Monday, February 27, 2012
While it is certainly important to question and complicate the traditional narrative of commercial concerns as a burden on artistic expression, I can’t help but feel that perhaps Roberts is understating the degree to which economic needs constrain creative output. While TV executives may certainly give lip service to innovation, I feel this study could have benefitted from a discussion of the cycle of “innovation, imitation, and saturation” which Communication scholars sometimes talk about. Certainly innovative shows do exist, and certainly studios and production companies sometimes take risks on content, but more often it makes more sense for them to follow the trail that others have blazed.
It is my opinion that although yes there has been an increased amount of communication between Creative and Commercial, as Rogers says, the industry is clearly dominated by the commercial risks. Anymore we see studios fighting battles over who can get the rights to popular books, especially those that come in a multiple part series. The people in the Commercial sectors can be almost sure that because of PREVIOUS success, these movies will be profitable. This is the point when it seems Creative gets involved, but it is still not until after the fact when the people in charge of Commercial aspects have made up their mind about what needs to be created.
Although it is a shame that it seems some creative aspects have been extracted out of Hollywood, people have to remember that it is still essentially a business. If movies or TV Shows flop, people lose their jobs and sometimes studios will have to go bankrupt. Two of the best examples I can think of personally in recent history would have to be the Harry Potter movie series and the Toy Story Series. Both were done a little differently in terms of timing and release but in both cases the hype and popularity for each case almost created as some business men say are their two favorite words, "sure thing." I argue that commercial does have a say over creative at the moment, and if you dont believe me, here is one of the most hyped upcoming movies...
Sunday, February 26, 2012
A person only needs to look at The Walt Disney Corporation to see this trend. Every movie that appears in theaters is accompanied by toys, apparel, and even new attractions and characters at Disney parks. It's a system that feeds into itself over and over again; a family goes to see Disney's "Tangled" in theaters, they then travel to Walt Disney World so that they can meet Repunzel, and while they are there, they purchase Repunzel dresses and tiaras--and when they return home, the kids continue to watch the story and re-live it through their experiences with the real Repunzel.
So maybe "Tangled" isn't a new story. It is, after all, based on a classic fairytale. However, many parents felt that there was a need for a more independent and modern Disney Princess--and Repunzel certainly fits that bill. The fact that someone will typically wait two hours to see her at any Disney park speaks to her success. Perhaps, as Roberts argues, we have to work with a different definition of innovation. If we attempted that, we may discover that there is more innovation than we have anticipated, and that commercial and creative drives can work hand in hand in the production of film.
Friday, February 24, 2012
The continual usage of successful companies allows for security in the creation, distribution and marketing of the film. With successful producers, recognized production studios and successful marketing, it is not a surprise that this structure has been created amongst industry players to allow for effective ways to create films. There is also economic security in utilizing pacts in the creation of films. Wasko outlines these economic gains when telling us what categorizes pacts. The industry has a whole is effected by this systematized method, creating an economically driven film industry.
Pacts are not without consequences however. The set structure and companies that are used under these pacts changes the ability for the creation of truly independent films, mostly due to economic limitations. Financiers are more willing to go with films that may be seen as proven due to it's creation within a pacts. Similarly, the text is also influences by the continuous creation of films through pacts. With the constant complains of repetitive story lines and special effects in movies, it is not surprise when considering the production of films with in pacts.
Pacts strongly effect the way that film-making process occurs. It is evident that it's structure allows for confidence in the creation and distribution of films. Yet the very nature of pacts questions the ability to create films that are new, fresh and unlike previous ones.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
So why the big deal? Why does it matter if all production pacts do is speed the process up an lead to box office success. This is true but with production pacts many writers, ideas, and concepts cannot break into the market. These pacts effect the process because it provides a shortcut for producers and studios, they are cost-effective, and a successful pact has been shown to lead to box office success; the flip side is they are not inclusive they do not provide a lot of opportunity for new ideas and talent to enter on the production side of film.
There is no denying that production pacts regulate and effect the film industry. They secure success for major companies and are not really helpful to the "little guy." Regardless of the negatives in concerns to the "little guy" they are economically valuable ways for production companies to continue success. In any business money is the driving factor; the film industry is no different. Unfortunately the desire for economic success has a negative effect on the production of texts.
The pact process does not include many "little guy" companies. It does not provide great opportunities for inclusion and promotes consistency with major name companies. Who knows how many ideas, concepts, blockbusters, and potential this system has disregarded or left out. While the system creates convenience for big name production companies it has a negative effect on the production of texts and on "little guy" companies.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
For my final paper, I want to look at YouTube and the general phenomenon of posting videos to the web for millions of viewers to see. I also want to look at the content of these videos and analyze how and why YouTube came to be and how it has completely changed media on the Internet. YouTube started off as a site that people uploaded videos to for free and has morphed into a central place for music videos, movie and TV clips, video blogs of all sorts and much much more. TV shows have been created around the content of YouTube with programs like Tosh.O and stars have risen to fame through discovery on YouTube (Justin Bieber) and infiltrated every corner of our visual culture today.
I am fascinated by the amount of content that YouTube holds and what this means for our visual culture. I want to look particularly at why people are so drawn to express themselves with videos. What compels them to do this and how has YouTube been able to control the content that is loaded to its site? People of all different ages post things to the site and this poses problems with content and the appropriate nature of certain videos. YouTube provides a unique platform for anyone and everyone with a webcam or a video camera. People have the freedom to create any video they want and this is what draws them to the site. However, this can’t be completely true and I want to look into the content regulation in terms of the First Amendment and the FCC that YouTube is regulated by.
I also want to look at how popular videos on YouTube are circulated and viewed by millions of people. What makes a popular video? How do you get your video to become a sensation? YouTube is so specific to our generation and with all of the social media regulations being instated I am curious to see how YouTube fits into the mix.
YouTube is becoming an increasingly popular media technology that has played a significant role in how the music (media) industry functions. Advertisers have caught up to this technology where they have put themselves out here as well. YouTube ads show how advertisements in YouTube is one additional way with which businesses can reach out to more audience (potential customers). It has also provided additional ways in which artists/other celebrities have been found. This Wikipedia page (not a highly reliable source but just a starting point) demonstrates the number of people who have become stars due to YouTube.
I want to study YouTube’s impact on the media industry (may be focus on just the music industry). There are a few questions that I want to explore/find answers to start understanding the Youtube technology:
· What led to this concept of YouTube?
o Technological advances that made YouTube possible
o Changes in ways that music is being consumed
Some of the other questions that I want to explore throughout the project to truly understand the impact of YouTube on the media industry -
How has it changed the media industry?
- · What regulatory practices?
- · Changes in practices of advertising companies
- · The way they function in the new digital era
- · How has it forced them to change their way of functioning?
- · Changes in the practices of record label companies/business enterprises.
- · Changes in the practices of artists
- · Changes in the practices of the consumers
- · Piracy issues that comes with Youtube.
- · How has it changed(increased) audience for music(video/music video) audience
- · How has it affected the ownership of music?
- · Does it have any impact in the quality of music?
- Future of YouTube's role in the media (music) industry
This issue is highly relevant this year, because it is expected to go before the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations. A case of the same name was heard in 2009, in which the Court decided that bans on fleeting expletives were not "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedures Act, the act which describes how federal regulatory agencies are to operate. However, the Court did not decide on the constitutionality of the issue, instead referring it back to lower courts. In 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on fleeting profanity was indeed unconstitutional, and now the matter is being referred back to the Supreme Court.
This will be an interesting issue to watch, since it will directly affect the relationship between the FCC and TV stations, and perhaps reflects a changing attitude in America about profanity in general. However, I don't think the ruling, no matter which way it goes, will affect the amount of profanity you see on live broadcasts, since I doubt that the people who are using fleeting expletives are A) often aware that their mic is on, or B) would stop to consider whether or not an FCC fine might be levied against them.
Big brother is no longer just watching you, he's also liking your status and retweeting your instagram. Gone are the days of internet privacy! Although people are voluntarily sharing personal information on the web we must be vigilant. Bills like SOPA/PIPA are just the beginning of upcoming legislation aimed to police/protect the internet. Why should we be concerned? Because everything from our Amazon purchases to Facebook messages will be under the watchful eye of the law.
But Taylor! Why are you so concerned? The only people who should worry are the cyber criminals and child pornographers! Wrong. My simple concern is this: we now have the largest accumulated wealth of knowledge known to man. From the millions of Wikipedia articles to the billions of Youtube videos man has never come close to this free exchange of ideas. Should we favor the interests of corporations and trash what may be the greatest library of media texts? I think not, but the corporate interests and their high-paid lobbyists would strongly disagree.
SOPA aims to police copyright infringement by attacking the website itself for unknowingly allowing a user to host "stolen" content. That's like shutting down a Walmart because one customer showed up high. Clearly there is some fault in this logic, as any rational person would hold the customer responsible and not the business. So the user himself/herself should be punished for any illegal activity online, with respects to the laws of warrant-based investigations. Yet websites like Amazon and Facebook use your private information for target advertisements and cache any information you've ever shared. This leads me to wonder: if private interests can get access to your information then what's stopping the government? Could private deals between these companies and the government undermine the requirements for a warrant?In the near future would web users be punished for visiting weed legalization websites? Will underaged kids get sent to juvenile court for viewing porn?