week 4 late post

Week 4:  how does the fantasy genre relate to modern media such as video games?

There are many modern media around us such as computer games, Facebook, email, video games.  Through the text, I can tell most of the video games are made from fantasy. “The Lord of the Rings gave rise to one of the most popular of the modern game-genres, the RPG (roleplaying game).” (Burn, 2005, n.p).

Harry potter stories have been considered as a good structure of games. In the video game, players don’t need to be Harry Potter,  they can be themselves in the game they can play the way they like. Now days, players don’t like the game is too safe and regulated. Although the video game is based on fantasy genre, it’s different from the book or film. In the film, we only see Harry has the power to against the spider, in the game is different players’ skill become most important power , they have their own way to make game has the scene only happens in the game.  So actually, a fantasy move could be shown so many types in the video games.

Furthermore, Harry is gaining his power for later challenges by go the lesson in the games, in the meantime,  the players  is improving their play skills as well.  One of the group, they are caring about how they feel of Harry, is like in the move. They do feel the same position. However, there are some plays don’t have time to worry about Harry’s feeling.  That’s may is the difference between film and games. The person controls the feeling whoever is the narrator or the players.

Reference:

Burn, A (2005). ‘Potter-Literacy-from book to game and back again; literature, film,game and cross-media literacy’, in papers: Explorations into Children’s Literature Vol 14,NO3

week 3 late post

Week 3 ：how does Attebery(1980) define fantasy? Find at least 5 definitions?

Atterbey thinks the fantasy world is like the film ‘The Lord of Rings’. Fantasy is an arbitrary construct with all sorts of imagination.

 “Any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to be natural law-that is fantasy.” Fantasy can be made up with around magic objects. The environment can be one of the elements to show fantasy. According the text, except from the objects, characters, events can help us make difference between fantasy and related genres. “Fantasy is a game of sorts, and it demands that one play whole-heartedly, accepting for the moment all rules and turns of the game.” The ‘marvelous’ Is the point of fantasy because all supernatural happenings is unquestionably of fantasy. Fantasy is like ‘fairytale’ more generally termed nonsense or absurdity. Fantasy can be found any of normal and basic things in the life they are happened in normal life such as life, death, good, and evil. This is folktale. “folktale was one of the early genres of folktale.

Attebery, B. (1980). Locating fantasy. In The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature: From Irving to Le Guinn (pp. 2-9). Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1980

week 2 late post

Week 2: what does Baetons(2001) mean by ‘monstration’, ‘graphiation’,and ‘graphiateur’?

As my point of view, the graphic is narrative utterance. It’s going to give readers a first rough copy which makes them discover something of the initial narrative drawing. Sometime even it gives reader different impression compare with ending it doesn’t matter because it might be an unfinished drawing.

All drawing is made of three features what are lines, contours and color that the narrative is the agent who is responsible for it. Marion does not see garphiation as a different and parallel type of narration, but as a subordinate part of it.

To analysis the specific narrative situation of movies as the hierarchical combination of several types of narration or, that Marion calls it as “monstration”.

From the article, garhiation is more about self is like narration. It obviously shows self identity and thoughts. By proposing to add to the point, it mentions that monstration is going to be more detail and far from having the same figurative transparency in comics.

Therefore, ‘garphiation’ is related to the character in the drawing by adding personality of artist.

References  
Baetons, J. (2001). Revealing Traces: a new theory of graphic enunciation. In Varnum,R.& Gibbons, C. (Eds), The Language of Comics: world and image (pp/ 145-155), Jackson: U Press of Mississippi. 

week 1 late post

Week one: Do you think comics are a children’s or adult genre/media?

Firstly I think comics are children’s and adult genre. Comics are perfect combinations of images and words. It’s visual art. Comics are a most popular genre at moment because it has got function such as humours, cheap and easy-understanding.

 Although I think it fit both different groups of people, I still find it fits children better than adults. On the one hand, image is a most shine point that comic has got, we always be attacked by those funny, cute characters which means kids would love it when they first see comics. On the other hand, less word may mean more interesting. Through one page of pictures, kid will understand the situation and image more to link it then a few words will tell them the story happens in that page. Kids don’t need much detail descriptions of what they want to read and know.

Comics will be a fast way of getting knows new knowledge for kids. From my point of view, picture reading do seems quite interesting and it appeals me, however if I want to know more information of what I am reading with I would prefer read articles and book with more words and less images. For me, comic is far away not enough of information. It’s normally use indirect way to represent an event or a place.  It’s genre but may not be popular. So as my analysis, I think comics are the balance of visual arts and images. 

Herge (2005 ；1935). The Adventures of Tintin : The Blue Lotus. London: Methuen.

Week 12

How have game shows influenced reality TV?

According to Hill (2005, p. 102), the reality gameshow has been an international bestseller, since its arrival in 2000. The Birth of reality gameshows could be related back to british producer Charlie Parson, who created the idea for the programme survivor in 1990. Edemole who was a Swedish company worked on the programme called Big Brother which became a Hit.

Hill (2005), states that although there are similarities between gameshows and reality TV shows, such as observational documentary but formats differ in terms of tone and style. According to Hill (2005), there is a strong competition between reality gameshows and production of reality TV shows like the American Idol which are increasing day by day in their costs, which places pressure on gameshows. However, reality TV has been influenced by gameshows like reality programming such as cops or Survivor, though they deal with realism they are unable to stick with the convention due to their strong reliance on entertainment such as soap opera or gameshows (Hill, 2005)

Furthermore, there are documentary in reality gameshows such as Big Brother claims and shows that it deals with real life situations but it heavily includes or is highly influenced by gameshows formats. Hill (2005, p. 97), states that different types of documentary have influenced reality programming such as reflexive/performative documentaries, docu- drama and mock documentaries. I think Reality TV has been influenced by gameshows and not only by gameshows but other formats of entertainments as well, due to its popularity among its audience and high in entertainment. Therefore, the reality TV shows have produced and developed reality gameshows.

Reference:

Hill, A. (2005) The rise of reality TV. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. (pp. 15 – 40). Oxon: Routledge

Week 12

How have game shows influenced reality TV?

The most popular form of reality television today involve winners and losers, and a nice bundle of millions at the end. Reality tv has embraced the game show format and extended its general idea. We see Survivor, the most obvious comparison with a game show, forcing all kinds of tasks on its contestants, the only way to differentiate it with a regular game show is its setting and duration. I shall explore this idea further now.

Gamedocs (as they are referred to) began with The Spelling Bee in 1938 but the first commercially broadcast show was Truth or Consequences in 1941 (Wikipedia, 2011). The latter originally began as a radio show before moving to television. These early shows utilized the concept of everyday contestants using intellectual skill to win prizes, however Truth or Consequences began to involve many stunts. Who’s Line is it Anyway, which New York Times has revealed to be Britain’s most successful export in thirty years (Hills, 2005), is a show that elaborates the “everyday contestant” idea. We see that possible contestants are introduced and randomly chosen, then Chris Tarrant (the British host) spends at least 5 minutes asking questions, which he continually refers back to throughout their moment of fame. There are constant shots of family members in the audience, and the “Phone A Friend” tool helps to position the contestant as just a regular viewer, like you and me. It always used to annoy me, this constant chatter, but I can see now that it is actually a clever ploy to encourage this notion.

Game shows often took an intellectual stance over the silly. This was changed in 1946 with People Are Funny, which contestants won prizes for how funny they were. This idea has been used in several “impromptu” shows like Who’s Line Is It Anyway. However, this is a common facet of reality television, where there is the underlying assumption that all is adlibbed and spontaneous (Mittell 2004 p. 37).

Game shows have also begun to take a rather negative position towards the contestants. We can see this with The Weakest Link, which was first broadcast in 2000 in Britain (Wikipedia, 2011). The host is notoriously mean and is known for making fun of the contestants. After each round, there are questions/answers and general banter. Contestants are forced to work together but then to separate, and often many play dirty. The prize money is much smaller on this show, giving a greater number of possible contestants for each screening. This idea of dividing the contestants can be seen in Big Brother, Temptation Island and the like.
Today, many reality shows push the extremities for contestants. This is an idea that began in Japanese game shows (Couldry, 2004) such as Gaki no Tsukai! This show often forced situations such as kissing strangers and other crazy stunts, which was later picked up in shows like Survivor, but most notably taken further in Fear Factor and Distraction. Couldry (2004) writes “the myth that in the face of extreme physical challenges, especially those requiring team collaboration (however artificially constructed), an important aspect of human reality is shown”.

To conclude, we can see that game shows have influenced and are still an important part of reality television today. This is interesting as reality tv does not interest me in the slightest, but I always have time for intellectual game shows. It is interesting that they follow the same structure and concept, and to see that the genre is intertwined. The evolution of game shows from the standard question/answer format, to the silly and the obscene, and now to extreme life situations is a staggering rise. We can see that reality television – no matter what form it takes – is really just an extension of the game show.





REFERENCE LIST

Couldry, N (2004). Reality TV, or the Secret Theater of Neoliberalism. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 30:1 (January–March 2008), p. 1.

Hill, A. (2005) The rise of reality TV. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. (pp. 15 – 40). Oxon: Routledge

Mittel, J (2004). Reflections on reality relevision (p.94). Routeledge: New York.

Truth or Consequences, October 8, 2011. Retrieved 18 October, 2011 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_or_Consequences

Weakest Link, October 8, 200. Retrieved 18 October, 2011 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakest_Link

Week Eleven

How have they constructed our conceptualisation of reality (or at least what we recognise as being real at the visual level)?

"Far from being the faithful depiction of reality it is supposed to be, realism, through the various forms it has taken throughout its history, shows itself to be neither a window nor mirror but a set of conventions" Robert Lapsley and Michael Westlake (1988; 158). This quote provides a good entry way for this weeks question - how does reality tv construct our own conceptualisation of reality? Or does reality tv just target our societal conventions?

There are several ways that reality tv can construct its own reality.
Reality tv began with hidden camera techniques, first filming shows, such as Candid Camera, and later, Miss America in 1984 (Wikipedia, 2011). The reality genre evolved to include Cinema Verite, which makes use of the fly on the wall position. The Docosoap focuses on clear cut characters who work in service-based jobs, that we revisit each time and get a sense of understanding for, such as Animal Hospital (Biressi & Nunn, 2005).
The use of handheld cameras, voice-overs and snappy story narration help to create an atmosphere of urgency (example being Cops). The "fly on the wall" as an an atypical reality show was pioneered by Survivor, which stressed the "ordinary people in extreme situations" theme, and focuses on the exagerrated behavior of contestants. This is a style of cinema described as "Cinema Verite with an Orwellian aura" (Brenten & Cohen, 2003). We feel as though we are watching a version of reality due to the Orwellian presence of the cameras, whilst forgetting the input of the directors, producers, writers etc.

Is our own reality influenced by this genre? Perhaps this also has much to do with the media. I recall being in England during the Big Brother phase. It would screen after school, there would be nightly reviews of the day, a LIVE channel, updates available for mobiles AND Facebook, internet sites including live streaming and of course all the magazine and newspaper coverage! It was everywhere! We have seen regular people become overnight celebrities purely for being on a reality show, we have seen unpopular celebs become likeable (i.e Jordan on "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!), we have seen out of work celebs taste fame once more (i.e Peter Andre on above show), and we have seen contest winners achieve huge fame thanks to the media interest (i.e. Leona Lewis on The X Factor, and all other talent shows). Then theres people like Jessica Simpson who branch out and make millions, or Kim Kardashian who it appears impossible to escape from. How do they influence our reality? I am unsure how much reality tv is responsible for, but it is clear it shares the position with media and entertainment. For example, our language has mutated at a shocking rate and popular culture is referenced more and more by youth today (try and understand children I ask you!). Slang now includes many american idioms, as copied by shows such as The Hills and Jersey Shore (grenade, anyone?). It is an often spoken truth that our level of education is failing in areas such as spelling. Can we put this down to a script that takes place almost entirely in slang/made up words, which we then copy?
Additionally, many of the reality shows popular today can be found on Sky's E Channel. It is my personal view that the constant presence of materialistic shows such as Keeping up with the Kardashians and the like, increase our greed and capacity for envy. We start to want an exotic life like Khloe's, we want the Louis Vuitton handbag that Kourtney has, and we want the fame and money that Kim flaunts. Because we are bombarded with lifestyles of the rich and famous every day, our perception of reality is thwarted. Furthermore, reality tv relies strongly on the outrageous antics of particpants, such as pairing the most unimaginable people together on shows such as Wife Swap, causing some horrific situations, and often involving children. Our reality of what is right and wrong gets blurred.

To continue on with this idea, we also see that reality tv can affect its participants reality as well. For example, Brenton and Cohen (2003) explain that these forced situation experiences forces people to take on new facets of personality, and consequently lose their own identity. Additionally, participants may appear healthy but how does anyone really know, given that the psychologists are likely to be paid by the producers, and the media is more than likely owned by the same people? The attention some contestants may receive - especially negative - can never be seperated from someone as there is no longer the distinction between person and character. The viewers reality is confused, and so is the particpants. The worst case scenario of this is shown by the suicide of the first evictee from Survivor forerunner, Expedition Robinson (Brenton & Cohen, 2003).

There is a very good film called The Condemmed starring Steve Austin, that explores the idea of reality tv, and how far we are willing to go with it. It really makes you stop and think long and hard for a minute about the form reality tv may take in the future, and our notions of right and wrong (reality tv is the Frankenstein of TV!). Additional viewing could be The Cube, which also continues along this vein.

Our reality may be further influenced by reality tv. For example, Drifters (1929) and Coalface (1935) assisted in not only bringing understanding to the fishing/mining professions, but also helped to unify the nation during the second world war (Biressi & Nunn, 2005). Or sometimes, reality tv may play to stereotypes, such as Jessica Simpson and Paris HIlton, in their respective tv shows. It may even create desire to experience life on the other side of the world, such as Intrepid Journeys, while at the same time instilling bias from the sole point of view broadcast.

To conclude, reality tv can take on many shapes and forms, but at the end of the day, its hold over us - the humble viewer - is far reaching. I almost feel there is no point debating the reality of what we are watching, or the good/bad effects, as reality television has now become so firmly a part of our society that i cant imagine a time without it (and I dont even watch tv!). Human beings are simple creatures - we believe everything our eyes tell us, even though our eyes miss nearly everything of importance in this life, and deceive us every day.




REFERENCES
Biressi, A. & Nunn, N. (2005). Real Lives, documentary approaches. In Reality TV: realism and revelation. (pp. 35-58) London: Wallflower.

Hill, A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television (pp. 14 – 40). Oxon: Routledge.

Brenton, S & Cohen, R (2003). Shooting people: adventures in reality tv. Verso: London.

Reality television. October 7, 2011. Retrieved October 17 2011 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television