Monday Night Raw Film Analysis

But behind them talking you can see how the breakables and dishes are out to show people and how small town gossip gets around. In other words, the director took everyday life and make it even real to the point where the props are not even props but sentimental value to them characters and probably even the actors. But with all them girls in one famous place they love to be in, the beauty salon, all of them are supporting each other by filling in what has happen and future events.

The cinema is one of the most unique forms of media because it has the ability to make a

Since its creation in 1980, World Wrestling Entertainment has been determined to shine a spotlight on the sport of professional wrestling. Delivering up to eight hours of weekly programing and their own subscription-based online library, consumers are able to receive as much content as they please. Although the WWE product as a whole is immensely popular, it does not go without fault. While other professional sports have succeeded in showcasing all genders and races in a positive light, the same can not always be said about WWE. What separates the WWE from other professional sports in a negative manner is the constant use of racial stereotypes, depiction of women in a degrading fashion, and mediocre storytelling.

Also, in many cases, the characters used in these shows are not ordinary individuals, but highly paid actors that simply recite scripts. Clearly, these shows are inaccurately labeled as “reality television,” and many individual’s time is wasted as a result. Time for many is very valuable. Wasting a person’s time because of an inaccurate description could be just as detrimental as wasting a person’s money because of an inaccurate description. Many people watch these shows to view real life situations, but what they are really viewing is the complete opposite. This cultivates confusion about what is real and what is fake.

Reality shows differ from classical documentaries in regard to their main intention: instead of stressing journalistic inquiry or intended in stimulating political debates, they are primarily made for entertainment and diversion (Corner 48-50). Since this is true, Reality shows have gone to extreme, unrealistic measures to entertain the audiences. For example: Survivor creates tasks and games for the contestants to perform, some being difficult and ultimately dangerous, but the contestants are more than willing because of their rising fame from the show and the audiences are more drawn into watching people in dangerous situations. These tasks are made purposely for the show and controlled environments exist that would never be found in the real world. Even though all this defeats the purpose of reality, its still considered a huge part of the

The first point Johnson brings up is the idea of complexity in a plot. Referencing older shows, he uses Starsky and Hutch as an example with no depth. It has a couple main characters and a single plot line that is followed the entire time with a very standard buildup to a climax and conclusion. Alternately, as a more complex

viewers that this ‘real world’ is fabricated with ‘near perfect’ flawless people, having MTV pay for all expenses to fall back on and go partying every night.

That degree of constant engagement weighs on all human minds. It affects one's ability to calmly and coherently witness what they're experiencing. In any "diehard" environment, criticism becomes unreliable because critical thinking doesn't exist. This problem is why I've found stepping away from watching and critiquing RAW so useful.

Having a wide range of target audience, the show shows an inaccurate portrayal of the field not only to those in it but with those who knows someone working in it as well. It isn’t uncommon to hear someone asking if a scene in the show happens in life. Sacrificing the accurateness of the show, it shows the scientists always working on something that is unrelated to their fields when they have a scene in their offices, whether it’s using lasers to heat up cup noodles or using lasers to engrave initials onto a spec of sand. While true from time to time, the show is barred from showing scenes for when they are working from a social point of view, it wouldn't be a very interesting scene and wouldn’t convey or connect much to the audience. When looking at television shows in general, it’s important to take things with a grain of salt. Because of the pressures from being appealing to a wide range audience, shows make sacrifices to being accurate for being funny, a factor that viewers look for in a light-hearted comedy sitcom. Now, the real question becomes this: how many people truly understand this is not an accurate representation of real life

Poor quality, writers admit that is producers say it is easier to produce and needs less crew and can be made quickly, multiple examples of this are seen in reality TV shows such as keeping up with the Kardashians, no script resulted in overdramatic

This is where we presently at. The more prepared we are, the easier it would be to execute; therefore we are having a lot more communication, training, and support from our leaders, as we become familiar with the change. This ultimately will remind us of the reasons for the change, and once fully implemented how it will benefit the clients.

because it's not all striking, a fight can go to the ground, wrestle and win by tapping-out or decision.

It also can be a weird dynamic . Sometimes people will think,  "Oh, the writer's on set,"  and people wonder if they are judging or something like that. I don't ever want anyone to think I'm there in any other capacity than I just want to hang out on set. So I think that's another thing you have to think about.

portrays a factual and lifeless image. There seems to be so much detail that the