don`t try this at home

… don’t try this at home
television for australian children aged eight to ten
Rubia Braun
Bachelor of Arts (Media Studies)
supervisor: Leo Berkeley
Project and exegesis submitted for Bachelor of Communication (Media) (Honours) to the
School of Applied Communication, RMIT University.
November 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary _____________________________________________________________ 1
Statement of authorship _____________________________________________ 2
Acknowledgment ____________________________________________________ 2
… introduction _______________________________________________________ 3
… background research ______________________________________________ 4
… the process________________________________________________________ 8
… the project ________________________________________________________ 30
… limitations and considerations _____________________________________ 34
… reflections and where to from here ________________________________ 35
Appendices ___________________________________________________________ 39
Bibliography __________________________________________________________ 69
SUMMARY
This project was interested in examining what could be an example of a
‘quality’ Australian Children’s television program.
Limited research exists, which demonstrates what is important to take into
consideration when creating a children’s television production.
This project then, set about creating a television program based on research
that was educational and entertaining, appealed to children, satisfied
legislation, and took into consideration the viewpoints of parents and
children’s television producers.
This will give a practical example of what a quality Australian children’s
television program could be.
1
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
…
I , Rubia Braun hereby certify that…
1. This project and accompanying exegesis contains no material that has been
accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any tertiary institution.
2.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously
published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in
the text of the accompanying exegesis.
3. Except where due acknowledgement has been made, this work is mine alone.
Signed: _____________________
Date: ______________________
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the time and effort put in by everybody who helped to
contribute to the project this year.
Special thanks must be given to the cast (and the parents of the cast!), Centrestage agency,
and to all those dedicated individuals who helped fill crew roles. A big thanks to Jennifer
Roberts, Melanie Manuel, Nurul Rahman, Amanda, Lewis and Ben for their creative input,
as well as to all members of the Labsome and Meanwhile honours studios at RMIT
University. To Iz Sulaini, for being a founding member of Rubiz Media and supporting my
project throughout the entire year.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Leo Berkeley, for his time and patience throughout
this year, and for his guidance especially during the initial development of this project. To
Ewan Burnett for allowing me to workshop the idea, and to all those that helped out with
the brainstorming process. To Adrian Miles for allowing me the freedom to develop my
project in the ways it wanted to go.
Lastly, I need to thank my family for their endless support and encouragement with this
project and with my career choice - to producing ‘quality’ children’s content.
2
C
…introduction
The year 2006 is an important one in the history of children’s television production in
Australia. Looking back, it marks the fifty-year anniversary of television in this country.
Currently, it sees the full review of the Children’s Television Standards, to determine
whether the standards meet the needs of the modern audience of Australian children’s
television programs (Australian Communication and Media Authority, 2005). Looking forward,
the complete transition from analogue to digital television is already well underway. This
may result in great changes for the television industry and its audience (Marshall, 2004).
Perhaps it is a time to reflect on the past achievements, re-assess the current situation and
look to examples of what television production for children in Australia could be.
…don’t try this at home: television for Australian children aged eight to ten is a Communication
Honours research project that, like other projects of this nature, underwent considerable
change from its original concept. Although this project transformed and evolved when new
knowledge and information was presented, the primary purpose of the project remained
constant:
To create a television show based on research and findings, made specifically for Australian children
aged eight to ten.
In order to achieve this purpose, research was conducted in a diverse range of disciplines
such as: television production, education, psychology, sociology and media studies. Also
taken into consideration were the different perspectives involved, such as producers,
networks, educators, parents and, most importantly, children. Knowledge from all of these
areas was brought together and made central to the production of the project.
This project can then be considered as an example of a potential Australian children’s
television production.
This exegesis should act as a guide to the ideas and processes behind making the project. It
is presented in several sections. …methodology will give a brief description of the research
strategy used within this project. …background research will give a general overview of the
research this project undertook, to suggest some of the major ideas, findings and studies of
children and television. … the process will document the process involved with making the
project. This should provide insight into how the project changed and evolved from its
initial concept to the final product. … the project will give a brief overview of the project, to
explain some of the ideas behind the final product and how they were achieved. …
limitations and considerations will outline the difficulties that ultimately had an effect on the
final outcome of the project. … reflections and where to from here? will act as a conclusion to
the project and the exegesis.
…methodology
In order to use the information gathered throughout the research process effectively, a
research strategy needed to be implemented.
Firstly, pre-existing texts such as literature in the area, quantitative data and children’s
television programs would be examined and reflected upon. These would be used as a
reference point for the production of the final project.
3
Secondly, engaging in professional practice, which was of high importance, involved actively
participating in some of the writing and production processes surrounding the creation of a
television program, and then reflecting on the practices implemented. This should allow for a
better understanding of the process involved with the production of children’s television.
Thirdly, brainstorming (using mind maps and workshopping ideas) a technique that is central
to the creative industries would be used to assist with mapping out of ideas.
Finally, through creative collaboration with both adults and children, many new ideas were
generated. These ideas were then reflected upon and presented to other professionals in order
to receive feedback. The feedback was an imperative part of helping shape the final outcome.
Reflections and findings were documented in the form of an online blog.
… background research
An overwhelming amount of literature exists in relation to children’s television. There are
many stakeholders involved and they come from a wide variety of backgrounds and
disciplines (Keys, 2004).
“It seems that where children are concerned everyone (priests, politicians, journalists, parents, teachers,
psychologists, sociologists) has something to say”
Casey, Casey, Calvert, French & Lewis, 2002, p 20-1
So, when considering the different backgrounds and perspectives of people commenting, it is
not surprising when juxtaposing the words ‘children’ and ‘television’ to find that a plethora of
contradictory discourses emerge.
… the effects of being a television viewer?
Perhaps the most extensively researched area within this field focuses on the effects of
television on its audience. This has created debate since the late 1950s (Lowery & DeFleur,
1983).
There are two major bodies of research within this. Firstly, research that investigates whether
television could be a negative influence and that it may play some role in making viewers:
•
•
•
•
Violent and aggressive (Bandura, 1978; Edgar, 1977; Eron,1982; Gerbner & Gross, 1976),
Obese (Brady, 2006; Landers, 2004; Strasburger & Wilson, 2002)
Promiscuous (Buckingham & Bragg, 2004; Lumby & Fine, 2006.
Have poor school performance (Sharif & Sargent, 2006)
One of the most influential books looking into television’s negative impact on children’s
cognitive development was Marie Winn’s The Plug-In Drug, which likened television viewing
to drug addiction (Winn, 1977, p23).
Secondly, in direct opposition to this, is the argument that television could be a beneficial
experience for children, and that it may:
•
•
•
Further their academic knowledge (Shin, 2004),
Improve vocabulary and cognitive skills (Bukatko & Daehler, 1992),
Teach moral values and make children aware of important and sensitive issues
(Media Awareness Network, 2006).
4
•
Assist children socially as television viewing is a common interest between
peers, which thus provides conversational material and a shared experience (Bow,
Walker & Gillard, 1995).
When investigating the possible effects television viewing could have on its audience, early
research has focused more upon the influence of the medium itself (see for example
McLuhan, 1964), whereas more recent research suggests that not the act of television
viewing that influences the viewer but rather the content (Bickham, Wright & Huston,
2001).
… the child audience
‘Childhood’ is a social construct, which gradually emerged from the 15th century onwards.
Categorizing children as a different and specific group was not fully realized until the late
19th century with the increase of schooling and child specialists (James & James, 2004).
Currently, children may be referred to as either being innocent and needing to be protected,
or in opposition to this, that they are overly empowered (Buckingham, 2002). Whichever
the case, television producers have a certain responsibility to providing content that
enriches a child’s viewing experience (Messenger Davies, 2001).
Much research has been dedicated to investigating the child audience and their viewing
habits (and to a lesser extent, their viewing preferences). While it was previously thought
that children viewed television in a passive manner, it is now a well-established notion that
children are in fact active viewers (Palmer, 1986). Children understand the conventions of
television, and have therefore developed a sense of tele-literacy (Buckingham, 1993).
Children are selective viewers (Hodge & Tripp, 1986). With the increase of choice brought
by services such as pay television (and looking forward to digital television services),
television programs have to seek to engage their audience in order to keep them interested
(Crosby, 2005). Many children are now technologically savvy. Keeping this ‘connected
generation’ interested is a complex task (Samson & Conlon, 2006, p 1). Children’s television
faces competition from new media platforms such as video games and the Internet.
Although some research has shown that children are not replacing old technologies with
new, rather they are using all of what is available (Azzarone, 2003). Incorporating new
media such as the Internet into the branding of a television show is an important process to
ensure audience appeal and loyalty (Crosby, 2005).
From the age of about eight onwards, children become part of one of the most lucrative
demographic in the world known as ‘the tweens’ (meaning the betweens – their age falls
between young children and teenagers). Marketing to the tween audience can be highly
competitive (Azzarone, 2003). Children in the tween demographic can influence $700
billion in spending each year (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006).
The encouragement of consumerist behaviour of children via advertising on television or
merchandising is of upmost concern to parents and child activists (Langer, 1999). Phillip
Adams goes so far as to credit consumerism with the death of childhood (The death of
childhood, 1995, p 3).
5
… the need for policy
Television is still the most favourite pastime of Australian children (Lodewick & Colvin, 2005).
Ninety nine percent of Australian homes have a television set. (Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2003). It is perhaps inevitable then, that children in Australia will watch television. When
they do watch television, there should be content available that is made specifically for them
and that is locally produced.
“If we don’t tell our own stories and sing our own songs, or dream our own dreams, we might as well
pack up and go to California.”
(Morphett, 1987)
Children’s television production in Australia is heavily influenced by policy (Keys, 2004). The
Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) ensures that standards are in place
to satisfy this. The Australian Content Standards, 1999, is in place to ensure that Australians
have access to a diverse range of local programming for analogue and digital television
(Australian Broadcasting Authority, 2005). Australian children should have access to
Australian stories in order to reflect and develop a sense of Australian identity (Tresto, 2003).
The Australian Children’s Television Standards are in place to give children access to a variety
of quality television programs made specifically for them, including Australian drama
(ACMA, 2006).
They set out criteria of which to define a children’s (C) program as something that:
(a) is made specifically for children or groups of children;
(b) is entertaining;
(c) is well produced using sufficient resources to ensure a high standard of
script, cast, direction, editing, shooting, sound and other production
elements;
(d) enhances a child’s understanding and experience; and
(e) is appropriate for Australian children.
(ACMA - Children’s Television Standards, 2005, p 4)
In the review of the last twenty years of the (C) classification, it was concluded that the (C)
criteria was put in place as a response to the lack of age-specific and quality children’s
programs (Aisbett, 2000, p. 26).
… quality
The word ‘quality’ is one that appears continuously in reference to children’s television
production, although a clear definition is difficult to come across. Bignell and Orlebar, in The
Television Handbook suggest that:
“In television, quality might depend on the production values and monetary investment made in a
programme. Or it might be a function of the apparent seriousness, creativity or originality of the
production. Within the television industry, quality refers to lavishness of budgets, the skill of
programme makers and performers, and the prestige accruing to programmes because of their academic
profile and seriousness of purpose”.
(Bignell & Orlebar, 2005, p 119)
Another suggestion is that quality is a characteristic given to a program based upon what the
viewer considers important (Rosengren, 1996). Therefore, what is deemed quality would
differ from one person to another. What children would consider quality could then perhaps
be very different to what a television producer considers as quality. Parents, to some degree,
control what their children watch on television (Burton, 1991).
6
Australian television is renowned for its quality television productions. The programs are
shown overseas, and have won numerous prizes (Aisbett, 2000). The Australian Children’s
Television Foundation, a national non-profit organization that produces media content for
Australian children, has suggested that programs produced by the ACTF are high quality
which aim to create innovative, entertaining and educational programs (ACTF pamphlet,
2006). The term ‘edutainment’, which is a form of entertainment designed to educate as
well as appeal, is applied to certain children’s television programs such as Sesame Street
(Wikipedia, 2006). Research suggests that children begin to lose interest in straight
educational programs from early primary school and educational content now has to be
hidden by entertainment (Valkenberg, 2004).
•
•
•
Keeping all this in mind, for the purposes of this project, the concept of quality may refer
to:
a program that is both educational and entertaining (‘edutainment’).
a program that appeals to children of a specific age
a program that has high production values, such as a drama.
… eight to ten year olds
All children are individuals and should not be considered in a general sense. Not all
children will like the same things. Age influences children’s viewing preferences and
behaviour (Burton, 1991). Children’s developmental stages are important to take into
consideration when writing or producing children’s television (Cupit, 1987).
Middle childhood, children aged eight to ten, is generally considered the last point when
children will have an interest in content created specifically for them. As children grow
older they show a tendency to stop watching programs designed specifically for them, and
instead watch content made for a more mature audience (Luke, 1992).
Children aged eight to ten can comprehend and prefer more than one central story or
character. Children from this group are now more critical and skeptical of television
shows. This is the age where they like to collect things (e.g. merchandise) for the social
opportunities it gives them (Valkenberg, 1999).
Although families remain integral, it is now peers and other adults (such as teachers) that
can yield influence over attitudes, feelings and ways of relating to one another socially
(Peterson, 1996). Children in this age group are concerned with where they fit in with the
world (Cupit, 87).
…quality television for australian children aged eight to ten?
Creating a television production of any kind is a complex process. A children’s television
production is arguably even more complex because of the many stakeholders involved –
parents (who control what their children watch), children (who are a very demanding
audience) and television producers (who need to stick to try to sell the shows to networks
who must oblige regulation).
There has been a gap of research into children and their viewing preference in Australia in
the last ten years. Generally, not much research has been into how to make a children’s
television program and what things are important to keep in mind when doing so.
This project aims to apply research and knowledge to make a quality television program
for Australian children aged eight to ten.
7
… the process
This section of the exegesis acts as a guide to how the project evolved from the start of the
year to the end.
… in the beginning
My overall aim for this project was to enhance both my production and research skills by
putting them into professional practice on a project made specifically for a child audience.
My key objectives for this project were the opportunity to work with children, to
collaborate creatively with other people, and to be involved with a production from start to
finish.
My original intent was always to film a television pilot, and I wanted to create a show that
was suitable for eight to ten year olds. I wanted it to be innovative and act as a positive
example within the industry (see appendix 1.1), as I was disappointed that many children’s
TV programs currently airing seemed to offer little educational benefit to a child audience.
(It is important to note, that this was not based upon any conclusive evidence. It was my
opinion at the beginning of the research process).
I was concerned as to whether children’s television was really being made for the
enjoyment and fulfilment of children, or becoming increasingly used as a marketing tool for
associated merchandise. Where had all the ‘good quality’ programs for children
disappeared to? The Australian children’s television industry is famous for producing
quality products like Lift-Off (ACTF, 1992) or Round the Twist (ACTF, 1989-1990). Roger
Singleton-Turner, in his book ‘Television and Children’ (1994), suggests that it is a good
exercise for a children’s television writer to think back to their favourite children’s
television shows and reflect upon what was so good about them. I thought back to all the
Australian shows that I had grown up with and enjoyed, such as the aforementioned ACTF
productions, Ship to Shore (Barron Films, 1993), Ocean Girl (Jonathan M Shiff Productions,
1994), even the game show A*mazing (1994-1998).
Why weren’t shows like these around anymore? Is it possible that the reasons for this are
because these shows would no longer appeal to the current child audience?
It is challenging for adults to know what would appeal to children. The problem as I saw
it, was trying to see the world through children’s eyes when you are no longer a child
yourself. In his book, Small Screens (2002), David Buckingham suggests that adults try to
judge television shows from an adult perspective, which doesn’t represent what children
think.
I decided then, to focus my research on finding out what kind of a program would appeal
to children, and believed the best way to gain this knowledge would be to seek input
directly from the target audience.
8
… the survey
I wanted to investigate what kind of television show children would make if they8 were
given the opportunity to make a show. Central to this was the plan to hand out a survey
for primary school children to fill in, based on ‘Kids talk TV: super wicked or dum’’
(Sheldon & Loncar, 1996), which was published ten years ago.
The survey would be distributed to over a hundred school children from a variety of
backgrounds (inner city and outer suburbia private and public schools), examining the:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Viewing preferences from children aged eight to ten in regards to:
content
genre
storylines that they felt were important
What factors affected viewing preference – age, gender, whether they were from the city
or suburbs, and whether they attended a public or private school.
What sort of things children would put into a television show if they had the chance to
produce one.
Why did children watch TV?
Did they think it was important to have Australian content made specifically for them?
What things were considered extremely boring and would make them change channels?
The survey would be designed to generate current market research, which would act as a
basis for designing a television show that appealed to children’s interests and
developmental needs. I was aware of the limitations in this design – how could a small
sample of children represent all of Australian children? I believed however, that it
would still provide a valid and legitimate basis for my project as it was current market
research with the key demographic involved. This could then provide insight via this
sample about children and their viewing preferences (see appendix 2 for original survey
questions).
In order to conduct this research, I needed to go through a lengthy administration
process to be granted ethics approval. This can take months to get, especially if the
research involves children. I decided that unfortunately the time given to complete an
honours project was not sufficient to conduct market research such as this and participate
in the production of a project.
I decided to focus on the production, and thus the survey was never handed out. It is
however, something that I suggest could happen in the future (see …reflections and
where to from here).
9
PRODUCTION
RESEARCH
CONTENT
Sesame Workshop Venn Diagram for developing education media products
Cohen, Guicardo & Schneider (2002)
Mapping out my research
10
… preliminary research
I began the research process by reviewing books and journals that focused on children’s
television, paying particular interest to Australian research. I knew from the outset that
the topic would be large, however I wasn’t aware just how large! It became evident that
vast amounts of material existed – it became a process of finding out which materials
were actually relevant. I found that much of the research was focused on the effects that
television had on children, whereas I was more interested in finding research that
showed me how to make a television show for kids - what they would like to see in a TV
show, what appealed to them, as well as what could be beneficial and educational,
appealing to their cognitive abilities and current developmental stage.
Within my preliminary research I came across the Sesame Workshop Venn Diagram. It
shows that the Sesame Workshop (the production team behind Sesame Street) interlinks
research, content and production to create a media education product. I decided that I
would also apply this idea to my project. I wanted an outcome to reflect the knowledge I
had gained in researching, producing, and understanding the content of Australian
children’s television.
It is suggested that in order to get an idea of what will appeal to children on screen it is
important to read books that have been popular (Singleton-Turner, 1994). So as part of
my research I made a point of reading the popular children’s books for my demographic
to see what I felt appealed the most from these. The Harry Potter series demonstrated the
idea of children as central protagonists going against adversity. It also had a great sense
of adventure and humour. Books from Roald Dahl which could be considered slightly
crude, and were humorous and quirky. The Specky Magee series, written by Felice Arena
and Gary Lyons, addressed serious issues (such as adoption, and parental expectations)
and mixed those in with a good measure of action (in this case it was the excitement of
Aussie rules football games).
I was also keen to find some background information into the Australian industry such
as who were the major production companies making children’s content, and what was
the process involved in getting an idea into a broadcast program.
Throughout the entire project I continued to research. It was important for me to do so,
as I needed to find relevant references. The Australian Children’s Television Foundation
(ACTF) library was an invaluable resource (appendix 1.4)
I had located a copy of the book ‘The Child Audience’ by Glen Cupit, (1987) which was
(and still is) the most relevant book for my project. It breaks down by age groups
(including 8-10 year olds) aspects of child development and suggests the implications
this has for children’s television producers. It looks at the child’s perspective on the
world, and includes information on their humour, fear, moral judgement, behaviour,
friendship groups and general development. Most importantly, the research was
Australian based. The only problem was that it was written in 1987, and to the best of
my knowledge, no later editions exist.
11
… emailing academics
Glen Cupit in 1987 was hired by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to produce a
handbook for television producers about what things are important to include in a program
for children. After searching on the Internet, I was able to locate his email address, and
decided to email him regarding the book’s relevance to children today. I was also interested
in contacting Professor David Buckingham, one of the leading academics in the field of
children’s television.
I had already glanced over his book ‘Small screens: children and the television audience.’
I was also able to contact him by email, and hoped he would be able to guide me with a
starting point in this area, as well as put me in touch with some Australian contacts in this
field of study.
I received positive responses from both Cupit and Buckingham. With this feedback, I
decided to find and contact academics in Australia who could assist me with finding
relevant Australian research. Again, I received much positive feedback as well as
recommendations of relevant books and journals.
I also emailed developmental psychologists in the hope that they too could provide me
with starting references. I received one beneficial reply from Sophie Xenos, a child
psychologist from RMIT University. She recommended I research into developmental
psychology. She also suggested contacting other psychologists. Unfortunately, this
provided little help as the research the other psychologists were involved with related to
preschool aged children, not middle childhood and were therefore not relevant. Despite
this setback, I constructed an email asking for Australian children’s developmental
psychology research and sent it to the head of each psychology department at universities
across Melbourne, but again found this to be a dead end.
… initial design process
At this time, I was also beginning to think about the theme/logo/designs for the show. An
opportunity presented in one of our honours assignments, where we had to collaborate
with a design student to create a visual representation of our project. For this to be effective
as a collaborative process, I had to be able to sufficiently communicate my findings and
ideas. The designer could then offer feedback and his suggestions for the design. Then he
could apply our ideas visually. I found this communication and feedback process to be a
great learning experience.
I had originally sketched/created a logo design for the show, with a working title of ‘Don’t
try this at home’ (see right). I showed this to the designer - who was absolutely horrified!
He explained that this logo came across as being very negative and authority driven which was not how I wanted to promote the show at all. This collaboration helped me
realise I wasn’t a designer and allowed me to appreciate the value in collaborating on
creative projects, such as a television production. I saw that different knowledge,
experience and skills brought by people with different training and backgrounds worked
together to produce a product that was far more effective than working alone.
This was also the first time that I used the brainstorming process for my project. The
designer needed me to come up with several words that represented the themes/values of
my project so that he could put those ideas into the design. I knew I wanted to come from
the child’s perspective and this meant being fun, curious, adventurous, and gross. The end
product of this collaboration is the promotional postcards that were presented in a
12
PowerPoint presentation to document the process (both of which have been
included - see attached CD for the presentation). This collaboration helped me
to begin to visualise my idea, identify and isolate the key findings in my
research, as well as participate in the design process.
During this process, the designer also suggested placing an ellipsis before the
title –which he believed added intrigue to the project. I found this a very
constructive suggestion, which suits the project, and have thus included it
throughout the project.
I now had a general idea as to what I wanted the program to be, I just needed to
workshop that idea, reflect upon it and receive feedback.
The initial design I came up with
13
… meeting with producer
My supervisor had worked with Ewan Burnett (an experienced children’s television
producer) and suggested that we arrange a time to pitch the project to him for feedback.
My supervisor suggested that I put together a brief of my ideas for the show to present
during a meeting (appendix 3). My supervisor also recommended that I keep the concepts
for the show non-specific, to encourage more input and feedback from his extensive
professional background, rather than have him just pick apart my concepts.
The feedback from Ewan Burnett helped me to shape …don’t try this at home to what it is
today, as it brought to my attention the need to consider the business side of the industry.
If the program is intended for airing on television, the creator must consider aspects such as
budget and distribution. Ewan said that he would love somebody to come up to him and
suggest a show where a child grabs a camcorder and goes out and films footage. A creative
low budget production is what producers are looking for.
I received criticism of the name of the show - Ewan believed that having a negative word in
the title would produce a negative response. Despite this, I made a decision to keep …don’t
try this at home–partially in homage to ‘You can’t do that on television’ (Price, 1979-1990), as
well as the fact that I believe that is works as reverse psychology, in that when you tell
someone not to do something, the initial reaction is go out and do it in opposition to
authority. As one of the reoccurring ideas in this show would be kids versus authority, I
thought the name was relevant. Additionally, it provides an element of danger to the show
– what can’t they try at home? – which I hoped would appeal to the kids and attract their
attention. As Ewan concluded, it would be interesting to see how the target audience reacts
to it and suggested I include questions about my show (including the appeal of the title) in
the research survey.
Another important suggestion from Ewan was to incorporate the idea of new media into
the show. Many productions that are picked up now exist on more than one media
platform – usually incorporating elements of web, games and merchandise. They become a
‘brand’ (Samson & Conlon, 2006). I made a note to research further into new media.
The other thing that I learnt from this meeting was that, unfortunately, my idea wasn’t
innovative or original. Getting children to create content and suggest storylines had been
used overseas and the variety format had been around for a long time so my ideas were not
new. I had to shift the focus of my project away from striving for innovation or else there
was the potential that I could not achieve it. I decided to focus on making an Australian
program that would specifically target eight to tens as well as being designed specifically
for Australian children. While good ideas should hold universal appeal, I wanted …don’t
try this at home to relate to the local market – Australians have the right to Australian
content and to hear Australian stories (Kemp, 2002). This notion supports that Australian
children have the right to content designed just for them (Edgar, 2006). The importance of
this project shifted from creating something new and original, to producing something
relevant for the Australian market. Focusing on Australian stories but delivering them in a
format that was entertaining and educational in comparison to other Australian content
would hopefully add to its saleability in this country.
I wanted my production to produce an Australian children’s television ‘edutainment’
program. Therefore, the focus of my project was no longer to create an innovative program
but rather to deliver a ‘quality’ television program for children aged eight to ten to watch
on Australian television networks.
14
… watching what was out there
Ewan had suggested that I needed to review what shows were currently airing and being
produced for kids, both in Australia and around the world. He also said that it was
important for me to look at the pay television stations as well (in particular Nickelodeon and
Disney channels) because they were the only opportunity for getting a show like this made
outside of Saturday morning timeslots on commercial stations, or the ABC. They were also
synonymous with children’s content around the globe.
My analysis of the local content after looking at one week’s programming on the Green
Guide (July 6, 2006) was that there seemed to be a lack of quality productions. Much of the
content consisted of low budget productions – game shows, variety information programs. I
also noticed a startling amount of overseas content, especially in the animated shows. It
seemed there was a trend of having a line up of cartoons in a program which were
introduced by Australian hosts who would occasionally go out and do crazy things on
camera (in Sarvo the hosts would perform dares written in by other children; in Roller Coaster,
the host Elliott would often take on a caricature and perform a skit related to the day’s
theme). I was concerned that a television program consisting of Australian hosts introducing
overseas content could be considered an Australian show. I was also curious as to why the
hosts of these programs were always people in their late teens or early twenties. Similarly, I
found that information programs like Totally Wild from the TEN network consisted of adults
presenting the information.
s
e
On ABC’s Roller Coaster, one boy wrote in to Elliott questioning why children didn’t host the
show when [he felt] they would do a much better job. Elliott replied to this by saying that
you’re only as old as you feel, and that adults were allowed to act like kids occasionally. I
believe, however, that the boy had raised a point – why didn’t children host these programs?
Although I was unable to find any research to provide a direct explanation for this, it could
be due to child employment guidelines. When working with individuals under fifteen years
of age, networks must follow the child employment guidelines. These guidelines require
specific working conditions and places limitations on the working hours (Film Victoria,
2006). From the network’s perspective then, with these circumstances it would be more
desirable to work with adults than with children, as it is less restrictive.
s
One particular program from overseas struck a chord with me, entitled This is Daniel Cook
(Marble Media & Sinking Ship Productions, 2004 – 2005). It is a Canadian show that depicts
the learning adventures of a six-year old called Daniel Cook. He learns everything from how
to fly a helicopter, to how to make chocolate. I felt that this was a clever way of making
learning fun – it shows that there are more interesting things to learn than straight out
academic content. An educational program could educate without being based on a school
curriculum.
Another notable aspect of the show is that it is improvised. Daniel interviews people and if
he’s bored - he’ll show it. I found this an interesting and very different way of presenting
information to the hyped up interviews that we are accustomed to seeing. Child viewers
have the chance to live the adventures through the host. Because the host is a child they can
also identify more with them than they would an adult host. Similarly, the same company
has now released a spin-off series starring a girl called This is Emily Yeung (Marble Media &
Sinking Ship Productions, 2006). While these programs are aimed at preschool children I was
interested in finding a way of bringing forward some of the ideas to be used with an older
audience.
Another show that I particularly enjoyed was Avatar (Nickelodeon, 2005). The aspects that
I enjoyed the most was the adventure storyline, the idea that every character brought
14
15
something to the show, and the fact that it applies both action and humour. These were all
attributes that I wanted to bring to …don’t try this at home.
I found that the ABC was the only channel dedicated to children’s programming in the
after school timeslot. It is for this reason that it has been voted the best provider of
children’s content (Aisbett, 2000). The commercial networks, however, often had just one
show designed for children. As a result, I was concerned about the general lack of
children’s content. If there were already a limited amount of children’s programs shown
on free-to-air television, then the amount of Australian content within these programs
would be even more limited.
Like many other countries (including the USA, UK and Canada), the Australia government
has enforced regulation relating to children’s television shown in Australia.
The Children’s Television Standards (2005) states that every commercial station is obliged
to broadcast at least 390 hours of Children’s (C) and Preschool (P) programs each year. This
must consist of at least 260 hours of C programs (of which 130 hours is first release
Australian programs). A program can only gain a classification when it has been submitted
and agreed to by a panel from ACMA.
Without a (C) classification, it is probable that commercial broadcasters would not show
any interest in a production. The commercial broadcasters are obliged to act in accordance
with these regulations and that means that they must show first release ‘quality’ children’s
drama productions. Once they fulfill this obligation, it is questionable as to whether they
would purchase any other programs made specifically for children. As there are only a
specific amount of obligated broadcast hours for children’s television, children’s television
production in Australia is a highly competitive business. Locally made dramas are
expensive to produce. Therein lies the contention between buying overseas or local
content. The rights to broadcast an international children’s television program could cost
as little as $6000 per episode, whereas commissioning an Australian made children’s
television program can cost between $45000 - $75000 (Tresto, 2004). Unfortunately, there is
no guarantee how well a program will rate until it actually airs.
This led me to think that I needed to come up with some way of making the program
cheaper, or at least I had to keep the idea of budget in mind. Was there point in making a
quality television program if it could never be aired because broadcasters wouldn’t pick it
up? It also meant that I had to keep the Children’s Television Standards (2005) in mind if I
eventually wanted the show made and seen in Australia.
TELEVISION PROGRAMS MENTIONED
This is Daniel Cook
(Marble Media & Sinking Ship Productions)
Avatar (Nickelodeon)
16
Totally Wild team (Network Ten)
Elliott from Rollercoaster (ABC)
Dave and James from Sarvo
(Nickelodeon Australia)
17
… OZTAM, commercial networks, and the ratings game
As success in the Australian television industry is largely dependent on ratings, it is
important to consider what children’s programs are rating well. In order to do this I
contacted OzTAM (Australian Television Audience Management) for statistics on the
highest rating shows for children in my demographic. I wanted to know which shows
were the most popular with children of this age group, to determine if there was a common
element within the programs that made them appealing to eight to ten-year-olds. I also
wanted to see where my concept fitted in, in comparison to those high rating shows.
Unfortunately this information was quite costly, and unfortunately beyond the budget for
this project (see …limitations and considerations). OzTAM did send me an information pack
of one week of ratings from 2005, which was broken up by demographic. Frustratingly
OzTAM, when looking at the entire audience, labels the child demographic as being aged
0-17 which doesn’t help to isolate what rates best with eight to ten-year-olds. Had I had the
sufficient budget, the more specific information could be obtained. The Nickelodeon ‘Kid’s
Choice Awards’ awarded Blue Water High best Australian children’s television program
(Nickelodeon Australia, 2006). But again, it is difficult to determine how many eight – ten
year olds voted for this show.
The time slot in which programs are placed and the amount of time spent promoting the
program will greatly affect the ratings (Aisbett, 1999).
Commercial broadcasting is primarily based on profit making (Smith, 2001). In order to
achieve this, commercial broadcasters will often aim to appeal to the lowest common
denominator. ‘Quality’ children’s television programs, however, are designed for a
particular demographic, and as such are not going to get as high ratings as other shows,
due to smaller target audiences. Therefore, much of commercial children’s television is
programmed to satisfy legislation and put in time slots that aren’t really prime-time for
children. As an additional note, little money is dedicated to promoting children’s
programs. Producers suggest that shows would get much better ratings if given a later
timeslot and on-air promotion (Aisbett, 1999). The ACTF sell their programs to commercial
networks as much as to the ABC, so even their edutainment programs fall under ratings
pressure (ACTF, 2006).
There is therefore a tension between trying to make something that will appeal to kids and
to make something that will actually get shown. If it doesn’t rate well then it won’t last. If
it’s too expensive then it might not get made. Unfortunately, most educational and
‘quality’ children’s programs are quite expensive to make and are not the highest rating. It
is suggested that this is due to the fact that many children participate in after school
activities and therefore do not have the opportunity to watch television at that time, not as
a reflection upon the appeal of the program (Care for Kids, 2006).
The time when children do watch television is within the prime-time timeslot (5pm-11pm).
The ACTF is lobbying for a children’s station where kids can watch 24 hours of content on
digital television. This would mean that they would have access to quality Australian
productions free of advertising. They propose having segments produced both by
professionals and by children themselves (Care for Kids, 2006). This would enable children
to watch material designed specifically for them at a more convenient timeslot. It would be
interesting to investigate as to whether children would choose to watch this child-oriented
channel over competing networks with adult content. Research has shown that child
specific content does not rate as highly with children as content directed towards a more
mature audience (Luke, 1992).
18
So I realised that there are few things beyond my control that would influence
the success of …don’t try this at home. It was important for a program to rate
well, to satisfy the broadcasters. However, for it to rate well didn’t necessarily
rely on content and appeal to children alone. Much had to do when the
program was actually broadcast.
… merchandising and websites
What can help to make a product such as a children’s television program successful is if
it has a well-established brand. The branding process means the idea behind the show
can be used across a variety of platforms including online and via merchandise (Samson
& Conlon, 2006).
A market exists for the sale of products relating to television programs (Family and
Community Development Committee, 2000). Even the ABC, a public broadcasting
service (and therefore not commercial) gains revenue from the sale of merchandise from
their television programs. Bananas in Pyjamas were a particularly successful
merchandising product (Edgar, 2006).
While I didn’t want my project to become an overly commercial venture, I thought it was
important to acknowledge the importance of branding and the commercial side of
television production by having a website, and perhaps some promotional material
associated with the show.
I realised the website could be an important environment to foster interactivity with the
audience, so chose to include this with my website. I also thought adding something
small (like stickers), that could act as a representation of merchandising, would be a nice
idea.
As Ewan Burnett suggested, the Nickelodeon and Disney brands are known on a global
scale. I decided to check out their websites to see how they were presenting their brand
to their online audience.
My initial reaction on the Australian Nickelodeon website was to be extremely confused.
There was so much colour, moving objects, and busy graphics that I was a little
overwhelmed. The American site was a little easier to navigate through. The majority of
the site was dedicated to free computer games featuring characters from Nickelodeon
television programs. When I looked at Disney’s website, I discovered much the same
thing. Bright colours, lots of pages to explore, and a large collection of games. This was
obviously the standard that had to be met to appeal to the online audience.
The ABC Roller Coaster website also has lots of games to play, although they seemed to be
more experimental or educational (allowing children to create their own sound scape, or
to learn about astronomy for example). In reflection, I decided that I would need to
include games as part of my website to uphold and compete with the standard set.
19
GAMES ON KIDS TV WEBSITES (accessed 25th October, 2006)
From ABC Roller Coaster website
From Disney kids website
From Nickelodeon games website
20
… brainstorming (scripting) workshop
At this point, I knew that I wanted a children’s drama storyline that would be separated
by a mix of other segments (a soap opera, animation, claymation, skits etc), and that the
main drama storyline would be about a group of kids who come together against their
will and are forced to learn something. So I had the skeleton, but really needed help to
flesh out the concept.
A standard professional practice is to hold writers’ workshops for television shows. This
is where a group of creative individuals comes together to brainstorm ideas to further
develop a concept, storyline or episode. In my case it was to come up with a concrete
idea of the main storyline for … don’t try this at home. Lift-off (ACTF, 1992) had made use
of over 100 individuals in the initial concept stage to come up with the end product.
They had come from a wide range of disciplines and each brought their different
knowledge and expertise to the project (Edgar, 2006).
Therefore, I decided to schedule a writing workshop for my production. I sent out
information packs to people from a variety of backgrounds including writers, film
students, script editors, children’s book authors, and parents, inviting them to take part
in a writing workshop/brainstorming session. My role in the workshop was to guide
the conversation. I would throw in other information to spur on conversation if there
was a lull, bring the conversation back on track if it was railroaded and help to expand
on ideas. The idea behind the brainstorming session was to encourage the creative ideas
of everyone who participated and not to hinder the process with criticism.
I decided to record the session (see attached CD) so that I could go back over it as I was
drafting the script. I also used my blog as a tool for reflection on this process of
participating in professional practice (appendix 1.5).
I found it an extremely useful practice, as the ideas being workshopped are ones that I
could never have come up with myself. Having twenty people workshop together will
produce more ideas than one person alone. The group was more productive towards
the end when only about half the people remained, as there was no railroading or people
talking over each other.
The main outcome of this workshop was that it began to form the shape of what …don’t
try this at home was going to be. I needed five strong, well-developed characters to drive
the storyline. They needed to have conflicting personalities. I had to come up with a
way to get the characters to meet up together, a common goal – the idea of school camp
or detention interested me because it was a scenario that would bring the characters
together that was beyond their control and school based. I also liked the idea of keeping
the adult characters in the show to a minimum so that the storyline revolved only around
children, because from my research I knew that I had to have a child-centric story (Cupit,
1987).
An interesting time within the brainstorming process was when the topic of budget was
raised. Diane Cook, a script editor, reminded us that we have to think in terms of the
Australian industry and that funding is at an all time low. So we unfortunately have to
restrict our ideas to keep this in mind. We cannot aspire to be like the American
productions because we do not have the same budgets as they do.
I now knew which direction to head in, and that I had to find a way to link the segments
to the screen, and to develop a philosophy behind the show. I needed to create a brand.
21
First design
1
1
1
Second design
Third design
22
… design process
Creating a television show means creating a brand. The show, the website, any other
associated media, and the philosophy behind the show are all included within the
branding of the show to its audience (Samson & Conlon, 2006).
To engage in professional practice I felt it was necessary to create a brand for…don’t try
this at home. In order to do this I wanted to have a logo designed professionally that
could be used across the program and website.
I set up a meeting with ‘The Works’, a student design studio within RMIT. In this meeting
I was required to explain the show and my intentions for the logo and then they would
come up with a visual representation. They sent me a return brief outlining the ideas
behind the logo (fun, non gender specific etc.) what their responsibilities were, and a
timeline (see appendix 5), which I agreed to, and they created three initial designs for my
concept.
The first design depicts the words of the title with a different design for each letter. This
was to represent the mixed media feel of the show. My initial reaction was that visually
this was too obvious. While it is important to not speak in abstract terms with children of
this age group, it is also important not to talk down to them (Cupit, 1987). I felt this
design didn’t deliver the intent of the show, nor that it would specifically appeal to a
child audience.
The second took into consideration the focus of screen culture within the show. It shows
two children with television as heads. It uses a ‘wet paint’ feel behind the title. This
element I did like because I thought it was fun and messy, however I felt the design was
too similar to the Nickelodeon brand.
The third idea with the bomb held some promise. While I didn’t like the actual look of
the bomb as I felt it was far too serious, I thought it could work if a comical attitude was
applied to it. I liked the joke that the title and image implied – it was fun. I also liked the
finger painted title because it had a messy feel and because it had been drawn by a child.
I showed these designs to the actors during rehearsal and the unanimous vote was for
the bomb image because it added an element of danger and was humorous. I gave the
go-ahead to develop this particular logo further but to exaggerate the bomb so it looks
like it is going to explode. I later used this image to animate the show’s introduction.
With the design process underway, I needed to concentrate on the production of the
program.
It was at this stage that I also enlisted the help of a storyboard artist to create some
conceptual designs and map out storyboards to illustrate the transition from the main
storyline to a segment. For examples of the designs refer to the accompanying handbook.
23
… pilot replaced by visual TV bible and handbook
By mid-July I realised that making a pilot was really too large a project, and therefore not
achievable in the amount of time available for production. I was still in the midst of
research and knew that making a pilot would involve writing an entire script, as well as
finding people available to work for an extended period of time, going into production and
post production. As well as this, I still had the assessable elements of the project to
consider allocating time to, such as collating all of the research in a presentable format, as
well as writing a lengthy exegesis.
At this point, I had to re-evaluate what the main point of this project was, and that was to
communicate the idea behind the production, rather than necessarily completing the
production. It was then that I came across an example of a television bible, essentially a
guide to a television series giving descriptions of story, characters, and settings for example
(August, 2004). I decided that this could be a very real possibility for my project. I also
realised that in order to receive funding to further develop a project such as this, the pilot
that I had produced would most likely need to be re-developed and re-shot to be more in
line with the network or funding body who picked it up. Producing a TV series bible was
far more beneficial to the overall outcome as it gave me something to develop in the future
and it was an industry standard.
I had used the ACTF extensively throughout my research process (appendix 1.4) and
decided to email Bernadette O’Mahoney, head of production, to ask her what sort of things
I needed to take into consideration when making a kids TV program. She confirmed that I
needed to include a television bible (O’Mahony, 2006)
I still wanted the opportunity to work with children and be part of a production, and I
needed to present a project that was based in research. So I shifted my focus away from the
pilot and onto creating a television series bible with a difference. I would produce a visual
representation of a TV bible – it would look at the characters, the basic premise of the main
story, and include some of the segments to provide an example of what the show was like.
With this visual representation I would present an accompanying handbook, which would
be the marriage between the two elements I was most interested in promoting for the show:
entertainment and education. The handbook would include all the supporting
documentation that a normal TV bible would have (treatment, character breakdowns, style,
suggested storylines etc.) but it would also have the chance to present the research behind
the ideas, much in the same vein as Carol White’s Teacher’s guide to Lift-off (1992), which
presents the characters, segments, research and theory behind the successful Australian
children’s television program.
It also provides activity sheets and suggested activities for teachers to implement within a
classroom. As … don’t try this at home was not a finished, fully developed series I decided
this was not relevant to include in the handbook.
So, in a sense my project outcome could be considered as a commercial pitch combined
with a cut back version of a teachers guide to the series. The handbook itself could then be
considered as a form of ‘edutainment’ - combining research (education) with commercial
practice and creative content (entertainment).
… pre-production
Now that I was aware of what I was going to do, I set about the process of pre-production.
This meant that I had to organise the script, locations, the crew, and the cast.
24
24
… casting
Children are by nature fickle and demanding viewers (Unknown, 1996). It has been
suggested that in order for a television program to appeal to a child audience it has to
have all the production values of quality programs, which includes professional
performing talent.
Keeping in mind that I wanted to engage in professional practice I got into contact with
Centrestage Agency, a children’s acting agency that I had worked with on a project during
my undergraduate degree.
I outlined what my project was about and they gave me the names of about twenty-five
children to contact and audition. I had also worked with three other older children in a
previous production and they agreed to work with me again. I wrote out audition scripts
for each of the main characters in the main storyline (appendix 6.1). One of the scripts
(that with Tian and Phred) worked so well in auditions that I decided to include it in the
actual filming script.
The audition scripts were sent out with the project outline (appendix 7). Actors
auditioning for Reality High, the soap opera segment of the show, were given the original
script to learn (appendix 6.2).
Casting took place over two days. I made sure that each audition was recorded so that I
could look over the footage again later. Drawing on knowledge from research into
working with child actors (such as Singleton-Turner, 1994), the process I used for each
audition was to first have a general conversation with the actor (how their day was
going, what they liked doing, how they found school this year etc) to allow them time to
relax. I then asked them to describe who they thought their character was and we would
then brainstorm together the idea of the character. After this I would get them to
perform the audition scene that they had learnt and we would try this in a variety of
ways. This was to see how well they responded to direction. After this we would
improvise a scene with them remaining in character the whole time. This was the most
beneficial for me to judge how well they understood and presented their character.
As I had made the decision to film the visual representation of a television bible I wasn’t
looking at filming the entire pilot episode. The bible was to give an idea of the characters
and the flavour of the show. This meant that I had to find actors that could carry the
roles and best show who the characters were. As I didn’t have the time to audition
hundreds of children or go through a casting agency I needed to make my final casting
decision out of those children available to me.
I made the choice in the end to cast the actors who essentially were very much like the
characters they were playing. In every ACTF production under Patricia Edgar’s
supervision, they cast children who were most like their characters (Edgar, 2006, p 346).
It was later pointed out to me that the actors were largely of European or Caucasian
ethnicity and didn’t represent the multiculturalism of Australian society.
This was not intentional; the children I was able to audition didn’t come from a variety of
ethnic backgrounds. The children who won the roles in the end did so based on their
acting abilities and how suitable they were to the characters, not on ethnicity.
25
… rehearsals
Singleton-Turner (1994) in his children’s television training book for the BBC suggests that
rehearsing with children prior to filming will help to make the process easier. I decided to
adopt this idea and to rehearse with the main actors a few days before production started.
This rehearsal was designed to be both a chance for the actors to rehearse and block out the
scenes, but also to workshop the characters. I had provided the rough idea of who the
characters were but I wanted the actors to get more involved with the development of their
characters so that they would have a better understanding of the roles. This in effect actually
helped to develop and shape the characters. Originally I had intended the character of Coop
to be an angry character and Oskar to be the responsible character. In rehearsals these
characters changed away from that and leaned more towards the comic side – for example,
Coop is now more like a bizarre character who laughs at his own jokes, and has a really dry
humour as opposed to just being a one dimensional angry character. As Jackson (the actor
who plays Coop) was acting out his scenes in rehearsal, his natural sense of humour came
out as he delivered his lines, and he made the character his own. This reminded me that
children love comedy (Cupit, 1987). I realised that it would be better to have Coop as a
character that provides comic moments, as Jackson was interpreting the role, rather than as I
had originally written it. It was an important part of the creative process to include the input
from the actors as they were still young, and more in touch with what would appeal to their
age group. As a result of this I also included some dialogue that they improvised within the
scenes.
Another step within the rehearsal process was to get the actors to fill out a character profile
(appendix 8). This was something that I had seen in a children’s acting manual produced by
Screen Actors Studio, 2006, which enables the child to get a better idea of their characters.
These profiles were so good that they actually ended up being used within the bible and as
part of the final DVD.
… production
Filming took place over two and a half days. We managed to film all the segments as
planned: Reality High, the claymation, Frankie: the improv guy, Right Sound Wrong Vision, and
the computer game in the first one and a half days. The last day was dedicated to the main
storyline material. During filming a few additional changes were made to dialogue on the
request of the actors, some examples being Max’s line: ‘I’d take my hat off to you but it’s
glued to my head’, and Coop’s: ‘yeah and keep your butt cheeks clenched’.
As we finished ahead of schedule we had the opportunity to film a few more additional
scenes. I decided that one of the scenes should demonstrate Max teaching a ‘lesson’ to the
kids. One of my ideas for an episode was to have Megan enter a dance competition. This
would force the other children to have to learn with her, as all the lessons were a group
activity. This is probably the segment that took the longest to organise as the dance had to
be choreographed, the kids had to learn the dance and we wanted to cover the scene from
quite a few angles. The kids also had to dance as if they were accompanied by music even
though on the day there was no music available (only in the post production stage did I
compose the song ‘lets dance’ which two of the actors later provided vocals for).
26
The other segment, which was luckily left till last, was the ‘goop’ scene. I used
this scene to demonstrate the use of the ‘communication bands’. This segment
would take place about halfway through the series, where the kids are sent on a
fake mission by Max. They are entering the area from all directions and need to
find each other – they do this by using the bands. The main aim of this scene
however was to get the children drenched in a disgusting mixture (NB. All the
actors and their parents agreed to this beforehand) as goop and slime are
elements that appealed to children – examples being Nickelodeon’s green slime
and Round The Twist’s popularity due to its ‘disgustingness’ (Sheldon & Loncar
1996, and Davies, Buckingham & Kelley, 2000).
The goop scene ‘…don’t try this at home’
… post-production
I underestimated how intensive the post-production process is. I had originally
scheduled four full days to edit and two weeks for sound. I realise now that this was a
completely unrealistic expectation.
Firstly, I had never edited before and therefore had to learn the skills needed to operate
the editing software. Editing is a very time consuming process (even more so as this was
my first time editing). I wanted each sequence to be able to operate as a segment
independently, and thus had to edit accordingly.
Secondly, half of my sound (all of Reality High and some of …don’t try this at home) was
not useable as it was distorted, due to a technical error during filming. This meant I had
to go through the process of bringing in all the characters for ADR which again, proved
to be is an extremely time consuming and frustrating procedure.
26
27
The purpose of the visual outcome was to really give a sense of the show and the
characters, in order to get funding to actually write and then later make the project. I did
however want Reality High to be a semi-polished product. We had filmed the entire
episode so I dedicated time to making it look as finished as possible. I spent more time on
editing and colour correction on RH than I did on the other footage. I also designed the
opening credit sequence. I realised that such a sequence would only work when
accompanied by a theme song. This mean composing, recording, editing, mixing and
mastering a song, which again, is a very time-consuming process. The theme song features
the vocals of Chloe Schaefer, aged 13. This again allowed me to collaborate creatively with
children.
I ran out of time to finish with a polished sound mix on the entire project. If I had the
chance to go over the entire process again I would be sure to find someone to assist me
with the sound process. It was challenging to create and record Foley with only one person
– hitting record, running into the sound proof room, creating the sound effect, then
running back into the studio to edit it! Certainly a two-person job for next time.
Recording ADR.
Nikita Rover Pritchard (Keisha from Reality High)
… final outcome
I wanted the final project to consist of the DVD, accompanied by a handbook, which would
include the written television bible and the exegesis for the project, as well as the website. I
wanted to present it in a fun way to reflect the nature of my project.
For research purposes I had invested in a few magazines designed for kids such as Dmag
(2006). I noticed that all the magazines for kids were packaged in an appealing way – most
were in a sealed plastic bag so that the owner would have to open it to get to the contents,
much like a present. It also included bonus materials like toys, stickers, make-up, and
sometimes a CD (see images below). I imagine this was to further entice children to want
to buy the material. I decided I wanted to apply this idea to my final project. My final
product is one that people have to unwrap to explore, and the DVD provides further
enticement – the bonus material that comes for free with the handbook!
Presented in a way to best sell the magazine
28
I planned for the DVD to be both handed in to be assessed, as well as to hand
out to all the cast and crew involved, as a record of what they have worked on,
and a piece for their show reels. To present the material on DVD, I wanted to
create a simple interactive menu through a DVD authoring program. As
supporting material, I also included both a slideshow of stills from the
production and the actual segments. I decided to include the stills with some of
the segments to give credits to the actors, but primarily to help with the
association of the segment to the main storyline. For example, ‘Frankie the
improv guy’ segment is accompanied with stills of the character of Tian holding
a camera. This is because in the show Tian is always filming things with his
camera, and every episode Frankie manages to stuff up his shot. The transition
from the main show into Frankie’s segment is via Tian’s camera. So I included
the stills of Tian with the stills of Frankie to better illustrate this.
As the DVD was a visual representation of the television bible, I decided to allow the
viewer to choose to watch the main storyline as a whole or to watch the separate
components of it – character by character, or the footage that explained a bit about the
story.
The handbook had to be like a television bible and include a treatment, character
breakdowns, a sense of the style as well as other supporting material such as locations,
descriptions of important props, and story suggestions. To best illustrate this I wanted to
include images to support what I was saying and to provide links back to the DVD. For
this reason I used headshots of the actors when talking about the characters, and the
storyboards to help show transitions from the main storyline to the segments and other
supporting images to support the written material.
Additionally, I didn’t want the handbook to read simply as straight academic work. It
also needed to work on a professional pitch level as I intended to hand it out to people
within the industry and thus wanted the material to be as accessible as possible. The
images helped to break up the writing and make it a more interesting read.
The website was integral to addressing my research on children and new media, and as
mentioned previously, essential to the branding process. I put together a package of
images and basic text. I gained the assistance of a web designer to come up with a basic
concept for the website. The website would be the major link to the television show. It is
here where kids could contribute and interact with the show. For downloads, they could
play Megan’s latest game or view episodes of ‘Reality High’. For them to contribute to the
content of the show, the website was the platform to vote on the continuation of ‘Professor
Clark and the Wonderkid’, and enter their films for the competition. It would also provide
the opportunity for children to engage in the show by participating in forums, viewing
behind-the-scenes images, and exploring the information behind the show’s weekly
lesson. For example, if the show was about Megan learning how to ‘hip-hop dance’ to
compete in a competition, then the website would provide her with instructive
information, and perhaps even include footage featuring well-known hip-hop dancers.
It would also further educate her about the benefits of engaging in physical exercise. This
would act as an example of a child applying the show’s lesson to real life situations.
This website should only be considered as a prototype, and is by no means a finished
product. It is there to act as example of, and to acknowledge the importance of having a
strong web presence associated with children’s television content (Sefton-Green, 2002).
28
29
… the project
Research suggests that television does contribute to children’s moral development and
therefore moral neutrality is not an option (Cupit, 1987). As a television producer you need
to choose what morals and values you are promoting.
I wanted to acknowledge the importance of several issues that I had found in my research.
The idea of the family structure changing greatly from what it was fifteen years ago with
the increasing divorce rate and longer working hours (Samson & Conlon, 2006). I wanted
to acknowledge the concerns surrounding screen culture, such as the possible negative
impact television has on children, and so wanted to address issues such as obesity,
aggression and screen addiction.
The UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child article 29 (the goals of education) says that:
“Children’s education should develop each child’s personality, talents and abilities to the
fullest. It should encourage children to respect others, human rights and their own and other
cultures. It should also help them learn to live peacefully, protect the environment and respect
other people”.
As I consider my project as an educational resource for children I felt it was important to
keep these goals of education in mind. While Nickelodeon is popular with children, it
receives criticism for promoting disrespect and negative behaviour. Again, the challenge
lies within balancing the educational aspects with the entertaining.
Each episode of …don’t try this at home will revolve around a particular theme that is
designed to address an important issue – relevant to the eight to ten-year-old audience.
These themes include (but are not exclusive to) multiculturalism, the family unit, adoption,
disability, fairness and equity, acceptance of differences, friendship, popularity, bullying,
healthy lifestyle, and identity.
David Buckingham stresses the importance of tele-literacy in children: the understanding
of the conventions of television (Buckingham, 1993). Part of the issue with children’s
television is that any party concerned with children’s welfare is worried that programs will
exploit, take advantage of or cause a negative effect in children as previously mentioned.
Having a good understanding of media literacy will help children to develop strategies to
best avoid these issues. So, a major aim of the program will be to provide information
about tele-literacy and the media environment throughout the segments.
Another principle of the show was to include children as content creators. Experiments
within schools to participate in content production have proven successful (Engstrom,
1999). Indeed, the practice of blogging is now quite a common activity among online users
(Barker, 2006) and some schools have implemented podcasting into the curriculum (for
example Podkids Australia, which you can subscribe to via the itunes store). I wanted to
make use of this, and allow the audience to have some impact on the outcome of the show.
Nickelodeon is good at doing this – children can post a message to their friends via the
website which will then be shown on the network (Nickelodeon.com, 2006). Having the
children involved with providing content is a practice that has been used before and is
successful with the audience (Burnett, 2006).
The project is essentially a visual representation of a television bible. That is, it gives an
idea of the characters, potential dialogue, and storyline. This project should in no way be
considered as ‘professional standard’. It doesn’t aim to be. The point of a television bible is
that it gives an impression of the show to potential investors such as funding bodies so that
the project can receive funding to fully develop scripts. It also acts as a reference point to
30
30
the show. If many writers are going to contribute to the entire series then they
all have the same information from which to draw from.
Bernadette O’Mahoney had told me that I needed to choose whether my program was
designed for boys or girls. I had wanted to design a program that had appeal regardless
of gender. I realise that there might be some gender differences in viewing preferences,
so I made sure to include a variety of segments that would appeal to each gender (the
soap opera for girls, the computer game stuff for boys). It is important to note though,
that I attempted to create characters and storylines that broke down gender stereotypes.
Such as having a female character (Phred) being the one that is obsessed with sports.
I knew that I wouldn’t be able to produce all of the segments, so I selected a few to film
which were most achievable to film (in terms of time and money) and those that would
give an overall idea as to what the show is about.
… don’t try this at home
I decided to give a brief breakdown of each character, a brief overview of the storyline
and a few examples of possible scenarios as is done in writing within standard television
bibles. This is not an example of how the actual first meeting scene would take place if
the program was to be made professionally. These segments are designed for adults
viewing the show to grasp a concept of the characters, their relationships with one
another, and possible dialogue. When designing a show for children it is important to
show more than tell as children lose interest if a segment is dialogue heavy. They much
prefer action to explanation (Buckingham, 2001).
I chose to leave Tian’s language in (“That’s a tough ass call”) because that it is how Jye
(the actor playing Tian) wanted to act the scene out and I was aware that this was
material that would be seen by adults and was not intended to be a version for kids. I
chose to leave it but in retrospect I would have preferred to ‘censor’ the line during
filming. Singleton-Turner (1994) suggests that it is better to avoid any obscene language
in children’s content regardless of how light or heavy it is as it is likely to offend
somebody watching.
… reality high
Reality High is Phred’s favourite program. Every episode of …don’t try this at home
includes an episode of Reality high (it is a program within a program). Phred’s
dedication to the show addresses audience loyalty and fandom, both of which are
seemingly important parts of the media environment.
It was important to include a soap opera as these:
a) rate well with children (Sheldon & Loncar 1996, Luke 1992 , Singleton-Turner, 1994);
b) have low production values so are relatively cheap and easy to make in comparison to
a high end drama (Bignell & Orlebar, 2005); and,
c) explore social issues which may be important to the tween audience (Cupit, 87).
We filmed Reality High in less than half a day. It was important to replicate the style of
soap opera, so care was taken to make sure that standard soap opera set ups were
included (lingering close ups, standard two shots, pull focus for a dramatic ending). I
made a conscious effort to ‘ham up’ the acting to ensure that comedy was included
within the show. This soap opera would act as a ‘send up’ of soap operas and their
storylines.
31
… right sound, wrong vision
This is a segment that tests tele-visual awareness by playing a different soundtrack to the
vision. It should attract the audiences’ attention, as this segment is not conventional in that
it has a totally reconstructed soundtrack to what the original vision implies. This should
also provide humour to the show. It could be placed in any section of the show after a
channel change, or at the very end of the episode. The vision doesn’t necessarily have to be
a film of people talking. The idea is to test tele-literacy so a serious of different visuals
could be used such as soundwaves, still photographs, vision of animals etc. This segment
is designed to show children that there are other ways of presenting media information
than the conventional image and sound.
For the purpose of the project I got two of the crew members to jump in and filmed them
talking to one another. Then in sound post I brought in two child actors to improvise what
dialogue they thought would be funny. Of course, they chose to make the scene about a
fart and the repercussions of farting. This reminded me again of the appeal of scatalogical
humour (Cupit, 1987). I asked the actors which role they wanted to play and interestingly
the female chose the male part and vice versa.
The purpose was not to make the sound fit perfectly, or else I would have organised to
script the segment. Rather it was just necessary that the idea of the segment was
communicated. It also presented me with another opportunity to collaborate creatively
with children.
… Frankie: the improv guy
Frankie is the guy who always ruins Tian’s shot on …don’t try this at home as part of one of
the ongoing jokes of the series as children enjoy repetition (Cupit, 1987). This segment
came about with Ewan Burnett suggesting that he would love to find a project that is very
cheap to make. He also found the idea of improvised television worthy of further
exploration. Frankie is this crazy character who goes out into the world to have fun, play
tricks, or learn information. He is a character that should appeal to children as he does
things that they would think are funny or that they would not normally do themselves.
So for the purpose of this program I decided to grab the talent and the camera, film and see
what happened. What resulted was a half hour of very interesting material. Frankie sang,
he danced (at the Indonesian festival), he chased birds, he handed out pamphlets, he tried
to collect money for charity, he asked people about their lives, he found out about
vegetarianism, he even told one man that domestic violence was not accepted in Australia!
Rather than choose one segment to include as an example, I decided to cut together a little
promotional reel of the most well-recorded events to show what Frankie is capable of.
Because he is known as “the improv guy”, I thought it was appropriate to use improvised
piano as an accompaniment (which I played and recorded through the programme,
Garageband).
This is a segment that would be interesting to develop further. It’s a quick, cheap and easy
way to present interesting information, issues and humour situations. Frankie himself is a
very versatile performer, and through the segment you get an idea of who he is.
… computer game
The computer game segment is designed to be an attention grabber (you don’t expect to see
a video game format on a television program). It is also an acknowledgement of the video
32
game culture, which is a popular influence with primary school children
(Green, Reid & Bigum 1998). This would also be a tie in to the website. After
every episode, viewers could go online to the site and download the game that
Megan was playing onscreen. It is a standard practice for websites designed for
children to have games (Montgomery, 2001). Every week the game would be of
a totally different style, thus reflecting that week’s episode.
The particular game that I include here as an example was one that illustrated the
importance of healthy eating. When the character picks up the cupcake his health level
drops. When he eats the apple his health level goes up again and the player has now
won the privilege of the triple bonus round.
This segment is also making fun of computer game formats. This particular example has
a very ‘old school’ aesthetic – simple graphics, jagged movement, electronic sound effects
accompanying every movement, uncomplicated quest. This vision creates a comical
effect when juxtaposed with Megan’s frenzied typing. She has to do so much on the
keyboard for the character to jump up a few stairs and pick up an apple. It is also a joke
that the game is at level 47 and is still so basic.
The way the game was created was by taking still images of a child actor in different
positions. I then imported these into Photoshop, traced around the actor and put this
cut-out image onto the computer game background which I designed using simple
shapes and colours. The entire process was very challenging as this fifteen second
segment took over five hours to create! It involved fifty five separate still images placed
next to each other which were then put into final cut pro to animate.
Again, the design is not intended to be a finished product but rather to give an idea of the
segment.
The actor holding a pose
Putting together the game
… Oskarmation
Oskar is a character who likes to daydream. Part of this daydreaming is shown in the
show through claymation, legomation or animation. Animation is always popular with
children of this demographic (Sheldon & Loncar, 1996) and claymation has seen a
resurgence of popularity in the last few years (Wikipedia2, 2006). This segment also
reflects the importance of children using their imagination (Gussin Paley, 2004).
The child actors created the claymation characters during the last day of filming. I used
these to create a simple claymation which shows the consequence of bullying.
33
… other stuff
One of the segments of the show would be a weekly competition asking for kids to provide
their own films, which would then be shown on the program. Sometimes it would be
incorporated into the storyline (as in the characters would actually watch the film) and
sometimes it would appear as a separate segment after a channel change.
This short film I’m including is by Byron White, one of the actors in the production.
Unfortunately I deem this footage too violent to be shown as part of the actual program. I
wanted to include it to show the capabilities of children as content makers.
… limitations and considerations
This project was affected by a lack of resources, namely money, time and people.
A television production of professional standards requires a budget. Ewan Burnett pointed
out that making a children’s drama is a very expensive exercise. While I received an arts
grant from the university arts union this was only sufficient enough to cover costs of logo
design, storyboards and conceptual drawings. Every other expense relating to the project I
had to cover myself. As a result of this, …don’t try this at home was shot on a very low
budget. Had I had the money to hire a professional crew and the facilities and resources to
film as I had wanted to (various locations, a studio, an art department etc) …don’t try this at
home would certainly be a different project.
A lack of money also meant that I had to miss out on specific ratings information from
OzTAM. I could have had access to the highest rating shows for eight to ten year olds in
Australia for this year – but that information was unfortunately too costly to obtain.
Perhaps had more people been involved in the production process, a more ‘polished’ and
successful outcome may have evolved. A television production is a collaborative process
involving many people in numerous departments. Because I could not offer people
payment, I was relying heavily upon them volunteering their time and doing me a ‘favour’
by helping out on set.
This meant that any roles that I could not fill, I had to take on myself. For example, I wasn’t
able to find someone to do production design, so in between scenes I was the one changing
around the furniture for the next set up. I didn’t place much importance on this because
my main concern was directing. If I had had enough crew, I am certain that the aesthetic of
the program would be greatly improved.
It is not usual practice for one person to be responsible for writing, producing, casting,
directing, unit managing, ADR recording, sound design, music composition and editing as
I was with this project. Had there been enough people to fill all these roles I’m sure the
final product would have been up to a far more polished standard.
The greatest influence on the outcome of this project was time. It is difficult to put a time
constraint on a creative process such as writing. If I had more time to fully develop the
project then I would have submitted a script for the pilot episode along with the bible.
Having to concentrate on the production side of things and to finish my project within a
particular timeframe meant that I had to concentrate on what was achievable, so I ran out
of time to fully write a script.
34
The lack of time available also meant that filming had to occur around the same
location. Most of the project was filmed within the same room with the same
furniture to save time and money. Ideally I would have preferred to use
different locations to shoot different scenes, or at least have access to a studio
where I would have the opportunity to change the set.
Given enough time I’m sure that I would have been able to raise more money for the
project, which would have changed the project as previously discussed.
Had more time been available, I would have completed the laborious process involved in
obtaining ethics approval, which would have allowed me to distribute my survey and
undertake ‘active’ research. As I could not afford to wait for ethics approval, I had to
create my project based upon pre-existing research (some of which was quite dated)
rather than on my own findings.
I had access to student facilities such as equipment and editing suites, but this meant that
I also had to share these with other media students who wanted to use them. It was for
this reason that I didn’t have access to filming equipment such as a dolly or a jib arm,
which I would have used had they been available. Also, sharing the facilities meant that I
only had access to the editing and sound studios for three hours a day. It would have
been a much faster, and more fluid, process had I had unlimited editing time, however,
most film schools seem to be rigid with time-constraints and unlimited editing time is not
commonly afforded to film students.
Another important element to take into consideration is that this project was part of the
first year of Honours projects of this nature undertaken by the school of applied
communication at RMIT. As it was the first year, we didn’t really have guidelines as to
what to expect or what was expected of us in relation to our project. As our work was
not comparable to anything else, we were setting the precedent. This was challenging
because there was no real framework in which to operate within
… reflections and where to from here
With this project I have attempted to incorporate several different stakeholders – it had to
appeal to children, it had to work with parents and educators’ needs, it needed to satisfy
legislative criteria, and it had to take into consideration industry issues (budgets,
distribution, saleability). It is a very challenging exercise to satisfy all the groups with
their contradictory needs, if it is in fact possible to do so at all. An educational program
might be deemed as a quality program by children’s television producers and receive
positive feedback from parents, but children might not be interested and thus receive
abysmal ratings. Or a program might be very successful commercially and sell
considerable amounts of merchandise but does very little to further children’s
understanding of the world. In his book Television and Children (1994), Rodger Singleton
Turner suggests that it is impossible to please everyone. Thus, it is plausible that this
project has not succeeded in meeting the needs of all the above-mentioned groups.
However, it has both high and low production value segments. It includes an Australian
children’s drama. It tells Australian stories. It has an exciting action/adventure storyline
featuring a diverse range of characters. It is told from the child’s perspective. It seeks to
involve the audience with the show via the website, enabling them to affect content on
the show. It features child characters played by professional child actors. The main
purpose of the show is to entertain and educate. It is age-specific. It satisfies the
suggested criteria of a quality Australian children’s television show.
35
34
Overall, considering the budgetary and time constraints, I am happy with the project. I
think it communicates the ideas that I wanted to put across and it actually shares many
similarities with ‘quality’ programs such as Lift-Off (ACTF, 1992). It satisfies the (C)
criteria.
But did I create a show that would appeal to eight to ten year olds keeping in mind that
quality programs are not always popular programs? It’s possible. This project certainly
was based on research to try and come up with content that would do this, but children are
by nature fickle in their judgement, especially when it comes to television viewing
preference.
Although the idea itself is aimed specifically at eight to ten-year-olds, the visual
representation was designed for the purpose of outlining the idea to adults. To restate
Buckingham’s (2001) suggestion – adults are no longer children and therefore cannot view
something from a child’s perspective. They cannot judge a program as to its success for a
child audience.
So, the next logical step would be to actively participate in market research - to show the
product to its intended audience. Programs such as Sesame Street and Blues Clues
undergo audience testing before they air. While testing isn’t always the most reliable
method (some shows flop despite having positive testing feedback), it is an industry
standard (Perebinossoff, Gross & Gross, 2005).
Another way to test whether the project is successful with the intended audience would be
to elaborate on the original survey and include questions specific to the show. What did
they think of the name? What would they change if they could? What did they like? If this
show was on television do they think they would watch it? As originally intended this
survey could be distributed to primary school children with the addition of a polished
version of the DVD and access to the finished prototype website. Ideally, a full episode of
… don’t try this at home should be shown (or at least something that links all the segments
together) so as to best gauge the reaction to the program as a whole.
The outcomes from this research could then be used to develop the program accordingly.
From these further findings, the pilot episode could be written and a complete television
bible could be prepared, ready to give to funding bodies and production companies, such
as the ACTF. At this stage, funding could be sought to develop scripts for the show, and
ultimately to have the show produced and broadcast on television.
From a production point of view, it is always possible that this project will fail completely.
Creating a product that caters to all the people involved is a highly complex and difficult
task. This television show attempts to appeal to children, have an educational aspect, and
to acknowledge budgetary concerns. In trying to do all this, the project might not
completely satisfy any of the stakeholders. It could be deemed to be too commercial for
educational providers, too education based to appeal to children, and too expensive for
networks and producers.
The point of this honours year was to experiment with the idea of what sort of children’s
television program I could produce.
“Success stories never happen to ‘safe’ derivative programs. They only occur when a
dreamer has an inspiration and a programmer decides to accept the risks”.
36
Perebinossoff, Gross & Gross, 2005, pg 56.
36
I wanted to be the dreamer with the inspiration – this year gave me the freedom to
take the risks and experiment with the outcome rather than concentrating purely
on getting the program made professionally. …don’t try this at home was more an
exploration and practice of making a program based upon research rather than
designing an idea for a program to sell.
Whether or not this project is viable on a professional level, I felt that it succeeded in
accomplishing all the goals that I had set out. I had collaborated creatively with people, I
was involved in a production from start to finish, and I had the opportunity to work with
children. Within this, I was able to improve on my research and production skills as well as
gain new skills, such as learning to edit and working with children.
The opportunity to be involved in such a project and observe the way in which it has
changed from its initial concept to the end product was an important learning exercise.
Things did not always turn out the way I had expected and I had to be prepared and able to
adapt to situations, and to turn them around to actually work for me rather than hinder the
process. I now realise in hindsight, that if I had the chance to do everything over again, I
would change many things. For example, I would strive for better time management. I
would have applied for ethics approval in the very first week so that I could have had the
opportunity to distribute my survey to children. I would have begun the casting process at
a much earlier stage so that I could spend more time with children workshopping the
characters, dialogue and storyline. I would look at better representing multicultural
Australia within the script. Ultimately I would take the time to be involved in the creative
process – I would have loved the opportunity to spend more time on writing, directing, and
editing. Gaining new skills and learning what I would do differently next time was in itself
a worthwhile exercise.
I would also dedicate more of my time to industry research. So much of my research time
was wading through the mountains of information available on the effects of television
whereas I wanted to concentrate on children’s television production and how to make a
program that appealed to the child demographic. With ethics approval I would be able to
talk to producers within the industry and gain their insight into actually getting a program
made. This would be invaluable information to have, should I ever endeavour to make a
program on a professional level.
To make the sort of ‘quality’ program like …don’t try this at home in Australia would be very
difficult to achieve. Like all the other Australian children’s programs, if it did get made and
shown, it is probable that it wouldn’t reach it’s potential. We do not have the resources in
Australia to fully promote children’s television. Additionally, as shows made specifically for
children are usually placed in a time-slot where most children won’t have the opportunity
to view it, it may never achieve the ratings it could, if it were in a more prime time slot.
It would perhaps be better to try and adapt this program to be made overseas where more
funding is available for children’s programming like in the US, and there are networks
dedicated to children’s productions. Ironically, the name of the program is rather selfreflexive of the state of getting a children’s program made in Australia: quite literally - don’t
try this at home, try overseas instead!
The benefit of a program like …don’t try this at home is that it operates as a whole, but also
that the individual segments could be developed further. If the main storyline is rejected,
I still have the other segments to fall back on. Ewan Burnett said that he was always
looking for an idea that would be very cheap to film – perhaps Frankie the Improv guy
could be further developed into a short five-minute program which feature different
children improvising, asking random people on the streets those all important
37
37
questions and so forth. Reality High, which is inexpensive to produce and quite short,
could be proposed as content for the mobile phone.
With the changing media environment, perhaps it would be better to investigate the
possibility of making …don’t try this at home into content for the Internet, iPods or mobile
phones. I intend to trial Reality High on www.youtube.com (with permission from the
actors and actors’ parents) to see what sort of response it receives. Another idea to help
with the branding of the show is to create a ‘myspace’ website for the show to further it’s
online presence as other television programs like ‘The Simpsons’ have done (Myspace,
2006). My concern with promoting a show for new media platforms though is that it will
only be accessible to those who can afford to have the technology. Not every child aged
eight to ten would have access to or own an iPod or mobile phone. The strength in this
project is that it should be able to work on both levels – on new media platforms, and on
free-to-air television.
It is the accessibility of free-to-air television that makes it a desirable medium in which to
create content for. Ninety-nine percent of children in Australia watch television regularly.
Perhaps this is why it remains the most popular pastime of children in Australia. While the
outlook for the future of successful quality Australian programs may appear to be negative
in terms of funding and distribution, the changing media environment that television is
currently moving through could bring future opportunities. It will be interesting to see the
outcome of the review of the Children’s Television Standards, as it could very well change
the industry for the better if new legislation is in place requiring more hours of ‘quality’
content to be shown on Australian television.
Should the ACTF succeed with their vision of an all children’s content free-to-air digital
television station then there would be a much larger scope for quality children’s television
production in Australia.
…don’t try this at home: television for Australian children aged eight to ten can be considered a
basic foundation for research into creating a ‘quality’ children’s television production in
Australia. To grasp a full understanding of all the areas involved in making a program for
Australian children, further research, time and experience within the industry would be
required. With the possibility that new media, and a review of the current legislation can
bring, more current research into Australian children’s viewing preferences, creative input,
and children’s television production is warranted. This will help to ensure that quality
Australian children’s television programs can continue to be made, and perhaps there will
be place for a program such as …don’t try this at home.
38
Appendix
Contents:
1. Selected blog entries________________________________________ 40
2. Original survey questions___________________________________ 43
3. Research outline sent to Ewan Burnett________________________ 47
4. Ewan Burnett transcript____________________________________ 48
5. Brief from design studio____________________________________ 55
6. Audition scripts___________________________________________ 56
7. Project outline_____________________________________________ 65
8. Character profiles__________________________________________ 68
9. Rough draft Professor Clark and the Wonderkid________________70
38
39
APPENDIX 1: SELECTED BLOG ENTRIES
1.1
1.2
40
1.3
1.4
40
41
1.5
1.6
42
APPENDIX 2: ORIGINAL SURVEY QUESTIONS
CHILDREN’S TELVISION SURVEY
Gender:
Male
Female
Age:
8
9
10
What do you do enjoy doing in your sparetime? ______________________________
What sort of things/topics are you interested in?______________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
How often do you use the Internet?
Less than an hour a day
One to two hours a day
Two to three hours a day
More than three hours a day
What is your favourite website and why? ____________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
How often do you watch television?
Less than an hour a day
One to two hours a day
Two to three hours a day
More than three hours a day
Who choses what you watch?
You
Mum/Dad
Sister/Brother
Whoever has the remote control
43
When do you watch television?______________________________________________
Why do you watch TV?____________________________________________________
What are your favourite TV shows? _________________________________________
Why? What makes them good? _____________________________________________
What type of television program do you like the best? (Number down with 1 being your
favourite)
Game show
Drama
Cartoon/Animation
News/Current Affairs
Comedy
Variety/Magazine
Soap Opera
Sports
Action/Adventure
Documentary
Reality TV
Other________________
How important is it to you that there are programs on TV made just for kids?
Not at all important
A little bit important
Very important
Is it important to have Australian television shows for kids?
Yes
No
Unsure
What things make a television show boring?
44
4
What things are needed to make a good children’s television show?
Action
Humour
A story about kids
Competition & Prizes
Good acting
Attractive people
Good story and characters
It looks good
Lots of stuff happens each
episode (it’s fast paced)
Easy to understand
Music
Kids helped to make it
Website
Other____________________________
If you had to make a show for Australian kids what would it have in it?
45
45
Draw a picture of the sort of things you think would be cool in a television show made for kids
like you:
46
46
APPENDIX 3: RESEARCH OUTLINE SENT TO EWAN BURNETT
ds
OUTLINE:
This is a children’s television show specifically directed at eight to ten
year old Australian children. The show is a reflection upon research in this
area:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Children are active viewers. They are reflective and critical of what
they watch.
When it comes to viewing television, people have are now participating
in ‘grazing’ activity. If something does not appeal to a child viewer –
they will change the channel.
Children use television to be entertained, educated by and to use in
social situations.
Children show preference for serials with characters that they can
follow.
Children like to watch characters that are a similar age to them (or
slightly older).
They do not like being patronised but they also do not like content that
is too ‘adult’ and they cannot understand.
Very important is: variety, comedy, action rather than words,
comprehensibility, interestingness and subjects that they can relate to
or are interest in.
That age group is a very important age of development: – learning about
the world and where they fit in
- important curriculum is art, I.T,
and science.
– school and friends plays a very important role
They like gimmicks and great prizes, and to a lesser extent
competitions.
Animation is always popular.
Their sense of humour is different from adults – they appreciate
scatological humour (toilet jokes, rude words, goop etc.)
So keeping this in mind, ‘Don’t try this at home’ is:
•
A magazine type show consisting of many segments and using mixed media
(live action, animation etc).
• The show will have a main story (an action adventure) which is broken up
by the smaller segments (as if the viewer were changing stations)
• To encourage the interactive idea of audience, two segments of the show
will require audience participation. The first is a ‘choose-your-ownadventure’ basic cartoon, whereby the audience has to vote each week
where they want the story to go – the highest votes will dictate the
direction of the story. The second will be a competition for a short
film idea, which will be shown as the last segment of the show each week
– this competition will offer great prizes.
• The other segments will cover a variety of themes to keep up the
interest, and hopefully appeal to that particular age group.
•
The show is research based, so will draw upon developmental findings to
be able to best educate, entertain and be a positive influence.
APPENDIX 4: EWAN BURNETT TRANSCRIPT
June 6, 2006
EB: Ewan Burnett
47
47
film idea, which will be shown as the last segment of the show each week
– this competition will offer great prizes.
• The other segments will cover a variety of themes to keep up the
interest, and hopefully appeal to that particular age group.
•
The show is research based, so will draw upon developmental findings to
be able to best educate, entertain and be a positive influence.
APPENDIX 4: EWAN BURNETT TRANSCRIPT
June 6, 2006
EB: Ewan Burnett
47
RB: Rubia Braun
LB: Leo Berkeley
EB:
neg
EB: Has your research been looking at also what is currently in the market?
RB:
RB: I’ve been looking at what it takes to get a show launched today, especially with the idea of interactive media and the Internet, that’s
been a big thing. But it’s hard to find academic references in children’s television production.
EB:
RB:
EB: I mean rather than academic references but actually what’s on air.
EB:
RB: I’ve been dissecting the different schedules and content to see how much is Australian content and how much comes from overseas.
RB:
ide
EB: Have you?
RB: Also, what’s been very big overseas.
EB: Other than Spongebob.
EB:
kid
sho
RB: Daniel Cook, that looks interesting.
RB:
EB: Yeah, that’s great. Really great people. But there’s only one Daniel cook in the world, he’s a remarkable boy. But the company that
make it, I know them well. In Toronto, they’re really terrific people. What about the stuff that is on Pay TV? Like Sarvo on nick?
EB:
RB: That’s one area I haven’t looked at – pay TV.
EB: Because that’s where, other than the Saturday morning shows on the free to air broadcasters are, that’s where this sort of thing ‘works’.
Or is well established. So there are a few questions that I have about that. And I haven’t done a whole lot of preparation because I think it’s
going to come out in discussion. The first thing I should say is that other than a show on Nickelodeon called SNTV which I did a couple of
years ago, I’ve never done this type of TV before. My background in children’s television is mostly in drama. Which I’ve made millions of
hours of. But my kids watch this stuff and I’ve made two shows – one of SNTV (40 hours) based on a very successful UK format called
SMTV (Saturday Morning TV) which is on ITV and ran for years and years and years and launched the careers of ‘Ant’ and ‘Deck’ who are
media superstars now in the UK. And nickelodeon bought the format and asked me to be in charge and it had a lot of the same elements in
it. The other one I made at the ACTF in 1990 was called Lift Off.
RB: That’s what I was going to say that this show is like, but for the next age group.
EB: Lift off was an interesting experience because up until then kid’s TV was very clearly divided into preschool, 5-7’s and the 8-13
demographic which is where I make a lot of drama for. That show for the first time looked at the first seven years of a child’s life based on
the theory (Howard Gardner was the guys’ name), there was a fellow in Boston called HG who wrote a book called ‘multiple intelligences’
which is a theory of several important intelligences, it was interpersonal, spatial, logical, mathematical and you know, language etc. All of
those intelligences that develop and they say that in the first seven years of a child’s life it develops 75% of its intellectual capacity. Not
content but capacity – function. So targeting Lift off, we set out specifically to target the different aspects of multiple intelligences. And
that incorporated drama, animation, just about everything that we could, interviews... little things like creature comforts where we
interviewed kids and we animated their words (that was a hideously complex and expensive show to make. We made 52 half hours in the
first season of that. Whereas SNTV was all about slime, games, craziness uh, the whole philosophy that Nickelodeon have about the
‘child’s world’, they all have brand promises (as they call them) to their audience and it would be worth you researching those particular
promises for each of the four – Disney channel, Jettix… I was in LA a few weeks ago filming an animation called ‘Animalia’ and we were
doing some market research with kids between 6 and 10, just to test some of the names and designs for Animalia and it was so interesting
to hear what kids are watching, in terms of boys are watching Jettix and Nickelodeon, and the girls are watching Disney channel. There’s a
clear delineation between what each audience watches.
LB: So those gender issues for the age group 8-13 are they really big.
RB:
Au
spa
the
tee
do
exc
ver
EB:
RB:
sch
tha
but
ver
pro
con
The
pri
You
pro
act
Iw
EB:
Gir
Wi
EB: Well this was 6-10 was our test audience there. But yes it is.
RB:
we
the
LB: Do you have to pick one or the other?
EB:
EB: No you don’t necessarily. The thing is boys like action. The boys that we were testing wanted to know if each of our characters could
have a gun and wanted a bit more biffo. Whereas the girls really liked the action adventure we had in our show but couldn’t’ care less
about guns or weapons or things that they could wack each other with. So there is a balance that we all aspire to. In drama and also to a
certain degree this goes to the brand promises of these broadcasters is that in drama kids have to be responsible for the development and
resolution of the narrative. I’ve had so many concepts pitched to me over the years which is essentially an adults show with a kid in the
corner. The kid goes up and stuffs up magnificently, and the adults come and save the day and say don’t ever do that again sonny. So in
terms of brand promises for Nickelodeon (might be on the websites) in terms of ‘this is their own world’ I can’t remember them. Dig them
out.
LB:
cha
RB: Is there a nick page for adults? Because I personally find the kid one very difficult to navigate through
EB: I’ll dig those out and then send them to you.
RB: That would be great.
EB: One of the first things you will discover about it is this word there (points to ‘don’t). Don’t put that in your title.
RB: Ok?
48
EB:
LB:
EB:
pro
kno
inte
Leo
ma
(alt
chi
ma
yea
the
onl
EB: Don’t don’t. I mean ‘try this at home’ is a great title. But kids don’t like to be told especially not to do stuff. It’s a negative. Never put a
negative into the title. Always design the title that is either bent or weird or silly. What’s your demographic?
RB: 8-10
at’s
EB: Yeah yeah.
RB: It’s funny that you say that because it’s actually my niece who helped me brainstorm that title.
EB: Is that so?
eas.
RB: Because it might encourage parents to sit down and watch it with them as well. She’s not an expert in the industry but I like to pitch
ideas to my family, especially the younger members to see how they will react.
EB: It’s so interesting. Because I did some work with the children’s television workshop in NY and all of their research is that if you tell a
kid not to do something than they’ll react the opposite way. Putting it in the title might turn kids away before they actually know what the
show is. So they might think it’s a safety educational thing. I don’t know. Market test it with kids. You might prove me wrong.
RB: I’m easy either way. They both have great connotations. (Turning to 3rd years) Do you guys even know what the show is about?
at
works’.
nk it’s
uple of
ons of
ed
ho are
ents in
sed on
ences’
All of
ot
nd
in the
ular
were
sting
ere’s a
could
ss
to a
and
the
So in
them
EB: Why don’t you do a 3-minute presentation?
RB: Looking at 8-10 year olds, Australian children specifically. There was a report from the ACTF a few years ago that said the material of
Australian content for the ‘tween’ age group is lacking at this point in time. So I’m looking at research – main research findings: attention
spans and the need for quick story lines that’s why magazine variety shows have been very popular. A different sense of humour – from
the child’s perspective is an important one because kids don’t like to be patronised which is why a lot of magazine style shows with
teenagers or twenty year old hosts don’t do so well. Ratings are another thing that’s really hard to determine. I found with OZTAM they
do 0-12 as a rating group and that’s massive when you’re looking at something so specific. The show is basically a magazine style show
except it doesn’t have any hosts. It’s like ‘lift off’ or ‘you can’t do that on television’ –that’s got a negative word in the title and that was
very popular.
EB: It has.
RB: Sesame Street for a lot older audience. Also I’m looking at the idea of ‘edutainment’ so it’s educational but because they’re going to
school it has a big impact on their life. They don’t like to be preached at, they’ve just come home from school, they watch TV to relax, so
that’s the idea of trying to hide those messages but so they still come through. There’s a main drama serial idea that carries through out
but that is broken up with segments of animation, live action skits. Little things like that. The interaction between kids and the TV show is
very important. So I have a very simple choose-your-own-adventure segment. It’s stick figures on a lined piece of paper so that way
production values aren’t so high. I think if you keep it simple it allows kids to vote every week as to how they want that little segment to
continue. Do they ride the boat? Etc.
The other thing that I thought would be great is that kids love competitions that’s why they loved Amazing. They love the gimmicks, the
prizes and the competitions. So the idea of having a competition where kids can send in ideas for a story and have it made for the show.
You could go through the process of making the segment. As I found recently, kids are actually really interested in the actual television
production process behind it. So that would be very interesting that school groups could work on an idea and get it sent in, see their work
actually made. It wouldn’t be a HUGE segment due to budget restraints but it could still be interesting.
I wanted the keep the show entirely fictional, without hosts. So that’s it – I did it in about two minutes.
EB: Yeah, you did really well.
Girl1: I can see where you’re coming from with getting kids involved. Because if they don’t have a video camera then their aunty does.
With the Internet they can construct their own characters and talk to each other and make their own movies, and get involved.
RB: Choose your own adventure is very big on the Internet. It used to be popular in the book form but now it’s big for kids to go on
websites. I just like the idea of these little segments that could appeal. It’s the grazing idea that kids are going to be changing the channel
they don’t need to when they’re watching the show.
EB: That’s great. So when are you making it?
LB: When I spoke to you earlier in the year Ewan, you said that you had been to some conference in NY and they had said there was a
changing environment for kids TV and what was going to be financed was like the traditional TV stuff was…
EB: Changing. Yeah, the world is changing.
LB: How would an idea like this, I mean does it really have to have new media stuff.
EB: What I haven’t grasped yet, and I think this is worth discussing, everything that you’ve described exists currently in children’s
programming. What I would like to explore with you is what you could bring to it in terms of a competitive advantage? And from your
knowledge of where media is going and what new media can do – you mention that there’s a handheld HD cam that’s in the uni. That is
interesting. What your experience of the Internet and blogs, and new media can bring. I’ll get to that in a moment. What I described to
Leo, is there’s a conference in NY every February called ‘Kids screen’ where all producers, broadcasters, distributors, investors, toy
manufacturers people anyone involved in kids TV gets together for three days. What’s refreshing is that it isn’t just a marketing thing
(although there is that as a part of it). A lot of it is about looking at developments in media, in genres, in child psychology – looking at how
children acquire knowledge, creativity, all those fascinating things. Really interesting conference. And because I go to a couple of other
markets which are deal driven there is very little discussion about our craft. What I said to Leo is I came away from the conference this
year with a very clear picture that the traditional world of children’s television is changing dramatically. Especially in my genre, drama –
the traditional character driven children’s drama (the stuff that I’ve been making for years) is disappearing because of the competition not
only between broadcasters but for children’s attention. Everyone was doing this at the conference because to get a kid to look up from a
49
Playstation to look at a screen is difficult. To get them to look up at a TV screen – you need something that is going to grab them and soft
television as we’ve known it – I mean I’m sure there will be some kind of break through character driven children’s programs but at the
moment it’s all about action, comedy. Something that is going to grab them. Yes involving them in the creative process if very attractive,
it’s one of the things that actually happens. Broadcasters like Nick do it; Noggin is a joint venture between Nick and Sesame Workshop,
the ‘N’ which is for teenagers. That’s really interesting and what I said to Leo, I’m looking at this as a producer and where this is all going
and how I can compete because if anything the costs of production have gone up so dramatically for the last ten years. The amounts of
money for pay TV in Australia (not in America where they will have an audience of 30, 40 million people who are paying $15 a month to
subscribe is a lot of money to be buying and making programs. I’m actually dealing with Nick and Disney to make a program in the USA
that is like free to air). But in Australia, people pay a lot of money. Nickelodeon has a very small audience here that they cannot afford to
put vast amounts of money into programs. So SNTV I made an hour of variety program with 3 presenters, 100 kids on set, bands, games,
interviews, each hours cost me $35,000 whereas in the UK that is less that the salary of one of the presenters for one show. When I told the
head of nick in NY how much I made that show for – he fell over backwards. So what I am interested in, which I think you have an
opportunity with is exploring different ways of doing things. And that in particular is what I would be interested in seeing you develop,
for instance like Sarvo – they have thing where kids write in and say we dare you to do this, and they go out and do it. It can be pretty
gross and freaky, but it’s pretty funny, they’re complete idiots but it’s very funny. My kids love it. There are several other shows like that,
but there is also a show which I haven’t seen where Nickelodeon in America have kids film and edit films and send them in. I did
something similar in the UK which was a competition with a theme – like the worst day of my life or this makes me laugh and they would
send in videos that would reflect this. They were really funny, and an insight into their lives and yes some of them were unbroadcastable
but others were really good. Now that you’ve got handheld HD you can do that sort of stuff that is broadcastable. Actually putting media
in the hands of the audience is great, so Nick in the UK have this thing where they ask kids to submit storylines for animation and then
they animate it every week. Kids like continuing characters, they also like seeing new and interesting stuff, but the notion that they can
influence a continuing character on screen is really groovy.
The other thing which is something we are developing for a show is where you can set up a web page where you create ‘avatars’ you
create characters because you’re not allowed to show a kids face on a web page in Australia for privacy reasons. So a kid will design their
own character, dress themselves from an available wardrobe and then put their character into an environment and interact with other
characters. They can design story telling which they can then download as a story. ACTF have developed something not entirely
dissimilar - Kahootz. That technology is really interesting – you’re putting the creativity into the hands of the audience. And out of the
hands of boring old farts like me! Looking at what distinguishes this – which at the moment reads as a research driven concept and into if
you’re developing the show you need to find a way to express this creatively and passionately. Things that make it different from
everything else that is out there. Even things like, I used to speak at a filmmaking movie-making club when I was working at Crawford’s, I
got invited to speak at the Ringwood moviemakers club. They were mostly geriatrics but they all had a passion for filmmaking for stories
– little films. At the time most were shooting on high eight. They had this thing which you could do they had to shoot a story and edit in
camera so rather than editing on a computer they got a 50 foot roll of high 8 and shoot and edit in camera. Sounds like a simple exercise
but bloody hard to do. Some of them were beautiful. That is a challenge because kids if you give them a camera will go out and keep their
finger on the trigger. What you’re saying is you actually have to have an idea of what you are shooting and go out and shoot that in
sequence and get the moment in sequence without any editing. Yes you can lay sound out later if you want. But an exercise like that is
very interesting. Shoot a 3-minute film and edit in camera.
Girl 1: It’s almost like when you are watching improv comedy and someone almost stuffs up. That makes it funnier. So you’ve got kids
performing and they’re improvising and that might be the best
RB: There’s actually a worldwide film festival that does that called ‘white gloves’ edit in camera.
EB: But I think as you say, this audience is now so media literate and so savvy about things like reality television, and this is interesting for
drama too – we did a segment on SNTV which was a bit of a piss take on ‘Friends’ it was called ‘mates’. It was an eight-minute segment
which was scripted, and we would rehearse once before we shot. We’d have Jason Donovan, or Delta Goodram as guests but you actually
throw in an unexpected element – a bit like ‘Thank God you’re here’. They had cue cards that there’s a knock on the door and they have to
answer the door. But then there’s someone with a cow’s head at the door and they have to work out how to deal with that. So it’s improv
but scripted drama – it puts an element of danger in it. If you were doing that with kids and you say you have to keep a straight face you
have to carry through with it – it’s amazing what they can come up with. My 8-year-old son is an amazing improviser, although he’s a
very unusual child. He gave a cup of hot chocolate mouth-to-mouth resuscitation saying ‘breath Steven breath’. How weird is that?
RB: The idea of middle childhood is what they do in that age group is so imperative to how they function later on in life, it’s really
important. They’re at that stage of where they are interested in the world and where they fit in. It’s a bit up from the 5-7s, now they’re like
‘we’re cool in school’ but not quite old enough for puberty.
EB: Role-play is very important.
RB: That’s something interesting that I found in an interview is how kids discuss TV together. You almost watch TV because your friends
do so the next day in the schoolyard you can talk about what you watched, or even if it’s the footy. The way in which they interact socially,
and do impersonations of characters and laughing if they didn’t get it quite right is interesting.
EB: When we did Lift-off – there was a big push in school in exploring philosophy with preschoolers. And asking a four year old very high
depth philosophical questions – because that’s what they do at that age. So questions about God, and plants and they have no cognitive
framework to restrict the exploration of where something can go. It think this age group is really interesting. My son and I have
discussions which I feel like are out of my depth.
LB: Life and death and...
do
of
RB
bla
EB
RB
do
EB
RB
Mu
do
EB
ele
cha
ago
eve
ver
blo
rep
als
alw
kid
Th
stil
LB
EB
RB
EB
cre
rep
ava
som
if t
cal
wh
tha
on
cos
hav
Gir
EB
cou
da
cou
cou
do
RB
wo
to
EB
LB
EB
wo
EB: Yeah yeah. So I think that’s something really interesting as well – seeing kids talking very seriously about stuff.
LB: That’s an interesting angle because you don’t see that on TV. But you’re so right when we talk to kids you can have great conversation.
I actually have a friend who is a doctor of philosophy for children. It is quite a big area.
EB: The Americans for many years had a show called ‘Kids say the darnedest things’. I guess that’s the same concept but packaged in a
very commercial way of just looking for that sound bite that was very cute, but God bless America. I think seeing kids; no one has ever
50
RB
Gir
RB
EB
nd soft
t the
ctive,
shop,
l going
s of
nth to
e USA
ord to
ames,
old the
n
velop,
etty
ke that,
would
astable
g media
hen
can
ou
n their
her
f the
d into if
wford’s, I
stories
edit in
ercise
ep their
n
at is
kids
ting for
ment
actually
have to
mprov
ce you
e’s a
?
y’re like
friends
socially,
ery high
itive
done this on a show for this age group. Seeing kids really come to terms with a concept or a question. You know whether it be a question
of race, or of politics, or religion or let’s avoid sex.
RB: Even with adoption could be very interesting. Even with one kid asking another kid how come your parents are white when you are
black?
EB: Yeah, great!
RB: Or I have an adoption day just like a birthday. But kids are interested in that as well – to present it that way rather than a news
documentary you’ll still have their attention. Although Leo argues that his kids love BTN.
EB: Oh yes, BTN has been very successful.
RB: I find it interesting to see that they are re-releasing all the 80s shows that I watched. My nephew loves Care bears. And Teenage
Mutant Ninja turtles being released in the 90s and again now, and being very successful again. Something back then must have worked. I
don’t know if it’s running on nostalgia of the parents.
EB: A lot of it is the kids. There is the element that daggy is cool. We’re old enough to have lived when flares were fashionable. The other
element is and this is why I love making children’s programs is that from generation to generation the language changes, the music
changes, the fashion changes but the experience is essentially the same. It’s a universal experience. The acquisition of all of the shit and
agony, the joys and fun we go through is a universal experience. This next reason is why I love making shows particularly drama is that
every kid feels like a pioneer on this journey. No one has ever felt these things before or walked down this path, and that’s very sweet and
very funny and we as an audience can identify with it because we’ve all lived it ourselves and will continue to do so for the rest of our
bloody lives and making the same mistakes. This is why those things are familiar. My kids watch episodes of Spongebob where they can
repeat almost the entire episode because they’ve seen it so many times. But they love it because it’s so familiar. So they like new stuff but
also the familiar. They are looking forward but visiting backward and demographically whenever I make a show for a 8-13 demographic I
always pitch a bit older at 14, 15 because it is an aspirational demographic. What we find in the research with our demos is that younger
kids are looking forward but older kids can revisit it as well and think I’m so grown up now, but yeah I remember that and that was funny.
That’s familiar to me. You’ve researched this very well so far, is that kids in that age group are starting to feel like grown ups but they are
still babies and then you throw in the little time bomb of rampant hormones and it makes it really interesting.
LB: So would you say this reads, it doesn’t read that distinctly to you?
EB: It reads like research at the moment to be honest, and I’ve said that already.
RB: But that’s what it is at the moment.
EB: Yes, and it’s good research. You’ve hit all the key points there, you’ve identified the key elements but what you haven’t done is a
creative treatment on it yet. Which I think is useful for this discussion just to look at it from the outside. I would encourage you not to
replicate what’s out there already. He said how bloody hard is it not to replicate what’s already out there. But you know, using what’s
available to you. What’s I’ve been saying to Leo is that I’m really interested in seeing someone taking that HD camera and shoot
something on the streets that is scripted drama but is someone standing on the corner of Swanston and Latrobe having a dramatic moment
if they can pull it off with everyone around you. This is what you can do - guerrilla filmmaking. I made a show a few years ago in QLD
called the sleep over club – very girl show and the company that I was working with at the same time was making a show called Jeopardy
which was about 6 kids who come over from the UK, it was a science adventure show looking for UFOs. What was interesting about that is
that each of those cameras was a functional camera – the actors shot the series. They had one camera that was covering as a saver in case no
one got the shot. So what they could do is when they got to the airport in Brisbane they could come through customs incognito character in
costume, they had someone waiting for them outside of customs who shot their arrival, put them in a car and off they drove. They didn’t
have to pay location fees, they didn’t have to light it, they didn’t have to pay extras fees, they got that scene in 3 minutes and cleared off.
Girl2: So they were allowed to shoot in there?
EB: Well you shouldn’t. Well, you’re not actually allowed to shoot in Customs hall, but they filmed them coming through. They had a
couple of actors hired to say ‘Oh welcome, John Sandy! Come on through! That kind of guerrilla filmmaking is what people did in the old
days. Yes you do have to be careful with background extras and things like that, however as a student if you were making something you
could shoot something in HD broadcast quality, just taking a camera. If you’ve got someone on the step at the library and you’ve got a
couple of people you’re focused on, everyone in the background will be unrecognisable. There’s absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t
do that with a handheld camera.
RB: I had an idea about a segment which always takes place on public transport. A lot of kids actually have to take it. I just thought it
would be interesting to do something like what you were saying. Constantly on public transport. Kids are marvellous actors, if they were
to do something different every time on different public transport then that would be really interesting.
EB: Interesting, yeah.
LB: Isn’t that a legal minefield though?
EB: I guess with kids it does become more complex. But if you’re just shooting something for a university exercise I wouldn’t be too
worried about it. I don’t know what level of cover you guys have.
rsation.
in a
ever
50
RB: 100-mill baby.
Girl 1: There’s no difference when you’re working with someone who is 18 to someone who is 12 is there? Legally?
RB: Yes there is. Especially when you’re working with pros. Under 15 is different.
EB: Under 15 yeah.
51
Girl1: Oh because they did something similar with kids. On the ABC there was this show where people were given cameras and they went
around the world. They did a similar thing with kids, where they had to film a story each week and edit it.
from
love
LB: Race around the world?
LB: M
Girl 1: Race around the corner was the kids one.
RB: Y
unde
and l
are fu
Girl2: But they were more like early teenagers, 15, 16.
EB: But they were shooting their own environments weren’t they?
EB: Y
peop
you s
say e
They
math
unive
Girl 1: Yeah.
EB: Well if it’s non dramatic, if it’s documentary – then that’s okay.
RB: What do you think of the idea of the main story being broken up by the many segments.
EB: And the kids feeding the storyline?
RB: I
Obvi
differ
RB: Yeah.
EB: I think it’s a great idea. You need to limit what the set is or the locations are. But having an environment where kids can feed in
storylines and characters, that are dramatically suited to a long running show, if they’re all agreeing with everything. But setting up
situations that aren’t necessarily conflict but there is an antagonist and protagonist.
RB: That’s relevant because bullying has become such a focus in schools these days. There’s a campaign against it.
EB: Yeah I think it’s certainly a good idea.
RB: Ladies, do you want to pitch an idea that you might have been brainstorming while you’ve been listening to us?
Girl2: I was just wondering what sort of things you’re going to have in the segments. Cause I don’t quite know what you mean. You’ve
said the public transport one, what else?
RB: Well a segment could be a doll animation, it doesn’t look neat, it looks kind of dodgy, but it works because there isn’t anything else
like that around at the moment. She set up a scene where there’s a girl sitting under a tree in a cemetery and all of a sudden a skeleton
comes out of the grave. Then they start dancing off screen together. That happens in about 30 seconds. Now I wouldn’t necessarily using
something as dark as that, although I’m sure a few kids would find it absolutely hilarious. I mean I grew up on Goosebumps and all of
those – that age group likes that sort of things. Ghosts stories as well, which I find interesting.
EB: What’s important with a ghost story for that age group is that you need to put a face to it in the end. When we made Round the Twist
in 89.
RB: I had no idea it was that old.
Girl 3: I used to get nightmares, some of it scared me so bad. From that I’ve always had a fear of scarecrows and clowns. (Laughs). I’m
petrified! We used to watch it when it was raining outside and we had to stay inside.
EB: That’s funny. But you know one of the things that Paul used to do, although it happens in Scooby Doo as well. Although Scooby is so
formulaic – you know that the ghost is going to be someone who is trying to scare them away. That’s where Paul was so brilliant. He had
a way of stripping back the fright element and making it funny, or cute. That episode with the baby dragon, and the one with the cabbage
patch fib was funny. I think it’s looking at – you know there’s so many topics that are interesting. One of the reasons why I enjoy making
kids TV as well, is seeing kids working in a professional environment and when you’re on a long running series you have to surround
them in a protective network of chaperones and tutors and all that, and you can’t work them into the ground, because otherwise you’re not
going to get the rest of the series. But watching what happens to those kids in terms of frequently it’s the first relationship they’ve had
with an adult person outside of their home environment, suddenly their world expands exponentially. Kids in drama do brilliantly at
school the same year as they’ve filmed 24 episodes of a series. One because they are being tutored one on one on set, but also because all
the lights are on and the eyes are open and they are just absorbing this stuff. With my kids I’ve always found it interesting that as their
parent, you are their primary source of information and influence, and then they start exploring a social network, start having other
relationships and they bring stuff home and you think ‘shit, where did that come from? Wow!” Then they start educating you. To explore
that idea of what kids have that we don’t know, or what kids know that we don’t know is quite interesting. I find it interesting but you
don’t have to!
RB: No, no. It’s pretty similar to the idea that I have for the main drama.
LB: That thing about being scared, raises this issue last time I spoke to Rubia she said that there’s not really a lot of research in Australia
into children and television after about 1996. But there’s this big boom of doing it in the late 80s. You do wonder, I mean you said some
things are new and others universal, anecdotally you get a sense that kids are older than they used to be at the same age. I’ve got a nine
year old who is desperate to watch South Park. I’ve got four kids, some of them really want to be scared by scary shows and the others
don’t. Do you get any sense if you’re talking about a demographic, is it a different demographic now than it was ten years ago. Do they
want to see stuff that is older for example?
RB: It’s interesting that you say that cause I was in contact with a researcher who used to be or still is married to someone on the ACTF
board – Glenn Cupit. He wrote a book for producers stating age group by age group (this is in 89 when he wrote it) what is relevant and
interesting to which age group. It’s interesting that a book like this exists. It was funded nationally by the government. I emailed him and
asked him whether what he wrote was still relevant. He pointed out that most chapters are still useable and which one’s to disregard. He
tried to do something that was across cultures that could go through that time. But looking at it now he says he could still do a lecture
52
LB: S
is tha
EB: L
is ‘is
to be
explo
appr
chara
tough
that m
based
years
a you
to be
and t
linkin
Ame
langu
differ
have
have
centr
actio
come
don’t
jump
visua
RB: I
relati
LB: It
EB: I
idea
RB: P
EB: Y
RB: B
paren
abou
resea
comp
could
EB: I
requi
Watc
Girl 3
y went
’ve
else
on
using
l of
Twist
’m
y is so
e had
bbage
aking
nd
u’re not
ad
at
se all
heir
xplore
ou
alia
ome
nine
ers
hey
TF
and
m and
d. He
ure
52
from a chapter in the book. One of the big things that he said he didn’t research but is important today is the toilet humour. Kids that age
love it. Rude jokes and that sort of thing.
LB: More so than it used to be?
RB: Yes. It’s actually become quite a large academic topic. Bring a toilet bowl up and kids think its funny. It’s hard for adults to
understand why it’s funny because we like to think we have a more sophisticated sense of humour. It’s just different. It’s hard to look it
and laugh at it the same things. Watching The Simpsons now I get different things out of it now than when I was younger. Some things
are funny now for totally different reasons. All the rude ideas out of that I just did not get.
EB: You were responding to it at a different level. Same thing happened to us on Round the Twist, Paul Jennings used to say that different
people would come up to him and say I thought it was great how you put that in your episode – I loved it! He would say well I never did,
you saw that even though I didn’t put it in. You actually put two and two together and came up with five. But I think it’s very difficult to
say every kid at the age of seven is going to be responding this way or that way. It comes back to the theory of multiple intelligences.
They all develop at different rates. Some faster, some slower, they aren’t all necessarily at an end. I know my daughter will never have
maths. Whereas my son who is younger than her has a brilliant mathematical mind. It’s always going to be complex to find those
universal themes, goop and fart jokes.
RB: It’s the same with the curriculum. They will always have to write up something that somehow encompasses the whole age group.
Obviously there are extension programs and catch up programs. But there is a general program set up for each grade. One thing that is
different now from when I was a kid however, is the IT factor. They have to know how to do PP presentations in year one.
LB: So one of the big things about kids TV, is that there does seem to be a balance between educational and entertaining? How big an issue
is that from a working producers’ point of view?
EB: Look, in Australia on commercial broadcasters less so. As part of your C classification with ACMA, one of the standards set forwards
is ‘is there any educational content in this program?’ The standard answer to that is it’s not curriculum driven. Any program that appears
to be didactic or curriculum driven kids will turn away from immediately. However, to make it suitably educational, it has to be an
exploration of their world, of their emotions, of presenting characters who aren’t stereotyped, aren’t one dimensional, who are gender
appropriate – but there’s a range of gender explorations you’ll notice there isn’t really casting anymore where the boy is the strong
character and the girl is weak and has a bow in her hair. On the other hand you can go to far the other way and have all of the girls be
tough and negative and all the boys are skipping through fields of poppy. It’s finding that balance of gender, age, race appropriateness
that makes something perceived as being educational. With something like Animalia, it’s a forty half hour computer animated series
based on a book, and it’s targeting a demographic of 6-9. It’s a hideously expensive show, 24.5million dollars to make; it’s taken me 6
years to get that money together. One of our broadcasters is the PBC in America. In the UK it’s the BBC – they want it to be appropriate to
a young audience and demographic but aren’t particularly worried if there is the educational aspect to it. PBS on the other hand requires it
to be curriculum linked. So we have to develop a whole curriculum for the show, which is imbedded in the show but it has to seamless
and transparent almost. Because if kids sniff it that it’s there they are going to go – click! What’s on nick? With Animalia we discussed
linking it to natural history, or nature, or social history with the character relationships etc, in the end we tied it to a curriculum in North
America which is specific to this demographic. It’s called language arts. It’s essentially the development of communication. It’s about
language, communication; note taking it’s not about spelling or writing in particular. It’s about developing the skills of language and
different forms of language or communication. It worked well for our show, so that’s the curriculum in which our show is based. We
have to have elements in the show which are imbedded that relate to that curriculum. It’s very challenging, but on the other hand it would
have been harder to do if we had applied that to a story structure where there wasn’t a natural fit. What we’ve created in the show is a
central driving element (the show isn’t about the alphabet or writing, Graeme’s book is about alliteration and the alphabet). Animalia is an
action adventure about two kids who explore who go into this world – it’s a land of talking animals. There’s a huge element of fun, a lot of
comedy but there’s a lot of problem solving as well. Also they have a visual literacy that is quite different. In the world of Animalia that
don’t fit our visual understanding for instance, the perception of negative space visually. That moment in the last crusade where he’s
jumping and you perceive that there is a bridge there but he hadn’t seen it because it was painted. These kids in animalia in terms of
visual literacy will see things that the locals don’t see. That in terms of problem solving is our main chance.
RB: If you look at the ACTF and the shows they have. Everything is listed as having an educational basis or curriculum based. With social
relationships there is social education. They have a resource list and they say that everything they make is based on curriculum.
LB: It all has to be integrated into the story somehow doesn’t it?
EB: I think it’s a good concept but in summary what I would encourage you to do is to just use everything that you can, apply it with your
idea of new media and the internet, new and interesting ways of doing things.
RB: Parents and their involvement.
EB: Yeah.
RB: Because I know with the research that I’ve been doing that kids will watch TV without a parent generally. It’s not a baby sitter but
parents still like to believe that they are involved in restricting what their children are viewing. But in respect to what we are talking
about, my niece who is 10 wants a mobile phone, I know some nine year olds that already have one but on the flipside there’s also the
research saying that anyone under the age of 18 shouldn’t have a mobile phone because of things like radiation. You could easily have a
competition that kids go out and shoot a film with the cameras that are on mobile phones. But I have a hesitation with that because that
could be going against the grain of what parents are trying to uphold. Where that line is?
EB: I understand what you’re saying. I think it’s a really important consideration for all kinds of reasons. But one of them is that if you are
requiring your audience to have access to materials that are expensive or vaguely out of their direct control then I think it’s problematic.
Watch playschool – everything that they do is with materials that can be found in the junk pile.
Girl 3: The show ‘Art Attack’. I used to love that. Because everything would be in your house and you could just go and make something.
53
EB: Yes, in America 60% of kids have a mobile phone. But here, at least with Internet access 80-90 percent of kids have the Internet access
so I think you should use that. Rather than designing something for telephony, I would stick to Internet. But also ensuring that it’s a safe
sight, and if you have an interactive element (Nickelodeon has this) they say just write to us, or SMS us and make sure you ask the person
paying the bills. Because otherwise you have kids blowing big bills.
RB: One other area that I wanted to look at is that television is very visual but who said it can’t be sound based as well? I thought it could
be interesting where kids are just watching sound waves on the screen. The soundwaves are doing different things but that it’s the actual
audio that is of most importance in that segment. I don’t know. It might be interesting.
EB: You could experiment with it. I think kids would turn off.
RB: You would? Because it’s not visual enough?
EB: I think you could do something where you have a visual introduction and say ‘what do you make of this sound’ and the screen goes
black’. Okay, let’s see what is was and boom up comes an image of something. I think kids watch TV because of the pictures. You use
silence to dramatic effect. You can use a white out or a black out to dramatic effect.
Girl 1: If you wanted to use the interactive thing where you could say what is this sound and you could get kids to send in a story or a
photo maybe drawings that could guess what it is. It’s asking them to describe it in an artistic way. So the next week you could replay the
sound and then show the different interpretations of what it might be. It’s just an excuse for them to get involved.
EB: It would be really interesting to research but my immediate response is that I couldn’t imagine kids watching more than 20 seconds.
RB: That’s all it would probably have to be.
EB: If the soundwaves made different pictures then that could be interesting.
RB: Or alternatively, the pictures could be accompanied by an entirely different soundtrack. You’re fighting the vision with the audio –
makes people pay more attention.
EB: The mismatch of sound and imagery is very interesting.
RB: That’s what I thought. Because how much do you turn on when something isn’t quite in sync? Drives me insane. Think that could be
an interesting concept.
EB; The out of sync thing is very interesting because we’re so used to seeing things in sync, the Japanese because they’re so used to seeing
things dubbed in a foreign language couldn’t really care less about the sync thing. Most of the Japanese feature films are shot on location
with a guide track. Later on they’ll sync it. So it’s very strange. The mismatch, the visual literacy, audio literacy is very interesting as a
segment. I did say at the beginning that I haven’t really made this sort of show so I don’t know how useful I’ll be.
LB: No, I think we’ve covered a lot of ground. The challenge is to do something innovative.
EB: Absolutely.
Girl 1: Without a host,
EB: What’s the glue that keeps it together.
Girl 1: Have you got any ideas with that?
RB: Well, have you watched Sesame Street? They have a main show separated by many little segments. You seriously do not need a host.
Watch ‘you can’t do this on television’ it’s skit after skit after skit. There’s nothing that brings it together expect for maybe the show’s logo.
Girl 2: Is there constantly one set of characters that keep coming back.
RB: I think yes for many of the segments. The public transport thing – it’s the same two kids every time. Kids like the continuing
characters, but again it’s not wrong to bring in new stuff either. Kids have got comprehension skills beyond what we give them credit for.
If you put a series of images up, like in comics they are doing the links between two pictures without a picture being there. I personally
get irritated at over dramatic hosts always telling kids how to do stuff. Interviews and things like that are good but it’s everywhere. Other
shows do that, why should I bring it to this show?
EB: While you were saying that I remembered that I made something called ‘War’ for the transport industry. Again this transparent
educational stuff. They wanted to target kids to stop them killing themselves as soon as they got their license. It was positive esteem
building stuff, anti risk taking. The research was showing that kids were more concerned about losing their driver’s license than their life.
They had no concept that you could actually lose your life; you’re immortal at that age. So we made a series that they made in schools.
90% wasn’t anything to do with accidents or reckless driving. Most of it was just weird shit, crazy animation and dense stuff, one segment
was about the great rock and rollers and how they stuffed up their lives with drugs and what a waste it was. It was called ‘wasted’. Again
trying to disguise educational programming as entertainment.
RB: Sometimes it works though. Those science shows are very popular now. Hot science etc.
EB: Yeah. Because it’s about exploration. It appeals to the child scientist. It’s much easier to make a five-minute program than a half hour.
Good luck with it.
APPENDIX 5: BRIEF FROM DESIGN STUDIO
AP
54
54
ess
afe
son
uld
ual
es
e
the
ds.
–
be
ing
on
ost.
ogo.
for.
y
Other
ife.
.
ment
gain
our.
APPENDIX 6: AUDITION SCRIPTS
54
55
6.1 MAIN CHARACTERS
TI
Ti
Coop
COOP is listening to music, sitting by himself, drawing a cartoon in his
notebook. DWAYNE, the school bully approaches him.
DWAYNE
Hey freak, what you up to?
Coop rolls his eyes and ignores him.
DWAYNE
You better answer me, now.
Coop looks at him, puts down his notebook, pulls down his headphone and
looks at him.
COOP
What? If my headphones are on it means I can’t hear you,
and I don’t want to hear you. I don’t have money. I’ve
got a sandwich you can have but you won’t like it – it’s
jam with tomato sauce.
Dwayne looks at him weirdly.
Look, I’m not going to fight you. Why don’t you waste
your time on someone who actually cares?
DWAYNE
You’re sitting in my spot.
Coop puts his headphones on again and gets up to leave. Dwayne approaches
him threatingly so Coop acts crazy – laughing his head off, making funny
loud noises and runs away.
56
,
6
Tian and Phred
TIAN and PHRED are sitting on the same bench. Phred checks her watch.
Tian taps his foot impatiently. Finally out of boredom, he turns to her.
TIAN
What are you doing here?
PHRED
Kicked a soccer ball at a teacher’s
head. Accidentally. You?
TIAN
I was dared to pull someone’s pants down. On purpose.
PHRED
My name’s Dallas.
TIAN
Weird name.
Dallas?
I’m Tian.
PHRED
Tian? Like you can talk. No one really calls me Dallas
anyway. All my friends call me Phred.
Fred?
TIAN
But you’re a girl.
PHRED
Well duh.
TIAN
That’s a stupid name for a girl.
Get real.
stupid.
PHRED
At least I’m not called Tian.
Now that’s
TIAN
What do you know anyway, you’re just a girl.
PHRED
At least I don’t spike my hair so I look like a total
idiot.
TIAN
It looks cool! I’m a cool guy.
PHRED
You wish mate!
TIAN
Whatever.
PHRED
57
Whatever.
Phred checks her watch again.
Tian begins to tap his foot.
Oskar
OSKAR is sitting at a table making little sculptures out of
plasticine. His BROTHER walks into the room and stands very close,
next to Oskar.
OSKAR
Yes?
BROTHER
Give it back to me.
OSKAR
No, I need it. I’m using it at the moment.
BROTHER
I mean it! Give it back, Oskar.
OSKAR
No! Mum said we have to share it.
It’s only fair.
BROTHER
You asked for it then. Fresh from the nose!
The brother picks his nose and gets a big thing of snot on
his finger. He puts his finger towards Oskar.
OSKAR
Don’t you dare! That’s sick.
The finger gets closer.
Oskar gets up and runs.
OSKAR
Mum! Mum! He’s doing it again!
58
Megan
MEGAN is playing her gameboy. She is very excited because she is
playing very well. Her dad comes and checks in on her. The whole
time Megan is looking at her screen.
MEGAN
Hey, Dad.
DAD
Have you done your homework?
MEGAN
Sort of.
DAD
Is that a yes or a no?
MEGAN
Uh… no …I guess.
DAD
Megan, you know you have to do your
homework before you’re allowed to play.
MEGAN
But Dad! I’m improving my hand and eye skills.
DAD
Why don’t you improve your brain skills first?
He takes the gameboy away.
MEGAN
Aww.
He looks at her.
MEGAN
Yes, Dad.
He smiles at her and leaves the room. She takes out her pencil case and
books and starts her homework.
59
6.2 REALITY HIGH AUDITION SCRIPT
1. INT. Day
School Common Room
Ja
cl
1.
BRYCE and KEISHA are sitting on a couch. The common room is empty of
students, except for CARMEN, hiding behind a magazine in the corner.
KEISHA
Hey, do you think Cody has asked anyone
to the dance yet?
BRYCE
Nah.
Ke
It’s Cody.
KEISHA
(prying)
Do you think he’d want to take Jade?
BRYCE
My sister?! As if.
KEISHA
Really? Cause she’s been spending a lot of
time talking about him, asking me questions.
She won’t tell me, but she likes him.
BRYCE
Impossible.
CODY walks in with JADE following. They don’t notice Bryce and Keisha.
BRYCE
(cont.)
Hey man, how’s it going?
CODY
Oh, hey. Just grabbing my pod.
Your sister says she hasn’t heard our latest track.
Br
EN
BRYCE
Could’ve asked me for it.
CODY
(playfully)
Ha. Maybe she just likes me more!
I’m running late. Catch ya later.
Cody heads out.
BRYCE
What are you playing at Jade?
JADE
None of your business.
60
Jade turns to quickly catch up to Cody. Bryce stares after them, concern
clearly showing on his face.
KEISHA
See, isn’t it cute?
(Looking at the time)
Ooh, I’m late for my student council meeting. I’m dead meat!
I’ll see you in biology.
Keisha runs out, Bryce shakes his head. Carmen suddenly appears.
CARMEN
Hi Bryce.
BRYCE
(turning to leave)
I don’t have time for this Carmen.
CARMEN
(voice hardening)
Really? Have to spy on little sister do we?
You really think you can keep them apart,
and stay friends with Cody? (Pause) Not to mention how Keisha
will feel when you’ve ruined her best friends chances for
happiness. Your sister too, how will she feel?
BRYCE
What would you know?
CARMEN
Welcome to Reality High. There are ways to have and know
everything.
Bryce in deep thought.
END EPISODE
0
61
APPENDIX 7: PROJECT OUTLINE
…don’t try this at home
(Pilot episode – Lesson 1: kids rule.)
GENERAL INFO:
…dttah is a mix media tv show for Australian children aged eight to
ten years old. It comprises of a main action adventure serial, and
many regular and special segments which break up the main story.
ACTION/ADVENTURE:
Five middle suburbia children from different schools, different
families and different lives are brought together against their will,
to form a special training unit. Each week a character will have to
learn something new that they will find useful. Most of the learning
experiences are things that should not be tried at home. This
training unit is put into place by a taskforce dedicated to fixing
the stuff ups that adults cause.
SEGMENTS:
• Soap opera:
“Reality High”
This weekly segment deals with social issues surrounding a group
of high school students. Highly dramatic and fun as all good
soap operas should be!
•
Choose-your-own-adventure animation:
“Mr Clark and the Wonderkid”
Two stick figures go on an adventure every segment.
the audience to vote how the adventure continues.
It is up to
•
Submit your film competition:
During each episode a short film made by an Australian primary
school student will be shown as part of the show. The winning
filmmaker/s will receive a prize pack.
•
Right image – wrong sound:
To test visual literacy, every episode will see one particular
scene played which has new sound created that doesn’t quite fit.
•
Claymation/animation/graphics
10 second random grabs to break up action or scenes.
•
Improvised segment: “Just improvised”
Every now and then one of the children from the action/adventure
drama will record on camera a random kid who goes onto the
street and does silly stuff eg. Pranks, song and dance number,
jokes, skits.
•
Video game: mixed
Every episode will see one of the characters playing a new
computer game. This will be filmed with a green screen.
62
CHARACTERS:
ACTION/ADVENTURE
Phred (Dallas): 12 year old Dallas is a drama queen and class clown
by nature. Everyone calls her Phred. She goes to an all girls
private school. She is a natural leader who hates to be told what
to do. She loves sports, her friends, acting, reading, dancing and
is willing to give anything a try. She is an only child and she is
adopted. She has an overactive imagination.
Tian: 12 year old Tian is one cool guy. He wears the right clothes,
says the right things, and hangs out with the right people. He goes
to the boy equivalent of Phred’s school. Also a natural born
leader, Tian is very popular at school and is a general all rounder.
He is witty, knows that boys are way better than girls, and is
highly competitive – he gets very frustrated when he can’t do
something right. He has a younger step-sister that he doesn’t
really get along with. He loves taking photos.
Coop: 12 year old Cooper lives with his grandparents. He is very
independent. He much prefers to hang out by himself, because he
figures anything worth doing is best done by alone. He loves his
music and always has his headphones on. He also draws cartoons, so
he has a pen and notebook on him at all times. He gets into trouble
and spends quite a lot of time in detention. He is very creative
and talented, and prides himself on being an individual.
Unfortunately he gets bullied at school. His most hated subject is
PE, and most loved is art. He was home schooled for some of his
life, but now attends a public school.
Oskar: 11 year old Oskar comes from quite a large working class
family. Being a middle child is tough – he’s old enough to have
responsibilities, but not old enough to be able to do whatever he
likes. His family has moved to the suburbs from a rural community,
and he is finding it difficult to adjust to a whole new life. He’s
a big fan of the outdoors, is very good with his hands, and loves
animals. He’s a sensible hard working individual and is good
natured and generous. He has a strong sense of what is right and
wrong and is very loyal to his friends and family. He can be
clumsy, and he gets embarrassed easily. He is on scholarship at a
co-ed catholic school.
Megan: 11 year old neat freak Megan is obsessed with all things to
do with technology. She loves the Internet, her computer, her vast
collection of games, and especially her gameboy. Her parents are
police officers and she has great respect for people in authority.
She’s very shy, freak and will do anything to avoid conflict. She
can be extremely stubborn and wishes that people took her seriously.
She gets upset rather than getting angry. She believes in the good
of the world and shows glimpses of a great sense of humour. She
attends a public school.
63
SEGMENTS
Soap opera
BRYCE: Cody’s best mate. Going out with Keisha. Jade is his sister
who has the hots for Cody.
CODY: Bryce’s best mate.
Lead singer of the band.
He is being chased by Jade. unwittingly.
JADE: Keisha’s best friend. Has a crush on Cody. Obvious to everyone
else except for Cody.
KEISHA: Jade’s friend, Bryce’s girlfriend. Class captain.
CARMEN: Everyone thinks she’s the nice, quiet girl but noone actually
likes her. Which has left her bitter and manipulative. She is
obsessed with Bryce. She will do anything in her power to go out
with him.
Pilot episode “Lesson one: kids rule.”
It’s the first day of school after the Christmas holidays. Phred,
Tian, Oskar, Megan and Coop all start the day with great promise.
Unfortunately nothing seems to go right. After being distracted by a
small red light each one manages to find themselves in trouble. They
are sent to a community youth centre as punishment where they first
meet each other – and don’t get along. There they meet J, head of
his sector of a secret taskforce. He blackmails them into becoming
part of an elite training unit. And so their adventure begins…
Along the way and connected by screens, Phred watches her favourite
soap opera, Tian records a kid playing pranks, Coop draws a cartoon
and listens to his favourite tunes, Megan plays a video game, and
Oskar makes some creatures and watches a short film.
REALITY HIGH
Establishment of all the main characters. Bryce and Jade are
talking. Jade lets Bryce know that Keisha has the hots for Cody.
Bryce doesn’t want his sister going out with his best mate. Keisha
follows Cody around who is oblivious to the whole thing. Jade leaves
Bryce alone which is when Carmen pounces. She sets up a deal with
Bryce in order to get closer to him, and to begin interfering with
their lives.
64
APPENDIX 8: CHARACTER PROFILES
65
66
67
APPENDIX 9: ROUGH DRAFT PROFESSOR CLARK & THE WONDERKID
W
INT. WAITING ROOM. AFTERNOON.
A
h
All five children are sitting on an uncomfortable bench, waiting. Coop is
scribbling in his notepad. Push into:
A
h
INT. NOTEBOOK. “PROFESSOR CLARK AND THE WONDERKID”
PROFESSOR CLARK, a stick figure with a top hat, and his trusty side kick, THE
WONDERKID (a stick figure who propels himself forward by his farts) are
walking along.
D
h
WONDERKID
What fun adventure do you have
in store for us today, Professor Clark?
it
h
PROFESSOR CLARK
Well Wonderkid, sometimes it’s a
good idea to keep our eyes and ears
open until we see or hear something.
See where life takes us.
M
h
N
h
Wonderkid farts and is propelled forward and falls over.
N
h
PROFESSOR CLARK (con’t)
Er, that’s not quite what I meant.
They come across a steep drop and cannot go any further.
glistening on a cliff face opposite to them.
D
h
There is something
WONDERKID
Oh no! Someone destroyed the bridge.
I think I could maybe fly us both
across. Then we could see what the
shiny thing is. It could be treasure!
Y
h
T
L
R
T
T
T
T
M
It
B
A
PROFESSOR CLARK
That’s a little bit risky Wonderkid.
I don’t know if it’s worth it. Why don’t
we just stand here for a while instead.
They stand. Wonderkid checks his watch. Professor Clark scratches his
bottom. A stick figure cow appears beside them mooing viciously.
O
WONDERKID
Oh no! It’s a cow! What should we do?
D
Writing appears:
TO BE CONTINUED…
Should they:
a) attempt to fly to the other side using Wonderkid’s magical farting powers
or
b) Tackle their farmyard animal fear and face the cow?
A
L
R
S
68
Websites accessed:
ABC Roller Coaster:
http://www.abc.net.au/rollercoaster
s
Australian Children’s Television Foundation:
http://www.actf.com.au
, THE
Disney
http://www.disney.com
Disney games
http://psc.disney.go.com/disneychannel/games/index.html
itunes store (for Podkids Australia)
http://www.apple.com/itunes
Myspace:
http://www.myspace.com
Nickelodeon Australia:
http://www.nickelodeon.com.au
Nickelodeon USA:
http://www.nick.com
hing
You tube
http://www.youtube.com
Television programs viewed:
Lift-Off (ACTF, 1992)
Round the Twist (ACTF, 1989-1990).
This is Daniel Cook (Marble Media & Sinking Ship Productions, 2004)
This is Emily Yeung (Marble Media & Sinking Ship Productions, 2006)
Totally Wild (Ten Network, 2006)
The Sleep Over Club (Burberry Productions, 2003)
Mortified (ACTF, 2006)
It’s Academic (Seven network, 2006)
Blue Water High (Nickelodeon & ABC, 2006)
Avatar (Nickelodeon, 2005)
Other:
Dahl. R. (1988). Matilda. London: Jonathan Cape.
ACP magazines (2006) Disney girl, November Issue 43.
wers
Lyons, G. & Arena, F. (2003) Specky Magee. Australia: Puffin.
Rowling, J.K. (2001) Harry Potter and the philosopher’s stone. London: Bloomsbury.
Smartypantz Communications (2006). ‘Dmag’ Issue 5
68
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, P. (1995). The death of childhood. In Frith, S., Biggins, B. & Newlands, T. Marketing
Toys: It’s Child’s Play. Sydney: New Colled Institute for Values Research and Young Media
Australia.
Aisbett, K. (2000). 20 year of C: children’s television programs and regulation 1979-1999. Sydney:
ABA, ACTF, Australian Film Finance Corporation.
Alexander, A. (2001) Broadcast networks and the children’s television business. In Singer, D.G.
& Singer, J. L. Handbook of Children and the Media. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Ang, I. (1991). Desperately seeking the audience. London: Routledge.
Australian Broadcasting Authority (1999) Australian Content Standard Broadcasting
Services (Australian content) standard 1999.
Australian Broadcasting Authority (1999). Compliance: Australian content and children's
television 1998. Trends and Issues, 6.
Australian Broadcasting Authority (2005). Content on digital television. Broadcast services
webpage. Accessed May 15, 2006.
http://www.aba.gov.au/broadcastserv/digital/tv/content.shtml
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003). Children’s participation in cultural and leisure activities.
Accessed, June 5 2006.
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/47132EE72AC3581DCA25717F000
4ACE8/$File/13700_2006.pdf
Australian Communications and Media Authority (2005). ACMA decides to review the
Children’s Television Standards. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from
http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.1900810:STANDARD::pc=PC_100392
Australian Communications and Media Authority (2006). Children’s television standards.
Accessed April 8, 2006.
http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.1966346:STANDARD::pc=PC_90095
Australian Government Culture and Recreation Portal. (2006). Popular Australian television.
Retrieved September 28, 2006 from
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/populartelevision/
Azzarone, S. (2003). Tweens teens and technology: what’s important now? Young Consumers. 5
(1).
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication. 28 (3). p12 –
29.
Bartko, T. W. (2005). The contexts and significance of children's everyday experiences
and activities: a commentary. In Cooper, C.R., Garcia, C., Bartko, C.T., Bartko,
Davis, T.W. & Chatman, C. Developmental pathways through middle childhood.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bellamy, R.V. & Walker, J.R. (1996) Television and the remote control: grazing on a vast wasteland.
New York, USA: The Guildford Press.
70
0
Bickham, D.S., Wright, J.C., & Huston, A.C. (2001) Attention, comprehension, and the
educational influences of television. Handbook of children and the media. ed: Singer, D. G. &
Singer, J. L. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. p101-112.
Bignell, J. & Orlebar, J. (2005) The television handbook. Third ed. Oxon: Routledge.
Bjorklund, D. F. (2005). Children’s thinking: cognitive development and individual differences. 4th ed.
Belmont, USA:Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Black, D. & Newman, M. (1995). Television violence and children. BMJ (clinical research ed.).
310(6975): 273 – 4.
Bloustein, G. (1998). ‘It’s different to a mirror ‘cos it talks to you’: teenage girls, video cameras
and identity. In Howard, S. Wired Up: Young People and the Electronic Media. London: Routledge.
Bow. A., Walker, K. & Gillard, P. (1995) Children watching television. An annontated
bibliography and literature review. As seen in Sheldon, L. & Loncar. M (1996) Kids talk TV: ‘super
wickid’ or ‘dum’. NSW: Australian Broadcasting Authority.
Brady, N. (2006, May 4). The truth about telly belly. The Age Green Guide. p 8.
Buckingham, D. (1993). Children talking television: the making of television literacy. London: Farmer,
Press.
Buckingham, D. (2002). Introduction: the child and the screen. Small Screens: Television for
Children.
London: Leicester University Press.
Buckingham, D. (2005). A special audience? Children and television. In Wasko, J. A
companion to television. (468-499). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Buckingham, D (2006). The Media Literacy of Children and Young People. Ofcom website.
Accessed October, 28, 2006.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/?=87101
Buckingham. D. & Bragg. S. (2004) Young people, sex, and the media: the facts of life? Hamphshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bukatko, D. & Daehler, M. W. (1992). The influence of school and television, In Child
development: a topical approach. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bukatko, D. & Daehler, M. W. (1992). The influence of school and television, In Child development:
a topical approach. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Burton, L (1991). Children’s responses to television. The impact of television on the family. Victoria:
IARTV.
Canadian Broadcasting Authority (2006). How the kids took over. Seen on Four Corner, ABC on
March 6.
Care For Kids (2006). Looking back – looking forward. Care for Kids: television news – Australian
Children’s Television Foundation Newsletter, Iss. 104, August.
Casey, B., Casey, N., Calvert, B., French. L. & Lewis. J. (2002) Television studies: the key concepts.
London: Routledge. p20-23.
71
Clifford, B.R., Gunter, B. & McAleer, J. (1995) Television and children: program evaluation, comprehension
and impact. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. p 1-21.
Gu
Pre
Ha
Cohen, M., Guicardo, S. & Schneider, J. (2002). Children’s television programming. Young
Consumers. 3(4).
Ha
Ch
Collins, W. A (2005). Contextualizing middle childhood: beyond 1984. In Cooper, C.R.,
Garcia, C., Bartko, C.T., Bartko, Davis, T.W. & Chatman, C. Developmental
pathways through middle childhood. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Ho
Pro
Ho
Conroy, P. Hooks, J. Fairweather, I. & McVitty, W. (1985). What do we understand by kids’ TV? The
Australian perspective. Conference Paper No. 5. Melbourne: Australian Children’s Television
Foundation.
Ho
and
Costera Meijer, I. (2005). Impact or Content? Ratings vs quality in public broadcasting. European
Journal of Communication. 20(1). p 27-53.
Jam
Pal
Crosby, R. (2005). Kids today and tomorrow. Young Consumers. 7 (1).
Ka
Th
Cupit, G. (1987). The child audience: a guide to the developing child for television writers and producers.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Davies, H., Buckingham, D., Kelley, P. (2000). In the worst possible taste: children, television and
cultural value. European Journal of Cultural Studies. 3(1). p 5-25.
Dietz, W. H. & Gortmaker, S.L. (1993) TV or not TV: fat is the question. Paediatrics. 91(2): 499.
Donnenfeld, S. & Goodhand, A. (1999). Digital kids: navigating and making sense of a world of
choice. ESOMAR Youth Power.
Ke
in J
htt
Ke
Ph
Pro
Kin
Pre
Edgar, P. (1977). Children and Screen Violence. St Lucia : University of Queensland Press.
Edgar, P. (2006). Bloodbath: a memoir of Australian television. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Engstrom, E. (1999). The children of Telstar: early experiments in school television
production. Journalism History, 25 (3), 120.
Kin
edu
Lan
Eron, L.D. (1982). Parent-child interaction, television violence, and aggression of children. The
American Psychologist. Vol 37 (2). 197-211
Lan
US
Liv
me
Fordham, K. & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1999). Shyness, friendship quality, and adjustment
during middle childhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 40 (5), 757-768.
Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: the violence profile. Journal of Communication.
Vol. 26. Iss.2, p 172 – 199.
Green, B., Reid, J. & Bigum, C. (1998). Teaching the Nintendo generation? Children, computer
culture and popular technologies. In Howard, S. Wired Up: Young People and the Electronic Media.
London: Routledge.
Gunter, B. & McAleer, J. L. (1990). Children and television: the one eyed monster?. London: Routledge.
72
Lo
inc
Low
in m
Lu
Lu
Ma
nsion
Gussin Paley, V. (2004). A child’s work: the importance of fantasy play. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hankin, S. (1998). Nickelodeon: not just kids’ play. The World & I. 13(12). p 106.
Halloran, J. (1985) What can research tell us? Conference paper no 9. Carlton, Vic: Australian
Children’s Television Foundation.
Hodge, B. (1989). Children and television. In Tulloch, T. & Turner, G. Australian Television:
Programs, pleasures and politics. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Hodge, B. & Tripp. D (1986), Children and television: a semiotic approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.
The
ess.
ion.
ge.
Howard, S. (1998). Unbalanced minds? Children thinking about television. Wired Up: Young People
and the Electronic Media. London: Routledge.
James, A. & James, A.L. (2004). Constructing childhood: theory, policy and social practice. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kail, Robert V. & Cavanaugh, John C. (2007). Human development: a life-span view (4th ed.). Belmont:
Thomson Wadsworth
Kemp, R. (2002) Australian Children’s Television Foundation 20th anniversary symposium, Accessed
in July 2006.
http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_5-2_4009-4_103957,00.html
Keys, W. (2004) Grown-ups in a grown-up industry: children’s television industry development Australia.
PhD Thesis. Griffith University. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from the Australian Digital Theses
Program (Griffith University).
Kinder, M. (1999). Kids’ media culture: an introduction. Kids’ Media Culture. USA: Duke University
Press.
Kinder, M. (1999). Ranging with power on the Fox kids network: or, where on earth is children’s
educational television? Kids’ Media Culture. USA: Duke University Press.
Lander, S. J. (2004) Kids, TV a weighty blend of trouble. American Medical News. 47 (12). p26-28.
Langer, B. (1999). Childhood and the culture of consumption. In Berk, L.E. Landscapes of Development.
USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Livingstone, S. (2001). Children and their changing media environment. Children and their changing
media environment. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lodewick, E. & Colvin, V. (2005) Australian kids rate TV as indispensable while they become
increasingly devoted to the Net. Nielsen/NetRatings. July 26.
Lowery, S. & DeFleur, M. L. (1983). Television in the lives of our children: the early years, Milestones
in mass communication research: media effects. New York: Longman Inc. p268-290.
Luke, C. (1990) Television and your child. North Ryde, NSW: Angus & Robertson. pp 2 – 60.
Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006). Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children. Sydney: Pan
Macmillan Australia.
73
Marshall, P.David. (2004) New media cultures. Oxford University Press: New York.
P
Martin, K. J. (2003). Family-friendly programming: providing more tools for parents.
Federal communications law journal, 55 (3), 553.
P
w
McDonnell, K. (2006). Honey, we lost the kids: Re-thinking childhood in the multimedia age. North
Melbourne, Australia: Pluto Press.
McLuhan. M. (1964). Television: the timid giant. Understanding media: the extensions of man. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McLuhan, M. (1967) The medium is the message. Retrieved October 28 2006 from:
http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/main.html
R
M
R
I
S
A
Media Awareness Network. (2006). The good things about television. Media Awareness Network
website. Retrieved October 28, 2006 from:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/television/good_things_tv.cfm
S
B
Messenger, D. (2001). ‘Dear BBC’: children, television storytelling and the public sphere. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.
S
C
Montgomery, K. C. (2001) The new on-line children’s consumer culture. In Singer, D.G & Singer, J. L.
Handbook of Children and the Media. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
S
s
Morphett, T. (1987) The price of being Australian conference speech. In Oz Content: an inquiry into
Australian content on commercial television. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
S
S
Myspace (2006) The Simpsons Myspace page. Accessed on October 29, 2006.
http://www.myspace.com/thesimpsons
S
A
Nabli, D.E. (2006). Boys rule on the big screen. Time for kids, World Report (24), 6.
S
c
Nikken, P. & Van Der Voort, T. H. (1996). Maternal quality standards for children’s television
programs. Journal of Educational Media. 22(1).
Nikken, P. & Van Der Voort, T. H. (1997). Children’s views on quality standards for children’s
television programs. Journal of Educational Media. 23(2/3). P 169-197.
Nikken, P. & Van Der Voort, T. H. (1999). Quality standards for children’s programs in the writings
of television critics. Journal of Educaitonal Media. 24 (1). p 7 – 24.
S
C
S
S
O’Mahoney, B (2006). Personal communication, received August 15, 2006.
S
S
Osborne, P (2006, March 11) Probe into children’s television. Retrieved June 23 2006 from:
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,18415721-7642,00.html
S
h
Palmer, P. (1986). The lively audience: a study of children around the TV set. North Sydney: Allen &
Unwin Australia Pty Ltd.
T
A
h
Perebinossoff, P., Gross, B. & Gross. L.S. (2005) Programming for TV, radio & the internet. (2nd ed.).
Burlington, USA: Elsevier Inc.
Peterson, C. (1996). Social development in middle childhood: sex roles, conscience &
peers. In Looking forward through the lifespan. (3rd ed.).Sydney: Prentice Hall
Australia Pty Ltd.
T
U
h
74
Piaget, J. (1951) The child’s conception of the world. Marylands: Littlefield Adams Quality Paperbacks.
Polsky, R. M. (1974). Getting to Sesame street: origins of the children's television
workshop. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Rayvid, J., Home, A. & Emrich, E. (1985) What do we understand by kids’ TV? Conference paper no. 4.
Melbourne: Australian Children’s Television Foundation.
on:
UK:
J. L.
o
ngs
Rosengren, K.E. Carlsson, M .& Tagerud. Y. (1996) Quality in programming: views from the north. In
Ishikawa, S. Quality Assessment of Television. UK: John Libbey Media.
Samson, N. & Conlon, J. (2006) Marketing to the connected generation. Market Research Society,
Annual Conference.
Sefton – Green, J. (2002). Cementing the virtual relationship: children’s TV goes online. In
Buckingham, D. Small Screens: Television for children. London: Leicester University Press.
Seiter, E. (1999) Power Rangers at preschool: negotiating media in child care settings. Kids’ Media
Culture. USA: Duke University Press.
Sharif, I. & Sargent. J.D. (2006) Association between television, movie, and video game exposure and
school performance. Pediatrics. Vol 118. No. 4, October, p 1061 – 1070.
Sheldon, L. (1998). The middle years: children and television – cool or just plain boring? In Howard,
S. Wired Up: Young People and the Electronic Media. London: Routledge.
Sheldon, L. & Loncar, M. (1996). Kids talk TV: ‘super wickid’ or ‘dum’. NSW: Australian Broadcasting
Authority.
Shin, N. (2004) Exploring pathways from television viewing to academic achievement in school age
children. Journal of genetic psychology. 165(4)m 367-381,
Simpson, B. (2004). Regulating the relationship between children and television. In Simpson, B.
Childnre & Television. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Singleton-Turner, R. (1994). Television and Children. London: BBC training and development.
Solomon, D. & Peters, J. (2005). Resolving Issues in Children’s Research. Young Consumers. 7 (1).
Strasburger, Victor C. & Wilson, Barbara J. (2002). Children, adolescents & the media. California, USA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Syndal South Primary School (2005). Curriculum. Accessed 14 August 2006.
http://www.syndalsp.vic.edu.au/fsschool.htm
Tresto, L. (2003). “Not for sale – keeping ‘Australian Culture’ Australian.” ACTF website. Accessed
August 9, 2006
http://www.actf.com.au/about_us/pdfs/fta_metro_0903.pdf
Turner, G. & Cunningham, S. (2000). The Australian TV book. SydneyL Allen & Unwin.
UNICEF website (2006) Convention on the rights of the child: fact sheets. Accessed May 20, 2006.
http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf
75
Valkenburg, P.M. & Janssen, S.C. (1999). What do children value in entertainment programs? A
cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Communication. 49(2), p 3-23.
Valkenburg, P.M. (2004). The development of a child into a media consumer. Children's
responses to the screen: a media psychological approach. (15-38). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Valkenburg, P.M. (2004). Uses and effects of interactive media. Children's responses to
the screen: a media psychological approach. (108-136). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
White, C. (1992). The teacher’s guide to Lift-off. Carlton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation.
Winn, M. (1985). The plug-in drug: television, children, and the family. New York: Penguin Books.
Wikipedia (2006) Edutainment. Accessed July 18, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edutainment
Wikipedia 2 (2006). Claymation. Accessed July 18, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymation
Author unknown. (1996). Beyond the square window: what do children's TV producers
think of their target audience?. Journal of Educational Media, 22 (3), 183-189.
76
?A
s.
76
77
77