Entertainment desk
< October 2	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 3

How many people watched night 2 of the 2012 Republican Convention?

There is an urban legend that more people watched Here Comes Honey Boo Boo than the 2012 Republican National Convention. This is explained in the Honey Boo Boo article, but the source I used for the total number watching the convention was The Daily Mail, before I knew it was a problem. I check the article periodically, such as when web sites started giving me links to what Honey Boo Boo looks like now. To draw conclusions is essentially WP:OR and other sources say things like "obviously the total number watching the convention was greater".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: This site says 19.4 million viewers for the second night of the convention: [1]. It says the numbers come from Nielson. How that compares to Honey Boo Boo, I don't know. RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This site does not match the numbers the other sources give for some reason. All of the sources say Fox News got 1.2 and this one says 0.7.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, I see it now. This is comparing the second night in 2016 with the second night in 2012.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid these are the wrong numbers. It says Tuesday, and the night of Honey Boo Boo's accomplishment is a Wednesday. And when I try to go to the same site and search, nothing comes up.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be very specific, I went back and checked the source actually used in the article and what we need is total viewers 18 to 49 at 10:00 Eastern on August 29., 2012.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural side-on camera angles

I see this sort of thing a lot. Someone is talking to the viewing public via television. It could be an advertisement, a public service announcement, whatever. It starts off with the speaker looking straight at us. Then after a while, a second camera shows the speaker, now side-on the viewers, speaking into the first camera. It now looks like we're watching the speaker talk into a tv camera to some third parties, as if we're just uninvolved bystanders. Yet the fact is we continue to be the speaker's audience. I guess we've all seen this so often that it seems natural to us and we take it for granted, yet it definitely does not reflect normal human behaviour.

What is the point of this second camera angle? In what other circumstance does one move from direct eye contact with a speaker, to watching them side-on? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they are talking to somebody else, then you may want to show both of them in the frame at once. If one person is addressing the audience, then it's just for variety, I suppose. The same "talking head" with no apparent motion or change gets dull. They will also do things like zooming in and pulling out on the speaker to make it more interesting. Or switch from a low angle to a high angle. Anderson Cooper 360° took a slightly different approach and had moving animations behind the speaker, to maintain interest: [2]. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Variety? Maintaining interest? A person addressing a meeting in a hall never feels any necessity to suddenly turn side-on to their audience and address the wings. Why is it necessary to produce such an effect in the tv studio? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scanning the audience (including the wings) is a technique that is taught to public speakers: [3]. The best speakers don't just stay behind a podium, either, but walk around the stage. This isn't always possible when televised, though, as they could go out of focus in the camera, walk to a position where 1 camera's view shows another, trip over cables, etc., so, if they don't want to carefully choreograph it all in advance, simulated motion is an simpler alternative. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably has something to do with the eye contact game, how people alternate looking at and looking away when talking to someone. Temerarius (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a camera technique that is taught in school. It is supposed to make the content more accessible. But, I've only seen it used properly as a break shot. For example, a news program is done and going to commercial. They show the anchors at the desk from a side angle for a moment. Having the cut to a side angle in the middle of a sentence is, in my opinion, annoying and stupid. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which accounts for this technique's use in some TV commercials. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have been noticing this lately. I also thought it odd and wondered about the reasons behind it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe call it "artistic license". It reminds me of a technique I've seen, from a century ago. Your typical group picture will have everyone facing the camera. In some cases, they would have most of them group facing the camera, with a few of them with their heads turned, looking in other directions. I expect it seemed very artistic at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note a few other cases where people are intentionally viewed from the side:

When posing for a silhouette, as were once kept in lockets. ("My wife's face it beautiful in profile, but, mind you, straight on it's quite a shock.")

Mug shots. Helps identify the person.

Fashion shows. It's customary to turn around so the clothing can be viewed from all sides.

X-rays.

So, wanting to see people from the side isn't exactly a new concept. It provides more info on what people look like, and we like to know what people look like, so we can later identify them, from any angle. And in the case of fashion shows and X-rays, it provides more info on what their clothes and bones look like. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Jack's aware that profile pictures exist; part of the question involves the inclusion of the camera, etc. and the general feel for those shots. I think the IP above has the right idea. By breaking the fourth wall in this manner, the subject becomes more humanized. People expect politicians to be poised and prepared while on camera, so showing them in this way subtly suggests to viewers that they are just as polished "in real life". Switching positions also subconsciously suggests that we're "in on it" with them - we're not the audience, we're there on the stage with the candidate, priming us to consider ourselves aligned. Matt Deres (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Interesting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]