#steve woolf

Annie: so… justin bieber.

Annie: i watched his 'never say never' documentary

Annie: and… i think i like him as a person

Steve: I don't know why I don't have more followers on Tumblr.

Annie: What?

Zadi, Steve, and I. May 2008.

The backstory: Barrett had delivered his WebTVWorkshop tip of the day video back in May, which got picked up last week by others in the web show world. That led to a passionate discussion on Twitter with quite a few participants. There was a follow-up Tumblr post by Barrett that led to numerous replies. David Nett put forth his thoughts on Facebook, which also had a lively comments exchange afterwards, and there was a Tubefilter article by Marc Hustvedt, which generated similarly passionate comments. There were other blog posts by creators on their own sites, as well.

This morning - while taking the bus and the subway and then the bus again from Valley Village to Blip's new LA HQs in Santa Monica - I listened to the latest episode of New Mediacracy, titled: The One About "IndieTV" Versus "Immersive Entertainment", and had one specific point that I wanted to make... apparently I felt it was note-worthy enough to scribble down as the bus swayed and jolted over pot-holes and braked for light-changes. Now, to avoid putting words into anyone else's mouth, I want to be clear that this was only what Brett Register asked during the episode - and it's very possible he was simply playing a very convincing devil's advocate - the question asked, paraphrased, was: is it really *that* bad if the internet is the just another indie TV or indie film. The question was followed by a bit of commotion, but one clear answer was Steve Woolf's definitive, "yes!". 

I couldn't agree more - and this is a sentiment I've heard before from guest on NM - the idea that as storytellers and creators, and even as an audience, that we should treat the internet as something less-serious as a medium when compared to TV or film, is not only missing the point but it's dismissing the technology's uniqueness.

The internet is young, very young - and what I'm afraid of is that letting a wave of up-and-coming TV writers and filmmakers, who see the internet as nothing more than a stepping-stone on their way to "bigger things", shape its direction and its definition, then the internet is in big fucking trouble. To be blunt. 

The internet is not another marker in a linear path that leads from radio, to internet, to TV, to film. It exist on its own - independent from film, independent from TV. 

I should stress that I don't think anyone should be deterred from creating what they eventually hope might become a larger film, or a larger tv series - the internet is an incredibly powerful place to evolve ideas - but my issue comes from people advocating that this *is* its purpose; that other creators and storytellers should not fight for the internet to take full advantage of *what* the internet is and what it is quickly becoming. It is an awful thing to say that the internet is the next indie tv or the next indie film - it is not. Not in regards to technology, not in regards to ability, not in regards potential. 

In the months following the 2010 Streamy Awards (which made many feel like they looked like the image above due to the nature of the show) it seems there has been a lot of discussion concerning the future of web entertainment. While it’s true there was discussion prior to the Streamy’s, it feels as if opinions have become stronger and more vocal than ever before as a result of the many blunders the award show had. Credibility has been a concern of web content producers from the beginning of this industry that is still very much in its infancy. Just last week a video uploaded in May of this year from WebTVWorkshop featuring Barrett Garese caught the attention of many in the online community: http://www.twitvid.com/ZMY9B

Since last Wednesday many have voiced their opinions on the ideas expressed in the video on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/notes/david-nett/i-shall-call-you-indietv/428701221871), Twitter and a number of blogs such as Taryn O’Neill’s (http://www.tarynoneill.com/post/future-information) discussing technology and art and the relation to web content on YouTube and elsewhere. Also there is Barrett Garese’s follow-up blog to the video posted about four months ago (http://www.barrettgarese.com/post/1054307198/2000-words-on-derivative-bullshit-webtv-and), a more analytical explanation of the passionate forty-nine second rant. Andrew Seely goes on to describe the web community as a playground with everyone having different areas to play and opportunities to make their own rules and think outside the box (http://andrewseely.com/blog/playground-games/). Tubefilter chimed in as well here. These are just a few of the posts that stood out to me on the topic and I am sure there are many more to be found if I had the time.

All in all it has been a very active week in the web community culminating with New Mediacracy posting their latest episode on Monday, Episode 18: The One About "IndieTV" Versus "Immersive Entertainment". It brought together Barrett Garese, Brett Register, Craig Frank, Jamie Blair, Chris McCaleb, Zadi Diaz, and Steve Woolf. The discussion was lively and discussed several topics ranging from interactivity in web content, how to define web content and differentiate it from other forms of media, and how to use the internet to its full potential when creating content. Much more was covered, including Des Moine, Iowa and pizza that I’m not sure ever was delivered, but among everything it became clear too much emphasis is being put on defining things which don’t really matter. It’s true I cringe whenever I hear the term “webisode” used, but in the end whatever is used will be used. The main point of all the discussions taking place is content creators need to think beyond the initial ideas for content and work at finding ways to use the technology in order to make it an experience unattainable in other mediums.

While it is true much of what was on the web first is being adapted by television networks, the internet yet has much potential to be discovered. In order for those developing content for the internet to be taken seriously there is a constant need to keep moving forward. I’m not saying everyone needs to start using HTML5, like is used in the Arcade Fire “Wilderness Downtown” project mentioned in several of the posts this week. It is an amazing example of using technology unavailable elsewhere, but whatever is used to make content unique to the internet needs to be right for the content. Content creators can’t let themselves get stuck in a rut of merely creating television for the internet. If they continue to do so the projects they have put all their time and effort into will simply get lost in the decades upon decades of content posted on YouTube, Blip.TV, Vimeo or any other number of content distributors. No one is saying not to follow your dreams of creating content, but if you want that content to have added value you need to adapt and take risks.