NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

    The showrunners behind "Scandal", "Bates Motel", "The Good Wife", "Dexter", "House of Cards" and "Boardwalk Empire" talk about how TV viewers watch their work.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/11...html?from=arts
    "A screenwriter is much like being a fire hydrant with a bunch of dogs lined up around it.- -Frank Miller

    "A real writer doesn't just want to write; a real writer has to write." -Alan Moore

  • #2
    Re: NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

    Oh, that's great, thanks. Can't focus on it right now but looks good so far.
    "You have idea 1, you're excited. It flops. You have idea 99, you're excited. It flops.
    Only a fool is excited by the 100th idea. Fools keep trying. God rewards fools." --Martin Hellman, paraphrased

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

      "Kerry [Washington, who is the power-playing fixer Olivia Pope on "Scandal-] said to me, "I think we should all get on Twitter.- I told the cast that they all had to get on Twitter, and everybody did. Our hairdressers tweet, our D.P. [director of photography] tweets, every single member of our crew, basically, has a Twitter account now. They love doing it, it's fun for them."

      Yes, nothing a crew loves more than the fun of being browbeaten into forced spontaneity by the talent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

        Friday night they were shooting SCANDAL at the NoHo subway station... didn't notice ny crew members tweeting.

        - Bill
        Free Script Tips:
        http://www.scriptsecrets.net

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

          Bill, maybe because the publicists are in charge of sending out the crew's tweets?

          Late Night Writer

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

            Originally posted by wcmartell View Post
            Friday night they were shooting SCANDAL at the NoHo subway station... didn't notice ny crew members tweeting.
            It's the twitter Heisenberg principle.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NY Times Article: Post-Water Cooler TV

              This is kind of insane to think about... quoting from the interview, Beau Willimon [House of Cards]:

              The only reason we do 13 episodes and in one-hour chunks is because we have international buyers that are actually airing the show week to week, and we have to fit in one-hour spaces. But I think that there's a really exciting door opening where shows won't have to be seasons. They could be in parts. Episodes won't have to be an hour long. One episode could be 22 minutes, another episode could be 94 minutes. That could in total comprise 4 to 6 to 14 to 52 hours. There's an idea I'm toying with of a show in which there would be no episodes. It would simply be six to eight hours straight, and the audience could choose when they pause or if they do.
              Scott at GITS recently discussed a bit along those lines from a Rolling Stone article.

              From the Rolling Stone article:

              Netflix has only encouraged binge-viewing; instead of releasing its series in one episode per week, like HBO and the other traditional TV networks do, it releases them in their entirety at once. Without standard episode-ending cliffhangers, House of Cards just seems like one really long movie.

              And maybe that's the way Netflix will become a movie studio: by changing our definition of what a movie is. It's not going to be a two-hour, self-contained story you watch in a theater, but a tale of open-ended length that you watch at your convenience on whatever screen you have with you.
              And Scott's discussion of this at GITS (emphasis mine):

              Think about it: Where did this idea of a movie clocking in between 100-120 minutes emerge from? In the very beginning, movies were one-reelers no more than 12-15 minutes in length (that was how much film could be spooled onto one reel).

              What if there is no such thing as TV? What if movies come to mean everything from short films to half-hour to traditional two-hours to multiple episode entertainment like House of Cards that comes across in effect as a movie.

              I mean if it quacks like a movie and walks like a movie... maybe it just is a movie, no matter how short or long it is, what delivery system it use, etc.

              (...) Maybe the people at Netflix have already seen this. If "House of Cards- is not really a TV series, maybe it's more of a serialized movie. And maybe that's pointing toward an amalgam where movies become pretty much everything we see.
              This is wicked fascinating.

              Imagine it. Imagine a day-long movie.

              Books have been like this since forever -- they are the length they are, you stop reading when you want to. Or you don't stop, and instead you stay up for 36 hours to read it in one sitting, and then all of a sudden the rest of the world around you comes back into existence.

              ...So, who wants to pitch an idea with a 540-page script behind it and convince the execs that every page and minute is totally necessary and on purpose? Anyone?
              "You have idea 1, you're excited. It flops. You have idea 99, you're excited. It flops.
              Only a fool is excited by the 100th idea. Fools keep trying. God rewards fools." --Martin Hellman, paraphrased

              Comment

              Working...
              X