5 Comments »

Allow me to acknowledge the greater point you’re making with this re-edited piece, but disagree.

The more I hear from bloggers that the web (and its close cousin, social media) is going to eclipse traditional forms of media, the more I think we’re overrating the phenomenon. I’ve heard it said that 2008 is the year that web video will make TV obsolete. Maybe it’s 2009. I just don’t buy it. Even with web-only productions coming out, and with bloggers producing content at an alarming rate, and with users able to re-edit movies to their liking, etc., I just don’t see books, movies, and TV going away.

Agreed: The web is an essential component.

I think this 6-minute video “epic” proves my point. It’s nice, but not particularly deep. I still want to know what the characters are saying. The way that they interact in the film is told through body language, dialog, and through the space of an hour-and-a-half. Reducing it to soundbites and 6 minutes doersn’t do it justice.

There’s a craft to good writing that web mashups can’t touch, and that only a handful of bloggers “get.” The video isn’t a substitute for the movie; it’s an alternative, good for what it’s worth, but not the full picture. I don’t believe for a moment, as you said, that “it’s all there.” In six minutes, yes, that’s about all you can do with the film. But a distillation is just a taste, and there’s an audience that will always want to see the full 90 minutes.

I agree that attention spans are sorter, and that social media tools are allowing users to create their own content - perhaps more satisfying to them - from existing. It’s a control thing; the web 2.0 (and 3.0) models allow users to make and disseminate content freely. But the art of making great content - in books and movies - remains largely unchanged.

The shower scene in “Psycho” still remains great because on the director’s mastery on montage. No re-editing gives it any more power. The Deer Hunter can be edited into a six-minute piece, but it’s the use of long, long takes and conversations that can’t get past awkward pauses that give it - for me - its power.

I do get the concept of short, powerful media. But this clip from Fly Away Home is just a music video to me, something that has almost lived past its useful purposes.

I guess I’d like to hear more about what specific power this video has for you, and what you think it has for everybody.

Scott Gowans -
web manager, WOSU

Hi Scott
My point abut the clip was to show an example of what a number of non professionals are working on now - reusing material - . The second point I make here is that on the web, there appears to be an attention barrier that seems to live at around 6 minutes.

I am not saying that this type of work replaces the long form - I am saying that on the web, as currently delivered the short form rules.

On TV, paradoxically I ma finding that the form is getting longer. With large screens and cinema sound, the trend is the opposite. I am not alone in enjoying watching say whole series that can cope with the type of complexity that a 90 minute film cannot.

The point that I have not made here but will now - is that how video is delivered will migrate to the web as the “pipe” in the time frame that you offer up.

What people want is control over what and when - the web as a pipe meets this demand.

The challenge that those of us who work in traditional media where the place and the time drive the business model - is that a new model of value has to be found. It cannot be the fact that you control my access by the clock and by geography. The web transcends time and space.

“Viewers” not only want to see what they want and when they want at home - likely large screen but also when they are on the move. In 2008, wifi will be back on planes and widespread in 2009. My bet is that wifi will be ubiquitous by 2009. The ability to get video on demand anywahere at any time will be there.

Already my iTouch and iPhones have excellent YouTube and Video interfaces - try them - by 2009 great interfaces will be everywhere and at home and the price will be low.

So now we are back to the business model. Most content - long form or short will be digital and available - how will WOSU and any other station located in a place make its money?

That’s the question that confronts us.

PS why did this clip get me? The song is all about loss. I have had a few of those and that is how it hits me. I went to Amazon to see what others thought. Most share my reaction and for the same reasons. A few are left entirely cold and think it is a dreadful song - includes my wife by the way.

I am learning a lot recently about how different we all are.

Again Scot I don’t promote this clip as anything other than an example of how rework is becoming popular - there are some other examples for instance of 300 that has the film also compressed into about 6 minutes. I am saying that doing this well is not easy. I am saying that it is a developing form just as the long form is too.

I close on the long form. I am just about to start season 3 of the Wire. I have just finished both seasons of Rome. I am stunned by the producer’s ability to carry the drama over more than 30 hours.

I would never watch either show on TV. I don’t want to wait week to week - I want to immerse myself in the drama and in the characters. Now I have to rely on DVD - but soon I wont. I will download such shows. The web and better storage will allow that. My Apple and my screen will merge.

So in the end we agree I think - the art of making great content is a rare and challenging one. How to get paid for it is what is now on the table!

Hi Rob,
Good points, all. Especially about how TV and movies seem to be growing in length, and not getting shorter. Films started as shorts, then expanded as storytelling devices (sound, montage) got into the lexicon. They regularly run over two hours these days, which is up from even ten years ago. I’m not sure directors understand the trade-off - lousy writing and bad sequels are excruciating the longer the running time.

Maybe the web is in this same state. Everything is short because it’s new and it’s easier to make things shorter. I do wonder if web stuff will get longer, and whether these two-minute re-edits will go the way of the 24-minute TV drama.

I suppose it’s this word “epic” that you threw in there that sounded like chalk on a blackboard. War and Peace is epic.. The “6-minute epic” doesn’t exist, but I get the idea…

- Scott

Yes Scott - I meant “Epic” in that in a short form all the elements of a story existed - supporting I think your premise that story telling is hard to do. Miniatures are exceptionally hard to pull off

There is a new idea called the “Well Curve” You know the Bell Curve where the bulk of the population are in the middle. The Well Curve is the opposite. The high populations are on the wings with a dip in the middle. So Hotels are cheap and cheerful or grand and very expensive.

My feeling is that there will be the short and long form with little in the middle. I think that it is about how we live our life. If I am using my iTouch - I am filling in time between things. If I am luxuriating in front of my 60 inch screen (I don’t have one yet) I have time.

Still on the short form - another friend pointed out that most songs - even arias in opera - fit the 3 - 6 minute rule. So Tristan & Isolde may take 2 plus hours but Liebestod is about 6 minutes. I wonder why this seems to be so universal?

Not much in the middle is a fascinating concept.

I’ve argued for years that most people either rate things very high over very low on a scale. Metacritic shows these results; users (not professional critics) typically either HATE or LOVE films/videos/games, etc. Either the piece works fully or not at all in people’s minds, with very little in the middle. I suppose it’s easier for us to process a lot of information that way: one camp or the other.

I’m curious why length is an either/or.

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>