-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sarah Z: Bingewatching is kinda bad for TV
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
I did not watch the whole video, I did watch the TL;DW at the end and this still seemed relevant based on her summarization, as well as the clickbait title, both in its original and edited form. I can't help if misleading content setup is kinda bad for the content in question.
Oh ok. My bad
I had to turn it off immediately due to the Amazon advertisement/pitch. I can't watch these types of videos where they try to jam products and services down your throat. Most influencer crap.
I hate binge watching shows so much, when jojo Part 6 came out and it was all 12 episodes at once, my partner and I watched one episode a week-ish, but ended up after 6 just watching 2-3 at a time to catch up to the rest of our friends who were talking about it.
I would rather watch an episode a week, and be able to talk to my friends about what happened, without not knowing if they've watched the whole thing.
I would rather watch an episode a week, and be able to talk to my friends about what happened, without not knowing if they've watched the whole thing.
That's a weird take, it's not really influencer it's just how people on youtube make money, ad spots make more that ads because people are less likely to click away, and it's not as tracked.
This is like the tamest, least shilling type of ad you can do lol.
Watching influencers isn't my thing
It's right there in their name…theyre pushers.
When I heard and learned about YouTube's recruiting and how they teach people to be influencers I've pretty much given up on opinionated and product related videos on YouTube.
I mean, influencers is such a broad term, under that umbrella people on this forum who maintain threads about media are influencers.
They're pushing but media awareness can combat that enough.
Video essayists and influencers aren't the same thing. It's like thinking a block of infomercials and a documentary on broadcast tv are identical because there's commercials in both.
Have you ever seen anyone openly advertise Amazon web services or google glass or Microsoft laptops on this site before they posted on a topic/discussion.
Anyway this is all off topic. I just gave my reasoning for not watching much if any YouTubers who push.
On topic
I've watched commercials for 30 years. My point is when I can get away from that and binge I'll take that every time
I can't binge watch anything. I'll watch 1 or 2 one hour episodes. Or 3 to 4 twenty minute episodes. But that's like my limit.
I'll respect anyone that does but don't personally like it. I dont get the need to finish one season in one sitting.
I'll respect anyone that does but don't personally like it. I dont get the need to finish one season in one sitting.
I do think her arguments are both a bit too focused on media as a vehicle for social interactions, and honestly a few years out of date, as the tide is turning away from binge-drops for TV shows.
For me, the strongest argument has always been that the structure of "watch these all at once ASAP" shows is, well, exhausting. I can manage an hour a week. I can probably even manage an hour a day, if you're showing something I'm really interested in. But anything more than that is a struggle. There's very little content that can hold my attention for that long. Stranger Things is a fun show, but it's no Lawrence of Arabia, you know?
So it falls out of the zeitgeist, and it ends up on my "I'll get around to it" list, and then I never do. If I watch something, I want to feel like I've accomplished something, that I've synthesized something new. But long-form binge shows just feel like being on a treadmill to me.
For me, the strongest argument has always been that the structure of "watch these all at once ASAP" shows is, well, exhausting. I can manage an hour a week. I can probably even manage an hour a day, if you're showing something I'm really interested in. But anything more than that is a struggle. There's very little content that can hold my attention for that long. Stranger Things is a fun show, but it's no Lawrence of Arabia, you know?
So it falls out of the zeitgeist, and it ends up on my "I'll get around to it" list, and then I never do. If I watch something, I want to feel like I've accomplished something, that I've synthesized something new. But long-form binge shows just feel like being on a treadmill to me.
Week to week is just objectively better for hype. With binging there is almost no discussion on social media because people are all at different points in the show and don't want to be spoiled. It wasn't a problem when there was just Netflix because it was the only show in town so you had more people binging. These days there is way too much to watch so you have more people waiting to watch things. Week to week is manageable even if you have a lot of things you are watching.
I do think week to week fails pretty hard on D+ sometimes when they are making episodes that are 40 minutes long. You can't be waiting a week and then the show is 35 minutes if you take out the intro and ending credit. So while I support week to week I think 50 minutes is the minimum needed to satisfy people waiting a week or all the discussion is about is how short it was.
I do think week to week fails pretty hard on D+ sometimes when they are making episodes that are 40 minutes long. You can't be waiting a week and then the show is 35 minutes if you take out the intro and ending credit. So while I support week to week I think 50 minutes is the minimum needed to satisfy people waiting a week or all the discussion is about is how short it was.
She's not wrong, and a part of me does miss the days when there was less choice of what to watch*, which lead to a more homogenous discussion between friends of what we saw the night before.
I remember when the previous nights episode of Red Dwarf, or Dr Who, was a conversation almost everyone in the schoolyard could engage in. Even if you didnt have much to say, it was still enjoyable to listen and nod along, with that feeling of being part of a shared experience. Something you could come together over even if all your other interests were wildly different.
Nowadays, not only is there such a massive choice of what to watch that it's rare for a show to grab all of your friends attention, but everyone is watching at a different pace so the conversation - if it does occur at all - always plays out the same way:
"Oh, have you seen episode 8 of xxxxxx?"
"No! I'm not up to that point yet, so no spoilers!"
"Oh.... well let me know when you do, because its unreal mate"
[Conversation ends].
Also, the media landscape is absolutely flooded right now. There is no longer any waiting with anticipation for your favourite show to be on. No nights where "There is nothing on TV" so you were just left with your thoughts - ruminating on the last episode while playing with Lego or Matchbox cars. Now there is always another bit of media somewhere you can consume to distract you.
Sorry, I'm getting old, can someone get me a cloud to yell at?
*I grew up in the UK during the 90's. We had 4 TV channels. FOUR!
I remember when the previous nights episode of Red Dwarf, or Dr Who, was a conversation almost everyone in the schoolyard could engage in. Even if you didnt have much to say, it was still enjoyable to listen and nod along, with that feeling of being part of a shared experience. Something you could come together over even if all your other interests were wildly different.
Nowadays, not only is there such a massive choice of what to watch that it's rare for a show to grab all of your friends attention, but everyone is watching at a different pace so the conversation - if it does occur at all - always plays out the same way:
"Oh, have you seen episode 8 of xxxxxx?"
"No! I'm not up to that point yet, so no spoilers!"
"Oh.... well let me know when you do, because its unreal mate"
[Conversation ends].
Also, the media landscape is absolutely flooded right now. There is no longer any waiting with anticipation for your favourite show to be on. No nights where "There is nothing on TV" so you were just left with your thoughts - ruminating on the last episode while playing with Lego or Matchbox cars. Now there is always another bit of media somewhere you can consume to distract you.
Sorry, I'm getting old, can someone get me a cloud to yell at?
*I grew up in the UK during the 90's. We had 4 TV channels. FOUR!
She is wrong about Squid Game and how long it remained popular, it was in the Netflix Top 10 for 11 weeks and the infamous MrBeast video didnt stop until well over 2 months after release. That Google metrics page isnt really that useful as it is measuring against its peak and shows a 95% drop in online discussion even when it was still the most watched show in the country for a portion of that period.
You are equating weekly releases with "having commercials", which makes sense only of you're talking about network shows.
Or you could have watched the start of the video where she talks about how binging TV shows predates Netflix, from TV marathons to DVD boxsets to online piracy and how she's only talking about the binge-release format, and not the act of just watching a lot of television at once?
On a personal consumer level, a show you really enjoy getting cancelled earlier doesn't matter to you? That seems a bit weird. I mean go into any Netflix thread these days and it's a ton of people complaining about a show ending too soon. Often times without a proper ending. It's odd to me that none of that matters to you.
Nobody said only. Quote me where I did. What you're doing is pointing to the exception as proof that it's not a problem without looking at the bigger picture in aggregate of how more shows would gain bigger audiences. It's not about if, but how many. More shows lasting longer and reaching to an audience that people joy is a good thing. What Netflix is doing where shows are incomplete and at most last two to three seasons isn't, and part of the reason why this happens is because of the binge drop release method. Since you will point out single cases and to show it's not a problem, let me be clear that it is not the only reason though either before you bring up other reasons other than the binge method. The binge method contributes to this though.
Films stay in the public conscious because the distribution method of being in a theater. That theater distribution often allows for bigger things to happen whether it be budget, scale, or simply presentation on a big screen. The film being focused on for weeks at the theater and then rereleased at different tiers allows the movie to continue to be in the public eye. So there are multiple ways with how films are handled that are done differently to help keep things in the spotlight. Even without the big budget, these other aspects can help a smaller scale and scope film reach a level of public awareness that sticks.
That said, how many straight to streaming movies reach the same level as a theatrical movie? If people around here had their way, they would be changing how movies get made and what type of movies get released because they don't see the bigger impact of how changing the release and distribution impacts the type of content that gets made. Many assume straight to home streaming can result in getting exactly the same type of movies without a theatrical release and it simply isn't possible but that view widely is seen on this forum because they can't see the bigger picture.
Now I'm not saying I don't see why people like the ability binge a TV show. What I'm saying is that method of release is altering the type of content we get and how long it lasts. It's creating a behavior where people get instant gratification and then move on to the next thing as soon as possible to continue that instant gratification. Netflix has realized this and has been trying to capitalize on that angle and it's one of the reasons why their shows don't last very long because they're aiming to move you on to something else. I fully believe that binging is contributing to shows not lasting as long and if we look at the history of it, very few shows make it to their fourth season and I think looking at the bigger picture of seeing how many shows actually last under this model, it's quite telling how different things are when you look at the bigger picture.
People in this thread keep conflating the act of binge watching, the release style of bingable shows, and shows that are purposely made and structured specifically for binging. That last is what the video is actually about, and my problem with what the "Netflix Model" has wrought. As I pointed out in my previous post here, the structural problems that shows specifically designed for all at once drops and binge streaming aren't even confined to shows that drop all at once, and appear in shows that are released weekly.
Thank you! I think there's a really good argument that shows designed for binging changes the very nature of those shows. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate, but I personally prefer shows that are more serialized. I don't have the energy to watch a 7 hour movie.
I find that I can really only binge watch 2 episodes in one sitting. Most of the shows designed to be binged are already too bloated and repeat the same plot points every episode, moving things along incrementally, just to drop a cliffhanger at the very end.
There are occasionally exceptions to this, but they're pretty rare. I'm fine with watching a series an episode a week.
There are occasionally exceptions to this, but they're pretty rare. I'm fine with watching a series an episode a week.
SarahZ makes good videos, mostly about online fandom and 2010s internet stuff but also sometimes reviews of media. People trying to discredit her because she said Netflix is bad is very silly. (Also note "her" in this instance are two people, Sarah herself and a second writer Emily, a trans woman who has her own equally good channel). If youtube videos aren't your thing then that's fine but why are you here then?
Okay that aside, the actual content of this video and the responses in this thread both seem to be missing the obvious answer to all of this? It depends on the show. Some shows benefit more from a bingewatch and some shows benefit more from a weekly schedule. And ideally in the future we can have both methods at the creator's discretion.
Okay that aside, the actual content of this video and the responses in this thread both seem to be missing the obvious answer to all of this? It depends on the show. Some shows benefit more from a bingewatch and some shows benefit more from a weekly schedule. And ideally in the future we can have both methods at the creator's discretion.
Netflix cancels shows earlier than necessary because of a well documented reliance on analytical models that put specific emphasis on things like early binge watching and a jump in contractually mandated budget increases past season 2, there is not a ton of evidence that a weekly model would guarantee renewals at a better rate than binge models, and given some of the most culturally relevant shows of the last ten years are Netflix shows, I'm not really ready to buy that argument at this point.
And theatrical movies have the ability to double dip, that's why moving exclusively to streaming exclusively is unlikely and always was. But the point still stands, pretty much every other form of popular media: movies, books, video games, does just fine without being drip fed it's content on a weekly basis. And just because a thing was done a way for a long time does not mean it is superior.
And what I've often said on a larger level than simple consumer preference, is that regardless, the outdated model of weekly releases is silly to me. Whether it is bi weekly releases, segmented dumps, or the recent Stranger Things model of dump plus epic event movies spaced out, there are a lot of better ways to do things than the dinosaur one-week per episode model. The idea though, that 9-10 hours of content(or 5 hours in the case of 30min shows) should take a 2.5 month weekly commitment is absurd from a consumer QOL standpoint.
Last edited:
Bingewatching also kinda encourages lazy writing. Allows the writers to really stretch the plot thin vs make a show engaging throughout. Doesn't seem like a coincidence that the shows I watch with weekly releases are almost always better quality than the ones dropped all at once.
Like I said there were other factors, but there is no one magic bullet either. Netflix cancels shows because they're catering towards the binge behavior and trying to maximize on that instant gratification. There's a reason why they focus their analytics on the short term because the behavior is that they move on to something else rather quickly.
Yet people on this forum live in their bubble thinking that moving to streaming can and will happen and that theaters were dead. It doesn't take much to see that argument happened frequently, especially in the last two years, around here. The point I'm getting at here is that plenty of people can't see the bigger picture past their immediate gratification and can't see how things will impact in the long term. Things aren't always so obvious of their impacts until it's too late because people couldn't look beyond what was immediately in front of them. Hell, people couldn't claimed they wanted a la carte for so long and now that it's here, people complain that there are too many things to pay for. Or the fact that they thought that suddenly the industry would go from paying $60 to $120 a month to $10 and that it would stay that way. People really are often too short sighted and don't see the bigger long term picture most of the time.
Getting back to the movie angle, I think it just goes to show how keeping something in the public eye can help how far it reaches to people. The quick drop, flash in the pan releases where that doesn't happen prevents most streaming movies from gaining that type of traction that a theatrical release does among the public consciousness.
It's almost like the form factor and audience of the different types of media is different to the point that what works for one doesn't work for the other.... In each of those forms of media, they have different audiences and a different method of consumption which impacts how the public becomes aware of it or doesn't become aware of it.
We put up with shows being structured around commercial breaks for decades, I'm sure we'll survive shows designed for binging.
As with literally any form of media anywhere, it can be good if it's done well, and bad if it's done poorly.
As with literally any form of media anywhere, it can be good if it's done well, and bad if it's done poorly.
I rarely get involved in discussions on tv shows, mostly because people love to speculate for some reason, and I have no idea why. I mean, if you like doing it, go right ahead, I suppose. I would prefer just to talking about what I think worked, and what was stupid.
And binge the whole thing at once?!? I wouldn't dare! ;-)
Fair enough that she addressed it but I'd argue it's a distinction without a difference. How exactly is "just watching a lot of television at once" not precisely what binging is?
She tried the exact same thing her wrap up, trying to have her cake and eat it too when she was like, "I'm still totally binging Bridgerton, buuuuttt..."
Huh? If anything having a weekly show that has to keep people engaged for X weeks encourages stretched out stories and faux drama by having a "big reveal" at the end of every episode.
The reason is they are under the impression it is the best way to run their business and determine their investments, as HBO showed and admitted when they cancelled Deadwood, Rome, and Carnivale in quick succession, it's not enough to just assume because a company chose to do something or do it a certain way, it was ultimately the right choice or way of going about things. HBO came to deeply regret their approach and overhauled their way of doing business and determining new and ongoing content investments. To me Netflix is in this period, and their misunderstanding of their own success is leading to poor content related decisions and like HBO, they are going to need to change the way they determine investments, and that has nothing to really do with the binge model.
And I'll just say again, most of these discussions seem like people that have a personal preference and they are working backwards looking for justifications for their preferences. Im just being upfront for my personal preferences. And that if there is a marginal reduction in the chances of a show I like getting renewed(which I don't really agree with the argument, and would also counter that if streaming networks were committed to dumping, it also has the counter effect of needing more content throughout a year and just ending shows can be harmful, like Netflix is learning) if everything was the dump model of shows, I can live with that…but the thing is, you weekly preferers have won. So stuff like this thread really just feels like rubbing salt in the wounds. Show dumping seems to be increasingly only the practice of Netflix and that may be ending in its current form
Agreed. It DOES encourage lazy writing, but it encourages a different KIND of lazy writing.
I think it encourages writers to not focus on "beginning/middle/end" for episodes, and the whole "it's like a thirteen-hour movie" thing becomes true (in a bad way).
If anything the structure of the average drama series meant for binging is worse than the commercial model because now the "commercial breaks" come at the end of a 50 minute plus episode…but structurally there isn't much difference between a commercial break every 10-15 minutes or every 50. Shows will be designed to keep you from changing the channel (or keeping you clicking the next episode button).
You nailed it. Television shows these days are written like movies…really, overly, long movies. That's not to say that heavily serialized shows can't have outstanding, well constructed, and memorable single episodes. They can. Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul are two series that not only have a strong, overarching narrative, but also outstanding episodes that work well as stories on their own.
Movies and television series are two similar, but very distinct methods of storytelling. Those lines have gotten blurred in recent years, especially with the rise of TV series that are meant to be viewed in large pieces all at once. A good episode of television can tell a story that works on it's own, even if it's part of an overarching story, but this has been diminished with the need of everything to drive whatever a show's plot is forward.
Yeah, I remember the whole Ted Lasso discourse last year and a lot of people were pissed by Beard After Hours and the Xmas episode for being *shudders* filler, but they were two kinds of episodes I sorely miss from streaming shows these days.
Watchmen also focused a lot on strong episodes, and I'd argue 3 of the 9 of them are all-time classics. I don't think I can remember 3 great netflix episodes since Bojack ended.
So where is your evidence that weekly release would have saved shows that were cancelled early? You're making a huge assumption while completely ignoring that Netflix has dozens of shows that have been cultural phenomenons bigger than almost any weekly show. My hot take is that 90% of the shows Netflix cancels early deserved it. I don't really care for mediocre shows lasting many seasons. Their real problem is they suck at marketing and highlighting their quality content, but that can be done separate from changing the release model.
To me, the bad thing about binging isn't even the act of binging itself, but the way that binge watching led to the rise of the "it's like an 8 hour long movie" mindset which showrunners seem to love so much.
Being episodic is what makes TV special. You don't just have to tell one story stretched out to fill time, you can take the time you need to flesh out characters and relationship and themes while also having an overarching plot that is told over the course of the season.
Whether you watch that all at once or week to week doesn't really matter to me.
Being episodic is what makes TV special. You don't just have to tell one story stretched out to fill time, you can take the time you need to flesh out characters and relationship and themes while also having an overarching plot that is told over the course of the season.
Whether you watch that all at once or week to week doesn't really matter to me.
It's an interesting video, and I think talks about some valuable stuff around the social impact of stories, and the ways that is very very different between bingable and serialized shows.
Also, people in this thread referring to Sarah Z as an 'influencer' is wild. That term is nebulous as hell but even under many of it's broader definitions that is not at all what she is. Get outta here with this "this person supports their content with clearly labelled ads, can't take them seriously"
Also, people in this thread referring to Sarah Z as an 'influencer' is wild. That term is nebulous as hell but even under many of it's broader definitions that is not at all what she is. Get outta here with this "this person supports their content with clearly labelled ads, can't take them seriously"
Yeah, I can see that, but I've also never been someone who cares if I pause or stop an episode in the middle. My partner hates doing that, even if she's watching something shitty.
I will say Disney+'s shows are to me the worst of the "long movie" TV shows, but it's worse because they don't put out all the episodes, so it ends up feeling like I'm only getting 1/8 of a movie every week instead of an enjoyable single episode.
But the thing I do to combat that is to just watch the shows when they're done so I can binge it how I want.
I'd much rather have an 8 hour movie situation over what episodic tv often leads to, which is padded out seasons with tons of filler cause we need to fill 13 weeks of content with our premium draw programming even though the story only really justifies 4-5 hours worth if kept tight.
Lost continues to be the best example of the natural tendency of episodic tv. You have a bloated series built around hooking viewers with weekly cliffhangers and slow dripping the core story around massive filler and bloat with the show airing almost 6 months out the year with 24 episode seasons.
Where ultimately, telling an overarching story falls by the way side to the process and the need to keep viewers hooked.
And honestly, the pinnacle of TV the last half decade has largely been miniseries anyways, or short run TV shows.
And I'd argue a lot of the whole "treating tv like it's just a longer movie" has to do with so many film people getting persuaded into coming to TV. I don't remember if it was David Simon, Milch, or which HBO writer, but they talked about how people that come from film often struggle to understand that tv is not just making a longer movie. It requires it down tools and nuances that need to be balanced and lots of film exclusive writers/directors struggle with that
It's hard to agree with you here because this happens all the time with the 8 hour movie system. And it's worse then because if the show isn't episodic then all you have nothing at all happening until the episode ending cliffhanger. When it's episodic they can at least tell a self contained story until the main plot comes back at the end. Or they could do like Mythic Quest did and just have a wonderful episode about a whole different cast that is thematically relevant and then reveals a connect to the main story at the end.
I agree with you though about large episode orders happily being a thing of the past outside of network procedurals. 22 weeks of episodes is far too many for most shows, and the team behind Lost agrees. That's why when they got ABC to agree to ending the show the season episode orders were cut down.
So where does The Wire fall on this spectrum/definition you have?
Often that show had almost nothing going on for certain episodes in terms of advancing the larger plot or telling any sort of self contained story, and is carried entirely by fleshing out the characters and building up the foundation of the story for payoffs down the road. you'd have subplots, but the design was more like chapters in a larger novel than any sort of self contained stories.
But it's routinely considered one of the best shows ever.
It's also a show that largely found it's audience on DVD and after release, where people could commit to watching the 3-4 episodes it really takes for the density of a season of The Wire to really grab hold of you.
