.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.
.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
