Relation between Technology and Television Productions: Fantastic Images
Keywords:Technology, computer, television, assembling, fantacy
Technology presented people many facilities to communicate and for entertainment. Television is the most attractive media of 21. century and assembling is the base of television productions. Television constitutes enormous fantacy worlds and takes the spectator to its fantastic world by its artifical attractions. Spectators are affected by attractions of images which are revealed by technichs of assembling in a film or a in television production. Technology is the most enormous component of 21.th century and most of people can not avoid technology because of their businesses or because of their life styles. Computer is an unavoidable part of many peopleâ€™s lives and computer is used a miraculous device in the world. Contemporary computer technichs present television producers and to directors many facilities to assemble different images by the help of attactive technics of computer. Assembling is a kind of magic because of associating different images in a fantastic story and it provides the spectators to travell to a fictional world. Computer technics help this travell and ease to emerge a rationalist story from a fantastic story. Television productions sometimes use special shootings and these shootings include difficulties to apply. But contemporary computer technics help difficulties to apply them and affect people as they want to live in those fantastic images. Computer technology adoptes many attractive artifices and helps television productions by revealing colorful attractions for television spectators. People find very attractive images more than they image and have travel to imaginary worlds via television images on computer base.
Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly. 47 (4), 676-706.
Bennett, G. (1986). Narrative as expository discourse. The Journal of American Folklore, 99 (394), 415-434.
Caldwell, J. T. (2005). Welcome to the viral future of cinema (television). Cinema Journal. 45 (1), 90-97.
Capino, J. B. (2005). Homologies of space: Text and spectatorship in all-male adult theaters. Cinema Journal, 45 (1), 50-65.
Cereci, S. (2001). Television Program Production. Istanbul: Metropol.
Cereci, S. (2008). Story of Image From Cave to Television. Ankara: Nobel.
]7] Cereci, S. (2009). Television spectator survey 2009. University and Society, 9 (1), 1-5.
Cereci, S. (2013). Film Production. Ankara: Nobel.
Chin, D. and Qualls, L. (2002). â€Here comes the sunâ€: Media and the moving image in the new millenium. A Journal of Performence and Art, 24 (2), 42-44.
]10] Corbett, K. J. (2001). The big picture: Theatrical moviegoing, digital television, and beyond the substitution effect. Cinema Journal, 40 (2), 17-34.
Everett, A. (2004). Click this: From analog dreams to digital realities. Cinema Journal, 43 (3), 93-98.
Delahunta, S. (2002). Virtual reality and performance. A Journal of Performance and Art, 24 (1), 105-114.
Doane, R. (2006). Digital desire in the daydream machine. Sociological Theory, 24 (2), 150-169.
Geuens, J. P. (2002). The digital world picture. Film Quarterly, 55 (4), 16-27.
Haenni, S. (1998). Staging methods, cinematic technique, and spatial politics. Cinema Journal, 37 (3), 83-108.
Hayes, K. J. (2002). Godardâ€™s â€œcomment Ã§a vaâ€ (1976): From information theory to genetics. Cinema Journal, 41 (2), 67-83.
Prince, S. (2004). The emergence of filmic artifacts: Cinema and cinematography in the digital area. Film Quarterly, 57 (3), 24-33.
Hilmes, M. (2005). The bad object: Television in the American Academy. Cinema Journal, 45 (1), 111-117.
Hughes, J. (1981). â€The Tin Drumâ€: Volker Schlondorffâ€™s â€œdream of childhoodâ€. Film Quarterly, 34 (3), 2-10.
Jackman, M. R. (2002). Violence in social life. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 387-415.
Juster, F. T. and Ono, H. and Stafford, F. P. (2003). An assessment of alternative measures of time use. Sociological Methodology, 33, 19-54.
King, D. L. (2000). Using videos to teach mass media and society from a critical perspective. Teaching Sociology, 28 (3), 232-240.
Macdonald, S. and Brakhage, S. (2003). The fimmaker as visionary: Excerpts from an interview with Stan Brakhage. Film Quarterly, 56 (3), 2-11.
Merritt, R. (2005). Lost on pleasure islands: Storytelling in Disneyâ€™s â€œsilly symphoniesâ€. Film Quarterly, 59 (1), 4-17.
Mittell, J. (2001). A cultural approach to television genre theory. Cinema Journal, 40 (3), 3-24.
Newcomb, H. (2005). Studying television: Same questions, different contexts. Cinema Journal, 45 (1), 107-111.
Roth, M. and Lacy, S. and Morales, J. and Holland, U. (2001). â€œMaking&Performing â€œCode 33â€: A Public Art Project with Suzanne Lacy, Julio Morales and Unique Hollandâ€. A Journal of Performance and Art, 23 (3), 47-62.
Sark Yildizi (2009). â€œFunctional Technologyâ€. 10 October 2009. P. 7.
Sezer, Y. (2009). Television production process. Broadcaterinfo, 67, 100-104.
Smith, L. A. and Green, S. G. (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related effects to technology characteristics and user learning activities. The Academy of Management Journal, 45 (2), 421-430.
Spigel, L. (2005). TVâ€™s next season. Cinema Journal, 45 (1), 83-90.
Sobchack, V (2005). When the ear dreams: Dolby digital and the imagination of sound. Film Quarterly, 58 (4), 2-15.
Stasser, G. and Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A Brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14 (2/4), 304-313.
Sullivan, C. W. (2001). Folklore and fantastic literature. Western Folklore, 60 (4), 279-296.
Tomasulo, F. P. (2004). In focus: What is cinema? What is Cinema Journal?. Cinema Journal. 43 (3), 79-81.
Vries, L. (2001). Saenredam. utrecht. The Burlington Magazine. 143 (1175), 108-110.
Wasser, F. (1995). Four walling exhibition: Regional resistance to the Hollywood film industry. Cinema Journal, 34 (2), 108-134.
How to Cite
- Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by any other publisher.
- It is also the authors responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular source are submitted with the necessary approval.
- The authors warrant that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required.
- The authors ensure that all the references carefully and they are accurate in the text as well as in the list of references (and vice versa).
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.