Happy Birthday to O6

[Dominic]

Wow, a simply "happy birthday" to one of of the chattiest guys on this board...turns into......

People who fear change to that extent should be spayed for being useless to the gene pool. In all seriousness, though, I agree wholeheartedly, and not just because I work in customer service.

I am pretty sure the guys writing the cop shows are not afraid of change for it being new and different, but they are hostile to the internet exactly for the reasons you describe as the internet's virtues. At the end of the day, the net is taking bread from the table of the writers. They are sensibley annoyed at this. Of course, the ignorant audience members are another story.

This is also a statement against unavoidable media bias and snap-frozen opinions: At the end of the day, some individuals are governing what is and isn't pushed as news, and I do not believe those individuals would judge the importance of said news in a fair and reasonable fashion. After all, people have to 'buy' the paper, they need a catchy headline.

News that is covered is determined largely by what sells. When I was working as a reporter, I had more than one editor tell me "do not bother" on the basis that the story would not bring in readers. At the local level, cutesy pictures of kids sell more than serious stories. Missing white girls are another good example. Some jack-ass co-ed going missing in the Bahamas is a more saleable story than....genocide in Darfur. Not only is the story easier to market, it is cheaper. And, lets face it, if you were a reporter, what assignment would you rather get (and what would you charge more for), a working vacation (assuming you are even sent anywhere for the dead co-ed story), or a stint in a *very* rough part of the world?

It's not like a book, which by sheer stimulation of the imagination crosses the barrier and becomes personal. By removing the specifics (To paraphrase Waking Life, a man walks into a bar and sees a dwarf), you fill the gaps in yourself, and thus are limited only by your own consciousness, not by any budget/marketing team/timeslot/any other factor of a regular TV show that makes it less than entertaining.

But, the book only consists of what is on the page. The readers still only gets what the author gives them. Even filling in gaps, the reader only fills in the gaps regarding what the book is about. (I am thinking of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", which has some real distortions in it that are only apparent if one has read other material on the subject.)

The future, boys and girls, lies in Everything On Demand. I'm currently experiencing what I feel to be the start of a new wave of crossover between communication technology and entertainment, because when I do end up watching TV, I like to look up what I'm watching on my pocket PC. Watching a movie while reading its IMDB page and Wikipedia article is a fascinating thing.

I can see the virtue of self-selection. I am not a fan of the public square because there are too many village idiots congregating there. But, I am not a fan of the extreme selection that many hobbies now require. I should not have to have tremendous amounts of information on hand to watch a movie or TV show. I want something that is more or less self-contained and complete.

Along similar lines, it is a bad business model for producers to assume that level of interest by viewers, as people are less likely to select into something that they have to research.

Dom
-wishes JT were here to argue against the virtues of On-Demand.

[Onslaught Six]

I don't think it was so much that producers are assuming people watching the movie will also simultaneously look it up on IMDB and Wikipedia, just that it's a fun thing to do. Because we (or 86 and I, at least) tend to have that obsessive urge to find out Every Little Thing about the things we like.

[onslaught86]

I am pretty sure the guys writing the cop shows are not afraid of change for it being new and different, but they are hostile to the internet exactly for the reasons you describe as the internet's virtues. At the end of the day, the net is taking bread from the table of the writers. They are sensibley annoyed at this. Of course, the ignorant audience members are another story.

Absolutely, it's fairly well documented and highly amusing. I argue that television should (And will ultimately have to) embrace the internet and the way it has changed communication. Not necessarily by requiring viewers to read more about the show or do more research, but by integrating into it for the better of both. Else, I feel, as a format without viewer interaction, it may ultimately be left behind.

Should I watch a TV show, I simply do not have the time or sustained interest as an extremely casual, nay, reluctant viewer of the medium, to stick with a series or even a movie in the vague hopes in will be good. I rely largely on word of mouth, and on online feedback to decide whether or not to bother - so far has my desire to know and see more about what 'I' want to know and see gone, that I don't even bother downloading anymore, and only watch DVDs if I have someone else to watch them with. I barely use youtube outside of music videos, which I do miss, but don't watch on TV as the music channels all suck.

News that is covered is determined largely by what sells. When I was working as a reporter, I had more than one editor tell me "do not bother" on the basis that the story would not bring in readers. At the local level, cutesy pictures of kids sell more than serious stories. Missing white girls are another good example. Some jack-ass co-ed going missing in the Bahamas is a more saleable story than....genocide in Darfur. Not only is the story easier to market, it is cheaper. And, lets face it, if you were a reporter, what assignment would you rather get (and what would you charge more for), a working vacation (assuming you are even sent anywhere for the dead co-ed story), or a stint in a *very* rough part of the world?

Absolutely, weird or interesting news gets a lot of coverage these days, as does technology. I feel that if we're going to pretend we have some kind of moral obligation to know what's going on in the world, we should follow through with this. Do people honestly 'enjoy' hearing about war and death in other countries, aside from the vicarious warming feeling that it's not happening to them? I'd rather not hear about any of it than just hear about what's marketable.

But, the book only consists of what is on the page. The readers still only gets what the author gives them. Even filling in gaps, the reader only fills in the gaps regarding what the book is about. (I am thinking of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", which has some real distortions in it that are only apparent if one has read other material on the subject.)

That depends largely upon both the reader and the gaps. A good writing style can encourage vibrant thought, or self-insertion, and stimulate the mind in ways a visual image cannot. Consider the idealistic parts of communication entirely through text, as we're doing now, vs. video format. Text-only is simplifying the medium, leaving the written word on the page as a reference that can be quickly glanced back at (Far easier than rewinding a video), and eliminating body language and other factors that can both hinder and help people to understand where the other party is coming from. Film is a much more specific way of communicating, especially with direction/camera angles/lighting and so many other things that illustrate scenes and interactions with emphasis that would never be replicated in reality. Although text does this too, ideally only mentioning what's essential, it's what's not mentioned (Possibly only hinted at) that helps the reader set the scene themselves.

Sure, they only get what the author gives them, but if they could get anything they wanted, why would they read the book?

I can see the virtue of self-selection. I am not a fan of the public square because there are too many village idiots congregating there. But, I am not a fan of the extreme selection that many hobbies now require. I should not have to have tremendous amounts of information on hand to watch a movie or TV show. I want something that is more or less self-contained and complete.

I agree, in that I don't want to have to read a summary to work out how a wonky plot was supposed to have progressed. As mentioned above, I find it handy to be able to access more information on something I'm watching to determine quickly whether it's worth watching at all.

Along similar lines, it is a bad business model for producers to assume that level of interest by viewers, as people are less likely to select into something that they have to research.

See: Lost.

[Dominic]

Absolutely, weird or interesting news gets a lot of coverage these days, as does technology. I feel that if we're going to pretend we have some kind of moral obligation to know what's going on in the world, we should follow through with this. Do people honestly 'enjoy' hearing about war and death in other countries, aside from the vicarious warming feeling that it's not happening to them? I'd rather not hear about any of it than just hear about what's marketable.

I know people who watched coverage of the early stages of the Iraq war like it was a sporting event. Even if you supported the war, bombing the major cities of a civilized country, (and Iraq's major cities looked much like what one would see in parts of the US or AU), should be treated with more seriousness than a football game. Others just like to see coverage of disasters as it gives them a chance to shake their heads sadly, and comment about the sadness of it all. It is more ritualistic for them than anything else.

Absolutely, it's fairly well documented and highly amusing. I argue that television should (And will ultimately have to) embrace the internet and the way it has changed communication. Not necessarily by requiring viewers to read more about the show or do more research, but by integrating into it for the better of both. Else, I feel, as a format without viewer interaction, it may ultimately be left behind.

I do not think it is the technology that troubles TV writers, but the economic application of it. My neighbors are Brazilian. While visiting them once, (as they have the cutest little kid ever), I watched a bit of TV with them. It was a Brazilian soap opera that they were watching over some kind of satellite service. Even 10 years ago, that would have been a rarity. 20 years ago, it would have been all but impossible for most people. Viewers had the same limited choices as their neighbors, and TV stations had (as a consequence) less competition. Now, US networks are not just competing with each-other, but they are competing with stations in Brazil, China, France....... And, that is just on TV itself. The more competition there is for viewers, the harder it becomes to attract viewers. Fewer viewers means less income means lower pay. Lower pay...well, how would you like the industry reponsible for your check getting cut?

The internet can help with researching tedious back-story if somebody is interested, (as with "Lost"), but it can also distract. The more time I spend researching one show, the less time I spend watching other shows.

That depends largely upon both the reader and the gaps. A good writing style can encourage vibrant thought, or self-insertion, and stimulate the mind in ways a visual image cannot.

Of course, there is something to be said for reading objectively, rather than to identify with something. And, intentional factual gaps are plain dishonest, or at best lazy.

Sure, they only get what the author gives them, but if they could get anything they wanted, why would they read the book?

The portability and simiplicity of the technology is one part of the appeal for me. All I need is the book, my eyes, and some source of light. Contrast this with a computer that has to be plugged in or a portable machine that has to be charged.

I tend to select books based on the credibility of the author, or the worthiness of the subject matter. In some cases, I read books by guys who I know are wrong, just to understand the "other side". (I am partly through a Ralph Peters book now for that reason. Though Peters tends to be right on facts, and wrong on conclusions.)


Dom
-way behind in his reading.

[Onslaught Six]

The more time I spend researching one show, the less time I spend watching other shows.

This is an interesting point to segueway (segway? This version of Firefox lacks spellcheck, argh!) into something I was pondering last week. Two Sundays ago, I decided I'd download an SNES emulator and play through one of my favourite JRPGs of all time, Chrono Trigger. Hadn't done so in years, major nostalgia bomb, 'and' it's still really good. So I started playing it. Played through almost all of it on Sunday and the following Monday. And then...I stopped. But I was reading lots of message boards and websites about Chrono Trigger. Friday or so, it dawned on me--I was actually spending more time reading 'about' playing Chrono Trigger than I was actually 'playing' Chrono Trigger. This struck me as horribly backwards and I resolved to change it.

And then Sunday, I started playing it, got to the awesome ending sidequest stretch, and....my laptop overheated and now doesn't work.

FML.

All I need is the book, my eyes, and some source of light.

Eheh, reminds me of the blurb from the pack of the first Penny Arcade compilation. "Penny Arcade comes to you in this compact, wireless portable viewer that requires no batteries, no power cords or adapters, and never needs to be charged! With this revolutionary offline archive, you can access your favourite Penny Arcade strips anytime and anywhere through the awesome power of available light!"

I'm pretty sure that blurb is what sold me on the book in the first place. (And the fact that it was Penny Arcade, and only $13.)

-way behind in his reading.

I just got caught up today, actually, meaning one thing--time to buy more comics. AHM vol 2 TPB hits in July, woo! And Maximum Dinobots comes out sometime thereabout, too--*that* I'm looking forward to. If both Dom and 86 say it's good, then I do suppose I would have to think it's good.

[Dominic]

Prowl also thinks "Maximum Dinobots" is good. And, I think Sparky liked it. I think that is about as broad an endorsement as you could hope for.

This struck me as horribly backwards and I resolved to change it.

Of course, if reading about the game is part of enjoying it.....

Dom

[Onslaught Six]

Of course, if reading about the game is part of enjoying it.....

It was, partially, but this would be more like spending all my time reading 'about' Transformers instead of actually sitting down and fiddling with Transformers. Which I also tend to do, sigh. Partially why I went and turned all my Classics into Vehicle Mode--that, and I remembered half the reason TFs are awesome is because armies of cars are awesome.