Zach WeinersmithHey media dorks--
How do you think the switch from passive to active TV consumption has affected the medium? I wonder if it helps explain the rise of infinite sequels and catering to fandoms?
unlucio đ 
@ZachWeinersmith defined "active TV consumption", because when I see people sitting in front of the TV, they still seem pretty inactive to me.
The most they do is push buttons on their remote, just like they always did
The most they do is push buttons on their remote, just like they always did
@unlucio I mean back in the broadcast days you channel hopped a minute then found something to watch. Now you select what you watch in particular.
@ZachWeinersmith I see what you meant.
Yet to me, they look only more trackable and profitable, but the ECG still looks flat đ
Marshall@ZachWeinersmith yeah I don't think there's actually been as much a change as you think.
There are people who go to TV as a means of killing 'spare' time, much how I browse SMBC using random.
Then there are people who tune in for select shows or go to watch something in particular. Like when I read the new daily SMBC.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
@ZachWeinersmith As far as an explanation for the ceaseless sequels the most compelling idea I've heard is that this is the natural result of the explore - exploit principle.
That is, near the beginning of your life cycle you do a lot of exploring trying to find the most profitable investments. As you near the end of your life cycle the benefit gained from exploring is low, so you double down on the guaranteed investments (sequels of popular IP).
@ZachWeinersmith The explore exploit idea is taken directly from the book Algorithms to Live By. The observations on media consumption habits are my own.
Alistair Davidson@ZachWeinersmith I reckon the cause of endless sequels is intellectual property. Eg Disney pays $bns for Star Wars. Now it has a bookable value as an asset. Disney borrows against that asset. Now Star Wars needs to constantly generate revenue to justify its valuation or the debts need refinanced.
teaspoonC@ZachWeinersmith The big thing I notice when watching cable-era shows is that they are basically always less continuity-focused. They couldn't rely on a viewer having seen the previous episode or two (outside of special advertised events) and had to write with that in mind.
keirFox@ZachWeinersmith More independent watching, less group/family gatherings. Just like the South Park episode -- when I was a kid, my family all watched shows together. My current family? Nope. Everything is tailored for the viewer.
Tim Bray@ZachWeinersmith And yet, the streaming experience is regressing to be more like the cable experience of yore. Itâs not clear whether the current direction, of having to subscribe to a service to watch a show, is viable long-term. Don't think any one knows which way this is headingâŚ
John GordonI recommend bicycling. Or recreational substances. But definitely not streaming for future entertainment
@ZachWeinersmith Surely the switch to streaming is a big part of why movies have gotten longer: they no longer need to be made/edited to fit crowded broadcast schedules
dressupgeekout@ZachWeinersmith Media scholars have already written extensively about the "app-ification" of television, if that's what you're referring to. But in my opinion, that is not what's responsible for the rise of infinite sequels and catering to fandoms.
Rather, the more proximate cause is the democratization of broadcasting ("anyone" can start a YouTube channel and get a million subscribers) combined with the incredibly reduced barrier to entry to making movies in general. Even professional equipment is cheaper now. Abandoning film in favor of video is just the tip of that iceberg.
Today's viewers have an unprecedented amount of choice because there's now an unprecedented amount of content being made AND distributed. And THAT is what drives them to be more 'active' in their consumption habits, if I understand your meaning correctly.
TL;DR the switch from passive to active TV consumption didn't change the medium, it's the other way around. The changed medium has required viewers to become more active.
(And everything I just said also applies to music, too. The impact on listeners when now "anyone" can be a star on Soundcloud. And also books. Etc.)
Dror Bedrack@ZachWeinersmith I'm going with something obvious: because people dont just sit and watch whatever's on, but need to seek out the show, it gives advantange to "big" shows, ones everybody are talking about, or "familiar" shows, where there is already an audience invested in the series/franchise.
But it's just my feelings, I have no data to support this
But it's just my feelings, I have no data to support this
Bobby Politte@ZachWeinersmith It has diluted the quality of whatâs available to watch. Most channels are useless to most people. I feel less active and less satisfied with my TV experience - it began with cable, the large numbers of âscroll-overâ channels; now everything on every service is a channel. Too much time is spent trying to find something interesting in the overwhelming set of choices.
Sequels are just brands, a way to tell people what they are likely to get. Sequels started well before streaming.
wrosecrans@ZachWeinersmith I saw a post recently about the fact that Director commentary tracks have basically disappeared as a medium. They used to sound like a cool idea. Now the audience just thinks it sounds tedious to pay that close of attention to one film when there are a million other channels with nothing on competing for the half-attention.