TV made for the internet

[Temis the Vorta]

LA Times reviews the landscape of TV made for the internet.

Is any of it good? This sounds intriguing:

the sci-fi "Trenches," picked up from Disney's now-defunct Stage 9 Digital, which sports impressive "Battlestar Galactica" special effects.

My fundamental question about TV (or to put it more generally, visual fiction) made especially for the internet is, why use an interactive medium to create non-interactive stories? Other than just not being able to get the existing non-interactive formats - movies, TV and direct-to-DVD - interested in bankrolling it.

I think TV that is truly made for the internet needs to be something that couldn't exist in non-interactive formats. Games already fill that space, but is there something else that could, too?

 

[Greg Cox]

Nice article, but I'm disappointed that they didn't mention Riese: Kingdom Falling.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

What's significant about that one?

 

[nevermore]

I would just much rather shows be made that can serve niche audiences, rather than the current glut of mass cultural vomit we have on TV, regardless of the delivery medium. There are a slew of current and recent shows that are better suited to buffet viewers than to the type of person who is home every Thursday night and who will just sit through whatever comes on next.

I think you're assuming that the point of the internet is to be interactive. It's not; the point of the internet is to be a delivery medium, whether it delivers interactive or passive content is irrelevant. I watch 90% of the TV that I watch online already; if it were produced to service an online revenue structure, then at least I would't have to worry about it being cancelled because it's up against American Idol. I don't see any downside to that.

 

[Greg Cox]

What's significant about that one?

I'm writing the book . . ..

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I think you're assuming that the point of the internet is to be interactive.

It's the point of differentiation between the internet and TV. Sure, it can also be used to deliver more cheaply made stuff to smaller audiences, but that's just a scaled down version of what direct to DVD does right now.

 

[Admiral_Young]

"Sanctuary" started out as a web series I believe before it was picked up for television.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I think you're assuming that the point of the internet is to be interactive.

It's the point of differentiation between the internet and TV. Sure, it can also be used to deliver more cheaply made stuff to smaller audiences, but that's just a scaled down version of what direct to DVD does right now.

The benefits of TV for internet over direct to DVD are convenience, speed, lower distribution costs to eat into other costs, and perhaps tying better into the fanbase online.

But just because the technology of the internet is capable of more doesn't mean it has to be used in that way. What's wrong with just wanting to watch a show? Not everything needs to be facebook.

 

[23skidoo]

The benefits of TV for internet over direct to DVD are convenience, speed, lower distribution costs to eat into other costs, and perhaps tying better into the fanbase online.

But just because the technology of the internet is capable of more doesn't mean it has to be used in that way. What's wrong with just wanting to watch a show? Not everything needs to be facebook.

I agree - I don't see it as an invalid venue. The only problem is many people, like myself, don't enjoy watching streaming video online for more than a few minutes at a time because the Internet's infrastructure simply isn't there in many places to handle streaming without buffering issues, sound going out of synch, etc.

And going online doesn't preclude later televising or DVD/Blu-ray release either. There have been plenty of examples of this, most notably Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog which has probably been seen by more people on DVD now than online. There was also some made-for-Web series about an assassin that had a full-series release to DVD. And isn't The Guild also on DVD now or soon to be?

Posting online is one way of gauging, perhaps more accurately, if audiences give a damn for a show. At least you can tell the exact number of views, even though there will always be skewing due to people watching things over and over and over again. That's why YouTube viewership numbers aren't to be trusted.

Alex

 

[Lord Garth]

I was going to start a somewhat similar thread but I might as well post in here.

I think the next major step won't be TV made for the Internet (though that will rise in prominence eventually) but TV made for Netflix. I can already watch Netflix on my TV as its connected to the Internet, and Netflix could bypass networks and become what syndication used to be.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But just because the technology of the internet is capable of more doesn't mean it has to be used in that way. What's wrong with just wanting to watch a show?

I don't object to passive entertainment on the internet, but that's not really the most interesting possible use of it. (There's certainly room for both, the available space on the internet being infinite on a practical basis.)

People are using internet distribution to create and distribute entertainment that is more cheaply made than TV/movies or even direct to DVD, which therefore might be able to survive financially targetted at a smaller audience. But this function is already served by comic books and even novels.

It just seems like something that is slotting into an existing continuum rather than forging some new category of entertainment. Maybe there is no new category of entertainment there, but I can't help but think everyone is missing something big.

I think the next major step won't be TV made for the Internet (though that will rise in prominence eventually) but TV made for Netflix.

That's just another form of direct-to-DVD (or direct-to-streaming). And since Netflix is going to drop the DVDs eventually, making shows for Netflix is the same as making shows for the internet.

YouTube is also trying to get more into content production, of the kind that might interest advertisers more than the piano-playing-cat variety of programming. So the inexpensive niche programming field will be thoroughly covered, no doubt about. I'm already thinking about the next step beyond that.

Posting online is one way of gauging, perhaps more accurately, if audiences give a damn for a show. At least you can tell the exact number of views, even though there will always be skewing due to people watching things over and over and over again. That's why YouTube viewership numbers aren't to be trusted.

What's wrong with repeat viewing? Whether the financial model is pay per view or ad based, the number of views is the goal. There are YouTube videos that people habitually watch over and over - the John William's a-capella tribute, Annoying Orange, etc - that kind of addictive programming is definitely valuable.