Just wanted to do a quick post about the importance of the opening titles to TV shows.
The idea came to me as I was watching last Sunday’s episode of Poldark (don’t judge). A typical BBC period drama shown on ABC1 8.30 Sundays, it follows the life of almost-nobleman Ross Poldark as he navigates his way through the troubles of Cornish mining life in the late 1700s. I was inspired to write this brief post because I am always struck by the power of the opening credits. I absolutely love the piece of music, and I don’t quite know why; I just think it’s a moving work that really sums up the themes of the show. Have a look:
I think the evolution of TV credits is an interesting one. Back in the 60s or 70s, it seemed common for TV credits to be up to a minute in length, but then in the 21st century economy of time was valued and credits were minimised. Take the example of Modern Family‘s 11-second title sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhylCcN52nk
But I think the opening title is having a resurgence, and it’s becoming more of an art form again. Global company Imaginary Forces is devoted almost entirely to opening credits, having been responsible for the titles of South Park, Nurse Jackie and even the classic Mad Men:
I find the process of making opening credits fascinating; how do you capture the essence of a show in just a few seconds? It was something I had the pleasure of trying myself when I made my short film for year twelve media in the style of a murder mystery show (a la Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries or Nancy Drew), and accordingly had to use Adobe After Effects to create a stylised theme. I had to incorporate an introduction of the characters, a set-up of the show’s concept and a snapshot of the show’s light-hearted, self-parodying tone into about 30 seconds, and it wasn’t easy but I enjoyed the process, and hope it’s something I’ll get the chance to do again in the future.
Yesterday was the last chance we had to show the rest of our class our assessment drafts before the final product is due in next week. It was a bit nerve-wracking, knowing we only had one week left and everyone else’s looked so good!
We seemed to get mostly positive feedback. The class seemed to understand the idea of using a vlog-style opening video to emulate the interactive nature of the media we are studying. They liked the three different avenues that Dusty, Jac and I have explored, and Rachel’s previous concern that the three different elements didn’t gel well together seemed to be assuaged by our suggestion that we would create a collaborative conclusive video to summarise all that we have done.
I personally still have a few concerns for my own section; I’d like to expand my article to be able to look with more depth into social media and TV, and I’d like to incorporate some more sources. I’d also like to enhance the interactivity of our site by trying to incorporate a twitter feed, blog roll and other types of social media into the site itself. I also have yet to create my video introduction, but I’m confident that I can do that quite quickly. I also have confidence in the rest of my group to excel in their areas to create a polished and unique finished product.
It was also really interesting in the tute yesterday to have a look at some of the other directions that the students in our class are taking with this assignment. Kristian, Ali and Sandy were exploring the topic of texts, and chose to focus on video games by creating a Good Game-style video game review show. This is a copy of their rough cut, which aside from a few sound issues I think looks pretty slick:
https://youtu.be/R7-2SDgaidg
Bianca, Gloria and Patrick had the topic of institutions, so looked at the history of recorded sound. They’ve created a really neat audio documentary, with a mix of found audio and interviews they’ve conducted. It’s quite long at this stage, but obviously it’s not finished and I think the opening is really great.
Lucas, Emma and Rob also had texts, so they looked at the idea of adaptations and texts changing form. They’ve done a similar thing to our group in that they’ve used a website so that they can explore a range of ideas in different formats. They haven’t uploaded everything yet but I can see from what they do have that it will be good when they’re finished.
Elise and Jack (Connor) also had institutions, so decided to look at the classification board of Australia. They’ve produced a short video educational doco-style, in which Jack pretends to be a snubbed film-maker and Elise, the presenter, explains to him the process of film classification. This is only a short snapshot of what they’ve got, but it shows how professional their video looks.
https://vimeo.com/128329150
Ariff and Daniel used a webpage as well, looking at institutions through the lens of comparing Western media to media in Malaysia, Ariff’s home country. I can’t find a link to it as yet but will post it here as soon as they’re finished.
Haylee and Elle looked at piracy through a short video that was a mixture of found footage explaining piracy laws and vox pop interviews they had conducted themselves. Theirs is still unfinished, and a little on the short side, but they’ve got some good content so far so I look forward to seeing the final product.
Sandy, Tim and Zoe’s footage is still very raw, but I think it’s a really interesting concept; they’re doing a filmed debate on whether social media is making is more or less social. Sandy is presenting and Tim and Zoe will each present a side. Should prove an interesting watch.
Now, I just know I will have forgotten someone but I’ve already filled six hundred word up with other people’s work so I think I’d better get back to my assignment!
PS I’m too lazy to link in everyone’s blogs here, but if you want to read any of my classmate’s work check out the Media Factory site and click on the links down the side.
I’m not going to lie; I struggled with yesterday’s lectorial quite a bit. It was on the theme of media materialism, which is to say (I think), it was about media as physical artefacts rather than theoretical concepts. Daniel was our lecturer again and he explained to us concepts such as the ‘anthropocene’, or the age of man on earth, and he discussed a whole range of examples of end-of-the-world scenarios on film. At the end of the lecture, he asked us to blog on one of five prompts, one of them being my choice in the title above, ‘humans are in control of our own destiny’.
I chose it because I once again saw a link between media one and my literary studies course. That very morning in textual crossings we had watched ‘predestination’, an Australian-American sci fi movie that was filmed around Melbourne and even in RMIT.
If you haven’t seen the film and intend to (and if you like sci fi I recommend you do because I quite enjoyed it), look away now to avoid spoilers. Basically, the film questions how much we are in control of our own destiny through looking at time travel and the possibility of an infinite, paradoxical time loop. Basically, the central character (who seems to be three characters at first, and then two, and then finally we realise it has been the same person all along) is born a woman, and meets a future version of herself after a sex change to a man, with whom she conceives a child, the birth of which causes her to become the man that will go back in time and impregnate her past self. The baby is taken shortly after birth, and it is later revealed that she is in fact both her own mother and her own father. Furthermore, as he (now a male) is taken back in time in the first place by a mysterious time agent who is seeking to capture a terrorist bomber, it slowly becomes clear that the time agent is another, surgically altered future version of himself and an even further distant future version is the bomber. Are we still following?
It’s complicated, I know, and to be honest bordering on the ridiculous. However, despite the fact that I managed to see every single plot twist coming before it happened, I didn’t really notice how ridiculous the story really is while I was watching it. It’s a well-told story that asks an interesting question: what if time travel were possible, and somebody used it to go back into their own timeline and create an event that their future existence depended on? Would they then be ‘predestined’ to go on to live that life, or would they have a choice, could the control their own destiny?
It’s an interesting philosophical question because at many times in our own lives – as Daniel was suggesting with this prompt – we already ask ourselves if we are in control of our lives and our destiny as a human race as a whole, or if some events must occur. As John asks Ethan Hawke’s time agent before he realises he is his future self, “Yeah, but don’t you sometimes think that things are just inevitable?” To which the agent replies, “Yes, the thought had crossed my mind.” Throughout the film, the central character is faced with several choices between what is ‘predestined’ and what he/she wants. After falling in love with his past self as a woman, and remembering the hurt he caused himself, John is reluctant to leave Jane and tries to shoot the agent, before the agent explains to him what his destiny is.
Look, it’s all very complicated I know, but it’s an enjoyable film that imaginatively and philosophically asks the question, are we in control of our own destiny?
Sorry the posts are a bit light-on this week (slimmed down a better buzzword perhaps?), but it’s assessment time and I’m neck-deep in powerpoints about Airplane!, essays about financial rhetoric and, of course, the media one team assessment.
As I posted last week, so far I’ve done my article, and I’m hoping to complement it later this week with a twitter feed or blog roll that will hammer home our message of interactivity.
The big news since last update is that we’ve recorded our opening vlog. It hasn’t been uploaded yet (I’ll link it here when it is), but I think that it went well. The three of us (Dusty, Jac and I) recorded ourselves introducing our blog, and plan to insert video annotations to demonstrate the interactivity audiences have when looking at our site. We spoke to camera vlog-style, as we wanted to emulate the techniques of online video producers whose examples of interactive media we are exploring. It was a bit difficult to talk to camera without laughing or getting embarrassed, but we ended up with a video in which each of us took turns explaining the overall idea of the blog and what we’ve been doing individually.
Speaking of which, Dusty managed to score a cool interview with a popular instagram user that you can check out here. I’ll keep you posted for more updates; look forward to Jac’s photo essay on social media and some more interviews from Dusty.
Seeing as our lectorial yesterday was all about remix culture, which I’ve already blogged about, today I thought I’d upload an article I wrote for my group project about Twitter and TV audiences. It’s a bit long, and it needs a bit of polishing yet (it’s only a draft) but I hope you enjoy it!
It seems like an age ago that the symbol # simply meant a number; nowadays it is synonymous with the twitter hashtag, an online paper trail that links together conversations from hundreds of users around the world. When talking about the interactivity of modern TV audiences, it’s impossible to acknowledge the importance the humble hashtag has gained in allowing people to connect both with broadcast content and each other.
The very term ‘broadcast’ refers to mass communication, implying a universal form of entertainment that way uniformly experienced by a wide range of people. For the first fifty years, this was the truth of TV; even if audiences interpreted a TV show in different ways, it was still very much a one-way conversation in terms of their input into the creation of a show. Today, twitter (and social media) has changed all that. As Chris Copeland wrote in Adweek, “TV has a new love — that little blue Twitter bird.”
Stephanie Moritz in PRweek explains the “new kind of interactive TV” created by Twitter, saying that “Twitter and TV go hand in hand.” Moritz refers to the way in which audience members live, widely broadcast comments can be picked up by TV producers and in turn affect the way the show is made. While this has always been possible in slow motion (fans complaints must always be taken into consideration if a show is to be successful), Twitter makes that process instantaneous.
A simple example is that of The Block, an Australian renovation reality show that frequently shows fans’ tweets on the screen and invites them to take part in online quizzes that get broadcast at the end of an episode, the hashtag function allowing tweets about the show to be conveniently packaged into one stream. This gives viewers another level of engagement with the show that makes them feel like they are actively participating and interacting with the program.
But this isn’t complete interactivity, because it doesn’t affect the outcome of the show. A better example of this would be British comedy panel show The Last Leg, during which twitter polls are taken, fans’ joke answers to questions get read aloud and viewers have the chance to ask ‘#isitokay’ questions that form the basis of panelists’ discussions. Have a look at this example about The Great British Bakeoff:
As Moritz says, “a well-timed tweet can create an immediate buzz”, and there’s no doubt that interactive TV like this gets Hills’ audience engaged with the show; frequently he suggests humourous hashtags that trend on Twitter while the show is on air. But the importance of the hashtag relates not just to the interactivity of TV audiences to the show itself, but to each other: “viewers follow along on social media to converse with like-minded fans”, says Moritz. Twitter allows audiences to not just actively influence the content of a show, but to share, discuss, argue and bond with others with similar interests.
Furthermore, Twitter’s capacity for fostering interactivity has commercial benefits as well, such as more accurate TV ratings. Neilsen, who for many years have been in charge of measuring TV ratings, but have been limited by the ultimately uninformative single number that is how many households are watching a particular program at a particular time. It’s unfortunately a rather inaccurate number, as it’s difficult to distinguish between members of a household and to understand their qualitative engagement with a program. In the age of Twitter, however, Neilsen uses a set of four criteria to assess Tweets and create a new ratings system. There are a few flaws, such as the limited and specific demographic that uses Twitter, however as an accompaniment to the existing ratings system it provides valuable data about audience engagement.
However, it is important to remember that there are still many flaws in using Twitter as a tool to engage with TV audiences. Chris Copeland looks at the use of Twitter at the 2012 Grammy’s, and notices a few key difficulties, such as the sheer mass of tweets that can be created: “Since the volume of tweets (at 200,000 per minute) [during the 2012 Grammy’s] would be the equivalent of a full-length novel every hour, I’m guessing no one read every single comment made about the show.” It’s a valuable point; producers and consumers alike need to be able to filter tweets for relevance in order to be able to gain information and engagement from Twitter users. Furthermore, Copeland highlights the tendency of Twitter fans to focus on events rather than ongoing TV series, saying that “Massive watercooler moments like the Super Bowl, the Oscars or even the presidential elections are ideal for social TV . . . but it’s not there yet for social TV during the average drama or sitcom . . .” The article is a few years old now, and I would argue that Twitter users are tweeting more regularly now, but Copeland’s point is still relevant as big TV events still get much more Twitter coverage than ongoing series.
It has been argued that broadcast TV can bring us together by creating an experience that can be simultaneously shared by large populations, and the interactivity encouraged by Twitter only enhances this. As Stephanie Moritz writes, “TV is alive and social”, and we can only assume that the rise and rise of Twitter will lead to a greater and greater fluidity between TV producers and audiences
Today, I want to do a quick shout-out to one of my new favourite shows, The Checkout on ABC1.
The Checkout is all about consumer information, and breaking down myths about big-company bulldust and what rights consumers actually have. While it may not be about the media in terms of being about film or TV, it certainly discusses mediated communication, often in relation to advertising.
For example, one episode talked about the phenomenon of gendered marketing, particularly relevant to my post on colour a few days ago.
More recently, another episode discussed the advertising power of the word ‘natural’. The producers did a random survey of people on the street asking what expectations they would have of a product labelled ‘natural’. The results were unsurprising and not unreasonable; respondents said they would expect it to be organic, healthy and free of added fats or sugars. But of course, the Checkout crew found this wasn’t the case. The problem is, ‘natural’ is a very difficult word to define, which gives companies license to use it in just about any way they choose. Unhealthy, fatty, sugary foods can all be counted as ‘natural’ under the word’s vague definition.
Another great segment of the show, relevant to the advertising and photography side of media, is ‘product versus packshot’, in which footage of what an actual product looks like is compared to what it was shown to look like on the packet. Some classic examples include:
I don’t know that anyone actually expects things to look like they do on the packet, but it’s interesting nonetheless to see them side by side.
On the whole, the show is not only entertaining but provides some really valuable advice on how to avoid being screwed by big corporations. Check out the show on ABC iview or on Thursday nights at 8pm, so you can enjoy the show and so I don’t feel bad about all their stuff that I’ve embedded here 🙂
The schoolkid in me punched the air today to see that one of our readings for next week was actually a video (score!). Have a look:
https://vimeo.com/19447662
The video – and our other readings as well – brought up some really interesting points about originality that I felt linked really well to my course in literary studies.
The video above (by Kirby Ferguson) basically claims that everything is essentially a remix of everything that came before it, which is a concept we have been exploring in literary adaptations. At first, this may sound just plain wrong; surely there are plenty of stories that haven’t been told before?
That’s quite true, and to say that everything is a remix isn’t to say that it doesn’t have significant creative merit. It’s merely an acknowledgement of the fact that audiences have come to expect certain codes and conventions from media texts (see my post on semiotics for more information about this), and that most media texts will use – or ‘remix’ – these expected elements. It’s not, as Ferguson points out, a ‘conspiracy theory’, or even an attack on Hollywood originality; in fact, it’s often the adaptations of these conventions that makes a media text enjoyable.
For example, in addition to exploring direct homages and copies, Ferguson talks about adaptation of genre. Every media text that we consume can be seen to fit into a genre of some kind, and this is because of the conventions of the genre it adopts. For example, a film that ends with two protagonists falling in love would probably be described as a romance. In literary adaptations, we qualify this genre classification as an adaptation (or, in Ferguson’s words, a ‘remix’), because in adopting that stereotypical romance ending the film can be seen as adapting the storyline of every other romance film that ended the same way, from Romeo and Juliet to Twilight.
Furthermore, I would argue that, contrary to popular belief, this adaptation is not representative of a lack of originality but in fact contributes to the pleasure of engaging with a text. If the film showed the two protagonists dancing around each other for months, scared to profess their love and engaging in various catastrophic, comical events, but then ended without them getting together, I think as an audience we’d be disappointed. It’s because we’re so used to that genre’s formula that its unsatisfying when a media text doesn’t adapt that traditional storyline. That’s not to say that a film with an unhappy ending has to be unsatisfying, so much as it means it’s of a different genre. It’s this constant ‘remixing’ of existing plot structures that has led to cultural theorists such as Christopher Booker (what an appropriate name) to argue that all stories can be classified in certain set categories.
But having said all that in favour of adaptation, where do we draw the line? Where does something stop being a pleasant re-imagination of our existing expectations and start being a truly unoriginal copy? It’s an issue that’s particularly fraught with controversy when using the specific terminology of ‘remix’, so highly associated with the music industry. One of the other readings, which I personally felt was a little lengthy and irrelevant to our actual studies, nonetheless brought up the interesting idea of the impact of technology on remix or adaptation culture. Once upon a time, although you could use someone else’s idea in your own media text, you still needed to create the work from scratch. Now, technology has allowed users – from Hollywood producers to dolts like me with a decent laptop – to physically incorporate existing material into their own work.
At times, I think this can be a good thing for all parties involved. Earlier in the year, I wrote an essay for literary adaptations on the new Stephen Moffatt series Sherlock, and discussed in detail the enormous amount of fanfiction surrounding it. In addition to writing textual fanfiction, fans of the show have used graphic editing software to not only reimagine the show’s characters but to collide it with other texts. For example, there is a wide internet following of fanfiction known as SuperWhoLock, that combines the shows Sherlock, Doctor Who and Supernatural, such as this amazingly well-edited video by John Smith in which graphic editing allows two of the shows’ protagonists to meet:
I don’t think anyone can question the creativity of this work. Not only does this phenomenon of remixed fanfiction allow fans greater interaction with the show (I argued in the essay), it seems to have been well-received by the producers who playfully allude to Sherlock‘s fans in the show itself and who have suggested a cross-over episode may be in the works.
But of course there is a sinister side to this as well, especially when it comes to music culture. When artists such as Robin Thick or Colin Hay can be sued under the law for their songs merely having the same melodic structure as others, there’s no doubt that songs that actively use existing material will be held accountable as well. But is there no originality in remixed songs? I know I personally own a few Cedric Gervais remixes of Lana Del Ray songs that I wouldn’t have bought otherwise, simply because I like the remix far more than I like the original, despite their clear similarities. The remixes in question have actually sold quite well, so I can only assume that Lana Del Ray has recognised this creative input and is accepting of it.
It’s a fine line, and one that many have argued is still yet to be drawn as copyright and intellectual property law struggles to catch up with the technology that allows this new sensation of ‘remix culture’.
And considering that was my 963rd word (sorry for the essay guys!), I’m off to verify my credentials as the admin of a blog called Couch Potato. Toodle pip!
Tuesday’s lectorial was all about media institutions. Having already felt sorry for the students who have this as a topic for our next assessment, I was keen to learn more, and glad when Brian started by answering the question “what is an institution?”
In doing so, he asked us to look not at media but at the institution of marriage, and think about why we would define it as such. The points brought up were interesting and really translated to media institutions:
1. Legal requirements A part of being an institution definitely has to do with legal requirements. As marriage is bound by law (both in terms of the marriages recognised and not recognised by the law), so are institutions. For example, 2011-2012’s Leveson Inquiry in the UK led to criminal charges for many involved in News of The World‘s hacking scandal, demonstrating that as an institution it is bound by and held accountable to public law.
2. Values and ethics This was an interesting one, because it is clear that marriage values are different around the world; where in the West we idealise marriage as being the ultimate announcement of love, in India it is still common and somewhat acceptable for marriages to be arranged on the basis of compatibility or even mutual familial benefit. However, it is important to note that while these values differ, they exist in all forms of marriage and thus make it an institution. Similarly, while the values of institutions differ, most have some sort of code of ethics that they operate under. For example, just recently an SBS reporter was fired after tweeting controversially his disapproval of ANZAC day. It was not his right to his personal opinion that was in question, but rather the discord between this view and SBS’s core values of tolerance and respect.
3. Representation in popular culture Think the end of every Disney film ever. Think The Wedding Singer, or Four Weddings and a Funeral. Weddings are a pretty important part of our culture and so are reflected in much of our media. Similarly, media institutions are in turn reflected in our popular culture and our media. For example, stepping away from a corporation and looking at a broader institution, journalism is a concept that is often dissected in our popular culture. From Zoe Barnes in House of Cards to Will McAvoy in Aaron Sorkin’s The Newsroom, we often see journalists on screen and an examination of what journalism is, what good journalism is and what makes it what it is today. It’s this scrutiny that makes it an institution.
4. Money Or industry, perhaps, would be a better way to put it. One of the key factors that makes an institution an institution is in making money itself (such as a corporation), or its role in creating an industry that makes money. Looking at the wedding example, while you may not turn a profit in getting married yourself, it’s guaranteed that someone is: the caterers, the venue, the dress-makers, florists, bakers . . . When it comes to media, it’s hard to think of an institution that doesn’t make money. Even not-for-profit media institutions contribute to the industry, such as RMITV, which doesn’t make money itself but promotes the media industry and launches careers of talented young media-makers. (Like me 🙂 )
