CSTonline

::: {.moz-text-flowed lang="x-unicode"}
We are very pleased to announce that the keynote speaker for the
forthcoming event '**25 Years of *Jurassic Park* (1993): An
Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Paleontological Imagination**' will
be **Dr Steve Brusatte** from the University of Edinburgh. Dr Brusatte
is a paleontologist who is also passionate about education and
communicating science to the public. He was a consultant on the
blockbuster motion picture *Walking With Dinosaurs 3D* (2013) and is a
"resident palaeontologist" for the BBC's Walking With Dinosaurs program.
He also presents science videos for BBC's Earth Unplugged YouTube
channel and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs.
:::

::: {.moz-text-flowed lang="x-unicode"}
:::

::: {.moz-text-flowed lang="x-unicode"}
Additionally, we have responded to a few enquiries and decided to
**extend the deadline for abstracts to 31st January 2018** to cover the
Christmas break and marking period.
:::

::: {.moz-text-flowed lang="x-unicode"}
The symposium will take place on Friday 8th June 2018 at the School of
Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University.

Keynote speaker: Stephen Brusatte (University of Edinburgh)

Released in the summer blockbuster season of 1993, Jurassic Park
(Spielberg 1993) achieved an opening weekend box office of \$50m in the
US and is currently estimated to be the 24th highest grossing film of
all time. An adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel of the same name,
the years since its release have seen the movie become both a cultural
phenomenon that has achieved multiple cinematic re-releases and a
transmedia franchise that includes (to date) four sequels as well as
multiple computer games and a theme park ride. The franchise has,
however, also had far-reaching cultural impact by impacting upon how we
think about broader issues such as dinosaurs, the prehistoric era, and
those that study this.

This one-day symposium, hosted by the School of Journalism, Media and
Cultural Studies at Cardiff University, seeks to bring together scholars
from disciplines including (but not limited to) Media and Cultural
Studies, Film Studies, Literary Studies and the Natural Sciences to
critically interrogate *Jurassic Park*'s multiple legacies and its role
in shaping the paleontological imagination in popular culture.

We invite proposals for twenty minute presentations around any topic
concerning *Jurassic Park*'s impact and enduring reputation. These might
include:
:::

- *Jurassic Park* and the historical development of the Hollywood
  blockbuster
- *Jurassic Park* and filmic form
- *Jurassic Park* and special effects histories (e.g. CGI)
- Music and/or sound design in the *Jurassic Park* franchise
- *Jurassic Park*'s industrial contexts
- *Jurassic Park*'s transmedia incarnations
- Jurassic Park and marketing
- *Jurassic Park*, stardom and celebrity
- Representations of race and gender across the franchise
- Popular and/or fan memories of the franchise
- *Jurassic Park*, childhood and nostalgia
- Fan transformative works and readings of the franchise
- Adaptation studies
- *Jurassic Park*'s impact on other popular media (e.g. children's
  television, documentary etc.)
- *Jurassic Park[/]{.moz-txt-tag}*'s impact on popular imaginings of
  dinosaurs and other palaeontological issues
- *Jurassic Park* and the philosophy of science
- *Jurassic Park* and scientific ethics
- Interventions discussing the film from natural science perspectives
- Any other issues related to the film's impact and legacy

Proposals should be 300 words maximum and include an additional author
biography (50 words). Please submit these to Dr Ross Garner
([GarnerRP1@Cardiff.ac.uk](mailto:GarnerRP1@Cardiff.ac.uk){.moz-txt-link-abbreviated
target="_blank"}) and Dr Lucy Andrew
([L.Andrew@Chester.ac.uk](mailto:L.Andrew@Chester.ac.uk){.moz-txt-link-abbreviated
target="_blank"}) by Wednesday 31st January 2018.


We are very pleased to announce that the keynote speaker for the forthcoming event ‘

 25 Years of
 
 Jurassic Park
 
 (1993): An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Paleontological Imagination

’ will be

 Dr Steve Brusatte

from the University of Edinburgh. Dr Brusatte is a paleontologist who is also passionate about education and communicating science to the public.

extended CfP: 25 Years of Jurassic Park (1993): An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Paleontological Imagination. June 8, 2018 @ Cardiff University (UK).Deadline: Jan 31, 2018.

Ross Garner

Since [debuting on the UK's digital terrestrial television service
Freeview in March
2015](http://www.horrorchannel.co.uk/articles.php?feature=10976&category=3),
I have been enthralled by the Horror Channel. Part of the reason for my
enchantment is linked to my 'aca-fan' interests as from April 2014 to
late March 2016, Horror had been re-running episodes of 'classic'
*Doctor Who* (e.g. those initially-broadcast between 1963 and 1989) on a
daily basis. This dovetailed nicely with research for my forthcoming
monograph by allowing me to consider constructions of nostalgia arising
from a transmedia context beyond the immediate confines of the BBC's
websites and portals. However, reflecting on 'Who on Horror' has also
thrown up some interesting observations concerning the tensions that can
arise between channel brands, corporate brand architecture and genre
discourses. It is these issues that I want to discuss in this blog post,
and by doing so I hope to make a case for the ongoing need to engage
with a variety of channels and programming forms when discussing the
continued importance of concepts like branding and genre to the
television industry.

Many of the recent debates in TV Studies have continued to study
branding, but this has become aligned with wider technological and
taste-derived shifts resulting in a dominant focus on either
originally-produced content, 'high-end' examples and/or streaming and
subscription services ([Nygaard
2013](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2013.771891?journalCode=rfms20);
[Jenner
2014](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814541523);
[Bottomley
2015](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509208.2015.1031624?journalCode=gqrf20)).
However, by engaging with Horror's brand identity and the paratextual
framing of the shows and movies that it transmits, I hope to make a case
for also examining lesser-studied channels which repackage older films
and television series in a competitive and digitised environment.

![docwho](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/docwho-300x168.jpg){.alignnone
.wp-image-3532 .aligncenter loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="310"
height="174"}

An official publicity image for 'Who on Horror'

For those outside of the UK, or anyone who is yet to have encountered
the network (for whatever reason that might be), allow me to introduce
you. Horror is located on the outer registers of your EPG; on Freeview
it is channel 70 and nestles anachronously between TruTV+1 and CBS
Drama. In terms of ownership, the channel is a joint venture between the
US-based organizations CBS Studios International and AMC Networks
International. This pairing came about first as a result of CBS striking
a deal to acquire four of the channel's owned by global distributor
Chellomedia in 2009 and rebrand (some of) these under the CBS name
([Curtis
2009](http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/international/international-news/cbs-to-launch-uk-channels-with-chellomedia/5005560.article)).
Then, AMC chose to buy out the entire Chellomedia company five years
later ([Szalai
2014](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-networks-completes-1-billion-676601)).
Relating to industrial trends, Horror is therefore a product of the
strategies currently being pursued by contemporary US media
conglomerates. These include expanding the recognition and penetration
of television brands like CBS within non-domestic markets as a result of
the opportunities brought about by the increasingly globalized and
deregulated television marketplace. As AMC Networks' CEO Josh Sapan said
in 2014, acquiring Chellomedia provides "[significant long-range
opportunities for AMC Networks to distribute its original programming
from AMC, IFC, Sundance Channel and WE TV across an expansive global
footprint.](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-networks-completes-1-billion-676601)"

![channel70](https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/channel70-300x111.jpg){.wp-image-3533
.aligncenter loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="371" height="137"
srcset="https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/channel70-300x111.jpg.webp 300w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/channel70-450x167.jpg.webp 450w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/channel70-140x52.jpg.webp 140w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/channel70-768x284.jpg 768w, https://cstonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/channel70.jpg 851w"
sizes="(max-width: 371px) 100vw, 371px"}

Horror's 'knowing'-yet-transgressive branding in announcing its move to
Freeview

Horror is not the only network that this CBS/AMC hybrid currently
transmits to the UK as others, which also adopt a singular generic focus
such as CBS Reality, CBS Drama and CBS Action, make up their channel
portfolio. What's curious about Horror, though, is the distance
maintained between the channel's branding and CBS as the wider brand
endorser. Reflecting on why this may be the case, and adopting a
discursive understanding of genre similar to that developed by Jason
[Mittell
(2004)](https://www.routledge.com/Genre-and-Television-From-Cop-Shows-to-Cartoons-in-American-Culture/Mittell/p/book/9780415969031),
points towards forms of cultural power operating around horror's
meanings as a televisual genre within a historical context when 'horror
television' is more prominent than it has previously been. Why, then, is
Horror not 'CBS Horror'?

One possible way of accounting for this distance might be to address
arguments rooted in a political economy framework. This is because CBS's
construction of its current brand architecture does, on the one hand,
echo [Simone
Murray](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443705053973)'s
(2005: 422) argument that "Increasingly, there is a move away from
emphasizing the globalized media conglomerate as the dominant brand
(e.g. Time Warner) in favour of focusing on subsidiary enterprises as
their own brands" Yet, on the other hand, resting on this understanding
is inadequate because of CBS's willingness to explicitly endorse the
other networks which it distributes in the UK. Rather than settling on a
political economy perspective, we need to address the cultural meanings
of 'horror on television' and which of these are deployed by Horror.
Doing this points towards dissonance between Horror's encoding of the
genre and CBS's wider brand identity.

Horror's construction of its namesake in marketing material foregrounds
the genre's transgressive, marginalised and subversive meanings to aid
the channel's appeal to a minority (masculinised) 'cult' audience. This
construction of 'horror on television' is also combined with strong
pulls towards constructing a shared viewing community, with the channel
at the centre of this, as signified by the frequently-repeated tagline
of 'We are Horror' (see the video below). Horror's aligning of its
channel brand with ideas of 'cultishness' and transgression also
arguably extends beyond promotional material into other paratexts as
well. Its location on the fringes of the EPG recalls the back-street
cinemas and video stores where cult movies were traditionally screened
[(Hollows
2003)](http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719066313/) and
its schedules further connote minority-interest. Throughout the day,
Horror repeats old (primarily US) telefantasy shows like *Land of the
Giants* (1968-70) alongside made-for-TV movies (*Robin Hood: Beyond
Sherwood Forest* (2009), where *Ginger Snaps*'s (2000) Katherine
Isabelle transforms into a dragon, has become a personal favourite).
During the evening, an array of classic and cult horror films are then
aired such as, in recent weeks, Lamberto Bava's *Demons* (1985) and
David Cronenburg's *Videodrome* (1983). The cumulative effect of these
elements represent a conscious recognition of [Matt
Hills](http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-pleasures-of-horror-9780826458872/)'
(2005: 111) argument, developed in relation to different historical and
technological contexts, that horror on television constitutes a
'para-site', "a cultural site that is assumed to be alien to the genre
and a space where horror supposedly does not belong."

Thus central to how Horror brands itself through embracing the genre's
historically-marginalised position on television is by avoiding
discourses of "mass camp" ([Brunsdon 2004:
119](https://academic.oup.com/screen/article/45/2/115/1625315/Taste-and-time-on-television))
nostalgia by framing the content that the channel re-runs in an ironic
manner (as has historically been the case with re-run networks such as
Nick at Nite -- see [Spigel
1995](http://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/screen/36/1/10.1093/screen/36.1.16/2/36-1-16.pdf?Expires=1484571155&Signature=d7zSnT1Hc8ZaBDu2MYLUhKae~KbYUKnFYyw7vXlxG2a9LbW7DAllyl4v40dXW8K4SVRdlCRMZ0QmAS1nwnfV-CD1Z5j0VZ23v3NZdFkgIEyV86vesCnJprNN8Qf9xKPbV76HTBsRfF5NJ996n33OnUqlUFwKvSGCf3GwNAZz3q8AhhwFLE2NH76SwYiz4D5ecRIJdg~gru9zrUSpaPxTSFC57lZsfc3fHk8mDcXVe~eHDbLlAjgBfbuE6P8J573jhZUe5YsdG3~CZc9ryl42ch5wU7JpvuRUySth6K-qLRDCkmzcu4p8CMYWecpyLoZqvR1x7W-heOSXVgjT6MjBkA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q);
[Kompare
2005](https://www.routledge.com/Rerun-Nation-How-Repeats-Invented-American-Television/Kompare/p/book/9780415970556)).
This is not to argue that Horror doesn't demonstrate reflexivity towards
its tone and content -- the active embrace of horror's antagonistic
history with television, alongside the knowing 'wink' evident in its
publicity material, indicates this. However, I would argue that the
reflexivity demonstrated by the channel brand works more to build a
knowledgeable shared viewing community who are 'in on the joke' rather
than ironize its content from the 'enlightened' perspective of the
present. Evidence of this strategy can be demonstrated in various ways:
the channel's sophisticated and stylised idents work on the assumption
that audiences will recognise its intertextual references to movies such
as *Hellraiser* (Barker, 1987); continuity announcements demonstrate a
respectful attitude towards what follows irrespective of its aesthetic
limitations; movies are preceded by warnings about their controversial
content and, at weekends, feature specially-shot pre-inserts [where
recognized horror aficionado Emily Booth playfully contextualises the
forthcoming film by outlining its generic and/or auteurist
significance.](http://www.horrorchannel.co.uk/articles.php?category=258)

[Horror Channel Ident](https://vimeo.com/121674549) from [Michael
Pacheco](https://vimeo.com/michaelpacheco) on
[Vimeo](https://vimeo.com).

However, one consequence of Horror's (relatively) straight paratextual
framing of its content is that it necessitates this distancing between
the channel and its host institution of CBS. CBS's reputation is of
being a family-friendly mainstream brand in the US, and this
architectural dissonance between the distinctly 'anti-mainstream'
viewing community appealed to by Horror. This intra-institutional
incongruence is best demonstrated by comparing Horror's idents with
those for other CBS-owned and AMC-distributed channels as the links
between CBS and Horror is kept implicit rather than used to anchor and
endorse the channel's brand. For example, although Horror's idents
demonstrate consistency with those for CBS Reality, CBS Action and CBS
Drama in terms of their stylisation, their colour palettes (which
juxtapose primary colours against a primarily white diegesis), and the
use of CBS's iconic eye logo towards the end of each ident, the explicit
link between the US corporation and Horror is avoided here (unlike its
stablemates). Although viewers of CBS's channel portfolio may easily
infer the link (a point reinforced by the repeated aesthetic design of
trailers for each channel and the ongoing promotion of shows on other
CBS-branded networks on Horror), the distance is maintained. Echoing
[Freud's (1919)](https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/57004/the-uncanny/)
notion of the uncanny, where the familiar becomes defamiliarised and
provokes feelings of uncertainty, Horror therefore represents an
'uncanny brand' for CBS -- it evokes the familiarity of CBS's other
networks but does not embrace this attachment.

Video of other idents for other CBS-branded channels

In writing this post, I've realised that there's much more to say about
Horror's branding, the ways in which this relates to other contemporary
versions of 'horror television' in terms of taste and legitimation, and
the interrelationship between the sub-brand of 'Who on Horror', the
wider channel brand, and recent developments in how Horror is
diversifying its niche marketing on social media. I intend to return to
these issues in forthcoming blogs for CST. However, hopefully the
introductions I've made here might prompt other scholars to consider the
industrial contexts and branding of other contemporary re-run networks.

Keep watching, if you dare...

 

**Ross Garner** is a lecturer in TV Studies in the School of Journalism,
Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University. His research interests
cover cult TV, paratextuality, branding and debates concerning mediated
space and TV-derived tourism. He has recently published articles
exploring these issues in [*Popular
Communication*](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2016.1153101),
[*Series: The International Journal of Serial
Narratives*](https://series.unibo.it/article/view/6590/6385) and
[*Tourist
Studies*](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468797616680851)
and is currently working on the monograph *Nostalgia, Digital Television
and Transmediality* (Bloomsbury)


Since debuting on the UK’s digital terrestrial television service Freeview in March 2015, I have been enthralled by the Horror Channel. Part of the reason for my enchantment is linked to my ‘aca-fan’ interests as from April 2014 to late March 2016, Horror had been re-running episodes of ‘classic’

 Doctor Who

(e.g. those initially-broadcast between 1963 and 1989) on a daily basis.

Postagens de Rogue Scholar

extended CfP: 25 Years of Jurassic Park (1993): An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Paleontological Imagination. June 8, 2018 @ Cardiff University (UK).Deadline: Jan 31, 2018.

The Uncanny Brand: Architectural Dissonance and Genre Discourses in the Marketing of Horror