The History of the Present
It's always difficult to write the history of the present. However, if you were attempt to look at television today through the lenses used in this course, how would you describe it? Take one example of a current trend in television and analyze it.
Since I’ve been in the SAC 355 course, I’ve developed a new mindset for television and the history behind it. It is obvious that television has made huge contributions to society and the proof lies within our past and history. Television and its concepts are an ever-growing process and I know it will continue to expand as we enter the future. By looking at television through the lenses used in SAC 355, I know that television will become a multi-media platform that is accessible for everyone.
ReplyDeleteFor example, since Netflix and Hulu stream television shows and films, I can envision more media companies expanding the usage of television and networks. It won’t be long before citizens can choose exactly what they want to view, what time, and what networks they want to subscribe to. This may seem a bit bizarre, but television and the content that it holds will become a renewable, informative, and collaborative for people everywhere. Television (if it gains more popularity and flexibility especially in the United States) will become free for anyone who owns a television set. As far as premium channels go, they will probably be accessed through more medium forms and spread throughout users everywhere. This course has taught me how television has come to be and where it is headed in the future.
One sect of modern television that seems to be a staple trend of the last decade is the "mockumentary" series. Although this sort of overtly faux documentation presented as entirely factual has existed prior to say, the ultra-famous The Office (the original U.K. version premiering in 2001), successful programming like this has really begun to take up a considerable chunk of modern sitcoms.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, this has spawned a sort of secondary genre of scripted talk shows, such as Comedy Bang! Bang! and The Eric Andre Show, which feature very recognizable talk show formats, and even celebrity guests appearing as themselves and, at first glance, out of character, but their absurdist air makes the authenticity questionable. This spinoff genre is more deceitful than the mockumentary, because the diegesis exists somewhere between reality and fiction.
I think this trend is so incredibly interesting, coming after a long and successful history of televised reality shows - something an audience is, in theory, supposed to take at face value, when actually the amount of producer-intervention is most likely rampant. This false reality has been evident since the genre's birth, as we examined in discussion of the Quiz Show Scandals, and I think it is so interesting that audiences are openly accepting the mockumentary genre. This embracing of the inevitable embellishment "reality" of television programs to create an entire genre existing somewhere between that and the stage-show-esque/cinematic telefilm speaks a lot of audience's gradual acceptance of the ever-permeating self-reflexivity of the medium.
To me, an extremely interesting element of television is the medium’s focus on audience engagement, moving from passive to active viewers. From its early beginnings, like the radio, the television could be used simply as a forum for the distribution of messages; however through changes in technology and transformations in what is considered entertainment, the television is working harder than ever to engage audiences beyond the images and sounds generated from their screen. Following the deregulation after the Reagan era, the elimination of PTAR and FinSyn provoked a dramatic movement in synergy and vertical integration. This movement would bring together different corporations from production and distribution in ways never thought possible. This “merger mania” dramatically altered the media landscape and promoted intense competition between the networks.
ReplyDeleteCompetition called for creativity and the different companies had to diversify themselves in this dynamic market. By changing their type of content, approach and marketing strategy, TV networks were taping into a whole new arena of television. As Caldwell remarks in his article, “television engaged and even welcomed the threat” (42). Today we can see the way TV has transformed, particularly when analyzing audience engagement on a variety of competition-type shows, for example on NBC’s X-Factor, contestants on the show are kept based on audience’s liking. By calling in and voting for who they want to win, the audience is directly controlling the outcome of the show. This type of engagement is definitely revolutionary from the interactions audiences had with quiz shows, such as 21, in the 1950’s.
A common theme in TV I think needs to be addressed in the genre mashing that has been happening. I've talked about this before, but as I scanned through the channels in between study sessions for the exam, I couldn't help but notice the blatant romantic elements added to everything. It seems like in order to keep the audience interested, the producers have to overload the show with either effects, romantic plot twists, or details that seem out of place. However, I don't have premium content in my plan, and it was MTV, so I guess it's not as accurate as it could be. It feels like everything is reality television.
ReplyDeleteAn example that I'd like to present is Pawn Stars. There are little snippets in between the historical parts that have nothing to do with history. The guy with the long hair fell in love with this woman who was working the night shift, and it just felt so scripted and forced I had to change it. I guess television today could be considered the era of disposable reality shows on every channel. However, there are some very good shows during prime-time, and I'd say that some of these are the best in history. AMC has been making some extremely successful and quality shows that have developed a huge following (The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad), but still, both of these have romantic subplots that don't really add to the overall story. Take Jesse's love interest, the goth artist. It seemed like a very dead end storyline.
I think a very important trend in television today is holding interest. This concept says something not only about television, but also about our society and population as a whole. We seem to lose interest much more quickly and rapidly than before. Of course this is something that comes with more options, the rush of life, and technological advances, but it seems it's at a point of absurdity. To me, it seems as if the media including television often works to simply come out with the next show on the next crazy topic. Shows have the strangest concepts! From teen wolves to reality games in which a man literally choses from a group of 50 women pining for his love, these shows sometimes seem like ploys to get our attention from the frenzy of commercials and other competitors. I am not saying that I think all of this is bad, but it seems like television sometimes takes a break from working on quality and really putting effort into making a wild storyline that will pop and then eventually lead to nowhere. As I have learned in this class, TV has undergone a lot of change and the quality and seriality has improved immensely. What I find interesting, is that now we have come so far and often times use these new tools and innovations for evil, aka returning to the roots of television, we so gladly escaped and producing shows that seem as if they were made on a horrible budget, and underdeveloped characters. Don't get me wrong there is some great TV out there, but the desire to appeal to the public eye has become out of control!
ReplyDeleteIf I were to look at television today through the lens of this class, I think I'd see more than ever the necessity of staying relevant. While television has always been changing, now is a time when television doesn't solely exist on the television nor are the audiences restricted to watching it when it airs on the screen. When we look back at how shows used to air, we can see that their specific timeslot was much more of an event that viewers couldn't miss. After all, if you missed the episode then how would you catch up on what you missed?
ReplyDeleteToday, viewers rarely even know when their favorite shows air for the first time. Networks are battling hard to promote their shows as must-see television, using methods like Twitter to help create an environment that encourages viewers to watch the shows live. Nowadays it's not uncommon to see a hashtag of some sort at the bottom of the screen that encourages you to tweet alongside other viewers about what's happening, and even sometimes with the cast of the show who is live-tweeting the episode.
In a world of Internet television and DVRs, the networks are struggling hard to get live viewers attached to shows. They're trying their best to get revenue from online viewers by selling their shows to streaming services like Hulu and Netflix, and even putting episodes on their websites for viewers to catch the next day but with ads. It's a system that they're working alongside with Nielsen to figure out, but in the meantime the best they can do is continue to program quality television that viewers won't want to be last to check out.