RIP TV?

After our debate in ENGL 208 regarding the "death" vs. the "revolution" of television, I have truly thought about which I think will happen in the future. Although I think that the internet is becoming the newest fad, I don't think that TV will ever truly die. I guess my main reason for coming to this consensus would be the idea that TV promotes "family time". Even though some families may not sit down in front of a TV together, ultimately the TV and the living room in general is a place for people to gather and relax. When thinking about the internet and computers under the same lens, I feel that using the internet to watch TV would just not be comfortable or relaxing. How easy is it to just turn on your TV and watch a show? With the internet, you first have to find out where your program is being streamed, then make it work on your computer. In my experience, I have never really been that good with computers, so this option of watching TV on a 17" computer screen would not be something I would enjoy.

Another reason why I think that TV will never die, is because over the years TV has only become better. If you think about "better" in connection with the actual television, look how far we have come. Back when I was in grammar school, I was watching television on a 12" screen. At the time I thought it was like the best thing ever, but now sitting in front of my 50" widescreen wall-hanging HD television, I can't believe I ever watched television on anything else. Plus, not only have tv's physically come a LONG way in the past ten years, but look at all the things that have been offered on television. When turning on the TV, I think I have over 1000 channels that I can pick from. Even though sometimes this option is extremely annoying, I do love have endless choices of television programming to choose from.

In all reality, I don't think TV will ever "die". In class we talked about the radio, and I feel that if anything TV will just be a second option to watching your shows kind of like the radio has become to TV and the internet. For me, the internet just isn't feasible for watching television, although its possible to get pretty much anything you want on the internet with the click of a button, I can really do the same exact thing on my television using the "on demand" options and the various other things that Time Warner Cable now offers. So, in my opinion, I don't think that TV will ever die, it might take a backseat to the internet someday, but for the most part I think a lot of Americans enjoy the easiness of television and the relaxation that comes with it.

1,000 Channels and nothing to watch

As I sit here, watching TV and working on my class finals, I realize that we pay nearly $70 a month for digital cable and we watch only about 50 channels on a routine basis, most of which are on basic cable. I believe that we 'need' all of these channels because we have it programmed into our brains that more is better. However, more is not better in this situation; more is gaudy and redundant. After all, who needs 8 versions of ESPN or 12 versions of the Discovery Channel? The important and popular stuff will be shown on the first or second version of the channel, the other play the shows we have a tendency to make fun of, like "Monster Quest," "Pregnant and didn't know it," and "Ghost Quest." I truly hate to say it, but shows like this, though enjoyable, are by no means necessary.

The other day on the course discussion board, someone mentioned how we had a lot of marathons on TV. I feel that this is because we like having something we are comfortable with and a lot of it. One such great marathon is the 24 hour marathon of "A Christmas Story." We have it on every year pretty much from start to finish. My whole family can recite the whole movie and mimic the actors to a "T" because we love the story, it is easily accessible, and it is just fun. Another good marathon for the holidays is the "007 Days of Christmas," nothing like watching a suave British spy going around the world, killing people, and sleeping with random women to put you in the holiday spirit. I don't know about anyone else, but I love both of these holiday traditions.

However, during the rest of the year, TV is dry in terms of good, original programming. Most cable channels have "new" shows, but there are only about 5 plot series to follow. There is the medical drama, the housewife drama, the what-the-hell-is-going-on drama, the generic comedy, and the good-times-with-no-plot show.

TV is not original anymore, old shows are coming back or being redone, new shows are not exactly new, and we are very stuck in our ways in terms of what we view. This is why we have marathons and predictable television.

Television

In Class we discussed where we thought television would be in the future. I think that television is trying to compete with the availability of television shows on the internet, and that in the future people will be turning to programs on the internet more to watch television than actually sitting down to watch television. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that television is going to become obsolete. I just think that a lot of people don't have the time to sit down and watch a show at a certain time.

It's hard to set an allotted time to sit down and watch a show that you may like especially if you don't have the same schedule every week. Cable companies tried to make it easier to watch the television shows that you like by offering things like TiVo and DVR so people could record their shows. If you record your show, then you can fast forward through all of the commercials - which is nice because most people hate commercials. DVR is nice and everything, but it costs extra to have it. This is another reason why I think people go to the internet to watch shows more.


Right now, it's pretty much free to watch any show you want online. If you can't find it on a free streaming site, then you can usually find it somewhere else illegally. I personally hate having to find a show to download illegally, and would much rather pay a fee to watch the shows that I would like to watch. I don't think television is ever going to go away, but I think (and hope) that eventually we can just pay a fee online to watch only the shows that we would like to watch. The cable companies have too much power and I think if networks could figure out a way to make money off of streaming their episodes online, then the popularity of watching shows on the internet will increase.

The Televison will me revolutionized! Really?

I am not sure of other people's TV habits, but I know mine currently is little to non-existent. The only time I actually watch a program on a TV is when I am at my boyfriend's house. I personally do not have the time to invest in new programs nor the money to pay for cable or satellite providers. However, for the people that TV is a must in daily life, they choose to get programming in other forms- usually in other forms of technology such as streaming shows on the Internet or through their cellphone. Another way device producing companies fit their product to their comsumer, or, shall we say, tell the consumer that these devices, applications and add-ons are needed for them to make it through their day.

Will these new forms of technology affect the way programming to produced? On the theatrical aspect, I would say no, at least not directly. Whether the TV program is broadcast on a TV screen or computer screen, the scenes are filled and then produced. They do not film specifically for each medium. Where one will see a lot of change is in advertising. The type of ad and where and how it is distributed determines the value and the priced pay for that ad. This is where the sliding downhill begins. If Revenue collected from advertising decreases, job cuts will eventually be made throughout a company, leading to less people doing more work which causes less efficiency and creativity, especially if it is the material producers who are downsized which in the end leads to less entertaining TV with less people watching it so the prices keep going down. It's a harsh repeating circle.

This is why reality TV is so popular with production companies, probably not with writers, but with the big wigs for make all the money because they don't have any or very few actors and writers, build massive sets and always have that one person who loves the show and continues to watch week after week.

All in all, it is money that is the driving force of television programming. Many say that they have to listen to the consumer because if they don't produce programming the consumer likes, they won't watch. I'm sorry, but that is not true. There will also be people that watch. The TV companies , the music industry and the film industry tell you what you want to watch. One vampire book comes out and they say you now need more books and movies and tv shows about vampires and people eat it up. This will continue to happen until people get burned out on it; it's called a fad and companies will be the dead horse as long as they can.

New Age of Television

We have already discussed in class to some extent the potential future of television. Some people think that it will eventually be viewable on demand in some form. One of the ideas was that suggested was people being able to pick specific channels they wanted to watch and then just pay for those. Another idea was that you could eventually order specific shows you wanted and only pay for what you actually watched instead of a monthly bill for everything.

The other direction the conversation took by some people was that you would eventually be watching television on your computer via the internet and the television companies, or at least the service providers would be cut out of the proposition. That the internet would either replace the television completely or that it would do the same thing that television did to radio. Relegate it to a secondary position as a form of entertainment for the majority of Americans.

I argued something a little different. I suggested that there would be a marriage between the technologies of television and the internet. It's something that is already taking place and which recent evidence and events have suggested will happen soon. You can see that the networks have already started showing some of their shows on their websites online. In return for watching several minutes of commercials per episode you can watch shows like "The Office" online for free.

And just a couple days ago USA Today had an article about the next wave of television technology. Most of the major television companies already have plans to start producing televisions that you can hook up to the internet to watch shows on the television through your internet connection. They are evidently trying to keep this process as simple as possible in order to not scare away people who are computer incompetent.

I think eventually the networks will embrace this new possibility and start offering their programs through internet connections to televisions. And the television service providers will be forced to adapt to the new method of broadcasting or be forced out of the equation. In terms of technology being combined there is plenty of evidence from items in the past. Like palm pilots and phones and mp3 players being combined into a device that does all three but is called a cell phone. And even now it is happening with cell phones and camera's. As of yet i don't think there are any camera phones so good at taking pictures that they will replace camera's. But we are getting closer to that day. It is only a matter of time for television to be adapted by the internet.

The Ken Burns Revolution: Television and Film

A major omission of both Lotz's and Villarejo's textbooks on television and film is the failure to mention the noted documentarian Ken Burns. Ken Burns is one of the few filmmakers left who actually shoot their footage on celluloid, and edit it manually. I will discuss about some of his best works and talk about how he has revolutionized both film and telelvision.

Ken Burns, started out working by producing 1-2 hour films, made for PBS, back in the early 1980s. By the mid-1980s, one of his films, "The Statue of Liberty," was nominated for an Academy Award. It was at this same time he premiered his "Huey Long" film in theatres. Ken Burns was still an unknown in the film and television world, but that would all change by 1990. During that year, Burns aired his first serious work, "The Civil War," which ran at an 11 hour running time. Although broken up into five segments, it reached 40 million viewers, unheard of for public television. To this day, it has remained his best and critically acclaimed work. Instead of using old film footage of recreated Civil War battles by actors, Burns used various camera movements to bring old paintings and photographs from the Civil War to life. One of his camera movements is named the "Ken Burns Effect," in which various panning and scanning movements are used to bring life to still images.

Since 1990, Ken Burns has produced several documentary epics, such as "Baseball," "Jazz," "The War," and "The National Parks." While watching a behind the scenes documentary on Ken Burns' films, he has a small production company based out of Walpole, New Hampshire, with a staff of about 10 to 12 people. Everything from the research aspect to the editing aspect is done with minimal use of computers. The footage is shot on actual celluoid film, left to develop and dry, and editied by hand. Even sound effects and voice-overs are preserved on magnetic tape. This by no means indicates that Burns is not with the times. He makes most of his money with licensing fees and lending his name to no more than 25 compact discs made for his "Jazz" film, all containing digitally remastered vintage recordings.

Although Ken Burns does not air his films on commercial television or in theatres, he makes notices to public television as being the best place for his works. I agree, because channels such as Discovery and TLC have lost most of their identity where education is concerned, turning into pop culture stations. PBS has and still hasn't lost its identity over the past 40-odd years with educational programming. I myself couldn't see Burns premiering his films on TLC, with 5-10 minute commercial breaks. He has built a credibility and identity with public television. Credit must go where credit is due.

Just as a sidenote to wrap things up, Ken Burns and all his films can be accessed at his company's website: Florentine Films. YouTube has many videos of his works. I used a segment of his film "Jazz" for one of my classes. And last but not least, a picture of Burns is at the top of this post. I didn't know what he looked like until 2004, when I saw that behind the scenes documentary at that time.

Television and Video Games

I am of the opinion that playing video games is better than watching television. When you watch television youare sitting and watching the screen without interacting at all. When you play video games at least you are doing something more than just watching. You are actually thinking because you are in control of what is happening. Depending on the game you might actually be thinking quite hard if you are for example trying to solve a puzzle. Or coming up with a strategy to accomplish a certain goal in the game.

When you are watching television you may be thinking but only to the extent of understanding the plot. Where as in a video game you need to understand the plot and control and navigate the game skillfully enough to not lose. Although i don't think all games fit into the category i am talking about. Simple games like Warblade that have you performing nearly mindless repetitive tasks may require you to interact but not very much. But in many more complex games puzzle solving is a major aspect of the game and requires you to actually use your brain to solve the puzzle.

There are television shows that require you to think more, like game shows if you are competing with the contestants from your couch. But the majority of shows simply require that you watch in order to understand what is going on. I know that i personally feel much more engaged when i'm playing a game and actually need to think in order to proceed.