Why We Like TV So Much

When thinking about television, I started to ask myself, "what do I enjoy about TV programs so much that I spend mass amounts of time either watching them on broadcast television or spend money on DVD box sets of shows of TV's past?"

I believe that one of the reasons is escapism, much like many other forms of entertainment. People relax after a long day of work or school by putting aside the responsibilities of life and not thinking about the real issues that plague us in reality. It's voyeurism at it's best: we can follow along a journey, travel to undiscovered places in the world, fight evil, have sex with good looking people and not have to worry about paying bills or getting a job done. The viewer can live vicariously through the characters without any mental or physical danger.

It is also the place where the improbable can be possible. Having mystical powers or being a secret agent even though your just housewife holding a family together. This allows the viewer to go from feeling ordinary to extraordinary. Apparently the lives of millions of people are unsatisfying and lacking of excitement, we much get it from fake images of people who do not exist in situations that are highly unlikely.

The question is: is this a bad thing or a good thing?

My answer would be both; it all depends on the individual. The amount in which an individual is participating in using television programs as an outlet and to the extent in which is affects the reality of that people. I love the TV show Seinfeld, but I do not try to get myself into similar situations to make a parallel from TV to reality. There are people who do cross these boundaries however, most of which have mental illnesses that are aggravated by obsession.

But who doesn't enjoy stepping outside of their selves once and while? The important part is though is remembering to step back in.

TV

With the rising of the internet everyone has been wondering whats going to happen with TV. In class we discussed whether or not the TV is going to stay around or eventually die. I belive that it could go either way. The TV has been around a lot longer then the internet and it is still growing, now that you can pause, rewind, fast forward, record etc. the TV is much more pleasureable you can always find something on with demand, no one likes commericals so you can just skip right through them, and if you have something else going its very simple to just record your show and watch it later. On the other hand you still have to buy the equpiment to do this and hook it up to the TV. When instead you can just go online and watch the TV show you missed.

Computers are growing you can watch full TV shows on the internet, and the screens are being made larger for this very reason too. Movies a simple DVD you can pop right into the computer and watch it without hassling with the remote. This is sensible for newer gentertaions but older generations who don't know how to use a computer having no TV just doesn't make sense. The other problem with watching TV shows online is that its not so demand you have to wait a day or two after it airs in order to watch it online.

TV's are stuggling hard to beat the internet watching generation by making TV screens massive, and even now you can projectors in your home just like at a movie theatre almost and the way the television is evolving it might just be possible that it will make it through the internet generation just like radio is making due.

Is Lost considered Science Fiction

Recently the Sci-Fi channel (which is now the SyFy channel, not a fan of the name change) started playing old episodes of Lost. This has got me thinking about whether or not Lost can really be considered Science Fiction. For anyone not familiar with the show, it is basically about a group of people with interconnected back stories whose plane crashes on a mysterious island where strange things happen. A crippled man is healed and can walk, people start seeing their dead relatives, and an unseen group of apparently indigenous people abduct some of the survivors. If you haven't seen it and are thinking about getting into it you should be careful. It's like the crack of TV shows.

What seems to happen frequently in Lost is that something fantastic and seemingly unexplainable will happen and characters have different views as to whether to try and interpret things rationally or believe that there is some sort of supernatural force at work. Consequently it is also largely up to the viewer to decide what they believe about what is going on. As the plot progresses, some of the fantastic things are explained rationally and scientifically while others are left up in the air and still other mysteries are introduced.

The author of another blog post I read ultimately decided that we will not be able to categorize Lost into a genre until the series is over and we know the true explanations of all of the mysteries that have been introduced. Check it out here. I can see how this conclusion makes sense. If all things are explained rationally then the series is science fiction but if it turns out that Locke was right all along and there is a supernatural/magical element then the series is fantasy.

As good as that sounds I have a problem with the idea that the genre of a work is contingent upon the ending. Suppose for some reason the producers of Lost decide not to air the last season and destroy all the evidence that it was ever produced. How would we categorize Lost then based only on what we have if we were never going to know the ending? I think that we need a better method for placing a work into a genre where we do not have to wait until the end in order to know what we are watching or reading.

I think in order to place a work in a genre we need to take a look at what is essential to the work itself. What ultimately drives the work and makes it interesting for readers or viewers? I think that in works of Science Fiction it is the explanations and ramifications of various non-existent but plausible technologies. In fantasy it is the creation of an alternate world or the introduction of a magical element to our own world. The more interesting, original, and imaginative the world or element is the better.

Though Lost does both of those things to some degree I think there are two things that are really essential to the series. One is the mysteries themselves. Regardless of the explanations and answers the introduction of fantastic and mysterious elements keeps people watching (makes it the crack of TV shows). Because of this I would classify Lost as a mystery.

The second thing essential to Lost is the intricate web of character's back stories. Each character seems to be on a kind of journey in life with the ultimate goal of redemption. The culminating point of all of these interlocking journeys is the island. Because the back stories follow this kind of pattern and also because of the grand scale of the series in general,I would classify Lost as an epic. So though Lost contains both elements of Fantasy and Science Fiction I ultimately think that the best genre classification I can give it would be Epic Mystery.

As far as where the series is going and what the answers are going to be...I have no idea but there will be hell to pay if I am disappointed.

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.

Don't Let Television Die!

OK, so apparently my family is way behind the times when it comes to television. We still have basic cable, which is generally the same 50 channels we've had for as long as I can remember. We've never had a dish or digital cable, which also means we've never had a DVR. I've never had one, used one, or really even seen one. My family still has nights when we clear an hour (or 2) to sit down (sometimes together, sometimes on our own) to watch our favorite TV shows. For example, we all watch How I Met Your Mother and Big Bang Theory on Monday nights. When the next (and final) season of Lost starts we will drop everything to watch that when it's on. And yes, we sit through the commercials, this is usually when we will get a snack or go to the bathroom or simply just talk. Maybe other families didn't do things like this together and that makes it easier for them to abandon TV, but sitting around the TV at 8 or 9pm every night was "family time" (along with dinner of course).

I hate it when I ask someone if they caught last night's episode of (insert TV show) and they're like no, but I DVR'd it. It's like well I wanted to talk about how this character ended up being a psycho killer, but since you haven't seen the past 3 million episodes I'll just go talk to myself about it. I totally agree that Tivo was a great invention, it's a really big pain when I have work or classes and miss a show that I like, but it seems like it's just making people even lazier. I can't help but conjure up images from Wall-E and Click. If you have seen them you know what I mean, if you haven't, where the heck have you been?

I do also agree that TV isn't what it used to be. I don't get the whole CSI and reality TV thing. Like it was said in class, it was awesome in the beginning, but now it's just completely redundant and no one cares anymore. I miss the unity certain TV programs and shows gave us. Maybe it was just because of the small town environment, but I don't know one kid that didn't watch TGIF Friday nights and One Saturday Morning on ABC. If someone didn't watch them when I was in elementary school, they were considered weird and a dork. That was what you did and for many years everyone followed the shows that aired Friday nights and Saturday mornings. I mean 90's TV was awesome, plain and simple. Boy Meets World, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Step by Step, Looney Tunes, Goosebumps, Hanging with Mr. Cooper, Bill Nye, Rugrats, Rocko's Modern Life, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego... the list could go on forever, but I digress. Needless to say, I miss those days and the television that went along with it, before the internet was a common household commodity.

Another thing that I don't do too much of (and my parents don't do at all) is watch TV on the internet. Unless I miss an episode of my favorite show I don't watch things online for the most part. Frankly, I find it a bit ridiculous. Why would I sit uncomfortably hunched over to watch something on a 17" computer screen days after an episode actually aired when I can watch it while it's airing for the first time on my 40" TV while sitting comfortably on my bed? Also, my internet is not reliable at all. Half the time I have to drive to campus just to use the computers because my internet isn't working or my computer doesn't have the latest software.

Maybe it's just the way my family was/is, but my whole life my family has centered a lot on TV, TV shows, and movies. Every Halloween we would watch It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown and of course all the Christmas specials at Christmas time. We still watch some shows together, but not that often because every one's busy with their own lives, but I will carry the great times my family spent around the television set my entire life. If that makes me sound like a fat and lazy American so be it, but it's hard to think that I might not be able to do the same thing with my children someday. It would definitely be a big change if television were to "die" and it'd be sad to see it disappear from our media culture.

Welcoming New Student Authors to sf@SF

This semester I'm teaching 2 courses that are going to stretch the boundaries of this blog's "science fiction at SUNY Fredonia" focus. American Popular and Mass Cultures looks at fantasy, comic books, video games, tv, and film in addition to science fiction, while Major Writers: Tolkien, Donaldson, Pullman focuses primarily on fantasy. In both courses, I'm requiring a certain number of blog posts from everyone--whether here or on their own blogs (which I'll link to)--and expecting everyone to be reading, commenting on, and responding to each other's writing. The dialogues that I hope to see emerge here will be the public face of what goes on in class discussions and on our ANGEL discussion forum, which are for class members only, but will hopefully go beyond the limitations of the 50-minute class meeting or the quick-hit nature of a discussion board. Our common text to start the semester, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring (and the Peter Jackson movie based on it) should give us enough of a common ground to get some discussions going. Let's see what comes of them!