The final prompt for assessment 3 reads “neither content nor form [of web series] need to be ‘corporate compliant’”, and declares this as a strongly admired web series characteristic. While I agree and believe this characteristic would be better described as the web series being able to do whatever it wants. It’s less eloquent, but the point is that I think the freedom belongs to the concept of the web series, and if particular web series chose to use industrial models or have a more commercial aesthetic, it shouldn’t be relegated to being unadventurous or unstimulating. I think a lot of web series are naturally non-corporate compliant because they are made by people outside of a corporate setting because the people within the corporate setting probably have the money and resources to create content for traditional media mediums.
I think trying to define and characterise web series is dangerous territory, as the quintessential and really only characteristic they have is they can be anything logistically possible and legal to produce. Of course, some web series are better than others, and we can analyse them to see what makes them better. It well could be that the most stimulating ones are more artisanal and low budget than commercial and fancy. I just think such a conclusion is limiting. A non-industrial product doesn’t automatically make it a good or even better than something made with industrial practices. What’s more, someone could have a totally crazy and fresh idea for a web series and have the resources to make it industrially. How many arthouse and independent films are made with traditional practices and models?
Maybe, people perceive lower budget or less corporate series ad more adventurous because they know it was made by someone “just like them”, and that is exciting and novel. Maybe we should say that artistically made productions have a batter ability to connect with people on a more personal level, and that engages them to a larger degree than an industrial series would.
In regard to our own production, I don’t think using an industrial model has undermined our possibilities. We definitely have used an industrial approach, and it has been necessary with such large groups. But this approach has ensured we have been efficient and professional. The possibilities have been incredibly open from the beginning, and it was from there that we chose our method. Furthermore, we are students working with no budget and relatively little skills. I really don’t think we are at risk of being too traditional, commercial or corporate. And once again, if we were, it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.