Trendy TV Watching

A blog post for Media + Communications

Television goes further than simply tuning in once a week and watching the program. The rise of social media- Twitter, Facebook, the "hashtag," etc.-has certainly transformed how TV is being consumed and talked about. This article and this article discuss current TV trends and movements that are occurring because of different social media outlets. 
Basically, viewers are becoming a major, active, and influential part of television programming. Instead of sitting and watching passively, websites and apps like Twitter allow audiences to share their opinions and reactions on the TV shows they are watching- both in real time (IE "Live tweeting"), or after the show has ended (in "after shows", the topic of article #1). After shows give viewers and sponsors a chance to debrief after an episode of their program hits the air- to discuss what happened, what should have happened, what's going to happen next, etc. How does this change the way we watch TV? 
In my opinion, TV is becoming a much more personal and interactive form of entertainment because of how involved people have become with "their shows", even when they are not currently watching them. With the option of using hashtags, people are able to check out what other people are saying about the same TV show, and fan-to-fan interaction and debate can ensue. I believe this interaction makes TV a lot more like theatre- it becomes truly "live" and personal, and a viewer's level of involvement rises drastically. 
The idea of people standing around the water cooler at work, talking about last night's episode of American Idol or Real Housewives (admit it, you've at least watched PART of one episode), has transformed and propelled itself into the future. This "water cooler" concept has reconstructed itself into technology, with social media outlets becoming the virtual water coolers. And EVERYONE wants to participate in this online discussion. 19 MILLION tweets were sent during the Oscars this year. 1.2 million Brits tweeted during just one episode of UK's The X Factor. And 12.2 million comments were posted online during this year's Super Bowl. These are examples about how anyone can cast a vote, share their opinion, or complain about anything they watch on television. People want their voices to be heard when it comes to what they are watching, and I believe this is a trend that will continue to grow in the TV world. I think that interactive TV shows will rise in popularity, and online comments will be considered by TV executives when planning programming. There are definite examples of this happening already, and I believe these ideas will continue to grow and TV will become more and more interactive and responsive to its audience. Maybe someday, there will be a television show that allows the viewer to decide what happens to the plot. You know those books where you can choose 1 of 3 options of how the story can unfold? How cool would it be if the same thing could happen on TV? I think something like this is definately plausible in the future of television. 
In the coming times, I believe the audience will practically control television. It makes sense, doesn't it? People want to watch what they want to watch, and now TV executives can monitor what people like, what they don't like, what they want more of, or what they think should happen. Why not give the people (their consumers) what they want?

Ellen's viral star-filled selfie from the 2014 Oscars… this little photo scored 2.4 million retweets and was viewed over 3.3 billion times!

Share for Dogs

If you know me, I'm a sucker for puppies and dogs of all ages. Youtube shares 55% of revenue from their advertisements to videos that go viral. Watch this video and share it to help Pedigree raise money for dogs in need. For more info visit http://www.pedigreeadoptiondrive.co.nz

Really really! Every dog deserves love, food and safe homes. So go ahead… watch these cute puppies be cute.

Global Television

A post for my Media + Communications class

Admittedly, all the television shows I watch or have watched in the past have been American shows. And honestly, besides Downton Abbey, I haven't really heard of any other TV shows from abroad. I suppose it's not entirely my fault, since American TV networks (with the exception of PBS) only really play nationally made shows, and most Americans do only watch these programs. This article, by June Thomas, is about several TV shows which Thomas argues are captivating and well worth watching from overseas. She says "If you're not watching foreign TV, you're missing out", and this is probably true. Why is it that American TV is so limited to American programming? Thomas suggests a myriad of reasons- the language barrier, cultural differences that just don't work in other countries, and "appropriateness", or levels of sexuality, foul language, etc., that American programming usually does not include.
While these reasons may be true, I also hold the opinion that it is a level of aesthetic taste that vary from culture to culture. Something that is fairly inexplicable happens on a psychological level when simply LOOKING at something, that differentiates in people based on where we grew up. When watching trailers for various foreign TV shows, something just didn't click for me, and I later noticed that it had nothing to do with the language or content, but rather the VISUAL aspect of the program. This could involve differences in lighting and settings, and even the pace of cuts between shots. Of course, I have formed this opinion based only on trailers for the programs, and would be curious to see if this diagnosis would carry out during an actual episode of said television shows. But, honestly, the trailers I did watch unfortunately did not intrigue me to the point of actually wanting to begin a series…
Hmmm… Maybe my theory on cultural differences in aesthetic taste corresponds with the phenomenon of American remakes of foreign television (you can read about the remake of France's The Returned here). Another remade TV show is, of course, The Office (one of my favorites), but the reason behind that one being recreated based on it's British predecessor has something more likely to do with language and humor barriers….
I do agree with Thomas that the language barrier could pose a problem. While I have no problem reading subtitles in a foreign movie, I do think it might become a bit of a hassle after hours and hours of episodes. Even foreign English language television shows (from Australia or England, for example) could be difficult for American audiences to grab onto. First, there could be an issue with heavy accents (which sometimes sound like a foreign language- but with no subtitles), and secondly, slang varies from country to country, even if said countries do share a language. Humor, and how an audience translates humor is vast and varying, and sometimes, what one person finds hilarious may be completely incomprehensible to another. This difference in "what is funny" becomes an even bigger gap when considering different countries. 
While I am a fan of watching foreign films, I admit that most foreign television does not interest me… Maybe this does make me a little short sighted, but I suppose my reasoning is along the lines of not wanting to commit to watching a series in a language that makes no sense to me (Even though subtitles are handy, it's not the same!). My issues with the visual aspect of moving image arts also plays largely into this.
…I may also just be worried I'll find a TV show I really get sucked into, and there goes a whole weekend.

Hollywood's Blockbusters

Note: This is another assignment for my Media+Communications class
Other Note: Listening to this may enhance reading experience
Here are two articles discussing Hollywood, the "Blockbuster" sensation, and the trap this has possibly become: Why Hollywood is Caught in the Blockbuster Trap and The Rise and Rise of the Comic Book Movie 
The first article, written by Anita Elberse, basically discusses how Hollywood is caught in this regime of cranking out blockbuster hits which make a ton of money but perhaps take away some creativity from the industry. She states that "Of the 6,000 films released in the past decade, nearly a quarter were based on another film or media property, and the share of such “non-original” films has gone up over that period". This, Elberse argues, is because Hollywood has a "Love Affair With Past Hits"- that if a film performs exceptionally well in the box office, there is almost no doubt that Part 2, 3, 4, and 5 will come out in the near future and possible spin offs of that film are already in pre production, as she says "so many executives try to borrow from past successes in their efforts to create new hits, and why they can’t seem to stop adding installments to successful film franchises". It is evident that series of movies do better at the box office, and often it is the super hero movie genre that kick sales out of the park on opening weekends. This chart shows us that Iron Man 3 was the biggest seller on its opening weekend out of any movie that came out in 2013. Following Iron Man comes The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Man of Steel, Fast & Furious 6, and Thor: The Dark World, all of which are part of a series of films, and 2 of which are based on Marvel Comics, as is the Iron Man franchise.
The second article here, written by Evelyn Harrison, discusses this comic book movie sensation. Seeing how well these film franchises perform financially (Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Iron Man… (hmmm…all men by the way but that's a different subject I guess)), these guys are truly THE biggest blockbusters. Harrison suggests that perhaps these films do so well in the box office because they may contain a connection to America's social and political changes since 2001. She says "the threat of terrorism has become a reality, and a particular set of ethical questions has become more relevant", and that this set of ethical questions connect with the heroes of these movies. 
My opinion on the comic book movies may be a bit brief since I have never seen any of them. Well, I saw the last Batman movie but obviously it made no sense to me since I'd never seen any of the other ones. Anyways. I found this article interesting because prior to reading it, I never considered the possibility of these movies actually being relevant to culture, people, and politics. Although I haven't seen the films, the article certainly write about them as though they can be connected to today's mindsets, especially regarding "good versus evil". While considering this a possibility, my initial thought is similar to another statement by Harrison in her article: "…these films may just be popular because the combination of fighting, special effects, sci-fi and witty one-liners is enough to encourage an audience to buy the Blu-ray". Certainly, there is an argument here that Hollywood plays to its lowest common denominator, and these movies are consumable and understandable by nearly any person.
So what's up with the "trap" that Anita Elberse talks about? I would definately look at this problem from the perspective of Hollywood being a BUSINESS. Like any business, they will make as many moves and decisions as they can that have PROVEN to make money in the past. Hollywood is going to invest most of their money into the movies that will evidently make the most money in return. Of course, this makes any business "stuck" in a way, but, to their favor, they will be stuck making money…
Does this hurt the film industry? In my opinion, no, it doesn't. I do not believe that this Hollywood business strategy harms the process of creativity and innovation which is so important in the movies. Even if a film like Iron Man 3 comes from another movie, which comes from a comic book, and follows similar patterns and frames as numerous other Hollywood hits, there is still a creative core to any piece of work. This creative center is, in my opinion, the essence of what the movies should be about. For me, as long as there are movies being made, this creative flame will always be burning. And that's the real blockbuster

The Romantic Comedy

NOTE: This is an assignment for my Media + Communications class about different movie genres and what we like about our favorite kinds of movies!

Is there anything better than a romantic comedy? I'm just going to go ahead and say it. It's the best kind of movie. A romantic comedy has every great element of a comedy, a romance, and a little bit of drama. Who can resist a great girl meets boy story? Who can resist it even more if the girl is a Beverly Hills prostitute and the boy is a fancy business man from New York? And who can resist a pair of people who absolutely despise each other, but end up madly in love by the end of the movie? Would this ever happen in real life? Probably not, which is one of the reasons I think this film genre is so appealing to audiences. The fact that in real life, these things would probably never happen. A couple of my favorite romantic comedies include:

Pretty Woman, a1990 film starring Julia Roberts and Richard Gere,
When Harry Met Sally, from 1989 with Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, and
You've Got Mail, from 1998 starring Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks

 Some codes and conventions of the romantic comedy include the overarching theme of true love, and the idea that this love will override any obstacles the two main characters may experience. There also tends to be that "Cinderella story" element: people from different social classes or social circles, who usually would not get along, or even meet. The story usually ends in either a wedding, or an implication of marriage (because they fall deeply and madly in love, of course!) The characters also tend to be very human, and relatable with an audience. Maybe that's part of why people like romantic comedies so much; it's relatable, so while watching the movie there can always be a little thought in the back of your head like "This could happen to me and I could find the love of my life even though I may hate them at first!". There is also something that's just heartwarming about watching people fall in love. It is something that you can argue everybody has done, or wants to do, so that makes these films even more enjoyable by a wide range of people. I think this genre appeals to not just women, either, even if it may seem that way. Even if they don't admit it, I think men can also enjoy a good romantic comedy. It is a kind of movie that makes you laugh, makes you cry, and always has a great ending. I think Billy Crystal sums it up pretty well at the end of When Harry Met Sally:

"when you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible."

Yep. That's pretty much why I can't resist a good romantic comedy.

 Also, who doesn't love Julia Roberts? And Tom Hanks? Everyone loves Tom Hanks!