The main reason why I chose TV as my format is because it is the format which is most familiar to me. Another reason why I chose TV is because it is a digital medium which has a lot of potential to be used in conjunction with other digital media formats. For example, a lot of TV stations today have websites with additional information about their programmes. The BBC has a web site called bbc.com/iplayer, on this site one can watch the programmes that were shown on the BBC channels over the past 7 days. This is a trend which is catching on with other channels as well. On a lot of programmes where voing is involved, voting can be done on line.
I think there is great potential in merging TV with the internet.
I would have liked to have done a film script but I thought that it was not very interesting. I think there is more of a potential with TV with regards digital writing.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Blog an Anything
I decided to write my blog on my project idea because I feel like I need to. I have decided to change some of it because I get the feeling it isn't digital enough. I was looking back in time while I should have been looking forward. I'm still going to keep the teenagers going to a school in the past but they will not be from disadvantaged areas. I said before that there would be 40 teenagers but I decided to cut it back to 15. To bring the numbers up to 30 people, the other 15 people will be adults with no experience with computers and they will have to learn computer skills like teenagers today do. The adults could be the parents of the children in the old school or they may not, I have not decided yet. The only technology the teenagers will be allowed use is a web cam to keep diaries. These will then be put on the internet where they can be viewed in their entirety. The same applies to the adults. The adults will be allowed access to some parts of the internet. If they try to communicate with the outside world, they will be made type pages and pages of HTML.
In addition to the school work, both groups will be made to do tasks. The tasks will be chosen by the viewers by going to the web site and and voting. Full profiles of each individual will also be available on the web site.
The idea of the series is to show teenagers the difficulties their parents had going to school and to show parents how difficult school is today for their children. I added the parents learning computer skills, the web cam and the web site to make the whole project more digital orientated.
In addition to the school work, both groups will be made to do tasks. The tasks will be chosen by the viewers by going to the web site and and voting. Full profiles of each individual will also be available on the web site.
The idea of the series is to show teenagers the difficulties their parents had going to school and to show parents how difficult school is today for their children. I added the parents learning computer skills, the web cam and the web site to make the whole project more digital orientated.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Film Theory and Criticism
Last night for the first time I watched "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Like almost all DVDs now, there is an extras feature on the DVD and one of those features was a documentary on the making of the film.
The documentary was called "Don't Crash: the documentary of
the making of
the movie of
the book of
the radio series of
The Hitchhiker's Guide
to the Galaxy".
I did not know much about the history of The Hitchhiker's Guide but while watching the documentary, one thing was very obvious; every one involved in the film was a big fan of the book and wanted to try their best to be as true to the books as possible. The author Douglas Adams died before he could see his work turned into a film so no one could tell what he would have wanted his story to look and sound like on the big screen. The producer and director of the film put a great deal of effort to make the film very similar to the book. For example, for the narrator, they choose Stephen Fry because he has a factual, non threatening voice. This is what the tought the voice would sound like from the book.
Dudley Andrew in his chapter on Adaptation in Film Theory and Criticism says that there are three modes of relation between a film and the text it come from. These are borrowing, intersection and fidelity of transformation. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes under fidelity of transformation in my opinion. Andrew says that fidelity of transformation is a "film trying to measure up to a literary work, or of an audience expecting to make such a comparison".
I believe this is true with Hitchiker's Guide. The making of documentary showed how artists spent years drawing in sketch books to come up with all the dfferent aliens in the film. They wanted the film to live up the the popularity of the book so they literally put in years of work in the pre production phase.
There is a film called Zeitgeist which was put on the internet to be watched free of charge. The film deals with conspiracy theories. Near the end of the film the narrator tells us that film and TV were only created to draw the publics attention away from what was really happening in the world. A scary tought. I do not believe this. In fact, I love film and TV. I could watch TV for hours, even the really bad TV. Because of this, I found Anne Friedbergs chapter The End of Cinema: Multimedia and the Technological Change very interesting. The chapter tells us how TV and the internet has changed cinema and the way we watch what is on the screen in front of us. Today, because of technological advances, film and TV are always just one click away. The way we watch film has changed. We can still go to the cinema but we can also rent or buy the film on DVD and we can also watch the film on the internet.
I would not say that TV and the internet are bringing about the end of cinema. The cinema industry is a resilient one and can adapt to the changes that happen. An example that comes to mind is the film Cloverfield. Th film incorporates the style of filming which is mainly seen on the internet. Usually a shaky hand held camera is used to film an event. In Cloverfield, it looks like all the footage was caught with a hand held camera. This gives the audience a sense that what they are watching actually happened. Because people are used to seeing this type of video on the internet, they can watch a full film in this style. I do not think TV and the internet is bringing about the end of the cinema. The cinema industry is too resilient.
The documentary was called "Don't Crash: the documentary of
the making of
the movie of
the book of
the radio series of
The Hitchhiker's Guide
to the Galaxy".
I did not know much about the history of The Hitchhiker's Guide but while watching the documentary, one thing was very obvious; every one involved in the film was a big fan of the book and wanted to try their best to be as true to the books as possible. The author Douglas Adams died before he could see his work turned into a film so no one could tell what he would have wanted his story to look and sound like on the big screen. The producer and director of the film put a great deal of effort to make the film very similar to the book. For example, for the narrator, they choose Stephen Fry because he has a factual, non threatening voice. This is what the tought the voice would sound like from the book.
Dudley Andrew in his chapter on Adaptation in Film Theory and Criticism says that there are three modes of relation between a film and the text it come from. These are borrowing, intersection and fidelity of transformation. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes under fidelity of transformation in my opinion. Andrew says that fidelity of transformation is a "film trying to measure up to a literary work, or of an audience expecting to make such a comparison".
I believe this is true with Hitchiker's Guide. The making of documentary showed how artists spent years drawing in sketch books to come up with all the dfferent aliens in the film. They wanted the film to live up the the popularity of the book so they literally put in years of work in the pre production phase.
There is a film called Zeitgeist which was put on the internet to be watched free of charge. The film deals with conspiracy theories. Near the end of the film the narrator tells us that film and TV were only created to draw the publics attention away from what was really happening in the world. A scary tought. I do not believe this. In fact, I love film and TV. I could watch TV for hours, even the really bad TV. Because of this, I found Anne Friedbergs chapter The End of Cinema: Multimedia and the Technological Change very interesting. The chapter tells us how TV and the internet has changed cinema and the way we watch what is on the screen in front of us. Today, because of technological advances, film and TV are always just one click away. The way we watch film has changed. We can still go to the cinema but we can also rent or buy the film on DVD and we can also watch the film on the internet.
I would not say that TV and the internet are bringing about the end of cinema. The cinema industry is a resilient one and can adapt to the changes that happen. An example that comes to mind is the film Cloverfield. Th film incorporates the style of filming which is mainly seen on the internet. Usually a shaky hand held camera is used to film an event. In Cloverfield, it looks like all the footage was caught with a hand held camera. This gives the audience a sense that what they are watching actually happened. Because people are used to seeing this type of video on the internet, they can watch a full film in this style. I do not think TV and the internet is bringing about the end of the cinema. The cinema industry is too resilient.
Something that exists in two forms
The first thing that came to mind which exists in two forms is Resident Evil. It began its life as a video game and was then mutated into a movie trilogy. The first game came out in 1996 on the Sony Playstation and was met with praise for its style and originality. Because of its success, two other games were commissioned, Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. In 2005, Resident Evil 4 was released and is considered to be the best game in the series and also one of the best games ever released on the Playstation 2.
In 2002, the first Resident Evil film was released. The film had mixed reviews. Some praised it for its similarity to the game but others criticized it for being too much of a standard horror film and not having any meaningful dialogue. Despite the mixed reviews, it was a commercial success and two other films were made: Resident Evil: Apocalypse and Resident Evil: Extension.
I have played the games and saw the films and in my opinion, the games are better, especially Resident Evil 4. The reason I think they are better is simple, one interacts much more with the games than with the films. For me its all about the scare factor, I love horror films and I want them to scare me. The Resident Evil movies did not scare me because they adhere too much to the standard Hollywood horror formula. Sure one might jump when a zombie suddenly appears on screen but we are so used to that trick that it is almost expected in a horror film at this stage. Resident Evil 4 (the game) scared me much more than the films for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that it is a game, you are control of the main character so your decisions affect what happens. With the films, you know that the main character is not going to die, but with the game, you can, and do die (a lot). There is more of a sense of danger to the game because of this. Also, in the films when Alice, the main character gets hurt, it does not really affect the audience. With the game however, when you get cut with a chainsaw, you know because the controller vibrates. This is a representation of the characters pain, and you do not get this with the films.
Usually with third person shooter games one is able to move the camera around the character to see the surroundings. In Resident Evil 4 and the other games, this can be done but only to a certain extent. When you are walking up to an important place or building, you loose control of the camera and it moves to a very low angle looking up at the building. It makes your character feel small and the building feel big and intimidating. It is this sudden loss of control that I think is scary. You get these angles in the films but you don't feel the lack of control because you never had any control to begin with.
I saw all the films in the cinema because I enjoy seeing films on the big screen. Because I was in a room with a lot of other people, I did not feel scared because I was not alone. With the games however, I play them in a room by myself with the lights off. All my attention is on the game so when I get shocked, its amplified because I am alone and the controller is vibrating wildly.
The difference between the films and the games is the interaction the individual has with them. With the films, there is very little interaction. You sit there with everyone else and absorb what you see. With the games, you sit there and become immersed in the game. You are in control of the character and it is up to you to reach the end of the game. With the films, you always know that the character is going to succeed.
In 2002, the first Resident Evil film was released. The film had mixed reviews. Some praised it for its similarity to the game but others criticized it for being too much of a standard horror film and not having any meaningful dialogue. Despite the mixed reviews, it was a commercial success and two other films were made: Resident Evil: Apocalypse and Resident Evil: Extension.
I have played the games and saw the films and in my opinion, the games are better, especially Resident Evil 4. The reason I think they are better is simple, one interacts much more with the games than with the films. For me its all about the scare factor, I love horror films and I want them to scare me. The Resident Evil movies did not scare me because they adhere too much to the standard Hollywood horror formula. Sure one might jump when a zombie suddenly appears on screen but we are so used to that trick that it is almost expected in a horror film at this stage. Resident Evil 4 (the game) scared me much more than the films for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that it is a game, you are control of the main character so your decisions affect what happens. With the films, you know that the main character is not going to die, but with the game, you can, and do die (a lot). There is more of a sense of danger to the game because of this. Also, in the films when Alice, the main character gets hurt, it does not really affect the audience. With the game however, when you get cut with a chainsaw, you know because the controller vibrates. This is a representation of the characters pain, and you do not get this with the films.
Usually with third person shooter games one is able to move the camera around the character to see the surroundings. In Resident Evil 4 and the other games, this can be done but only to a certain extent. When you are walking up to an important place or building, you loose control of the camera and it moves to a very low angle looking up at the building. It makes your character feel small and the building feel big and intimidating. It is this sudden loss of control that I think is scary. You get these angles in the films but you don't feel the lack of control because you never had any control to begin with.
I saw all the films in the cinema because I enjoy seeing films on the big screen. Because I was in a room with a lot of other people, I did not feel scared because I was not alone. With the games however, I play them in a room by myself with the lights off. All my attention is on the game so when I get shocked, its amplified because I am alone and the controller is vibrating wildly.
The difference between the films and the games is the interaction the individual has with them. With the films, there is very little interaction. You sit there with everyone else and absorb what you see. With the games, you sit there and become immersed in the game. You are in control of the character and it is up to you to reach the end of the game. With the films, you always know that the character is going to succeed.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Writing Machines 2
I always undrstood what Electronic Literature and writing were. But I could never understand how e-literature would give a different experience than if the literature was being read from a print book. It dawned on me however while reading the third chapter of Writing machines. The problem I was having with understanding e-literature was that I thought e-literature was providing aditional information for the reader so that the reader would not have to imagine it. I was missing the point completely. Instead of providing additional information for the reader as I thought, e-literature is providing a whole new, in debht way of ingesting a story.
It hit me while reading about Shelly Jackson's Patchwork Girl, an electronic rewriting of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Frankenstein is a book enjoyed reading so I was interested to know what more an electronic rewriting could offer. I understood when I saw the picture of the monster and its brain in sections. Clicking on each section of the brain would take you to the stories of the women who made up the body of the monster. This provides a lot more information than the book and is there at the press of a button. It gives the reader a more in debth experience than a print text can. i print text could tell the stories of those women but it would make a very large book. The advantage with e-literature is that the information is there for you if you choose to click on it.
It hit me while reading about Shelly Jackson's Patchwork Girl, an electronic rewriting of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Frankenstein is a book enjoyed reading so I was interested to know what more an electronic rewriting could offer. I understood when I saw the picture of the monster and its brain in sections. Clicking on each section of the brain would take you to the stories of the women who made up the body of the monster. This provides a lot more information than the book and is there at the press of a button. It gives the reader a more in debth experience than a print text can. i print text could tell the stories of those women but it would make a very large book. The advantage with e-literature is that the information is there for you if you choose to click on it.
Things Similar to my Project Idea
The only Irish TV show I could find that shows any similarity to mine is "Joy in the Hood". In this series, Des Bishop went to impoverished areas around Ireland setting up comedy workshops. Most of the people who took part were inner city teenagers. This is where the show is similar to mine, it used people with the same background as the people I would like to use. I remember watching the show and thought it was interesting to watch these people because they are not the kind of people one would typically see on Irish TV.
I found a show made in the UK which is very similar to mine. The show is called "That ll Teach 'em" and was first shown in 2003. 30 teenagers were put in a 1950's style boarding school and were thought in the same way as they would back then. Basically, it's very like my idea. The main aim of the show was to find out if the students would perform as well in the exams of that time as they do in todays exams.
The aim of my show is different. I want to find out if the style of teaching back then is more or less effective on these teenagers than todays teaching styles.
I found a show made in the UK which is very similar to mine. The show is called "That ll Teach 'em" and was first shown in 2003. 30 teenagers were put in a 1950's style boarding school and were thought in the same way as they would back then. Basically, it's very like my idea. The main aim of the show was to find out if the students would perform as well in the exams of that time as they do in todays exams.
The aim of my show is different. I want to find out if the style of teaching back then is more or less effective on these teenagers than todays teaching styles.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)