Christine’s Weblog

I have to say that I loved todays class! For me, it was the most interesting thus far. It was interesting to hear different peoples opinions on what they think is suitable for children to watch on TV. I was a little agitated that people were putting Disney down though. Being a Disney fanatic, I have to say that I think Disney movies are OK for children to watch. Yes, they have changed over the years, but they are changing because the world is changing. If other people find Disney to be offensive, don’t watch it. It’s a simple solution. I’m not much of a fan for most Disney channel shows, however, so things like Hanna Montana and other teenage shows don’t appeal to me.

In response to what some people are saying about Hanna Montana and other teenage Disney shows, I think that Disney show probably change the times that these shows come on…maybe they could come on around 10:00 instead of the 3-5 time period when children are most likely watching TV. I also think that Disney has changed a lot because of who is managing the company. As  much as I hate to say it, the CEO of Disney is only looking for more ways to make money no matter how the goal is obtained. Such is the case with most Disney movie sequels. They come right out on DVD because they aren’t good enough to be shown in theaters. Most of them, with an exception of maybe 2, are pretty terrible. The storylines aren’t developed enough and the quality of artwork doesn’t live up to the originals. Plus, most likely, the voices have changed.

To sum it all up, I have to say that I do agree that more mature shows should be shown at later times or that maybe parents need to be more strict in what they let their kids do.

Newton Minow used to be chairman of the FCC. He is most well known for his speech about TV being a Vast Wasteland. He was also responsible for founding Sesame Street, and he was one of the most well known political figures of the 1960s.

His Vast Wasteland speech still has an impact today. I have found an edited transcript of his speech for anyone who is interested here http://janda.org/b20/news%20articles/vastwastland.htm

During election time, the television is a great way to advertise the candidates that are running. Candidates that have a lot of advertising seem to be more popular than the others. Television also allows people to view the candidates while they are speaking, which in turn influences their vote. For example, when there was no TV, people had to rely on listening to the candidates on the radio…if there would have been TV, their votes may have changed.

I believe that TV is a vital piece of politics. Without it, candidates wouldn’t be able to get their message to a wide variety of people in little time. Instead, they would have to travel all over the US to make speeches. TV allows them to go to one spot to make a speech that is broadcast all over the US. Without TV, I believe we wouldn’t be where we are today with elections. How many people can really travel to different areas to see a speech? It is much easier to be at home and watch it.

I don’t actually find it hard to believe that quiz shows were and still may be rigged. Sure, people know some of the answers but they would have to be geniuses to know everything. That in mind, winners draw the audience. Without people winning, the show would lose its appeal. Who wants to see a game show where no one can win? I know I don’t.

I happened to have a chance to see State Faire at the Walnut Street Theater last night. As I was watching the show, my mind drifted toward Vaudeville and what a big impact it had back in the day. Like theater, there was a big audience of people that went to see it. I think that seeing a live show is exciting to people because they feel like they are part of it. That’s how I feel when I see a play. I think it’s great how there are still live shows even though TV is much more convenient because people don’t have to leave their homes.

I find it funny how I didn’t know any of the people involved in the creation of the TV. I definitely know Thomas Edison and Benjamin Franklin. It seems that schools neglect to teach about other types of history, i.e. television. You would think that it would be part of the curriculum to learn about these people since television is an important part of American History.

Both Lucille Ball and Ernie Kovacs were great comedians, but they appealed to different audiences. Although most of the audience back in the 50s probably liked both of them because there wasn’t much on TV back then, I think audiences today would have a hard time watching Ernie Kovacs over Lucille Ball.

Ernie had a unique comedy style unlike anyone else. Instead of skits, he did random actions. Some scenes didn’t even have him in them. His work contained a lot of scenes that just showed sounds being made or music being played. Then it would go to him, show a little clip, and then go right back to the sounds and music. Personally, Ernie is not for me. I had a hard time finding his show funny. It didn’t make sense to me.

On that note, I’ll close saying that I would take Lucy over Ernie anyday.