![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_fantastic_ms_foxI rented the first six episodes of Carnivale, a series that sprang out of a double-length movie script. I thought it was a beautiful magical-realist period piece, but a bit slow.
(I also thought I have limited interest in watching yet another duo of normative dudes serve as humanity's champions, but that's another article)
HBO cancelled Carnivale after two seasons; one-third of the way through its Big Plan.
Was this a tragedy for artistic television? Yes. But whose doing?
Consider: episodes ran an average of fifty-six minutes and four million dollars. Two seasons. Twelve epsiodes each. One third of a story
So, I ask: How can you spend ninety-six million dollars, and take twenty-one hours and thirty-six minutes and only be a third of the way through a story that was originally written at three hours?
Was it tragic? Yes. But in the Greek sense: the kind that you bring on yourself.
Northamerican Anglophone television has embraced the "story arc," once the domain of soap operas, but doesn't ask how long it takes to tell a good story. So we are left with episodes of 22 or 44 minutes, in seasons that shrink only grudgingly. From 26 episodes to 22, sometimes as low as 17 for high-concept shows on major networks. Artsy channels often have 13,12 or 10.
Consider even the teeniest case: a "short" season of ten epsiodes of a "half-hour" show (acutually 22 minutes apiece). A Sitcom, most likely. Even with a one-season run, that's three hours and forty minutes. How many movies are that long?
I see this trend towards elephantine epics reflected in novels and online articles. I'm sure they're getting longer, but I don't have proof. (All this despite fears of "shrinking attention spans.") Why? Cheaper computer-controlled editing and printing, and transfinite recording online space?
Do we assume that, the more words or minutes, the more media is worth? Or, without boudaries does quality expand to fill the available space?
Not all television is like this. Rome was concise. But Internet TV, or "Streamies" usually don't fall into this trap. Why?
(I also thought I have limited interest in watching yet another duo of normative dudes serve as humanity's champions, but that's another article)
HBO cancelled Carnivale after two seasons; one-third of the way through its Big Plan.
Was this a tragedy for artistic television? Yes. But whose doing?
Consider: episodes ran an average of fifty-six minutes and four million dollars. Two seasons. Twelve epsiodes each. One third of a story
So, I ask: How can you spend ninety-six million dollars, and take twenty-one hours and thirty-six minutes and only be a third of the way through a story that was originally written at three hours?
Was it tragic? Yes. But in the Greek sense: the kind that you bring on yourself.
Northamerican Anglophone television has embraced the "story arc," once the domain of soap operas, but doesn't ask how long it takes to tell a good story. So we are left with episodes of 22 or 44 minutes, in seasons that shrink only grudgingly. From 26 episodes to 22, sometimes as low as 17 for high-concept shows on major networks. Artsy channels often have 13,12 or 10.
Consider even the teeniest case: a "short" season of ten epsiodes of a "half-hour" show (acutually 22 minutes apiece). A Sitcom, most likely. Even with a one-season run, that's three hours and forty minutes. How many movies are that long?
I see this trend towards elephantine epics reflected in novels and online articles. I'm sure they're getting longer, but I don't have proof. (All this despite fears of "shrinking attention spans.") Why? Cheaper computer-controlled editing and printing, and transfinite recording online space?
Do we assume that, the more words or minutes, the more media is worth? Or, without boudaries does quality expand to fill the available space?
Not all television is like this. Rome was concise. But Internet TV, or "Streamies" usually don't fall into this trap. Why?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 02:20 am (UTC)Compare that with The Lord of the Rings or even L.E Modesitt's Recluce series that actually tell a story within each book rather than endless exposition, yattering and fluff.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 07:47 am (UTC)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071227070311AAOUdEO
no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-21 03:02 pm (UTC)As far as I can tell, there is a definite consciousness of limited time to tell the tale in internet TV.
Also; there is less fear to use silent and early movie techniques of using text-blocks on the screen for exposition. It's not used frequently, but it is used occasionally. If you've ever seen "Captain Blood", the story would have been impossibly expensive/ much much longer to do without those blocks, but modern tv and movies would never use the technique. Streamies have been known to.
Some "real" filmmakers have been taking advantage of the fact that digital media takes a lot of the film-media expense-limits off the table. If film isn't pricey to use, that limiting factor is gone. Same with paper & ink expense, in writing. Without the limiting factors, a lot of writers go kind of nuts.
It's just my theory, of course, but Streamy writers pay a lot more attention to attention-span because it's a truism that on the internet; especially for free, no-one will keep going when they're bored.