good old fashioned Sci-Fi romp. Why is it then that I am always disappointed? Why is it that I stand and stare, searching the collection for almost an hour, never satisfied with a choice as my eyes hover on any particular title?
As I scan the spines of my collection, as my sight rests on each box, the whole story of that show or movie flits through my mind. Like a flick book going at a thousand frames a second. In that moment I will decide no and move on through the collection. Arriving at the end I will usually start looking at random points on the self, thinking that there must be something that I have missed, that I have forgotten that I own. Some perfect piece of Sci-Fi that will satisfy my desires.
Those desires are for the two things that I want most from Sci-Fi on screen. I would settle, and mostly do have to, for one of those things done well, but I still burn for something that does both perfectly. What is it that I want? I want space opera, involved and emotional character driven plotting, and I want massive and intricate space battles that go on and on.
There's plenty in Sci-Fi, and my collection, that offer one or the other done well, some offer both to near perfect levels, but none of this satisfies me. Star Trek, in all incarnations, is weak on both points (yet it is of my childhood and wonderful in so many ways that I forgive and love it). Some standout episodes come close, especially in the two-parters (Improbable Cause/The Die is Cast spring instantly to mind).
Star Wars, through all its episodes, would in an early, more innocent age, have provided all that I want. But now it all seems too simple, the operatic story to small and the battles to short and without depth. The opening space battle to Episode 3 would be a winner, but the comic stylings of Obi-Wan and Anakin left me caring little for them by that point in the saga.
Battlestar Galactica shows promise, and is fresh in my mind having just watched the latest season 3 episode, but the space battles are too fast cut, to confined to a single aspect, to small conflicts. Can it ever reach the heights that I would like with such a small fleet on one side or will some maguffin always allow for an out for Adama, Thrace and the others.
The list goes on and on. Babylon 5, high on the operatic scale and moments of battle wonder but not enough. Alien/s/3/resurection, great films (each in their own way) but low on the 2 axis that I required. The Fifth Element, some literal opera but little else for me.
To me space opera should involve stories with galaxy spanning impact, fate of the race stuff played out in the relationships of great characters. Near to pure good versus evil stuff. Characters I truly love, characters I truly hate. Heroism that could end in destruction. I want to care, want to sit on the edge of my seat with worry and then leap up in celebration, or collapse with sadness. That's what I want the story to do for me, I want to feel it in my throat.
While the above could be offered by any genre, and is in wonderful ways, my other requirement can only be provided by Sci-Fi. When I talk about "massive and intricate space battles that go on and on" what I want is a scale that is almost unbelievable. I want a whole hour of a space battle, that we have been brought to through the operatic story that I described before. But I don't just want to see explosion after explosion, lasers flashing all over the place. I want every moment of the battle to have meaning. Each bank of a ship, each impact to have resonance to the story. To see the battle from many perspectives, each one that I have cause to want to see. But not the Bay style flash cutting between them, more standard story based editing, moving from one strand of the battle to another in a directed way.
All I ask is for just one film, one episode of a series to embody the perfection of these two things and I will be happy to watch it again and again and again. Never more to complain that there's nothing to put on during those times I want the experience to flow over me. If I could have only one selfish wish this would be it.
When the day finally comes that I find the perfect solution for indexing and categorising my DVD collection I will surely find that the largest percentage of it is taken up with Sci-Fi. On the occasions that I am looking for something to just throw in the DVD player and enjoy it is Sci-Fi that I turn to most often. Like over the weekend when I had time in the flat to myself, always an opportunity to watch something with the volume cranked right up. What better to enjoy at ear drum splitting volumes than a good old fashioned Sci-Fi romp. Why is it then that I am always disappointed? Why is it that I stand and stare, searching the collection for almost an hour, never satisfied with a choice as my eyes hover on any particular title?
As I scan the spines of my collection, as my sight rests on each box, the whole story of that show or movie flits through my mind. Like a flick book going at a thousand frames a second. In that moment I will decide no and move on through the collection. Arriving at the end I will usually start looking at random points on the self, thinking that there must be something that I have missed, that I have forgotten that I own. Some perfect piece of Sci-Fi that will satisfy my desires.
Those desires are for the two things that I want most from Sci-Fi on screen. I would settle, and mostly do have to, for one of those things done well, but I still burn for something that does both perfectly. What is it that I want? I want space opera, involved and emotional character driven plotting, and I want massive and intricate space battles that go on and on.
There's plenty in Sci-Fi, and my collection, that offer one or the other done well, some offer both to near perfect levels, but none of this satisfies me. Star Trek, in all incarnations, is weak on both points (yet it is of my childhood and wonderful in so many ways that I forgive and love it). Some standout episodes come close, especially in the two-parters (Improbable Cause/The Die is Cast spring instantly to mind).
Star Wars, through all its episodes, would in an early, more innocent age, have provided all that I want. But now it all seems too simple, the operatic story to small and the battles to short and without depth. The opening space battle to Episode 3 would be a winner, but the comic stylings of Obi-Wan and Anakin left me caring little for them by that point in the saga.
Battlestar Galactica shows promise, and is fresh in my mind having just watched the latest season 3 episode, but the space battles are too fast cut, to confined to a single aspect, to small conflicts. Can it ever reach the heights that I would like with such a small fleet on one side or will some maguffin always allow for an out for Adama, Thrace and the others.
The list goes on and on. Babylon 5, high on the operatic scale and moments of battle wonder but not enough. Alien/s/3/resurection, great films (each in their own way) but low on the 2 axis that I required. The Fifth Element, some literal opera but little else for me.
To me space opera should involve stories with galaxy spanning impact, fate of the race stuff played out in the relationships of great characters. Near to pure good versus evil stuff. Characters I truly love, characters I truly hate. Heroism that could end in destruction. I want to care, want to sit on the edge of my seat with worry and then leap up in celebration, or collapse with sadness. That's what I want the story to do for me, I want to feel it in my throat.
While the above could be offered by any genre, and is in wonderful ways, my other requirement can only be provided by Sci-Fi. When I talk about "massive and intricate space battles that go on and on" what I want is a scale that is almost unbelievable. I want a whole hour of a space battle, that we have been brought to through the operatic story that I described before. But I don't just want to see explosion after explosion, lasers flashing all over the place. I want every moment of the battle to have meaning. Each bank of a ship, each impact to have resonance to the story. To see the battle from many perspectives, each one that I have cause to want to see. But not the Bay style flash cutting between them, more standard story based editing, moving from one strand of the battle to another in a directed way.
All I ask is for just one film, one episode of a series to embody the perfection of these two things and I will be happy to watch it again and again and again. Never more to complain that there's nothing to put on during those times I want the experience to flow over me. If I could have only one selfish wish this would be it.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Repetitive dialog injury ...
I found this video on YouTube the other day and just have to share it with you. Many characters in TV and film have signature lines or styles of line, just think about the many Arnie-isms you have heard, and that's across lots of different films.
These things are mostly fun for the audience, they are familiar and as such put a wry smile on your face, even when the lines themselves aren't that good. As a writer what you really wouldn't want is someone splicing together lots of them in sequence, thus highlighting how repetitive and stupid they can be.
My heart goes out to the writers of CSI: Miami. The series isn't that great, but no one deserves this. However big props to stewmurray47 for putting this together, very funny. (this requires sound so maybe wait till you get home after work)
These things are mostly fun for the audience, they are familiar and as such put a wry smile on your face, even when the lines themselves aren't that good. As a writer what you really wouldn't want is someone splicing together lots of them in sequence, thus highlighting how repetitive and stupid they can be.
My heart goes out to the writers of CSI: Miami. The series isn't that great, but no one deserves this. However big props to stewmurray47 for putting this together, very funny. (this requires sound so maybe wait till you get home after work)
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Holy crap, there's another Fanning out there ...
I have just finished watching the first episode of The Lost Room, the new mini-series staring Perter Krause (of Six Feet Under and Sports Night fame) along side Kevin Pollak and Nurse Hathaway ... sorry Julianna Margulies.
The series has a fantastic premise, the setup and pilot as a whole was brilliant. Well paced, looking amazing, good characters all around and not too shabby dialog. What more could you ask for.
Well I would have liked a bit more warning before someone springs one of the children of the corn on me, or as they are better known, the sisters Fanning. I didn't even know there was another one.
In case you are not following a word I am talking about, I should explain. You will have seen elder sister Dakota (all of 13), and believe me you will have seen her. She has had more of a film and TV career than many a seasoned pro. She always plays the cute and innocent daughter of the family in trouble, unfortunately she has the manner and facial expressions of someone about 4 times her age. This worked wonderfully in the Steven Spielberg produced Taken, where she was part alien and meant to be like that, but in other things it's just a little creepy.
Well I can now report that younger sister Elle Fanning is exactly the same. Consider yourselves warned should you watch The Lost Room, which you should cause it was ace.
The series has a fantastic premise, the setup and pilot as a whole was brilliant. Well paced, looking amazing, good characters all around and not too shabby dialog. What more could you ask for.
Well I would have liked a bit more warning before someone springs one of the children of the corn on me, or as they are better known, the sisters Fanning. I didn't even know there was another one.
In case you are not following a word I am talking about, I should explain. You will have seen elder sister Dakota (all of 13), and believe me you will have seen her. She has had more of a film and TV career than many a seasoned pro. She always plays the cute and innocent daughter of the family in trouble, unfortunately she has the manner and facial expressions of someone about 4 times her age. This worked wonderfully in the Steven Spielberg produced Taken, where she was part alien and meant to be like that, but in other things it's just a little creepy.
Well I can now report that younger sister Elle Fanning is exactly the same. Consider yourselves warned should you watch The Lost Room, which you should cause it was ace.
Do not adjust your TV, the transfer to widescreen is almost complete ...
The transfer to widescreen TV has been taking place over many years. During this period different stations have taken different approaches. Many still only broadcast in square (4:3 ratio), TV in the UK has been moving toward widescreen for quite some time. During this transitionalletterboxing more and more of their material as it becomes available only in widescreen. Some, like the BBC have moved entirely to widescreen (16:9 ratio), or at least that is how it may have seemed.
So as not to anger the many square telly owners that have still been out there the BBC has taken many steps to ensure that these people can still enjoy the content that is shown. While everything may be shot in widescreen, camera staff and directors are made very aware of what square telly owners will be able to see and therefore frame the action appropriately.
Terrestrial BBC signals have actually been broadcast in a 14:9 compromise ratio as well, to ease the transition, getting people used to black borders.
On the BBC family of channels this transition to widescreen is most obvious on News24. Aggregating content from many news agencies from around the world, black borders can often be seen down the sides of pre-recorded material showing a compromised, not quite full, zoom. Also, and the point of this post, the constant graphics along the bottom of the screen have been very carefully arranged to meet the needs different viewers.
The graphics have long shown a clock, a BBC News24 ident and scrolling headlines. These have, till yesterday, been carefully positioned so that people with square tellies in 4:3 Zoom mode would not miss anything. This compromise has meant the graphics have not used the full width of the screen and have therefore had to take up more vertical space. The industry standard for such things, amongst all the other 4:3 ratio news channels, is to run the headlines straight across the bottom of the screen leaving as much vertical space as possible. In widescreen vertical space is at a premium.
As of yesterday all this has changed and BBC News24 (during a wider technical switch to online graphics provided by Vizrt technology) has changed to a single strip of graphics and headlines all the way across the bottom of the screen.
I think that this shows a general shift to a complete 16:9 ratio widescreen environment across the BBC. This makes total sense. They have managed the transition to I think this signals the beginning of a strong move to a more pure 16:9 widescreenwidescreen very well, but the time has come to look forward to a High Definition future, no matter that that may be many years off, in which widescreen will be the only ratio available.
While it will be some time still to come, I cannot wait for the day when I do not have to obsessively change the way the TV is shaped or sit and stew when someone else does not have it set right. I am sure many people that know me will be equally as glad.
So as not to anger the many square telly owners that have still been out there the BBC has taken many steps to ensure that these people can still enjoy the content that is shown. While everything may be shot in widescreen, camera staff and directors are made very aware of what square telly owners will be able to see and therefore frame the action appropriately.
Terrestrial BBC signals have actually been broadcast in a 14:9 compromise ratio as well, to ease the transition, getting people used to black borders.
On the BBC family of channels this transition to widescreen is most obvious on News24. Aggregating content from many news agencies from around the world, black borders can often be seen down the sides of pre-recorded material showing a compromised, not quite full, zoom. Also, and the point of this post, the constant graphics along the bottom of the screen have been very carefully arranged to meet the needs different viewers.
The graphics have long shown a clock, a BBC News24 ident and scrolling headlines. These have, till yesterday, been carefully positioned so that people with square tellies in 4:3 Zoom mode would not miss anything. This compromise has meant the graphics have not used the full width of the screen and have therefore had to take up more vertical space. The industry standard for such things, amongst all the other 4:3 ratio news channels, is to run the headlines straight across the bottom of the screen leaving as much vertical space as possible. In widescreen vertical space is at a premium.
As of yesterday all this has changed and BBC News24 (during a wider technical switch to online graphics provided by Vizrt technology) has changed to a single strip of graphics and headlines all the way across the bottom of the screen.
I think that this shows a general shift to a complete 16:9 ratio widescreen environment across the BBC. This makes total sense. They have managed the transition to I think this signals the beginning of a strong move to a more pure 16:9 widescreenwidescreen very well, but the time has come to look forward to a High Definition future, no matter that that may be many years off, in which widescreen will be the only ratio available.
While it will be some time still to come, I cannot wait for the day when I do not have to obsessively change the way the TV is shaped or sit and stew when someone else does not have it set right. I am sure many people that know me will be equally as glad.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
While I am out ...
Perhaps you could all contribute to something; a list of TV shows on now, or about to be, that are worth watching. Here's what I am currently hooked on, add your own through the comments.
- 24 (starts on Sunday on Sky One @ 9pm with a double bill, in fact double bill for 3 weeks)
- Prison Break (Mondays on five @ 10pm)
- Battlestar Galactica (Tuesdays on Sky One @ 9pm)
- e.r. (Thursdays on E4 @ 9pm)
- Greys Anatomy (Thursdays on LivingTV @ 10pm)
- Heroes (starting Saturday 19th Feb on Sci-Fi @ 10pm)
- Ugly Betty (Fridays on Channel 4 @ 9:30pm)
- The OC (final season on Tuesdays on E4 at 9pm)
- Shameless (Tuesdays on Channel 4 @ 10pm)
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Playing with time ...
I love TV. Love watching it, understanding how it is made, the history of it and the future. If I had the cash right now I would be part of the brave new High Definition world (although more thoughts on that another time). Because of my love for TV I spend far too much of my time thinking about it, more than most people would view as healthy no doubt, but I consider it part of a hobby so such concerns are beneath me.
In my recent thinking about TV I have been looking forward to the upcoming new seasons of my favorite shows (mostly US dramas, they will only be starting the new seasons in the UK in Jan/Feb). While people that know me will be the first to say that I have eclectic tastes (or no taste at times) the shows I enjoy mostly do tend to be the big hits; Lost, Battlestar Galactica, 24 etc, so these are the shows I have been thinking about.
I began wondering why these show are hits? What makes a hit in this age? What do these shows, if anything, have in common? Granted that hits will differ, and be created, in part because of the audience that they are aimed at, but is there something else that we can see. I came up with one thing that many of the current (in the last 5 years) hit shows have in common. They break the previously held TV conventions of time.
Until these recent changes most television shows held to the following formula;
While flexibility was enjoyed, especially in season breaks where cliff hangers would bring people back for more the next season, the rule mostly held. A season in the real world was a year in telly world. Look back to Star Trek (TNG, DS9, Voyager etc), e.r., Buffy, NYPD Blue etc. These shows followed the natural procession of time. A useful by-product of this was the ability to time seasonal episodes, for example the once ubiquitous Christmas show.
The modern hits that we are now watching tend to forgo such a strict chronological strategy. Instead they see telly time as something much more pliable which is giving them different ways of telling stories. I suppose that it is slightly ironic that the genres this is most experienced in are action/sci-fi, ironic because this change allows for far more character study something not traditionally associated to these genres (although that's a very debatable point).
Let's look at the shows where this is most obvious;
24
The show that started it all, the one that once successful allowed many more shows to break the rules (or imitate depending on your perspective). The main structure of the show is the obvious break with convention, each show representing 1 hour in a single day in Jack Bauer's life, but more interesting is the variable gap between seasons. There was much debate around what would happen at the start of season 2, would it be the next day, week, month or year? In fact 18 months had past, 3 years in the next season break, then 18 months again, 18 months and now 20 months.
These large gaps between seasons have been essential to the continued success of the show, they allow the character's lives to move on, to give enough new back-story, that the audience is unaware, of that can be filtered in throughout the next season.
Lost
A story of the survivors of a plane crash on a deserted island, only 73 days of telly time had past by the time the show had reached episode 6 of season 3! Standard rules of chronology have also been thrown out of the window by each episode showing both the story on the island in current time and also flashbacks to a specific characters back story. These flashbacks move around the time-line of the characters lives, sometimes never giving a definitive point in time as a reference.
By spreading out the show chronology and the massive use of flashbacks the writers have been able to delve in-depth into all of their characters which provides one of the main draws to the show for the audience. This structure is also a nice way of confusing the viewer, drawing them into the show and getting around the problem of Hurley's lack of weight loss.
Battlestar Galactica
Like Lost, but without the flashbacks, Battlestar Galactica spent the miniseries beginning and first two seasons focused in on the attempted destruction of mankind and the immediate aftermath, only reaching 9 months of story time before the end of season 2. Then jumping a year into the future this show has proved that it knows how to leverage the time-line where appropriate. No where is this performed more wonderfully than the opening to season 1, "33", where you almost feel the crew's exhaustion.
Prison Break
One of the newest shows on the block (no pun intended, honestly) Prison Break's first season covers only 2 months of show time, season 2 starting only 8 hours later. Again this break with convention, or by now adherence to the new convention, allows the show to delve deeper into the characters and show situations in more detail. In Prison Break the format, because the show moves on quite slowly, adds to the feeling of incarceration thus drawing the viewer into the lives the characters even further.
So why has this shift occurred? It became more prevalent in the movies long before 24 first aired, for example Pulp Fiction, Memento, Ground Hog Day. These films amongst others showed that non-linear story telling could open doors for writers that were not there before, freeing them from constraints that may have been placed on them using more traditional story telling techniques. More importantly these films showed that audiences would follow and appreciate these stories.
This lack of convention for time is not required for a show to be successful, many hit shows still follow the show=week, season=year format. In fact for some shows it is essential. The West Wing would not have been anywhere near as compelling if it had not followed a term and a half of one president in almost real-time. School/college related shows almost religiously follow this format (Buffy, Dawson's Creek, Smallville, Veronica Mars), this is an output of the audience they are targeting who's lives are currently following the same format.
Does changing the conventions of time in TV shows draw the viewer into the show more than the previously thought season=year, show=week format would? If anything, when a show is broadcast on a week by week basis such a change could frustrate viewers more than anything else. So what has changed? DVD.
More and more people are experiencing TV shows only on DVD, and if they are watching them on TV first they have in the back of their mind the decision over whether or not they will be buying it on DVD later. A compressed time-line is something that DVD viewers appreciate, and it does certainly draw people in on such a format.
Just a few weeks ago my friends and I completed our 5th annual 24x24, watching a whole season of 24 in real-time. Out of the 5 of us I was the only person to have seen the show on TV. While this extreme experience may be in the minority, watching whole seasons, or shows, for the first time on DVD certainly is not. Viewing habits are changing and most importantly people are hungry to experience shows on their own terms.
Is this all an example of the format of the times dictating the structure of the shows? If so what could we expect from the formats of the future?
In my recent thinking about TV I have been looking forward to the upcoming new seasons of my favorite shows (mostly US dramas, they will only be starting the new seasons in the UK in Jan/Feb). While people that know me will be the first to say that I have eclectic tastes (or no taste at times) the shows I enjoy mostly do tend to be the big hits; Lost, Battlestar Galactica, 24 etc, so these are the shows I have been thinking about.
I began wondering why these show are hits? What makes a hit in this age? What do these shows, if anything, have in common? Granted that hits will differ, and be created, in part because of the audience that they are aimed at, but is there something else that we can see. I came up with one thing that many of the current (in the last 5 years) hit shows have in common. They break the previously held TV conventions of time.
Until these recent changes most television shows held to the following formula;
Season -> Season = ~1 year
Show -> Show = ~1 week
Show -> Show = ~1 week
While flexibility was enjoyed, especially in season breaks where cliff hangers would bring people back for more the next season, the rule mostly held. A season in the real world was a year in telly world. Look back to Star Trek (TNG, DS9, Voyager etc), e.r., Buffy, NYPD Blue etc. These shows followed the natural procession of time. A useful by-product of this was the ability to time seasonal episodes, for example the once ubiquitous Christmas show.
The modern hits that we are now watching tend to forgo such a strict chronological strategy. Instead they see telly time as something much more pliable which is giving them different ways of telling stories. I suppose that it is slightly ironic that the genres this is most experienced in are action/sci-fi, ironic because this change allows for far more character study something not traditionally associated to these genres (although that's a very debatable point).
Let's look at the shows where this is most obvious;
24
24: Series 1
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B00005JLF2/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
24: Series 1
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B000069JFK/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
24: Series 2
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B00008YGRU/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
24: Series 2
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B00008W63W/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
24: Series 3
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B0002XVQSU/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
24: Series 3
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B0001WHXM0/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
24: Series 4
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000B837XI/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
24: Series 4
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B0007P14OE/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
24: Series 5
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000ICLRKC/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
24: Series 5
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B000EBCJN6/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
24: Series 1-5 Boxed Set
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000JJ6K1A/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
24: Series 1-5 Boxed Set
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B000H5TI8I/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
The show that started it all, the one that once successful allowed many more shows to break the rules (or imitate depending on your perspective). The main structure of the show is the obvious break with convention, each show representing 1 hour in a single day in Jack Bauer's life, but more interesting is the variable gap between seasons. There was much debate around what would happen at the start of season 2, would it be the next day, week, month or year? In fact 18 months had past, 3 years in the next season break, then 18 months again, 18 months and now 20 months.
These large gaps between seasons have been essential to the continued success of the show, they allow the character's lives to move on, to give enough new back-story, that the audience is unaware, of that can be filtered in throughout the next season.
Lost
Lost: Season 1
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B00005JNOG/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Lost: Season 1
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B000DN5W9I/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
Lost: Season 2
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000FIMG68/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Lost: Season 2
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B000FVQN5U/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
A story of the survivors of a plane crash on a deserted island, only 73 days of telly time had past by the time the show had reached episode 6 of season 3! Standard rules of chronology have also been thrown out of the window by each episode showing both the story on the island in current time and also flashbacks to a specific characters back story. These flashbacks move around the time-line of the characters lives, sometimes never giving a definitive point in time as a reference.
By spreading out the show chronology and the massive use of flashbacks the writers have been able to delve in-depth into all of their characters which provides one of the main draws to the show for the audience. This structure is also a nice way of confusing the viewer, drawing them into the show and getting around the problem of Hurley's lack of weight loss.
Battlestar Galactica
Battlestar Galactica: The Miniseries
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B00064AFBE/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Battlestar Galactica: The Miniseries
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B0001M1JFM/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
Battlestar Galactica: Season 1
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000AJJNFE/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Battlestar Galactica: Season 1
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B0007L6SA8/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
Battlestar Galactica - Season 2.0 (Episodes 1-10)
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000BNI90Y/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Battlestar Galactica: Season 2.5 (Episodes 10-20)
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000GFLEAO/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Battlestar Galactica: Season 2
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B000GLKNRI/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
Battlestar Galactica: Complete Original Series
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B00018LTDI/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Battlestar Galactica: Complete Original Series
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B0000CGCXJ/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
Like Lost, but without the flashbacks, Battlestar Galactica spent the miniseries beginning and first two seasons focused in on the attempted destruction of mankind and the immediate aftermath, only reaching 9 months of story time before the end of season 2. Then jumping a year into the future this show has proved that it knows how to leverage the time-line where appropriate. No where is this performed more wonderfully than the opening to season 1, "33", where you almost feel the crew's exhaustion.
Prison Break
Prison Break: Season 1
http://astore.amazon.com/film350/detail/B000FKO3GW/104-9031751-0809525
DVD
US
Prison Break: Season 1
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/scorchedtorto-21/detail/B000FS9FW6/203-6920515-6245501
DVD
UK
One of the newest shows on the block (no pun intended, honestly) Prison Break's first season covers only 2 months of show time, season 2 starting only 8 hours later. Again this break with convention, or by now adherence to the new convention, allows the show to delve deeper into the characters and show situations in more detail. In Prison Break the format, because the show moves on quite slowly, adds to the feeling of incarceration thus drawing the viewer into the lives the characters even further.
So why has this shift occurred? It became more prevalent in the movies long before 24 first aired, for example Pulp Fiction, Memento, Ground Hog Day. These films amongst others showed that non-linear story telling could open doors for writers that were not there before, freeing them from constraints that may have been placed on them using more traditional story telling techniques. More importantly these films showed that audiences would follow and appreciate these stories.
This lack of convention for time is not required for a show to be successful, many hit shows still follow the show=week, season=year format. In fact for some shows it is essential. The West Wing would not have been anywhere near as compelling if it had not followed a term and a half of one president in almost real-time. School/college related shows almost religiously follow this format (Buffy, Dawson's Creek, Smallville, Veronica Mars), this is an output of the audience they are targeting who's lives are currently following the same format.
Does changing the conventions of time in TV shows draw the viewer into the show more than the previously thought season=year, show=week format would? If anything, when a show is broadcast on a week by week basis such a change could frustrate viewers more than anything else. So what has changed? DVD.
More and more people are experiencing TV shows only on DVD, and if they are watching them on TV first they have in the back of their mind the decision over whether or not they will be buying it on DVD later. A compressed time-line is something that DVD viewers appreciate, and it does certainly draw people in on such a format.
Just a few weeks ago my friends and I completed our 5th annual 24x24, watching a whole season of 24 in real-time. Out of the 5 of us I was the only person to have seen the show on TV. While this extreme experience may be in the minority, watching whole seasons, or shows, for the first time on DVD certainly is not. Viewing habits are changing and most importantly people are hungry to experience shows on their own terms.
Is this all an example of the format of the times dictating the structure of the shows? If so what could we expect from the formats of the future?
Friday, December 29, 2006
When will we take web video live ...
It has been a huge year for video on the web; Google buying You Tube; cover of Time magazine; launch of the Edwards campaign etc. So what will the next trick be? In the spirit of New Year predictions from opinionated bloggers I am throwing this into the ring.
Redistribution of streaming video.
Web 2.0 is not just about the funky technologies such as AJAX, it is also, in a large way, about bringing people into the network, about the conversations between people. With the current generation of web video applications the conversation is still languishing in the realm of comments and forums, asynchronous posting. In this current era of Instant Messaging and Blackberry addicted mobile workers this is not going to be good enough for long.
At some point in 2007 one of the big web video players, or some small outfit out to disrupt the market, will cotton onto this and launch a product that will allow people to stream live video to the web.
Obviously this can be done now, but not on the web scale. It is at the moment in the same state that web video was in 2005. People can stream live content on a personal, small scale only.
This is not going to be a separate function, but instead will enhance their current offerings. Shows will be recorded and offered in the same way that web video currently is, but the live aspect will create an event experience which is missing.
I have for some time being struggling to find a way to express this idea better, and I'm still not there yet so any suggestions on how to do this better would be welcome. However right now the best way I can say this is that it is the difference between a collective experience and a shared experience.
Right now web video is at the collective experience stage, where people browse the videos on offer, find something great and recommend it to friends. Collectively people have then viewed this video and talk about it, spurring new ideas.
With the launch of a live video platform people will be able to have a shared experience, where everyone can see something at the same time. This is like the difference between TV and DVD. It is an important difference.
What difference would such a platform make, would people use it? Well ask yourself what Ask A Ninja would be like as a live phone in show? How many parents working away from home would appreciate being able to see little Timmy's football game as it happens? These are shared experiences.
The only project on the horizon that seems even close to doing this is The Project Venice from the team that brought us Skype, but they don't seem to be targeting the User Generated Content market.
Finally, one of the driving forces for a change like this would be financial. Currently people have not cracked the web video advertising problem, this model is one that is more closely related to the current TV advertising model.
Well that's it. My take on a major change for 2007. What's yours?
Updated 30/12/2006: Forgot to mention, iCal would be the RSS of this new live world.
Redistribution of streaming video.
Web 2.0 is not just about the funky technologies such as AJAX, it is also, in a large way, about bringing people into the network, about the conversations between people. With the current generation of web video applications the conversation is still languishing in the realm of comments and forums, asynchronous posting. In this current era of Instant Messaging and Blackberry addicted mobile workers this is not going to be good enough for long.
At some point in 2007 one of the big web video players, or some small outfit out to disrupt the market, will cotton onto this and launch a product that will allow people to stream live video to the web.
Obviously this can be done now, but not on the web scale. It is at the moment in the same state that web video was in 2005. People can stream live content on a personal, small scale only.
This is not going to be a separate function, but instead will enhance their current offerings. Shows will be recorded and offered in the same way that web video currently is, but the live aspect will create an event experience which is missing.
I have for some time being struggling to find a way to express this idea better, and I'm still not there yet so any suggestions on how to do this better would be welcome. However right now the best way I can say this is that it is the difference between a collective experience and a shared experience.
Right now web video is at the collective experience stage, where people browse the videos on offer, find something great and recommend it to friends. Collectively people have then viewed this video and talk about it, spurring new ideas.
With the launch of a live video platform people will be able to have a shared experience, where everyone can see something at the same time. This is like the difference between TV and DVD. It is an important difference.
What difference would such a platform make, would people use it? Well ask yourself what Ask A Ninja would be like as a live phone in show? How many parents working away from home would appreciate being able to see little Timmy's football game as it happens? These are shared experiences.
The only project on the horizon that seems even close to doing this is The Project Venice from the team that brought us Skype, but they don't seem to be targeting the User Generated Content market.
Finally, one of the driving forces for a change like this would be financial. Currently people have not cracked the web video advertising problem, this model is one that is more closely related to the current TV advertising model.
Well that's it. My take on a major change for 2007. What's yours?
Updated 30/12/2006: Forgot to mention, iCal would be the RSS of this new live world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)