Sunday, November 28, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Gossip Girl (GG) is the millennial generation and thus address her fellow generation peers into engaging with the show. Gossip Girl is a website that allows users to post anonymous messages that will be posted by the sites moderator. This new medium represents one of the many technological cultural phenomena’s of the millennial generation. The CW has honed in on this technological feat as a way to transform this form of socially helpful and dangerous way to disseminate and receive news by making the website the center of attention in a world that thrives off of this mode of communication. A key component in the website key ability to quickly update people on the latest gossip is through the cellphone. It is arguably the second best innovation of the millennial generations tech feats after the Internet. The writers show in the pilot episode that with our cellphones we have the ability to disseminate news in a matter of a few clicks. This show is made for the millennial generation audience, which is shown through its key aspects of technological innovations key to the millennial generation.
The technological connection is important, however without sound socially up to date themes, the show would still be dial-up in a world of high-speed wireless access. The CW uses the elite world of the Upper East Side to access the current cultural hot topics of the millennial generation. It knows that this close circle and the people that care about it are those that use the very technology that are following it and will in fact participate in the very culture that is portrayed. The audience then becomes the viewer through texting, bbming, posting, blogging, or building and avatar to be a van der Woodsen of the Upper East Side. Like the characters of GG the audience is participating in the same very acts that allow Gossip Girl to exist because without gossip then there’s just the girl… interesting conundrum that way face. As a part of the millennial generation, us and the GG characters, we are just normal people. This is shown in the second season when the student’s cellphones are taken. Notice everyone is wearing black colors except for the girls throughout the whole days and the GG girls maintain their cellphones and bright colors because if not then they would be bland and grey like the rest of the students at the academy. We don’t follow the rest of the academy students around because we are not like them we are the texting, slandering, tech savvy millennial generationers that need our technology!
Gossip Girl is made for millennial generation by the millennial generation (ripped from FUBU, for you by us). The CW is addressing the millennial generation by creating this television show that is hails us at the same time by acting as a mode of engagement and self-reflection.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
This article alludes to the power that Gossip Girl (GG) gives back to a gendered audience of females that watch the show. I hope that I am not making a huge generalization, but I would guess that a majority of the viewers of this show are female. Which then leads me to believe that the power in this show lies in females and it was the female that always ruled this world in the first place. As the fashion, consumer, and gossip obsessed teen, the viewer is simply watching a gendered concept of the teen female already and plays into this structured norm when going online. This show was the, "...first to have been conceived, in part, a fashion marketing vehicle" (p.48). The CW and its partners then extended this concept to the world of Second Life in more attempts as a Second Purchase. They want these girls and/or women to consume more fashion and re-affirm what they see on television by participating in the virtual community where they can buy, gain access to the Upper East Side elite, and talk about other virtual groups to gain status.
This article reminds me how the magazines in the '50s, '60's and on advertised movie characters clothing in their magazines. This way people could see what the characters that they just saw on screen were wearing and how they could look just like them. At this point in time the female audience was being constructed because they were the ones with the disposable income and were being focused on as a specific movie fan that prescribed to these notions of caring about fashion and their appearance. However, now we have better technology and all it takes is a few clicks in GGSL and your trendy new outfit will be on the way. I think that it is great that the CW, fashion, and entertainment companies have come up with this great idea that meshes the two worlds, television and gaming, in order to bring in more points of access with characters and clothing in order to broaden the viewers participation in the Upper East Side.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Youtube is platform that users are able to upload videos for the world to see and with all businesses money needs to be made. As many people know, Youtube just recently became profitable, but for who, not the users, Google. It's funny that we praise this site for all that they allow for us to do but at the same time they are just using the user’s hard work to make money for them. It's truly crazy to think about it, somewhere in a chair there's a CEO just kicking back smoking a cigar probably watching a Youtube video and profiting from others work, even the guy that came up with it.
As the author mentions fans are starting to wonder about their competition for works that they are creating and companies profiting off of it. It's going to be a hard battle because the more fans push back the more restrictive companies will most likely get and ultimately they do own the rights to the original content. I was thinking about the concept 'if it doesn't spread, it's dead' which was in the other article on television and thought that people could start setting up their own websites and blogs, which some have. Here they could post their own content and potentially it could catch on but also has the potential to fail.
What will it change to? Jenkins talks about the use of video games, comics, web episodes, and more ways that people can engage with given television shows. This will definitely start to become more prominent as networks and studios compete to get their shows recognized, because as he mentions, "If it doesn't spread, it's dead", and this is more true than ever. It you don't get your material out there and people don't consume it, there's no way that people will be able to find your show with all the other material that are flying around on the internet, television, and game consoles.
While reading the Manovich reading and listening to our class talks it dawned on me that Halloween is a great example of how we have taken old and new material and used it to take an image and either replicate or add our own spin onto it. Like Manovich described with the process of changing the VCR to Windows Media Player, we are continually 'sampling and morphing' characters, superheroes, celebrities, objects, etc. into a modern take on how we perceive that given original source.
This article also poses the essential question of is or can anything ever be original. He used on example an "artist taking a material approach" like people did on Halloween, "and supporting the romantic ideal. He compares this artist to God creating the universe. First of all that's a really drastic statement, religion aside, and secondly when can we ever start with a blank canvas and material. Every material is a source and thus ever source is a means in which we are able to create something different from it. At what point to we draw the line between what we are completely changing with leaving a small component of its originality which will make it Remixing?
In this day and age it is much easier to see how we remix material because so much of it is "copy and paste", which makes me think are we going to continue to get farther and farther from 'originality' or will the definition of originality change and adapt with society? Can we start with a blank canvas and even then will the things that populate this canvas be of a truly original source. These are very interesting questions which are and will be challenged the further we become, "an accessory to the machine".
Friday, October 29, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
When he asked for us to pause and listen to the sounds we hear, I was surprised at actually how silent it was. I only heard my computer, which is a civilized product. I could only image a person in NYC doing this exercise and how different it would be. Also, if someone did it in the country, I bet they would hear nature, which Miller doesn't factor in. He says, "That cricket playing in your nature soundtrack doesn't count". I still think that there are many people that do appreciate the natural and "un-remixed" or original products of life. We can see this in the medium form of documentaries, even though they are remixing a little portion of material. I see this form of media as the closest, while not perfect or close to original, way of people expressing their nature to capture the real, organic, or innate silence of life.
Friday, October 22, 2010
NO. Dialogue is awful and expository. I wish that it would be a little less obvious with their plots and stop treating the viewer like we are a bunch of idiots that can't follow a complex plot. Maybe the writers are just bad and can't formulate a good plot without explaining everything as they go.
All this said, I will still watch this show to see what happens. I think the plot is decent and I'm curios to see how long I can actually stay somewhat interested in this film.
I context of Blogging, the book we are reading, I have checked The Event Wiki and the fan community is not large yet. As I watch I'll keep an eye on this blog to see how it develops and if there is fruitful comments and forums that start up.
Until next time... here's a link the wiki page
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Lifestyle media is an interesting term to see how how the industry tries to create different mediums to engage the audience and then use this participation as a mode to gain profits. In the American Idol section the audience is creating so many different modes of participation (i.e. DialIdol) that they not only are encouraging people to watch the show but are creating sources of money for themselves (ad revenue). It's amazing to see how people's 'lifestyles' can be targeted through television shows encouraging online, peer-to-peer, and other forms of communication that further your participation with the show which will bring more revenue to this show. I think that looking at this chapter and concepts from an economic view was a great way to gain another perspective of the different ways of audience participation.
Reading these first two chapters immediately transformed the way I viewed this blog and the all of the potentials that blogging offers. I previous post was inspired by reading about blogging and personal use while connecting it to the topics that are discussed in the blog. The historical nature of language and text are continually changing and the way that we engage with it are constantly shifting and molding to our different demands. I wonder just as texts are now becoming shorter in 'microblogging' such as twitter, what will happen to the novel? Print books are being challenged by the digital book and digital books may be in fact be threatened by the journalistic properties of the topic driven blogs, that focus on a topic and use less of the personal anecdotes. As our culture becomes used to short form writing are we entering a new era of changing our language? Will the distinction between scholarly writing and personal writing grow or will the two merge as the communication networks start to merge? The reading shows that through the ages as people and technology change the ways which we communicate are changed and in turn change the way in which we communicate and interact, such as increasing the dialogue or decreasing dialogue, or affecting the way that we present our blogs and online persona which thus dictate who and what we are and will be talking about.
I kind of like the show now, I'm not going to lie. Taking it for what it is, a corny, campy show that doesn't take itself seriously, I respect it. I watched a full episode about Bloody Mary and how she tortured a small town. Taking myself of of Film and Media Studies major mode, I sat back and enjoyed the show.
Thanks, Professor Stein, for enlightening me to this show!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
There are so many different links to articles, websites, chat rooms, discussion boards, etc. that the viewer can engage with. I find that many of the conspiracy shows do well with fan sites because there are many things to discuss that can be uncovered throughout the show. This all creates a lot of dialogue between fans and builds up a solid community and following for the show.
The Event has just started this season...with a plane crash (I wonder where they got that from) and me and my Lost crew are going to see if we can survive one more plan crash. Hopefully this show won't go up in flames.
Here is a link the The Event's wiki-page if you are interested in the show.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Following Ross' arguments was fairly easy but I didn't find it particularly stimulating. The use of her research group anecdotes was engaging and nice to read however, I think it was over used to hammer in a point, which was simple enough. I wish that she went further into the interactions between the Internet audience dialogue and its translation and effect on the television programming. She sets up the triple O terms: overt, organic, and obscure, however briefly uses them in Chapter 1. I find these terms to be very interesting and wish she used some more examples in regards to Xena and Buffy to make her arguments stronger, because citing only a few examples, especially her Buffy organic description of Jonathan's character, was not very convincing.
I liked a lot of the work and topics that she is presenting and thinks that she brings a lot of the Internet fan cult/culture worlds to light. However, I do think that she could be more concise with her evidence, many of these topics and examples seemed redundant and filled with common knowledge.
What struck me as funny was the fact that University of Chicago students were note, or most likely, were not able to tell the complete truth about film's role in their lives as collegiate students. As most of the experiences after 'learning how to watch films' became the same as they are now with kids, I bet that College students acted like college students and adults now. Watching film becomes a pure mood of entertainment, escapism, education. People will go to the films not to necessarily look up to stars but to be entertained by the plot/themes or action sequences. Some may go for educational purposes or to relax and take a break from the real world. However, as young adults and adults the college student has learned to watch films and but up the detachable barrier, thus allowing them to react, how they see appropriate, to any given film.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
I like the funny technological struggles that they demonstrated from where to place microphones and actors with bad voices. It must have been a big struggle for people that didn't have good voices and have to take speaking lessons. However, as the article mentioned it could favor some people with, "exotica", accents that were foreign born.
Another thing that was brought up was the fact that a number of characters were "based on popular figures of the silent era". The introduction to this movie was great. I immediately thought of the fan magazines, which they constantly mention later, and how it affected the way that people interacted with celebrities and received their information on them and their personal lives.
During the film I called out, James Cameron, when they mentioned that people didn't think sound would last. I know I keep bringing up 3-D but I can't help but see similar comparisons here. 3-D has failed before but now technology is here to sustain the medium and push it passed boundaries that were not accessible before. They even just came out with a television that doesn't require 3-D glasses. In order for film to stay ahead of television it will need to continue to evolve. Such as IMAX, great writing, and new technology.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Everything mentioned in these two articles seemed so obvious and simple, however back then it was fresh and new. When Mary Pickford was questioning whether or not to give rights to a cosmetic agency for using her name. For $500 she took the deal even while she thought she could get more! C’mon Ms. Pickford, you could have done better. Also, studios paying actors on how much fan mail they received was something that I was not aware of as old studio salary practices. I think this is pretty cool, but don’t know how they actually got this to work. As I look at these two chapters I think about the way that audiences are viewed now. It strikes me as hard to define because I feel that everyone goes to the movies no matter the race, gender, or economic class. However, when you start thinking about genres, this is when the types of audiences are created. One quick example is the comedy spoof movies. This is definitely associated with a male teenage viewing audience and I bet commercial spots would appear on teenage channels and during male oriented shows.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
I am a big fan of Broadway musicals and this reading reminded me of it naturally. Also, on a quick note the Choreographer’s name is Gene Kelly, and I kept thinking Grace Kelly, which reminded me of the song Grace Kelly by Mika.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
I didn’t realize that there were films during the 1910’s to 1920’s that were created by companies that posed as educational films when in actuality they were advertisements. I thought that the Ford Company was genius in opening up a film department for media and promoting their company through films. It was interesting to see how these films them started to become regulated by the CMPB because the church was becoming a problem with their religious views and people wanted to know what type of content they would be seeing. Obviously this reminds me of the MPAA now, however, it was slightly different. This group would tailor their judgments based on the supposed crowd that would be going to see the movie. For example for soldiers in the war, they were less strict on the violent images since soldiers were more prepared for this kind of content. This specialization in “ratings” is much more detailed and obviously could not be done now but was cool to see how this one organization tried to add it’s opinion on what people needed to know before entering the theater.
New York City runs things! I know this is a snobby New Yorker thing to say but as Fuller shows in this reading, since a lot of the industry was NY (and a few other cities), it was the center for setting the industry standards. It wasn’t great to see it associated with dingy nickelodeon theaters, but hey that’s the city. What was messed up and I’m glad doesn’t happen anymore is the temporary monopoly that film producer and distributors had on the market when they owned 20% of theaters in the city. This was completely corrupt and created an unfair market, which lead to non-company affiliated theaters receiving fuzzy and snowstorm-ridden films.
Lastly, but not least, I can’t believe how easy it was to send in script back then. Okay, they weren’t really scripts, but scene scenarios. It was basically a page, with just an idea of what people could be doing, since there was no dialogue there wasn’t that much heavy lifting that had to go on. Also, no unions yet to stop your script from getting through or having to worry about representation. No wonder, companies just ripped off these people by just making their movies without permission, it seems like the writers were asking for it.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
I did find this paper very informative despite my lack of appreciation of Mr. Altman’s writing. He does a great job of doing his research and putting together information regarding the presence or lack there-of in movies. I really liked the argument he presented in regards to pianists either playing or not playing in theaters. At face value, you would think that if there were pianos in most theaters, someone would be playing most of the time. But Altman brings good evidence showing that these pianos were used as Ballyhoo and intermission music for the audience. Which makes you think that he neglects the fact that Ballyhoo music was playing during films, which means that it was a background soundtrack to audiences. Since they could hear this music during the films I feel that this would count as music accompanying a film.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Another thing that I found amazing but this time very funny, is how hard it was for people to come up with names for their cinemas. There were literally articles and competitions held for people to come up with names for what to title the space in which films were exhibited. They went from Nickelodeon, to Photoplay and then settled on theater with a variance in what names people could put on it. I know it was a big deal back then, but it just seems funny now that there was such a big discourse on what to name such a now seemingly simple event. It was also funny to read about all of the confusion and mixed emotions that surrounded the dark aspect of the theater. I can completely understand how people slightly were freaked out about being next to strangers in a dark area. Today theaters aren’t as dark but it’s still an interesting experience to sit next to strangers in a pretty dark confined space.
Lastly, I like the way the Fuller systematically takes us through the process of how nickelodeons tried to attract people from their advertisements, exterior displays, and film programming. I was really able to get a feel of the process that these film exhibitioners went through when deciding on how to present films and what resources they had. It’s amazing that films were produced in the hundreds a week and that nickelodeons could change there programs each day! We have the same programming in theaters with slight weekly changes for about three weeks now if not more! Of course then their movies were about 5 minutes so it’s very understandable to see why things are different now.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The audience had become desensitized to the 3-5 minute slapstick stage acts and special effects on screen. The film industry needed the audience to not look for the astonishment but to become concerned with the story. From there the incredulous viewer would be sucked into the reasons and opportunities for the actors to fall into situations that provided astounding effects. Steamboat Bill Jr. accomplishes this balanced medium in 1929. The film sets up a narrative and uses slapstick comedian Buster Keaton to work within this story first spectacle second model and then take advantages of moments that allow for comedic acts and tricks. The story provided many an opportunities for the audience to expand their entertainment into gaining pleasure from knowing what to expect from Keaton but getting involved in a love story that provided many opportunities for him to display, what he did best, his amazing acrobatic and comedic talents. Now we see that cinema learned how to use the old feature of slapstick comedy by weaving it into a narrative to keep the audience concerned with characters while entertaining them situations that resulted in slapstick comedy.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
What really stood out to be in this article was one person’s integration of television, that were showing a live actor somewhere else that could react to what people onstage and onscreen where doing. The show is more theater now than film of course, but presents a neat interaction. Also, the audience could start to get involved with the way that these performances play out, for example a screen could show the audience, actors could address them at times, and ask the on screen character (the audience) what to do in a situation, thus making every performance different. Either way, I can’t wait to see one of these Laterna Magika shows.
I keep thinking about if this medium should or could be implemented into mainstream theaters and I keep coming up with no and no. It should be integrated with theater. Film right now from a completely technical and presentation standpoint could not support this format. Theater is far better suited to handle this format because of the acting space and access to stage actors.
As the article mentions, studios were looking to grab slapstick comedians because this is what was bringing audiences to theaters. It was easy for them to scoop these acts up, even though pay was less, because these actors didn't need to drastically change their performances. It might have even been easier for these actors then ones now because they didn't even need to talk. Everything was silent so their gestures just got bigger and their stunts more elaborate. This is much easier than someone going from the theatre to the screen now days because acting styles are very different.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Also, this article mentions that people brought bag lunches and there were people selling peanuts. This answers part of my question about food during the early 1900's.
It's pretty neat to see all the competition that quickly arose with traveling cinemas as well as the adaptation that these groups had to quickly do with the introduction of nickelodeons. It was awesome to see how audiences grew tired of having the same traveling acts exhibit the same films, which led to nickelodeon's being instated so they could set up shop and receive many new films and immediately implement them, which changed the industry demand for a consistent pipeline of new films.
This whole time I did wonder when popcorn became a staple and what people ate during these shows. If they did resemble Vaudeville type environments, what were they eating at these attractions? Not that this is a big deal, I am just curios to know what foods people started to bring or that were sold during these events. Because if these were traveling shows, did they get profits from vending food at the given establishment or did the theater provide the food services? Just some "food" for thought.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Kracauer, I believe, also explains the reason for 3D’s success during recessions. During recessions there is a general pessimism to life or negative outlook that causes a lack of excitement. People need to feel a thrill again and since narrative forms of media have shown to be what films are structured around now, it makes sense that people want to feel a thrill within these constructs.