screen Interactive TV — novelty or innovation?

Charlie Oldroyd, Online Tech Editor, discusses Netflix’s ways of maintaining viewership

WITH subscription rates dwindling, Netflix has come up with several innovative ways to retain members and rake in subscription capital every month. By creating exclusive games and even creating a cheaper ad-supported tier, the company is fighting to stay afloat amid increased rates of pirating. With speculation that the company is also cracking down on password sharing, Netflix is clinging to viewers with innovation and novelty. A more unconventional innovation, however, is interactive television. In the wake of Bandersnatch in 2018, Netflix is basking in the media buzz of Kaleidoscope , the new drama miniseries released this January. With each subscriber being offered a different default viewing lens, there are over 40,000 ways to watch the series. Horror alum Stephen King boasted that the best way to watch the series was in chronological order — but apart from a greater sense of control, what is to gain from interactive TV? In a review of Bandersnatch four years ago, it was branded the “Tomorrow of TV”. Despite other mixed reviews frustrated with the loss of narrative through the extensive choices, it was an overall success, generating the attention needed to keep Netflix in TV viewers’ favour. This, however, begs the question: if it was a successful venture, why has Netflix waited nearly half a decade to unveil new interactive content?

The answer lies within novelty. As a Netflix subscriber myself, the £10 snatched from my bank account every month is justified by the comfortable everyday monotony. Comfort shows and rewatches of classic series like Friends pad out much of my profile, with Netflix maintaining a steady roster of recommended films to cull my need for adventurous watching.

Upon the announcement of Kaleidoscope , I was very excited to see how eight episodes could be stitched together regardless of viewing order. Simply, it orbits around a dangerous heist with echoes of betrayal and greed in between key events. If I had been presented with this concept as a standard chronological TV show, my interest would have been quelled and it would have been destined to fester in my watch list. The steady feeding of novelty content keeps interest fixated on Netflix, batting attention away from pirating websites. Viewers are excited to begin an amateur career in film academia with friends piecing together the obscure interactive episodes. After all, I still remember the philosophi - cal decision of Frosties or Sugarpuffs that Bandersnatch postulated so many years ago. Content-wise, Kaleidoscope isn’t novelty. Despite the talents of veteran actor Giancarlo Esposito, (most famous for his role as Gus in Breaking Bad ) the plot falls somewhat flat, hinging expectations on the ‘White’ episode which details the heist. With Netflix warning that this episode should be viewed last, can the series really claim the unique viewing experience it boasts? Having endured both viewing experiences, I agree with Netflix.

There is promise in its concept for sure, but creator Eric Garcia doesn’t seem brave enough to execute it with this type of story.”

Watching the series in chronological order constantly poses the question of what is next? With an unresolved ending in which (spoiler alert), Esposito’s Ray Vernon is shot and killed, I was left with a yearning for substance that the half-baked characters and plot lines could not quell. It proves that a well-fleshed out plot is needed to override the ‘gimmicky’ interactivity. Despite the excitement over the series, it sports, as expected, justified negative reviews. Summarised in Escapist Magazine : “In review, Kaleidoscope is a bold failure for Netflix and as such should be applauded.