View Sidebar
David Tennant 2.0

David Tennant 2.0

In case you hadn’t noticed, the BBC have started putting up official video clips and diaries onto YouTube. So far, not particularly Web 2.0 – but the two video diaries they have put up there from (completely coincidentally) Doctor Who – shows how you *can* almost make a Media 1.0 product fit within a Web 2.0 environment, and how you can’t.

Watch Freema Agyeman’s Doctor Who video diary (oooh hiss points to whoever at the BBC titled these videos – it’s *Doctor* Who, not Dr Who!). It’s nothing remarkable or exceptional – it’s an edited piece to camera that feels like something taken off an Electronic Press Kit, or a piece of video made/directed by someone who’s got no real idea how a video diary should feel. It feels scripted, dishonest and commercial.

Compare and contrast to David Tennant’s Doctor Who video diary. The various elements feel – and indeed show – that instead of just sitting and facing the camera, David has gone around and filmed himself walking and talking to people, in corridors, entering sets etc. He also filmed himself inside his trailer and shows us his suit – and when he turns the camera around to face himself, you can see that he’s all alone in his trailer. No PR minders, no film crew – just one man with his camera, talking about what he’s doing. It’s video blogging 2.0 – and it’s on a major TV set for possibly one of the BBC’s most famous TV productions. Having said that, neither video is going to compel people who’ve never seen Doctor Who into watching an episode.

It’d be nice to think that sooner or later, Tom Cruise, George Clooney or Kiefer Sutherland would be doing this themselves as part of their publicity, really bringing people closer to the set and the action. But somehow I doubt it. So yet more kudos to David Tennant for doing just that.

(Oh, and the amusing thing about watching a BBC video on YouTube is that afterwards, the ever-so-helpful YouTube recommendation engine links straight to videos on YouTube that the BBC just may have not approved of, from a copyright point of view!)

Leave a reply