Noted educator Marshall McLuhan long ago quoted a phrase that remains extremely relevant to the study of multicamera production: the medium is the message.
One way of applying it is to consider that the medium a message is conveyed through (say multicamera video) actually adds additional meaning to the message it emits (say “eighties”).
Explain how various production processes influence the content of television stories. Multicamera, Single Camera, Hybrid Camera, Film, Video and HD should factor into your discussion. As usual, your article should contain specific examples from television we watched in class together.
Blogging Instructions:
You have two options when you comment. You can either directly address the question of the week, or react/respond/interact with another student’s entry or entries. You can interact with words, pictures, videos or anything that adds to the conversation. There is great value in either approach, but the more of the latter, the more the discussion will become “our own.”
Go to http://tvproduction.wordpress.com. To comment on the blog, go to the bottom of the bottom of the post and click where it says “X Comments>>.” Enter your name and your syr.edu email address. Entering your email address ensures the WordPress server that you are a person and not a spammer, and it will allow us to keep track of who has and has not commented.
READING MATERIALS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC:
- Carter, Bill: “Thanks to YouTube Fans, ‘ Nobody’s Watching’ May Return from the Dead,” New York Times, July 3, 2006: carter_times.pdf
- Friend, Tad: “Laugh Riot,” The New Yorker, September 28, 1998: friend_nyer.pdf
- Goodman, Tim: “‘Earl’ and ‘Chris’” Rescue Sitcoms from Mediocrity,” SFGate.com, Jan 30 2006: goodman_sf.pdf
- Hagan, Joe: “Funny Business,” Wall Street Journal, Jan 21 2006: hagan_wsj.pdf
- Kukienski, Valerie: “TV Comedies Get a Makeover,” LA Daily News, Nov 10 2005: kukienski_ladn.pdf
- Levy, Don “How Different Is Posting HD?” Film & Video, May 2004: levy_filmvideo.pdf
- McDowell, Joanne: “Evenings at the Improv,” Time, October 2002: mcdowell_curb.pdf
- Rice, Lynette: “TV Comedy is Broken,” Entertainment Weekly October 6, 2006: rice_ew.pdf
- Rosen, Lisa: “It’s Such a Deal; For an inside showbiz peek, TV show tapings are hard to beat — and your only investment is time,” Los Angeles Times, Sept 28, 2006: rosen_latimes.pdf
- “Sony’s 24P Cinealta Production Format Stars in 2002-2003 Television Season,” Sony Cinealta News, October 2002: sony_24p.pdf
- Swidey, Neil: “Family !@%$#%’ Ties,” Boston Globe, November 27, 2005: swidey_bostonglobe.pdf
—ON RESERVE—
Television: The Critical View, edited by Horace Newcomb,
A collection of essays about television criticism and culture.
- Excerpt: Timberg, Bernard: “The Unspoken Rules of Television Talk”: newcomb.pdf
September 15, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Blog-3 The Medium is the Message
Marshall Mcluhan couldn’t be more on point when he says, “the medium is the message.” The channel used to distribute a message to your intended audience has a great deal of impact on the overall meaning your message will ultimately have. Communication theory tells us that a person’s non-verbal communication is just as influential to a messages meaning as its verbal elements. The technology a person uses to communicate a message is merely an extension of their non-verbal cues.
The world of technology moves at a breakneck pace, what’s new today is old tomorrow. Like other industries television, has had to adapt on the fly deciding which technologies to embrace and which to leave behind. The current landscape of the industry allows a program to be shot in an innumerable combination of ways. Programs have wasted no time adapting specific production techniques, to best suit the shows intended message. Two shows I am going to talk about fall on opposite ends of the technology spectrum, they are Cops and Las Vegas.
Everyone who has ever watched television has at one time or another, seen Cops. Cops is shot in a way that makes the viewer feel as though they are involved in an undercover police sting. It is shot on what looks and feels like tape, however it may be digital at this point. Either way it looks and feels as though a guy with a home video camera stumbled upon a police chase and subsequently began shooting. It’s dark, grainy, and dare I say unprofessional looking. However with that being said, I think it’s absolutely perfect. If it was shot on film, it would look fabricated and no different then every Michael Bay movie ever made (I hate that guy). How realistic would it seem, if Wichita Kansas were being shown in beautiful new HD film? It would lose the voyeuristic feeling that the show is famous for. Some may say Cops is reality television, while others call it documentary. Either way I believe reality television and documentary should be shot on tape or digital and not film. The point of these types of programs is to show life as it plays out in real time and this is not possible to do with film.
On other hand NBC’s Las Vegas is shot in a studio, on film (possibly HD, made to look like film). When you think of Las Vegas (the city), you think glitz and glamour, shiny and new, and this is exactly how Las Vegas (the show) feels. If it was shot on tape all of the Las Vegas luster would be gone, the show would feel cheap and old. All of the bright lights that embody Vegas would feel dim; the glowing neon wouldn’t have the same pop. Las Vegas has the feeling of a single camera set-up. I looked online and couldn’t find information denying or confirming this. Since it is a television show and it is shot on film, I would think to save money a single camera set-up is used. The show has a lot of hard cuts on action and a lot of follow shots, which also leads me to believe a single camera set-up is being utilized.
Las Vegas and Cops are two entirely different types of programming; henceforth they are produced in two entirely different ways. While different in so many ways, one thing Cops and Las Vegas does have in common is their wonderful choice of production techniques. In both cases, the medium really is the message.
September 15, 2007 at 3:33 pm
In the Valerie Kukienski article, “TV Comedies Get a Makeover,” featured in the LA Daily News on Nov 10 2005, director Linda Mendoza answers our question about the difference between the types of shots we should use to film a television sitcom. She says, “The thing about the single-camera stuff is it allows the audience to feel like they’re in the scene with the performer. It’s more intimate. You’re able to get into almost their real environment, where as the multicamera stuff, you’re forced to play that proscenium, if you will, so everything’s kind of long lens, everything’s compressed, and you feel like you’re watching it from the outside.” I think this quote is really important because choosing to film in a style that does not match the desired feel could ruin the sitcom.
Last year in Thompson’s class, we discussed how Movies were meant to be watched in the dark, and how it was a more, shall we say intimate, experience, whereas TV was suppose to be watched while you were running around your house, doing a hundred other things. This is of course, where the laugh track and the use of plot repetition throughout the episode comes from. But with all of these action-packed, five star dramas on TV right now, I think successful television is headed towards the single-camera approach where the audience wants to feel like they are a fly on the wall, part of the show, on the island, more than just watching it from their living room couch. Basically, now TV should be watched with the lights off.
But here we are, about to enter an industry that rides on risk, and you just never know what is going to be a hit or miss. A studio could back a sitcom that has multiple writers from multiple past major hits, with a cast of hot upcoming actors, then advertise the heck out of it, and still it will flop. While you have some kid in Utah making a movie with old school equipment in his basement with a nobody actor and Napoleon Dynamite becomes a pop culture phenomenon. This is the idea behind this years VMAs as well. Although we bashed on it a bit in class and with friends this past week, I am glad MTV did it, like Schoony said, it taught us what not to do. But I think it’s important for MTV to take these risks for other reasons as well. For example, think Fox’s Teen Choice Awards, do you have a picture in your head of the stage, surf boards, and arena audience, like I do? What year was that from? It doesn’t matter because it’s the same ever time. I know exactly what the Teen Choice awards looks like because they haven’t done anything different in the past 10 years, so for me, there’s no excitement anymore to watching it. Now if you You Tubed past VMAs you’d find, no two are the same, and that is why we watch it every year. To see what packaging they use and how they film it.
MTV should change it up every year and they can. Last week when Kanye West made the statement that he was no longer going to work with MTV my initial response was, like it’s really going to matter? MTV is such a solid station. They could only air reality TV and we still would consider then the Music Television Network and even if we complain they don’t air enough music they still rank higher than Vh1 and BET.
I don’t think NBC, ABC, and CBS are that lucky, because there is just too much competition amongst these networks. That’s why they make risks, but are quick to drop anything that is not an instant success. They need instant successes to stay in the game.
September 17, 2007 at 6:52 pm
While I frequently notice and talk about the difference between multi-cam and single-cam television shows, before class Wednesday, I had never thought about hybrid productions. As the content of television veers more and more toward realism and away from very stagey productions, the medium has to keep up with the trend toward more cutting edge content. Curb Your Enthusiasm takes risks with its improvised script, and the producers utlize their production method to highlight this content. After watching the clip from Curb Your Enthusiasm, I tried to think of other shows that utilized hybrid production to complement their more modern structure.
My thoughts eventually drifted to Friday Night Lights, my favorite show from last season. FNL is one of the most realistic portrayals of scripted life I’ve ever seen on television. I figured the show must use some form of hybrid production to highlight the show’s realism.
So, I looked it up online, and it turns out FNL shoots with four cameras at once, and up to eight cameras for its football sequences. The cinematographers have the freedom to shoot the scene as they see fit, and the actors aren’t confined to strictly choreographed blocking. This gives the show an extremely realistic tone, and gives the audience the feeling that the action is actually unfolding organically in front of them. The handheld, four camera shooting style meshes perfectly with the phenomenally realistic writing and acting. To complement the shooting style, FNL shoots completely on location, never on a soundstage, and the scenes are done in one long take, rather than cutting together shots of different angles to form the scenes. When I watch the show, I feel like I’m almost eavesdropping on real people.
FNL is also shot in HD widescreen, so instead of looking like a documentary shot on video, it has a much more sophisticated cinematic look. The combination of handheld, realistic shooting with the aesthetic look of a movie makes for an interesting combination. The realistic shooting style makes the show feel very real, while the HD widescreen technique offsets highlights the fact that this is a scripted story. The result is very intimate while still being visually beautiful.
Friday Night Lights would lose its sense of pacing and its unique look if shot with one camera or if shot in 3:4 video. The combination of both the content and the medium complement each other perfectly.
September 18, 2007 at 12:05 am
With all this discussion about the medium being the message it brought to mind an article I read the other day in The New York Times. The article discussed a new “television” series to originate of all places on the Internet site MySpace:
“Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick — who have made films like “Blood Diamond” and “The Last Samurai” and whose ABC series “Thirtysomething” helped to define television drama in the 1980s — have made a deal with MySpace, the online social network owned by the News Corporation, to produce an original Web series called “Quarterlife.” “(“Show Series to Originate on MySpace”)
The show is described as being a regular hour-long weekly television series that instead of airing on one of the major networks, will air on the Internet. Believe it or not it, is even about recent college grads. Clearly this illustrates the way in which the medium and the message evolve to reach new generations of viewers– specifically in this case the internet generation like us, who probably spend more time surfing the web and watching TV and movies online than watching actual television. Just thought it was an interesting story that relates to the fact that through new mediums we not only get different messages, but also reach different types of audiences.
This is turn relates to the Bill Carter article in last year’s New York Times about the rise of television intended not for actual TV but for internet sites like YouTube. According to the article NBC network executives originally thought the sitcom called “Nobody’s Watching” would be a flop because it used single-camera when at the time of the comment made in 2001 multi-camera ruled the networks. Years later everyone realized how wrong they really were:
“Mr. Lawrence [creator of the sitcom] said he believed this was exactly the kind of development that television needed to break all kinds of hidebound traditions, including presumptions of what people will and won’t watch as comedy, and decisions that are made based on small focus groups. ” (“Thanks to YouTube fans ‘Nobody’s Watching” May Return from the Dead”)
This just proves that the tools we use to convey the message are just as important as the message itself. Television on the Internet reaches a whole new niche market and illustrates the way in which the creators of television are not necessarily bound to all the old traditions (such as multi-cam), but rather are on constant search for new, innovative methods to convey their story. The television world was excited when hybrid shows like “Curb Your Enthusiasm” took the stage, and then it became even more excited when film like single-camera shows like “Entourage” took over, and as a member of the television audience myself we continue to wait to be impressed (or in our case, do the impressing), and single camera original television series on the Internet might just be the next big thing. If multi-camera video production says “ the eighties,” does original content on the Internet say the new millennium?
September 18, 2007 at 12:35 am
Similar to Stephanie’s example of Friday Night Lights, The Hills which we shortly previewed in class, strays from using the video medium despite that it is a half hour reality show, in order to portray the message of the show effectively. The Hills is labeled as both a documentary and a drama and the use of a multi and single cam hybrid, HD presentation emphasizes these genres. Viewers are able to feel as if they are a part of the cast in the scenes shot using a single cam, bringing to life the reality and documentary set up of the show. As mentioned in class, using the single cam allows the viewer to see multiple angles and develop a 360 degree image of the locations and scenes. This is important in documentary aspect to portray the reality of the scenes. Part of the allure of The Hills, for some viewers, may be spending a half hour in Los Angeles with these girls.
The multi-camera scenes, such as during one of the girls’ coffee meetings, have an obvious practical use when the camera needs to catch the reaction of both girls during conversation, since it’s only supposed to be occurring once. I haven’t been able to decide how this might help any further with connecting the viewer, does anyone have any suggestions/reasoning? Perhaps these shots help remind (or influence) the viewers of the fact that the show is a reality show because multiple cameras are needed to catch both sides of the conversation? However, I think multi-camera also helps to make the show seem like a staged drama: for example, when there are scenes with three angled shots in Lauren’s apartment, as in the basic studio set-up. If you accept the second reasoning, multi-camera mixed with single-camera balances the drama with the documentary.
The usage of HD instead of video has the same affect as Stephanie mentioned with Friday Night Lights. The HD presentation accents the location and glamour associated with the life in L.A. that these girls are living. If The Hills was filmed on video it would distract from the glamorous appeal by having an imperfect image and a home video feel. Through the use of certain mediums the viewers of The Hills watch a show that takes them into the lives of affluent, attractive people in a city known for its cinema and glamorous lifestyle.
September 18, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Change is inevitable. What a statement to write, but it is true. Change is an aspect of life that is constant, and one the certainly applies to the media. Technology, concepts, characters, stories, and style are constantly changing, which is certainly a positive component in the television world. Who really wants to watch the same thing over and over again anyway? With the discussion last week, it seems that most people think that sitcoms are changing and should be changing, which is all probably for the better. With this comes changes in the way television shows are presented to us (I’m going to try to not write “change” so much from here on). The visual style of shows has differed in their approach from multicamera video to singlecamera film to a hybrid of several styles which includes shooting in HD and 24p. Many shows employ these techniques, which has propelled the medium into a new direction, sending messages to its viewers in high definition.
I first want to agree with Granger in describing how television-viewing practices have changed with the improved production processes. In the past, television, particularly sitcoms, could easily be understood without actually watching the show because of the laugh track and the repetition of words, phrases, and characters. Full concentration was hardly needed, but today, key plot points and situations (and funny lines) require the attention of the viewer if they want to understand the episode and keep up with the show from week to week. Much of this has occurred because of how the show is presented. Many television programs have become more cinematic because of new formats and styles.
As we mentioned in class, “Curb Your Enthusiasm” is a perfect example of a hybrid series that merges single and multicam film to present the material. Since this is an unscripted series, close ups and reaction shots are essential to maintain the comedic essence and flow of the strange, wacky life of Larry David. With the singlecam aspect of the series, we feel completely part of his life and his fumbles and foils. We cringe every time Larry makes a comment that pisses someone off, or says the wrong thing to his wife in bed, or fights over a shirt with Ted Danson while trying to console a widow who happens to ruin the said shirt. The singlecam gets us right in the action and we immediately are forced into the scenarios of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” laughing in disbelief till the very end. There is a multicamera aspect to this show as well that maintains the hybrid-style which totally works for this concept. In the clip Schoony showed in class, we got that high angle shot from inside the house to establish location while also giving us more space for upcoming action. Multiple cameras from different angles and locations are also needed to capture the actions and reactions of the characters so the audience does not miss anything to further the story. As I said above, the singlecam element certainly works in a show like this, but it can only go so far in relaying the messages the writers and directors want us to receive. We need the multicamera dynamic to give us these aspects of television.
I feel that the hybrid style is a good direction the medium is headed in. It certainly makes television more cinematic, while also staying true to the foundations scripted television is based on. On the flip side, solely employing singlecamera allows the viewer to feel they are actually part of the characters and their stories, which provides the realistic, voyeuristic element we all seem to love (I mean, just look at the popularity of reality television). SD Video is without a doubt a dying technique, which is certainly necessary if the medium wants to change in technology and style. HD is a remarkable format and one that all television shows will utilize within the next 10 years.
I have to give MTV credit for taking a risk on using HD/24p styles in their “reality drama” shows and I feel that it certainly works for what they are trying to do. I’m actually happy that Schoony showed a clip from “The Hills” in class. While we all probably have different opinions on the quality of the content, there is no doubt that the show looks good to watch (and I’m not just talking about L.C.) because of how crisp and clear the picture is. It certainly appears to be shot on film, but actually utilizes the new technology of 24p to its advantage to create a realistic vibe. At the same time, this would fall into the category of a hybrid because of the different camera techniques used throughout episodes and the series. MTV has been successful in translating “reality” to the small screen with its style and tone. Other network series are following suit to keep up with the changing times to continue to create the cutting-edge programming we have come to expect from the medium.
September 18, 2007 at 6:29 pm
The way a show looks is just as important, if not more important, than the actual content. The decision to shoot Multi-cam, Single-cam, 24p or whatever conveys a lot to the viewer. Big award shows are shot on multi-cam because that’s what makes them look big. HBO series like The Sopranos and Showtime series like Dexter are shot in single-cam because that makes them look a cut above regular television, more like a weekly movie. And, although you would be hard pressed to find a film that is not shot in single-cam, the format to shoot a film in is critical in the way the viewer will appreciate the story. When a film is shot on actual film it looks familiar as well as really good; and it fulfills the audience’s high expectations for how the film should look. Apocalypto looked like it was shot in HD and I couldn’t enjoy the film for the single fact that the picture was so clear that it looked like a soap opera. And I couldn’t stop noticing every lame detail in the shots and it looked really cheap. On the flip side, 300 wasn’t shot on film either and it looked breath-taking. And for all the fantasy crap that went on with men jumping 50 feet in the air; I bought it, I bought it all. America’s obsession with reality TV shows has a lot to do with the way it looks. It looks different from other TV, the viewer feels like he or she is in the room and doesn’t seem to care much that in every other shot you can see the wireless microphone attached to the actor’s pants. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it doesn’t matter what’s on the inside, looks are what’s important.
September 18, 2007 at 8:06 pm
When I think of film I automatically think of movies; and when I think of movies I think of a crowd gathered to in a theatre to watch something on the big screen. Film is often described as larger than life because the stories are complex, the action is intense and everything has a hint of surrealism. I think that TV shows that shoot on film or 24p also adopt this description. TV shows are just movies broken into many episodes.
New serialized sitcoms like The Office are shot in both film and single-cam. Single-cam’s role is simple-to make the show look documentary-like. The Office almost HAS to be shot in film otherwise it would look like an actual documentary rather than a scripted sitcom. Because the show is popular for shaky camera work and confessionals, if shot in any other format (such as video) the show would appear too real. This show does a good job of staying within a sitcom’s boundaries while steering away from the traditional multi-cam format. With single-cam the characters are more realistic and tangible and that is why I think The Office is so funny-it gives an impression that this could be a real office and what would happen if Michael Scott was really a boss.
While I think we can all agree that film and 24p look great, it is not appropriate for everything. The Hills is shot beautifully and professionally but I was confused the first time I watched it because the aesthetics of the show didn’t make sense with the action on the screen. Here I was supposedly watching a “real people and real events” but it looked anything but real. How could I believe that I was watching reality if it looked like I was watching a movie? When you think of a movie you think of actors and a script so those were the first things to come to my mind. As far as “the medium is the message” goes, I think this show is too pretty to be reality. The show is shot hybrid which I think also takes away from the feeling of reality. Multiple cameras are used to get coverage of the scene and this results in the scene looking staged. Single camera is more spontaneous and allows the viewers to move with the characters more intimately than multi-cam does. While I agree that multi-cam is logical in reality shows (especially when characters are sitting across from each other so a single cam doesn’t have to keep moving back and forth), when it is coupled with 24p it looks too artificial and cinematic. I agree with Christine that mixing multi-cam and single-cam balances the drama with documentary but I don’t think this works exceptionally well with this show. Don’t get me wrong, I like The Hills (sad, I know) but it’s because I enjoy cheap entertainment through caddy girl fights not because it looks stylish; I think I would like it just as much if it was show like all other reality shows. Henry makes a good point that reality TV looks different from other shows because viewers just want to see what is happening-we don’t care if the boom pole sneaks into the shot or if we see the cast members’ mics. We like reality TV because it’s “real” and real life doesn’t come without flaws.
The same criticism goes to the MTV Music Awards Schoonmaker discussed in class. I was excited before it aired because I figured that film always make things look more crisp and professional so 24p would bring this awards show to the next level but that certainly was not the case. The show looked awkward because it simply did not look real. It didn’t look like the show was happening live-as a viewer, it was uncomfortable and looked old. The music performances looked sharp because the 24p quality made them look like music videos, which is the point I am trying to make. Music videos are choreographed and rehearsed and although live music performances are also choreographed and rehearsed, shooting them in 24p made them lose the spontaneity and energy that only can be produced during a live show.
September 18, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Directors, producers, and directors of photography employ the visual language of television to convey a message to the viewer through multicamera, singlecamera, or a hybrid of of both, including shooting in HD and 24p. Yet, lately I’m beginning to wonder if it’s all that important. Do viewers really care how “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Entourage” are shot and composed?
As Bill Carter mentioned in his New York Times article, the most talked about situational comedy is not on your television, it’s on YouTube. Thousands of shaky, singlecamera videos are uploaded daily, spawning legions of fans spanning the globe. Word of mouth is powerful and a medium in and of itself. With the advent of YouTube, I’m starting to wonder if quality remains a factor. Amateurs are starting to gain power over professionals. Television has even turned to YouTube for show ideas. ABC’s “i-Caught” features the best videos uploaded to YouTube and then provides the creator a chance to explain the video, how the footage was gathered, and/or his or her motives for producing it. Compelling stuff, really. It was on this show that I found my new favorite viral vid, “Hot Cuz I’m Deployed.” It features two air force pilots deployed in Iraq rapping to Mims’ “This Is Why I’m Hot.” Surprisingly, these two service men had a lot of time on their hands and with it, produced a fine quality music video. I must say I was thoroughly impressed. Almost as impressed as I would be were I watching an episode of a professional television drama or sitcom. CNN has a similar program in its repertoire called “News To Me.”
Reality television employs many of the same gimmicks YouTube takes for granted: cheap laughs, shocking content, and embarrassing moments. It’s the real deal and viewers can relate to it more easily than a scripted program. Yes, some of it is over the top and asinine, but somehow it’s a guilty pleasure for all of us, whether we want to admit to it or not.
Now we have tackled programs that are low on the totem pole in quality but high in audience approval. What about programs that are high in quality and still register with viewers? “Planet Earth” is a series that has garnered high marks in my book on all fronts. It is the epitome of high quality and sheer power of the television medium. As I watched the series, I remember being blown away. The word, “Wow!” was frequently uttered from my mouth. Having watched a few nature programs in the past, I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of nature series, but never have I witnessed anything as unbelievably beautiful as this footage. The series used technology to show us the world we live in, starting with a journey from the extreme conditions of mountains, deserts, caves, oceans, fresh water and others to present some of the most impressive footage ever seen in a nature documentary. Forty camera teams shot at over 200 locations all over the world for more than five years to get the pictures seen in the series. For the aerial shots, a special airborne camera was used with a 400 mm lens that was able to zoom into single animals from a kilometer away without disturbing them.
Marshall McLuhan was correct in his statement that the medium is the message. How a message is conveyed does add meaning to the message it emits, in most instances however. YouTube is meant to be real people in real life scenarios, which is just as compelling as how “Planet Earth” depicted Earth as beautiful, vast, and ever-changing. Film and television studios have their work cut out for them in maintaining a large audience share. I hope quality still is a necessity or else all of us are out of a job when we graduate. People will watch these viral videos just as readily as they will tune in to an episode of their favorite sitcom, still, in my opinion, YouTube will never replace traditional media. “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Entourage,” and “Planet Earth” all have something YouTube doesn’t: elaborate production processes. Quality script writing, lighting, set design, directing, and producing still trump “Leave Britney Alone” and “I’ve Got a Crush On Obama,” still Hollywood has to be weary of YouTube’s impact on its medium.
September 18, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The instructions for this blog entry state that we should include specific examples from television we watch in class together. I would like to discuss something that I noticed when a group of us were watching the Emmys outside of class. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences distinguishes between its nominees by grouping them in terms of their genre (although only highlighting dramas and comedies) and format, by judging the miniseries separately from both dramas and comedies. Talent awards are segregated by gender, how frequent the appearance on the show was, and how large of a role they had. Reality programs are distinguished from creative ones, while variety, music, and comedy series are in a group of their own. However, methods of production are not considered in this particular awards show. For production techniques to be recognized, one must turn to the less publicized Creative Arts Primetime Emmys, which do, in fact, enforce Marshall McLuhan’s belief that “the medium is the message” by delineating multi-camera series and single-camera series as their own category, so far as to judge their art direction, cinematography, picture editing, and sound mixing. But what of the difference between film, video, and HD used in current television programming? And what of the increasing amount of hybrid shows, which fall into neither category in terms of award nominations? And what of the differences in acting, writing, and directing for multi-camera versus single camera, a challenge undisputed by current divisions? Granted, television programs are more than just award show candidates. Clearly, although the Academy might not distinguish between resolution when recognizing quality television, it is still a factor in the production of any program. While the aesthetic composition is different in HD from film, the decisions as to which resolution and how many cameras to use are an even greater part of the creative process. In the episode of Scrubs we saw in class, multi-camera production was used as a joke, to simulate a traditional sitcom with a laugh track. However, multi-camera production can have creative integrity, as it demonstrates in the hybrid medium where it often seamlessly combines with single camera footage.
September 18, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I really wanted to dispute this one just for argument’s sake, but I can’t. As I tried to come up with some clever counter arguments I checked out Kukienski’s article, “TV Comedies Get a Makeover.” As she describes the single camera filming style of “Everybody Hates Chris” around the dinner table I realized she’s right, the single camera film medium really does make it feel like you’re right there with the cast at the dining room table. I have never seen an episode of “Everybody Hates Chris” but it is easy to think of another single camera example of a dining setting. Kukienski also mentions “Entourage” which is maybe my favorite show right now. The guys in “Entourage” frequently dine together, in restaurants, at home, wherever. I can’t exactly explain it, but it just feels more like I’m there when I watch this show. Of course, the producers of Entourage pride their show on authenticity (when the guys are at a Lakers game they’re actually at a Lakers game, when they’re at a U2 concert it’s actually a real U2 concert, etc.). This authenticity would be impossible to capture in multi-cam or video format, for obvious reasons. But even in a real setting the multi-cam would feel detached.
The whole dinner table setting makes me think of my favorite episode of “Everybody Loves Raymond” when Ray witnesses his brother’s new girlfriend eat a fly after their meal. Ray is the only one that sees it happen, except for us (the audience). This is a perfect example of the difference between the multi-camera and single camera mediums. When he tries to explain what he saw, the rest of the characters write him off as crazy. But we know better, because we saw it too. We are sitting in a god-like position here. We know everything that has happened because we are detached from the events that go on. This would be impossible to convey through the single camera medium. If we were to see the girlfriend eat the fly in a single camera aspect, it would be as if we were the ONLY ones to see it happen. However it is multi-cam, and while we do see her eat the fly, what we really see is Raymond see her eat the fly, because we are sitting on a throne somewhere above the set. This show would work only in multi-cam, just as others work only in single camera, which brings me to “The Office.”
In my opinion, “The Office” makes the best use of the single camera format because the characters actually talk to US. The classic Jim and Pam reaction shots are aimed directly at us, FOR us. We are actually in the room with these characters, witnessing Michael Scott and the reactions he induces. Often times, when the characters are rolling their eyes at Michael, we are doing the same. Furthermore, much of “The Office” is shot handheld, which does even more to make us feel like we are part of the show. This show would absolutely not work any other way. We need to be there in the office with everyone else, or it just wouldn’t be the same. This is just like “Entourage” and “Raymond.” These shows have different feelings the writers are trying to provoke in us. “Raymond” wants us to laugh AT the characters, “The Office” wants us to laugh WITH the characters, and “Entourage” just wants us to be part of the crew. If they were shot differently, they just wouldn’t work.
September 19, 2007 at 9:27 am
Going a little off of what Keenan just said (I can’t help it, I like copying what he says), it seems the consensus of alllll those many reference articles for this blog (though many of them were still interesting in their own right) is the following: single-cam makes the scene more realistic (more camera angles, cinematic), while multi-cam is a relic of the sitcom age, creating a more “stagey,” less intimate feel and most often closely associated with that ever-loathed by writers/loved by network execs convention of the laugh track. One might say it is hard to argue against that logic. However, at the same time, I think it’s a precarious line to straddle to associate what one assumes is the quality of a certain show with how it’s being conveyed.
To be honest, I still don’t really have a firm grasp on what the hell McLuhan is talking about with that medium is the message stuff. I think the problem I’m having with comprehending it is that all those articles seemed to basically be saying how “good” or “innovative” the new single cam comedies are and how they’re breathing life into a once-dead genre. I can’t help but think, in turn, how many good multi-cam shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, Seinfeld, even alllll the way back to the very beginnings with I Love Lucy are still potent, funny and re-watchable today. This fusion of quality determined by medium justs sits very oddly for me, and really has no bearing on what this blog’s assignment seems to be, which is how shows that are shot in a certain way affect their content.
That being said, the articles do make another good point in saying that another benefit of single cam (as well as hybrid), beyond the whole realism factor, is it frees the show from the conventions of a TV sitcom, since the look of the show is all of a sudden more cinematic. No longer does there have to be three jokes to a page of script. Instead the dialogue is more fluid, less emphasis on the setup for the joke; the humor is in the interactions among the characters and the situations. This was well-parodied in the excerpt of “Scrubs” we saw in class where the episode suddenly switches from single cam to multi-cam and pulls the rug from underneath the audience, allowing them to see the process. Once it turns to multi-cam it suddenly attains that less-authentic, “eighties” kind of look with the studio-ish lighting and jokey asides every 5 seconds. On the other hand, as funny and perceptive as the episode might’ve been, it’s hard not to detect a certain undercurrent of what I’ll call “SCM” or single-cam smugness. I would say SCM occurs when an innovation calls attention to itself as being superior to “lesser forms” of delvering the message; it’s very self-reflexive.
Single cam does also free up the actors more, gives them more leeway for improv, especially in a hybrid show like “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” whose aim is to create a world around the character of Larry David that is, at the same time, both authentic and completely over-the-top. Multiple camera setups allow for nuances of conversation not to be lost and, within that, for the improvisatory nature of the show not to be lost as well through multiple takes. And yet it also utilizes the single cam very well with the closeups on Larry David’s expressive face; his reactions make up almost as large a part of the humor in the show as what’s being said.
“The Office” is a crafty single cam comedy in the sense that it works not only in conveying the realness of a drab paper office and getting to know the individual employees via interviews, but how it’s made is tied in with the concept of the show itself since it’s supposed to be a mockumentary kind of thing.
To switch gears, innovations in the medium have also improved TV talk shows. It is no irony that all the major late night talk shows now (Letterman, Leno and Conan) are shot in HD, which offers a cleaner, more realistic look than even film. I think that kind of quality benefits a show that’s basically being broadcast as if it’s live, even though each show is filmed hours and hours before going on air. In the article, I forget which one, that talked about the conventions of talk shows, it mentions how the talk show host should appear to be having a private conversation with you at home, and how the show should always be in the present tense. When a show’s filmed in such high detail ig gives a sense not only of intimacy and realness, but also modernity; it doesn’t look old. So even if they aired a rerun and you tuned in, at first you might not even realize it’s an old airing.
In concluding I’ll make brief mention to the YouTube craze. Basically yes, it opens up the playing field, and with Current TV and Myspace joining forces with FOX, it seems like a legitimate new force to be reckoned with as far as being able to deliver one’s artistic product goes. However, I sense the risk of SCM for YouTube too if people start to confuse anything that’s bold or innovative with anything that’s posted on YouTube versus anything more “mainstream” on TV. All I have to say is…Youtube can be just as guilty as creating popular pieces of crap for public consumption as TV. For that, I need refer only to the most recent top hit on YouTube: “Leave Britney Alone!”
September 19, 2007 at 9:30 am
I just realized I stupidly abbreviated “Single Cam Smugness” as SCM…SCS might make a little more sense there. Now I feel like I’m being smug. Great.
September 19, 2007 at 10:50 am
The quote “the medium is the message” refers to the tools we use in television production and how those tools reflect on the content of television shows that we watch. Through the different examples that we covered in class we can see that there is a clear distinction when using film, video, HD, and 24p as well as the different combinations involved when using multicamera, single camera, or a hybrid of both. Soap operas use traditional video multicamera, this gives the viewer the typical “soap opera” feel as well as it makes it seem very theatrical, which soaps are intended to be. If we were to switch from video to film or HD or 24p, All My Children, General Hospital, One Life to Life, etc. would all look very different, more like a typical multicamera show shot in film such as According to Jim and the viewer would no longer recognize the essence that is the soap opera genre. In adding to that, as I am an avid soap fan, I remember that not too long ago All My Children began using a combination multicamera and single camera and I distinctly remember thinking that it looked horrible. I was used to watching perfect and stable shots occur. Instead what I saw were shaky shots that confused me at the time. I could not understand what that added to the show. In my mind, it just made it look worse. I guess they were trying to keep up with the times but it frustrated me and it made it hard to watch for a while.
Switching to Scrubs we can see that it is shot in single camera film. When the characters make the joke of how they wish their lives were more like your typical sitcom because things would be funnier, the mode of taping it changes to multicamera video and we can instantly see how different the before and after scenes are. In addition, I felt that I could not take the show seriously anymore. It lost a lot of its credibility when it changed. I think that says a lot about what viewers are interested in watching today. Maybe we do not necessarily want to see the old format of a sitcom, going back to last week’s blog topic. We want to see something new and innovative. We want to feel more connected to the characters and we like the form of single camera production because it allows us, the viewers, to feel as if we are right there with the actors that we love. On the other hand, when something is taped in video it is suppose to feel more machine like and very linear but also has a feeling of realness, which is why many reality shows tape in video. Unlike MTV’s show, The Hills, which is sort of a reality show but is also a drama and therefore it takes a risk by using the HD/24p format. I can tell by first glance that this is no ordinary show, the image comes up crisp and clean and more importantly, it works. I, the viewer, can still tell that this is a television show. It does not look like some sort of movie that was produced months ago. It still has the reality show feel but the look of something more refined and modern. We also learned that Curb Your Enthusiasm is taped by using both single camera and multicamera techniques. The clip that we viewed in class showed us how effective hybrid production can be with comedy as we get the intimate feelings of a single camera production while still being able to capture the reactions of the actors. In this show the hybrid method fits perfectly.
Going back to the “medium is the message” though. Clearly, the old multicamera format is outdated and does not work in today’s industry. The majority of shows are switching to single camera as it has proven to be successful as shows that employ it continue to get good ratings. The medium here, that being the single camera format, allows the viewers to feel more apart of the show that they are watching. Therefore the message is an important one. If we feel more connected to the characters we will have an invested interest in their lives. How many times have you said things like, “I need to find out what happens with Ari next episode” or “What’s gonna happen with JD and Eliot next season?”. Yes, the content is great in both Entourage and Scrubs. They are both really funny and must have great writers supporting them but I believe that because the single camera method is so effective it is in turn a major part of what keeps the viewers tuned in and wanting more.
September 19, 2007 at 11:57 am
I would have to agree that the way in which a television show is shot really affects viewers perceptions of it. The biggest example of this to me was the live episode of ER that we watched. In the short clip we saw it seemed to lack the intensity that the series had. Part of this of course was the live nature of the show, but this had a great deal to do with the fact that the episode was NOT shot on film, as the rest of the series was. The big difference was the lack of contrast in the shot as far as lighting and compostition was concerned. I think when a series is filmed, the viewer automatically associates what they are seeing as if they are actually watching a movie. The frame rate is the same, and it kind of provides the same escapist feel to the audience.
Non-filmed shows definitely feel more “live”, but you always associate that with the news or public access tv now. Regular TV just doesn’t hold up with the vivid images that film or HD provide. Non-film definitely has its place, as we talked about with the VMAs. TV or HD is required so there is a live feel. NFL Films goes around filming football games in brilliant detail, but we do not see them on TV right away. One, because its live and you can’t do that with film, but secondly if the NFL were to adopt that kind of a look it wouldn’t feel like a football game. It would feel like a football movie perhaps, but definitely not a game.
I thought the Scrubs episode did a good job of showing the differences in feel of a multi-cam and single-cam series as well. I feel the single cam does a much better job of showing “reality,” because there are no longer the constraints of not blocking another camera shot, and generally single cameras can follow characters around eliminating the “staged” feel of the scenic design. With multi-cam you feel like you are viewing the characters on a stage, yet with single cam you feel like you are walking around ON that set with the character. I don’t think the multi-cam comedy is dead, but I think with the influx of “shallow” reality television and Youtube videos, people are looking for a series that feels real, with characters they can flesh out and really get to know. Maybe the reality kick will go eventually and mult-cam will come back.
Finally, I think Curb Your Enthusiasm does an excellent job of using multi-cam, yet creating a very single-cam feel with it. They are using the genre of multi-cam, yet are creating a very realistic feel to it that you usually only see in single cam. They are the exception to the rule, and are doing a great job of pushing the envelope to what can be done with the genre.
September 19, 2007 at 12:12 pm
A hypothetical brainstorm between myself and Marshall McLuhan to come up with his most famous quote.
Jacob: “The medium is #1…no wait The message is the message…”
Marshall:”The medium is the message.”
Jacob:”Well, what about the medium + the story + the news that day + a viewer’s feelings is the message.”
Marshall:”The medium is the message.”
Jacob:”Single cam or multi-cam can both deliver messages.”
Marshall:”The medium is the message.”
Jacob:”Marshal, now that sounds nice.”
Marshall McLuhan’s quote, “The medium is the message” didn’t work for me at first. I, like other students in this class, struggled with the idea. How can the way a show was shot determine the message? We discussed this for a bit, but the best seller was watching the Scrubs done in sitcom format and ER being filmed cinema verite. These two all-star shows, that I use to watch, when shot differently became entirely different shows that I really didn’t enjoy watching. If that wasn’t convincing enough the New York Times article about Aaron Sorkin’s show Sports Night that switched from multi-cam to single cam gave proof to, “The medium is the message.”
This argument got me thinking about my summer love/hate relationship with Flight of the Conchords. I often found myself watching the show and wanting to fast forward to the end using my DVR. Although, something about it made me keep watching, but unlike The Office and Entourage it wasn’t the comedy it was the medium (sorta cheesy but true). Cutting to music videos in the middle of the episode, the way they filmed NYC, the freshness of the single cam all made me watch week after week. Something about it felt cool and I wanted to watch that. It was a very similar feeling for me to the VMA awards. I can’t say I liked it, but there was something about it that was fresh and interesting and kept me watching. This wasn’t as true with the Emmy’s that I kept watching because I want to work in TV and half of our class was sitting in my living room.
Insert awesome transition here:
I as many other bloggers would like to touch on the ongoing multi vs. single debate as it applies to this blog. If you read my blog last week you know I have a deep love for the multi-cam sitcom, but I will admit that the message delivered by a sitcom isn’t the same freshness as the single-cam style right now. Even though the single-cam at least for comedy isn’t anything new, used I believe first for Get Smart (1965), it has a original tempting to watch feel these days. Single Cam is the rebellious teen fighting against the traditional sitcom parents. But, mark my words Single Cam will grow up and become a parent too one day and a twist on multi-cam or a new production process will be the new fresh thing to watch.
To conclude my last blog I would like to end on a somewhat cheesy but true sentiment. The beautifully written Tad Friend article got me excited about how our generation will change TV just as Sorkin did. Hopefully we will carry the wit and determination to battle the execs like he did one day in an effort to change the medium to add new light to the message. So as Professor Schoonmaker said, “Hopefully one day we shall toast to our failures as we take risks in TV” and as I would like to add,”In addition to our failures hopefully one day we will toast to our success on our TRF 452 one hundred and thirty foot yacht.”
September 19, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I just finished watching an hour of late night syndicated comedy, so I figure it is time to start this blog. “Still Standing” and “Scrubs”; two staples of early 2nd millennium TV sitcoms, in my opinion. Both shows portray kooky characters in awkward yet comedic situations. It does not take much brains to understand the stories and themes conveyed in these sitcoms; however anyone can still find the viewing experience quite enjoyable. But is the same message being conveyed for these two shows? Of course not; each show has its own unique aspects. The most obvious example of the messages conveying different meanings is that the sitcoms use different production processes.
In class, we discussed several production processes and the messages they convey. “Still Standing” uses a multicamera style. This is the traditional method of shooting sitcoms. I feel as if I am watching the family interact at a distance. It is as if I am a voyeur spying on them, without any hint that they are aware of my presence. I am comfortable watching this because I am a third-party member and not directly involved with the situations. The way I viewed “Scrubs” is very different than this.
Diane also discusses “Scrubs” in her blog. I agree with her when she states that the way it is shot makes the premises seem more credible and realistic. “Scrubs” is shot in a single camera style. I am not a third-party viewer as I was with “Still Standing”. I am now an active participant in the show. During last class we discussed how using single camera gives viewers a 360 degree image of the scenes. I am able to witness the action occur from several different angles; not the just the few “Still Standing” offered.
Filming in HD also provides a show with credibility and a level of seriousness not offered when using video. The images illuminated on the TV screen during a HD shot program shines and seems more enchanting to me. It is as if I am at the location and not just watching it on TV. This sense of realism cannot be achieved with video.
While I believe that HD is superior to video, I cannot say the same for single camera and multicamera. The conveyed messages are too different to compare these production processes and pick a favorite. For me, both processes work in aiding in the show’s storytelling.
September 19, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I loved how the Sony Cinealta News article (“Sony’s 24P Cinealta Production Format Stars in 2002-2003 Television Season”) began with the following sentence:
“The brightest star of the fall television season is not a new celebrity or program, but Sony’s CineAlta 24P digital high-definition technology.”
What a hook! Not only that, but it appears to be that way. The new rising star is indeed digital HD technology. Technology has become the media’s best friend (and in some cases, the enemy). Scratch that. It’s become media’s middle name. Although it can be argued that media and technology have a symbiotic relationship, it seems to appear, by the fast-paced times and the rapid evolution of technology, that media (especially television, radio, film) are dependent upon the changes in technology. Is it fair to say that they’re involved in a one-sided relationship? Or perhaps I’m just not looking at it the right way. Maybe media simply look forward to the changes in technology rather than rely on technology. Either way, I couldn’t agree more with Kleinman’s statement that “what’s new today is old tomorrow.”
Before last week’s class, I wouldn’t have been able to tell the person next to me the difference between hybrid camera and multicamera. I wouldn’t have been able to tell the differences among HD, 24P, and film. (And even now, I’m not all that sure I have it completely down.) The rapid development of technology enables more options, more choices. For example, look at all the choices we have for television: multicamera, single camera, hybrid camera, film, standard video, HD, 24P. Furthermore, not only does technology offer such variety, it also provides easier accessibilty to these visual means of communication to the average person. And Shannon excellently points this out when she refers to Bill Carter’s NYT article. Carter doesn’t lie when he says that “thousands of videos of all levels of quality are posted everyday” on Youtube.
Professor Schoonmaker in last week’s class said something that caught my attention. He said, “Television production is in a bit of identity crisis.” Initially, I agreed, or I thought I did. But as I thought about that concept more and more, I realized that “crisis” may not be the most appropriate term. I think that television production is multifaceted and it doesn’t necessarily have to identify as one thing or another. It’s both an exciting and risky time for the television industry right now, and with all the visual means of communication available, both or either revolutionary changes and/or improvements can be made, signifying more room for creativity and the imaginative mind! And most of all, with the various production processes available to us, the more impact on the content of television stories. I thought it awfully clever and wise that Marshall McLuhan foresaw television’s room to grow and he knew how significant a role television plays in our society in delivering images and messages to the audience. He emphasized how changes in the medium affect our stories and messages, depending on what tool we use. And being a theoretical person, I understood McLuhan’s philosphy, but if it weren’t for the clips that we saw in class last week, I wouldn’t have been able to apply the theory to practice. And watching Scrubs produced in sitcom format rather than its original film format was indeed “the best seller” (for me as well, Jacob!).
I observed, experienced, and applied McLuhan’s theory into practice. Scrubs became an entirely different show when filmed differently. There was a different feel and different reaction. I couldn’t take the serious scene seriously (excuse the alliteration) due to the soap opera cheesiness factor. So yes, Mr. McLuhan! The medium is indeed the message! And depending on what medium we use, our messages and stories can change dramatically.
September 19, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I must also agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium most certainly affects the type of message the audience receives. Due to the changing of times and improving of technology, the jobs of modern directors have become that much more complex. A director is no longer limited or given only one option of shooting style as was the case in the past with the multicamera filmed tv sitcom. Instead, modern directors are now liberated to exercise their artistic flair in choosing the medium that they wish to present their stories; that is, they have more of a say in deciding which mediums will succeed in connecting to viewers. As we discussed in class, directors face many choices in mediums ranging from the number of cameras they use (multi, single or hybrid) to also the style of shooting (video, film, hd). These choices are huge compared to what was available in the past.
Directors take chances when they choose their mediums. Sometimes these choices are daring and not well received by viewers. Take for instance, the VMA clip we viewed in class. Although I don’t like to bash on MTV (as I worked for them over the summer), I do not think the way the VMA’s was filmed (over a variety of locations) was very effective in conveying the awards show message to viewers. However, as many students have already discussed in their blogs, I do sympathize and applaud the directors of the award’s show for taking a bold risk in this coverage and attempting to vary the awards style of shooting for the modern audience
In terms of directors varying their mediums and shooting styles, (as Lane also mentioned in his blog), I too was very surprised to see the clip we watched in class of E.R. Not only was this specific episode not shot on film, it also looked very artificial and out of sync with other episodes in the series and shot with a home video, grainy lens. The way this clip was filmed did very little to convince me that I was observing action taking place in an real emergency room. The medium and shooting style of this episode did not contribute to my believing the reality of the characters and action on screen. Thus, the medium did not do a great job in conveying the message for me.
As technology continues to advance in society, so do the number of broadcasting mediums increase. The internet has played a huge role in this ever expansive process in bringing the viewer closer to the medium. Bill Carter’s discussion of “Nobody’s Watching” as a failure on one medium (tv) and a hit on another (youtube) describes the power of new media. Interactive sites such as You Tube are examples of future medium vehicles. These sites feature free downloading of single cam videos ranging from music videos to clips of re-discovered t.v. sitcoms and finally viral (homemade videos). The latter viral video example however is an issue on its own. I want to wrap up this blog by saying that it will be interesting to look back a couple of years from now and question if new television mediums still follow McLuhan’s statement.
September 19, 2007 at 11:55 pm
McLuhan would’ve loved this class, not a single voice of dissent. I am not criticizing the lack of a difference in opinion, however, for I too agree with Marshall. I agree with him, but I’m not happy about it.
It makes me sad that the medium does have a major effect on the message. It seems to imply that if you package crap nicely enough, anyone will buy it, which probably isn’t that far from the truth. As Henry said, “it doesn’t matter what’s on the inside, looks are what’s important”. The Hills is a good example of this. I agree with Cresp when he says that everyone can agree that the Hills looks good. Not that I ever watch The Hills (nor would I admit it if I did) but I think that many people who do watch it are tuning in simply for the medium. The show has pretty people shot in crystal clear 24p. Flipping through the channels this is bound to catch your eye and it is not because of the content. Replace L.C. and that other girl with two different pretty blondes with similar tastes in fashion and the show would be exactly the same. In fact, I bet a quarter of our class wouldn’t even know the difference because of how much the medium and concept has overridden the message. Sorry to all you Hills fans out there (Crespy) but it’s true. Granted, it takes some sort of content to keep people coming back to the show, and they are certainly people out there who watch the show to see how L.C.’s relationships will turn out (Crespy), but I think that for most people visual stimulation (the medium) can cover up for some serious plot shortcomings (the message).
Now Stacy made a point about The Hills looking ‘too pretty to be reality’ because of the way it’s shot in 24p and using single cam/multi-cam techniques, and that she would watch it even if it didn’t look so cleaned up. I hope she’s right, as that would restore my faith in the idea that the message determines the message, rather than the medium. I still can’t shake the feeling that most people know they aren’t getting true reality so they want their pseudo-reality to be as cleaned up as possible. If this show looked more accessible I don’t think as many people would watch it because the content would be exposed. It’s almost as if 24p gives more weight to stupid comments, where if those same stupid comments were shot on video they would be exposed for what they are – stupid.
I just realized that I’ve basically just blogged solely about The Hills, so to make myself feel a tad more masculine I will say this in closing: I walked by the TV in my lobby the other day and saw what I thought was a movie so I sat down. It turned out to be some new show called Kville that content wise didn’t really do anything for me, but I watched most of it simply because I felt like what I was watching should be good because it looked so damn good. KVille tricked me into thinking it was a movie, and I like movies, so I watched it. So, until the viewing public (myself included) learns to be more discriminatory, the medium alone will be able to invoke certain feelings in the viewer and infringe heavily (or even override in some cases) upon the message.
March 30, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Hey
Amazing weight loss stories here,
And here you can buy Anatrim
http://www.zmeii.com/?toxaawgjgw
I’ve always had trouble with my weight ever since I was young. Of course I tried all the “best” fat loss products, nothing helped very much. It wasn’t til I tried Anatrim that I saw the pounds seriously start to melt away! Nothing helped me lose weight faster. I literally saw 15 pounds melt away within the first few weeks! There’s nothing more exciting than watching pounds disappear, especially when you’ve tried all sorts of different methods and products before. I’ve since read up on Anatrim and am amazed at the number of people who have benefited from its amazing results. I’m halfway to my goal, Anatrim will get me the rest of the way