facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “Technology and Art”

The Influence of TV: Scratching the Surface (PT11)

Alex and Nick go off the beaten path to discuss the influence of the television medium on both cultures and people. We take a look at a few interesting case studies that have affected us personally, and the world we live in.

Which television stories have had a major impact on our lives? What about representation, international exports, and other cultures? Why is television much more than just an “idiot box”?
From The Simpsons to Star Trek, diversity to social relevance, Paper Team takes a look at a few interesting case studies illustrating television’s impact.

This episode is by no means an exhaustive discussion on the subject (people have done entire PhDs on it), merely a conversation starter through specific examples and themes.

SHOWNOTES

Content

1 – What is the most influential TV show of all time? (00:55)
2 – A few words on diversity and representation on TV (15:03)
3 – Exports, adaptations, and the influence of international shows (25:24)
4 – TV’s social and personal impact (35:02)
Takeaway and next week’s topic (46:50)

Links

Bush v. Simpsons (Video)
Kodos and Kang’s Two-Party System (Video)
Homer owns the Denver Broncos (Video)
The Simpsons’ Movie References (Video)
Irish Unification of 2024
NASA’s Science of Star Trek
Nichelle Nichols reflects on MLK Encounter
Lucille Ball & Star Trek
Homosexuality portrayal in Star Trek
Dawson’s Creek at ATX (The Writers Panel)
Les Miroirs Obscurs – Martin Winckler
“Indians on TV” (1×04 – Master of None)
NBC’s SeeSo
Le bureau
Psychology for Screenwriters – William Indick
“Other Things You Could Be Doing” (2×12 – You’re the Worst)
“The Body” (5×16 – Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
“Mother Simpson” (7×08 – The Simpsons)
“Ecotone” (5×09 – Six Feet Under)

Special thanks to Jason J. Cohn for helping us edit this episode.

If you enjoyed the episode (and others), please consider leaving us an iTunes review at paperteam.co/itunes! :)

You can find Paper Team on Twitter:
Alex@TVCalling
Nick@_njwatson
If you have any questions, comments or feedback, you can e-mail us: [email protected]

Virtual Reality: Entertainment’s Next Frontier

Last night, I attended JHRTS’ Virtual Reality panel over at CAA.
The event was moderated by the great Reggie Watts, who is a fellow VR aficionado.
Panelists included: Ted Schilowitz (Futurist at 20th Century Fox), Nonny De La (CEO of Emblematic), Matthew Collado Pena (Co-Founder/CCO at Littlstar), Tom Vance (Head of Narrative at JauntVR), Jeffrey Greller (Digital/VR Agent at WME/IMG), and Ryan Horrigan (CCO at Felix & Paul Studios).

virtual reality panel stitchingThe panel (and terrible image stitching)

I’ve already been on the record saying how big a fan I am of this new medium.
Specifically, I’m a firm believer that the future of entertainment, whether it’d be in 100 or 500 years, is something similar to the Holodeck from Star Trek (and its famed holonovels).
It’s all about the convergence between passive entertainment (film/TV), active entertainment (gaming), and interactive/immersive technologies.

Empty HolodeckThe future of entertainment

As a side-note–
Although I have yet to talk on here about my NYTVF experience, I did attend back in October the StoryNext virtual reality conference (offered to us in conjunction with NYTVF). On top of panels with speakers from companies such as Google and LucasFilm, multiple VR demos were on display.
I was able to try out then HTC Vive, which is probably the best (and only?) kinematic VR experience available for purchase.

And speaking of kinematic experiences, let’s go back to last night…

The panel opened with a rundown of what people defined as “virtual reality”. Nonny pointed out the two major variations in VR: Cinematic versus Kinematic.
Cinematic being VR through a fixed point (arguably more passive), while kinematic VR has the ability to physically move within a space and interact with it.
Ted brought up that the initial Wii was akin to a VR experience, albeit through a flat screen.

A question was then asked about the reach of VR. Since the experience is about “being there”, such a powerful escapism tool can innately reach a wide audience. It’s about having the right tech with the right people. Tom revealed that their Paul McCartney concert video is their most successful VR video to date. Clearly, not a niche piece of entertainment.

The conversation then switched to creating content for virtual reality.
Consensus was formed around a first, simple question that should be asked by anyone thinking about creating for the new medium: Why does it have to be in VR?
Much like plays being “adapted” to television broadcast in its advent, some current VR content can be a bastardization of 2D/passive cinematic experiences merely transposed to a VR headset. In other words, these are not native experiences designed for virtual reality.
VR is inherently a “point of view experience”, which leads to multiple “issues” or “limitations” that need to be addressed to get a fully immersive experience. One is regarding the POV you create for your viewer. Then there are other narrative traits, such as cutting (or as I’d say “shifting”) between scenes without jarring transitions.

Well, these are merely challenges for the present, not the future.
Similar to the early days of film and television, I am curious to see how the language of virtual reality evolves. For one thing: how can you script a three-dimensional interactive environments while accounting for possible movements and audio cues? Is Final Draft working on a new version?
I should probably get started on a proprietary format…

Truth be told, as the technologies progress, so will the content, language, and workflow.
Volumetric capture is already on the rise (albeit with basic resolution), and with the advent of mass-market VR headsets, content will thrive. Ted predicts a “culling of the herd” within the next couple of years in terms of companies, technologies, and content.
Jeffrey did bring up the inevitable transition from VR content wrapped in an application, moving it into standard/open web (see: video or audio before it). There’s probably going to be some loss of revenue linked to that though. Since MKV and MP4 are the current defaults for sharing videos, what will the “open” VR container look like? (And how big will it be?)

In addition to volumetric capture, I’m personally excited for the progress of light-field technology. Lytro is coming out with their Lytro Immerge camera, which looks like it could transform the way live-action is captured, and how it renders in VR environments.
It will also be interesting to see the evolution of haptic feedback and ways to “physically” interact with these digital environments.

So, what about the not-too-distant future?
Occulus and HTC Vive are entering the market. The end of 2016 will see the launch of Sony’s own VR gear (known as Morpheus), which should push adoption to several millions of people.
Fox is releasing a VR experience for The Martian. Ted stated it would be roughly a 30-minute highly interactice experience, which is fairly ambitious for current projects.
Multiple recommendations for experiences and tools were mentioned. There’s Mixamo for done-for-you 3d characters, the game Esper2 for GearVR, and the VR experience of The Walk.

As you can surmise from this recap, virtual reality is still a whole lot of questioning with few answers.
But that’s really all you can expect from the infancy of a new medium.

Is the future of television another article about the future of television?

Around TCA season, we always get inundated with articles related to “the future of television” or “the end of online streaming”.

It’s always funny to read these wannabe prescient articles about the rise and fall of television. Especially since they’re always reverberating the same thought over and over, year after year.

As usual, we had the one about how “live TV will be irrelevant in the future“. There’s also that other one about Netflix producing–wait for it–a bunch of original shows. Whodathunkit.
Let’s also not forget the obligatory “Netflix: Is this the end of online streaming as we know it?” versus “The future of television? HBO.

And then there’s the palme de la creme de la cherry on the top.
That one article desperately wanting to coin (and crown) a “new art form” within a sub-subset of a television trend.

This year’s winner: “Netflix is accidentally inventing a new art form — not quite TV and not quite film“.

Oh, boy.

Let’s take a glance at the article’s h3 points…

1. Binge watching versus weekly watching: It changes everything

How is this news in 2015?
Nearly six years ago (!) I wrote about that exact same thing.
You know, when House of Cards was but a twinkle in Ted Sarandos’ eye.

My point is not to back-pat myself (that sounded dirty); it is to explain that, hell no, Netflix did not create an “art form” (ugh) that predates it.

Just because you make it “easier” to do something doesn’t mean you “accidentally invent” that something.

Ford did not invent transportation.
Apple did not invent mobile communications.
Netflix did not invent binge-watching (or, as we used to call it in the good old days, TV marathons).

Hold on. Something else is coming back to me…

I remember… I remember watching X-Files episodes back-to-back on VHS in the 90s.

Holy shit. I INVENTED BINGE-WATCHING!

2. Netflix thinks more in terms of seasons than of episodes

Yawn.

Should I really bother talking, yet again, about the concept of “bigger picture” in television?
ABC renewed Lost for three seasons in 2007.
We can all move on now.

3. But the 10-hour story is still a new craft — and an imperfect one

And film is in its infancy compared to literature.

Truth is “10-hour stories” are older than American Idol.

Ever heard of a show called Roots? Or HBO’s Band of Brothers? Or Sci-Fi’s Taken?
I hadn’t, and then I googled “mini-series”.

“Mini-series”, “limited series”, “event series”, “anthology seasons”. Call them what you want. It’s all semantics.
Roots and True Detective are, at the end of the day, close-ended 8-hour narratives.

But then, you tell me, this isn’t about anthology seasons. It’s about shorter seasons!
And, once again, I’ll point you to a distant post from the distant past.

The year was 2008.

Here are nine ideas to save television“, I bravely claimed. And one was about shorter seasons:

Remember Dirty Sexy Money? Probably not, because it only had 13 episodes last season.
But that’s okay.
Less is definitely more when it comes to shows like Lost. A radically shorter season definitely helped the show to condense its mythology and get on with the answers instead of waiting around for 5 other episodes.
It might not be that good for the Big Five in terms of cash but in a qualitative way, it’s certainly a game-changer.

Now, combine shorter seasons with 55-minute long shows around the year available for free whenever wherever on VOD.
Boom.
Welcome to the new world, Networks.

Holy shit. I ALSO INVENTED NETFLIX!

Look. I understand the temptation to be right about “the future of television” or the desperation to be the first to “call” something. We’re all guilty of this. But if you really want to do that, at least have something new to say.
Why are you shocked HBO is going into sports (“Inside the NFL” anyone?) or that Netflix is doing–gasp!–original programming.

We all know Ted Sarandos’ provocative statement about how Netflix’s goal “is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us.”
That was three years ago.

And this brings us full-circle to the reason of this entire post–or rant.
Maybe I needed to air my frustration about TV circlejerking.
Maybe I needed to point out how ridiculously narrow these echo chambers have become.
Or, maybe, I needed to quote this actual statement about HBO Now and Netflix:

If, as The Awl’s John Hermann argues, “the next Internet is TV,” then subscription-based streaming services are the next Facebook.

I thought orange was the new black? Wait, what is this again?
Oh. Now I remember.
It’s not TV, it’s articles about TV.