If you were to ask why a film is created, some film makers may respond with “we do it for fun”. Which may be true to some extent, although I highly doubt their work would continue without a fairly hefty pay packet being included.
Money is the main source of why transmedia story telling is used. The formatting of a single story across multiple media outlets is all but a money spinner, for which relies heavily on the success of a book, in order to be turned into a film. For example, the 7 book series “Harry Potter” was a success on the platform of books, so therefor it was able to be transferred across to the digital platform of film with minimal risk of failure in order for the chance of making money.
Of course, while the major film making companies make money, someone has to lose money, right? The loser here financially, unfortunately is everyday movie lovers like myself. This is because we are the silly suckers which get roped into paying for the movie tickets, in order to send the money to the top dog movie producers and actors.
Within today’s society, art and craft is relevant to more than just children, or the artists which sing songs on our radios. As I have already stated before, average citizens are now able to do things which previously weren’t possible. This includes the mixing of music, photos, or movie scenes into an improved or modified version to serve a certain purpose.
In today’s world, anything is able to be modified. A photo of a person, is quickly able to be transformed into a meme, and funny video is quickly able to be remixed into an even funnier video than the previous.
Another extremely popular form of craft of digital material is the modification of music. If you search your favourite song, chances are, there is some sort of remixed version somewhere on the internet which has been changed for the purpose of a material transformation.
The convergence of media, is the process of all media outlets, such as Television, Radio and newspaper coming together to allow for a much more user friendly way in which to access and use the media. The term ‘Media convergence’ is an idea which was used in my most recent blog on ownership of the media. This is the process of consumers slowly becoming producers. The idea that the audience is merely the puppet of the media is no longer, this is due to the convergence of the media.
Due to the introduction of social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. the media has become readily available to audiences with the click of a button on our modern smart phones, tablets or laptops. The more advanced technology of the modern age, in every aspect of our lives is able to create a more user friendly situation for the entire audience. Just like the remote control made it easier for humans to change the TV channel, by allowing a channel change without having to exit the couch, the convergence of the media allows the audience to gain access to the areas of the media which they seek, without having to wait for the news program to reach that section of the story.
The converging of media onto a newer, more up to date platform, doesn’t mean that the older form is now obsolete. It just simply creates more of a choice to the consumer. For example, modern technology allows for the audience to watch the NRL (National Rugby League competition) on their mobile phone device, while at the park alone. Although I would preferably sit in the crowd and watch the game surrounded by thousands.
Although, another positive with the convergence of the media, is that just because I choose to go watch the game live at the stadium, I am able to re-watch the game on my phone in the park.
This is a good thing for all involved, as more choice is able to create a larger mean for competition, and this often means higher quality for us – the audience Despite some beliefs about their intentions, the main media outlets goal is for the audience to receive their information in the best possible way.
The media is an extremely broad platform, which is designed to inform, scrutinise and entertain. The ownership of the media is often linked to what is spoken about throughout the news headlines. Prior to the days of Facebook, twitter and other social media outlets, this was even more so the case.
Photo by Neilson Barnard/Getty Images
Prior to the existence of social media, the media was controlled in such a way, that across all media platforms such as newspaper, Television and radio, the consumer only hears what the owner wanted the consumer to hear.
Across the three main areas of the media, Rupert Murdoch owns approximately two thirds of the media outlets throughout Australia. Murdoch’s ownership has been able to affect the content of what is written in the Daily Telegraph. Throughout the 2013 race for prime minister, it became quite obvious to the onlooker how the Rupert Murdoch owned ‘Daily Telegraph’s’ view was biased towards the Liberal party. 293 political stories were posted leading up to the election, and out of that, only 6 were not for pro Liberal party. This then lead to the Liberal parties Tony Abbot being elected into Prime Minister, without any prior popularity for the top job.
Currently, the new age of media is slowly beginning to take over from the old. That being, social media is now the main source of news within the younger generations. In which, it is controllable to seek the news which you want to hear. With the click of a button, you are quickly able to find the news which you want to hear, and the news you don’t. It is as simple as that. With the change to the new style of media, this means that the average person is able to produce the news which they want, instead of consuming the news which is fed to them. I.e. the consumer, is becoming the producer.
Who owns the media outlets doesn’t necessarily matter to the current generation, although to the generations, or people who don’t use social media to access their news, it does.
This problem will soon be obsolete, and in a couple of decades the media audience will be able to read information which isn’t of a biased opinion.
The way which an image is perceived is entirely up to the audience. Although does a photographer want the viewer to see many possible ideas from an image, or just one?
Each image has one direct meaning, although the way which an observer distinguishes the meaning of the photo is what helps a photograph gain attention around the world.
There is always two sections to an image; the signifier and the signified.
These two areas of an image, is what provokes the thought process in the human mind when a photograph is viewed. The signifier is the image, or word seen, that gives something meaning. While the signified is the way in which the individual members of the audience are able to perceive the image.
The image above, is an image which has been circulating the internet for an extended period of time now. I first came across this image on Facebook, along with many other photos of animals. This was the photograph which initially grabbed my interest, in comparison to the others. The image was able to do this, because of my massive obsession with Elephants. At first, it appears that the image was just artwork to express the beauty of the Elephant, due to the use of imagery of the light beaming down on the elephant, as well as it being the only object in the image.
It wasn’t until I looked at the picture for an extended time, that I started to realise that this was an image for a WWF (World Wide Fund for nature) campaign. The strikingly amazing use of visual imagery, to depict an Elephant which is crumbling, from back to front was able to trigger my thought process.
The Elephant is able to represent the quick rate of extinction of animals, and that this is the effect of hunting, and the loss of habitat throughout the wild. The advertising campaign is aimed at attacking those who don’t believe that this is a current issue within the world, as well as politicians and media outlets who can help make a change. The desired response is for the end of animal poaching, and habitat destruction of animals throughout the world.
All over the world, the medias audience is slowly changing from producer to consumer. This is mainly to do with the changing in media platforms, from Television, radio and newspaper to the internet. The internet has managed to overtake the older styles, in becoming the main source of information for the modern day person.
This allows for citizen journalists to now entertain their own audiences without the pay packet. It is all about the audience and the likes they receive for the work they put together. For example, every sports fan has an opinion of there favourite sporting code. In the modern day, these opinions can now be expressed online to an audience, instead of staying stuck in their head, or living room walls.
With the change, this means it is easier for non-professional journalists to outdo the big dogs of the journalism industry. Therefor it is extremely necessary for paid journalists to be first on the story, in order to guarantee they don’t lose to the little guy with a smart phone.
The vast majority of phone users either have an Android, or an Apple product. The rivalry between the two has raged on for the best of the previous decade, with no clear winner in sight. It seems each time either company brings out a new product, the competitor brings out a similar version.
Each individual has their preferences, although each product has its advantages and disadvantages when compared to the other. This is due to the fact, they are virtually the same product, with slight modifications, where the alterations are either better, or worse.
So why the war?
It’s the same reason with any sport, or other type of product. Nobody is willing to accept that the product which they own, or the team they follow isn’t the best in the business. Since accepting that Apple or Android are similar in standard isn’t an option, the consumer joins in with the marketing campaign of each company and argues the benefits of the product in comparison to the other.
So, why can’t we all just get along?