eoghann.com

Learning The Wrong Lessons From Lost & Battlestar Galactica

Posted 4 weeks ago, under Opinion

Science Fiction shows are being made in such numbers now you might think they were becoming mainstream. As a scifi fan I’d see that as a good thing. But a lot of these shows don’t seem to last very long. The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Dollhouse both only made it to two seasons. V’s audience has plummeted in just the first 4 episodes. Stargate: Universe isn’t pulling in as many viewers as Stargate: SG1 managed. While Heroes has survived multiple seasons, it’s ratings are a shadow of what they were initially.

: Image via Lost – Source Wikipedia

I’m noticing some common story telling techniques emerging in recent sci-fi series and I’m starting to wonder, have producers learned the wrong lessons from Lost and Battlestar Galactica?

The Story Arc

The most significant change in modern television is the emergence of the story arc. To various degrees it can be seen in almost all science fiction shows from Warehouse 13 to Chuck via Heroes and V.

The series that solidified story arcs as a valid method of tv storytelling was of course the scifi classic Babylon 5. Adoption was slow initially, but we now have shows like Lost and BSG that almost have to be watched as part of a larger arc if you want them to make sense. Even the continuity light shows like Chuck or Warehouse 13 generally have a season long story arc these days. Each show stands on it’s own, but there’s some hints at a larger story as well.

I’m a big fan of the story arc. Done properly it creates a much richer story than can be achieved in the standard 45 minutes. But there are a lot of downsides. My wife and I fell behind in watching Lost during the second season and after about a month realized it was just more trouble than it was worth trying to catch up again.

Grim and Gritty

Back in the 80’s and 90’s there was a big fad for “Grim n Gritty” superheroes. Fortunately it seems to have faded in the last decade. Unfortunately that same trend has infected my scifi shows!

Battlestar Galactica showed that stepping away from the space battles and focusing on characters who aren’t purely black or white can produce some intense viewing. But that doesn’t mean every single character has to behave like an ass.

Shaky Cam

As part of the trend towards a more realistic presentation, quick cuts and shaky hand held camera work. Done well this can add to the tension of a scene. Overdone, it is intensely annoying.

How About Making It Good?
All of these techniques have been used successfully before but they aren’t what made Lost or BSG a success. Strong characters, a plot that pulls the viewer in and high production values are what actually made those shows popular. None of these elements are actually required to make a good tv show.

Wouldn’t it be much better to create a show that is true to itself? That has a style that enhances the story it is trying to tell rather than mimics the latest fad? Wouldn’t the show do better if it wasn’t pretending to be something else?

Comments

Buzz, Hysteria, Hype and Social Networking

Posted 4 weeks ago, under Opinion

Comments

It’s possible you may have heard that Google launched a new service, Google Buzz, recently. In fact by now the odds are that you’ve read a minimum of a couple of dozen articles and opinions on what Google did wrong. Negative sells better than positive.

It’s certainly not a new phenomenon. People have been complaining about the media’s tendency to over-hype and over-react to every bit of news they report on. With the advent of blogs that annoying habit rapidly spread to everyone else who felt the need to share their opinion.

But the advent of social networking seems to have escalated this problem. Now people have to make judgements quicker than ever before and in order to get attention, to get a reaction, they have to couch them in ever more extreme terms.

This constant upping of language intensity numbs the audience and devalues both the previously perfectly adequate words and the words we are now using in their place. It’s no longer sufficient to say that Google showed poor judgement. Now we have to call them evil. So if Google are evil, does that mean we’re placing them on the level of murderers?

The English language contains over a quarter of a million words. With that level of subtlety at our fingertips why do we immediately reach for a sledgehammer?

This linguistic laziness is made even worse by the speed of reaction on the internet. Because not only does the originator of the post have to make a snap judgement, apparently so does everyone who reads it.

But if all anyone does is scream at the top of their voice and repeat the same handful phrases that they just, there’s no value in the medium. You’d get as much insight by standing in the middle of a train station and listening to fragments of conversation from the people passing by.

So what’s the point of this little screed of mine? Think before you post. Life isn’t binary and nor is language. Use the textures and shading that language provides to show the complexity of the subject you’re discussing.

It can be done. Even in 140 characters.

Comments

Why the iPhone Is Not The Future of Mobile

Posted 4 weeks ago, under Tech

Comments

I’ve been thinking a lot about the mobile internet recently. Mainly because I finally caved and bought myself a smart phone. As big a gadget freak as I am, the cost of data plans was off-putting. Now that I have a Droid Eris though I’m loving the experience of having my data available to me wherever and whenever.

: The Current Face of Mobile – Image via Wikipedia

At this point there really can’t be a doubt in anyone’s mind that mobile is the future of the internet. The real question is what form factor does mobile come in?

Right now it comes in three main flavors: Smartphones like the iPhone or Android; Netbooks; or WiFi connected pocket devices like the iPod Touch or Nokia’s N810. A fourth format is slowly emerging in the form of tablet’s like the iPad.

But all of these formats have limitations and problems. Phones are too small for heavy text entry and while perfect as an “everywhere” device their small screens are less than ideal for reading or watching. Netbook’s are perfect for data entry and reasonably portable. But they aren’t good for reading books, nor for making private phone calls. They are also a little inconvenient when you’re out on a walk. The iPod Touch isn’t much use if you’re outside the range of a Wi-Fi signal etc. etc.

The future is mobile, but mobile is not going to look like any of the devices we currently have. That much is clear. But what will they look like?

Personally I think there has been far too much focus on creating a single device that will do everything. But that’s not going to work. You can’t optimize a device to do everything. Instead we need to approach the problem from a different angle.

There are two reasons to want a single device. The first is so that you have access to all your data no matter where you are and the second is because carrying multiple items is a nuisance. They take up space. They weigh you down.

Data access is partially solved by the evolution of Cloud Computing which will make most or perhaps all of your data accessible from any internet connection. But you need a guaranteed connection if you’re going to rely on that. It would be better and faster to combine your cloud data with a local cache that gets synched in the background (as many smart phones do currently).

The bigger problem is need different form factors to achieve different goals. But I think there’s actually a simple solution. Separate processing and storage from input and display. Picture a device about the size of a thumb drive that contains Wi-Fi, 3G (or 4G), a CPU and solid state storage. It weighs almost nothing and fits in any pocket. Need to check stuff on the move? Plug it in to a slimline mobile phone (contains the mike, speaker and screen but not much else). Need to write a blog post from your hotel? Plug in to the dumb terminal in your room and off you go. Sitting at home and want to watch some video. Plug into your tablet.

A single device means paying for a single data connection (instead of the current arrangement where you pay for internet twice or three times). You have a local copy of your data just in case you are in a dead zone. And of course it’s light weight so it eliminates most of the problems of carrying multiple devices.

So what do you think? How would you re-invent the mobile experience?