Group items tagged

To me, this is an example of the cultural lag most of us are experiencing. Executives, typical of the white male dominating elites, are not ready to embrace this new video storytelling technology. Blurring the lines between reality and fiction is groundbreaking storytelling. We participate in interactive video games via our computers, why not interactive storytelling. Again, this whole concept to me is absolutely brillant!

Collaborative video storytelling.....who would have thought!

I think that Beckett is on to something, but the TV world just isn't ready for it yet. I think that we may see shows similar to "Lonelygirl" soon, because people want to be involved and participate in what they watch. Why do you think that shows such as Dancing with the Stars and American Idol are so popular? It's because everyone gets to be their own judge in a way. Also, they develop "relationships" with the contestants. They want their favorite singer to win or their least favorite to get booted off. Successful shows such as these are highly interactive.

I think that this feature is what made so many people interested in it before, and led them to be currently interested. There were no boundaries with this show. It's creators were free to do whatever they wanted with the show. This is part of what made it different from an ordinary television show.

So, Internet as a writing space remediates early TV as a writing space, which was at the time remediating radio as a writing space. Only later did innovations for each particular space come to exist.

It must have been a tough choice for the creators to trade a deal for the freedom to screen their shows wherever they want, but it only makes sense. The designed the series for a writing space that was based on sharing, so signing exclusively with a website would defeat the point.

Interestingly enough, while this separate collaboration doesn't happen in TV or film, it does happen with longer book series. For example, Star Wars books are authorized by George Lucas but written by multiple people. Sometimes single series within that larger group are written by different authors.

Oddly enough, this idea contradicts the remediation theory. Instead of saying, "it's like film, only [insert difference here]," they're saying it's unike film.

There's a big difference here before the standard of television and today's internet. Interativity is a lot more involving, and a person can grow more emotionally attached as opposed to the "passivity of television." Emotional attachment equals addicted viewership, which equals popularity and success of the show. It's really an ingenious new medium for the entertainment industry to consider.

I do not thing it's a good idea to blur reality and fiction. As we saw in "A Rape in Cyberspace," problems arise when you mix VR and RL.

That's an interesting concept to consider when you think about it. By having separate vlogs, you're able to give separate points on view on different "issues" going on in the characters lives, and it makes the audience feel like they can relate even better. Some movies give you the first-person-point of view, so you know exactly what one person is thinking (like Bree), but you don't know the mind of the other characters (like Daniel). By giving them their own "spotlight," the viewers can form a greater attachment and interest in the stories presented.

Even after people realized that the story was fictional, they still retained their viewership, and that really testifies to the success they had. But even then, Beckett and Flinders didn't choose to "sell out" on the idea; they've kept it as they intended it, and I think that's a pretty important thing to observe. They didn't try to modify it to fit onto the big screen so that they could earn even more money from it.

I guess any publicity can be good publicity.

It didn't seem to matter whether she was real or not in the end. People wrote to her and contacted her regardless, and now she i watched more than ever. People become angered at being tricked, but fascinated all at once.

I don't think it has to be boring. If you are really creative you can make it interesting.

The concept that this is a whole new form of entertainment seems totally spot on. People treat YouTube differently than they do television. It kind of seems like an evolved reality show phenomenon.

It wil soon blow up. Everything starts out small-if they get enough views it will go big sooner than later.

The question is if there is a danger in this. One of the kids I nanny for is fascinated with The Wiggles. When looking for a Wiggles video for him on YouTube, I cam across a family video of two little kids getting Wiggles toys for Christmas. It may be cute to send this video to the family's friends and relatives, but should the whole world have access to it, too? Everyone tells young people to protect their identity on the Internet, but then YouTube provides unlimited access to so many otherwise-personal videos.

This is a nice way for people to learn another technology, rather than doing the same thing all of the time, which is just watching the television. Maybe adults of an older generation would like to learn this technology.

Yea, you would think that would be the first thing that the founder of U-tube would know. What started your bussiness off is usally an important detail to remember

it is easy to see how something like this could happen- you start posting funny videos of your friends, they post of theirs, you open it up, and you have a movement...

We discussed in class why people would want to be on Youtube. This quote here is a great example. People want their five minutes of fame. They think that because other people are watching their videos they are star because they are entertaining them.

Sifting through the millions of piences of crap enables us to accidentally come upon such gems as "Boom Goes the Dynamite", "Treadmill Dane", and Lonelygirl15. Users could possibly feel a sense of discovery when finding such unique entertainment. It's like being on your own personal entertainment expedition.

When discussing target content relevant to what the marketer is selling, personal information is getting collected and data possibly being manipulated. Nonopticon surrounds us.

I think more money is now put into online advertisements than TV advertisement. Is it fair to say that the computer is almost (that is in popularity and phenomenon (sp?)) as big of a pop culture invention as the TV was in the 50s?

What about copy right laws?

I agree that advertisers are having trouble with televison. With TiVo and DVRs becoming more affordable, there is almost no need to watch commercials. They make it so easy to skip through a commercial while watching a program. I have recently noticed that advertisers are responding to this by creating more comical and appealing commercials. There are some commercials that I actually like viewing now.

Yes...until recently. Now, there is limitless space on the Internet. Highly viewed websites such as MySpace, Facebook, and You Tube have provide great outlets for companies to advertise. These sites are often viewed more frequently than most television shows, and they are often unavoidable. You can get up, get a snack, or use the restroom during a commercial break on television, but you can't click off an advertisement or an icon while its on a webpage.

This seems to be reflective of everyone's desire for "15 minutes of fame." The internet is making that a reality. The question is whether or not this is a good thing. Yes, it is easy and possible. It is revolutionizing our culture, and people constantly want to search and discover interesting morsels of entertainment. But is it becoming an obsession, especially with some people? With the huge number of broadcasts daily, it makes you think so.

I would personally never put a video on Youtube. However, I have to admit that some of them are extremely funny. This also makes me think, though, of our discussion in class how some jobs look at internet sites and if they see you on them, they are less likely to hire you. So, it just goes to show that we have to be careful with how we portray ourselves.

We are in an age of technological advancement. The culture is saturated with it. If networks want to appeal to the generations that have grown up using this technology and prefer it as a mode of entertainment and communicaiton, then the smart business action to take is to begin expanding toward internet broadcasting. The standard television is no longer the central figure in the entertainment and news world, and in order to keep up with it, the networks have to "go with the flow."

I completely agree with this statement. I personally watch alot of shows on DVR, especially American Idol because I can't stand how they draw out the show with commercials every five minutes. Advertisers have to adapt to the changing marketplaces or else their products will suffer.

I completely agree with this statement. I watch most shows on DVR, especially American Idol and fast forward through the commercials. They draw out these shows and make the commercial breaks longer and longer.

Eventually the technologies will merge fully. You won't have a television and a separate computer. You will have everything all in one. Comcast digital cable has numerous music stations. Look at On Demand, you get to pick and choose when and what you watch. It will all meld together. Instead of previews to programs, it will be whatever you want to see whenever you want to see it. Your TV/Computer will do everything.

This is what motivated much of the Writer's Guild strike. The writers wanted to have a share of online revenue when their shows are downloaded, like royalties.

Fragmentation has decimated the audiences of the big networks, but it's also been the reason so many new channels have been created: Animal Planet, the cooking channel, the sci-fi channel. And viewers watching these channels have special interest in the subject, so they are more likely to actually watch the commercials. So it's mostly the bigger networks that are suffering, which explains why there are so many reality TV shows on the major channels now. While they aren't "reality," they don't need a script so much as a situation.

Yes, a lot of shows are available online anytime, and also on Comcast. So, the big corporations are tryng to deal with the fragmentation. The problem with that is that it's still not exactly interactive, which is the thing people love about YouTube. This still doesn't address the issue that everyone wants to be a star.

I think the fact that many TV shows are now available online is a good sign. The greater U.S. population has been using the Internet for awhile. By putting TV shows online, it shows a good meshing of the two media outlets.

A recurring theme we've talked about in ITW is how some people are hesitant toward change. The want to keep the status quo shows this hesitantion, despite the overwhelming popularity of YouTube.

I agree this content is funny and entertaining, but there is social relevance. What do you think will be our legacy when all this is found 50 or 100 years in the future?

I find it amusing that Hurley mentions this. We actually discussed this in Creative Writing on Monday. The teacher asked who in the classroom wants to be famous. To my surprise there were only a few of us who raised our hands. As much as I want to be a star though, I wouldnt find posting a video on youtube very successful.

The way technology is quickly growing and moving I don't see anything getting in its way. I see the computer replacing other medias.

If so many people view "You Tube" it must say something about its entertaining value. I am one of those people who shifts through "You Tube" and I have come across many interesting ones.

I think the advertisers do that. Look at the sig-in page for myspace. It is a virtual billboard. Any given day the entire sign-in page is a new advertisement. Sometimes it is a movie. The other day it was an entire page devoted to crest toothpaste. Once you are on the site, the sidebars are bombarded with schanging advertisements. Vans shoes one minute then after refreshing the page, it is some other product. Maybe we don't pay that much attention or ever click on the link. I know I never do. But clearly the advertisers have achieved at least some of their purpose because I remember seeing thier ad.