Extra Credit Prompt

I had never used a blog before entering RTF 305. As someone who is actively immersed in internet culture, I had certainly read a few, but it had never really occurred to me to start my own. I was excited by the prospect, even if I knew my blog wouldn’t exactly be receiving a high amount of traffic.

Throughout the semester, I discovered both pros and cons to using the blog as a class tool. The primary positive aspect to the system was that it allowed traditional writing assignments to feel far more unique and exciting than they would have otherwise. The ability to incorporate multimedia aspects into blog posts provided a welcome change of pace from the “12 point font, Times New Roman, double spaced, one inch margins” style every single writing assignment in every single other class seems to require. At the same time, the flip side to this creativity provided my primary difficulty in using the blog. The creativity inherent in a personal blog conflicted with the rigidity of the grading rubric provided for each post. Rather than a smooth, flowing style, my posts read like they were being written to a bullet point checklist, which they essentially were. My desire for creative (albeit controlled) expression was overridden by my desire for full credit, and the two could not always be rectified. This was an easy difficulty to overcome; of course, as a student in the class, I did whatever was required for full credit, and let my creative impulses idle. However, I feel that this may have defeated the purpose of the blogs to a large degree.

The most interesting blog prompts were the ones that were more general, over the very specific prompts. It is quite easy to provide examples of both. My favorite blog prompt was one that required me to relate the concept of social learning to a real-life example. I used Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, easily my favorite movie released all year. This allowed for the personal expression I enjoyed in the blogs, while still remaining on point and on topic. In contrast, my least favorite blog prompt required me to identify a long shot, medium shot, and close up in a film, and explain their significance. Although the choice of film was left to the writer, the nature of the requirements meant there was very little freedom outside of the initial choice. Once the film was selected, there was very little room for improvisation or personality in the blog post itself.

With all this being said, I believe the pros outweigh the cons, and the blogs are worth using not just in RTF 305, but, at the very least, in other media-based courses as well. The only improvement I can suggest that would make them a more effective tool would be to use more generalized prompts, and to avoid bullet point rubrics, instead grading on the quality of the posts themselves. This would, admittedly, be a more subjective grading style, but that doesn’t stop any other class from requiring assignments of such a nature. With that change implemented, I believe the blogs are an effective tool to make students think more closely about their writing than they might have otherwise, which is a worthy goal.

Yes, you can use my blog in a paper or report.

Globalization

In the broadest sense, globalization refers to the ongoing process of increasing interconnectedness among countries, cultures, and people all across the globe. By far the biggest factor in globalization is technological advancement. Cell phones and the internet have allowed us to connect with our local friends at all times, while also connecting with strangers who could live in the same town as us, or live halfway across the world. However, while technology plays the biggest role in globalization, media plays an important role as well. The importing of foreign media can allow for cultural diffusion, and an increased connectedness to other cultures. In the United States, this is most visible with Japanese media, with products like manga, anime, and video games gaining huge followings and devoted audiences.

However, not all media products are imported directly. In some cases, in an attempt to appeal to a more mainstream audience, a process known as glocalization occurs. In glocalization, a successful concept from one country or place is lifted, adopted and altered in content and tone, and used in another place. To continue my blog's trend of repeating topics, The Office provides a great example of glocalization.

The original British version of The Office presented a mockumentary style look at a workplace, that thrived on awkward humor and a dry tone. Interestingly, the pilot for the American version of The Office is a word for word recreation of the British version. With the high quality of the British pilot, this would not seem to be a problem, but the pilot of the American series is widely regarded as one of the weakest episodes of the whole series. The reason for this is simple: the style that worked for the British version simply didn't work for the American show. The producers quickly realized this, and the show was adapted to become more successful in the United States. Only after The Office was glocalized did it become one of the most successful comedies on television, even now in its seventh season. Glocalization allows media to be successful in foreign countries, even in an altered form. In this sense, it greatly assists in the process of globalization.

The image used in this post can be found here:
http://bgavideo.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/top-five-current-tv-shows/

The Most Interesting Man in the World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI58wj4b4g0

It's tough to imagine anyone not being familiar with the advertisement featured above. Seemingly overnight, the Most Interesting Man in the World has become a veritable pop culture icon. The concept behind the ads is quite simple. The "most interesting man in the world" is presented, and an omniscient narrator describes his achievements in laugh, all ridiculously exaggerated for comedic effect. In every advertisement featuring the character, his ending line is always the same "I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis." The beer itself is briefly focused on, then the Most Interesting Man in the World works in one final line: "Stay thirsty, my friends." Despite already watching the video above before starting this post, I wouldn't have needed it fresh in my mind to write out the quotes. They're so memorable that they've transcended the ad, and become part of pop culture. The ads are powerful because they are clever, entertaining, and memorable. Merely telling someone to "stay thirsty" instantly conjures up thoughts of Dos Equis, making the Most Interesting Man in the World one of the most effective advertising campaigns I've ever seen.

Out of the many advertising appeals discussed by Professor Straubhaar, one in particular stands out in terms of applying to the Most Interesting Man in the World: that of achievement/prominence/attention. The nature of the appeal is somewhat self-explanatory. Ads employing this appeal intend to say "Use our product, and you'll achieve great things." "Use our product, and you'll be the center of attention, the life of the party (the most interesting man in the world.)" These claims are never explicitly made, due to their obviously untrue nature, but the implication is quite intentionally there. With this in mind, the Most Interesting Man in the World is practically the textbook example of the appeal. The idea is simple: drink Dos Equis, and you can be like him. Sure, you'll never live up to all his outrageous achievements, but by drinking his brand of beer, a small part of you is the most interesting man in the world. Against this, what do other beers even have to offer? The character himself essentially exemplifies this appeal. And, given the success of the ads, it would seem the appeal has been quite successful.

The image used in this post can be found here:
http://thewifehatessports.com/2010/07/the-dos-equis-spin-the-most-insert-word-men-in-the-college-football-world/

Really, all the people behind this campaign did was lift the tired Chuck Norris meme from the internet, and apply a different coat of paint to it. It's effective, but not as original as some would like to believe.

The Three Act Structure of Up

The three act structure is by far the most commonly used plot structure in Hollywood history. It is a timeless classic that will never go away, because it simply works so well. In my practical examination of the structure, I will once again be using Up.

First Act

The first act of Up is unique in the fact that it contains a prologue which introduces viewers to Carl Fredricksen and his wife Elle, from the moment they met each other as children, through their married life, all the way to Ellie's death. Although this is an incredibly beautiful twelve minutes of film, the prologue is exactly that: a prologue that, while incredibly important to the film's narrative and character development, is not an explicit part of its narrative arc. The prologue is relatively self-contained. As such, the first act truly begins after Ellie's death, as we see Carl struggling to live his life without her. Here, we are introduced to the conflict that sets the film's primary plot in action: construction workers are trying to build where Carl's house is. Eventually, this leads to a court order placing Carl in a nursing home, and his plan to fly his home to South America, where Ellie always wanted to go, is created. Along the way, we meet Russel, a young Wilderness Explorer who ends up in Carl's house when he takes into the air with his balloons. By the time Carl takes off, the first act has already accomplished many important goals. It has established the two primary characters, placed them on a quest, and established a goal for its protagonist. However, the first act doesn't truly end until Carl and Russel have set down in South America, miles away from Paradise Falls, their ultimate goal. This creates a plot point, as it introduces a new complication: Carl and Russel must now walk the house across the wilderness to reach Paradise Falls. This sets up the next phase of their journey, and, at the 33 minute mark, sets off the second act.

Second Act

The second act, by far the longest act, contains the bulk of the narrative progression. Carl and Russel meet Dug, a friendly talking dog, and Kevin, a giant bird who is hoarding food for her children. As they trek across South America, Carl, initially reluctant to have Russel along for the ride, begins to appreciate the child's company, and become something of a surrogate father figure to him. Eventually, however, a new conflict is introduced. Carl meets his childhood hero Charles Muntz, who turns out to be Dug's master. Muntz seems friendly, until it is revealed that he is on an insane quest to capture Kevin. When Muntz realizes Carl and Russel know where Kevin is, they run, aided by Dug. Eventually, after an action-packed chase, culminating in Muntz capturing Kevin and escaping in his blimp, they finally end up at Paradise Falls, battered, bruised, and defeated. This plot point, seemingly representing the conclusion of the original goal, ends the second act on an unhappy note, as Carl enters his house at the 70 minute mark, with the conflict with Muntz still looming in the background.

Third Act

Russel is angry, but Carl has finally given up, pretending all he wants in life is to be left alone. Once inside, however, he realizes the present is what really matters, and that Ellie wanted him to move on with his life. The climax, then, occurs at the 73 minute mark, as Carl realizes the people currently in his life are what truly matter, and vows to help Russel save Kevin. The falling action constitutes a huge action set piece, as Carl launches his house back in the air to intercept Muntz's blimp, culminating in a sword fight with Muntz that leads to his falling to his presumable death. Carl and Russel take over the blimp together, "father and son," and fly back to North America, where the two share a tender moment watching cars pass by. The falling action concludes both the primary narrative arc, and the primary character arcs for both Carl and Russel. As per the three act structure, the happy ending is achieved, and the credits can roll.

The images used in this post can be found here:
http://thomasmoronic.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-favourite-film-of-year-up.html
http://www.allmoviephoto.com/photo/2009_up_021.html

I'm using Up for a series of projects in another class, so I'm intimately familiar with the film at this point. I'm just a little sick of writing about it!

Axial Sitcoms

As discussed by Colin Tain, there are many distinctive elements that define a traditional television sitcom. Although few sitcoms on the air today employ all of them, these elements can still be found throughout the television landscape. One such element is the axial nature of sitcoms. This refers to the fact that most traditional sitcoms tend to revolve around one central character, who is the focus of almost all plots, taking center stage, with other characters serving secondary roles to this primary character. Axial characters are easy to name throughout television history: Homer Simpson, Archie Bunker, Lucy Ricardo, Jerry Seinfeld, etc. However, for a more modern example in a more nontraditional sitcom, The Office's Michael Scott is an axial character.

In terms of the show itself, this means that almost all episodes of The Office revolve around events Michael's childishness sets in motion. From having to fire an employee, to calling ex-girlfriends regarding herpes, to forming a rival company to Dunder-Mifflin, Michael is at the forefront of almost all plots in the show. Although Jim and Pam tend to be their own characters, most other characters are defined through Michael, such as Dwight, whose defining characteristic is his subservience to Michael, or Oscar, whose homosexuality is revealed through Michael. Micheal's office is often framed in the center of the picture, as is Michael. Although all the characters are defined, Michael is by far the most important, establishing him as the axial character.

The image used in this post can be found here:
http://www.dvdcollectionsale.com/The-Office-Seasons-1-5-DVD-Boxset--DVD-1780.html

Honestly, why are they even bothering continuing The Office without Michael next season?

Shot Types Within Up

There is a tendency to disregard the presence of a "camera" in animated movies. After all, as a cartoon, the camera isn't REALLY there; everything on screen was drawn, either by hand or on a computer. However, this thought process severely undercuts the importance of the director, who must still frame every shot as though he has a camera in hand. As such, a skilled director of animated pictures can employ all the complexities of camera work typically associated with live action films. Within its first fifteen minutes, Up provides great examples of all three types of shots Professor Ramirez-Berg discussed on Monday.

Long Shot

Up's opening musical montage is a complex piece of narrative, and its camera work follows suit. The most distinctive long shot found within the montage depicts Carl carrying Ellie to their new house, with the house positioned squarely in the center of the screen to immediately draw the viewer's attention. It is dilapidated, with overgrown grass and dense (but beautiful) foliage surrounding it, but its significance is already clear. This is the house where Carl and Ellie first met as children, and now they own it. By keeping the house in the movie, and framing it the way this long shot does, the house arguably becomes a character in and of itself, which is important throughout the story. The image depicted above is not actually the long shot I've been describing, but is an equally important one. It depicts the house after Ellie's death, showing all the work Carl and Ellie put into fixing it, but also the destruction that has taken away all the beauty surrounding it, and acting as our first indication that Carl is out of touch with the world around him. It is a parallel shot, deliberately meant to recall the first long shot of the house.

Medium Shot

A medium shot of Carl and Ellie fixing up their house follows almost immediately after the previously mentioned long shot. Unfortunately, I can't find an image of this online, but it is not hard to describe. It shows Carl and Ellie, still in their tuxedo and wedding dress, respectively, inside their home, beginning the work ahead of them. Carl is hammering nails into the wall, while Ellie is sawing a board. This conveys the information that fixing up the house is the first thing on the couple's mind, as they start immediately after the wedding. As well, although it does not convey the emotion an upcoming close up will, our ability to see the characters' faces tells us that they're completely happy with the work. This is exactly what they want to be doing.

Close Up

Although there are many close ups throughout the montage, the most powerful one comes toward the end. I can't find this image online either. Once again, all I can do is describe the shot. It takes place a long time after the other two shots, toward the end of Ellie's life. Both she and Carl have reached old age, but Ellie is dying, and is lying in her hospital bed. We see a balloon float toward her from the doorway, and then the close up on Carl. Everything we could need to know is conveyed in this one shot. Carl gives a broken smile, attempting to hide how he's feeling, but his eyes give it away. He knows Ellie is about to die, and is fighting with his emotions to be there and comfort her as much as possible. However, his heart is completely broken. After the montage depicting their entire married life together, this shot's power is amplified. While it was never in question, Carl's love for Ellie is best represented by this one shot.

The image used in this post can be found here:
http://oddgirloutblog.blogspot.com/

I wish I could have found images for the other two shots, but it's certainly understandable that I couldn't. You can't expect every frame of a movie to be online.

Classical Hollywood

Classical Hollywood was a very different industry from the Hollywood we're used to today. Perhaps the biggest difference; the one that seems most important to me, as it's the hardest to wrap my mind around, is the system of production Classical Hollywood employed. The system could most readily be compared to an assembly line, "Fordist" in nature- everything was assembled on sight. There would be a room filled with writers working on scripts, right next to a room filled with editors working on their latest films, right next to a sound stage with actors and directors working on their next film. This assembly line system was highly efficient, and allowed studios to put out far more films than they can now, albeit oftentimes at the expense of quality. The system also tended to marginalize the input of everyone but the actors, who served as the face of filmmaking. Today, something like The Social Network is advertised as a David Fincher film with a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. This provides an interesting contrast to Casablanca, considered one of the greatest films of all time, yet whose director, Michael Curtiz, is hardly a household name.

The assembly line system also affected the kinds of films Hollywood produced. The system was all about efficiency, and creativity often fell by the wayside in the process. This helped foster the creation of clear-cut genres, such as the crime genre, or the western. These films tended to be rather similar to each other, playing on what audiences both expected and wanted. There were exceptions, of course, but a large portion of the many films Hollywood produced could be easily categorized by design. Certain actors even tended to be associated with certain genres, such as Humphrey Bogart, who was expected to play the "hard-boiled detective" type. Casablanca may seem to defy categorization, but the film is really a combination of multiple clearly defined genres, most notably romance and war films. As well, Bogart, though not a detective, brought many of his familiar qualities to the film.

The picture used in this post can be found here:
http://legendsrevealed.com/entertainment/2009/05/15/movie-legends-revealed-5/

See, a picture! I lived up to my word on this one.

All in the Family Meets Arrested Development

Traditional family based sitcoms like All in the Family are no longer as prominent as they once were. Certainly they still exist, but their popularity seems to have waned. Modern Family is currently a huge exception, but, unfortunately, I don't watch that show. Other than that, the most popular comedies on the air are nontraditional programs like The Office and The Big Bang Theory. However, a recent cult classic provides an excellent contrast: Arrested Development.

The two programs are strikingly different, but they do have some similarities to each other. Both primarily focus on one family: the Bunkers in All in the Family and the Bluths in Arrested Development. Both father figures are  insensitive, and not intended to be role models for viewers. And both shows approach a wide variety of controversial topics, including homosexuality, religion, and the integration of mentally challenged individuals into society. However, most of the show's similarities end there. All in the Family presents a family that, while flawed, is still happy, and generally attempts to impart a moral with each episode. In contrast, Arrested Development is far more cynical, and shows a family completely dysfunctional in every respect. They're different styles of comedy, but All in the Family has more "heart."

Although there aren't necessarily any subjects All in the Family tackles that Arrested Development wouldn't, there is an interesting difference in censorship. As seen in the screening, Archie Bunker made frequent use of the word "fag," which would absolutely never be allowed on TV today. Archie was often used to explore similar taboos, and could be considered quite controversial. As a satire, All in the Family could be much more potent due to these relaxed censorship standards. One can't help but wonder what TV would be like if such taboos were lifted today.

Second blog entry with no pictures. I'm on an ancient computer this week, and can't upload them. This will be remedied next week!

Audience Demand and the Shape of the Radio

To be fair, there were many different factors shaping the development of radio in the 1920s. To develop tunnel vision and only focus on one would grossly oversimplify the industry's complications. However, that being said, out of all the factors, I believe audience demand was the most crucial to radio's development in the 1920s, as without it, none of the other factors would have a lasting effect; audience demand sustains the industry.

Audience demand is something of an amorphous concept; difficult to describe in concrete terms. On the surface, it's exactly what it sounds like: what the audience demands from its media. This has a powerful effect on all media industries. For this topic, radio will be focused on. Is there demand for a country music station? One will surely pop up. Does demand die down for hip hop? The local hip hop station may very well go out of business or be forced to radically alter its playlists and style. Although the industry suits would no doubt love it, it is not always possible to tell the audience what they want. Media bows to audience demand.

Audience demand had a very blunt, direct effect on the development of radio in the 1920s. As it was a fledgling industry, those in charge were still looking for ways to turn radio into a profitable venture. They settled on a system that is intimately familiar to us today. Advertisers paid to have their ads carried on radio programs. This was revolutionary for the time. However, there was one unknown factor: would audiences reject radio if it featured too much advertising, rather than constant programming? This is where audience demand came into play. This was a brand new medium, and audiences wanted to eat it up, no matter what. If it had advertisements, so be it. A necessary evil for one of the most exciting inventions people had ever seen. Audience demand was strong enough to propel the advertising-based model forward, shaping not just the radio of the 1920s, but the radio of all decades to come. Audience demand created the radio format we still have to this very day.

No images for this entry. I just couldn't find any interesting ones about radio, and I certainly didn't want to dip into generic images! At least the post actually has a title this time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgOLmjhxVVU

Based only on the above trailer, would you see Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World? You certainly wouldn't be alone if you said no. Despite almost universal praise, the movie was a box office flop. What could cause a quality film, already well on its way to becoming a cult classic, to be such a failure financially? I think the social learning theory can at least partially explain what factors worked against Scott Pilgrim, most notably in regards to its lead actor and its subject matter.

The social learning theory is a complicated concept, with two primary components: that users imitate attitudes and behavior, and that users select media based on expected outcomes of behavior. The first component is self-explanatory, but the second can be more confusing. For most people who saw The Last Airbender, the outcome was a feeling of complete disappointment, and anger at having wasted money on the film. Users will then expect the same outcome from M. Night Shyamalan's next film and be wary of it, or avoid it altogether. This is a learned expectation, and represents quite a hurdle for any media to get over.

A very similar expectation can be applied to Scott Pilgrim's star, Michael Cera. Cera got his start playing the awkward teenager George-Michael Bluth in the beloved television show Arrested Development. After the show ended, Cera crossed over to film... where he seemingly played the same awkward teenager in every role. It may have worked for him in Juno, but for many people, the shtick was wearing thin. By the time Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, Year One, and Youth in Revolt rolled around, almost everyone had had enough. Unfortunately for Scott Pilgrim, the expected outcome of seeing a Michael Cera film had become negative. In much the same manner, the film itself had to fight the stigma of being a "video game movie." Despite being based on a comic book, the film made no attempt to hide its overt video game influences. As such, many instantly dismissed it as another Mortal Kombat or Resident Evil. Scott Pilgrim has almost nothing in common with those films, but years of experience cause viewers to expect a negative outcome from "video game movies." The social learning theory played against the film, and it couldn't rise above the expectations attributed to it.

The images used in this post can be found here:
http://www.comicsbeat.com/2010/03/19/the-scott-pilgrim-movie-poster/
http://www.zath.co.uk/scott-pilgrim-rocks-the-universe-like-no-other/

My personal expectations played against Scott Pilgrim. I had the chance to see it for free at the San Diego Comic-Con, but I refused. This is easily my biggest regret of the summer.

Framing Mass Effect

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU

Several years ago, the above video became infamous among Internet message board users for the blatant falsehoods being presented as news. I think the concept of framing clearly applies to this Fox News report, as it's obvious the executives at Fox have very negative opinions of Mass Effect and video games in general; opinions they want their viewers to adopt as well, which helps me understand the tactics they use in this report.

But first, the term "framing" must be elaborated upon. Framing is the natural continuation of the concept of agenda setting. Agenda setting is the media's attempt to tell us what to think about, by focusing on certain topics and disregarding others. Through framing, the media takes it one step further and tells us how to think about these topics. This can be accomplished in any number of ways, from sensationalist reporting, to yellow journalism, to misrepresentation of facts, to a clear bias favoring one particular side of an argument, to many, many more. All of the above, however, can be found in the Mass Effect news report.

With framing in mind, I can more easily comprehend the different components of this report. For example, the image above, with its sensationalist "Sexbox" pun, and outright lie "New video game shows full digital nudity and sex." The truth, in this instance, is secondary to the idea that this game is evil, and is corrupting American youth, and that's what Fox News wants viewers to think. Perhaps most laughable is Fox's attempt to appear fair and balanced, by bringing Geoff Keighley, who actually played Mass Effect, into the debate. He presents the actual facts regarding the game, but is casually dismissed, and even laughed at when he rightfully asks if the other members of the debate have even played the game. Essentially, Geoff, a "game expert," is portrayed as a joke. He, too, is framed in a very deliberate manner. All of this, every element of the report, is part of the framing process, of telling viewers what to think about Mass Effect.

The image used in this post is pulled directly from the video, but can be found here:
http://www.xboxoverdose.com/tag/fox-news-mass-effect-controversy/

Could this blog post be considered my attempt at framing your thoughts on Fox News? I don't have an answer; I just consider that a very deep thought.

Why I'm taking RTF 305

Of course the most basic, distilled answer is that I'm taking RTF 305 because it's required to advance in the RTF program. Seeing as my major is RTF, the class is an obvious necessity. But then, that doesn't really answer the question. Perhaps it would be more informative to write about why I chose to be an RTF major.

It certainly wasn't because of parental encouragement. As a National Merit Scholar, I was offered some huge scholarships from many different schools. UT was not one of those schools. The problem was, all the colleges offering me money wanted me in their engineering departments, doing calculus and linear equations and God knows what else.

But that wasn't for me. Just look at those equations! Supposedly that's math, but I'm seeing a distinct lack of numbers. The resounding one I scored on the Calculus AP test was the final nail in the coffin for the torrid relationship between mathematics and myself. And as difficult as it was to explain to my dad the engineer, I had been nurturing a love for film for as long as I could remember. Somehow, I knew my career was in that field.

I think it was Toy Story that did it. Toy Story marks the first time I can remember being completely absorbed in a film; in the world that was created, in the story being told, in the characters being developed, in the emotions being felt. Toy Story showed me the field I wanted to work in, for better or for worse. As I grew up, my passion more and more became screenwriting, but I'm completely enthralled by all aspects of filmmaking. So I guess what I hope to get out of RTF 305 is all-encompassing. I want to gain a deeper understanding of all forms of media, so I can better prepare myself to enter the highly competitive field I've chosen to dedicate my life to. No matter what anyone says, it's way better than being an engineer.

So, in a nutshell, I hope that explains why I threw away a prestigious scholarship and moved to Austin. I love the RTF program at UT, and the campus in general. It's everything I want out of college.

The images in this post can be found here:
http://www.onenotefan.com/2009/08/math-in-onenote/
http://www.neurosoftware.ro/programming-blog/blogposter/web-resources/the-incredible-evolution-of-pixar/

I can't say I keep up with too many blogs, although I have been known to read Kotaku from time to time. This blog will be an interesting new experience for me.