FINAL REFLECTION

My role for our final project exhibition was being one of our studio representatives. I worked alongside Breht and communicated with Hafiza and Saffron, the Playback Media Festival’s representatives, to update them on our class’ process, including the outcome of our pitches and how we planned to advertise our exhibition. Essentially, we acted as a vessel between our studio class (RC1B) and the festival studio. We also took part in recording/taking photos of BTS for our studio trailer as well, with a lot of help from Bella as well.

Our studio website 

Our final large-scale production was a two-episode series called Fans vs. Fraud. Our goal was to create a show that would reveal how identity, knowledge, and social cues operate in media spaces. We leaned into a format that balances entertainment with subtle commentary on authenticity and group dynamics. Timberg (2002, pp. 1–18) describes how talk-based formats often reflect socialisation. Our show extended that idea by using social intuition and media literacy, aiming to provoke both laughter and thought. When it came to our exhibition day, it was fun to see how the audience laughed at these real interactions that our contestants had. By casting a unique range of people for each episode, it showed that you can’t always tell if someone is a real fan or a fraud.

Because we chose a premise with a really simple set, it allowed us to make a really clean and dynamic final look for our two episodes, which I think is the most successful aspect of our final work. Our focus on lighting was heavily complimented by viewers and with the plain black background, it looked even more visible and enticing. I think this gave our whole show a signature look that really brought it all together. Alongside this visual aspect, we didn’t overdo the graphics, and it meant that it was easier for me as director’s assistant to cue everything to the crew as I kept time. It also kept the run-sheet simpler, which was really important for our first attempt at a large-scale production.

However, the most problematic aspect emerged during the second shoot itself (which I was assistant director on) and it was specifically around camera angles. We only had four contestants instead of five, the symmetry was slightly off compared to the first episode. More importantly, during pre-production there was a miscommunication between the producers and the director regarding which types of camera shots were prioritised for key moments, such as the hot seat segment. The director wanted to cut out the wide shot, but the producers were adamant that we couldn’t remove it. Without a shared visual plan, decisions had to be made on the fly, which led to tension on set and visible frustration among the team. This conflict highlighted what Dwyer (2019, pp. 49–55) describes as the critical importance of coordination in studio production, where “creative and technical elements must be tightly integrated.” Our experience showed how a lack of alignment during pre-production, such as the lack of a shot list, can impact both workflow and morale.

If given the opportunity, I would love to extend Fans vs Fraud into a series, as I believe this format thrives when there’s space to explore different themes and perspectives. For example, in future episodes, we could experiment with not revealing the fraud to the audience at the start, allowing them to play along and become more actively engaged. This would shift the experience from passive viewing to interactive participation. As Butler (2018, pp. 185–198) notes, television style isn’t just about visuals. It’s about how form and structure guide the viewer’s interpretation and emotional investment. If every episode follows the same formula, the novelty wears off. Introducing new twists, like theming episodes around niche fandoms or adding surprise segments, could help us avoid that repetitiveness while reinforcing dynamic visuals and rhythm.

While having a large crew meant we had a wide range of perspectives and ideas, it often made it difficult to reach clear, fair decisions. This is especially during moments when creative direction clashed with logistics. At times, too many competing voices created confusion, and we lacked a consistent process for resolving disagreements. This became particularly clear during debates around set layout and camera coverage, where conflicting priorities delayed progress and some mild animosity on set. Dwyer (2019, pp. 49–55) notes that successful studio production depends on clear delegation and a shared understanding of roles. Moving forward, I would encourage more physical meetings between the crew, so that we can get more opinions before final decisions are made. For example, the decision made for the episode topics was only really discussed by the producers and writers. If we had a full class discussion so that more people could share their ideas, we could have come up with something that would be interesting to a larger audience, which would be important for the pilot episodes.

Following that, one of the most important takeaways I’ve had about collaboration is that strong communication in pre-production sets the foundation for everything that follows. Pre-production is not just about logistics, it’s about building trust and clarity across the crew. Without the consistent communication I had with the director and other key team members, we could have dealt with more conflict on the day. Dwyer (2019, pp. 49–55) argues that studio production is inherently interdependent. This means that creative alignment and role clarity are essential. While our team had moments of great synergy, I’ve learned that fostering stronger working relationships early on allows for smoother decision-making under pressure. I would also want to ensure everyone feels confident in the shared vision.

Overall, taking part in such a large-scale studio production has given me a deeper appreciation for the complexity and collaboration involved in professional live shows. I’ve learnt that every single role is essential to the success of the final product. The experience has not only developed my technical skills, but also reshaped the way I think about teamwork, creative decision-making, and the craft of television production.

References

• Butler, JG (2018), Television: Visual storytelling and screen culture, 5th edition, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 185–198.

  Dwyer, P (2019), Understanding media production, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 49–55.

  Timberg, BM (2002), Television talk: A history of the TV talk show, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 1–18.

Week #8

https://www.mediafactory.org.au/chloe-roussy/2025/05/03/ready-camera-one-blog-post-7/ 

Week #9

https://www.mediafactory.org.au/chloe-roussy/2025/05/10/ready-camera-one-blog-post-8/

Week #10

https://www.mediafactory.org.au/chloe-roussy/2025/05/16/ready-camera-one-blog-post-9/  

Week #11

https://www.mediafactory.org.au/chloe-roussy/2025/05/23/ready-camera-one-blog-post-4-2/

Production Dossier 

Shared folder

Week 11

As I didn’t have a formal role for the first episode, I used the opportunity to take behind-the-scenes photos (as one of our studio representatives) and closely observe the production process. I also took notes on the challenges we faced so I can help prevent similar issues in the second episode, where I’ll be stepping into the role of Director’s Assistant.

A huge thing I noticed this week was how dependent a lot of the crew are on the director’s assistant for cues, and I think that did put more pressure on me to make the most intensive yet easy-to-read run-sheet, as I will be the Director’s Assistant for episode 2. Another thing I am planning to do on the second episode is communicate with each crew group, including audio, EVS and GFX teams/individuals to ensure that my cues make sense to them. Drawing from Utterback’s concept of pre-production as a “visualisation process” (2023), I’ve come to understand how much of the prep work is about forecasting potential issues and making decisions that bring clarity and structure to the live day. It’s not just about having a run-sheet—it’s about “rundown literacy”: making sure every crew member, from audio to EVS to GFX, understands their role within it. To support this, I plan to individually brief each team and highlight their specific cues within the document.

Pre-production collaboration with the Director, Kiara, has also been essential. Having worked together previously, we already have a strong working relationship. I plan to consult her closely on the run-sheet to ensure she’s comfortable delegating cues to me, allowing her to focus more on vision-switching and camera cutting. In episode one, many responsibilities defaulted to the Director simply because she had authored the run-sheet. I hope that by better distributing the roles between Director and Director’s Assistant, we can streamline communication and reduce on-the-day stress. Another thing I noticed was how the lack of planned breaks between each segment left the contestants a bit confused and unsure of what the next segment would be or if they could get up, get a fresh breath of air or stretch their legs before the next thing. I think that as I’m writing up the run-sheet, I should place pre-planned breaks so that there’s a clear cut each time we finish a segment.

Finally, I noticed that the episode’s ending, while dramatic, lacked closure. I’ll be proposing a new optional mini-segment to Kiara, where each contestant briefly explains their final vote. This could not only enrich the storytelling but also give the audience insight into player strategy.

Overall, the first taping was a valuable learning experience. Moving from small-scale productions to a full-class collaboration has revealed the complexity and the reward of well-executed live studio work. I’m proud of what we achieved and excited to refine our process moving forward!

Reference/s:

• Utterback, A. (2023). Studio Television Production and Directing: Concepts, Equipment, and Procedures (chapter 7),  Taylor & Francis Group

Week 10

This week, we’re in full swing preparing for our large-scale studio production. A major focus has been on sorting out our set and lighting. Since our setup is quite minimal (just four chairs on stage), the lighting has become one of the most important visual elements in creating an interesting atmosphere for our show. The lighting team and producers spent significant time experimenting with different colour palettes and overhead light movements to enhance the visual dynamics of the show.

Reflecting back on Dwyer’s reflection (2019) on the perception of studio television as being ‘styleless’ compared to features and filmed series, I’ve now witnessed how misleading and untrue this assumption is. The range of style design and focus on lighting really made the most out of our set. Although the studio is a smaller space which means some constraints for angles and visual depth, it doesn’t mean you can’t make a stylised and sleek look for a studio show. As I watched the lighting team test how we would achieve the ‘hot seat’ look, through sharper and isolated lighting, it became clear how crucial these elements are in storytelling. Pre-production is extremely vital to ensuring that it runs smoothly and that it’ll look exactly how the producers imagined it to be. I think what is most stressful about this stage is that it is almost a rehearsal for the live episodes, and not a lot of editing is going into it. Camera cuts and ensuring all audio, evs and graphics are cued will only mostly be confirmed on the day of recording.

As I don’t have a official role for our first episode, I am starting to focus on pre-production for episode 2 this week. As the script has been written, I’ve got a head-start for making the run-sheet for the next episode. I am currently consulting the Writer and Director of the second episode, Kiara, and making sure we communicate as we will be sat together and working together on the day. This is important in the pre-production stage, as establishing a clear flow and shared vision will ensure that  everything will run smoothly.

In terms of what I think could be done differently, I think that we could have had a more open floor when it came to sharing ideas. I do think that we could have voted for our episode themes, instead of only going off of the producers’ choices, just to get a better idea of what most people find entertaining, as this would appeal to a larger audience. Also, if it appeals to larger audiences, it probably means it would be easier to find talent.

Overall, I’m really excited to continue building on this momentum as we prepare for both episodes to go live!

Reference/s:

• Dwyer, P. (2019). Understanding Media Production (chapter 3). Routledge.

Week 9

Through this reading, I recognise the theatrics of live media and live shows. There’s a certain level of strategy and time needed to ensure a smooth performance. As discussed in last week’s presentations, I think that casting is also important to this aspect. Being able to move and perform for the show (not saying that it needs to be  a fake performance), and inducing more personality and excitement is necessary to create an engaging show that people will continue to watch again and again.

Palmer’s description of live stage events as a “modern hybridization of stage and screen via cutting-edge technology” (2023) was really interesting to me when thinking about how live television has been ‘cheapened’ or seen as less cinematography-based. In actuality, Palmer delves into the idea that this is not so relevant. Instead, we should be focussing more on the vast opportunities there are when it come to live studios and the type of media that can be created through this format.

If I ever have the chance to create a new large-scale production in a studio, I’d consider being more creative in my ideas. Delving into more fictional elements in a production would be an interesting way to tell a story live, and would also challenge the idea that live studio media is confined to just a few select productions such as news segments and game shows. Additionally, utilising a live studio for scenes in a short film would be really interesting. I question whether or not the smaller space would blend well with scenes set outside of the studio if the set being a studio wasn’t a part of the story. 

In terms of our large-scale production, we have decided as a group to move forward with the Undercover Fan (name TBC) idea. Although this will be a game show live production, I think utilising the pre-production stages of the episodes will be important like in theatrical television, and as Director’s Assistant in the second episode, I will need to consider this alongside making a run-sheet ahead of time. However, as most of the individuals on the show will be seated, I guess the prep will be more to do with picking the right cast members who can shift the story and entertainment for viewers, rather than the physical movement of the cameras and individuals in the shots.

Reference/s:

• Palmer, L. (2023). Engineering the ‘Sense of Being There’: Electronovision and the Invention of the Stage Performance Documentary. Historical journal of film, radio and television, 43(4): pp.1157-1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/01439685.2023.2218050

Week 8

This week my group (Bella, Breht, Fida and I) pitched our idea for a potential large scale production for our Ready Camera One class. Our idea was based around a sustainable competition game show where 2 duos work to create an outfit per duo using secondhand materials, clothes or fabrics. Our unconfirmed title for our show was Rag 2 Runway with a few other title ideas we wanted advice from the class in terms of what was more ear-catching. As a class, most people voted for Wardrobe Wars which I believe is because it’s short and uses alliteration.

I really appreciated the feedback from the judges and class, especially in holding us accountable for the sustainability aspect of our idea. If we were to ever pick up this idea and try to implement it for RMITV, this would be really important to consider. Through this, we discussed what type of contestants we would choose and although initially, we planned to pick random people with little to no textiles experience, the judges suggested considering RMIT fashion students, as they would have more experience thus lead to less wastage with the final outfits and use of materials. Their creations would also further encourage people to partake in slow fashion whilst also getting their designs out there, which is a great cause.

The judges questioned us on how we would fit all these different segments into 25 minute episodes. Realistically, we would have to cut out some segments and focus more on the outfit-building parts of our show, as the judges pointed out how long all of these segments would end up taking, as making an outfit in 25 minutes is already a difficult feat minus all our ideas for segments such as ‘fashion trivia’ and ‘making an accessory’.

I think going into this idea as a group we realised it would have been a really big task for us to complete within the time frame, with many constraints, so with the advice from the judges we mostly accepted that it probably wouldn’t be the most feasible idea for the class production.

I thought the group that pitched the Hidden Talent‘s show idea was really interesting and different to our idea, with a focus on drama, blending social, physical and strategic challenges. I can imagine how fun it would be to watch and to be a part of the production. It sounded like a very unique concept, and I thought it was really interesting how the casting that they mentioned was very different to ours, more focussed on bigger personalities to drive the entertainment and audience engagement. The discussions they had with the judges also made it clear to me how important casting is in reality TV, which is something I hadn’t thought about prior to the presentations, and will definitely consider in future productions. I was also very impressed by their timeline, I think this gave them an extra level of professionalism that I think would make them appeal to a panel of judges.

Our final live recorded game show, ‘Budget Buddies’ 

Week 6

Reflecting on our Budget Buddies game show project, I was genuinely proud of what our team accomplished, both technically and in terms of entertainment value. The graphics looked polished and cohesive, our host was charismatic and engaging, and the sound effects complemented the energy of the show perfectly. Our director and DA worked smoothly together, maintaining a strong rhythm and supporting the team through any hiccups during the live taping.

One of the biggest strengths of our group was our collaboration. Everyone supported one another and stayed focused, even when things got slightly off track. Although I couldn’t rehearse vision-switching beforehand, I familiarised myself with the switchboard setup before we went live, which helped me feel more prepared. For the most part, our communication flowed well, but there were some minor issues. For instance, during the cue for the EVS video, there was a miscommunication: the director told me to cut to a graphic, and I mistakenly hit the wrong button on the switchboard, switching to GFX 1 (a black screen) instead of the EVS. Thankfully, our studio leader Ruth quickly stepped in and corrected it. Another hiccup happened during the bonus round, when we had to wrap up quickly—there was some confusion with sound cues, and we ended up playing the ‘thinking’ music instead of the ‘winner’ music.

Going forward, I’ve learned that clear communication is absolutely essential in a live multi-camera environment. In the future, we need to clarify beforehand who is communicating with whom, particularly between the director, camera operators, and the vision switcher. This would reduce confusion and create a more smooth workflow. Overall, this project was a valuable learning experience in technical coordination and collaborative teamwork. It also reinforced the importance of adaptability under pressure, especially when working in a live studio context.

Group folder: Jess, Chloe, Kiara, Tess, Phoebe, Breht, Bella

Week 4 blog: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/chloe-roussy/2025/03/29/ready-camera-one-blog-post-4/

Week 5 blog: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/chloe-roussy/2025/04/05/ready-camera-one-blog-post-5/

Week 6 blog: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/chloe-roussy/2025/04/12/ready-camera-one-blog-post-6/

Week 5

This week we got into our groups for our game show assignment, and thankfully, my team member (and now director) Kiara already had a clear concept in mind: Budget Buddies—a game show based on grocery shopping and the cost of ingredients. I was assigned the role of vision switcher, which I’m actually excited about since it’s something I haven’t tried before. Because vision-switching can’t be rehearsed until we’re in the studio, most of my preparation will involve supporting my group members during the pre-production process and making sure I understand the run sheet and flow of the show inside-out.

Our group has been actively communicating through a group chat and regularly updating each other on our progress. Jess has been busy designing all of our on-screen graphics, and multiple team members have been refining the script and run sheet to make sure everything runs smoothly on shoot day.

In relation to this, Holmes (2008) discusses the idea of a quiz or game show’s “repertoire of elements,” a concept we’ve been keeping in mind throughout our planning. These elements include the setting (a stylised studio space), characters (our host and 2–4 contestants), narrative (a clear, goal-oriented structure), iconography (visual cues associated with the game show genre), and style (the overall visual and narrative structure of the show). Understanding these components has helped us stay on track and build something that feels genre-appropriate while still being original. As we move closer to production day, I’m becoming more aware of how each team member’s contribution shapes the final product, and how important it is to stay communicative in a collaborative environment like this.

It’s been great to see how this theory from class directly connects to what we’re producing, and I’m looking forward to seeing how it all comes together during the taping next week.

Reference/s:

• Holmes, S., 2008. Quiz Show, Chapter one: Genre and the Quiz Show, Edinburgh University Press.

Week 4

This week in class we discussed the concept of nostalgia, which I thought was really interesting when looking at that in terms of camera setups in Television shows. I initially thought single-camera shows created a certain intimacy with the viewer, as if inviting us into a more personal or realistic world. However, after our discussion, I realised that the traditional multi-camera sitcom format cultivates a deep sense of nostalgia. As Winckler (2024) puts it, “television’s repetitive, reliable and ritualistic rhythms allow viewers to reconnect with a pre-modern sense in which time was experienced mostly as a cycle of seasons and festivals.” This helped me understand why shows like WandaVision are so effective. By mimicking the aesthetics and structure of classic sitcoms, the show taps into an aesthetic that is both comforting and familiar.

We also explored the use of laugh tracks and how they may or may not work against the genre, and how it feels inauthentic and authentic at the same time. On one hand, they contribute to the nostalgic atmosphere by reinforcing genre conventions that audiences associate with older shows. On the other, they can feel artificial, breaking the illusion of realism. This made me think more critically about how stylistic choices influence audience perception, both visually and emotionally. In another example that we watched in class, Kevin Can F**k Himself, the jump from stylistically sitcom-esque to drama-esque visuals demonstrates how lighting and the number of cameras can drastically change the mood and interpretation of a scene. From comedic and lighthearted to serious and emotionally raw, and highlighting the contrast between the protagonist’s public and private realities.

This discussion has made me more aware of how we might approach future studio projects. I think it’ll be important to consider how certain elements such as laugh tracks, lighting and camera angles shape the tone, mood and interpretation of the the production. Whether we choose to evoke the feeling of nostalgia or to disrupt it, being aware of these tools can help us to create a more emotionally resonant content.

Reference/s:

• Winckler, R. (2024). Sitcom as refuge, sitcom as prison: Nostalgia, anti-nostalgia, and the embedded multi-camera sitcom in WandaVision and Kevin Can F**k Himself. The Journal of Popular Culture, 57(4), pp.221-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpcu.13337Links to an external site.