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.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 15, 2010
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
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 8, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 1, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)