In the last few weeks it seems like the much discussed future of television on the internet is beginning to come to fruition. At the end of November, Netflix announced that it would begin offering a "streaming only" option for costumers who no longer want to receive physical DVDs in the mail. Around the same time Hulu.com unveiled it's new subscription option, Hulu Plus, that allows viewers to view full seasons of shows both on the air and off. In addition we've all seen the ads for Smart TV and Sony internet TV which essentially allow you to multitask your ass off. Most networks, premium, cable and broadcast alike, offer their own shows for free streaming, as well. And with Google TV on the horizon, it looks as if the push to the next platform of TV viewing has arrived.
Personally, I think this is a great thing. Shaking up the traditional form of TV viewing is going to knock down the current boundaries. This could result in an entire new construction of television shows, since length doesn't necessarily have to be as restricted. If people are watching in an "on demand" style of viewership, the run time may not have to be a strict 30 minutes or 60 minutes. And new rules of censorship may have to be applied. If viewers are over 18 there could be an "uncensored" option like South Park, Family Guy, and other shows currently offer online. In fact, this could be network and cable television's chance to compete with the edgy content of HBO and Showtime!
Most of this, however, is my own fantastic theory. It's an exciting time to watch the transition happening before our eyes, but from the looks of news reports and reactions from the Networks we may have to wait a little longer for the full blown movement of TV to the internet.
While Netflix seems quite confident in its new Streaming Only option, their current stellar line up television shows available on the site may run out very soon. When the streaming option was first made available, Netflix and various networks signed contracts for these television shows to be available for a set amount of time. And now that time is coming to an end. With so many other platforms for online streaming available its difficult to predict whether or not these networks will sign another contract with Netflix when they could be directing viewers to their own sites.
It feels as if the next phase of this transition will be a fierce competition to see which online streaming websites and companies are the most successful. The criteria at this point will be the amount of content the website can offer, the quality of streaming, and the price. Many websites like Hulu are free at the moment but with the transition to internet TV happening so rapidly now, it doesn't seem like we can expect free streaming for very much longer. What ever the outcome, it's an exciting time for television and I look forward to seeing the impact it has on the industry.
6 comments:
DISCLAIMER: I DISCUSS THE DEXTER IN THIS POST, BUT DO NOT HAVE ANY SPOILERS
As a break from writing our term paper, I decided to watch the season finale of Dexter.
When it comes to serious business like season finales, I generally do not like watching with other people because someone is bound to do one of the following:
--let you know how they feel throughout the whole episode
--take frequent bathroom breaks
--shift incessantly on the couch
--ask you to explain references
--eat a noisy snack
--not like the show as much as you do
I realized that most people I know watch Dexter on their own time. Some people (like me) will "power-watch" a season in a short period of time, so they can keep track of all the little details and clues. (It's hard to keep track of which guy Deb's been going out with when you've been studying biochem for a week in between episodes.)
Especially now, a lot of students are busy finishing up their finals and are holding off their television watching until break.
As I was watching the show, it hit me, "I think this is the only time I have ever watched an episode of Dexter on television as it was airing." That's just crazy! There have been sixty episodes of the show, and I've only seen one of the episodes as it was intended to be watched.
I realized the only show I try to make a point to watch on television as it airs are new episodes of The Simpsons, but that has more to do with being a tradition.
I think it is interesting to think about non-synchonous television watching (with Netflix's streaming content, Hulu, Amazon) as a sort of time warp. The "water-cooler conversations" still happen about television, but it could happen a few days, weeks, or even eyars down the road.
My older brother had watched all six seasons Six Feet Under several years ago, and just this summer, I ended up watching the whole series.
It is at least slightly bizarre to think that my brother and I both got to know the same characters and rode the same emotional roller coaster several years apart. It is almost like reading a someone's old myspace page from high school--you feel connected to this past-her in a way that even she does not know about.
I had a similar feeling when two summers ago, I watched a few seasons of The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show from the 1950s. In this comedy duo, George was the straight man and Gracie was a loveable goof. It took a few episodes to get into, but after awhile, I felt like a part of me could watch the show as people from that era watched it. (For comparison, if I saw something like this on television today, I would probably dismiss it as predictable and simplistic.) It was almost as if I was part of a collective unconscious with the people who had lived sixty years ago.
Sorry if my blog post got a little bit too heavy, but I think my feelings about television speak to what a poignant and meaningful art form it is.
To respond more directly to your post, I think that all of these new ways in which to watch television may just be this age's printing press. I am also excited to see how television will develop and change over the next years.
NOTE: I still haven't managed to figure out how to make my own posts, so I'm just going to post under my own comment.
So I finally turned… into a True Blood fan
I know I had wanted to watch True Blood. I felt like I owed it to the creator Alan Ball who was responsible for Six Feet Under and American Beauty, which are some of the greatest examples of on-screen excellence.
This past week, I buckled down and watched the first two seasons of True Blood. Oh. My. Gosh. It’s great. I am such a vampire person!
I wondered though—why does True Blood have what seems like a greater and more...well, fanatical fan base than did Six Feet Under?
One of the most glaring reasons is that HBO shows have become much more accessible now than they were in the early 2000s when Six Feet Under was on. Online TV watching (whether legal or not) has become so much more widely used for fans to watch Premium cable shows more conveniently.
True Blood also capitalizes on the consumer’s previous knowledge of Vampires. I’m sure there were probably a few crossover fans from Twilight (and perhaps also from Bram Stoker).
I think one of the biggest reasons True Blood has done so well is that there are iconic things that people can latch onto, unlike in Six Feet Under. It is much easier to recognizably dress up like a True Blood vampire for Halloween than it is to dress up like the, well, real people in Six Feet Under. To this point, the character Andy Bernard from The Office dressed as Bill Compton from True Blood. Fans like having something to latch onto.
In short, I think it at least part of True Blood’s success might come down to how consumer-friendly the show is.
We see evidence of this in so many other cultural phenomena. People love to dress up as the characters from Star Wars, as well as playing the video games, collecting the action figures, and fighting with replica light sabers. I already mentioned in class that I have a lot of Simpsons cra—I mean, things (e.g. pajamas, comforter, shirts, UNO, playing cards, keychains, hats, calendars, posters, and more). I even saw on Facebook that someone had made snacks that looked like Dexter’s blood slides for the season finale. A huge part of fandom is having things that you can make your own.
So where are my fan allegiances when comparing True Blood to Six Feet Under? It’s a tough call, but I will say Bill Compton is just a little hotter than is Nate Fischer.
NOTE: I still haven't managed to figure out how to make my own posts, so I'm just going to post under my own comment.
So I finally turned… into a True Blood fan
I know I had wanted to watch True Blood. I felt like I owed it to the creator Alan Ball who was responsible for Six Feet Under and American Beauty, which are some of the greatest examples of on-screen excellence.
This past week, I buckled down and watched the first two seasons of True Blood. Oh. My. Gosh. It’s great. I am such a vampire person!
I wondered though—why does True Blood have what seems like a greater and more...well, fanatical fan base than did Six Feet Under?
One of the most glaring reasons is that HBO shows have become much more accessible now than they were in the early 2000s when Six Feet Under was on. Online TV watching (whether legal or not) has become so much more widely used for fans to watch Premium cable shows more conveniently.
True Blood also capitalizes on the consumer’s previous knowledge of Vampires. I’m sure there were probably a few crossover fans from Twilight (and perhaps also from Bram Stoker).
I think one of the biggest reasons True Blood has done so well is that there are iconic things that people can latch onto, unlike in Six Feet Under. It is much easier to recognizably dress up like a True Blood vampire for Halloween than it is to dress up like the, well, real people in Six Feet Under. To this point, the character Andy Bernard from The Office dressed as Bill Compton from True Blood. Fans like having something to latch onto.
In short, I think it at least part of True Blood’s success might come down to how consumer-friendly the show is.
We see evidence of this in so many other cultural phenomena. People love to dress up as the characters from Star Wars, as well as playing the video games, collecting the action figures, and fighting with replica light sabers. I already mentioned in class that I have a lot of Simpsons cra—I mean, things (e.g. pajamas, comforter, shirts, UNO, playing cards, keychains, hats, calendars, posters, and more). I even saw on Facebook that someone had made snacks that looked like Dexter’s blood slides for the season finale. A huge part of fandom is having things that you can make your own.
So where are my fan allegiances when comparing True Blood to Six Feet Under? It’s a tough call, but I will say Bill Compton is just a little hotter than is Nate Fischer.
I watched the series finale of Dexter this past weekend as well. However, unlike Abhi, I watch Dexter weekly on the day it airs because I love it so much, I can’t wait for the new episode to come out. I agree that one has a completely different viewing experience when you watch the whole season of a show at once, because you are able to by pass the tension that comes from waiting a week to see the resolution of a cliffhanger. I’m sure it’s a much more satisfying way to view a program. However, I believe that there will always be a group of viewers who will watch a series in the traditional format, weekly one episode at a time, on actual television.
In response to David’s point, I think that while many of the ads and marketing campaigns for Google TV and products like it, target the multitasker, it is not necessarily true that everyone multitask to such an extreme extend when you use it. These ads want to show off that the technology exists. I know that I would be very interested in getting a Google TV, but I highly doubt that I’d always be watching two things at once while updating my twitter at the same time. I think the fear that something will be lost when the Television/Internet Convergence is complete is also somewhat silly. This technology only gives viewers more options and opens the door to what the future of TV means. It by no means should be thought of as limiting.
Abhi, I love your TV watching habits and can relate to them... sometimes. I'm definitely a multi-tasker, but there are also definitely shows where I will get furious if someone talks to me during the middle or otherwise interferes with an intense viewing experience (like frequent bathroom breaks or noisy snacks as you mention).
That being said, there are also shows that serve the main function of being something I can have on to create noise while I fall asleep or work on homework. I don't value these shows any less, and if anything probably watch them on a more frequent basis. I was trying to decide, then, what accounts for the distinctions in ways I watch a show?
I actually think it goes back to the initial topic of this thread. Shows on the internet and DVR, I know I can rewatch if I miss something, plus I'm more likely to be watching it socially with a friend. In these cases, the shows are more about facilitating a discussion or having fun. Shows like the Daily Show always wind up in discussions of politics, or wikipedia searches of newsheadlines. Even comedies like How I Met Your Mother tend to have me searching for pop culture references or messaging my friends to see if they agree-- is there really a reacher and a settler in every relationship? I'm really excited that these new products are using the social aspect of watching TV>
Whereas, if I AM watching something live on TV, the only reason is probably if I have made a very specific appointment to watch it, like a season finale. Otherwise, I'm more likely to pick out something I want to online than whatever randomly happens to be on TV. These are typically the more story driven shows, where if I miss something, I've fallen behind-- for me this is shows like House, Weeds, Desperate Housewives, etc.
Concerning the original post...
I think you hit the nail on the head when alluding to more free-form video content being published for the internet.
Viewing media through television programming or film his highly restricting both in form and content. Length is determined by the medium, as is content by the respective censorship and rating committees.
The internet is free of all of these things. Length is not a factor. Movies for the internet can be, and are, anywhere from two minutes to five hours. Content is completely up to the creator.
There will, of course, remain a market for regulated and formulated media. People like routine, familiarity. For the same reason that news papers haven't gone completely under yet, so to will television live on in its 30 minute sitcom block and hour long drama block.
However, the majority of content, I believe, will become available in different forms, though the internet. As video games become less taboo and more and more prevalent within our society, I believe that interactive media viewing too will rise. We already see this in a lot of teen romance drams (i.e. gossip girl) that allow users to shop the various clothes of the cast.
Post a Comment