Reflecting on a potential job in Massachusetts with Comcast (cross them fingers), I vividly remember my first TV position I had in 1993: that of on-line producer on the local access show "I Love A Charade".
This show was the end result of a three-day training class with myself and six others. The studio was in a little strip mall that had recently been a flower shop. Not having been in a TV studio before, I still knew through logical means that studio areas were usually bigger with a higher ceiling for the lights. I remember being amazed at how such an operation was squeezed into such a small space. Air-conditioning had to be on almost all year because the heat generated from ten overhead lights made sweating on-air a good possibility.
My job that evening was just to monitor the phone lines, as it was a live show - and announce through the P.A. that another call was coming in. On my first announcement, screeching feedback came through the loudspeakers. I was dying of embarassment, but I remember Rob (the manager) cracked a joke about it & made me feel at ease. We ended up getting eight calls for the half-hour program, not bad. Everyone that called was a winner.
I remember stressing to Rob that I was wanting to learn all the positions, not just one. Many of my group actually just wanted to learn cameras, or audio. To be the best person I could be, I decided to learn everything, and I did in just under a year. This made my eventual choice of TV production as a college major all the more easier.
Looking back on that system now, they have no live shows whatsoever. Roughly a third of our shows back then were live, and I don't know why live shows were phased out. The current studio in Woodhaven could go live if it were re-wired, but that's part of the problem with the staffing there now: they have no urge to fix things to the way they were.
Should I get that job in Massachusetts... the studio will be very people-friendly and viewer-friendly. The crews are mostly staffed by volunteers and they deserve a good show for their time, as I got that windy October day in 1993.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
Better left for prime-time
I was thrilled when I first heard that Warner Brothers was releasing classic Bugs Bunny/Looney Tunes cartoons in a Golden Collection. We've bought two of them, although the roommate now has those in the Phillipines.
It was great to see these cartoons uncut & uncensored. Years ago, when CBS ran a Bugs Bunny show for a two-hour span, I would remember all the violence that occurred within, though I know it was comedic violence. The one that sticks out is the Tweety cartoon when Sylvester decides to tight-rope his way towards Tweety's apartment using guy wires for the old electric trolleys. Suddenly a trolley comes by and Sylvester has to run from it, getting electric shocks upon contact.
For years afterward, this part was censored out, and I shook my head: classic cartoons now the victim of political correctness!
Many critics don't understand (and it took me awhile to know it) that Looney Tunes wasn't produced with just kids in mind. They entertained adults, too. A lot of their early material satirized movie stars of the period. If you're a youngster, could you identify yourself with these characters? Likely not - it was the adults who got the kick out of it.
And the violence? Yes, there was TNT in many routines, body parts getting smashed, and other things we wouldn't encourage youth to do today. But what about the violence in "Pokemon", for instance? What about these other cartoons like "Family Guy", which insults & lampoons everybody? R-rated movies that kids are sneaking in to see? The sexual innuendo a lot of sitcoms practice religiously?
Are these being censored? Compare that more complicated violence & questionable situations and the messages they send with the "violence" in Looney Tunes. LT was tame in comparison if you look at it closely. Maybe their ideal timeslot should have been primetime, after the old "Family Viewing Hour", when these cartoons could have been even more appreciated.
You know just by viewing a Bugs cartoon that the violence is purely comical. With these other shows dotting the air, you have to wonder what society is trying to say.
It was great to see these cartoons uncut & uncensored. Years ago, when CBS ran a Bugs Bunny show for a two-hour span, I would remember all the violence that occurred within, though I know it was comedic violence. The one that sticks out is the Tweety cartoon when Sylvester decides to tight-rope his way towards Tweety's apartment using guy wires for the old electric trolleys. Suddenly a trolley comes by and Sylvester has to run from it, getting electric shocks upon contact.
For years afterward, this part was censored out, and I shook my head: classic cartoons now the victim of political correctness!
Many critics don't understand (and it took me awhile to know it) that Looney Tunes wasn't produced with just kids in mind. They entertained adults, too. A lot of their early material satirized movie stars of the period. If you're a youngster, could you identify yourself with these characters? Likely not - it was the adults who got the kick out of it.
And the violence? Yes, there was TNT in many routines, body parts getting smashed, and other things we wouldn't encourage youth to do today. But what about the violence in "Pokemon", for instance? What about these other cartoons like "Family Guy", which insults & lampoons everybody? R-rated movies that kids are sneaking in to see? The sexual innuendo a lot of sitcoms practice religiously?
Are these being censored? Compare that more complicated violence & questionable situations and the messages they send with the "violence" in Looney Tunes. LT was tame in comparison if you look at it closely. Maybe their ideal timeslot should have been primetime, after the old "Family Viewing Hour", when these cartoons could have been even more appreciated.
You know just by viewing a Bugs cartoon that the violence is purely comical. With these other shows dotting the air, you have to wonder what society is trying to say.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Analysis: Drunk Direction
Industry critics have long referred to TV as the "idiot box". Simply put, the cinemas supposedly put out plots that encourage the mind to think. TV, in their opinion, is mindless.
I am the opposite, preferring simplicity to what I watch. Don't we spend too much of our lives in serious thought? TV is supposed to be a diversion in order to make us forget about real life for awhile. As a result, the medium should have its own fun factor.
But it shouldn't be so damned hard on the eyes. Two examples come to mind: "NYPD Blue" and any WWE (wrestling) program.
The wrestling programming, to give it credit, can't be helped. When I started watching it in the mid-80s, action was only confined to the ring & immediate area. You might see a brief cutaway to the commentators maybe once or twice per hour, but that was about it. As a result, it was always easy to focus attention on the action.
These days, no areas of an arena are off-limits. The backstage plots & off-site stories do much to enrich the script, but when action is happening too fast, you notice the director cut away to a scene every five seconds. Again, this can't be helped, but in my later days of watching the program, I found the constant cuts to be a constant irritant. It's as if someone overdosed on Ritalin and was given the director's reins. Thank goodness the detailed commentary described the action concisely, as there were times I actually had to turn away from watching it.
But NYPD Blue is a different story, and I knew they were doomed once they announced they were going to a different directing format. Its actual name escapes me now, but just look at how it (and others which followed it) affects how we view the show.
The methods go against everything I was taught in college. True, I worked on many "talking-head" interview shows, but we were supposed to give the impression the camera operators weren't tipsy. The views shown in "Blue" are from a drunk's view. Shaky cameras, off-center shots - in some scenes, half the actor's head is cut off the screen. Is this how we really view life?
Maybe it's a good thing I've never become intoxicated in my life. This is not how I would want to witness events unfolding. Giving credit to freedom of speech being exercised, why do I have to see the show presented this way?
People used to criticize the great Vincent Van Gogh, saying that anyone could splash paint on a canvas and call it art. Not everyone can end up being the artist Van Gogh was. Not anyone can be a television director, either: it takes much talent & dedication to make something look good on the screen.
For a series that has gathered much critical acclaim, why make it look as if your neighbor's five-year-old kid directed it? To me, it doesn't allow the entire project the credit or respect that it's due.
I am the opposite, preferring simplicity to what I watch. Don't we spend too much of our lives in serious thought? TV is supposed to be a diversion in order to make us forget about real life for awhile. As a result, the medium should have its own fun factor.
But it shouldn't be so damned hard on the eyes. Two examples come to mind: "NYPD Blue" and any WWE (wrestling) program.
The wrestling programming, to give it credit, can't be helped. When I started watching it in the mid-80s, action was only confined to the ring & immediate area. You might see a brief cutaway to the commentators maybe once or twice per hour, but that was about it. As a result, it was always easy to focus attention on the action.
These days, no areas of an arena are off-limits. The backstage plots & off-site stories do much to enrich the script, but when action is happening too fast, you notice the director cut away to a scene every five seconds. Again, this can't be helped, but in my later days of watching the program, I found the constant cuts to be a constant irritant. It's as if someone overdosed on Ritalin and was given the director's reins. Thank goodness the detailed commentary described the action concisely, as there were times I actually had to turn away from watching it.
But NYPD Blue is a different story, and I knew they were doomed once they announced they were going to a different directing format. Its actual name escapes me now, but just look at how it (and others which followed it) affects how we view the show.
The methods go against everything I was taught in college. True, I worked on many "talking-head" interview shows, but we were supposed to give the impression the camera operators weren't tipsy. The views shown in "Blue" are from a drunk's view. Shaky cameras, off-center shots - in some scenes, half the actor's head is cut off the screen. Is this how we really view life?
Maybe it's a good thing I've never become intoxicated in my life. This is not how I would want to witness events unfolding. Giving credit to freedom of speech being exercised, why do I have to see the show presented this way?
People used to criticize the great Vincent Van Gogh, saying that anyone could splash paint on a canvas and call it art. Not everyone can end up being the artist Van Gogh was. Not anyone can be a television director, either: it takes much talent & dedication to make something look good on the screen.
For a series that has gathered much critical acclaim, why make it look as if your neighbor's five-year-old kid directed it? To me, it doesn't allow the entire project the credit or respect that it's due.
Saturday, November 4, 2006
Blog explanation
For those who wondered where this blog was going, I first offer my apologies for the nutty "test" entry they've been seeing. I've just not had time until now to update this one.
From the start of my working career, my interests have been in some form of media. Starting out as a column writer for high school in 1988 and with two years' experience in newspaper composition, I finally graduated to a television career of my own in 1993, and made it my life for five years, until circumstances dictated otherwise. Off-and-on, the experience counts 13 years, along with an honors degree from college and many, many good memories.
Of course, there's always been a fascination for television. My late mother often told me I would run into the room when the theme song from "I Dream Of Jeannie" would play, and of course I was one of the original "Sesame Street" junkies.
Originally, this blog set out to detail reviews of television shows (past & present), plus commentary dialed in to where things may have gone wrong with a certain show. I've decided to expand it to include some of my own local TV experience to make this blog more unique.
Hate to use a cliche, but "stay tuned" - there's much experience looking to make itself known.
From the start of my working career, my interests have been in some form of media. Starting out as a column writer for high school in 1988 and with two years' experience in newspaper composition, I finally graduated to a television career of my own in 1993, and made it my life for five years, until circumstances dictated otherwise. Off-and-on, the experience counts 13 years, along with an honors degree from college and many, many good memories.
Of course, there's always been a fascination for television. My late mother often told me I would run into the room when the theme song from "I Dream Of Jeannie" would play, and of course I was one of the original "Sesame Street" junkies.
Originally, this blog set out to detail reviews of television shows (past & present), plus commentary dialed in to where things may have gone wrong with a certain show. I've decided to expand it to include some of my own local TV experience to make this blog more unique.
Hate to use a cliche, but "stay tuned" - there's much experience looking to make itself known.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
