--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How long do you want it to be? Do you want to have one at all? > > 1. The ability to do what you want without fitting into the kind of > structures that limit, say, work for television is one of the very > reasons to use the web as a venue in the first place. Why seasons to > begin with? > > 2. Seasons, though, can be a convenient marking point, like chapters, > like volumes, like any other temporal punctuation. And they provide > you with a nice break between sets of work in a project. > > 3. Every piece or series or anything has its own correct length, > number of episodes, etc. It's whatever value results in the most > powerful communication of its subject.
Agreed, especially on point #3. I break things into seasons because of different years and different concepts. I started in 2006, so 2008 starts season 3 for me... except I've posted around 300 videos to the net in that time. So... My "seasons" aren't a particular number of shows long. As far as some regular internet show, it's going to depend on whether you can maintain your viewership by not posting videos. Some shows are dependent upon their viewers EXPECTING a show once a week, and a few missed weeks, and that show's down the tubes. Other shows have followings that are willing to receive videos whenever they can get them. > Time slots and series packaging are part of what harms the quality of > what's on tv. It's the reason we have to suffer through 58 minute > documentaries on PBS that should be either 47 minutes, 105 minutes, or > 52 minutes, or whatever. "Feature length" is part of what encourages > filmmakers to fall back on the same limited variations of Freytag's > pyramid to structure their narratives. Features are this long, plays > have one three or five acts, the opening act should play for 35 > minutes... how can anyone know ahead of time the amount of time that's > actually needed? It's like asking painters to leave out the color red, > because it will be supplied in the needed saturation and tint by the > network later on. Time is the primary element of film, video and > sound. So take it back. This is another good point. Internet shows are so short that you don't really give people enough information to last them very long. For instance, if you watch a "season" of "The Wire", there's a ton of stuff to talk about after the season's over. You might even watch the re-runs or get the series on DVD and watch it again. With internet shows being as short as they are, you end up constantly handing out tidbits to your viewership. Something like that isn't going to support, say a 20-episode season of weekly videos and then another 30 weeks with zero fresh output. Bill Cammack http://BillCammack.com > On the other hand limitations are liberating. > > Just opinions from a ranting editor during a render of someone else's video, > > Brook > > > > > On 2/9/08, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if everyone saw this on NewTeeVee... > > > > http://newteevee.com/2008/02/08/how-long-should-a-web-season-be/ > > > > I thought it was a really interesting article. > > > > How long should a "season" be for a video blog and Internet TV show? > > > > Does the concept of a "season" even make sense for every type of vlog out > > there? > > > > -- > > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. > > http://ChangeLog.ca/ > > > > Motorsport Videos > > http://TireBiterZ.com/ > > > > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/ > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Brook Hinton > film/video/audio art > www.brookhinton.com > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab >
