I found last week's text by Adorno and Horkheimer to be quite a difficult one and it took me some time to finish. After reading the text I also read summaries from Stanford and The Guardian to get a better understanding of the text and that helped me a lot. At first, I got the feeling that the text would only be about the Enlightenment and its paradoxical connection to myth. Although it made me think about what knowledge really is and how we define it, I think last week's texts and questions had covered that part pretty well.
Fortunately it got around and I found the part about culture industry a lot more interesting. I follow a couple of TV series now and you often get the feeling, that after a well-produced first season, the following season is just produced as fast as possible, thereby keeping its fan base. The upcoming episodes follow for the most part a template that you get a love-hate relationship with and I can't keep but wondering what types of shows and episodes we would get if money wasn't the number one priority for the companies creating the shows. Sometimes you are almost grateful that a series come to an end so.
After reading other peoples blog posts I got the feeling that they, just as myself, were somewhat frustrated over the mass media society we live in today. Even though you state that it's annoying and you don't like the media climate we got today, what could we, the consumers, really do about it? I, at least, need some sort of passive activity to chill to after a long day in school, and if I want something with a somewhat high quality I'm pretty locked in to the mass media choices, or am I? It's fascinating that a text from the 1940's is so relevant to the situation we live in today. Of course you could say that the Internet has changed a lot, and of course it has, but I get the feeling that we sometimes overrate the ability of the Internet's effect. It certainly has the potential for everyone to be its own broadcaster, reaching out to millions of people, but if you do so, how many do actually listen? And also, everyone doesn't have the high speed, free Internet we have, making more voices unheard.
Your write that "the following season is just produced as fast as possible, thereby keeping its fan base". How do you think why people continue to watch films and TV series if it is not good? Don't you think that it is the need that is imposed on people from outside?
SvaraRaderaWell, the feeling I get is that the first season almost always is more well produced than the second one. Probably because you have more time and not a deadline in the same way. And I think people continue to watch because of the way the episodes are constructed, with cliffhangers that you really want an answer to.
RaderaI'm not sure if I understand your second question, do you mean that the market sets the rules? That if the consumers didn't want the product (i.e. the TV show) it would never been produced? If I misunderstood, please correct me. Of course that is the case, but I can't keep wondering how much better some shows could have turned up if the pressure to produce more episodes and season as fast wasn't as big as it it.
Of course there are exceptions, but what I'm trying to say, often is the case, is that the first season reels in the audience and the following ones, sometimes just tries to keep them, thereby making as much profit as possible.
Intriguing thought you got about TV series. I understand your point and i have series that comes to mind, for example "Heroes", that have been excellent and where the quality has dropped more and more. I read an article about the quality of TV series just the other day, where they thought that the quality of the series "Downtown Abbey" had drastically decreased. But it also said that different series have different quality curves. Some goes up fast and then down, some are down first and then increases and some have succedded in keeping a good quality through all seasons. An example of the last thing from that article was "Solsidan" who have managed to have a pretty good level of quality all the time. So i tend to agree with that. I also think it's hard to keep the same level of quality for several seasons even though you put a lot of effort into making it. I agree with you though that it would have been interesting to see the quality of a series where economy is not the first priority.
SvaraRaderaOf course there are exceptions that keep a high quality throughout the series. Even though I don't agree with that article, since I think there was a drastic drop between the first and second season of "Solsidan". But maybe that's because I had too high expectations after the first season?
RaderaI totally agree with your example of "Heroes", I really loved the first season but then it just seem to get worse and worse. Maybe I'm remembering it wring, but didn't they finish the series mid-season because of the drop in viewers? Too bad on such a great start...