Modern Family

Last night I found myself sitting in front of my tv watching the popular, very talked about, Modern Family. I've watched it a few times before, but until last night had not found how it was so appealing and satisfying to watch. After our discussion on Tuesday it actually made me connect this type of narrative/drama to what we were speaking about.

The series seems to be somewhat realistic, in the fact that the scenes don't seem to be overly planned out, or unrealistic in the drama that is happening. The family is displayed as very interconnected, the relationships they have and maintain seem to be something any viewer can connect with. The structure of the series keeps people involved in the lives of the characters. learning the personalities of the different characters adds to the experience of the show itself, understanding the roles different people play and how they interact with the rest of the family.

I also think this show is important because it visually broadens the definition of family for us in the US, allowing us to see the many different that have developed over the years. Shows like this provide entertainment to a vast array of viewers, but I think this is largely possible because they can relate to the different family structures as well as situations.

I know I'm going to catch up on the season so far and start watching!

Luder's Article

"Digitalization and personal use of media technologies have destabilized the traditional dichotomization between mass communication and interpersonal communication,and therefore between mass media and personal media (e.g.mobile phones, email,instant messenger,blogs and photo-sharing services)" (683).
This from Luders article really correlates to what we discussed last week. It erased the line between corporation and individual. This was because now people could interact in a new form of media - this eliminated a new boundary. I think that the above quote can be further developed by including video share on one website creates a new type of connection. 

"Tools for personal communication have seen a remarkable development with the digitalization of media technologies.As media for personal communication,these tools may be labelled ‘personal media’ "(684).
Personal media is something that created a much more interactive way communicating. Narratives were no longer producer ->viewer oriented, but could work in either way. This to me is possibly the biggest step for media creations, because more and more people became interested. 

"Technological development is situated within a social and political context" (685). Only certain boundaries are appropriate to cross, or logical. I like this quote because it obviously keeps some realisticness in how involved people can get. For instance, an individual person cannot produce a full length film - BUT one can create a short, self edited, and short film for laughs on youtube.

"Prior to the digitalization of personal media,people generally knew with whom they were communicating" (686).
I can relate to this and that is why I really think it is relevant. If we post something on youtube you're never really sure who is watching it, purely because there are so many people involved in the success of the website.

Sharing media is revolutionary because it changes story telling in a way that may have never before seen possible. I know that because people are doing the same as me I find it even more enjoyable to see how many hits a blogpost or even new video gets. It is all about the interaction and ability to network.

Youtube and Web episodes

The phenomenon the youtube has become is incredible. I do think that one of the most attractive thing about the site is the ability to share media, but also watch it. Users are able to upload personal files and see what people think. The interaction the website allows provides people with more than just entertainment.

I know that this is what we spoke about in class. I also find it interesting that people use the website for advertisements. I am a competitive horseback rider, many professionals post short clips of horses with contact information in hopes that someone will pursue for a purchase. This is striking to me, because with the expansion of the internet there is not only web episodes but also personal motivating clips put up for business purposes.

It takes the public away from the traditional corporate content and allows viewers to create their own. There is a lot of remixing (as you said in class) and I think this is also an extremely popular thing. People can put their spin off on something previously produced to make it more interesting to themselves and hopefully other people.

I think the biggest attraction of things like youtube is that people can really be interactive and included in the production process. Even if what they are watching is not their own, they have posted something for other people to watch - which may be satisfying. The idea behind a lot of this is changing something, or making fun of something else. Web episodes tend to do this also, which is very amusing to people. It is also a nice break from prime tv. It is a way to watch something entertaining without taking a large chunk out of your day. I think that web episodes may be something that becomes more popular than hour long episodes as people becoming increasingly busy.

Oprah, Ellen Degeneres, Extreme Home Makeover... Reality Tv at its Finest

So, after our lengthy discussion about Oprah and everything she represents just through her talk show I got to thinking. I actually started thinking about Ellen Degeneres and her talk show - is she the next Oprah?

I think it is very possible that Ellen could have an equally positive impact through her talk show. Oprah emphasizes her lending hand given out to those less privileged; this has become a significant element in Ellen's talk show. She gives brand new cars to families who cannot afford them on their own, but require the mobilization, I'd say this counts. But, this brings another question, are we just focusing on material reality?

We see this type of reality in Extreme Home Makeover when the family is given a bigger house, the one they were living in was so small two people holding hands could touch either side of the room, and all of the children shared one bedroom; filled with bunk beds.

All of these reality makeover shows provide something that improves the materials a family or individual has to deal with. It may seem to be providing aid to the problem, but it simply appears this way to the uneducated eye; no one things about what happens when "the paint chips and we can still see the cracks" (figuratively speaking). These high power individuals provide potential for success, but the inability for these families/individuals to provide for themselves beyond this help is where we see problems. For example, the extremely high mortgage on a new house, or the monthly car payments on the generous 2010 model car.

What is given seems to relate to material wealth - it states then, that our society is infatuated with this as a statement of success. So, I go to say are they really helping, or just doing so to make money off of a television show.

I know this might be stretch, don't get me wrong, Oprah building a school in Africa is nothing but good. But the isolated individual being put on the spot because of falling on hard times, or psychological struggles does not always benefit from the aid that is given.

My point is, does these individuals know the burden that is potentially placed based on their generous donation? Or do they simply do good deeds strictly to benefit those in need.

It goes back to a societal view, the American dream, from rags to riches. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps - that's what makes a success story. So, in fact, these people are given a little boost, but still expected to make it for themselves.

Are these shows for entertainment? information? of course, if they just wanted to do a good deed it wouldn't need to be on their show. They as well as everyone else values, and expects to see the display of material wealth in reality television shows.

Make Over

After class on Tuesday I began thinking about how it is fairly typical for any television show (whether a series or a talk show) to begin with a problem and fight for or seek out resolution for the duration of the show itself. This idea of self transformation is the key aspect to understand in make over TV.

It appears most often that the "privileged" people on the show (host) provide what is required in order for an individual to take the next step in their life. The set up is conventional, the host is mixed between the audience and the guest, but the guest and audience are set on two different platforms - further separating the needy from the general public (physically not just emotionally).

People voluntarily put themselves on stage in front of millions of viewers. This proves that their problems are being presented for more than the therapy the expert is providing, but to actually publicize the matter. This can be to provide knowledge in a subject that is often disregarded. Or it can be to send a message that the sometimes uncomfortable topic is okay to talk about, that others are not alone. 

Oprah is the best example of all of these things. The most influential thing about her talk show over the years is the ability or attempt she had to identify with her guests. This not only opened up her guests but also made an emotional connection between Oprah, interviewed, and audience.

She is so very popular, but as Peck says its not just about what she says, we have to look deeper. It is easy to see what a major impact she has had on her viewers, however it is very hard to see how powerful she is in these transformations.

I think the biggest appeal in Oprah's talk show was that we had real insight into her life. She had struggles (with weight , etc.) and we as viewers were invited to encourage and be along her side the entire time. This to me is extraordinary because it isn't common.

Reality, reality, reality....

New reality tv sub-genres are popping up to viewers as our society is changing. This is interesting to me because Home Makeover is not a new show, but addresses families that are poverty ridden due to tragedy among other things. But shoes like the Fairy Jobmother are created now because of the great loss of jobs in our country. She addresses people that are not capable of getting a job on their own, up to this point, and aids them in interviewing ways.

“Being on this network insures that we concentrate on the emotional stories, that is to say,
on how unemployment feels for the whole family, not just for the breadwinner,” said
Stephen Lambert, this said by Rosenblum. This shows why viewers are so attracted to this type of show. Their is a serious emotional connection to the viewer and the subject of the show. 

I know from personal experience that I become extremely emotional when the renovated house is revealed to the deserving family. There is something about this moment that is so gratifying.

This shows the direct correlation between viewer and subject. People watch the show because they can see the insight into it, they can relate to the characters, they can understand what is going on. The emotional connection establishes a constant viewer.

Rosneblum also says, “These are interesting people with interesting stories and different personalities, all of which is very compelling. Everyone is feeling some economic pinch these days, and how that
affects families and relationships makes for great stories.” These stories are very compelling also because sometimes it gives insight into a life that is often talked about but unknown. None the less the biggest factor is the association between people, the ability to attach to the emotional that is being described. The story can continue to change and the actual content can change as long as people can be one with the emotion in the character.

Therefore, this genre has a very broad range of ways that it can attract audiences. Because all that it really needs to aim for is a story that can be related to.

Until next time

The more I think about blogs the more of a continuous cycle I find myself going in to.

After class on Tuesday when we addressed many elements of the genre I found myself exploring new possibilities. This idea of import/export seems so foreign to me because when watching our "version" I really don't think about where it came from. But, I do find it very interesting that different places around the world find the same thing attractive to the eye and further willing to follow the lives of the characters.

The idea that each of these shows really tells the same story is so true, although it seems different because of the replacement of setting and characters. I like how this is all tied into transmedia storytelling, but in a different way entirely. The viewers are supplied with the means of interacting further than eye to screen. The experience is not complete until the viewer participates in some way, shape, or form. The "forcing/need" to interact leads to investment in the show itself, if one needs to do more than just sit and watch they feel they do not want to lose the effort they have put into the show.

The direct access to the characters basically provides the character with information without having to work for it. This may be a turn off for some, because the ambiguity of what is going on keeps people interested. The search is intriguing, and the viewers are in for the thrill and the roller coaster ups and downs of twists and turns that keep tricking.

The viewers not only don't have to search for the information, they also find themselves having to sort out through everything that is supplied because there is more information than needed. This process makes them think about what is important rather than searching for the missing links.

The different format does not remove work, it almost just reverses it. I find this very interesting because to me it explains why the genre may be so popular. Viewers are used to a certain way of watching, but now they are put into a different environment and a different type of "storytelling" this is what brings viewers in. however, those who are so extremely pleased with the construction of shows often are deterred by the format, and if beginning as fans they are eventually not a fan. I have never thought of the genre compared to other shows, using the same elements and framework and the way it is used.

The last class really put a different perspective toward the genre for me, and the framework that I am looking at makes me see it in a different light than a consumer who is "addicted" to this form of junk, supposed reality. The realisticness of the show is slowly diminishing for me, and the framework is exposed to show how they can draw in the greatest amount of viewers.

It's a big category for me, and I'm interested how it will continue to attract viewers, or broaden to include those who has of now have no interest because of the way information is just given.

Reality TV just keeps going

Each time I talk about this topic I think that I've addressed it but then I find that there is even more. I never thought of Dancing With the Stars OR Survivor as reality TV. I know saying this seems naive though, especially because Survivor was a major kick off for the genre. But, its hard to look at this because we do not typically see reality in terms of survival, at least not successful ones. I say this because the "celebrity" knock off of the show did not experience any success, this shows that imitation did not work in the way that producers had hoped.

I don't think I characterized Dancing with the Stars at all as reality because I view it as a competition or game show. It revolves around the performances of difference couples, however, I guess I can see where the stereotypes, knowledge, and attitudes of the "famous" play a huge role on who is voted for regardless of the performance, but actually based on popularity.

Survivor does format the basis for the show, and I say this because all those following revolve around similar conflict structures, however that adapt according to the setting and situations that are constantly changing in these shows.

In the article by Murray he talks about a different "series" however he does reference the use of hand held cameras, emphasizing the actions, movements, and conflict between people each and every day on the show. He also says, "in order to court a particular type of audience identification and set of expectations, television networks can take a program that has somewhat liminal textual generic identifiers and sell it as either a documentary or reality program by packaging it in such a way as to appear either more educational/informative or more entertaining/sensational, or in some cases both." The tendency, I have found is that producers tend to use something that is entertaining, most of the time it has to do with conflict between two people. Even in the episode of Dancing with the Stars there was conflict between multiple partners during practice sessions. I find it interesting that such a limiting genre, in terms of a way that they can be made appealing, but the changing in setting and people completely alters the show itself - and thus multiple different creations have experienced success.

The development does portray closely to documentary, in the fact that it is supposed to be somewhat of an uncensored following, while in reality tv it is entirely uncensored... or at least that is what we are expected to believe.

Reality tv is actually quite constricted to what audiences find interesting, we can follow someones "life" based on either a situation or just everyday interactions. So, to say this is to infer that the structure and the content have to maintain something similar. The ONLY thing that I see change in is the "characters" and the situation that produces conflict, competition, or relationships.

to follow up

I really don't know how to objectively address the reality tv genre. With my whole heart I believe what I said about loving reality tv, and my thoughts on it continuing for many, many more years. However, I would like to go along the lines of how it seems tremendously dramatic - I often hear people saying, that's not how it really is. For instance, my best friend is from New Jersey, fairly close to the shore, and he admits that there is a small minority of people that do act and appear this way, however it is not as hugely popular as you think. Interestingly, I think that viewers know this. Even though producers claim that this "reality"viewers watch strictly for the entertainment - not the realistic actions, setting, and moments.

I had never considered the appeal of such shows "abroad" as Raphael points out. However, this really sparks interest with me. So, not only is this extremely popular here, but production companies are able to out source the "season" if you will, and make much more money off of the same idea. BUT in saying this, I want to also point out that this worries me. Other plays may get a very, very false sense of what people here. As much as I further want to address the articles, I feel that reality tv is better addressed in a personal sense.

I know that all of my friends love reality tv as well, and when I ask them why... they all say because its hilariously funny, and extremely entertaining. I want to drive home and reinforce my previous point that most people know that this is not actual "reality" in the sense that these people always act this way when the cameras are off. I find it hard to believe that anyone could think this type of behavior was normal for anyone.

Shows like the Real Housewives are so obviously created. These women will do anything for something that warrants further curiosity... making viewers want to watch. Just like the one series when they showed up uninvited to a party at the White House. It has almost come to be that these shows purely pump up the reputation of these people in order to give them a base for something that they would rather do, like sell a clothing line.

I know I'm being kind of repetitive but I've spoken to several friends that are reinforcing the importance of these points.

Still on my mind though is this idea of creating a negative image. Even competition shows, like The Biggest Loser, demonstrating obesity, Survivor, showing the overwhelming innate characteristic of competitiveness in Americans. It all seems to have somewhat of a negative connotation. Also, The Jersey Shore and The Real House Wives show ridiculous behavior and offensive, rudeness between people who classify these others as friends.

Reality tv has become a phenomenon because it is a "new" genre, in that the traditions keep becoming renovated. This continuous change keeps people drawn in because the genre itself doesn't get old. Also, though the introduction of new characters gives an additional story for the viewer to show.

The broad genre and continuous change and introduction of new "story lines" will continue to draw people in!

Reality tv.. I don't think we've seen the best of it yet.

Reality

It's sad, I'm a real sucker for reality television. I watch everything from Jersey Shore, The Bachelor, to the Real World. I've never really considered it to be anything more than an increasingly popular drama. But, I will say, the more I think about it the more I see that there are definitely two categories within the genre - as Poniewozik points out. There are those shows that involve competition and those that go into the "lives" of those on the show. Competition shows, like America's Next Top Model really deal with issues that separate the character - however, they have a purpose for being on the show. Drastically different, shows like Jersey Shore deal with people that are strictly on television for the fame, and after they walk away this is the only things that could change in their life.

People on these shows ultimately forfeit any privacy they once had. In this article he references the creator of facebook saying that "sharing has become a social norm". The amount of privacy people has is really diminishing over time, not just because of these types of television but also through the interconnection of people through websites.

The fact that the reality stars came on with names that would represent their "stardom" and set them apart from other reality shows really emphasizes their desire to be popular. Not only do they wish to become famous in the eyes of viewers, but the attention they get also enable them to become successful in other aspect (i.e. clothing lines). These are all crucial elements to their fame, as well as a huge part of the genre that I do not think people tend to think of. I know, as an avid viewer I tend to watch for the entertainment - not really thinking of anything else.

The pure fame they receive just from displaying their lives is incredible. Like Poniewozik points out, they are paid just to reference things on their twitters. It is unbelievable the mass appeal that society has to this worthless genre (if you will). It really offers no value, other than amusement based off of others reckless, and sometimes unnecessary actions.

I know I find myself to be intrigued by the conflict that arises within each show. It happens in Survivor, Jersey Short, The Biggest Loser. It allows me some attachment, emotionally, to a character. But after reading the article the more I think about it, the more I see that they act in a certain way to gain popularity, a sense of success. The shift from competition, to loss of privacy is incredible. However, I will say that as our generation indulges in this type of behavior on television it will continue to grow in popularity, because not only do these "characters" make money but so do the networks.

The fact of the matter is we tend to watch to make fun of whats going on. I would not say that many viewers tend to envy this people, but rather critique and observe their behaviors. Its a very interesting progressive introduction to TV. I'd say that we will not see decline in it for a very long time, as long as young people are searching for "easy" success, and as long as we (as a society) are willing to tune in every week. Like Poniewozik says with the example of the family and the balloon kids, people use media attention to gain insight into something else they want to do - motivation for greater success. This also being like JWoww starting a clothing line during season 2 of The Jersey Shore.... Its a crazy concept to address, I think its going to keep spiraling in this direction until there is no censoring and peoples lives are no longer private. Because if its the norm now to "share" whats stopping it from going much further?

This Week

So I watched the wire for class... wow. It kind of threw me for a loop. I understand after class that it is a type of "cop" show, but it still really confuses me at the moment. I have a hard time associating with what is going on, I think it may be because the actual environment seems so important here, I find myself lacking to understand the whole picture. I initially thought (and believe it is in my last post) that the kids were separate, but when watching it again I have a hard time distinguishing from who is bad and who is good. It seems to be enticing the more I watch - but still I don't really get it.

I got a little more confused after Professor Anderson acknowledged that there were similarities between Law & Order: L.A. and The Wire. So I think that I am going to talk about what I understand about Law & Order first.

Law & Order obviously knows its audience and how to be successful. I found this episode to be extremely interesting. I like the change in caste, it adds something new to the format. The show is predictable in the way it introduces the plot, the "crisis", the interrogations throughout the hour time slot. The interlocking of characters prior to the crime is what always throws me for a loop, the relationship seems to be something either more/less than what you expect - and there is always more than one suspect. The appeal to this show is the format though, there is something predictable beside something so unpredictable that keeps viewers hungry for more.

Like we said in class, the conflicts/issues that carry across several episodes (insight into characters lives) keeps people wondering, while the crime comes to a close by the final scene of the epsiode.

The success of this show will not decline any time soon. I feel like The Wire may have even addressed this idea of invention and convention - trying to keep some of the same aspects, but changing it to be an entirely different show. Law & Order appeals to a HUGE audience, there is no need to change the structure of the show. The introduction of a new setting and new characters is all that is needed to spice up the same old things. I really liked this episode, and would also really like to start following the show. Because there is such a strong following, those who are already interested in the show are most likely going to be quickly "addicted" to the new series. Not only this, but new settings can also draw in a new audience, I find that some people (including myself) like to watch a show where I understanding the setting - more specifically, about the area where it is going on.

I hope to discuss The Wire more after class tomorrow, but I need some more guidance on what is going on in the show, its purpose, and the abstract structure.

The Wire.. and HBO

When watching The Wire for this weeks classes I did not find myself to be entirely thrilled with what was going on. I couldn't figure out what made this show successful enough to have more than one season, well to have four! This was then emphasized by Tyree's article, saying that HBO was able to take risks with what they provided their viewers with because of subscriptions. This also reemphasizes what we had spoken about early, in that HBO appeals to a certain audience - one show that is not a big hit will not ruin them, but will show them that this genre is not going to be a great success (at least not in this form). So, after reading this I still wondered how they let it continue for as long as they did. AND there was reason  number two, the episodes played multiple times a day, this allowing people to just catch it when they turned the T.V. on throughout the day, this did not force people to be available at a continuous, specific time - allowing the show to experience the success it did.

It was interesting to read about the use of camera, because I have found that the reaction of the scene, and opinion of what is going on usually relies on the why the shot is framed. As Tyree points out there are a lot of wide shots where we see the whole group. This allows me as a viewer to see how closely related the characters are to their environment - the importance of sticking with those who are close to you. Not only this, but the reality of the show, the need for one another. This also may create sympathy, I know it did for me. They are all fighting for the same thing, sometimes getting caught up in the wrong thing, but everyone is looking out for them in hope to turn this part of the city around.

I really think sympathy is an important issue here, essentially because it draws the viewer in to the drama of the show itself... maybe allowing the viewer to feel the need to be more involved in the viewing process.

I want to go back to the idea that HBO can be risky with new shows because people subscribe to the channel not a certain series. This really calls to me, because I think that it supplies such a niche market that individuals will try out a new show because they know that HBO has some idea of what they are interested in/attracted to. However, it puts the other broadcast networks at a severe disadvantage because people don't give new shows they dislike much of a chance, and therefore may lose viewers to these "niche networks" similar to HBO. Therefore we can see why The Wire was able to make it through four seasons.

One more thing

I totally forgot to mention something else I've been thinking about since class last Thursday. I think it is interesting that House has absolutely no relevance to current events. However, Law and Order does an amazing job of turn over - from something actually happening and when it appears in their show. I find this incredible. I also think that because it is related to what is going on it is easier for people to connect with - or there is less work involved. Just a quick side note that I wanted to say, connecting last weeks discussion with this weeks viewing of House, but that's all I have for now.

House - always the same old guy

Since I was asked to watch an episode of House for class this week, I was thinking I would address some things about this show that draw me in, but also that make me want to run in the other direction.

Now, directly pertaining to this episode, it's a little to dramatic for me. The patients relationship with her brother is heart wrenching, however, the relationship and interactions between Dr. House and her parents is unrealistic and actually disturbing. Throughout the episode he down plays the parents decision making, and is quite frankly flat out rude to them in several different scenes. I found this to be demeaning to House's character and it did not add to the story line, but instead made me less interested in the episode. This is not the only time I have felt this way, the last episode (on Monday) lacked in the category of medical drama, and seemed to revolve greatly around House and Cudi's love life, and more so there opinions on taking their relationship farther. I understand that there is a certain amount of insight that needs to be given about the doctors in order to make the narrative flow, and not simply be choppy from one medical plot to another. However, the appeal of this show has to do with the many doctors it involves, all of their intimate and social lives - not just House. These episodes seem to purely revolve around House as a character, instead of a part of the narrative.

I have watched every season, and I will say that this does not happen often. However, another thing I noticed is that this girl was not only the significant medical plot of the episode... she is the only one I remember. Usually there are several remarkable stories (if the episode is taking the common structure of this genre), but this was different. I think it has to do with the show revolving more around how House is around Cudi now - or how he treats people that are not his patient. This may have been an attempt to alter something about the show, you know what I have to say? Why change it if it works.


I find episodes like this discouraging, I think the majority of this comes from the expectations that carry over from previous seasons. The show itself though I think is very unique still, in that the "compassionate" doctor role doesn't really exist in full force. I say this because House is not compassionate in any way, shape, or form - and he over rules those who he works with. It is a medical drama with a very cynical twist - and I think that this sometimes adds humor, but often draws questions and (as we discussed in class) for the viewer to play a role in figuring out the story... especially with the many different twists and turns the cases always take.

CSI?... or is it something else

I feel like I could continue talking about CSI forever. There are so many aspects of the genre, and the show specifically that challenge typical narratives and use a different style to lay out the story. The visuals of the show is what I think attracts viewers. There is an intensity about the show that is very different and appealing to the eye - the colors that are used signify different intensity, and thus become an important part of the development of the show. Sue Turnbull challenges the idea that I have presented in her "THE HOOK AND THE LOOK" by saying that there are elements of the show that are visually very similar to past films in the genre. The editing of the entire show, from scene to scene, adds a lot of effect to the show (well obviously). I say this because the way they frame aspects of the show, the lighting, the choice of setting all really add up to develop a more complex visual - but it also allows the viewer to become more absorbed into the narrative world. The complexity of the visual draws people in, this is an important factor, time consuming in the production process, but, very easily attractive to those of us watching on our televisions, computers, ipods, iphones, and many other things.

There is a very potent part of the narrative that strictly revolves around the crime and everything involved with that (interrogation, investigation, court) all revolving around the police job, and the police victim/suspect relationship. However, this is a very developed narrative that also draws us into the lives of the police officers, although I feel this is very brief it continues through multiple series, and thus connecting the dots allows us to connect and understand their lives outside of their responsibility to the public, and the importance of their jobs.

After reading Turnbull I want to address this idea of being similar to, copying, or relying on past productions to create the show. I disagree with what I read by her because I think that in any genre this is going to exist. You know, to me every time a new series is developed and released there will be parts of previous shows that exist. Now, this is not repetitive and it is not wrong, it potentially uses things that worked and adds to it in order to make the success even greater. Therefore, to me it seems silly to point out these issues, I think it is inevitable. Not only do I feel strongly about this, but I also feel that CSI has great appeal - each episode has new appeal, but each time I introduce someone to it they can follow what is happening because it is very episodic, and the characters themselves are only introduced on the surface.

I'm a fan, and always have been.

Inside the world of CSI

I really just want to take a brief moment to wrap up on my thoughts from my previous post. Maybe donate a few words to clarifying things that I said, and broaden on CSI as a whole. In class yesterday I feel that some of things that I hade previously mentioned were reemphasized - particularly the consistent structure of a cop show. Although there is a very specific structure this is another element that I would say can almost be related to our discussion about Lost. Now, obvioulsy these are very different types of series, but, I will say that they both create involvement for the viewers outside of the show. In CSI there is this constant change in who we think the criminal is, and this is the game, allowing us to work our minds and continuously try to path out which way the specific episode is going to end up.

There are usually several interegations, however each time we are placed in this room we find ourselves one step closer (or at least thats what we, as viewers assume). The episodes never revolve around just one plot. Not only is their the main crime, but also the lives/problems of the suspects, as well as the lives and problems of the officials who hold the power. It is also important to realize that there is always some sort of power and resistance - whether it be constant between characters in a show, or just in the specific episode. This is one example of how we see importance in plots of the show other than the victims, criminals, and interegations.

CSI is very distinct in how it invovles the viewer. The way show uses special effects... usually recreating the scene in a slow rewind model, it intrigues the viewer and recreates something to connect the entire investigation to.

Another interesting to me, that I had never thought about prior to yesterday was the actual narrative arc of the show. This is the thing that actually pulls us through the episode from beginning to end. Since this series is typically episodical I feel like narrative arc is very important - because each narrative has to come from a beginning to a close.

Another thing we brought up is the fact that there was a huge "star" on the show. Obviously viewers see this quite often, but I had never associated it to the first or last episode, or the times when the networks receive ratings. I think that it was a brilliant idea to bring in Justin Bieber because he has a very large following at this point - and it starts out the season in a way that he may come back. He did not add to the show for me, but I can say that a large group of people I know were very captivated by the fact that he made a debut. It was almost like, is he an actor... or is he performing to give more or different appeal to the show. 

As S. Cohen says, "sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, the series interrogates what the science brings to the evidence table as the truths of a case so that justice may - or possibly may not - be well served" (31). The interrogation is simply a way for them to reinforce the "evidence" in the interrogation room.


Quote extracted from: S, Cohan. It's All about the Evidence.

Crime Scene Investigation

Okay, this topic is one of my favorites. This is a series that I have found intriguing since the very start. This genre is very interesting to me, no matter how similar the different series are. Every episode begins with the crime happening and the viewer seeing the victim, dead, in whatever setting that the investigation will take place. Then the show progresses through certain suspects (usually several being wrong) then the accomplishment of finding who is responsible for the death of the person and usually some sort of motive behind it. This supporting what Dobson says, that the three series stick to a very strict narrative sequence. This allows the show to be predictable in the aspect of how things are going to happen, and it seems to be that I can focus more on the actually content of the show because I know how it is supposed to work. This genre is fairly typical - and it attracts a very large audience, therefore there is almost promised success if all aspects are followed in the way the narrative is told.

Dobson also points out this idea of graphic realism. Not only does the story seem true, but the actual images also are very realistic. It is not at all about the characters doing the investigation, it is purely interest in the individual narrative from episode to episode. This I also think allows me to connect to the story, because I am not busy dealing with the drama on the sideline between characters.

The realism of the show is also what attracts the audience. The framework of the criminal receiving punishment after the crime has been committed brings closure as well as an ending to the episode. There tends to be no cliff hanger in these shows, and the "bad guy" is caught - unlike shows/movies in the horror genre that often leave the killer somewhere to come back.

In the article of CSI as Neoliberalism we see that even though the punishment and seeing of the victim is real, the actual seeing of the crime is not possible. The timing of the introduction of the show is what also attributed to its success - the niche it fit into really a place that needed devlopment and something new to attract viewers.

For me CSI is all about the action packed hour that envelopes me. There is no part of the show that is not interesting. From the quirkiness of certain characters, the relationships they have with one another (purely work), and the interest in going behind the scenes. I'm not sure what is more inriguing to me, the narrative story or the lay out of the crime and the solution of it. It is actually be far my favorite show, and I will say that the complexity of the crimes is interesting - the way they figure it out is also different than any other experience.

Glee Glee Glee

After our continued discussion on Lost I have realized that there was a large focus on the mixture of genre appeal in the entire series. This is what allows for the great success of the show, people connect through it - not only this, but it makes the show seem designated for many different niche audiences. So, I want to discuss Glee, the new phenomenon...which is also a mixed genre. This show probably appeals more to those individuals who are directed in the theatre type of life, however the story line allows for other types of audiences to take away enjoyment from the narrative.

I thought that this would make a good comparison, mostly because it is a show that is raved about, and also attempts to address multiple audiences. This fits into the category of comedy and drama. The comedy of the show draws people in who are interested in the funny, joking aspect of the show. On the other hand, drama, this brings in younger people who are interested in the "soap" part of the show. Really by this I just mean the relationships between the teenagers and the understanding of their fights, struggles, and successes.

This is another show, like I said with Lost, that I could not find myself getting in to. It is actually pretty strange, but now I find myself once again interested in the characters and all the aspects of the show. Not only are there funny pieces and dramatic scenes, but also a large incorporation of guest artists. This keeps people interested in an outside way, these people add a lot to the show. They switch up the interest and throw in a new mix to the show. An example is, Britney Spears - who showed last night. Her performing abilities is what attracts different audiences. Here is the last part that I would like to bring in, not only do guest artists spice up the shows... BUT it may attract individuals not interested in the show and make them a committed viewer.

I want to also say that this show reminds me of Lost in another way. Although this is not in any way classified a 'cult' series, it does have some similar qualities. The importance of people chatting outside of the show is crucial to its success. I typed in Glee blog and found this, http://www.gleefan.com/ . People are constantly on facebook, twitter, and in class talking about last nights episode. This is why I find this appropriate to follow up all of my Lost blogging - it has potential to blow up in success, especially if in the second season people are so avidly viewing and talking about the show. 

{{LOST}} - where do I begin.

The more required text I'm assigned to read the more and more interested I've become. I'm partially beginning to think that my dislike of Lost was pure ignorance. The more I understand the "culture" of the show as a whole the more I seem to find things interesting. Watching the episodes for class this week I found myself hungry for more, wondering what happened to all of the characters. Now, knowing that they were flash fowards also allowed me to enjoy the episode more because I was fascinated with where each person was going to reach this point - the point of being redistributed into society.

Now, I was unaware that Lost was in the genre of 'cults' - as is seen in my last post. However, I was unaware of all of the genres that the series is capable of fitting in to. As Ndalianis points out there are certain aspects of the show that could even be place in the genre of horror. These are the expected traits that the audience knows exist, this idea of putting genres together is very common today - widely because it broadens the prospective audience. It seems that this is a new phenomenon, however, it also seems that this is a driving factor because of the natural instinct to return the biggest gain on each episode.

In this article there is also a strong emphasis on "The Lost Experience" which is explained to be two different worlds that come into existence with the avid viewers who understand the main story as well as the many others that are going on. Last week I commented on Lost and its 'cult' category... today I read that it can also be considered science fiction. Yes, these are two different genres or categories, but I will say I think that type of audience they draw is usually fairly similar, and thus Lost's success may even be paritally based on the fact that if some aspects of one genre are missing they are present in the other - attracting the audience as a whole.

I really like the fictional world Lost brings in. It is close enough to a "reality" because of the actions that the people have to take in order to survive - however, there are things that are extremely fictional, and just add to the dramatic aspect of the show (like the polar bear in the first episode). All of these elements together allow viewers to disappear into a world on the screen but also connect or understand the fear/anxiety/uncertainty/ and dependency from the characters. For my own benefit, I want to express Ndalianis' article once again, because here we see this convergence term again. It is obvioulsy a huge part of every part of the show - fans find it important to connect in a whole type of way. The idea of individual viewing is actually less fulfilling, they like to share ideas and feel outside connection.

The show itself seems to be drawing me in. The continuity of the story, and the way the story is presented is actually more interesting then discouraging. I will say that the fan world is never one I have gotten involved in... blogging on a series website or "gaming". After saying this I WILL say that I still find myself enjoying the show, this is just another example of a different kind of audience (because I am not one that would typically pick a cult series or science fiction for that matter). The craze over Lost seems to me, at this point, to be about the ability to disappear into the world, to follow the story, and the continuous curiosity left for the viewers - however never enough to discourage one to come back the next week.

I've begun to buy episodes on my iTunes and really like all aspects of the show, even if some seem, well, like they don't make sense. The more episodes I watch the more I feel connected to the situation.

The following of Lost

I was reading Sarah Symes blog on Lost and I related very strongly to it. Actually my experience was almost identical. I began as a follower to the series, but with homework and other extracurricular activities quickly could not keep up with the complexity of the show. After continuously hearing so much about how great the series was, I too decided to attempt to sit down and watch season one. I failed to make it as far as Sarah, the interweaving of characters and the feeling of understanding and quickly being wiped off your feet left me unsatisfied… so I walked away that very day.

I watch a lot of shows that are dramatic narratives that have continuous seasons, so I am kind of at a loss of words to why Lost did not spark my interest further. I had a difficult time relating directly to any of the characters, my like in emotional involvement is what separated me from all those who are passionate about the show. The characters seemed rough around the edges, from the very being I felt a lot of distrust toward some of the strangeness in the characters. I am a viewer that has to feel connected to a characters actions and emotions in order to keep coming back – like Dr. Cudi in House. I’m sure many people side with characters but the twisting and turning and surprises, not to mention certain aspects that didn’t make sense (like the polar bear in the premiere) left me kind of doubtful and questioning, however I really didn’t care if I got an answer or not because it was so strange to me.

Again, I relate to Sarah. All of my friends were avid viewers of the show. I saw their devotion to the story line as well as the characters. Obviously I am one of view who feels this way, proved by the tremendous success. As Stacey Abbott implies, Lost is potentially the first time that a ‘cult’ series has been introduced but has always been geared toward mainstream audiences – and proved success. The fact that the network had the ability to spend so much money to advertise I think also brought in curiosity from many people. As far as articles go to say about advertising in movie theaters, this is one in few, well, as far as I know. The only time in my memory that I have seen a television ad as a preview is for My Generation, which is actually starting tomorrow. Referencing Abbott once again, it seems that the creators has to mask the science-fiction (‘cult’ draw) more than the fantasy. I hold this opinion strongly because I think it is easy to get lost in a fantasy world, however it takes a certain, select audience to fill the other end of the spectrum.

Following my starting to write about this and after reading the article I was interested to see if there was an easy accessable place to blog. Immediately I stumbled upon http://www.lostblog.net/, where many, many people blogged weekly throughout the entire series. Here individuals discussed opinions, expectations, it was an outlet for them to discuss, be reinforced and sometimes challenged on their perspectives. Even from seeing this I know see the ‘cult’ side even more greatly, the amount of outside discussion, effort, and interest that went into the show is like nothing I have ever seen, or been able to find before.

The beginning of whats promised to be an exciting seasons: HOUSE

Tonight House season 7 begins, so I find it only appropriate to speak about all of the phenomenal medical dramas that are now in circulation. I am an avid viewer of almost all of these shows – House, Grey’s Anatomy, and Mercy. Each one seems to have an extremely twisted love between the main characters. Yet Dr. House has yet to find anything seemingly close to love. This has become a wide genre, it includes very similar plot lines; however this series varies greatly in the attitudes of the people working in the hospital. House is the first doctor to demonstrate severe signs of something that compromises his medical ability. This small factor is really the main difference that separates each episode from all of the other series. If you like one of these medical dramas its extremely easy to like them all, because their structures are so overwhelmingly similar. The fact that this series has been able to be so successful for six consecutive seasons allows me to know that there is something keeping viewers interested. The potential for Cuddy and House to have a relationship is one thing that has kept me interested – because the relationship developed with the viewer is on somewhat of a personal level, “When Cuddy showed up in the nick of time, House (Hugh Laurie) took her hand instead of the drugs. Tonight, the romance begins anew on House” (1). I’ll be interested to see what happens between the main characters, we have been following this long, it will be interesting to see if anyone resolves love problems, or develops a relationship. The reason this is the most interesting aspect to me is because the medical part of these series are usually fairly predictable, but this separates it considerably. This medical genre has remained fairly general, in the fact that the shows follow a very similar format, in every episode. House also separates itself by the way they diagnose, their time here together shows tension and how they relate, an environment we really don't see in any other show.
This show also represents some type of convergence. Many viewers watch and blog online. Here we see that people are involved and interacting with the text online. I think that this also draws a much greater following – the fact that everyone is so interested and remains curious.


Source: Barnert, Deanna. "House Premieres: Love Doctors!" Entertainment | Recipes | Love & Sex | Contests | Beauty | Parenting. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. <http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/818161/House-premieres-Love-Doctors>.

Vampire Love

I am one that has fallen into the vampire craze recently. I found myself purchasing all of the previous True Blood seasons, watching them in large chunks because I couldn’t peel myself away from the screen. It’s amazing that they have found a way to turn one of the scariest human like creatures into something that is essentially sultry and somewhat desirable to man viewers. In previous generations the vampire has represented something to stay far away from. The reason I find the show to be so appealing is because although it is about this supernatural, fantasy world, it is also easy to relate to – the environment and occurrences within the town are imaginable. Said in other words, “From vamps and werepanthers to witches and faeries, this season of True Blood brought out just about every thing that goes bump in the night and deposited them in this once sleepy town, leaving the human-to-creature ratio dwindling even further” (1). This further reinforces the interaction between human and vampires (in a positive way) that allows viewers to connect to everyone, and this viewer-character relationship makes everything in their world seem closer. This vampire fad has been extremely popular with the younger generation; it exercises the use of young attractive males (generally) and makes it into a romance. So, not only am I intrigued by the relationship and how it could work, but also the adaptation they go through to fit in to a somewhat “normal” society. I find myself always hoping that our evil perception of vampires will be completely turned around in the end – making them heroes, since the main vampire always seems to make his way into some young, vulnerable woman’s heart. I will definitely continue to follow this episodic drama because I want to see how the relationships and consequences play out. It’s different than the typical drama on cable television in the past 5 years, now becoming very popular – because producers know that this genre has potential to make revenue.

Source:
Jace. "Grave Times: The Witching Hour Approaches on Season Finale of True Blood." Televisionary. 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 16 Sept. 2010. <http://www.televisionaryblog.com/2010/09/grave-times-witching-hour-approaches-on.html>.

Expanding The Convenience of T.V.

After watching Children's Hospital in class I started to think about why this was developed purely for enjoyment via the internet. Just this afternoon I found myself catching up on my MTV reality shows off of their website. Due to my busy schedule between classes and homework I often don't have time to watch the shows when they air for the first time, so this allows me to enjoy these shows at my own leisure. This removes the need to highly structure the schedule of networks because people can watch when is convenient for them. With the introduction of the IPad the availability of shows online is a great convenience to many busy Americans. I know for myself in airports and such it is really a great thing to be able to watch movies or television shows when I’m waiting in the airport. This being an issue we already addressed, I also found myself reading the comments left by others below the small playing box about what others thought. This allows this idea of a relationship between the TV and its' viewers, the viewers and the show, as well as viewer-to-viewer communication; strictly criticizing their actions or displaying interest in certain scenes. Not only in this sense, but also through facebook, twitter, and other online friend based sights people attach links to watch as well as converse about their opinions, views, and interests from their shoes. When reading Internet Tv Should Be The Development Of A Revolution In Television I found it interesting that many producers have some problem with online tv because it does not have to follow the same production code as regular television. This is where I think a lot of conflict arises, not from viewers, but from behind the scenes. If the playing field isn’t fair there is bound to be some kind of argument – this is what has continues to be an issue since the development several years ago (in my opinion).

Blog/Article viewed: Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/online-business-articles/internet-tv-should-be-the-development-of-a-revolution-in-television-3212506.html#ixzz0zeMAG5kU
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

More on the CW {{Combining Media Types & Expanding Visability}}

Continuing my previous discussion on the CW, I'd like to address not only the new season of Gossip Girl, but also the addition of the original soundtrack accompanying the new series of Vampire Diaries. I want to bring up Gossip Girl because as the new season is presented many individuals have used other forms of technology to watch episodes from previous seasons. This expands on one of the many issues brought up in Introduction: "Worship at the Altar of Convergence". Society is now able to watch broadcast TV via the internet. This once again removes the scheduled viewing that we discussed in class, freeing peoples schedules in an extraordinary way. Supporting the article by demonstrating convergence, in that the way in which this mode of media is received has changed over time. Families and individuals can load episodes, and sometimes seasons online - eliminating the need for a television, or less extreme to conform to a schedule. Not only is this more convenient for consumers, also allowing more people the availability to the channel and those who are devoted to the season can keep up; while continuing their conflicting lifestyle.
Referencing the above article, I also want to bring into account the CW's own blog. I took a quick glance at their most recent posts, seeing that The Vampire Diaries is releasing a soundtrack specifically related to the show, songs either heard previously, or in the upcoming season. This allows the music to be presented in a different medium - viewers will associate the songs with the television show, bringing new meaning or presenting it a fashion where people must listen (they don't want to miss a scene in their favorite television show). This "convergence" or combination brings together both musical tracks and fictional narratives, influencing both ways. This soundtrack combines media artists (which links a category of music lovers to a certain group of television lovers) with television producers. Here two types of artists benefit from the same size audience, showing that the development of new technology does allow media genres to expand in the largest way possible.

http://blog.cwtv.com/ (The Vampire Diaries and Gossip Girl)

The CW's Newest Addition to Night-Time TV

This issue of television network competition has not only become more intense but also much more broad. This spectrum has expanded so greatly because of the continued development of competitors; like HBO. Cable television has more of a target audience, who then pay to subscribe monthly. This may seem to be the easiest way to watch the type of TV you enjoy, however it does not benefit general broadcasting channels. ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX are all general, un-subscribing channels. This brings me to discuss the CW’s (another general station) introduction of Nikita. This show is positioned to be a prime time thriller, appealing to as broad of an audience as possible. In “Lethal Woman With Weapons Is Out for Covert Vengeance” Alessandra Stanley explains that the main character is not only female, but also presents a great amount of sex appeal – in a thriller it seems more rare that the woman be a hero alone. Comparing this factor to movies like Mr. and Mrs. Smith; the female seems to be aided by some stronger force (in my experience). “ ‘Nikita’ isn’t original, but that’s not the measure of television series, which are almost always reworking past shows or familiar stories; even some of the best…” (Stanley 1). This is something that is seen more and more, not only on TV but in the retelling of movies. In the article by Stanley she explains all of the above, and also points out that the series is reflecting a harder time – presenting in some way political issues. Often, now, networks use common issues or elements of society to allow the viewer to relate. This I find correlates back to what I said at the beginning because they are attempting to grasp the largest audience in order to continue a successful series. The main actress, accompanied by younger actors and actresses allows for its’ greatest success and potential.

Source:
Stanley, Alessandra. "Nikita Lethal Woman With Weapons Is Out for Covert Vengeance." The New York Times. Web. 08 Sept. 2010. <http://tv.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/arts/television/08nikita.html?r=l&ref=television&pagewante=1>