Binge Watching
-
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
people are stupid when it comes to spoilers. I mean fuck, just because someone tells you Han dies, does not ruin the entire movie.
Or that some walking dead person did something does not ruin the entire episode because you still have the entire show to see the detail and context.
I will disagree with you, mostly. Some spoilers are less important than others.
My friend ruined The Matrix for me by telling me it was a computer world - that was the whole big reveal of the movie! WTF! sure, the rest was fine, but not coming to that understanding as you're meant to by the director definitely takes something away from the viewing experience..
That's a great example. That movie was terrible and depended solely on you being surprised there. If you rewatch the movie without the surprise, it's pretty bad.
That reveal happened at the beginning of the movie and has nothing to do with making the point of the movie. @Dashrender is wrong on this. If knowing that the movie was a computer world ruined the entire remaining movie then you simply never liked the movie to begin with.
As for @scottalanmiller opinion that the movie is bad, that is again his opinion, not an immutable fact.Sure, but that makes your opinion that the spoiler wasn't significant just your opinion.
The fact, in this case, is that the reveal he complains about ruining the entire movie happened in the first 15 minutes.
Something revealed in the beginning of a story is not a spoiler. It is a story building point.
-
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
I've never had "shared viewing" with other people. That only works if you are into the two or three most mainstream pop culture shows. Luke Cage works for this, for example, because it's specifically the top show right now. But the moment you get to less obscure viewing, even slightly, there was never the "shared viewing" concept, not even thirty years ago.
People on the extremes will always have this issue. But these are more fringe and not the focus of my post.
Calling people who don't dedicate their schedules to watching the one or two most popular shows are not extreme. That's one of the saddest comments on American life ever. You don't have to be "extreme" to not watch the lowest common denominator mindless entertainment.
That is your opinion and not does nothing to dispute his point for anyone but you.
Thanks, I couldn't have worded this better myself!
-
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
But dumping an entire season has completely changed the dynamic. Now you might not watch a show for months after it was originally released, removing the social aspect of the show almost completely.
That's almost always been the case. VHS and DVD did this a few eras before Netflix did.
-
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
I've never had "shared viewing" with other people. That only works if you are into the two or three most mainstream pop culture shows. Luke Cage works for this, for example, because it's specifically the top show right now. But the moment you get to less obscure viewing, even slightly, there was never the "shared viewing" concept, not even thirty years ago.
People on the extremes will always have this issue. But these are more fringe and not the focus of my post.
Calling people who don't dedicate their schedules to watching the one or two most popular shows are not extreme. That's one of the saddest comments on American life ever. You don't have to be "extreme" to not watch the lowest common denominator mindless entertainment.
That is your opinion and not does nothing to dispute his point for anyone but you.
Thanks, I couldn't have worded this better myself!
Except it does, you claimed that only the extreme fringe didn't exhibit this effect. Yet only two people are claiming to have witnessed it. I'm saying that it's only the extreme fringe that ever had it. It's a unique thing that I think just a few of you ever had. So it's only for the extreme fringe of overlapping viewers that traditionally had this network effect and, for them, it mostly still exists because people widely binge watch new shows at roughly the same time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
Heck, if we wanna believe Star Trek, TV watching all but completely dies out at some point in the future
Star Trek is a good example .... that would have been one of those shows that we would have talked about places... but it was not shown at the same time even in the 1980s because it wasn't on a network.
Horrible example because that was something in syndication in the 80's.
Knight rider, Dallas(who shot JR), quantum leap, full house, cheers, etc. are things that would be examples.
-
This topic is a special snowflake.
Binge watching or show addiction is based on the people who like the show type to begin with. So when you have the weekly releases (for example) everyone had something to talk about the following day at work.
There are very few cable series that offer this binge watch experience, because the television carries NBC etc, can't setup 8 hours worth of brand new episodes.
So people who Binge Watch, are the special snowflakes. Even services like Hulu and NetFlix only offer this service for a limited set of shows, because they know that if Walking Dead season 15 (or whatever) was released tomorrow, it would be over for a lot of people by Sunday night.
Ruining what many other people would consider a good show, because the special snowflakes (binge watchers) would have the need to talk about it.
-
For example, I've had a closer interaction to what is described from binge watching Fuller House than I ever did normal watching Full House in the 1980s. Why? Because everyone I know, everywhere in the world that was a huge Full House fan binged Fuller House at almost exactly the same time and talked about it. I'm actually seeing the effect (just a little) more now than before, rather than less.
-
Same with Stranger Things. One of the few times that I've had the "talk with people about a show" effect. ANd it is the binging that is making it happen. It's slightly different in that it's not "the next day around the water cooler" but it's bringing new groups of people into being able to discuss shows.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
I've never had "shared viewing" with other people. That only works if you are into the two or three most mainstream pop culture shows. Luke Cage works for this, for example, because it's specifically the top show right now. But the moment you get to less obscure viewing, even slightly, there was never the "shared viewing" concept, not even thirty years ago.
People on the extremes will always have this issue. But these are more fringe and not the focus of my post.
Calling people who don't dedicate their schedules to watching the one or two most popular shows are not extreme. That's one of the saddest comments on American life ever. You don't have to be "extreme" to not watch the lowest common denominator mindless entertainment.
That is your opinion and not does nothing to dispute his point for anyone but you.
Thanks, I couldn't have worded this better myself!
Except it does, you claimed that only the extreme fringe didn't exhibit this effect. Yet only two people are claiming to have witnessed it. I'm saying that it's only the extreme fringe that ever had it. It's a unique thing that I think just a few of you ever had. So it's only for the extreme fringe of overlapping viewers that traditionally had this network effect and, for them, it mostly still exists because people widely binge watch new shows at roughly the same time.
No it doesn't. This is not SAMLand. This is reality. Viewership ratings prove this. Ratings are measured facts. Not speculation.
-
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
Heck, if we wanna believe Star Trek, TV watching all but completely dies out at some point in the future
Star Trek is a good example .... that would have been one of those shows that we would have talked about places... but it was not shown at the same time even in the 1980s because it wasn't on a network.
Horrible example because that was something in syndication in the 80's.
Knight rider, Dallas(who shot JR), quantum leap, full house, cheers, etc. are things that would be examples.
Funny that I was typing about how it didn't happen with Full House while you were writing Full House. LOL
Cheers I was guessing in my mind likely had this and just not with people that I knew. DId you know people that did this with Cheers or just are guessing that they did?
-
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
I've never had "shared viewing" with other people. That only works if you are into the two or three most mainstream pop culture shows. Luke Cage works for this, for example, because it's specifically the top show right now. But the moment you get to less obscure viewing, even slightly, there was never the "shared viewing" concept, not even thirty years ago.
People on the extremes will always have this issue. But these are more fringe and not the focus of my post.
Calling people who don't dedicate their schedules to watching the one or two most popular shows are not extreme. That's one of the saddest comments on American life ever. You don't have to be "extreme" to not watch the lowest common denominator mindless entertainment.
That is your opinion and not does nothing to dispute his point for anyone but you.
Thanks, I couldn't have worded this better myself!
Except it does, you claimed that only the extreme fringe didn't exhibit this effect. Yet only two people are claiming to have witnessed it. I'm saying that it's only the extreme fringe that ever had it. It's a unique thing that I think just a few of you ever had. So it's only for the extreme fringe of overlapping viewers that traditionally had this network effect and, for them, it mostly still exists because people widely binge watch new shows at roughly the same time.
No it doesn't. This is not SAMLand. This is reality. Viewership ratings prove this. Ratings are measured facts. Not speculation.
Actually they are not. There is no solid means of recording viewership, it's a very guesstimate system based on tiny subsets of the population and voluntary reporting. It doesn't tell us very much, only that a TV is on in the background. It doens't tell us who watched it or why or if they paid attention or if they discussed it at work or if the people that also viewed it overlapped with those people. It's a statistic without much info behind it and doesn't tell us anything about what we are discussing here outside of noting when there is or isn't a possibility of likely overlap.
And now there is no reporting on modern shows so viewership info is even more meaningless. Viewership was only meaningful decades ago when viewing habits were more predictable. ANd even then, it was speculative.
-
VIewship numbers are a lot like participant numbers on a web site. One person says "anyone who has an account" counts. Another person says "only people who have posted" count. Another says "only those that post daily" count. Everyone has a different opinion on what a viewer is.
Modern "mainstream" television viewing involves televisions left on around the house much of the evening. People wander by, in and out, sit and watch, talk, whatever. In a house with a family of six, how do you even measure viewership when a television is on, there are six people, and no one paid attention to the show?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
I wonder what percentage of people have ever had the shared viewing phenomenon. I didn't have it ever, and I grew up in the era of just four networks (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS.) If you watched television, chances are you saw the same things as other people. And it still wasn't a high enough percentage to create the effect. I wonder if it is actually a very small group that ever managed to have that effect and, for all intents and purposes, I would guess that it died with cable before DVR and Netflix. People were watching differently, at different times, for a very long time.
Huh, you're younger than me and you left off Fox. No Fox where you were? I clearly recall when Fox joined the ranks of the big 3 1987 , I never considered PBS a network channel - but I understand why others do, so I won't belabor the point.
You and your friends didn't talk about shows that you watched the night before? hmm... that was a primary focus of conversation. of course with cable, the larger number of shows, the chances that you saw the same show as someone else was lower, but peer groups still, in my experience, had more overlap than not.
It makes me wonder how socially engaged you were? I suppose your social group could be the ones that simply didn't watch much TV compared to say, playing chess all night (yes I'm making fun). Those groups absolutely exist, but they are far from the norm. TV and movies en mass today are not made for the intellectual, they are made for the masses. If the masses weren't watching them, they wouldn't be made, or at bare minimum they would be much less popular.
-
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
Huh, you're younger than me and you left off Fox. No Fox where you were? I clearly recall when Fox joined the ranks of the big 3 1987 , I never considered PBS a network channel - but I understand why others do, so I won't belabor the point.
Fox was a new network that took over one of the non-network channels where I was as a kid. It actually came in 1986 to us, we had a pioneer station. But it wasn't a real network at that point yet. It was still showing independent stuff like it had before for a few years. I was gone before they began having their own content like a normal network.
PBS is a quasi-channel.
-
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
You and your friends didn't talk about shows that you watched the night before? hmm... that was a primary focus of conversation. of course with cable, the larger number of shows, the chances that you saw the same show as someone else was lower, but peer groups still, in my experience, had more overlap than not.
No, we really did not. It has always stood out in my memory that my friend Julie used to watch Who's the Boss and we would talk about that, just the two of us, because no one else watched it. It is my specific memory of a show that that happened with. Of regular broadcast shows, that's the only one that I know of that that happened with. Special events, of course.
-
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
It makes me wonder how socially engaged you were?
I'd say the same thing.... maybe I was too social for passive entertainment to be the main topic of conversation
We were too busy being social to talk about television. Of all people, it seems odd to guess that I was not the social one. -
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
If the masses weren't watching them, they wouldn't be made, or at bare minimum they would be much less popular.
I never said that the masses didn't watch them, I'm saying that I've had no exposure to the masses watching the same ones, at the same time and then overlapping and choosing to discuss them. It's a lot more than people watching the same stuff.
And there was a lot of "we watching the same stuff on Friday night", I think, compared to other days of the week, but by Monday, no one was talking about Friday shows.
-
So my roommate is someone that is a totally different generation and totally different everything than me (26 year old girl, college grad, traditional work life) and is super social. She never turns on a television whatsoever during the week because she is either at work or going out in the evenings or sleeping. Being social takes away her viewing time. Maybe she's also a special snowflake, but calling everyone that doesn't do the proposed activity can't all be snowflakes. Especially when I'm proposing that the concept itself is only for special snowflakes.
-
So let's use stats. The most watched show in the US right now is BBT with just under 21m viewers. That's not 21m interested viewers, that's not 21m "really like the show" viewers. That's 21m people for whom the television was on in their house. The number of people who like it, are engaged, paid attention, etc. is a fraction of that.
The US population is over 330m. So that means that only 15% of the nation even sees the show, at all, let alone at the same time (DVR offsets, different time zones, etc.) on a weekly basis. And as that is a show equally for kids and adults, it does spread out over the group pretty well compared to some other shows.
So when you go to work, think about that only 15% of all people could have seen that one show. ANd that's not 15% for a show per night, that's the top show of the whole year. Six nights a week there is no show with even 15%.
So let's say that the overlap of those that see a show, those that are able to pay attention and those that care enough to discuss it (what's there to talk about in a show like that?) is 5%. That means 19 out of 20 people in your office have no means of discussing an overlapping show with you (or this one, anyway.)
Now that remaining 5% has to meet up at work, and decide that that will be the topic of conversation.
THe numbers show that this shouldn't be something happening with high regularity.
-
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
@scottalanmiller said in Binge Watching:
@Dashrender said in Binge Watching:
@JaredBusch said in Binge Watching:
people are stupid when it comes to spoilers. I mean fuck, just because someone tells you Han dies, does not ruin the entire movie.
Or that some walking dead person did something does not ruin the entire episode because you still have the entire show to see the detail and context.
I will disagree with you, mostly. Some spoilers are less important than others.
My friend ruined The Matrix for me by telling me it was a computer world - that was the whole big reveal of the movie! WTF! sure, the rest was fine, but not coming to that understanding as you're meant to by the director definitely takes something away from the viewing experience..
That's a great example. That movie was terrible and depended solely on you being surprised there. If you rewatch the movie without the surprise, it's pretty bad.
That reveal happened at the beginning of the movie and has nothing to do with making the point of the movie. @Dashrender is wrong on this. If knowing that the movie was a computer world ruined the entire remaining movie then you simply never liked the movie to begin with.
It was a huge part of the movie. If you go in knowing that, then the rest of the movie is just the ride of sluffing off oppression. But if you don't know that, you spend a good portion of the movie learning to accept the possibility that our world isn't real, it changes the dynamic of the first time viewing experience.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a bad movie. I kinda like the first one, the rest, yeah don't bother.As for @scottalanmiller opinion that the movie is bad, that is again his opinion, not an immutable fact.
Agreed
