Changing the channel

Change is an unavoidable constant in the universe and very often, if we do not see it is because we are not watching. However, it is also possible not to see the change even when you are looking: like the proverbial frog that gets burnt in a heating pot of water, we can completely miss the change that is happening in front of us if we are just not paying attention.

Reflecting yesterday about the changes in the content of the audiovisual products that we consume I realized that also the format has been changing: during the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of this one the commercial needs of the TV channels required almost all programs in 22 or 44-minute segments in order to allow for the insertion of the necessary advertising. These needs were so strong that they gave birth to the well-established genre of the "short" sitcom, where each episode lasts almost exactly 22 minutes. The examples of this genre abound, from "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" to "Friends", from "Cheers" to "Family Matters". However, with the streaming platforms becoming the producers of their own content, which is intended to be viewed without commercial interruptions (and, it possible, several episodes in a single sitting) the time constraint is in a serious decline.

Photo: Alvin Trusty

Another custom that is disappearing is the blending of the credits into the action: many series had the intro theme labeled with the recurrent cast and use the initial seconds of the action to audit guest stars and alike. In broadcast TV, this was just a "feature" away to have enough time to mention everyone, even if it meant "invading" the action. Nowadays most streaming platforms offer the option to skip the credits, but that leaves them with a tough choice: if they skip all the credits the viewer misses some seconds of the story; if they jump to the beginning of the action the viewer is confronted with a couple of names that seem to come from nowhere. That is why the streaming platforms now produce series with fully dosed opening titles which fade to black before the story starts to allow an uninterrupted viewing.

The case of the recaps is largely the same: when episodes came out weekly, especially if the series was somewhat intricate, it was necessary for most viewers to have a quick refresh of the story so far. But when watching the series in streaming the precious episode is literally seconds away, so the platforms also offer to skip that part. Surprisingly, it is not entirely redundant because the long narrative arcs can at times last longer than a typical viewer can watch, so whenever they comeback for another session the recap is usually welcome.

One very salient feature of on-demand video is that, since it does not have to be scheduled in a regular time slot, there is no reason for all episodes to have equal length and it can be driven by the narrative on a case-by-case basis. Just as an example, Disney+ "The Mandalorian" has episodes ranging in length from 30 to 50 minutes. Similarly, Netflix "Black Mirror" ranges between 41 and 89 minutes, but that is not a problem since the viewers can pause, resume and rewind whenever they need.

As a final difference between "classic" TV and on-demand I will mention the shorter production runs of the new media: back in the world of broadcast media, the networks would allocate a given time slot to a series for a whole season, lasting between 20 and 24 weeks, so once the series started to run the usual practice was to complete the production and the emission of the whole season except in cases of terrible flops. The new media, on the other hand, is not subject to seasons in that fashion and are instead free to release first 8 to 10 episodes and only after they confirm the success with the public continue with the production of the next batch. The aforementioned The Mandalorian has had twice 8 episodes, while Black Mirror has had 3, 3, 6, 6, and 3, plus one special and one feature-length movie. 

I would be hard-pressed to pass a final judgement on the evolution of audiovisual entertainment. There is no doubt that the selection is much richer thanks to the streaming platforms as I pointed out yesterday, but there is no doubt that something is lost with the old uses. I always found it quite interesting to know that all my friends would be as sleepy as myself on Thursday morning because we all stayed late to watch "Twin Peaks". And what can I say about the heated discussions during recess... This is something that my children will only know, it ever, after watching a live broadcast in Twitch, but the quality, for the most part, is not comparable. And there is also the paradox of choice, where the sheer amount of available options can make it almost impossible to pick your favorite. 

Denying change is not only delusional but also pointless since it eventually catches up with us but that does not mean that we should not have a critical eye and try to enjoy its benefits while attempting to counter the losses. Do almost any technology, it is not intrinsically good or bad, it is what we do with it. And I intend to keep enjoying it alone or in company. Have a nice evening.