What are some of the advantages of live television and why do you think it was the prevailing format during TV's first decade? What are its disadvantages? How is "liveness" (or the illusion thereof) used by TV today?
The main advantage of live tv is the unpredictable factor. Which I would consider more of a double-edged sword as there are so many things that could go wrong on live tv, especially if it involves animals or children. I think a another advantage is the performance that airing a show live brings out of actors. Although live scripted tv is few and far between these days, there are a few exceptions. The most notable is Saturday Night Live (even though they’ve added more and more pre-recorded elements). Other examples include 30 Rock’s foray into live tv, airing two live episodes in its duration. Live tv fosters a raw high risk high reward effect on the cast, crew, director, and the show. If they make a mistake, it’s instantly noticed, but it’s a success their hard work and effort is recognized.
I think the main disadvantage of live tv is that it’s not edited, so the show has some rough edges. Cameras might not be set in time for a shot as the director calls it, talent may miss their cue, unpredictable elements like animals and young children can’t be edited out. I think that live tv was popular in tv’s seminal years because it was following the lead of popular radio stations from the 20s and 30s. Radio set the bar that live shows meant better programs.
Live television doesn’t seem to be a artistic choice in the early years of technology; rather, it was a deliberate decision due to technology and a strain of talent. Live television (truly live, not the pseudo live-scripted reality TV of today) requires few writers, if any. Personalities were able to vamp throughout the show effortlessly. Talent, with years of vaudeville and radio experience, were able to improv where taped television would place scripted dialogue.
The disadvantages are the imperfections that occur from a lack of preparation. Any scripted fare has the ability to be rehearsed endlessly and thoroughly vetted to ensure quality. Live television has none of this. Actors may flub lines, forget actions, do jokes incorrectly, or simply not be funny. Once they say or flub a line, they can never take it back. The audience simply has to endure it.
Liveness has become more of an illusion today. It’s used to describe when a show occurs in a real world setting, often using less studio lighting and documentary-style filming techniques. The spontaneity of live television, where the unpredictable could emerge out of a series of unplanned events, cannot occur. It’s been slowly and meticulously written out of the scripts.
The advantage that live television possesses over recorded programs is somewhat dependent on the era. I believe that in the first decade of television, it was more beneficial to broadcast live television because it helped to distinguish and elevate the television industry over the film industry—two competing fields at the time. Film details were highly obsessed over during the production stage and perfect cuts were made while editing in post-production; the audience subconsciously knew they were going to watch a professionally made, quality film when going to the theater. Meanwhile, the television industry was able to use the same basis of entertainment as films and turn it on its head but adding an element of unpredictability. Each episode had the ability to bring current issues to the table and therefore keep up with the times at a pace that was impossible for films to match.
In today’s live broadcasting world, I think that live television is advantageous because of the fact that audiences find enjoyment in actors’ bloopers and the improv skill of these actors. In a time where so many things are predetermined and anticipated, it is refreshing to come across entertainment that is just like life—unexpected and impulsive. Similar to what was previously mentioned, live TV today can be seen as a distinction, as it is a variance from the more popular form of recorded shows. Live TV is not only different, but automatically a rawer and more intimate form of entertainment compared to almost everything else on TV.
One timeless disadvantage to live TV is the same as its advantage—its unpredictability. There are many things that can go wrong during a production that will not improve the ratings of the show such as a racist remark being made, a malfunction of the camera, or even someone getting hurt. All of these things are unpreventable when doing a live show as once an action is done it is automatically reciprocated to the audience. As a result, there seems to be a lack of control in live TV as you can plan every detail meticulously of a show, but one thing wrong can ruin the whole program.
I believe that “liveness” in television is largely dead in contemporary programs, as live shows are typically using the same production methods as recorded shows. In the past, “liveness” seemed to be popular amongst live television shows, as it helped to relay the idea of reality and therefore reliability to the audience. However, I believe that today “liveness” is more of an illusion because of the fact that audiences rather watch a quality made show in terms of editing, lighting, etc. over a less quality show even if the latter is more realistic to life.
The primary advantage of live television was that it separated television from film, which relied on recorded pieces. By doing so, television distanced itself from the elitist connotation attached to Hollywood, attracting viewers. Additionally, live television depicted ‘common life’. For instance, films relied on scripts that were tightly framed by Hollywood intellectuals attempting to force their agenda on the viewer while television was spontaneous, seemingly unpredictable, and relied on ‘commoner’ attributes like slapstick comedy, skits, and stand-up comedy. Thus, by appealing to the average viewer through spontaneity and acting like the everyday man, live television managed to be the prevailing form during the first decade of television.
The glaring disadvantage of live television is the inability to control the environment. Live television leaves open the possibility of actors flubbing lines, sets collapsing, or even technological difficulties that can never be withdrawn from the air and can threaten the quality and credibility of the program. From a producer’s perspective, live television is much like a balancing act: one wrong movement could cause an entire production to crumble.
Live television has been nearly eliminated in the modern television era, likely due to the massive risk associated with it. However, due to this decade’s ability to easily and rapidly transfer information, live television has maintained a hold on programs (like sports) that feature large live audiences and large viewing audiences, opening the possibility of ‘spoilers’. In addition, popular comedies with older viewing audiences (Friends, 30 Rock, Will & Grace, etc.) have shown live episodes; however, these episodes are rare and seem to be a by-product of astute writers acknowledging sitcom’s roots.
An advantage that live television has over scripted television is that it gives the audience a sense of "realness" from the actors, which may instill a sense of comfort in the viewers. With live television, each actor or actress is able to show their personalities to their audiences, making for a unique viewing experience from program to program. During the first decade of TV's existence, the aspect of live television gave the viewers a sense of being in the crowd and an opportunity indirectly connect with the actors as they let their personality, or stage character, shine through the small screen and into their homes. The feeling of being transported into a world different from the familiar domestic or working environment was very important during this time, and live television met these needs by introducing viewers at home to characters and situations they might not normally come across in their day-to-day lives.
Although mistakes made on live television can be brushed aside, a more technical mistake or physical injury would cause many problems on a live show. With the common vaudeville-type acts during the first decade of television, the stunts performed could be very dangerous not only for the performers, but also for the host(s)--as seen in Texaco Star Theater: Milton Berle. In addition, small mistakes, such as forgetting lines for a skit or misplacing a joke's punch line, can build up and possibly harm the reputation of the show and actors. Having errors as a common part of a live show can seem unprofessional after some time, depending on who is watching.
Today, live television has been whittled down to a minimum. It seems that most live television has been reserved for sports, talk shows, news programs, and some award shows--to name a few. Even so, some of these types of shows may have been pre-recorded and edited before airing, showing that the original sense of "liveness" is a rare find.
I believe the main advantage to live television was connecting with the audience in a way that they felt obligated to come back each week the same way radio had a personal connection with its listeners. With live recordings and the lack of re-runs, if you were to miss a show you would only have word of mouth/newspaper to gather a sense of what happened. Besides that, the experience of knowing anything could happen, i.e. the spontaneity of a live show brings excitement, which in turn would make it a prevailing format during that time. But, with that spontaneous behavior you could have many unforeseen hiccups that could also break the show instead of making it. One example being the Captain Video long drawn out dialogue between the cast due to the producer not being able to fully disclose when the next commercial I believe was coming up. Or if they cast were to say something unfavorable on air, similar to Faces In the Crowd. We still see a demand for live broadcasting today with reality TV shows simulating a spontaneous element of surprise, with shows like Catfish or Real World, even the tonight shows which I believe are still broadcasted live have this, yet this is all an illusion due to new regulation introducing buffers (not sure if that’s what they call it) that allow television broadcasters to keep 5 seconds between what happens live and what the viewers at home see. So things like the Super Bowl incident with Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake doesn’t happen again.
From the perspective of 2013, a television world of DVRs, recordings and re-runs, the main advantage of live television during its debut was its uniting force. In order to watch something together, or discuss a television show with someone, you had to watch it live together. Since every home probably only had one television, if that, television brought families and neighbors together to have a common experience. Today, television rarely has that effect, except for in the instances of television events that have time-sensitive information or outcomes, such as sporting events or awards shows. For the most part, I would say that I watch much more television alone than I do with others. What once was a uniting force is now a passive activity, and something that isolates us more than joins us. While television does still prompt conversation and give us common subjects to talk about today, it is NOT a common experience when we do not watch these same programs physically together.
The illusion of 'liveness' is simply to make things feel more exciting or build suspense -- in reality, most "live" television shows are pre-recorded, which is unfortunate.
I think that live television was the prevalent format for television in its first decade because, for a lack of better terms, no one truly “knew” how to run and watch television shows. Since it was a new format of visual media, television producers initially wanted to separate itself from existing cinema. If all it did was broadcast pre-recorded material, what would the difference be between films and TV shows? Also, because of ubiquity and accessibility of the radio in the home, first time TV viewers equated the experience of watching television to listening radio. Therefore, they would watch television as they would listen to radio, live with friends and family.
The advantage of live television is that it requires less resources to produce than pre-recorded material (or films for that matter). In a live show (such as early variety shows), the talent would “carry” the show through their personalities and actions. In a pre-recorded show, the writing and production values would be just as important as the actors, if not more. The disadvantage of live television would be the unpredictability of the performances in the show. If not rehearsed enough, there will most likely be many mistakes and gaffs that occur in the show.
In television today, “liveness” brings a sort of exclusivity to a show (as most television programs are now pre-recorded). It acknowledges to the viewer that they are part of a larger, live audience.
"Liveness" was key to the birth of television in my opinion. Without it, TV would not have been able to survive. In the first decade of television, people were still transitioning from radio programming, and to ease the transition, TV producers made shows somewhat similar to radio programs, most notably, the variety show. The variety show thrived on live television because people could see many different acts including magicians, trapeze artists, and people who were able to showcase other talents. Unlike radio, where only live music could be fully appreciated in its proper medium. Liveness also had it's disdvantages, in things could go wrong, this ranged from performers not being up to snuff, swearing on air and technical issues that could all arise. Shifting to 2013, Liveness still does exist to an extent in tv shows similar to variety shows. Programs like America's Got Talent, American Idol, The X Factor, The Hero and other reality and contest based programming, all involve live factors towards the end of their runs. For shows like American Idol, fans can call in and vote for their favorite singer to advance. In an era of DVRs, this keeps live TV functional, because phone lines, social media polls and text polls all close soon after the program is done airing. This means people CAN watch the show on their DVR, but it would not provide the same interactive viewing experience. "Liveness" will also forever live on with sports, however, social media has had a unique effect on this. Due to margin for error and the 2004 Super Bowl Incident with Janet Jackson, most live sports run on a ten second tape delay. This has had effects in the past, for example on NFL Draft Day 2013, NFL.com writer Jason LaCanfora was tweeting out draft selections before the TV audience knew who the pick would be. This evolution of social media has a way to circumnavigate live TV. Another example is in scripted live events, like professional wrestling. The shows go live every Monday, but someone can go on the internet and see who the winner of each match will be. That does not mean that the show will go off without a flaw, but the internet certainly has had it's effects on live TV.
I think that the main advantage of a live television show is the way in which it engages its audience. Viewing a live event being broadcast to thousands of people gives audiences the feeling that they are taking part in an important cultural event. As a descendent of live theater, live television programming may also increase appreciation of an actor or actresses' performance. Live performances help elevate early television to more of an art form. Finally, making a television show live eliminates the costs and labor of post-production.
During its first decade early television’s main competitor was Hollywood and its movie theater chains. The problem was that television, which needed to be produced on a very regular basis, couldn’t hope to match the production quality of Hollywood films. Live television programming would not only lower production costs, it would also allow television to differentiate itself from Hollywood films and offer viewers something that they couldn’t get in a movie theater.
The disadvantages of live television are that its finished products are never perfectly put together. There is less time for preparation so the writing is generally poorer and the sets less varied. The actors have less time to prepare and screw-up’s end up in the finished product. Which camera to use must be decided on the fly, so the audience’s view of the action isn’t always the best possible. Finally, the length of a live program is difficult to time, so there is always the risk of running out of material or going over.
An interesting use of the illusion of “liveness” occurs on the TV show Comedy Bang! Bang!. It takes place on the set of a talk show that does interviews with various celebrities and characters. This part of the show is filmed and acted as though it is being done live. The other part of the show is a sort of side story that is done more like a recorded show and constantly references the “liveness” of the interview segments. This meta-plot creates a weird feeling of hyperrealism throughout the program.
Live television has the ability to connect the entire audience –those in the studio and others watching at home –by presenting a show to everyone simultaneously. As we have witnessed in screenings so far, when programs are broadcasted live, timing can sometimes be off, leaving extra time at the end of a show. This allows for entertainers to ad lib, which can be good or bad, depending on the talent of the entertainer. In shows like the “Texaco” program, the host would jokingly tell the audience that they’re supposed to laugh, or whisper something to the audience that wasn’t in the script. Moments like these made viewers feel more connected to the performer, so it’s no surprise live television was so widely accepted. In today’s television, little programming is genuinely “live.” Things like movie awards and talk shows are recorded on scene, but there is a six second or so gap between when the action occurs and when it is broadcasted. This quick gap allows editors to censor any inappropriate language, imagery, etc. before it reaches people’s homes. Still, an audience today tends to feel more connected to a live show. And (maybe I speak only for myself), but I think I subconsciously link the concept of “live” television with drama. For some reason, I’ll think that something exciting is going to happen, just because it’s live.
There are many advantages to live television. For one, with live television, there’s no way to predict what will happen. Whether it’s someone accidentally swearing during a monologue, a comedian on a sketch show hilariously ad-libbing, or an actor flubbing his lines, the excitement of uncertainty is very appealing on live shows. While exciting, it can also be unfortunate, leading to the people being sued over accidental primetime swear words, or having to pay money to have extra time to air an award show because everyone runs long on their speeches. During its first decade, I think it prevailed because it was entertaining and simple. If a show is live, it’s recorded, produced, and aired within it’s allotted time slot. Sure, it takes a lot of preparation, but the fact that you cannot re-record scenes means that all people involved in the production must be on top of their game, not allowed to make mistakes (and if mistakes are made, they have to be fixed quickly, or just forgotten). It was also popular because it did something that film could not. Films were meticulous and all pre-recorded, based on strict scripts and directions. Live TV introduced the element of improv that couldn’t be embraced through film. “Liveness” is used on TV today in a few ways. With shows like American Idol, the live tapings build anticipation and keep people watching. Because they announce winners and losers right on the air, it’s not often that there can be spoilers before the show. They also build anticipation up until the last two minutes of the show, the moment they announce who’s kicked off. Other reality shows which are given the illusion of being live and unscripted also have the same element of surprise that real live shows have, although it’s no secret that most reality shows are indeed scripted. While other live shows like SNL and The Voice may be scripted just like other scripted reality shows, the other semi-scripted reality shows have the ability to record and re-record scenes in order to get the footage they need. With mistakes always rearing their ugly heads in live television (I’m looking at you, Janet Jackson’s right breast), these exciting bumps in the road are what have been keeping live programming popular from when it first began on the radio.
Some of the live advantages other than immediate entertainment to the audience watching are that sometimes it can test the actors abilities of improvisation if something goes wrong or not according to plan. Sometimes the improv that the actor creates actually adds to the performance of the show. Another advantage of live television is being able to see what is happening in other locations across the world at that very moment if you are not able to be there at the time. Especially since one person cannot be everywhere at the same time.
I believe that it was the prevailing format during the first decade because maybe it was easiest to broadcast live shows to many different places at once rather than a taped show. Another reason was because it was the newest technology and the audience could get the benefits of live theatre while sitting at home. However, since this was the case many people exactly did stop going to theaters and live shows, which caused the businesses to suffer. Today, live television is used mostly for sitcoms or comedy shows. Sometimes they do create the illusion of live television by using laugh machines to simulate the audience’s reactions as if they were there watching. It can help to show the audience watching at home to know when it is ok to laugh during the comedic situations and push the reaction out of them.
Originally, live television was advantageous due to its distinction from the film industry. There is a certain caliber that comes with presenting a program live as opposed to multiple takes and rehearsals. There’s also a sense of intimacy that comes with live programming, seeing as a television show host or guest could make an impulsive decision to go against the carefully planned script. It’s like television was saying to its audience that ‘you should trust us’ by putting themselves at the risk of disaster. This is especially key when it comes to the news and the government trying to rally support. Live television also made it possible to reach audiences when it was convenient or at times, imperative to get information out.
Liveness is much more controlled now than it was decades ago, with production methods being planned out, and a communal effort to run flawlessly. There is still an ounce of intimacy having an anchor give you details regarding the events happening around the world. The advantage of current live programming is the idea of what they do provide you with distracts the audience from what they aren’t telling us. The unpredictable only arises if an outside source interferes with the clearly laid out plans of the program.
From its inception television has had to compete with film as the other dominant visual media. It is no wonder that television sought to differentiate itself from this other medium, which upon first glance appears to have many similarities. Live television is something that no cinema can offer. More important than differentiation, TV was received by audiences in their homes. An inherent difference between the two mediums is that film was mostly viewed in community while television has almost always been viewed in the home. Therefore the audience’s relation to the medium is entirely different and the way it is received is also different from the cinema. It seems appropriate that a viewer would welcome a live subject into their home through the television. This subject would be more welcoming as a live TV personality, someone familiar and recognizable. This may also be why they commonly break the fourth wall and directly address the audience as if they are part of the domestic space, sharing the experience together.
The disadvantages of live television consist largely of a set of production limitations. Mobility is limited to the range of cameras and video booths and mise-en-scene can only vary as quickly as the cameras and actors are able to move from one space to another. These disadvantages have been present through the history of television but have been minimized with advancements in technology.
Today television may use the illusion of live TV to achieve the same distinction from the cinema. While the viewing experience for television and movies has changed dramatically with the advent of mobile devices and video streaming at home, television is still a domestic experience. Live television may offer a more personal connection with the medium (and therefore a greater acceptance of it in the private space of the home) but it also allows for the communal experience that film offers by connecting the viewer with other communities present at the site of production. Many different live television programs include an audience and frequently the viewer is shown cut away shots of the audience. This allows the television viewer to share, and know they are sharing, the experience within a community of viewers. It also provides cues and affirmations on the reactions to what is being broadcast (knowing when to laugh, smile, admire, etc.). Live television allows the viewer, in the privacy of his home, to experiencing the event as it happens (live) and not just perceive it (recorded) individually.
Live television was simply easier to produce. A multi-camera system made live filming easier, since the cameras covered each character and several different shots of the set and could quickly be cut back and forth between. This meant that, unlike a single-camera shoot that might occur on a film set, there wasn't a need to take multiple takes of the same scene from each angle until every shot had been achieved. It was much quicker to switch between two or three cameras than it was to move one camera around the set.
Because of this, the actors, director, and camera crew had to be on top of things at all times. It takes a very specific type of actor to be able to handle live television, and these talents were discovered and showcased during this early period of television. The disadvantage of this, however, is that there was no way to fix any mistakes made by the actors or director. They were out there for everyone to see.
The multi-camera system was also a disadvantage, because it didn't allow for as much creativity in the shots as a single-camera film shoot might. The actors did not have as much freedom to move around on the set, so the composition of a live television frame is rather boring.
Now, sitcoms with laugh tracks mimic the audiences that watched live television as it was recorded, but the laugh track serves more as an instruction manual on when to laugh rather than a reaction by the audience. These sitcoms are also shot in a less constrained manner, so the shots are more creative and they take place in more than one set. There is also live television like the performances on American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and other talent competitions, as well as awards shows like the Oscars. It's interesting to see how much the liveness of the broadcast constrains it- like when an actor is receiving an award and their speech is cut off for the sake of time. It requires a lot of coordination to keep a live production running smoothly and within its timeframe.
The advantage of live television over pre-recorded television is that it pushes forth to the audience a form of entertainment that is ready to be consumed in the now with the least amount of digital effects. Which is good to have because without the editing process that goes into a series which has already been recorded there is a bit more truth to the production. I believe this to make sense and fit into this time and the battle for popularity between both film and television because a recorded image has less truth to it than a non-recorded image that is being broadcast live. This live feeling also makes it more realistic and because of the realistic factor the viewers of the programs will be able to relate more closely to the story being told within, unlike that of stories within movies. But taking into account the current television industry we are witnesses to today in which most programs are pre-recorded except for news programs, it makes sense as to why television was mostly broadcast live. It was at this time that TV was still a new media format, movies had been around but were a delicacy, the family had always gathered around the radio for its’ entertainment. It is just logical that producers of radio stations would give ideas to producers of networks on how to run their business, and with the suggestions they most likely provided their live format for everyday operations.
The main advantage of live tv is the unpredictable factor. Which I would consider more of a double-edged sword as there are so many things that could go wrong on live tv, especially if it involves animals or children. I think a another advantage is the performance that airing a show live brings out of actors. Although live scripted tv is few and far between these days, there are a few exceptions. The most notable is Saturday Night Live (even though they’ve added more and more pre-recorded elements). Other examples include 30 Rock’s foray into live tv, airing two live episodes in its duration. Live tv fosters a raw high risk high reward effect on the cast, crew, director, and the show. If they make a mistake, it’s instantly noticed, but it’s a success their hard work and effort is recognized.
ReplyDeleteI think the main disadvantage of live tv is that it’s not edited, so the show has some rough edges. Cameras might not be set in time for a shot as the director calls it, talent may miss their cue, unpredictable elements like animals and young children can’t be edited out. I think that live tv was popular in tv’s seminal years because it was following the lead of popular radio stations from the 20s and 30s. Radio set the bar that live shows meant better programs.
Live television doesn’t seem to be a artistic choice in the early years of technology; rather, it was a deliberate decision due to technology and a strain of talent. Live television (truly live, not the pseudo live-scripted reality TV of today) requires few writers, if any. Personalities were able to vamp throughout the show effortlessly. Talent, with years of vaudeville and radio experience, were able to improv where taped television would place scripted dialogue.
ReplyDeleteThe disadvantages are the imperfections that occur from a lack of preparation. Any scripted fare has the ability to be rehearsed endlessly and thoroughly vetted to ensure quality. Live television has none of this. Actors may flub lines, forget actions, do jokes incorrectly, or simply not be funny. Once they say or flub a line, they can never take it back. The audience simply has to endure it.
Liveness has become more of an illusion today. It’s used to describe when a show occurs in a real world setting, often using less studio lighting and documentary-style filming techniques. The spontaneity of live television, where the unpredictable could emerge out of a series of unplanned events, cannot occur. It’s been slowly and meticulously written out of the scripts.
The advantage that live television possesses over recorded programs is somewhat dependent on the era. I believe that in the first decade of television, it was more beneficial to broadcast live television because it helped to distinguish and elevate the television industry over the film industry—two competing fields at the time. Film details were highly obsessed over during the production stage and perfect cuts were made while editing in post-production; the audience subconsciously knew they were going to watch a professionally made, quality film when going to the theater. Meanwhile, the television industry was able to use the same basis of entertainment as films and turn it on its head but adding an element of unpredictability. Each episode had the ability to bring current issues to the table and therefore keep up with the times at a pace that was impossible for films to match.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s live broadcasting world, I think that live television is advantageous because of the fact that audiences find enjoyment in actors’ bloopers and the improv skill of these actors. In a time where so many things are predetermined and anticipated, it is refreshing to come across entertainment that is just like life—unexpected and impulsive. Similar to what was previously mentioned, live TV today can be seen as a distinction, as it is a variance from the more popular form of recorded shows. Live TV is not only different, but automatically a rawer and more intimate form of entertainment compared to almost everything else on TV.
One timeless disadvantage to live TV is the same as its advantage—its unpredictability. There are many things that can go wrong during a production that will not improve the ratings of the show such as a racist remark being made, a malfunction of the camera, or even someone getting hurt. All of these things are unpreventable when doing a live show as once an action is done it is automatically reciprocated to the audience. As a result, there seems to be a lack of control in live TV as you can plan every detail meticulously of a show, but one thing wrong can ruin the whole program.
I believe that “liveness” in television is largely dead in contemporary programs, as live shows are typically using the same production methods as recorded shows. In the past, “liveness” seemed to be popular amongst live television shows, as it helped to relay the idea of reality and therefore reliability to the audience. However, I believe that today “liveness” is more of an illusion because of the fact that audiences rather watch a quality made show in terms of editing, lighting, etc. over a less quality show even if the latter is more realistic to life.
The primary advantage of live television was that it separated television from film, which relied on recorded pieces. By doing so, television distanced itself from the elitist connotation attached to Hollywood, attracting viewers. Additionally, live television depicted ‘common life’. For instance, films relied on scripts that were tightly framed by Hollywood intellectuals attempting to force their agenda on the viewer while television was spontaneous, seemingly unpredictable, and relied on ‘commoner’ attributes like slapstick comedy, skits, and stand-up comedy. Thus, by appealing to the average viewer through spontaneity and acting like the everyday man, live television managed to be the prevailing form during the first decade of television.
ReplyDeleteThe glaring disadvantage of live television is the inability to control the environment. Live television leaves open the possibility of actors flubbing lines, sets collapsing, or even technological difficulties that can never be withdrawn from the air and can threaten the quality and credibility of the program. From a producer’s perspective, live television is much like a balancing act: one wrong movement could cause an entire production to crumble.
Live television has been nearly eliminated in the modern television era, likely due to the massive risk associated with it. However, due to this decade’s ability to easily and rapidly transfer information, live television has maintained a hold on programs (like sports) that feature large live audiences and large viewing audiences, opening the possibility of ‘spoilers’. In addition, popular comedies with older viewing audiences (Friends, 30 Rock, Will & Grace, etc.) have shown live episodes; however, these episodes are rare and seem to be a by-product of astute writers acknowledging sitcom’s roots.
An advantage that live television has over scripted television is that it gives the audience a sense of "realness" from the actors, which may instill a sense of comfort in the viewers. With live television, each actor or actress is able to show their personalities to their audiences, making for a unique viewing experience from program to program. During the first decade of TV's existence, the aspect of live television gave the viewers a sense of being in the crowd and an opportunity indirectly connect with the actors as they let their personality, or stage character, shine through the small screen and into their homes. The feeling of being transported into a world different from the familiar domestic or working environment was very important during this time, and live television met these needs by introducing viewers at home to characters and situations they might not normally come across in their day-to-day lives.
ReplyDeleteAlthough mistakes made on live television can be brushed aside, a more technical mistake or physical injury would cause many problems on a live show. With the common vaudeville-type acts during the first decade of television, the stunts performed could be very dangerous not only for the performers, but also for the host(s)--as seen in Texaco Star Theater: Milton Berle. In addition, small mistakes, such as forgetting lines for a skit or misplacing a joke's punch line, can build up and possibly harm the reputation of the show and actors. Having errors as a common part of a live show can seem unprofessional after some time, depending on who is watching.
Today, live television has been whittled down to a minimum. It seems that most live television has been reserved for sports, talk shows, news programs, and some award shows--to name a few. Even so, some of these types of shows may have been pre-recorded and edited before airing, showing that the original sense of "liveness" is a rare find.
I believe the main advantage to live television was connecting with the audience in a way that they felt obligated to come back each week the same way radio had a personal connection with its listeners. With live recordings and the lack of re-runs, if you were to miss a show you would only have word of mouth/newspaper to gather a sense of what happened. Besides that, the experience of knowing anything could happen, i.e. the spontaneity of a live show brings excitement, which in turn would make it a prevailing format during that time. But, with that spontaneous behavior you could have many unforeseen hiccups that could also break the show instead of making it. One example being the Captain Video long drawn out dialogue between the cast due to the producer not being able to fully disclose when the next commercial I believe was coming up. Or if they cast were to say something unfavorable on air, similar to Faces In the Crowd. We still see a demand for live broadcasting today with reality TV shows simulating a spontaneous element of surprise, with shows like Catfish or Real World, even the tonight shows which I believe are still broadcasted live have this, yet this is all an illusion due to new regulation introducing buffers (not sure if that’s what they call it) that allow television broadcasters to keep 5 seconds between what happens live and what the viewers at home see. So things like the Super Bowl incident with Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake doesn’t happen again.
ReplyDeleteFrom the perspective of 2013, a television world of DVRs, recordings and re-runs, the main advantage of live television during its debut was its uniting force. In order to watch something together, or discuss a television show with someone, you had to watch it live together. Since every home probably only had one television, if that, television brought families and neighbors together to have a common experience. Today, television rarely has that effect, except for in the instances of television events that have time-sensitive information or outcomes, such as sporting events or awards shows. For the most part, I would say that I watch much more television alone than I do with others. What once was a uniting force is now a passive activity, and something that isolates us more than joins us. While television does still prompt conversation and give us common subjects to talk about today, it is NOT a common experience when we do not watch these same programs physically together.
ReplyDeleteThe illusion of 'liveness' is simply to make things feel more exciting or build suspense -- in reality, most "live" television shows are pre-recorded, which is unfortunate.
I think that live television was the prevalent format for television in its first decade because, for a lack of better terms, no one truly “knew” how to run and watch television shows. Since it was a new format of visual media, television producers initially wanted to separate itself from existing cinema. If all it did was broadcast pre-recorded material, what would the difference be between films and TV shows? Also, because of ubiquity and accessibility of the radio in the home, first time TV viewers equated the experience of watching television to listening radio. Therefore, they would watch television as they would listen to radio, live with friends and family.
ReplyDeleteThe advantage of live television is that it requires less resources to produce than pre-recorded material (or films for that matter). In a live show (such as early variety shows), the talent would “carry” the show through their personalities and actions. In a pre-recorded show, the writing and production values would be just as important as the actors, if not more. The disadvantage of live television would be the unpredictability of the performances in the show. If not rehearsed enough, there will most likely be many mistakes and gaffs that occur in the show.
In television today, “liveness” brings a sort of exclusivity to a show (as most television programs are now pre-recorded). It acknowledges to the viewer that they are part of a larger, live audience.
"Liveness" was key to the birth of television in my opinion. Without it, TV would not have been able to survive. In the first decade of television, people were still transitioning from radio programming, and to ease the transition, TV producers made shows somewhat similar to radio programs, most notably, the variety show. The variety show thrived on live television because people could see many different acts including magicians, trapeze artists, and people who were able to showcase other talents. Unlike radio, where only live music could be fully appreciated in its proper medium. Liveness also had it's disdvantages, in things could go wrong, this ranged from performers not being up to snuff, swearing on air and technical issues that could all arise. Shifting to 2013, Liveness still does exist to an extent in tv shows similar to variety shows. Programs like America's Got Talent, American Idol, The X Factor, The Hero and other reality and contest based programming, all involve live factors towards the end of their runs. For shows like American Idol, fans can call in and vote for their favorite singer to advance. In an era of DVRs, this keeps live TV functional, because phone lines, social media polls and text polls all close soon after the program is done airing. This means people CAN watch the show on their DVR, but it would not provide the same interactive viewing experience. "Liveness" will also forever live on with sports, however, social media has had a unique effect on this. Due to margin for error and the 2004 Super Bowl Incident with Janet Jackson, most live sports run on a ten second tape delay. This has had effects in the past, for example on NFL Draft Day 2013, NFL.com writer Jason LaCanfora was tweeting out draft selections before the TV audience knew who the pick would be. This evolution of social media has a way to circumnavigate live TV. Another example is in scripted live events, like professional wrestling. The shows go live every Monday, but someone can go on the internet and see who the winner of each match will be. That does not mean that the show will go off without a flaw, but the internet certainly has had it's effects on live TV.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main advantage of a live television show is the way in which it engages its audience. Viewing a live event being broadcast to thousands of people gives audiences the feeling that they are taking part in an important cultural event. As a descendent of live theater, live television programming may also increase appreciation of an actor or actresses' performance. Live performances help elevate early television to more of an art form. Finally, making a television show live eliminates the costs and labor of post-production.
ReplyDeleteDuring its first decade early television’s main competitor was Hollywood and its movie theater chains. The problem was that television, which needed to be produced on a very regular basis, couldn’t hope to match the production quality of Hollywood films. Live television programming would not only lower production costs, it would also allow television to differentiate itself from Hollywood films and offer viewers something that they couldn’t get in a movie theater.
The disadvantages of live television are that its finished products are never perfectly put together. There is less time for preparation so the writing is generally poorer and the sets less varied. The actors have less time to prepare and screw-up’s end up in the finished product. Which camera to use must be decided on the fly, so the audience’s view of the action isn’t always the best possible. Finally, the length of a live program is difficult to time, so there is always the risk of running out of material or going over.
An interesting use of the illusion of “liveness” occurs on the TV show Comedy Bang! Bang!. It takes place on the set of a talk show that does interviews with various celebrities and characters. This part of the show is filmed and acted as though it is being done live. The other part of the show is a sort of side story that is done more like a recorded show and constantly references the “liveness” of the interview segments. This meta-plot creates a weird feeling of hyperrealism throughout the program.
Live television has the ability to connect the entire audience –those in the studio and others watching at home –by presenting a show to everyone simultaneously. As we have witnessed in screenings so far, when programs are broadcasted live, timing can sometimes be off, leaving extra time at the end of a show. This allows for entertainers to ad lib, which can be good or bad, depending on the talent of the entertainer. In shows like the “Texaco” program, the host would jokingly tell the audience that they’re supposed to laugh, or whisper something to the audience that wasn’t in the script. Moments like these made viewers feel more connected to the performer, so it’s no surprise live television was so widely accepted. In today’s television, little programming is genuinely “live.” Things like movie awards and talk shows are recorded on scene, but there is a six second or so gap between when the action occurs and when it is broadcasted. This quick gap allows editors to censor any inappropriate language, imagery, etc. before it reaches people’s homes. Still, an audience today tends to feel more connected to a live show. And (maybe I speak only for myself), but I think I subconsciously link the concept of “live” television with drama. For some reason, I’ll think that something exciting is going to happen, just because it’s live.
ReplyDeleteThere are many advantages to live television. For one, with live television, there’s no way to predict what will happen. Whether it’s someone accidentally swearing during a monologue, a comedian on a sketch show hilariously ad-libbing, or an actor flubbing his lines, the excitement of uncertainty is very appealing on live shows. While exciting, it can also be unfortunate, leading to the people being sued over accidental primetime swear words, or having to pay money to have extra time to air an award show because everyone runs long on their speeches.
ReplyDeleteDuring its first decade, I think it prevailed because it was entertaining and simple. If a show is live, it’s recorded, produced, and aired within it’s allotted time slot. Sure, it takes a lot of preparation, but the fact that you cannot re-record scenes means that all people involved in the production must be on top of their game, not allowed to make mistakes (and if mistakes are made, they have to be fixed quickly, or just forgotten). It was also popular because it did something that film could not. Films were meticulous and all pre-recorded, based on strict scripts and directions. Live TV introduced the element of improv that couldn’t be embraced through film.
“Liveness” is used on TV today in a few ways. With shows like American Idol, the live tapings build anticipation and keep people watching. Because they announce winners and losers right on the air, it’s not often that there can be spoilers before the show. They also build anticipation up until the last two minutes of the show, the moment they announce who’s kicked off. Other reality shows which are given the illusion of being live and unscripted also have the same element of surprise that real live shows have, although it’s no secret that most reality shows are indeed scripted. While other live shows like SNL and The Voice may be scripted just like other scripted reality shows, the other semi-scripted reality shows have the ability to record and re-record scenes in order to get the footage they need. With mistakes always rearing their ugly heads in live television (I’m looking at you, Janet Jackson’s right breast), these exciting bumps in the road are what have been keeping live programming popular from when it first began on the radio.
Some of the live advantages other than immediate entertainment to the audience watching are that sometimes it can test the actors abilities of improvisation if something goes wrong or not according to plan. Sometimes the improv that the actor creates actually adds to the performance of the show. Another advantage of live television is being able to see what is happening in other locations across the world at that very moment if you are not able to be there at the time. Especially since one person cannot be everywhere at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was the prevailing format during the first decade because maybe it was easiest to broadcast live shows to many different places at once rather than a taped show. Another reason was because it was the newest technology and the audience could get the benefits of live theatre while sitting at home. However, since this was the case many people exactly did stop going to theaters and live shows, which caused the businesses to suffer. Today, live television is used mostly for sitcoms or comedy shows. Sometimes they do create the illusion of live television by using laugh machines to simulate the audience’s reactions as if they were there watching. It can help to show the audience watching at home to know when it is ok to laugh during the comedic situations and push the reaction out of them.
Originally, live television was advantageous due to its distinction from the film industry. There is a certain caliber that comes with presenting a program live as opposed to multiple takes and rehearsals. There’s also a sense of intimacy that comes with live programming, seeing as a television show host or guest could make an impulsive decision to go against the carefully planned script. It’s like television was saying to its audience that ‘you should trust us’ by putting themselves at the risk of disaster. This is especially key when it comes to the news and the government trying to rally support. Live television also made it possible to reach audiences when it was convenient or at times, imperative to get information out.
ReplyDeleteLiveness is much more controlled now than it was decades ago, with production methods being planned out, and a communal effort to run flawlessly. There is still an ounce of intimacy having an anchor give you details regarding the events happening around the world. The advantage of current live programming is the idea of what they do provide you with distracts the audience from what they aren’t telling us. The unpredictable only arises if an outside source interferes with the clearly laid out plans of the program.
From its inception television has had to compete with film as the other dominant visual media. It is no wonder that television sought to differentiate itself from this other medium, which upon first glance appears to have many similarities. Live television is something that no cinema can offer. More important than differentiation, TV was received by audiences in their homes. An inherent difference between the two mediums is that film was mostly viewed in community while television has almost always been viewed in the home. Therefore the audience’s relation to the medium is entirely different and the way it is received is also different from the cinema. It seems appropriate that a viewer would welcome a live subject into their home through the television. This subject would be more welcoming as a live TV personality, someone familiar and recognizable. This may also be why they commonly break the fourth wall and directly address the audience as if they are part of the domestic space, sharing the experience together.
ReplyDeleteThe disadvantages of live television consist largely of a set of production limitations. Mobility is limited to the range of cameras and video booths and mise-en-scene can only vary as quickly as the cameras and actors are able to move from one space to another. These disadvantages have been present through the history of television but have been minimized with advancements in technology.
Today television may use the illusion of live TV to achieve the same distinction from the cinema. While the viewing experience for television and movies has changed dramatically with the advent of mobile devices and video streaming at home, television is still a domestic experience. Live television may offer a more personal connection with the medium (and therefore a greater acceptance of it in the private space of the home) but it also allows for the communal experience that film offers by connecting the viewer with other communities present at the site of production. Many different live television programs include an audience and frequently the viewer is shown cut away shots of the audience. This allows the television viewer to share, and know they are sharing, the experience within a community of viewers. It also provides cues and affirmations on the reactions to what is being broadcast (knowing when to laugh, smile, admire, etc.). Live television allows the viewer, in the privacy of his home, to experiencing the event as it happens (live) and not just perceive it (recorded) individually.
Live television was simply easier to produce. A multi-camera system made live filming easier, since the cameras covered each character and several different shots of the set and could quickly be cut back and forth between. This meant that, unlike a single-camera shoot that might occur on a film set, there wasn't a need to take multiple takes of the same scene from each angle until every shot had been achieved. It was much quicker to switch between two or three cameras than it was to move one camera around the set.
ReplyDeleteBecause of this, the actors, director, and camera crew had to be on top of things at all times. It takes a very specific type of actor to be able to handle live television, and these talents were discovered and showcased during this early period of television. The disadvantage of this, however, is that there was no way to fix any mistakes made by the actors or director. They were out there for everyone to see.
The multi-camera system was also a disadvantage, because it didn't allow for as much creativity in the shots as a single-camera film shoot might. The actors did not have as much freedom to move around on the set, so the composition of a live television frame is rather boring.
Now, sitcoms with laugh tracks mimic the audiences that watched live television as it was recorded, but the laugh track serves more as an instruction manual on when to laugh rather than a reaction by the audience. These sitcoms are also shot in a less constrained manner, so the shots are more creative and they take place in more than one set. There is also live television like the performances on American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and other talent competitions, as well as awards shows like the Oscars. It's interesting to see how much the liveness of the broadcast constrains it- like when an actor is receiving an award and their speech is cut off for the sake of time. It requires a lot of coordination to keep a live production running smoothly and within its timeframe.
The advantage of live television over pre-recorded television is that it pushes forth to the audience a form of entertainment that is ready to be consumed in the now with the least amount of digital effects. Which is good to have because without the editing process that goes into a series which has already been recorded there is a bit more truth to the production.
ReplyDeleteI believe this to make sense and fit into this time and the battle for popularity between both film and television because a recorded image has less truth to it than a non-recorded image that is being broadcast live. This live feeling also makes it more realistic and because of the realistic factor the viewers of the programs will be able to relate more closely to the story being told within, unlike that of stories within movies.
But taking into account the current television industry we are witnesses to today in which most programs are pre-recorded except for news programs, it makes sense as to why television was mostly broadcast live. It was at this time that TV was still a new media format, movies had been around but were a delicacy, the family had always gathered around the radio for its’ entertainment. It is just logical that producers of radio stations would give ideas to producers of networks on how to run their business, and with the suggestions they most likely provided their live format for everyday operations.