If NM2 fulfills its promise to the television of the future, viewers will be able to participate in storylines, manipulate plots and even the sets and props of TV shows. The BBC reports on this new interactive media genre being forged by the European Union.
8 Comments
Ugh, this is a re-fried version of the failed ITV - interactive TV - pursuit where we saw proposals for audiences to purchase the clothes of their favorite actors or pick an ending to the story. It's choose your own adventure books on digital TV. The thing they don't address is the inherent conflict and difficulty of creating non-linear narratives that have any kind of resolution - they aren't interesting and people tend to prefer to plug in and tune out with their TV's. The closest thing we have now is American Idol where callers vote and therefore determine the outcome of the contest. The other hurdle, is if a viewer doesn't get meaningful feedback from their interactions with their TV - I picked "dump her" but the majority picked a "happy ending" - then I'm not seeing results that reflect my input and therefore leave me confused if my input went through. Surfing channels(passive acceptance of given choices) is not akin to surfing the internet(active selection or query). This seems to be their basic oversight. For more info on some really clever minds at BBC read Matt Locke's blog www.test.org.uk and check out the convergent work of funny guys, XPT, at www.xpt.co.uk
Best, [sgp]
Those are interesting comments. i don't really know the viewer mentality in Europe in regards to passive vs. interactive television watching, as compared to here in the states, where largely people are more satisfied sitting back and merely consuming. I do like the democratic implications however, the tv as a polling resource, as a public rallying space, as a way to collectivize public opinion, but I am not sure the public en masse is ready for such. I also think that this type of TV is ahead of its times in that older generations less "interactive tech" inclined will bypass this for the reasons you lay out, but perhaps a new generation of kids growing up with games and accustomed to the condition of interactive technology, will participate more as time goes on. If you look at reality TV, "Survivor", having the public viewers participate in the governance of that, the popularity of those characters, the politics, I think is closer than you think. I think someone will invent a game show where money will be given away and people will participate, "The Price is Right" without having to leave your own living room. If the world were suddenly allowed to cast their vote for who won each presidential election, very interesting to me. It would add a new pressure on those being filmed, because not only are they on camera but they will be judged and those sentiments publicized immediately. Non-linear narrative is something the TV could explicitly take advantage of more given all the channels happening simultaneously. Depending on which channel you watch (all sponsoring the same show) you could get 5 different perspectives watching your favorite soap opera, depending. I woudl love to turn channel surfing into a television show about decoding messages. Whatever, I will also check out those links, and thanks for the info.
You gotta read up on this stuff. Your comments are wonderfully enthusiastic and I don't want to criticize you for that, but you're being naive too. For example, why the continued predominance of TV? It's been shown in recent articles and studies that the internet is seriously closing ground on view market share. Your notions of democratic implications are best expressed by the bumper sticker - Burn your TV's. If you don't approve, don't watch it. Ratings are the game on TV. It's a different paradigm. If anything the direction most likely to gain traction is a convergence or cross between media as in your Survivor example. WebTV died. It's not a sole appliance or tech solution anymore. Re the world voting goto www.sellthevote.com to see that in action. Also note how blogs, for better or worse, are influencing TV news coverage. In a world of ever increasing media production access is still critical. TV is cheap but not as immediate as the internet (cellphones, sms, www). in terms of actor's performance improving, go to a play. I'm not convinced that a performing could react in a way that 'improved' by seeing some disapproving display from their virtual audience, do you? I dunno. TV could best handle non-linearity via interaction or spit screen ala TimeCode. Even still it's a problem of non-linear narrative - what is it good for? Borges in his essays Garden of Forking Paths and Library of Babel entice us to consider them, but it's also a paradox. No one has provided a truly good answer to this as far as I know.
Best again,
[sgp]
a lot to respond to. I don't own a TV or subscribe to cable, and in general I find TV rather insulting. However, as much traction as the internet has, the conglomerates aren't about to give up their influence on the public or the dollars behind it by losing TV. I don't think TV is fading. As much as there is a growing skepticism in the first world of TV and media, the 3rd is only just now getting hooked up and beginning to subscribe, intenret is still far out of reach in general for them. As much as I despise the programming behind modern television, I really don't think the internet is yet to overtake it. the internet is proving the ultimate alternative for the educated and net-priveledged, but TV is morphing to, and luring in new popularity. I think the internet and TV will remain separate entities. But a gaming television channel, where kids can go and play online games tv-to-tv is already there. So, the tv is already taking on added interactivity, for better or for worse. I suppose I would like to see it done in a way that challenges the viewer and that will generate a response that holds the sponsors and networks accountable in some way. sure that is idealistic. Even though I don't watch because I don't approve, many still do, and will go on watching without questioning. I think they will watch more if there were an input they could have to help decide what it is they watch, that input coudl lead people to a new questioning process about wathcing tv. TIVO is popular because you can edit your programming and control time. It allows some peronsal insulation, some sembalnce of control, some de-burdening of the junk mail. While a majority of the public still is confused by TIVO, i think TIVO and things like it will become more desirable.
I think in terms of non-linear narratives, certainly a lot of experiemntation with them in film, fiction, etc, is useless and merely just banal experimentation. there is no reason to the ill-chronology of their order, or reason to try and make sense of the fractured elements, but that is the fault of the artist, the writer, the poor content design. but on some level non-linear is intuitive to this culture and generation, and while being simply entertaining i think non-linear can present history uniquely, open up angles to approach. re: blogs. yes the influence on media is tremendous, and i think in general the blogs are forcing issues otherwise not dealt with in media. so wouldn't a viewer input into tv programming have a similar effect? its like adding a comments section to every tv show, ratings might bend to viewer consenus. that interests me, even though i have very little interest in the nature of tev programming.
ok, we're branching into a bunch of different topics...
- access -
1. IMHO, BBC is motivated by the pressure to continue to innovate and what better model than the popular internet.
2. yes, 3rd world is TV but in maybe they'll also jump paradigms like they did with cellphones forgoing landlines. If not, there is still the problem of the adding tech needed to interact with the TV and i'm guessing that's a big hurdle. It's a similar hurdle I think TIVO faces except that TIVO is an expensive convenience.
3. There are some amazing initiatives to bring lo-cost sustainable www tech to the 3rd world. see www.lincos.net
4. I'm not sure why you think that because people have input that they'd want to participate or be critical. Can you give a related example in this genre? I would think that market pressure would have borne out such a situation already, no? People already exercise choice but switching channels. What other kinds of input are you thinking of that would really bring about cathartic change?
- non-linearity and narrative
Ok, non-linearity is what current theorists/architects(libeskind)/writers(borges) etc and such have thought is the norm. But narrative by it's most common definition is linear. We begin, there's a climax, there's conflict, there's an end. Without those basic bits it's not a narrative it's something else. We can't deny we experience things in linear order. Altho some physicist might intervene here. Bernard Tschumi's writings on plot, event, and such as interesting in this vein as he tries to, as I recall, distinguish between the thing happening and the structure of its telling. Narratives are such structures and we are conditioned to and frankly enjoy them as I defined them above. That is the prevailing model in time-based media such as TV, animation, video. However, once you move into space it's a different condition. So we need to be clear about context and terms...
Who's to say narrative is the norm, at least in terms of how we experience things? perhaps narrative is the structure we give to try and remedy our inability to understand how indeed we perceive everything. Narrative is most digestable, especially the easiest to convey to others, it makes for a collective strucutre easiest to identify and accept, but i wouldn' t say that we perceive everyting as straight lined as you think. narrative may be more about a conditioning process rather than the inate process. our intuition has been totally calibrated to the linear, but that doesn't make it always ideal. context must be considered sure, for everything. narrative is fundamental, but our reaction to it also inspires non-linear reflection, so who is to say which is most appropriate way of presenting info, if we present it non-linear will that inspire more concrete linear reflection? whatever, I am not arguing for one over the other. i would say the internet alone proves that people thrive on interactivity, and that a better product comes of it when people share a degree of participation in the very making of the media, as opposed to sitting back and passively receiving like current TV. I agree, the 3rd world has a certain advantage with tech by getting to skip certain evolutions, cell phones, etc. but can the TV as a paradigm be just skipped ? i dont think so. in the future, what cultural conditions would it take to skip TV straight for another media? i am not sure certain transitions along the way wouldn't have to be made first.
argh! you misunderstood my previous comment. As we WERE talking about TV, a time-based push(they broadcast, we consume) media, linear narrative is the prevailing model used by writers, producers, etc. By contrast we have theorists, etc saying we experience our world in a more non-linear way. Each medium has it's bias ala McLuhan. You can't skip TV, it's 'everywhere'. But I was suggesting that certain cultures may jump the interactive TV phase for wireless broadband or VOIP video handhelds, for example - but sheeit, I'm just guessing...it seems to depend on what's cheap and easy. SMS took off in Japan and the UK partly because it was cheaper than voice calls and in Japan, because it was more private in close quarters. You can't ignore the user's context when considering these developments.
Anyway, I gotta end this...I'm outta here.
[sgp]
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.