Rettburg Article

So we have come to the last blog entry of the semester---kind of bittersweet if you ask me.  As much as I can not wait for this semester to be finally over with, I'm glad I was able to do this for homework assignments throughout the semester.  I've never blogged before, and it was a nice change in pace to not have to write so formal all of the time.  Now, on to the article.

I was a little confused after reading the title of the article, and then reading the article.  I thought it was going to be an article about Barack Obama and how he used social media throughout his ad campaign back in 2008.  While, the author did mention that briefly, that is pretty much all she said about it.  This article focuses on her experience with social media and how our culture, with the help of social and mass media, have created stories for ourselves; and we represent ourselves on social networking sites like FaceBook, Twitter, flickr, etc. (453).  After going into an explanation of how we represent and create ourselves identity through these sites online, she broke down organizing our stories into 4 different organizational categories:
1. Temporal Organization
2. Social Organization
3. Semantic Organization
4. Geographic Organization

I think that the most popular of these is the social organization, and you may be agreeing with me when the first thing that pops into your head is FaceBook or Twitter.  First came Facebook which at the very beginning had a very limited access to it--only college kids were able to get on it.  Now, everyone can get on it, you can update what you're doing throughout the day if you want, you can show the world the thousands of stupid drunken pictures you take every weekend in college, or high school....

Twitter has even become so popular in social media that all you have to do on twitter is tell us about yourself...any time of the day, and you can change how you feel any minute you could possibly want too.  Now I am on facebook, but I keep my pictures to where only my friends can see them, I don't have a twitter account, and I think documenting every single step in our lives is a bit much for these social networking sites.  Call me old fashioned but people can do what they want because these networking sites are just going to get more complex, bigger, and less private...and me?  Well, I personally like to leave a little mystery still to a person that I meet without him knowing every single detail of my life, what about you?

Luder's article: Conceptualizing Personal Media

This article wasn't the most exciting to read for me, maybe it just may be because it's the 2nd to last article I have to read/blog about in the semester and I just have Christmas break on my mind--who knows! 

This article pretty much just talks about the main characteristic of personal media and then comparing it to mass media and what the influences are.  Personal media includes things like Ipods, Ipads, blogs on the Internet, etc.  I think that in maybe the long run, and in the future, personal and social media will have a drastically changing effect over what we consider to be mass media, but I think that for now, mass media will still consist of watching television shows on an actual TV in someones house, or watching DVDs in a DVD player.  social and personal media are still fairly new (within the past decade) and haven't taken the huge leap yet at affecting they way we view mass media.  In time though, only some aspects will change with mass media.  In particular, blogs, and webisodes I believe will have a strong impact on mass media, because they are already starting to take a big jump in being viewed (i.e. YouTube).  We talked about in class a couple weeks ago that YouTube was just celebrating their 5 year anniversary of being up and running, and a lot of blogs, amateur videos, etc have been added to it.  Even in class last week, we watched Neil Patrick Harris' Dr. Horrible movie that was released in 2008---only 2 years ago.  It had started out as a webisode and pretty much set the groundwork for future webisodes to come.  With that being said, all of this is less than 5 years old, so I would say for now, we're ok with the changing ways of mass media, but within the next 10 years, we will be looking at a whole new way of looking at mass media, and connecting it with social and personal media.

Dawson Article

In this article that I read for my class today "Little Players, Big Shows" I found it very interesting to how popular watching TV series and short videos on cell phones have become.  I probably am the last person who should be talking about this, because I should admit right now that I am one of the last few people in the world that doesn't own a smart phone, or have Internet, or anything like that on my cell phone.  I know, shocking right?  I actually have never once had Internet on my cell phone...my roommates have the iPhone and I don't even know how to work the stupid things.  Yes, you can say I'm behind on the technology.... anyway, Dawson in this article asks a question that I started thinking about yesterday and it was "Do these smaller, handheld screens even qualify as televisions?" 

I would have to answer that question as a big fat NO from me.  First of all, why would anyone want to watch TV from something that small of a size?!  I went home to my parents house over Thanksgiving break...where my dad has his precious 65" TV.  It so happens that on Monday night, the bulb goes out, call on Tuesday to order a new part, and the guy says it won't be delivered to us until the following Monday.  I'm freaking out, my mom is freaking out.  How am I going to watch the Thanksgiving Day Parade on Thursday!? The answer to that question is :  My dad brings in the old 13" TV we had stored away in our garage.  How sad I had to sit so close to the TV to see what I was watching.  A cell phone screen is even smaller than 13 inches!  I believe that TV was made so that people can enjoy watching them on a normal size from the comfort of their home.  When you're out and about and not at home...don't watch TV.  Watching webisodes, and YouTube, and reg. TV shows on the go has become so much apart of our life because we are too busy in today's world.  If I am out of my house and running errands...I'm going to run errands or shop, or whatever without feeling the need to be on my phone watching the latest webisode from college humor.  When I go to work, I work...I don't feel the need to watch TV or surf the web on my phone.  It's become an addiction to people!  TV should not become a "mobile lifestyle" because anytime that I want to watch TV, I will do so comfortably on the couch, in my parents living room, with their 65" TV.  I'll keep my cell phone to talking and texting only, thank you.

Burgess and Green Article: YouTube Pop Culture

I will be the first one to admit that I am a YouTube fiend.  Yes, a fiend.  I could spend hours upon hours watching the ridiculous videos of stupid people and funny dogs. This article talks about YouTube in general, and the popularity between how much is user created with how much is traditional media.  When discussing the ones that were watched the most, they broke it down into categories which consisted of most responded, most discussed, most popular, and most recent.  The only time that I ever watch YouTube for the traditional media, is when we watch a clip from a movie or something like that in one of my classes.  Other than that, I'm all about watching the user created :)  In the article, it says that "user created content makes up more than two-thirds of the content coded in both the most responded and most discussed categories" (51). I believe that the only reason YouTube is as popular as it is, is because of all of the people who watch the clips.  Who would have thought there would be over a million hits for the little girl who thinks the monster is "gonna kick my asssk."  What happened when there were millions of hits with her?  Ellen DeGeneres brought her on her show to interview her because she was the cutest thing in the world.  It makes me think about how YouTube is similar to facebook.  Facebook is so successful and so popular, and making so much money because of us, the consumers who tag pictures of ourselves, who post on each others wall, who update our statues, etc.  We comment and watch a million times over hours of YouTube videos, and people become popular because of it.  Bottom line:  YouTube is the greatest thing to do when you're bored since sliced bread.  OK, I may be exaggerating, but it is still awesome to see people make fools of themselves.

Lewis/Mcmurria Artielces- Makeover TV

Today's articles that I read talked about the history of Makeover TV in the US, UK, and Australia, as well as "Good Samaritan Reality TV".  In the Lewis article, she does exactly what the title is:  she talks about the History of makeover TV in those three countries listed.  at some point through the article, she brings up the Moran essay that we read the other day about format TV.  Personally, my favorite kind of reality TV is the makeover reality TV.  I like watch Extreme Makeover: Home Edition-----even though Ty Pennington gets on my last nerve, I usually only watch it once they move the bus, and you see the after house.  That's not terrible, right?  Lewis also goes on and talks about how the HGTV and TLC network channels helped the US with the success of makeover reality series.  It seemed to me that she was talking about how the UK had the biggest success with it, and started it first before the US and Australia got the format.  As for Australia, she says that the development of makeover format had been shaped by international formats and ideas (455). 

In the Mcmurria article, it talks a lot about what we call "Good Samaritan Reality TV" like for example, the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.  ABC started this whole line of good Samaritan TVs shows post 9/11 that seemed to really take off and become a huge hit.  Some people argue that networks are just exploiting these people for good TV...which makes me think of what we talked about in class the other day on whether or not Oprah overall helps these people on her show, or exploits them more just for TV ratings.  Like I said, I really like EMHE, and I was fortunate enough to go to the set when they helped with the Indiana man because he lived about 25 minutes from my house in Indy...and you know what, he submitted his video to get help, he is a great guy, and what they did was amazing for him....so I think in the EMHE case, it is not exploiting of the people.  I know in the article that they don't show how some families sue over the poor quality of their house being built, but you also have to think...they have professionals build these houses...do you really think they did a poor job?  Maybe, but maybe some families are spoiled now with what they got, and they want to try and get as much money as they can...as if what they already was given to them wasn't enough.  If you are helping a family in need by doing something good for them...I just say go for it.

Makeover TV- Moran/Peck Articles

So in class we are still on reality TV, but we've gone into talking about make-over television series.  The two articles we talk about today have to deal with 1) how reality TV is created, and 2) Oprah's secret to her success.  Now, I will be honest and say that I wasn't expecting Oprah to be considered in the category of a makeover reality series, but after reading the Peck article, I can see how people can classify her as being in that group.

In the first article by Albert Moran, he talks about the format of reality television becoming a huge success around the nation.  It all started out as a country creating a format in one nation, and then selling the format and "license a re-broadcast of the programme in other parts of the world" (461).  By doing this, you have the same cheap format of reality TV that could be popular in any country, but with just buying the format, the other countries can tweak it to their appeal which would be better suited for their type of audience---and it is still cheap to make and sell.  Moran goes on to say that "Format trading has become serious business at the international round of television trade fairs" (465).  I think that is absolutely right, because reality TV is becoming and still is such a huge success from when it started 30 something years ago... it makes networks a lot of money because they are so popular, and yet, the format is cheap to buy!

In the Janice Peck article, I had told you at the beginning of this post that I was a little skeptical on whether or not I thought that Oprah's talk show was considered part of the "makeover" reality TV shows.  They call her success the "Oprah Effect."  Back when her show started in the 80s, she was a part of the trash talk TV shows that never lasted.  Knowing that she had to do something to stay successful, she decided that she would talk about positive things on her shows....that she wanted to help people on her shows become good people.  Around this time, there was this "new thought" religion going around where everyone just wanted to believe that happiness is all about how you act and behave.  Oprah took advantage of that and started this whole "mind cure religion" by telling people that happiness starts within yourself, and that once you become happy, is when you can start living a successful and happy life.  By saying this, the millions of viewers watching her, decided that she was right and wanted to follow her.

I can't say that I am one of these "cult followers" of Oprah.  I really don't like watching her show that much anymore like I used too.  The only time I ever watch Oprah is when she does her "favorite things" episodes.  Because I like to live vicariously through the audience members that get all of the cool things on her show for free!  Not fair...too bad I will never be able to go on her show for her favorite things.  Maybe in another life....

Reality TV- Collins/ Murray Articles

In the Sue Collins article, she talks a lot about what it means to be a "celebrity" in today's society.  She talks a lot about dispensable celebrity and celebrity as a commodity.  I really found it interesting to learn about how reality celebrities only get picked to appear on talk shows only when the shows can't find A-List celebrities to be on that night.  In her article, Collins says "Reality celebrities might make it on The Tonight Show, or The Late Show which primarily book A-level talent, but they are unlikely to displace stars looking to be booked or become part of the stable of regular guests needed to sustain the shows" (104).  She also went on to say that they typically need around 4500 celebrities to interview...so I can see why they need the reality celebrities to filter in between the A-List celebrities.  Personally, I think that it is ridiculous to see all of these celebrities...if you can even call them that, make so much money with just promotions, and stuff.  I remember watching an interview with Mike "The Situation" from Jersey Shore, and hes expected to make around 5 million just by doing promotional stuff, including taping the series.  Hopefully, reality TV doesn't overcome "regular TV" in the future where we start giving prestigious awards to people like the situation, or to someone who's nickname is "Snooki."

In the Murray article, she basically talks a lot about documentary TV versus Reality TV and weather or not they are the same.  She talks about how networks and the viewers get confused when watching either type of shows because they are so closely defined similarly that they consider them both one of the same.  Documentaries, however, are to be defined in the past as being educational and informative.  Murray talks about also how they are described as being "serious historical or social significance" (43).  I agree with her concluding argument because you can distinguish between the two because of how closely each are related to each other by definitions.  You pretty much determine what they (the shows) are based on what the networks say that they are.  If they think that the demographic of their audience will watch the show more if they think its a reality show vs. a documentary, then that is what they will call it.  I completely agree with that.

Haralovich/Magder Articles: Reality TV

When reading both of these articles, I really like the Haralovich article more interesting and entertaining to read more than the Magder article.  Both articles talk about Reality TV but with the Haralovich article, you get into a specific reality tv series, such as survivor, and pretty much talk about the background of the show, and the narrative pleasure.  In the Ted Magder article, "The End of TV 101", Magder talks mostly about reality TV as a whole and how they came about to television, and why they are so popular...basically the business side of it.  Yeah it was interesting to see how the creators of the shows competed with NBC's must see Thursday line up, and how they advertised the hell out of the programs to be successful, but its just all politics and money.  So with that being said, I think I'll focus my blog today on the Haralovich article "Expect the Unexpected."

Before I talk about the article, I would like to leave you with a link to a blog that I found that gives us insight as to many reasons reality TV has become so popular.  If you happen to want to view it, just click here on this:  Blog Link

Survivor is a hybrid genre.  It is a game mixed with adventure mixed with drama.  Everything is focused all around "chance."  Two major taglines are used throughout the Survivor series: you see the tagline "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast" which is the basis for how to play and win the game.  Then you have "expect the unexpected" which I find to be really catchy since everyone always seems to be thrown off with the way that the shows evolves throughout not only each episode, but each season.  I guess I should start out by saying that I have not watched a single survivor episode.  People may think that I am crazy---well i'm not, it just never appealed to me to watch a show like that.  Which is kind of ironic because I am currently obsessed now with watching "Lost" which is pretty much like survivor, but its non-reality. People love the unexpected, and always wanting to know what is going to be the next thing that happens.  That's what we call narrative pleasure---the desire to know what happens next.  Which Survivor is great at doing.  In the article Haralovich says that "Rather than anchoring viewers, survivors uses chance to place them in a space of uncertainty" (83).  In doing that, the audience is just gushing over what is going to happen next, and just crave more of it, which is what makes survivor so popular.  It lets people become involved with these contestants and lets us as viewers follow them throughout each episode, making everything feel so real every situation.  Another way of describing Survivor is that it is a "dramality", according to Haralovich, as  being a convergence of drama/reality.  These hybrid shows are becoming more and more popular as we get further and further into the future of television.  I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 10 years, you will be seeing less drama/comedy shows, and more reality based, or mockumentary shows lining up the fall television line up. 

Reality TV-- Poniewozik/ Raphael articles

Our class has finally entered its last  5 weeks of the semsester which means that we finally get to talk about reality TV---Yay! a guilty pleasure of mine, if I do say so myself.  I will admit that I love watching Jersey Shore, I'm pretty sure i've lost a couple brain cells while I watch it, but it is fun and entertaining as hell to watch.

The first article I read was the Poniewozik article which talks about whether or not Reality TV should be accepting or not.  I really love what he says at the end of page one, the very last sentence that read "In 1992, reality TV was a novelty.  In 2000, it was a fad.  In 2010, it's a way of life" (1).  I think that is so true.  First off, it has been considered to be very popular, with tagging along other network series and classifying itself as its own genre.  Not only that, but the article says that it has even been considered now as a professional job.  I don't think it is a bad thing if someone wants to be a reality star, and I don't believe that reality TV becoming so popular is a bad thing either!  Poniewozik classifies reality TV into two categories--- one where the reality TV is all about competition, and the second one is the ones where it's just for fun watching people do lude, drunken things for a laugh.  I have to admit that I watch both types, and I'm ok with that!  I love watching shows like "So You Think You Can Dance" because it appeals to me.  I used to be a dancer for 10 years, and getting to watch these amazing artists have a shot at becoming a professional dancer and get recognition is an awesome thing.  I also watch Jersey Shore because who doesn't love watching people make fools of themselves and also makes you feel better about yourself at the same time.  All the more power to them, you know why?  They're making more money than I am right now, so good for them!

In the second article that I read by Raphael "The Political Economic Origins of Reali-TV" talks about where reality TV came from, and how it started.  Believe it or not, in the beginning of all of the reality TV, it went on a hiatus for a little bit, because it just didn't do well in syndication, according to Raphael.  Reality TV came about because of budget costs to the prime time networks.  The Screen Actors Guild didn't want to participate in a merge with union workers, and companies and writers went on strike.  Raphael states that "economically, the genre [reality tv] fit the needs of producers and distributors alike for cheaper programming" (124).  It ended up working out because, Reality TV became popular, and it didn't push network televison series away, but was right up there with the shows as its own genre.  It was so much cheaper for networks to make reality tv shows because they didn't need to use star names, and they didn't have to pay as much to edit, or produce the shows, which helped the costs for union workers.  I think that reality TV was a good thing to do, because not only does it provide for a fun watch, when you don't want to overthing on a reality show, but it has helped shape new comedy series that uses that reality type look.  For example, Modern Family.  It is a non-reality tv series, however it seems like it is because the characters use the "on camera interview/confessions" through out the episode.  How did that help Modern Family become so funny and successful? Answer: it won them best comedy series this year at the Emmys.  

It's not TV, it's HBO article: McCabe/Akass

Ok so we had a lot of articles to read for this week, and my computer wouldn't let me open a couple of them...so today I'm going to start off by talking about the McCabe article for the most part, and briefly touch base on the Sharma article.  The Sharma article was a little confusing---at least for me.  From what I understand, the beginning of this article was a conversation between "thugs" who were critiquing and watching the Wire, and voicing their opionion to whoever was writing this article?  In that case, I don't think they believe that The Wire was a true depiction of what the ghetto is and how it is represented.  One thing that stuck out to me when reading this article was when Sharma says that "Part of the enjoyment of the series is the requirement to sustain an unfaltering drive to grasp the various interweaving plot-lines and social issues being presented" (Sharma 3).  Right away in my mind, I thought immediately to Lost.  I will admit, I haven't gotten a chance to watch The Wire yet for class, but I plan on it in the next day or 2, but Lost has the same characteristics of interweaving plot-lines.  It made me think, if The Wire's producer wanted to make it similar to Lost?  Wanted viewers to be so entangled in the show, that it's something you can just watch lightly and you have to take each episode seriously so it hooks you for more episodes to come.

With that being said about the Sharma article, I want to talk more about the HBO article because I find it very interesting on how they keep talking up so much when it comes to how great HBO is compared to regular tv shows.  I will say this, HBO has made phenomenal shows, and miniseries, that I have been fortunate to watch----anytime I go home to my parents house in Indy, because my poor college ass can't afford to pay for the premium channels, like HBO and Showtime.  Which is weird because in the article, they were talking about how HBO has become so popular to watch if you're a college student...well, every college student that I know does not have a subscription service to watch shows on them.  I think that HBO will lose the abililty to have to charge people in order to use their channel and watch programs because there are 1. so many ways to get around watching these shows online for free, and 2. network/cable television is really stepping it up with their shows and dramas that they have tough competition.  The only time I ever was so anxious to want HBO subscribed to my house here at IU, was so that I can watch the miniseries "The Pacific" last year.  I love movies and anything on WWII so I was really bummed I couldn't watch it.  Luckily, my parents have U-Verse in Indy so they were able to tape the series for me for when I went home on weekends/breaks.  Most shows now that were once on HBO are now on regular network stations.  For example, I watch Curb Your Enthusiasm and Sex and the City all the time, but never did I once watch it when they played on HBO.  HBO isn't a bad thing to have, because I will agree with McCabe when he stated at the very end of the article that "It is still HBO, but television has caught up" (McCabe 92).  I completely agree, and I also agree with him when he said that HBO set the bar for network shows to have better programming and drama series. 

S. Cohan article- CH.4&5

So we read the first couple chapters of the Cohan article a few classes ago, and now we're back into the fourth and fifth chapter.  In this article, Cohan talks about CSI and how stylized they made the series.  He then goes on to tell us about two key points of making CSI the way that it is.  In the very beginning of the article Cohan points out to us the two styles which happen to be 

"the trademark 'CSI shots', which illustrate cutting edge forensic technology at work, display trace evidence in microscopic close-ups or probe the interior of a victims body; and second, the highly selective use of colour separations that render a darker but also more unrealistic look that usual for TV crime shows" (50).

The majority of this article focuses on the colour, I feel like, in each episode of the series.  I must admit, watching them just for fun on TV randomly, and then having to watch them for class, I never really payed that close of attention to the colors and how they are used in each series.  I will so what I did notice, color wise, was that they always have a blue hue of color in the labs.  Cohan talks about the blue color as being a staple color in the show, and how different colors may change for each season or show, but the blue hue never changes in the lab.  Now that I know the shows producers and writers focus so much on how the color looks for the visual aspect, I'm going to pay a lot more attention to what they are talking about. 

They also talk a lot about the style being the biggest part of how they wanted to series to run with their famous "CSI shots".  We may know these shots as the famous flashbacks in the scenes where they show us how the crime started and got to the point it did, or you see the bullet going right through a persons flesh when they recreate how the crime scene took place--- all characteristics that set it apart from other crime drama series.  Knowing now that the shows writers wanted everything in the series to be so stylized and focused so much on the shots and the color, rather so much than the storyline, I take a deeper appreciation for how this show has been able to do so well and capture so much attention from viewers.

Turnbull, Hohenstein Articles

OK, so after reading these articles, I'm starting to realize that a lot of people in America just really aren't that smart.  If you think that shows like CSI and Law and Order are really how the criminal justice system works, you've been watching to many TV shows like that, and not enough shows...for example, the news.  Or better yet, just living your life and observing things without relying on television shows to tell you how the world works.  All of this is just purely entertainment.  I get it that they try to make shows like this close to how they do it in real life..but people need to keep in mind, that each crime usually takes longer than 45 minutes to an hour to figure out what really happened.  Seriously guys, what is wrong with you?

Take the Turnbull article, for instance.  They started off in the article by showing a response from a viewer on wikipedia on how CSI functions.  The viewer was upset and didn't like the way that CSI viewed their episodes because it was too fast paced and things kept changing.  So then Turnbull started comparing CSI to the crime show Dragnet back in the 50's and 60's.  He even says that "generalizing about a TV series may hold inherent problems, since the object of study can be such an amorphous creature, changing direction, style and mood just when you think you got a grip on it" (21).  I think honestly, that is what makes shows like CSI work.  It reminded me how similar CSI and Lost are. We just watched the CSI episode for class with Justin Beiber in it.  You think that the episode is resolved and that it's over with, but at the end of the show, you see another bomb take place, and it completely throws the audience off guard which is what works for that show.  It's keeps the audience interested.  Also, with Lost, you never have one thing remain the same in the episodes.  Each episode moves fast paced, and something is always changing around, especially the story line.  But Lost proves that in doing so, it can become one of the most watched TV series out there on television. 

Now let's take a look at the Hohenstein article.  This article is what really kills me about people not believing what is just for television entertainment and what is real.  Hohenstein compares the show Law and Order and CSI.  Both shows are Crime series, except Law and Order focus their attention more in the court room, and CSI focuses more on forensic science.  Both shows, shows some realistic qualities, but not much.  And now people in America believe that the judicial system in America is terrible, and most people don't trust the system.  Hohenstein argues that shows like CSI "perceived to have created unrealistic perceptions that forensic science can replace the work of lawyers, judges, and juries" (Hohenstein 63).  OF COURSE IT'S UNREALISTIC PEOPLE!--- you can' figure out a murder in an hour, like they do in these shows!  It's made to entertain people!  People just need to learn that you watch drama TV series like that for entertainment purposes only, don't go exactly by what they're saying to determine how laws need to work in America, because if you do that, we would have one messed up judicial system.

Byers Article, Dobson Article---CSI

So tonight I read the final two article of the week for class.  Both were about CSI--- the Byers article was really hard to read, probably because it was probably the first article that we've read that I have found boring, unfortunately.  In this article. Byers talks about CSI as being neoliberal... well, what the hell does that even mean exactly?  I mean, when I see that they say that in the article, it makes me think of the CSI effect that was talked about in our earlier article on CSI.  I got a sense of the author feeling like people love to watch CSI because it was only starting season two around the time that 9/11 happened.  They also talked about in the article about how the series is a cliche with 9/11... the audience likes the "real-ness" of watching CSI figure everything out and solve the mysteries while the audience doesn't have to deal with the real situations going on in our country?  I don't know, I feel like CSI is just like any other crime scene drama... the only thing that is different about it is their special affects vs. other shows' special affects, or lack there-of.  Which is a good time to talk about the better of the two articles, in my opinion. 

In the Dobson article, the author compares CSI and other crime scene drama, and argues on whether or not the series is considered just a generic crime scene drama.  I would have to say that CSI is just like any other crime scene show that I know of, just with better special affects.  To be honest, I don't really watch or have seen a lot of CSI, but I really enjoy watching Criminal Minds, which also happens to air on CBS.  Criminal Minds and CSI to be are both really similar.  I feel like in todays world, many crime scene drama focus more on the crime solving and science behind it, more than the actual criminal justice system.  If you compare Criminal Minds and CSI, they both focus more on the crime scene.  With CSI, its more science based on finding evidence and putting all the pieces together.  It's pretty much the same thing with Criminal Minds, expect they tend to view it more psychologically.  Either way, both shows are paying more attention to the clues and putting pieces together to solve the mystery more so than anything else.  Even in Dobsons article, the author says that "The gathering of clues and examination of evidence provides the basis of most of the CSI narrative" (Dobson 82).  The right there tells you that its just like any other crime scene drama.  Maybe back in the day, it was more about the criminal justice system, but people like this type of drama better, so that is what the networks have started opening up too. 

Cohan Article-About CSI

Now that we've ventured away from talking about Lost for now, I feel sad that I'll be blogging about another show now.  I have to say I never thought I would be hooked on watching Lost, but it got me.  I'm still watching the seasons on Hulu and as of right now I'm almost finished with season 2...so far so good! :) But now it's time to turn our direction to our next case study, which is the very famous show on CBS...CSI!  The one thing about this show that I like, is the mystery to it all for most of the hour, until the crime gets resolved 15 minutes before the program ends.  What really bugs me about this shows, and other shows like this is that once I catch the first 5 minutes of what happens in the murder, I automatically have to sit and watch the other 55 minutes of it just because I need to know what happens at the end, and how they solved the mystery.  The Cohan article that we had to read for class has pretty much 3 distinct parts to it: the introduction, chapter 1 "It's all about the evidence" and Chaper 2 "The CSI Effect". 

The introduction in this article basically gives you a little background history of how CSI came to be on television.  It first aired in October of 2000 on CBS Friday nights, and to be honest, not many people thought it was going to be a hit television series, because their was a director who was a no-name from Las Vegas, and they didn't have well known actors playing the main characters in the series.  However, it became so big for their first season, by the second season they moved it to Thursday night to compete with NBC's popular Thursday night prime time TV and succeeded to be popular.  In the introduction, Cohan talks about the type of drama that CSI is by stating that

"CSI resists the trends in serialised drama and strong continuing character arcs that help to stimulate appointment television" (4).

In the first chapter, "It's all about the evidence" Cohan goes into explaining how well the shows works, by introducing them to the two main characters who are known as Gil Grissom, and Catherine Willows.  I will say that there are more than one version of CSI.  They have the original series, which is set in Las Vegas, and then they have knockoffs in Miami, and New York.  I personally like the New York series better, just because I don't feel like the characters in the New York program are as cheesy with the puns and jokes as the other ones of the Las Vegas and Miami.  This program gets you with the teaser in the begginning of each episode.  The way that they make everything with the murder so dramatic, it clinches you to want to keep watching.  What Lost does in their drama series is to get you with a teaser and help clinch you at the end of every episode to continue watching.  CSI, however, teases you right in the beginning to keep watching the rest of the episode.  I feel like this kind of drama series works so well because its more about how these crime scenes are solved, by technique in labs, rather than good cop, bad cop running around chasing criminals down. 

In the final chapter of the article, "The CSI Effect," Cohan talks about how shows like CSI are really affecting the way that people view crimes.  They are mixing reality with television.  In Chapter 2, Cohan says that

"The CSI Effect has resulted in real life juries unrealistically expecting definitive DNA and similar trace evidence at every trial" (25) and that there are more college courses about CSI type stuff being taught at different universities around the US (24). 

People should be aware that this isn't exactly how scientists figure out how a murder is solved.  What the writers are doing for this show is abandoning realism for the sake of good television (24).  If people don't seem to get that through their head, than I think that the writers have done a very good job at getting people to love watching this show, because they make it seem so realistic.  I like these shows not only for the realism to it, but because I just love crimes shows that solves mysteries, and CSI makes sure to hook you with how they show their story.

more on Lost- Ivan Askwith article

OK so, as I mentioned before, I have started to watch the seasons of Lost since being in the class, and even though I am not too far along, I am almost done with season 1.  It's really not bad at all.  And after talking to my friends who all loved watching Lost, they said that the first three seasons are the best, and then it all does downhill from there.  In this article that I read for class, the majority of it talks about whether or not the Lost writers had any idea how they were going to end the series, and if all of the answers will be solved.  Askwith goes on to say that there are four key points of the series that the writers have done to make it difficult to explain at the end.  They are:
1. Too many questions, too few answers
2. Redundant flashbacks and the endless middle
3. Convenient Inconsistance
4. Meaningless signifiers

A lot of people, including Askwith, speculated whether or not the writers were just writing each episode as they go a long, and not really know what is going to happen, which upset a lot of the viewers.  I have to say that after reading all of these Lost articles, I am a little worried myself that once I get more into the series, I will be more confused and more angry that nothing is getting solved.  It is interesting though to see that this article bashes the writers and how they are doing a poor job with the writing because they don't know how to end the series, and in the article that we read in class last week (Pearson), she talks about Lost being the best narrative out there. 

What really upset me after reading this article, is seeing Askwith talk about the episode in the first season with Hurley and the numbers.  It's ironic because that is the episode I just watched last, and after the end of the episode I really want to know what the numbers mean.  Come to find out through this article, Askwith added a text from an interview of one of the writers basically saying that they probably won't solve what the numbers mean at the end of the series and that they didn't know themselves what they mean.  I think it's a little ridiculous, but I haven't given up on Lost just yet, I will keep watching to see how it plays out.

Pearson and Mittell Articles on "Lost"

After my last post about not watching Lost, I watched the pilot episode that was assigned, followed by the next 6 episodes.  Yes, Lost and I now have a love/hate relationship 7 episodes in.  In the two articles I read for my class Thursday, I see valid points in both articles, however, the Pearson article seemed to gear more towards informing the viewer of how the narrative of Lost is the best in television history.  In the Pearson article, she explains to the viewers the significance of the shows narrative.

"Whether the producers do or do not eventually provide solutions to all the island's many mysteries, their narrative innovation should be seen as a significant marker in the history of the television drama" (Pearson 4).

I wish I could see the narrative as being the "greatest" a drama show has ever been, but I just can't seem to help myself thinking that the narrative is so bizarre and out there, and not all good...in my opinion.  I feel like the "magical essence" of the plot line is weired, but I think I enjoy it so much because of how complexed I feel when watching it.  I have the urge to want to watch more. In the other article by Jason Mittell, he talks about 4 aesthetic qualities that make Lost what it is, and complexity happens to be one of the four.  The other three would be surprise, forensic engagement, and unity.  I would have to say that most every quality listed is the reasons why I watch it, but I could do without unity.  To me, it doesn't seem that important.  However, Lost is one of the most complex shows that I have seen, and I probably will continue watching the seasons.  I'm curious to find out how I'll feel at the end because all of my die hard Lost fans, hated the ending, and felt like they wasted 5 years of their life with this show--maybe a little dramatic?  Who knows, but I do know that the Mittell article was written during the taping of the series because Mittell quotes that

"Lost seems to be the first popular show to successfully mobilize fans' forensic impulses toward sustained narrative pleasure over frustration---- although the success rate might certainly change over the final three seasons" (Mittell 130).

Looks like I'll have to keep watching the episodes and find out if I'm like the majority of people who hated the creators for how they ended Lost! 

Stacey Abbot article--Is "Lost" considered a Cult series?

I guess I can start off this blog post by letting you know that I have never seen an episode of Lost before in my life, let alone not giving it a second thought to want to start watching the series.  But since I am required to watch some episodes for this class, I thought I would keep an open mind, and if I really do enjoy it, I'll probably start watching the seasons.

With that being said, let's get into talking about this article by Stacey Abbot.  I found this article very interesting because the author talks a lot about whether or not the TV series "Lost" is considered a cult series.  Better yet, Abbot talks about how she thinks that Lost is considered a "Cult Blockbuster" and how to most people, that seems to contradict itself.  In the article Abbot says in referance to how a cult movie, or tv show should be, that

"reinforcing this notion that cult, particularly in the eyes of the fans, often stands in opposition to the mainstream" (Abbot 11).

 She also goes on to talk about how if you're a cult, you can't be a blockbuster because if you're a blockbuster, you're a huge success and very popular.  Well, I would like to go ahead and argue that in this day in age, you can be a cult tv series, or cult movie, and still be considered a blockbuster.  For example, many movies and shows that are considered "cult" today, may not have been considered it when they were made.  However, when I think of a show or movie to be considered "Cult" I automatically think of the Star Wars Trilogies.  The series was one of the most grossing movies to ever be made, and yet, if you look up the definition of what a Cult show is, Star Wars falls right into that category, even though its movies were all huge blockbusters.  Included in this blog is a link to an article I found online talking about the Stars Wars Trilogy.  You can find the article here: Star Wars Trilogies Article

In my opinion, I think that the Lost Series is considered to be a cult tv series, one that will become a classic that many people will talk about in the years to come.  It has every characteristic that a cult classic should consist of.  Abbot goes on in the article pulling facts about cult classics and how lost fits in, while its doing so well as a blockbuster so she does go on to say in the end how "Cult has been appropriated for the mainstream" (Abbot 23).  They need to change the way Cult movies and television shows are viewed, because I think that in this day in age, we look at Cult Classics as being mainstream and popular, and less and less as being hidden from mainstream.

Jenkins article, "A New Paradigm for Understanding Media Change"

The main focus on this article is about changes brought into the media by three different concepts---those concepts being (1) media convergence, (2) participatory culture, and (3) collective intelligence.  The two that they talk about most in the article is media convergence and participatory culture.  Jenkins talks about convergence being "the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want" (Jenkins 2).  After reading this article, the only thing that I kept thinking about was how Apple has definitely brought media to change with the new iPad being a huge hit.  When I read this article, I wanted to get some more information on Apple and the new iPad, so I googled "why is the iPad so successful" and came across this great article online that explains why Apple is so successful, why it had brought about so much change, and why it sinks you into the confined restriction of Apple itself.  You can find the article by going to this link provided: Why the iPad Will Change Everything. 

Jenkins goes on to say that "convergence involves both a change in the way media is produced and a change in the way media is consumed" (Jenkins 16).  I feel like this absolutely has Apple and the iPad written all over it.  In the iPad article online, the author of the article, Daniel Lyons, talks about how when you buy an iPad through Apple, you become "locked" into their ways and are confined with using only Apple approved things.  Some would think this would be a problem, however, people don't seem to mind and are constantly and continually buying the iPad, which you can use for almost everything.  Another link I wanted to include will show you better than I can tell you of everything the iPad is capable of doing.... take a look: New iPad Commercial.  the iPad is taking all of the technologies that the old media had created...tv, dvds, cameras, gps, etc. and combining it into one thing.  It seems to me like Apple has just created this new and very large media change that is going to take off, with even bigger and better things to come.

HBO Drama Article-Is HBO Drama really considered art?

HBO came up with this slogan, which is "It's not TV, it's HBO".  What does that exactly mean?  Obviously HBO is not a network cable station that plays TV series.  We know that in order to watch HBO, people have to subscribe to it, because it is considered a "premium channel".  Why?  Because they show movies, and commercial free TV series, and miniseries, etc.  After reading this article on HBO, and whether or not it's considered art, I realized something.... I don't believe that HBO Drama series, like the Sopranos, should be considered art, or artistic, or anything to do with art.  When I think of art, I think of something along the lines of a Picasso painting, or a form of dancing, not a director writing a script about a Mafia family.  On another note, everyone is titled to their own opinion, and many people have different definitions of what they consider to be "art". 

Many HBO series are great to watch, especially the dramas.  I personally prefer all of the miniseries that they have done. My 2 favorite being Band of Brothers, and The Pacific.  Now, to contradict myself in saying I don't believe in HBO drama series being "art", I will say that those two miniseries could be considered art.  For example, both miniseries was based around two very important historical times in the US, and when a director can recapture those moments and tell it with such power, it then can become art.  It's re-telling the importance of our nation, and the history of what happened.  With the Sopranos, it's just an hour long, commercial free tv show that shows us the lives of Tony Soprano, who is a fictional character acting in a series. 

The way people look at art varies differently-therefore people's opinions change on whether or not HBO has taken that step in creating drama series as being artistic.  Sopranos-No, The Pacific/Band of Brothers- Yes.
Sopranos recapturing history?-No... The Pacific/Band of Brothers-Yes.