Disclaimer:  This blog post is derived from my master thesis titled “New Aspects of Communal Viewing: Subscription Video-on-Demand Platforms and Watch Parties. For further details, you can visit the link provided by Turkish Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.

Although communal viewing is often associated with the moviegoing experience; the concept of ‘ubiquity’redefined communal viewing, extending it beyond both temporal and spatial boundaries. This blog piece seeks to liberate the communal viewing experience from the confines of film viewing[1] experience, by introducing emerging forms of communal viewing. It traces an historical trajectory from early devices like the Kaiserpanorama to contemporary virtual watch party extensions/mobile apps like Teleparty. By tracing a trajectory from early devices to current digital plugins/third party applications and incorporating findings from a targeted field study of virtual watch parties on Teleparty, this work situates the phenomenon within the broader context of technological convergence, media consumption habits, and social interactions in the digital age.

Fig. 1. The Kaiser-Panorama, a 19th-century stereoscopic device.

While many precursors of films—such as optical toys like the phenakistoscope, zoetrope, and praxinoscope—were primarily designed for individual use, Kaiserpanorama stands out as the only appropriate device for communal viewing experience(s). Invented by German physicist August Fuhrmann in late 19th century, the Kaiser-Panorama inverted the spatial relationship between the viewer and the image, storing its pictures within itself, and projecting them outwards to the spectators gathered around its exterior[2]. This early communal viewing apparatus has sparked conceptual debates that resonate with the terminologies of New Cinema History.

The spatial and temporal unity inherent in this early form of communal viewing experience can be conceptually divided into three stages: pre-viewing, on-viewing, and post-viewing. While pre-viewing experiences correspond to all spatial interactions before the viewer sits on a wooden/leather seat. In this context, it is understandable why new cinema historians often favor the term moviegoing experience over film viewing, as the former captures the broader socio-cultural and spatial dimensions of engagement with cinema.However, it is important to note that the on-viewing experience can occur in both solitary (isolationist) and communal (group-oriented) forms, as exemplified by settings such as drive-in cinemas and love-lane rows in film theaters.

Fig. 2. Film viewing as a phase of broader moviegoing experience.

The advent of television marked a pivotal historical shift in the spatial dynamics of communal viewing. The transition from public cinema spaces to private, domestic settings transformed the communal viewing experience into what can be described as a “group watch.”  This shift was facilitated by the broadcast scheduling model, which delivered serialized episodes at fixed times and intervals, conceptualized as the drip-feeding model.  Appointment viewing experiences with limited viewer autonomy has been eroded, by the introduction of new delivery technologies. A more profound transformation occurred with the introduction of video cassette recorders (VCRs) in the early 1980s, which revolutionized viewer autonomy.

The competition between Sony’s Betamax and JVC’s Video Home System resulted with the liberation of television audiences from appointment viewing, by enabling them to record and watch televisual contents at their own convenience. By the same token, pretending like a tele-athlete[3] running media marathons gave rise to earlier forms of binge-watching, a phenomenon in which viewers may paradoxically lose control over their consumption habits. The emergence of home video culture fostered the first forms of watch parties, serving as both a reason for family gatherings on special occasions and a tool for mobilization within subcultural communities[4]. Julia Dobrow has identified repeat viewing of familiar texts on video as one of the most popular general uses of the VCR.[5] So it would be fair to say that fan culture has skyrocketed with repeat viewing of video cassette based recorded televisual contents, without any disturbing commercials. The subsequent introduction of DVD box sets elevated these practices, solidifying binge-watching as a new norm. Steiner’s vital distinction between feast-watching (Planned, Social, Attentive) and cringe-watching (Solo, Accidental and Distracted)[6] makes it clear that media marathoning[7] rather than binge watching would be the case for DVD nights.

Fig. 3. Subscription-based video-on-demand (SVOD) platforms as successors of television.

Since the turn of the 21st century, the proliferation of OTT platforms has reshaped the communal viewing landscape, marking the transition from linear to non-linear TV and from broadcast to post-broadcast TV.[8]These platforms—operating through advertisement-supported, transactional, subscription-based, or hybrid models—inherit and extend the legacy of traditional television studies. Originally a DVD rental service, Netflix has elevated as a flagship subscription video-on-demand platform, following its unique full-drop release model[9]. This approach stands in contrast to other major competitors such as Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, which adopt hybrid release models and also offer watch-party plug-ins. Netflix subscribers are required to use third-party applications or Google Chrome extensions, such as Teleparty, to host virtual watch parties.

Fig. 4. Teleparty facilitates to consume of SVOD originals, in virtual watch parties.

The fieldwork conducted for this study highlights the significance of virtual watch parties as a novel yet familiar form of communal viewing. Plugins like Teleparty (formerly Netflix Party) enable users to engage in collective content consumption, replicating the social dimensions of moviegoing in a digital context.  While similar tools, such as Amigo TV[10] Collabora TV[11] and Social TV[12] existed prior to SVOD platforms, Teleparty has gained prominence for its accessibility and compatibility with Netflix’s extensive library of originals.

Fieldwork involving two virtual watch party sessions on Teleparty, with an aggregate of 30 participants, revealed several key insights:

  1. Viewing Dynamics: The nature of the content significantly influences the level of interactivity and attentiveness. For example, slower-paced, character-driven narratives elicited more active discussions, while fast-paced genres like action films fostered a more fragmented viewing experience.
  2. Social Intimacy and Group Size: Smaller, more intimate groups facilitated controlled and meaningful interactions, while larger groups often leaned toward chaotic, distracted viewing.
  3. Platform Features: The interface design and chat functionality of Teleparty played a critical role in shaping the communal experience. While the synchronous playback feature ensured a shared timeline, the chat feature served as a digital equivalent of whispered commentary in traditional theaters.
  4. Viewing Practices: Virtual watch parties simultaneously enabled and challenged binge-watching habits. In some instances, participants adhered to structured, episodic consumption, while others extended sessions into unplanned marathons, highlighting the duality of control and loss of autonomy in digital communal viewing.

In line with findings of fieldwork research, it should be noted that virtual watch parties as a new aspect of communal viewing leaves the door open for limited interactive, attentive, controlled viewing experiences as well as fragmented and binge-watching behavior, depending on the type of content preferred by the users, the level of intimacy with other participants, the number of participants and the interface features of the Teleparty extension.

 

 

Enes Akdağ is an Istanbul-based filmmaker and a Ph.D. candidate in Communication Studies at Kadir Has University. He holds an M.A. in Media and Communication Studies and a B.A. in Political Science and International Relations. His up-to-date research interests lie in the fields of film industries, new cinema history, queer cinema. He recently joined the New Media and Communication Department of Üsküdar University as a research assistant.

 

Footnotes

[1] For further conceptual debate, please see the following: Casetti, F. (2009). Filmic Expression. Screen 50(1), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/hjn075

[2]  Mark. (2011, February 6). The Kaiser-Panorama. In the Jungle of Cities. https://inthejungleofcities.com/2011/02/06/the-kaiser-panorama/

[3] The term “tele-athlete” was first used by the American comedian Jim Gaffigan in his show “Cinco”.

[4] Media historian Tim van der Heijden reconceptualizes home video culture as a means for ‘writing history from below’.

[5] Dinsmore-Tuli, U. (2000). The Pleasures of ‘Home Cinema’ or Watching Movies on Telly: An Audience Study of Cinephiliac VCR Use. Screen, 41(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/41.3.315

[6] Pittman, M., & Steiner, E. (2021). Distinguishing Feast-Watching from Cringe-Watching: Planned, Social, and Attentive Binge-Watching Predicts Increased Well-Being and Decreased Regret. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20(10), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521999183

[7]  Please see, quadrant framework of viewing practices from the following: Merikivi, J., Bragge, J., Scornavacca, E., & Verhagen, T. (2019). Binge-watching Serialized Video Content: A Transdisciplinary Review. Television & New Media, 21(7), 697-711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419848578

[8] Enli, G., & Syvertsen, T. (2016). The End of Television Again! How TV Is Still Influenced by Cultural Factors in the Age of Digital Intermediaries. Media andCommunication, 4(3), 142-153. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.547

[9] Full drop release (mostly used by SVOD platforms) is based on the delivery of all episodes at once.

[10] Weisz, J. D., Kiesler, S., Zhang, H., Ren, Y., Kraut, R., & Konstan, J. (2007). Watching Together: Integrating Text Chat with Video. [Paper Presentation]. CHI ’07: The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, California, United States. 877-886. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240756

[11] Nathan, M., Harrison, C., Yarosh, S., Terveen, L., Stead, L., & Amento, B. (2008). Collabora TV: Making Television Viewing Social Again. [Paper Presentation]. 1st International Conference on Designing Interactive User Experiences for TV and Video, California, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1453805.1453824

[12] Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R., Oehlberg, L., Thornton, J., & Nickell, E. (2008). Social TV: Designing for Distributed, Sociable Television Viewing. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(2), 136-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310701821426