Supplemental Post #3

 

Media in general is not kind towards anarchists. At its best, depictions of anarchists tend to portray them as innocents who don’t know what is best for them. Other times, anarchists follow normal societal structures but loudly proclaim their antipathy towards the state. In The Expanse, the government-less Belters who dwell on the spaceships, moons, and asteroids around the Solar system are a fairly good depiction, but their anarchy is still bound by this militarized, naval sensibility of ranked hierarchies that pervades science fiction. (I had a short conversation with Anita Sarkeesian about this on Twitter, which I tried really hard to humblebrag about as an introductory anecdote for this post, but I couldn’t figure out how to make it work so now it’s a parenthetical normal brag).

Elsewhere, however, anarchists are a shorthand for a type of violent nihilism that demands no explanation or justification. Enter Marvel’s Falcon and the Winter Soldier, a superlative distillation of superheroic neoliberalism. In FatWS, a world struggling to pull itself out of the chaos of the events of the Avengers films, finds itself facing a new threat – a popular-supported underground group of anarchists called the “Flag-Smashers,” whose villainy at first consists of stealing food, vaccines, and other critical supplies from governmental storage and distributing them to a disaffected populace.  However, the political sensibility of the show cannot allow them to merely remain thus: they become increasingly violent as the show progresses, with murders and bombings that are both ideological non-sequiturs to their stated objectives, and inconsistent with established characterizations. Meanwhile, the US government has created a new “perfect soldier” in a new Captain America, named Walker (the default military name). However, this isn’t a review, so I’ll remain light on the evaluations.

Ultimately, Falcon and the Winter Soldier is concerned with power: who gets to wield power, and what should they do with it. The titular characters, Falcon and Bucky, the Winter Soldier, both struggle to assume the responsibility left by Steve Rogers, the former Captain America. The show has a clear hierarchy of who deserves power, which in this case is represented by the super-soldier serum that bequeaths its imbiber with superhuman abilities. At the top is the dead Steve Rogers, who was Morale, Humble, and Good. Rogers fought the people who were threats to the status quo and did little other than react to villains. Falcon and Bucky aspire to maintain those ideals, and so are also deserving of the power. The fascist Captain Walker misuses his power by committing murders on behalf of the government, but is ultimately redeemable because he too fights for the continuity of global and domestic capitalism – his fascist tendencies are an unfortunate affectation, an uncouth mannerism that needs correction. Finally, Karli Morgenthau, the leader of the Flag-Smashers, is the real threat to the systems that the other characters represent. She presents a possible future without a corrupt and overbearing state, a world in which ordinary people are empowered to take care of themselves. For that, she must be punished. The show culminates with her death, but Falcon and the Winter Soldier is not content with just killing the character: her ideology itself must be attacked, and its method for doing this a clumsy twisting of plot and contrivance. After stealing trucks of food and medical supplies, Karli blows up a building full of hostages, before turning to her partner and saying “This is the only message they’ll understand”. Who is they? What was the message? The show isn’t particularly interested in those questions, it is only interested in reconciling its new Captain America as being as unambiguously good as possible in a world in which global distrust of police and government is steadily increasing.

Jensen Supplemental 5

And it all comes down to this.

With bloodshot eyes and carpal tunnel laden hands, I type my last supplemental post...

ROUND 3: NETFLIX'S FIRE DOCUMENTARY GAME

    I have been CONSUMED with Netflix's documentary content lately. First, it was the true crime stuff. You know, murderers next door, art heists, spooky supernatural business, all that good stuff. Next, I got to the more political stuff: JFK theories, Jeffrey Epstein (he didn't kill himself), and Seaspiracy (which facetiously inspired me to go fishing, but don't worry I throw them back). It just seems Netflix is constantly coming out with new and fascinating nonfiction material, and it got me wondering why such stuff is so popular these days.

    I think the rise in documentary-style content from companies like Netflix can be traced to the popularity of nonfiction entertainment in today's world. Much of the content on social media sites like Instagram or TikTok is nonfiction in nature: lifestyle videos, political commentary, clips of drunks doing stupid things. People love using the Internet to peer into the lives of others and participate vicariously with their influencers of choice in whatever antics they are up to. 

    A documentary provides a similar effect for the viewer. They are able to explore a niche topic guided by an expert in the field, or be walked step-by-step through an investigation by those involved. It grounds the events in reality, and allows viewers to explore worlds they may not have access to. No wonder Netflix is constantly pumping out this type of material, especially during these COVID days when half the world can't leave their houses. 

    And with that, comes the end to my blog posts. It's been a wild ride, and I thank all those who have stuck with me on this blog-writing extravaganza. Thank you Dr. McPherson for a great course, now I'm going to go grab a beer...

Jensen Supplemental 4

    Alright, let's keep these critical juices flowing here with:

ROUND 2: GAME OF THRONES' FALL FROM GRACE

    This post's hitting me right in the feels, as it's hard to talk about a show that wasted five years of my life, but I'll do my best.

    Like many unfortunate souls, I fell hard for HBO's Game of Thrones series. I caught up halfway through season 4, read most of the books, and did my time lurking through the depths of the Internet to try and find out any hints or spoilers relating to the ultimate conclusion. It was a long and arduous road, yet I still stood by when things began to head downhill. I recall even defending certain moments in the show which, when I look back now in retrospect, I am ashamed of. How... how could something which so enamored the general population go from being the biggest show on television to a social taboo to even speak of?

    The most glaring downfall of the later seasons of GoT is the writing. As is commonly known, the author of the series George R.R. Martin, had only completed four of the books by the time the show reached the end of season 4. This caused the creators of the show (I will not deign to name them) to fly by the seat of their pants and begin writing the story on their own around season 5. I know, "the author is dead" and all that, but it extremely difficult for two writers to take over a series consisting of characters and plot lines developed by the original author over the course of decades and attempt to keep things up to the standards. It was an impossible task with a predictable outcome, which was only made worse through the actions of my second point...

    Social media. The ultimate hype-beast. Once the show gained its immense popularity, things were in motion that could not be undone. The quantity of content present on the Internet relating to the show was incalculable, from advertisements and special features to fan theories and memes. The show created its own hype-bubble and essentially doomed itself, for how could it live up to the standards the Internet had set for it? No amount of money, writing teams, special effects, or acting skill could satisfy the hungry beast of social media, which was ultimately left starving after season 8, episode 6. 

    But don't worry, the show made SO MUCH money that the entertainment industry will continue to create GoT-centered content and torture the injured beast until it succumbs. Who's excited for House of the Dragon?!

Jensen Supplemental 3

    All right everybody, buckle up for some rapid-fire television theory related supplemental blog posts brought to you by none other than Kevin, "The Procrastinator", Jensen.

ROUND 1: SPONGEBOB AND THE INTERNET

    Yup, starting off strong with some Spongebob analysis. 

    As anyone who is familiar with the meme-laden environment of social media would notice, the sheer quantity of Spongebob Squarepants related memes is overwhelming. Everywhere you look, from Instagram to Reddit, images and jokes featuring everyone's favorite amphimedon can be found. I believe this phenomenon can be traced to both the demographic of individuals creating the content and the nature of the show itself. 

    Spongebob Squarepants first aired in the late 1990s and continued to run well into the late 2010s, making it one of the longest running American animated children's television programs ever made. The show was extremely successful, producing many feature length films, videogames, and other forms of popular merchandise. Due to its popularity through the 2000s, it is no wonder that many of those who regularly use the internet as content creators in the 2010s and 2020s can relate to the jokes and characters featured in the show. These individuals grew up watching the series, which featured over 250 episodes allowing for plenty of comedic content to be repurposed inside the sarcastic depths of the Internet. 

    Also, the very nature of the show lends itself well to the satirical nature of meme-creation. The show is riddled with adult humor carefully mixed within the child-friendly atmosphere. Many comedic moments would have gone over the heads of the youth audience and yet would have landed with any adult viewers. Therefore, by slicing these more mature moments, meme creators can emphasize the adult humor present in the show and utilize it for their own jokes. 

Supplemental Post #2 - Alexandria

 Using Netflix to cement your musical legacy

Over the past couple years I have noticed this trend of music industry figures taking advantage of the netflix documentary medium in order to cement their musical legacies. Quincy Jones, David Foster, and Clive Davis have all had documentaries about their musical careers premiere on Netflix within the last several years, in which they are either involved in the production or have a heavy hand on how their legacies are represented. Quincy Jones’ project was directed by his daughter Rashida Jones. Each project feels celebratory, smoothing over the parts of their stories that are complicated—like infidelity, any scrupulous business practices, etc. Dolly Parton in particular feels ubiquitous on the platform: with a movie Dumplin’, a documentary Here I Am, a series Dolly Parton’s Heartstrings, and a MusiCares Tribute Concert. I assume part of the reason behind all these projects is the need and growing interest for more music related content on the platform. But I think it’s also just a fascinating site for examining legacy making processes for music figures.

Supplemental Response #5: Julia

As a final meditation on this course, I'd like to take a minute to consider my latest TV experience of watching The Legend of Korra for the first time. Let me just start by saying that as much as I loved watching Avatar, Legend of Korra is somehow MUCH BETTER. If there's anything this course has taught me about my own personal TV habits, it's that it is entirely fine to become too attached to television content because it's basically asking me to do that. So let me get into some of the reasons that I think Legend of Korra is incredible, especially as a response to a lot of the online discourse I've that puts it down in comparison to Avatar. (Spoilers, maybe??)

First off, Korra is lightyears more interesting as a protagonist than Aang ever was. She overcomes a complex range of issues while also challenging concepts of good and evil in a nuanced way. The show also does a tremendous job at illustrating the ways in which the themes in this show actively result in physical and psychological trauma for Korra, which is really important when you are catering shows to younger audiences. She is flawed, she is growing, and she is relatable to a wide range of audiences. 

Secondly, Korra is bisexual! It is so difficult to find bisexual characters that aren't portrayed as manipulators or villains, but who are still complex and interesting to follow. To find a character like her on a platform like Nickelodeon in the 2000s is truly remarkable and pivotal in terms of representation. Especially in our understandings of post-feminist and intersectional representation, Korra is a case study for the books.

Thirdly, the show's intricate plot lines surrounding authoritarianism, genocide, poverty, class struggle, colonialism, and environmentalism are far better fleshed out and compelling than they are in many narrative projects aimed at adult audiences. Seriously, Legend of Korra is more politically nuanced than Game of Thrones ever was. This is also probably the reason that they are reviving the Avatar brand to produce more content soon.

Lastly, Pabu. That's it, that's the argument. 

Ultimately, Korra rules. I am so happy I finally got to watch it this year. I also want to end this class by saying that I greatly enjoyed getting to dissect my understanding of one of my favorite forms of media with all of you. Thank you all for a great semester!!

Supplemental Post 5- Rojeen

As I was scrolling through twitter, I found this tweet that exposed NBC/ABC affiliate news stations for airing corporate sponsored propaganda from the US Chamber’s CEO, attacking the Pro Act (a bill that would help workers unionize). Tweeted by More Perfect Union, they play the “interviews” side by side from each local station they were aired on (Arizona, Virginia, and Georgia), and show both the fallacious questions the news anchors posed and the automated/scripted response by the U.S. Chamber’s CEO. For instance, on the Arizona station, the news anchor framed the Pro Act as legislation that would hurt local workers. And, on the segment that aired on Virginia’s local news station, they expose that the news anchor wasn't even a journalist, but actually a paid actor!! It reminded me of the discussion we had in class last week or two weeks ago about media conglomerates having control over local stations, like Sinclair, and how lobbyist and corporate propaganda can infiltrate local news stations under the guise of genuine reporting. And, given the rise of right-wing funded organizations like PragerU, that decontextualize and spew disinformation, it’s scary to think how much “news” we consume on local stations is merely ideologically bent propaganda. This is the creepy ass tweet if anyone wants to see: 

https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1382411843147300867 

Supplemental Post 4- Rojeen

 WATCHMEN. I started the show during class, when we watched the first episode for one of the week’s readings. I recently decided to finish the series, and I’m ashamed for how much I enjoyed it for its theatrics and sci-fi dystopia. I’m ashamed I enjoyed parts of it because the show is literally copaganda. The series promotes the idea that cops can be “good guys,” even if it also exposes the deep-rooted history of white supremacy within the police force, and scenes where the police are shown abusing their power. The watchmen are vigilante heroes within the police force fighting the 7th cavalry, a white supremacist organization that have roots from decades before to Cyclops, another white supremacist organization. But when did the police and police-affiliated vigilantes become anti-racist heroes fighting white supremacy?? The origin of the police force is literally rooted in white supremacy, with slave patrols being one of the first forms of policing. Yet, the entire show depicts the existing police/police-affiliated vigilantes (within the show) as fighting against right-wing white supremacists, when in reality the police are deeply entrenched in and continue to uphold white supremacy through paramilitary violence. A more realistic depiction would have shown the police force being an affiliate of the 7th cavalry rather than fighting against them. Even in the first episode, it shows an officer needing to request clearance to fire his weapon…as if cops have such discretion. I just feel like liberals will watch this show or watched this show and thought it offered a measured interpretation of the police, when really it seems to reinforce the asinine mantra of cops being good guys/heroes, with just a few “bad apples” within the police force. 

Core Post 5 - Brian Smith

 I recall earlier in the semester Tara had said that the cell phone has become an extension of ourselves. Due to its so many capabilities in delivering us news, entertainment, sending us reminders, allowing us to communicate in a myriad of ways, those of us with smartphones have a codependent relationship with them. As I read the Lotz piece this is what I thought of. As media progressively converges and as technology evolves to serve that convergence, does this diminish the boundaries between technology and self/identity? Perhaps this is a dystopian question but I think it is a fair one considering the hellscape we currently live in. The era of digital media accentuates media convergence to a spectacular degree. TVs, laptops, phones, and tablets pretty much all have the same capabilities with little differences. What are the implications of this technological totalitarianism? Where does technology end and the individual begin in this era of media ubiquity? One place we may locate these effects are in the prominent digital communities of conspiracy theorists. Media and technological convergence continue to intensify concerns of surveillance. As we, in a post-9/11 America especially, are surrounded by technology that “tracks” us (phones, tablets, laptops, cars etc) do we have autonomy? A seemingly rational question that is often exacerbated and politicized to the point of people refusing to take a vaccine because of the unfounded belief there might be a microchip in it. As ridiculous as it sounds to many of us, these are very real concerns people have and they develop communities around these concerns and create echo chambers of unfounded ideologies and often mobilize in ways that have drastic political and social ramifications. Questions I have: How do we address the social and cultural fragmentation created by media convergence? (How) can we maintain a sense of self separate from technology? Can we configure the economic systems that allow these technological possibilities to exist so that their production is not parisitically attached to the global south? 

Jensen Supplemental #2

    Hi everyone! I wanted to use my supplemental post this week to talk about a TV show which my parents are literally glued to the screen for--The Crown. 

    It's amazing, there's something about British high society which seems to enamor American television watchers. First Downton Abbey, now The Crown, and the recent publicity surrounding the British royal family is only spurring the popularity of this subject further. I never personally got into the fad myself, but I think its interesting that all of a sudden British royalty is a part of so many conversations these days. 

    In terms of visibility, I think the British royal family is loving it. Granted, much of their press recently has been very negative (regarding the scandal around their dealings with Meghan Markle) and The Crown certainly does not portray them positively at points, but the sheer amount of attention being drawn to the British royalty has to be benefitting them. 

    Also, I believe the popularity of The Crown certainly had a profound effect on the hubbub surrounding the death of Prince Philip. My mother remarked to me, "I feel like after watching the show, I knew him in a way!" That connection between a "non"-fictional character and the real human being felt by audience members towards Philip is fascinating. Being one of the more sympathetic characters in the show, the mourning following his passing effected those who normally would have had very little reaction. 

    Maybe I should watch the show, I've heard it's well done. Who knows, perhaps I'll dive in... you know, for research purposes...

Supplemental Post #5 - Andrea

Although I watched primarily out of my own curiosity and a desire to absolve myself of my own ignorance, I can't help but see connections between the new HBOMax Qanon documentary "Q: Into the Storm" and the readings this week. We've dabbled a bit into discussions of Qanon over the past few weeks, but I feel like getting the full backstory on 8chan and alt-right media (beyond the alt-right, white supremaxist content we see in the news repeatedly) connected deeply with Tara's own text, "Reload: Liveness, Mobility, and the Web." 

The documentary takes great pains to demonstrate the highly structured, bureaucratic online community called Q Research (the use of "research" here was funny to me initially, but the "investigations" the qanons embark on definitely takes "work" in a strange sense), and the network empires that spawned from the board. The board itself has dedicated mods and admins devoted to unpacking Q's "messages" and "codes," and the qtubers and q-influencers have the job of spreading those messages more broadly- hence why your weird older uncle is exposed to the same nazi memes as a 24 year old incel on 8chan. 

I related the fear mongering present throughout the documentary to Taras's idea of scanning-and-searching, or as she writes, "The scan-and-search is about a fear of missing the next experience or the next piece of data," continuing, "this fear of missing in the Web propels us elsewhere, on to the next chunk...into what feels like navigable space that responds to our desire" (204). In addition to the fear of missing out on a new message or prophecy from Q, there's an additional fear that failing to interpret Q's messages in time will lead to the collapse of the American empire by the hands of the "liberals" or the Kabal. At the end of the documentary (spoilers?), it's implied that an administrator of 8chan/8kun is actually Q, and his own nihilistic ambitions for power and infamy combine with the desire to market 8chan as the only place on the internet protecting "free speech." The intersections of media, community, hysteria, and marketing in the documentary speak to the political and economic aspects of this media convergence Tara discusses in the text as well.

Supplemental Post 5 - Charlotte

Law and Order SVU has, in its twenty plus year runtime, focused episodes around topical issues. On Hulu, there is even a curated section of episodes that are "Ripped from the Headlines." This has long been a sort of guilty pleasure show for me, as I think it's interesting to see how different cultural issues are addressed and how justice/law enforcement are represented. Each detective stands in for a certain political ideology - some are liberal, some conservative - with the central foil of neutrality manifested in Olivia Benson. In addition to the new season, set during COVID, the Law and Order franchise has created a new series on organized crime led by the hot headed Elliot Stabler. As criticisms of policing become more and more mainstream, have we culturally reached the end of pro-cop crime TV? 

Despite the cancelation of Live PD (which was wildly popular, according to this really interesting podcast: https://www.topic.com/runningfromcops), it seems unlikely, given the vast presence of the genre in both network and streaming platforms. Even this week, HBO MAX released a new crime drama, Mare of Easttown. If this is not the end of the genre as a whole, will there be changes in how crime and law enforcement are represented? Or will these shows continue to present cops, crime, and prison in reductive, pro- law enforcement modes?

Supplemental Post #5 Kimberly

Well I kind of forgot that we could just write these about the TV we've watched recently, and now I feel silly for not using this as a platform to air out my televisual fixations. But, as I tried to think of what show to write about in this post (recently I've been watching Succession, tried out The Sopranos, been deeply disappointed in Falcon and The Winter Soldier) and I realized how separate I've felt from TV recently. I know, bad timing with this class.

But I've thought a lot about my relationship to narrative, in film and television, since coming to grad school, or maybe longer than that? The last couple years since leaving my undergrad have been years of Getting My Shit Together. Trying to organize my life, follow through on projects and ideas, generally be a more efficient person. So much of that has been about trying to create better habits, and so much of THAT has meant watching less TV. 

I prided myself on not starting a new series for nearly the entire first semester of grad school. Now that I think back that's kind of a lie, I tried out Euphoria and Infinity train, working diligently not to slip into a binge watch. It worked for a bit. Then I started watching Hannibal and everything went out the window. 

I've spent a decent amount of time trying to figure out why I binge watch, what feeling or need the experience satisfies. I think it probably goes back to the basics-- mimesis and catharsis, especially in quarantine. The type of show that really grips me, hooks me in is the one that offers a little bit of fantasy fulfillment, usually in the form of a romance canonized or 'shipped. Seeing some part of my own desire acted out in front of me allows me to feel the experience as if I am performing the action, living the fantasy. To switch tabs back to homework or select "no" when Netflix asks if I'm still watching disrupts the seamless flow of proxy experience, and to some extent devastates me just a bit. 

So to avoid the binging, to invest in my own life/education/career rather than those of the imagined knock-out-hotties of network and cable television, I've built this little emotional wall between me and my TV. Which, I believe, most people have. It's just a bit sad I think to watch TV with the distance of an emotionally stable, productive member of society. 

Anyways, that's my deep emotional admission of TV addiction, no reason I'm posting this an hour before our last class!

Core Response #5: Julia

In this week's readings on post-TV, I was interested in further considering the expansive definition of "media convergence" in the digital TV context that Lisa Parks puts forward. Specifically, in her discussion of converging technologies engendering a tension between mainstream hegemony and an expansion of media with greater representation. Especially when considering the rhetoric put forward in the Christian piece, it is hard to grapple with the seeming struggle for television in both its content and production to offer a space for all people who want to take part in the creative process and see themselves represented. 

Of course, the collaborative nature of television does feel more encouraging in this regard, definitely more so than in the feature realm. But at the end of the day, the production of television is still hyper-regulated by creators who are primarily cis-gendered and white. Having worked in this space for some time, I often felt disheartened by some of the ways in which decisions were being made surrounding content approval in the television production process. I also think we should strive, as Christian discusses, to dismantle the way in which people are treated in the real of TV development and production, and I am not sure this can be done while maintaining the framework of television as we know it. On the other hand, there is also new evidence of creator burnout on platforms like Youtube and Twitch that also pose problems for the imagination of a fully convergent world of digital television.

Ultimately, I have to admit that I struggle with Park's adamant refusal to "kill your television". It is difficult to fight over the future of television, as she claims possible for the future generations. Television production is very much reliant on funding and hierarchies that are inherently exclusive to most creators. Open-source platforms online that elevated everyday voices feel more appropriate for the kinds of discourse we are trying to build. Unlike Parks, I am not sure these two formats are compatible in their convergence, but I genuinely do hope they can be.

4/23 Supplemental Response #5_Ann

 *It’s been such a fun time reading everyone’s posts and taking this class. What a great series of interconnected readings and wonderful discussions! I will truly miss all of you :)

The readings this week, especially the Lisa Parks reading, feel like they are in conversation with a lot of what we talked about in this class. As my favorite reading this week, I think Parks’s 2004 article is still extremely relevant today. I really enjoyed her theorization of the “microcasting” of television at the convergence of traditional TV and the internet. Her emphasis on how the internet creates space for women’s programs and extremely niche audience are prevalent in the mediascape today. One of the things that I really liked is how Parks thinks of this new age of television/internet convergence using evolution as an analogy where she writes: “If we were to add yet another chapter to account for the contemporary moment, it might be called something like ‘Mutants’” (133). A chapter titled “Mutants” might seem jarring at first, but with some interesting examples, this term not only fairly accurately describes the US television/internet media climate, but also some global phenomenons happening elsewhere. 

So in this last post of the semester, I would like to talk a little bit about some interesting phenomenons happening in Chinese television (and Post-Television) while also recommending a recent series I liked. Word of Honor, a 2021 Chinese Wuxia series focusing on two male protagonists and their intertwined fates, just hit 50 million views on YouTube today. Produced by Chinese streaming platform YouKu, Word of Honor is adapted from a “Danmei” (耽美)—or “Boy’s Love” in Japanese terms—book published a couple of years ago. YouKu, as one of the premium streaming companies in China, did not have great confidence in the show succeeding. However, the show not only gained sweeping good reviews but also a much wider audience overseas than the producers originally thought it would gain. Amazon Prime also just bought the right of the show in March and it is not streaming on Prime in the US and in Canada. The success of the show is mostly due to its new takes on Wuxia stories, good screenwriting, and a solid fan base of the book. I personally really enjoyed the story and would highly recommend the show to anyone who is interested, but the success of the show is not what I want to focus on today. What interests me is the model of distribution and the availability of additional content on YouKu about Word of Honor. YouKu’s distribution model is similar to streaming platforms like Netflix, but it is also highly different because it is not subscription-based but VIP-based. By purchasing VIP status on YouKu for a certain period of time, the viewers gain access to the newest episodes before non-VIP viewers. For example, the last three episodes of Word of Honor are still only available to VIP viewers, which means if one wants to see the finale of the show they will have to pay for VIP status. This model of distribution is very common on Chinese streaming platforms where VIP users usually get to be ahead of the schedule than non-VIP users. This is, of course, a highly effective way to gain subscribers and audience, but I sometimes do doubt the ethics behind it. 

What Word of Honor and YouKu’s producing team did on top of this VIP model is that they released “for purchase” (付费) additional content and behind the scene videos on a daily basis after the season finale. These short videos, usually five to ten minutes long, are compilations of funny moments on set and scenes that were cut out from the original show due to either censorship or plot reasons. The platform charges one RMB per video and the fans happily pay the money. What’s interesting to me and relates to Parks’s discussion of a TV “mutant”, is the fact that none of the Chinese streaming platforms have done the same thing before Word of Honor. The behind-the-scenes is usually released while the show is streaming and they are usually released to the audience for free. What YouKu is doing essentially extends the topicality of the show for another month after the show has ended, and they gained additional profit from content that was considered free and unprofitable. Of course, there are many people who re-upload and re-circulate these “for purchase” content on different social media and platforms, but YouKu has opened pandora’s box where they redefined the saying “everything is content”. I cannot predict if this model will be used in other series or not because Word of Honor’s popularity is unprecedented in recent years. However, this tendency from the producers and streaming companies to try to profit from everything is exactly what a convergence of television and the internet could bring. Granted the Chinese television industry has a completely different history than its US counterpart; it is still very interesting to see the quickened convergence of Chinese internet series and how they change the media climate on a daily basis. This discussion also somewhat relates to my final project which also looks at the post-TV idol competitions in China where media practices simply become “mutants” and evolve into something different every day. I really don’t know how to end this post after all this rambling, but I wonder what Raymond Williams might say about the flow of television if he experiences what we consider television today. 

The link to the show on Amazon can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/EP-4/dp/B08ZDV1FFM/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=word+of+honor&qid=1619170753&sr=8-1

Core Response #5 - Emma

Lisa Parks’s article on “Flexible Microcasting” this week stood out to me as touching on a lot of points made throughout this class, whether explicitly calling out other theorists like Williams and Spigel, or indirectly, by discussing reality TV and quiz shows or network organization and “narrowcasting”. Maybe it’s because I have been in this class for nearly 15 weeks, but it seems like Parks synthesizes a lot of existing television theory before her and adds her own theories about internet-TV convergence, which are really interesting themselves. She theorizes “flexible microcasting,” her idea of “the industry’s visions of a new kind of personalized TV” (134), which includes “how technological convergence overlaps with the politics of gender, race, class, and generational differences” (134).

Now, Parks says, (in the year of this article’s publication) we are in an era of personal choice in television, though it is “more to do with new industrial structures of individuation geared toward profit making” (135). As we’ve discussed in this class, we are given the illusion of freedom of choice, but in reality our choices are determined already—it is about the “experience of…mobility” rather than actual mobility (137).

Parks’s discussion of the computer-TV convergence is so fascinating to me, as on the one hand it has absolutely nothing to do with today—we don’t see TV trying to “rearticulate itself as a computerized form” (141) because TV today already is a computerized form. On the other hand, however, I have noticed a similar but different convergence of “television as integrated with the computer interface” (144).

While reading Parks’s description of Oprah Goes Online, I had to find it on YouTube, and it’s incredible. Oprah and Gayle really do learn how to use a computer (“they cover everything from the mousepad—‘I thought it was a coaster’—to navigating the web”). Oprah sends an email to Hillary Clinton, visits her own website for what she says is the first time, and reads an email from Diane Sawyer referencing nude pictures. Because this clip is on the OWN YouTube page, when the clip ends, present-day Oprah pops up on the screen saying, “Hey YouTubers!” and asking us to subscribe to the OWN channel for new videos every day. This is something that I’ve noticed at the end of other clips from TV shows. Stephen Colbert will pop up at the end of a clip of his show and ask you to subscribe to the Late Night channel. Is this another form of “television as integrated with the computer interface”? Or is it the other way around? So many people only watch these shows through clips on YouTube, so these broadcast channels and shows are surviving through YouTube clips. What kind of new convergence is this?

The clip from Oprah Goes Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmv5n9QHsTY

Supplemental Post #5 - Emma

I just want to talk briefly about The Circle, a reality show on Netflix that I watched last year, just before the pandemic and lockdowns began, and which just last week released its second season. My experience watching it last year became a kind of time marker: I remember thinking, the week before spring break in March, when classes went online and I had to interact with my friends and family through a screen, “this is just like The Circle.” 

The show itself seemed to start as a social experiment and eventually became a game of strategy. Eight participants have to live in isolation, each with their own apartments, and they can only interact with each other through a social media called “The Circle”, which allows them to chat via text to other participants and view each others’ profiles. Some participants choose to play as themselves, and some choose to play as “catfishes” (their “hot friend” or boyfriend, depending on who they think will be the most likeable). The goal is to avoid getting eliminated based on popularity votes, and of the surviving player, the “most liked” at the end wins a cash prize. 

The first season did contain its fair share of backstabbing and “strategy,” with a microcosm of social media delivering on its promise of people being “fake” and calling each other out on it. It did, however, turn out to foster wholesome friendships and ultimately was, in the end, a popularity contest, as the show promised. The second season, however, (and the French version, which I admittedly watched as well), plays much more into the interest of gamification and demonstrates mostly the various ways in which each player can trick the rest of the players to get to the top. Instead of the winner being the most liked, it is a competition of outsmarting the others.

Creepy foreshadowing about our own isolation aside, the show delivers on Ouellette’s “democracy game” in an interesting way. Each participant is completely alone and makes choices about who to talk to, being “active, self-possessive, and entrepreneurial citizenry” (204). Their decisions about who to send home are made together, and outwardly in the interest of the group—but, like in many democracies, each person is ultimately looking out for themselves alone.

Colton Elzey Core Post #...5?

 The Liveliness Element of Living Things That Are Live

Tara's piece initially gets me considering the dual use of "live" when considering media formats, specifically between television and the internet. Her essay covers both mediums as they relate to one another, with this element as one of many key points in the discussion. I find it interesting since both are considered live, but for opposite reasons, which I would like to explore briefly. 

When considering the Web, McPherson writes: "I get the results right away, no need to wait for the 10pm broadcast. Just click. Immediate gratification. Even the waiting of download time locks us in the present as a perpetually unfolding now" (201). Here she is referring to her own style of web surfing, as well as a phenomenological examination of the ideas behind 'live' internet use on sites such as news channels. This is 'live' because it is there, all the time, accessible, and updated. You know it is live for these reasons, however, TV is vastly unique when considering it's sense of 'liveness.' 

Quoting Jane Feuer, Tara writes:"that "the differences between TV and... cinema are too great not to see television as a qualitatively different medium, but granted [liveness]," she pursued what was specific to TV, both as a form and as an ideological practice" (201). While Jane's analysis is easily understood, it is worth noting that this sense of liveliness is the opposite of why one might consider the Web--being eternally accessible, 24/--as live, which is because it is not always accessible. Television's biggest component of feeling live I believe comes from the medium's specific mode of releasing content on a schedule. You cannot simply login to see Buffy anytime you want, because it is a story that is slowly unfolding, week by week, not a recording. It also feels live because one is watching something in unison with those present and those not, contrasted with the internets mode of personalized web page viewing. 

This might be a surface level thought, but the unique differences between the two formats, and why they are considered live for almost opposite reasons was an intriguing concept to wrap my brain around this week. If you made it this far, congratulations, you are our lucky winner!

Dan Hawkins Core Post #5 Phew

 

I’m not sure that I have any particular response to any specific ideas presented in this week’s readings; I thought that they all were fairly comprehensive accounts of the transition from analog television to digital web-based interfaces (although I was very much intrigued by Lotz’ concluding distinction between describing YouTube as a television technology versus a screen technology, I’m not sure that I have much to add to that idea other than noting it), but as is the case of many of this semester’s readings, I wonder how they would change if they were written even just 8-10 years later. Lotz talks about how theatrical technologies such as HD screens are being integrated into television – how different would this argument be in the wake of Game of Thrones and other high-budget visually prestigious series that aim for that level of cinematic quality?

The other response I had to these readings was that I wonder how the kind of mass fracturing and dispersal of content effects the way audiences approach media. No matter where a show is platformed or aired, clips and pieces, (and sometimes entire episodes) of it will end up on YouTube almost immediately, either officially or unofficially. Over the break, I heard a lot of good things about AppleTV’s show Ted Lasso. However, I did not have an AppleTV subscription and I try to avoid piracy when I can, so I went to YouTube to first see if this show was worth my continued interest. I watched many clips and compilations of scenes from the show, without context and oftentimes in low quality or with Russian subtitles or some such quirk. I had no idea which episodes, plot beats, or even chronological order each isolated scene pertained to, I was simply led from “Ted Lasso Funny Moments (1 / 8)” onwards by a recommended tab. After watching many of these videos, I got a free week’s trial for the service and me and my family watched the show over the course of two days, before cancelling the trial.

Perhaps not these particular circumstances are consistent across audiences, but YouTube and other video sharing sites facilitate the dispersal of content from television shows – compilations of favorite character moments, fight scenes, “funny moments”, easter eggs. There is an entire genre of videos of just “_______ character out of context”. I’ve been watching many video edits along the lines of “Adora being a dumb lesbian for 13 minutes” showing clips from Netflix’s She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. Video sharing sites mean that platforms no longer control the content of their television shows; at best, they can only control their context and presentation.