Captain Hammer threw a car at my head
October 11, 2009
The argument Dawson is considering in his article seems similar to the debate on the impact of texting and text language might have on the English language. Like text messages are to Shakespeare, are video clips and videos meant solely for mobile phones not as worthwhile as the hour long tv show? The examples he gives of missing details on an episode of LOST and the 24 mini-series seem to say so.
It seems that there need to be certain sacrifices made when a video is made to be viewed on a smaller device. The example Dawson gives is that while viewing an episode of LOST, because of the format he was seeing the episode in he missed the logo tattooed on the shark’s tail. This shark’s mark was a crucial clue in the early going of the show. Dawson goes on to speak of the short episodes of 24 which were made to be seen on mobile phones. He notes that these videos were lacking in almost every aspect of which the original series is known for. And when the mini-series was added as a DVD extra, it did not translate well at all to being viewed on a television screen.
Given his comments on LOST, 24, and the other shows which focus primarily on showing brief clips, this format of viewing programs eliminates the narrative complexity which we all seem to be so in love with. And I’m not really buying the argument made towards the end of the essay that because of the smaller screen that the viewer will actually work harder and be more attentive when watching something on a mobile device. I relate it to Dr. Horrible’s pie analogy: on the surface they are just clips with no complexity or importance of story continuation, and though you can try to look deeper and find another different level, just below that there is a level just like the one on top.
Sticking with Dr. Horrible, this video can be seen as an example of how the clip format doesn’t work. Going to Hulu, you are able to view the story in its entirety. However, you are also able to go to YouTube and see the story broken up into segments. On their own, the individual clips mean nothing, it is only when connected and the story is put together that the clips have significance. Dawson mentions how there are those who feel the flow of a normal television broadcast is not needed for a viewer to understand story, that instead one’s familiarity with television is enough for a viewer to take segmented clips and “reassemble” them into a story. I disagree and think that flow and continuity are important to a story and that it is more difficult to “reassemble” than people may think. Once something has been disassembled, it cannot just as easily be reassembled. And I just happen to know a certain robot who agrees with me.
An audience has differing expectations as far as story, based on how they are viewing. With film and television, there is the expectation of some kind of story; whether it be episodic or complex, there is something which the viewer can attach to for the length of the show. With the clips made for mobile devices, the expectations are different. They are in the same field as YouTube videos, good for a quick watch, but nothing too complex is happening. They serve to entertain only briefly, before a viewer is moving on to the next one.
What you bring up about reassembling a show once it is broken-up is interesting. With shows that are shown on television with the constant commerical interuption it apparent that the storyline gets broken-up and disassembled because once the show comes back from the commerical break you have to remember what occurred before therefore, viewers at times see disassembled segments of the show this makes the show complex. As far as Dr. Horrible Sing Along blog and watching it on Hulu.com in its entirety without being broken-up definitely makes it flowing without the problem of broken-up segments. I could not retrieve the Youtube video of Dr. horrible but by you blog comment I cansee the frustration of viewing and watching this viedo through a medium as Youtube where you do not get thenornal flow of Dr. Horrible as you do in Hulu.com.
I agree that websites like youtube are there to show segments of episodes of whatever it is some one is trying to watch. There are billions of things on that website that you can watch. You can be watching a clip from Dr. Horrible one minute then watching someone making farting noises with their hands the next. It is a lot like have a mobile phone to watch videos. Distractions are every where through these mediums. But Hulu plays entire episodes, which I think makes it stand out from youtube.
Kudos to commenter numero uno, because commercial interruptions are the first thing that came to my mind as well. It’s not so much that formatted-for-television productions have less interruptions, it’s that they have a certain kind of interruption, which we are used to, and are as much a planned part of production as the rest of the show. Not to mention the fact that these particular interruptions benefit major media corporations… even hulu.com uses commercials, though they are shorter than those on regular television. Maybe we should be really excited about all of this reformatting or reassembling. If it opens up the possibility of a viewing format without commercials, then perhaps it also opens the space for a reassembling of the media industry, where the power over production is more evenly distributed among writers, actors, camera persons, etc. (Boy, was I just straight up channeling Marx there, or what?) Anyway, Dr. Horrible clearly serves as an example of what can be done even without corporate aid. (Although let’s not forget that Whedon was already a big name because of his work with the WB, etc., and his fan base undeniably helped in Horrible’s success.)
[...] 5) A) October 14, 2009 To Susan Twisting Good versus Evil 5) B) October 14, 2009 To Ryan Captain Hammer threw a car at my head> 6) A) October 21, 2009 to Paula Infinite Torture…So Far> 6) B) October 21, 2009 To Jen [...]