.Saturday, November 10, 2007 ' 1:38 PM Y
BOO!!
Is television still ahead of the race?
The "Happy Tree Friends" phenomenon is part of the massive shift of eyeballs away from traditional media like TV toward the Internet.
"Happy Tree Friends" is at the forefront of a number of brands that are defining their success first in the online space, and then building from this strong audience base toward other media like TV, interactive, etc. The audience is in the millions online, clamoring for original content that they can share with their friends.”
It seems that the Internet is gaining a strong foothold… Do we consider the Internet a mainstream media then considering that its reach might even exceed that of the television?
Or is television still THE mainstream media? What do we mean by mainstream media anyway?
It seems to me that in today’s society, being able to please online audience is more important than pleasing audience at home watching TV… considering that success is more dependent on the Internet that is wider in reach?
Take the success of "Happy Tree Friends" for example. Many are concerned about the show, especially now that it is being screened on TV… Parents are afraid that their children might be exposed to “bad influence” as they would call it. But it doesn’t seem to be so simple anymore. These concerns might be raised but that’s not stopping "Happy Tree Friends" from being screened on TV.
Also, a point to note is that even though parents might oppose to their children watching "Happy Tree Friends" on TV, there’s no telling that their children would not turn to their alternative – watching it on the Internet itself which is so readily available.
With the power of the various media today, my opinion is that it is no longer a one-man show... Television no longer in control? Television might be the official mainstream media in name but the Internet might be the mainstream media that is in power… If we think about it, it seems as though we can do without a TV these days. All we need is the Internet.
To put it simply, what we can get from TV, we can easily get from the Internet – news, even television programmes, and we are not talking about just what we get on local channels… it’s what is shown on other people’s local channels (it’s international!) and we can even get it real-time.
What about our TV? Can it do the same?
In the past, the TV was considered to be our “eyes” in the sense that the TV is the window, which allows us to “see” the world through it.
But today, is that really the same? Are we still as reliant on the TV?
Look at what "Happy Tree Friends" can achieve by simply starting out on the Internet… What does this imply?
Coming to think about it, if the Internet can do what the TV does, but the TV is not able to do what the Internet can do…
Can we then say that the day will come when the Internet will replace the TV? And that day might be imminent…
Take your pick
If you were stranded on a deserted island, which of the following would you pick given 2 choices:
A) TV
B) Internet (of course, I mean with a computer attached if you pick this option)
Think about your choice… Why? What is this telling?
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, Media, personal opinion, technology
1 Comments:
I would of course choose the internet! Mainly because I can get help with the internet to return, but that's not the point here.
The internet, whether for entertainment or for information, is far more flexible than the tv, and therefore better suit our differing needs and wants. I can watch my favourite shows as and when I am free or want to, I can get more objective information (no/less censorship by the authorities), I can have just what I want and filter everything else out, and not have to wait for hours for the next show I'm interested in.
But most importantly, on top of that, the internet is interactive, which brings it to a higher level. We are no longer passive consumers, we can decide on what we see and what we don't. Everyone can communicate over the internet, but not on tv(teletext service aside).
Nonetheless, I believe the tv still has its function, perhaps for bonding and network convenience. The TV is after all still a more widely used item as compared to computers.
.Wednesday, November 7, 2007 ' 2:30 PM Y
BOO!!
We call it cartoons… But it’s no longer for children?
Cartoons = children as audience?
Genres and target audiences are often explicitly and inextricably linked, genres are often defined (especially industrially) by an assumed audience segment. Often, by labeling a genre as cartoons, we naturally associate it with children, and thus tend to assume that it is appropriate viewing for children.
But is that really the case in today’s context?
Just by looking at the characters from "Happy Tree Friends", we are often misled. But when we finally catch an episode, we experience for ourselves that appearances can be deceiving…
"Happy Tree Friends" is rarely ever happy and far from family-friendly. In a sense, it seems that cartoons have taken a turn toward catering to mature audiences.
Ramin Zahed, editor of Animation magazine, said "Happy Tree Friends" may be only the latest in a continuum of content once thought offensive, like "The Simpsons" or "South Park," but now accepted as mainstream. Cartoons already airing on cable networks like SpikeTV are more outrageous than "Happy Tree Friends," he said.
Considering the fact that such controversial cartoons are actually well received and almost becoming a trend, what is it telling? That controversy is the way to go?
Also, the question that I’m wondering now is, why cartoons? Why of all genres, are cartoons chosen to depict controversial content?
Is there a certain masking effect that is embedded within cartoons?
Do we find it easier to consume controversial content through cartoons because we tend to assume them to be harmless, and thus much anxiety is exempted from the genre?
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, Genres, personal opinion
1 Comments:
I guess the reason why we find the use of cartoons more appropriate for raising controversial issues is that we tend to relate cartoons to 'fiction', taking shield from cartoons' main purpose which is to entertain, while others like human-acted shows would invite stronger backlash as the message they deliver would tend to be more clear and direct, similar to watching documentaries? I really think it is for their convenience to try to avoid trouble from the controversy, and perhaps to lighten the mood.
.Sunday, November 4, 2007 ' 1:25 PM Y
BOO!!
Round 2: Violence vs. Gore
Check out this interesting “Tom & Jerry” episode I found on YouTube.
Do this experiment if you are game. It’s pretty interesting. Watch this episode twice. (Advisory: Do it only if you have the time)
The two videos feature the same episode.
Tom & Jerry - Jerry's Cousin (Sound Dubbing)
Tom & Jerry - Jerry's Cousin (Original)
How did you find this episode?
Personally, I found it really interesting… It’s obviously an episode of “Tom & Jerry”. Yet, with the sound dubbing that’s done (with lots of vulgarities), it feels kind of awkward (even uneasy?) to know that it’s coming from “Tom & Jerry”.
The point here is to note that the scenes are still originally “Tom & Jerry”. But why do we feel that the episode is suddenly so violent. Is it just the vulgarities?
Think again.
The scenes are noticeably violent as well. Why haven’t we noticed that before? I find it really interesting that generally, we accept “Tom & Jerry” as a family-friendly cartoon where children and adults alike can sit down, watch it together in the living room, and have a good laugh over it.
These are obviously very violent cartoons that we are watching. Why is it acceptable then? What is this telling?
Some questions that we can think about the whole notion of cartoons. How do we define cartoons anyway? What is considered acceptable or not acceptable?
1. Is violence in Tom & Jerry acceptable because it is a cartoon? Why is it then that we cannot accept "Happy Tree Friends"?
2. Is violence in Tom & Jerry acceptable because the characters do not speak a regular language, so no vulgarities? Isn’t this the case for "Happy Tree Friends" as well?
3. Is violence in Tom & Jerry acceptable because there is no blood spilled in there? So this is the difference that separates "Happy Tree Friends"?
§ Just like in good old cartoons where the characters never die no matter what mishaps they face?
§ Is that even reality? In reality, there are obvious consequences. Are we then afraid to face consequences? Is that an anxiety that we face?
§ Does that explain why we cannot accept "Happy Tree Friends”? Because the show is very graphic with blood and guts pouring out at every possible occasion and no character is spared?
One fan, Matt Kramer, 17, of Los Angeles, defended "Happy Tree Friends" -- or HTF, in Internet shorthand -- in an e-mail: "Tom and Jerry was incredibly violent," he wrote, but "Tom the cat simply had a pancake face when hit with a skillet, his skull didn't crack like medical science tells us it should. With HTF, every little thing leads to their ultimate death, thus showing consequence."
In fact, "Happy Tree Friends” shows why it is perhaps not the best idea to have a campfire in your wooden tree house, or hang your head out of the window of the school bus, and plays the modern counterpart to the old-style fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, which showed naughty children just what happened if they wandered too deep into the forest.
I came across this interesting reading from a book entitled On media violence by Potter, W. James.
What caught my attention was that in the book, he mentioned that social scientists continually find cartoons to be the most violent of all television genres.
Cartoons do present very high rates of shootings, stabbings, bombings, and the like. These are violent actions… the cartoon “Tom & Jerry” contains so much violence that if you took away the violence you would be left with nothing. But the public discounts these actions when they appear in a fantasy or humorous context, such as a cartoon. The public reasons that when “Tom & Jerry” are stabbed or blown up, they are not really hurt, so there is no harm there is no violence.
“Tom & Jerry” would be considered very violent by content analysis and not violent by the public. The difference in definitions is traceable to the focus of concern. The public wants formulaic action – that is, safe, sanitized violence (no graphicness, low harm) that does not threaten them (not shocking, low reality), and in which the good guys are strong and prevail (high revenge, high justification). When members of the public see this formula in action, they see no violence and no need to complain.
How do you relate to this? I hope this leaves you thinking…
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, Genres, Jerry's Cousin, Media, motifs, personal opinion
.Tuesday, October 30, 2007 ' 1:17 PM Y
BOO!!
Round 1: Violence vs. Gore (Part 1)
Ask yourself this question: Is "Happy Tree Friends" more violence or gore?
If you think it’s probably more gore and if that explains why it actually turns you off…
Think again. Why do you feel this way?
What is this telling? Is violence more acceptable over gore?
Let’s just put it this way. Personally, I feel that violence is becoming a common feat these days. We see violence depicted in media all the time and we think nothing of it. This is worrying as it is as though this constant exposure over time is leading us to see violence as a natural occurrence… and eventually, desensitizing us to violence?
So in which case, is violence becoming a part of our culture? So is it just a matter of getting used to?
In that case, the popularity of "Happy Tree Friends" is perturbing…
One would think the show's content would turn many viewers away from the program. But ratings and product sales tell a different story. “Even through a blood-covered window, it's easy to see the growing popularity of these creations. Every week, 5 million people watch the episodes over the Internet. Almost a million are subscribed to the mailing list.”
With the connectivity of media today, it has definitely help to speed up the spread of the cult culture of "Happy Tree Friends". Since the show's humble origins on the Internet, it has moved on to its television debut on MTV's Downloaded, a program showcasing the best in animated shorts from the Internet, DVD release, it has now spread to the G4 television network where millions of viewers watch the show regularly, and soon… "Happy Tree Friends" will march its way onto game consoles, handheld systems and almost certainly the PC.
What is this telling? There will come a day when even gore might stomp its way into our culture and be acceptable as mainstream?
Watch out! That day might be just be imminent…
As Cuddles would put it – “Resistance is futile.”
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, Genres, Media, personal opinion
.Friday, October 26, 2007 ' 1:13 PM Y
BOO!!
Wait and see. The end is ALWAYS imminent…
An episode of "Happy Tree Friends" = Gore factor with the sweet, cuteness of cuddly animals
Happy Tree Friends are cuddly animals whose adventures always end up going wrong.
Each episode start with a familiar, non-threatening scene: the characters playing on a merry-go-round to going camping and even having fun at a carnival. At first everything is peaceful and happy, but that's when the ultra-violence begins, and things end up going horribly wrong: the playground equipment spinning so fast it splatters the terrified riders against nearby trees; the vending machine toppling, squishing its helpless customer…
Whatever the circumstances the "Friends" find themselves in, the outcome are obvious… random objects will soon aid in the gory demise of an adorable, yet ill-fated, creature.
However, in order to fulfill their commitment to some modicum of actual thought, they have provided helpful quips such as "Smiles are always free!" and "Don't forget to floss!" at the end of each episode.
Here’s another episode for you:
In this episode titled "I Get a Trick Out of You," Lumpy performs magic on Cuddles, but accidentally cuts both the box and the creature in half. On the way to the hospital, the "magician" falls out of the back of the ambulance but manages to grab a hold of the box on the way out, stretching Cuddles' intestines and innards hundreds of feet down the road.
Screaming in pain, Cuddles is finally stitched up before Lumpy comes to visit…
Happy Tree Friends – I Get a Trick Out of You
Each episode of "Happy Tree Friends" seems to be addressing certain anxieties in society.
Death is an example that is constantly played out. In fact, in every episode – although we somewhat know the ending, that is, the characters are going to end up dead in a violent and abrupt manner; the suspense is when and how the death will occur.
When we are watching, we are anticipating death and therefore anxious in how and when it is to occur…
Our lives are not in our control, and are in fact subjected to other forces, the environment, “stupid characters” that end up ruining our lives?
Humans are anxious about what it cannot control…
Projection of these anxieties by projecting it as cartoons and mainstream media such as TV, signifying we can deal better?
Is that really the case?
Labels: cultural anxieties, Faustina, I Get a Trick Out of You. Personal Opinion, motifs
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By 
Unknown, at
November 12, 2007 at 8:47 PM
haha. I like the title. "I Get a Trick out of You" plays on the ol' Frank Sinatra song -- "I Get a Kick out of You".
Here's Jamie Cullum's versh of it on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWTEfhhZXK4
.Thursday, October 18, 2007 ' 2:03 PM Y
BOO!!
Can you love it?
They're cute-looking little critters, and they come in the kinds of pretty colors that would be right at home in kiddie cartoons or on children's birthday greeting cards. They have names such as Cuddles (a bright yellow rabbit), Giggles (pink pussy cat with bow), Petunia (blue skunk with orange flower) and Lumpy (who looks like Bullwinkle's loopy cousin). They chirp away, sounding a bit like demented chipmunks, and they appear in an array of short adventures that end with wholesome helpful advice slogans such as "Don't forget to floss!", "Eat your vegies!" and "Take your vitamins!"
But appearances are deceptive…
Take “Havin' a Ball”, in which Pop (father) & Cub's (son) game of catch takes an unexpected turn when Pop is run over and falls off a cliff. His descent is interrupted by the rotor-blades of a helicopter (carrying Lumpy), and he lands in a vermillion splat. Cub tries to retrieve the ball, but he's squashed flat by Lumpy, who in turn is squashed flatter still by the stricken helicopter. There are no survivors…
Happy Tree Friends – Havin' a Ball
The experience of watching "Happy Tree Friends" is an awkward one. Sitting through a few episodes got me thinking, “Why am I even watching this”? It just feels wrong… It’s like watching one horrible accident after another.
"Happy Tree Friends" is really one of those things where viewers either immediately love it or hate it. But it also one of those things you have to see to believe.
After some time, you get really “disgusted” by all that you see and it’s like, you just tell yourself that’s enough gore for a day.
I’m always curious as to who actually likes to watch all these… Even my 15-year-old brother and 19-year sister find the gore disconcerting. Interesting right? To think I thought teenage boys would be so into it. I know I’m bad. Stereotyping…
I find it really fascinating or should I say disturbed when I actually hear people tell me that despite the gore, they tend to continue watching it, because they’ll be curious about what would happen next, what other possible scenario and horrible death sequence could the authors actually come up with…
Hmm… probably that’s one of the main driving forces behind "Happy Tree Friends” that prompts people to watch?
I caught this on the “Happy Tree Friends” website. It really set me thinking so I thought I’d just share:
Comedy served up just the way you like it
short, funny, free… and loaded with unnecessary violence, racial insensitivity, misguided politics and screwed up values.
What is it all telling? You tell me? In fact, I haven’t quite recovered from the gore…
Labels: Faustina, Havin' a Ball, personal opinion
2 Comments:
I feel that if HTF were to be just featuring the little cuties, it would not have come so far. After all, I see little difference in the HTF characters from those in other cartoons, and they seriously do not appeal to me, not enough to keep me watching more than a couple of episodes. The violence and gore (with humour, of course) sets HTF apart from the rest, and people might just be looking for this new kind of cartoon, different from what we have been exposed to throughout our childhood.
I wouldn't say I like HTF, in fact, I detest gore, but HTF has definitely gained my attention, it being an extraordinary type of cartoon-comedy. To me, at least, the unnecessary violence, racial insensivity, and all that, no longer matters as they are barely remembered, viewers just laugh them off. I guess it might be a different issue for children, but aren't chilren discouraged from watching HTF in the first place? Well, seems like this raises another issue...
By Sin Yee, at
November 6, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I totally agree with sinyee! HTF sets itself apart from other cartoons through its gore.
But honestly, how is this amusing?
Is it sadism?
Or could this laughing mechanism be a means of coping with the uneasy nature of this content?
I haven't quite decided yet.
Emily
