Today at noon, the folks behind Avatar released something they’re calling an Interactive Trailer. Intrigued by the the word “interactive,” I downloaded and installed the Adobe Air application. There’s no doubt that the movie looks amazing (and it should, James Cameron has spent practically the whole decade obsessing over every detail), but I’m a bit confused about what, exactly, makes this trailer “interactive.”
I suppose we all have our own thoughts about what “interactive” means. Quite simply, I think it means that the user’s action should create a unique and variable experience—and I don’t believe that’s the result of the Avatar Interactive Trailer. Everyone has the same basic experience: Watch the trailer then click a thumbnail to watch additional video content. The user doesn’t actually interact with the video, just around it, above it or below it.
After fiddling with it for 20 minutes or so, I don’t get it. I don’t see how this application is any different from a standard movie website that offers a series of videos. So, I have questions: Why build this as an Adobe Air application? What does “interactive” mean these days? Does just clicking to watch additional content constitute an “interactive” user experience?
In this case, ”interactive” just seems like the wrong label—especially when it comes to video content. The bar has already been set high by truly interactive video pieces like Arcade Fire’s Neon Bible and Cold War Kids’ I’ve Seen Enough. And the Avatar Interactive Trailer certainly doesn’t live up to that standard.
Agree? Disagree? Let’s hear it.
3 Comments
1
Is it interactive, YES. Is it as cool as the examples you gave or any of the sites that end up on FWA, NO. Besides being the title of the bread and butter of a lot of us who work in this field, I can see how you would perceive the word usage of “interactive” as a mis-label and more that of catch phrase or marketing term. This is the way I look at it. If I saw a 1st graders art drawing that did at school in which they used paints and then saw the Mona Lisa, from a 30,000 foot view, yes they’re both paintings. Regarding skill level and other criteria, no, they wouldn’t be in the same league. I personally think that’s what you have here. An application that simply pulls several RSS feeds and has sub chapters linked to hot spots and the two examples you give are definitely works of art it comes to interactivity.
2
@Teksetta:
Yeah. I’m just trying to wrap my brain around the evolving definition of “interactive”—in this case, the idea of “interactive” video content. I still think there’s something to the fact that, in the Avatar example, you don’t actually interact with the video… so the trailer itself isn’t “interactive.” It’s static. It plays and we watch.
And I agree with your point about the larger definition of “interactive”—I just wonder if that term has evolved and that a baseline of interactivity (clicking for more content) no longer meets the higher standard for that term. If someone touts a new site or video or application as “interactive,” I expect more than a simple click-the-thumbnails-to-watch-more-video experience.
But maybe that’s just me…?
3
I think that as pioneers in this art form of interactive, that we have to saturate the net with such high quality work that when people do receive a notice like they have with a link to the Avatar AIR app, that they will have that “ehh” mentality of “it’s ok” because they’ve seen what has been produced that’s better than that. I agree, there are much better things out there in terms of video interaction like this (http://www.armanijeans.com) or this (http://eu.wrangler.com/bluebell/).
I think the same thing could be applied to those with personal computers and iMovie. Just because you have iMovie doesn’t make the quality of your work agency or Hollywood quality. Because people have seen what’s out there and what is possible, seeing something home made just doesn’t cut it and the same mentality could be applied to all fields all alike.