Channelling in to Television Cultures

Tag Archives: tv

There is a page on Wikipedia literally called ‘List of reality television programs’ that tries to list all reality TV shows ever aired. Check it out here. While it DOES state that the list is incomplete, how could a project like this ever even come close to be being finished? In my opinion, as long as there is reality, and as long as there are people with video cameras, reality TV will never cease.

There’s something about it that draws us to it. Perhaps it is what I discussed in my post last week about the ‘truth’ aspect of reality TV that keeps audiences around the world glued to the screen. The knowledge that ‘this actually happened, this is real footage’, gives a different feel to a show than fictional television. Again I want to reiterate that Arild Fetveit notes ‘we are experiencing a growing use of surveillance cameras, and a form of factual television that seems to depend more heavily on the evidential force of the photographic image than any previous form: reality TV’ (pg. 787).

So why then? Why are we so interested in reality television? Why does the enjoyment of witnessing real life events never cease to capture our attention? Why is it that, as Su Holmes points out, reality TV ‘resonates so extensively in the cultural sphere’ (2004, pg. 1)?

Gary Edgerton says of the TV show Mad Men: “whatever says ‘This was them then’ connotes ‘This is us now’, mutatis mutandis. The characters’ smugness is undermined by our knowing more than they do, but that targets our certainty. Those foolish mortals are us, fifty years ago but us.” (2011, pg. 87) I believe with reality TV there is a similar sort of superiority complex that infiltrates audiences’ minds. We believe that what we are watching on the screen is some way related to us, but we are ‘above’ these people, as we as viewers know more than they do. Perhaps there is still an element of uncertainty, however, as we may consider that put in the same situation we may react much like these people do. Take, for example, a show like Candid Camera that exposes people’s embarrassing reactions to pranks:

I would argue that there are different ‘levels’ of reality TV. Those using surveillance type cameras depict a more accurate reality than those with cameras set up specifically. Take, for example, a show like Highway Patrol or The Force, in which footage is largely gathered from:

• authentic footage from camera crews observing arrests or rescue operations;
• footage from surveillance videos;
• recordings (often by amateurs) of dramatic accidents and dangerous situations.
(Fetveit, pg. 792)

With shows like this, the action is real and there is no chance to go back and redo a scene. However, a show like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (or any game show) is largely staged and rehearsed, leaving little room for ‘reality’ except in how contestants respond and act.

Another interesting thing that I came across on the Wikipedia list of reality TV programs was also a list of different categories that reality TV can fit into. These are:

• Documentary style
• Historical recreation
• Science
• Dating
• Law Enforcement/Military
• Makeover
• Lifestyle change
• Fantasies fulfilled
• Docusoaps (starring celebrities)
• Hidden camera
• Reality game shows
• Talent searches
• Spoofs
• Parodies

In terms of ‘genre’ it is almost impossible to define a genre to allocate to reality shows, as they obviously cover an extremely vast array of issues and themes. Toni Johnson-Woods says of the reality genre:

“‘Reality tv’ is an umbrella term encompassing a host of television programs: from the news to talk shows… In the broadest definition, reality-tv shows are unscripted and their participants are non-professional actors. But other than such general guidelines, the term ‘reality’ can describe a wide range of television programs… Because it is such a broad (and misleading) term, it is easier to subdivide reality-tv programs into genres such as lifestyle shows, documentaries, talk shows and quiz/game shows.” (pg. 52)

So while it is evident that reality TV comes in many different forms, what holds them all together is the notion that they do in fact depict (at least in part) ‘reality’. There is much discussion in the media, however, about how that ‘reality’ is warped. In many cases we are given the indication that our lives require improvement to meet that unrealistic standard of reality. Frances Bonner notes:

“Television’s role is to alert viewers to the existence of more products and services for their utility in the endless project of the self.” (pg. 104)

Nowhere is this more true than in the production of reality TV. This form of ‘infotainment’ is riddled with product placement and marketing techniques that make audiences want more in an effort to “improve” themselves. Perhaps this is why reality TV ‘resonates so extensively in the cultural sphere’ as Holmes put it. Peter Balint Langmar defines ‘cultural sphere’ as follows:

“I use the term ‘cultural sphere’ to mean the open cultural market, creating goods and services, where individuals are also active participants or actors. The cultural market is a profit-oriented sub-sphere of the cultural sphere.” (pg. 4)

Therefore reality TV fits right in with the market-type nature of the cultural sphere. As Brian pointed out in the lecture, reality TV creates experts that inform us of what to strive for. Tania Lewis agrees with this:

“The past few years have seen an explosion of lifestyle makeover television shows with audiences around the world being urged to ‘renovate’ everything from their homes to their pets, a process that has seen the emergence of an army of lifestyle gurus on television advising us on what not to eat and what not to wear.” (2009, pg. 1)

Michelle Bridges on The Biggest Loser

For me, this brings to mind Michelle Bridges, who became a household name in Australia following her involvement with The Biggest Loser. Much of her success as a fitness trainer is due to her role on the show, and the fact that it allowed her to become a trusted and well-known expert in health and fitness. “Supernanny” is another example. As an ‘expert’ in child discipline, Jo Frost has also become well-known from her reality TV show. (I wonder how many people utilize a ‘naughty chair’ because of her?)

Jo Frost as “Super Nanny”

Experts, advertising, making us feel like we aren’t good enough, letting us laugh at people doing embarrassing things… we just love reality TV.

SOURCES

Holmes, Su and Jermyn, Deborah. Understanding Reality Television. London: Taylor & Francis, 2004

Lewis, Tania. TV Transformations: Revealing the Makeover Show. Routledge, 2009

Johnson-Woods, Toni. Big Bother: why did that reality-tv show become such a phenomenon? University of Queensland Press, 2002

Fetveit, Arild. “Reality Tv in the digital era: a paradox in visual culture?”. Media Culture and Society. SAGE Publications. Vol. 21: 787-804. 1999

Balint Langmar, Peter. “Cultural Sphere and Public Interest: Combining Free and Participatory Culture, Cultural Democracy and Critiques of Value Regimes to Rethink Policy, Artistic and Institutional Practices”. The American University of Paris, 2011.

Bonner, Frances. Ordinary Television: Analysing Popular TV. SAGE, 2003.

Wikipedia.com.au

Advertisements

Given the nature of television at the present time, it is difficult to determine what being a ‘fan’ entails. Henry Jenkins takes a strong stand on what a fan is. I was going to make the disappointingly ignorant statement that his work on fandom is outdated (simply because he has been writing on fans for decades!), but then I found his blog. It’s so hard to call a man ‘outdated’ when he posts more on his blog than I do. However, can I build upon Henry Jenkins’ incredible work on his blog and in ‘Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture’ (2006)? Can I use my own knowledge of young people, and what I see on social media to create a different idea of a ‘fan’?

Because you see, I don’t think fandom is exactly a black and white thing. You can be a ‘fan’ of anything really, without having to submit to the stereotypes of being a hardcore fan. In his book ‘Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture’ Jenkins uses the example of Star Trek fans and how they have been portrayed as

‘… “kooks” obsessed with trivia, celebrities, and collectibles; as misfits and “crazies”; as “a lot of overweight women, a lot of divorced and single women”; as childish adults; in short, as people who have little or no “life” apart from their fascination with this particular program’. (pg. 11)

A ‘Bronies’ Convention

We all know this stereotypical view of intense fans, but do we really see it? At first, I thought no. Then I watched the following short documentary, and took note of the “Bronies”:

I have a few random friends on Facebook that are into Cosplay and post new strange pictures of themselves every now and again, but here in Australia I don’t feel like fandom is displayed through massive conventions and dressing up as characters. Fans of TV shows watch webisodes, make funny memes, write fan fiction, make parodies and share their adoration via the internet. I would say that transmedia fuels fandom in some ways among my age group.

With the rise of social media, transmedia spread is more effective than ever. Television programs can have their own Facebook pages through which people can access webisodes, artwork, memes, comments, forums and other websites, all just by pressing a ‘like’ button. We barely have to go searching for the extra material that makes up the immersive world of our favourite shows – it comes to us.

And so, I would like to float the idea that being a ‘fan’ is more mainstream due to this transmedia revolution. What is being a ‘fan’ after all?

fan
noun
a person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular sport, art form, or famous person : football fans | I’m a fan of this author.
DERIVATIVES
fandom |ˈfandəm| noun
ORIGIN late 19th cent. (originally U.S.): abbreviation of fanatic .

Therefore, we do not necessarily have to go to the extremity of attending conventions and dressing up as characters from our favourite shows to express out admiration or interest in them.

I will use an example of a show I have recently become a fan of: Doctor Who. (Please see my post on this.) This show obviously has a large following – extremely large actually. There are Doctor Who fans clubs for every state of Australia, and so many websites dedicated to forums and fanfiction. I highly doubt, however, that every Doctor Who fan is like this:

It is also interesting to see the rather amateur state of the official Doctor Who fan club of Australia, compared with the Doctor Who page on Facebook. There is a post on this page every few hours, always up to date and always on interesting new things such as pictures, webisodes, and even Doctor Who related recipes??!!! It would be easy for a fan to get all the latest news and facts on this one page, while also having the option to engage in discussion by commenting.

Before the latest season of Doctor Who aired a few weeks ago, the Doctor Who Facebook page posted a link to a BBC mini-series called ‘Pond Life’, as a teaser leading towards the next season. These webisodes actually added vital information to the text, revealing the disintegration of Amy and Rory’s relationship before the shocking revelation in the first episode of season 7 that they were filing for a divorce. To fans that have liked the Facebook page, or looked to the BBC website for extra material, this allowed them to know extra information about the lives of the characters, further immersing audiences in the text. It is important to note how transmedia allows for this to happen, even though following a link that pops up on your Facebook news feed may not seem like fan-like behaviour.

By contrast with Jenkins’ earlier view of the stereotypical fan, I want to note that in his book ‘Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture’ he states:

“I wanted to construct an alternative image of fan cultures, one that saw media consumers as active, critically engaged, and creative.” (pg. 1)

This goes against the view of fans being unintelligent, ‘crazy’ and misfits. Much of Jenkins’ work surrounds participatory culture, and how media audiences are active and engaged, and seek out fan culture in order to contribute to the construction of television shows, not simply seek an alternative reality and become lost in the fantasy of another world. This, I think, is exactly what I am trying to prove by highlighting how fans are active on Facebook: they can interact with television shows and immerse themselves in the texts alongside other fans, without having to drastically alter their regular lifestyles and routines.

To finish up, I want to align this idea of Jenkins’ – that fans can be active and creative – with Stuart Hall’s Reception Theory. Fans are, ultimately, the ideal representation of the ‘active’ audience. They read into texts, immerse themselves in the worlds they follow and construct for themselves, and contribute to this by creating their own fanfiction, analysing the text and even just making a simple comment on Facebook.

SOURCES

Jenkins, Henry (2006). Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, Henry (1992). Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. Studies in culture and communication. New York: Routledge.

Henry Jenkins’ Blog: http://henryjenkins.org/

Doctor Who Club of Australia: http://www.dwca.org.au/

BBC Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/


What is ‘quality’? Surely our idea of what is good quality TV also depends on our own separate tastes, as explored last week. However, it would appear that ‘quality’ is fast becoming equivalent to the concept of the complex narrative TV show. Jason Mittell states:

“a new form of entertainment has emerged over the past two decades to both critical and popular acclaim. This model of television storytelling is distinct for its use of narrative complexity as an alternative to the conventional episodic and serial forms that have typified most American television since its inception.” (Mittell, pg. 29).

As discussed in the lecture, this long-form narrative is best encapsulated in HBO productions. We’ve all heard of The Sopranos, Game of Thrones and HBO’s famous series, and although not all of these have rated spectacularly, they have all been successful in building up HBO’s reputation and brand image, which Mittell points out is thought of as ‘being more sophisticated than traditional television and thus worthy of a monthly premium’ (Mittell, pg. 31).

In his article Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television, Mittell makes several arguments about complex narratives.Firstly, he defines what he calls ‘narrative complexity’ as the following:

“At its most basic level, narrative complexity is a redefinition of episodic forms under the influence of serial narration – not necessarily a complete merger of episodic and serial forms but a shifting balance. Rejecting the need for plot closure within every episode that typifies conventional episodic form, narrative complexity foregrounds ongoing stories across a range of genres.” (Mittell, pg. 32)

So, essentially what I feel he labels narrative complexity is something in between episodic and serial narrative. Each episode can be viewed on its own and has its own ‘mini resolutions’ inclusive, however it also fits into the wider series as part of a larger resolution process. Mittell stresses that it is a ‘shifting balance’ between the two which makes the narrative complex – it ‘is not as uniform and convention driven as episodic or serial norms (in fact, its most defining characteristic might be its unconventionality)’ (Mittell, pg. 30). An example of this is in how TV shows ‘oscillate between long-term arc storytelling and stand-alone episodes’ (pg. 33). Mittell gives the example of The X Files, Buffy and Seinfeld. To give one of my own, Friends operates a bit like this, with each episode viewable on its own, but also tying into the entire series with ongoing in jokes, such as Ross and Rachel’s “we were on a break”.

I like that one of Mittell’s firmest arguments is that TV is of a classification of its own, therefore he denies its relation to cinema, and narrative complexity’s tie to “novelistic” television’. By evaluating television on its own as separate from other media, he reveals its truths.

‘Complexity and value are not mutually guaranteed,’ (pg. 30) he says. In a way this ties to what a classmate, Lucy, said in her blog on transmedia and webisodes from week 4. Her argument was that just because a popular TV show had an online presence, didn’t mean it was effective as transmedia. Similarly, Mittell highlights that popular shows are not necessarily all that complex, and complex narratives are not necessarily loved by all. I love that he points out:

“…value judgements should be tied to individual programs rather than claiming the superiority of an entire narrational mode or genre.” (pg. 30)

I.E. HBO is not the best thing since sliced bread. Personally, I think Game of Thrones is alright, The Wire was rubbish…. dare I go on?!

I find it kind of ironic that we are analyzing TV like this and separating the good quality from the bad quality, when this is essentially what TV does to us as audiences as well. As Brian pointed out in today’s lecture, there can be good quality audiences. Those are the kind of niche audiences that have a lot of disposable income and can invest a lot of time and money into TV shows. This is not the kind of audience member who will watch whatever is on TV, flick through the channels and passively watch their screens, but the kind of person who will pay for the DVD box set of the show and actively engage with it by watching webisodes and talking about it online. These audiences are valuable, much more so than thousands of passive audience members. Mittell calls them a ’boutique audience of more upscale educated viewers who typically avoid television’ (pg. 31).

It is also interesting that Mittell spends a lot of time focusing on audience self-consciousness in narrative complexity. A little too much time even I think?? He paints the audience as incredibly aware and intelligent, suggesting they ‘watch complex programs in part to see “how will they do it?”‘ (pg. 35). The concepts of ‘operational reflexivity’ and ‘operational aesthetic’ also indicate that audience members are concerned with the construction of stories and texts and how they themselves can analyse and engage with them. To suggest that ‘this mode of formally aware viewing is highly encouraged by these programs, as their pleasures are embedded in a level of awareness that transcends the traditional focus on diagetic action typical of most viewers’ (pg. 36), seems a bit extreme to me. I also find it hard to see what kinds of shows are NOT complex. He mentions Seinfeld, The Simpsons, and Malcolm in the Middle, which I wouldn’t have really considered to be on the same scale as The Sopranos and such.

SOURCES

Mittel, J. Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television. The Velvet Light Trap
Number 58, Fall 2006.


I have a confession to make.

…………..

…….

I am a woman.

And yet, I watch Dr. Who.

I don’t even understand computers! Or find any interest in science! But Dr. Who…. My word! It gets me.

I say this, and really I am just totally an amateur fan of The Doctor. It is probably mainly because the latest one (Matt Smith) bears a striking resemblance to my boyfriend.

The Doctor (Matt Smith)

aaaaand… My BF

Okay you can’t see it here!!!! But he seriously does!

In fact I haven’t even seen any of the seasons prior to Matt Smith. I will watch them some day, though. For now I am content to continue watching my boyfriend’s doppleganger flit around on my television screen 🙂

What is the intrigue?! Why do I shuffle uncomfortably on my seat on the train, wishing I was on the couch on a Friday night watching Dr. Who? Why I do I wait and wait for the next installment that will get me through the week? Why do I find myself having strange dreams that I am a time-lord?

Well, personally, I find the writing of the show to be amazing! Steven Moffat is a legend. Like, seriously.. Nobel Prize worthy. He doesn’t write episode-to-episode, but somehow manages to stretch storylines out over the seasons and tie everything together beautifully. Like the scintillating cracks we find in random locations across Matt Smith’s first season, Moffat reveals in tiny, exciting sections what is coming: whether it be ‘the end of all things’, or the death of The Doctor himself.

The characters are quirky and loveable. The set is amazing, colourful and ever-changing. We find ourselves (because of course, I travel with The Doctor) in the jungle, in space, in Ancient Rome, on a pirate ship and so on. Relationships and character development are irresistible – nawwwwww Amy and Rory!
But…. Mostly the thing about my boyfriend I guess 🙂

Bring on Season 7!!!!


I think it is amazing that moments in time can be recorded and experienced again and again. Television can defy time and space, bringing us images of the Eiffel Tower from 1930 as we sit comfortably in our Australian suburban homes. It crosses time zones, borders and nations. Yes, my friends, it truly is transnational.

‘Define for me transnational’ you say? Okay, well Word lists synonyms such as:
– international
– multinational
– transcontinental
– intercontinental
– global
– worldwide
– large-scale

What we mean by transnational television is the crossing over of cultures and national values through the medium of television. As Brian put it in the lecture this morning, “culture matters”. Countries pour their values, beliefs and traditions into the media they produce, and in general this resounds throughout the nation. However, TV shows can be popular in different countries with different national identities, and this is where ‘transnational’ applies.

There is a lot of speculation around ‘globalisation’, and how many assume this simply equates to the ‘Americanisation’ of the world. However, as pointed out in the lecture, this can be as naïve a view as The Hypodermic Needle Theory of communication. A lot of the world watches American TV shows, however this does not make us turn into Americans. We can watch and appreciate Friends, but still be Australian (Korean, Japanese etc.) on the inside. Koichi Iwabuchi states that ‘the historical process of globalisation has not simply produced a Westernisation of the world. Its impact on the constitution of the world is much more heterogeneous and contradictory’ (2005, pg. 19-20). Globalisation has affected all nations and cultures. It is not simply America stretching its arm out across the world and engulfing it. All countries, and all cultures are able to cross borders in a way previously impossible.

With this in mind, I’ve watched a bit of the Japanese show Long Vacation. It’s so interesting to see such a different sort of program – not that it is different from Australian or American shows, but that in this country we never hear about Japanese television. Watching the opening sequences of episode one, as Minami runs down the street in her wedding costume, I was reminded of the first episode of Friends in which Rachel runs into the coffee shop in her wedding dress. Both characters are devastated about how the wedding has turned out, and are acting irrationally. However, watching the Japanese show, though there wasn’t much difference in camera work or action, but it felt different for some reason. There is the obvious fact that it features Japanese actors, and they are speaking Japanese, yet there is also an apparent difference that goes beyond this. The culture of Japan speaks through the program. Characters speak more slowly and thoughtfully; there are periods of extended silence and long glances. It is something I can’t quite understand myself.

Another interesting thing about Long Vacation is that it features songs in English. Even the opening credits have a mixture of Japanese and English words, which could potentially show the influence that English-speaking nations have on Japan (???). It would be strange to hear songs so obviously in a foreign tongue in an American or British show.

I have never watched Japanese television before. Except for Studio Ghibli films by Hayao Miyazaki. Good stuff. I can see how something like Long Vacation could become as addictive as Australian/American/British television though. Storylines are interesting, characters are believable and lovable, and you can be drawn into the action, wanting to know what happens next.

SOURCES

Iwabuchi, K. In Erni, J. and Chua, S. (eds.). Asian media studies: politics of subjectives, (pg. 19-36). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. 2005.


I feel like I have to back-track a little bit, and cover last week’s “post-broadcast” concept. Like, I was there in the lecture and the tute, but I didn’t really think about it or try to wrap my head around this strange new word: post-broadcast.

Well, like it was for many I think, my first stop has to be Graeme Turner’s book Television Studies After TV: Understanding Television in the Post-Broadcast Era. In this, he really defines the period of time in which broadcast television began to decline:

“The decline of the broadcast era in the West has seen increasing industrial and technological convergence as telecommunications, information technology and the electronic media coalesce under the same corporate umbrellas, and as technologies themselves interact more directly than ever before.” (pg. 7)

Now, I am no scholar. Not even close. So in my simple terms this seems to suggest that the “post-broadcast era” speaks of new media technologies interacting in a way that traditional media never could. For example, we have the Internet, social media, and TV screens just about everywhere we look. A key word is “convergence”, as not only do these technologies exist, but they interact and work alongside one another. Watching TV also means picking up the phone and voting for your favourite celebrity, or scrolling through your Twitter feed to see what others are saying about the latest episode of your TV show.

Another thing we talked about in the tute was this whole thing about block viewing television shows. That is, sitting down with the DVD box set of a show and watching episodes in large chunks, rather than breaking it down and watching an episode a week as TV broadcasting allows. I love the way Mel Campbell puts it in her article Baying For True Blood: Binge Reading in Television’s Post-Broadcast Era:

“in the post-broadcast era, freed from the tyranny of being drip-fed single episodes in a set timeslot, we can now watch as many as we like, when we like: on DVD, TiVo or the Internet, engaging in voluptuous television binges, tearing through entire seasons in a weekend.”

I’ve been attached to a drip before, and I understand the need to be slowly medicated rather than having a massive medicine rush all at once. So perhaps this block viewing isn’t healthy? Maybe we can overdose on Madmen or Game of Thrones? Definitely can on Gossip Girl. Just saying.

 

 

SOURCES

Turner, G. Television Studies After TV: Understanding Television in the Post-Broadcast Era. Taylor & Francis, 2009


If we’re being honest here – and I like honesty, it’s a good thing – I fell into this course by accident. I didn’t know what I was getting myself into, but thank the Lord, yesterday’s lecture showed promise 🙂

I am not the hugest fan of television. I think, like many Gen Y kids, I just accept its existence and treat it like a natural part of life. I don’t know a world without television! Even from the earliest days in which I danced in front of the TV to the happy tunes of The Wiggles (let’s just keep that fact on the down low), television has always just been there. I wouldn’t even have considered it worth studying. Maybe this is partly because I don’t want my attention drawn to it. I don’t want this perfectly harmless, supportive presence in my life to be altered in any way. We get along quite well, me and TV.

I suppose some of what Alan McKee talks about in ‘Why Do I Love Television So Very Much?’resounded quite strongly with me. I don’t like the world we live in, in that somehow your worth as a consumer of arts and entertainment is dependent on other people’s preferences. Goodness me, just let me like what I want to like! Sorry if that just so happens to be a television show rather than some arty, creative piece of cinema. SORRY if I just want to watch several hours of How I Met Your Mother and just laugh my head off for a while, rather than sit with a straight back and frown at interesting camera techniques!! Thankyou Mr McKee for bringing up the highly flawed presumption of  ‘artists’  that ‘those who have different pleasures are inferior’. Seriously. Thankyou.

And also, might I mention, I feel this same kind of thing even just being in this class. In yesterday’s tute I was struggling not to feel inferior as many people in the class engaged in discussion on particular TV shows that are apparently more cultured than the ones I watch. I just haven’t been introduced to these programs! Mad Men, The Sopranos, Girls…. so on and so forth. I just don’t know 🙂 Probably no one gives a flip that my latest interest is Dr Who, but I feel silly.

But television… Though I don’t see it just quite yet, maybe there is some use in studying it. Not just in terms of its relation to cinema as well, as the documentary we watched yesterday, Hollywood: The Rise of TV (2005), seemed to have a focus on. A lot of the people interviewed seemed to stress the fact that TV is a bigger deal than movies. There is heaps more worked involved in creating and maintaining a television series than making a movie, and in general the TV scene is somewhat overtaking cinema. I felt that this documentary had kind of a similar message to Graeme Blundell’s ‘The past is another country’, in suggesting that ‘TV is now where the innovations in narrative method and storytelling are to be seen’. Especially due to the rise of the ‘digital age’ and everything, I suppose producers of television shows are given many more options to play around with different storylines and techniques now.

That’s another thing that really went over my head. This switch to digital video. I read somewhere the other day that Frankston Hoyts (my local cinema) would be playing its last session on 35mm film with the movie Brave. And now it is all digital technology. But honestly, no one is going to notice any difference! I know I won’t be able to tell.

Now it’s time for interesting TV facts with Steph:

I read an article in The Australian yesterday that was all about how people use their phones while watching TV heaps these days. Over 52% apparently. And you can read about it here. Surely this makes the television experience completely different, as people are distracted by other things on their phones, or connect with the show even more through social media. My boyfriend is a serial phone/TV culprit, his favourite past time being tweeting about the awful shows I am watching while we watch together. Secretly, he loves it.

Okay, anyway, in conclusion I look forward to learning more about television and reaching that awkward moment where I realise it has been lying to me my whole life. Or something.

 

SOURCES