I am not sure when Jenkins’ and Holt’s chapters were published,
but it was jarring to read how accurate their predictions were of the changing
landscape of entertainment television. Let me share an interesting piece I read
on the topic:
This was a Hollywood Reporter article I came across that
discussed the changes that were already occurring in 2014: the collapse of
windows, global expansions of streaming platforms, shifting story-telling techniques…
Richard Greenfield prescribes that “In a sense, movie studios will need to
morph into television studios, which tell ongoing stories” in order for the
movie studios to keep up with the constantly evolving TV networks/streaming
platforms, which I wholeheartedly agree with and already see trends of. Holt
questioned in her chapter, “Will the networks ever become the equivalent of the
movie studios in the corporate paradigm”—I would say television has surpassed
the studios even, in many aspects. And I am so, so glad it has, because without
my Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, and Disney+ subscriptions available at my disposal in
the comfort of my own home, I would have gone CRAZY in the quarantine. Thank
you, Reed Hastings!
I share your enthusiasm for the abundance of streaming at the present moment, Ray -- but not quite your agreement with Greenfield. He's clearly right that movie studios have embraced the franchise model, spinning out films that lend themselves to sequels and extensible 'worlds.' The idea seems to be that film form needs to hew ever closer to TV. But this isn't the only option: film form could, theoretically, knuckle down ever harder in the direction of medium specificity, leaning into the kinds of formal and aesthetic devices that differentiate film from TV: discrete texts, a one-off experience, a narrative of intensities. If this happens (...and I hope it will, but doubt it too) then suddenly the decision to make a film rather than a TV show would be made on primarily formal terms. And might we hope that the resulting films would be riskier?
ReplyDelete