“…The Army launched its new recruitment slogan, ‘Army Strong,’ which replaces their previous slogan, ‘Army Strong.’ Meanwhile, the Navy is sticking with their recruiting slogan, ‘Iraq: It’s Almost Entirely Landlocked.’” -Seth Meyers
Facing yet another tough recruiting season, the Army has recently launched a new advertising campaign using television ads and Internet placements, along with a presence on popular youth destinations such as YouTube and MySpace.
The TV ads in particular, airing on stations like MTV (a youth-dominated media source… notice the trend here?), attempt to glorify service with thrilling (safe) images of soldiers jogging in formation, defying obstacle courses, and jumping out of helicopters. Predictably, all of the ads are set in familiar, domestic settings, conveniently excluding the Army’s current endeavor: the war in Iraq.
These new “Army Strong” ads ignore the harsh reality of our current state of foreign conflict; volunteering for the Army is depicted as being akin to a carefree summer away at camp rather than the crucial and life-threatening decision it truly is. Despite the fact that adolescents are influenced by media images, by choosing to target youth media outlets such as MTV or the Internet, the Army is intentionally misleading its target demographic of teenagers who are most likely wary of enlisting. Whether teens recognize it or not, in all actuality, volunteering these days inevitably means immediate deployment to combat zones in Iraq.
Unfortunately, it is obvious that the Army is more concerned with meeting its fiscal 2007 recruiting target and far less concerned with being an honest and “strong” government organization.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Shark??
I dont get a chance to watch all that many television programs since I spend most of my life either on campus or asleep. Obviously I watch some television but i mainly rely on my DVR to record my "usual" shows such as The Office, South Park, and some other more embarrassing ones i wont get into right now. Recently however I had some tv time and i stumbled upon this new show on CBS called Shark. Its basically like all the other dramas in primetime, cops/DA's trying to solve mysterious murders and with about ten minutes left in the show they finally uncover that one piece of evidence to close the case. What makes this one different? It stars James Woods as the main prosecutor. I have nothing against Woods but why is this a show? Its not different or innovative at all. The Law and Order shows already show prosecutors and how they work their cases. The CSI shows give a different look at how the evidence is gathered. This is just a lamer version of Law and Order only with James Woods hilarious wit and arrogance(sarcasm). Basically I cant even take him seriously because all i keep seeing is a hyperactive poker enthusiast pretending to be a smooth talking lawyer. Maybe Im wrong but i think we have all the lawyer/cop dramas we need already and Woods should audition for a role on Las Vegas, at least then i might actually believe his character is realistic, that is if i ever watched that show either.
More on Music videos
I was a little harsh on Mr. Corbijn on my last post. Let me backtrack a bit and say that he is one of the most influential rock photographers/videographers of all time, and that bands like Green Day, U2, Depeche Mode, and Metallica wouldn't be where they are today without him.
...With that said, i'm kind of sick of music videos. i've been watching so many of them for the last week or so (I'm shooting one as my final project in my digital distribution class, so I've been looking for concepts to steal), and I can safely say that there are simply a lot of BAD music videos out there. However, I've run across a few that I had forgotten how good they are:
...With that said, i'm kind of sick of music videos. i've been watching so many of them for the last week or so (I'm shooting one as my final project in my digital distribution class, so I've been looking for concepts to steal), and I can safely say that there are simply a lot of BAD music videos out there. However, I've run across a few that I had forgotten how good they are:
- Madonna - Express Yourself (dir. David Fincher)
- Madonna - Like a Prayer (dir. Mary Lambert)
- Madonna - I'll Remember (dir. Alek Keshishian) ...she made my list three times? Damn.
- Jimmy Eat World - Pain (dir. Paul Fedor)
- Fatboy Slim - Weapon of Choice (dir. Spike Jonze)
- Foo Fighters - Everlong (dir. Michel Gondry ...the man who invented the "bullet time" from The Matrix...and don't forget it!)
- Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science (dir. unknown)
- Aha - Take on Me (animated by Michael Patterson)
What Happened to Wrestlin'???
Every now and then I will be flipping through the TV and I will see that wrestling is still on. I remember wayyyyy back in the day (late 80's to early 90's) how much fun wrestling was. I thought it was the greatest thing on earth to see full grown sweaty men "try" and beat the crap out of each other. I remember the time when Hulk Hogan (you might know him now as the over baring gorilla on Hogan Knows Best) lost to the Ultimate Warrior at the Wrestlemania PPV and I cried. Hogan seemed invincible to me and he lost!!! That was when my dad realized I was taking something way to seriously that was fake and he told me the truth about wrestling. It took me awhile to come to this reality, and afterwards wrestling lost its appeal to me. It’s kind of like when you know how a magician performs a certain trick. It takes the fun out it. Now when I pass by wrestling on TV, it just seems trashy. Maybe it was my childhood innocence, but to me wrestling was cool. R.I.P. wrestlin'
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
PAWS Sucks.
Even with the brand new system or design or whatever they called it, it still sucks. It looks like crap and performs just at you would expect, like crap.
My first impressions: it's yellow, really yellow. I understand our school colors are yellow and black, but seriously, there is a limit to my daily dose of yellow. Beyond the simple lack of color contrast, the sections are blocky, clunked together, and not in consistent style across the screen. It's just amateurish for them to put out something as unpolished as this.
From a designer's perspective, what also sucks is the page refreshing and ill-thought navigation menus and architecture. With Web technologies developing so fast and the increasing use of AJAX (which allows for updating pages without completely reloading the page), it seriously makes me wonder what the thought process was behind this new version of PAWS. Perhaps it was merely done to annoy us college students - just to see my favorites in the menu I have to reload the entire page I'm on. That is, without a doubt, bull.
The next version of PAWS better not suck as much as this one or its predecessor; it's a real irritation to sit through dated technology when the better, faster technologies are readily available. Educational Web services are just left in the dust it seems.
My first impressions: it's yellow, really yellow. I understand our school colors are yellow and black, but seriously, there is a limit to my daily dose of yellow. Beyond the simple lack of color contrast, the sections are blocky, clunked together, and not in consistent style across the screen. It's just amateurish for them to put out something as unpolished as this.
From a designer's perspective, what also sucks is the page refreshing and ill-thought navigation menus and architecture. With Web technologies developing so fast and the increasing use of AJAX (which allows for updating pages without completely reloading the page), it seriously makes me wonder what the thought process was behind this new version of PAWS. Perhaps it was merely done to annoy us college students - just to see my favorites in the menu I have to reload the entire page I'm on. That is, without a doubt, bull.
The next version of PAWS better not suck as much as this one or its predecessor; it's a real irritation to sit through dated technology when the better, faster technologies are readily available. Educational Web services are just left in the dust it seems.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Final Thoughts
Yeah I know the title is a little Jerry Springer circa 1994, but this being my 10th and therefore last class blog post, it’s that time of year again to reflect on a semester gone by…well almost.
When you really stop and think about all the stuff you learn in an entire semester, it’s mind-boggling. I mean, the first day of school you’re sitting there intently following along to the teacher reading aloud the syllabus. You have your new notebooks and laptop ready to go, and as you look around the room at people whom you (maybe) don’t know, you wonder what kind of state you’ll be in come late October when things really get rolling.
Ok, maybe that’s just me. Sorry. :-)
But seriously, I’ve done things this semester for my JMC major that last year seemed worlds away to me. For example, I’ve made a good number of print ads via Quark and Photoshop to put in my budding portfolio, I figured out what You Tube is (no, I really never heard of it before this class, thanks you) I learned how to construct a newspaper front page using InDesign, but from this class alone I’ve learned really valuable information about our media-hungry society which has helped me in other classes as well, and I’ve joined Ad Club (which people, if you are not in, you NEED to join. It will help you immensely come graduation) and I recently applied for an officer’s position.
Oh yeah. I also learned that when you work hard and are told you’re a shoo-in for the journalism department scholarship, and then do not get it…it really sucks to discover that the winner sits two seats down from you in your publication design class. (I never said this year was a cake walk.) PS he's a really nice guy too.
My point is that this year gave me a clearer picture of what the real world is like for journalism majors like me. And more importantly what I still need to do to prepare myself more. However, I think that just being in 262 we have all come away with a deeper understanding of what it takes to get noticed in media in today’s society. And isn’t that why we took this class in the first place?
Good luck with finals everyone, and see you next time!
Best,
~Kristin~
When you really stop and think about all the stuff you learn in an entire semester, it’s mind-boggling. I mean, the first day of school you’re sitting there intently following along to the teacher reading aloud the syllabus. You have your new notebooks and laptop ready to go, and as you look around the room at people whom you (maybe) don’t know, you wonder what kind of state you’ll be in come late October when things really get rolling.
Ok, maybe that’s just me. Sorry. :-)
But seriously, I’ve done things this semester for my JMC major that last year seemed worlds away to me. For example, I’ve made a good number of print ads via Quark and Photoshop to put in my budding portfolio, I figured out what You Tube is (no, I really never heard of it before this class, thanks you) I learned how to construct a newspaper front page using InDesign, but from this class alone I’ve learned really valuable information about our media-hungry society which has helped me in other classes as well, and I’ve joined Ad Club (which people, if you are not in, you NEED to join. It will help you immensely come graduation) and I recently applied for an officer’s position.
Oh yeah. I also learned that when you work hard and are told you’re a shoo-in for the journalism department scholarship, and then do not get it…it really sucks to discover that the winner sits two seats down from you in your publication design class. (I never said this year was a cake walk.) PS he's a really nice guy too.
My point is that this year gave me a clearer picture of what the real world is like for journalism majors like me. And more importantly what I still need to do to prepare myself more. However, I think that just being in 262 we have all come away with a deeper understanding of what it takes to get noticed in media in today’s society. And isn’t that why we took this class in the first place?
Good luck with finals everyone, and see you next time!
Best,
~Kristin~
vanessa carlton sells out
After Vanessa Carlton's label completely screwed up the promoting of her second album causing it to flop, Carlton knew she needed a change. However, instead of finding a label that would give her the proper promotion to the proper target audience for the type of music she makes, rap mogul Irv Gotti managed to talk Carlton into signing with his label Murder Inc. Carlton will be the first non hip-hop artist to join this label.
What is so shitty about this transaction is that Gotti appears to be poised to promote Carlton through MTV. In the past, Carlton has looked extremely uncomfortable on shows like TRL where she appears to be doing everything she can to keep herself from rolling her eyes at her "fans." But, to pick up the huge and lucrative teeny-bopper demographic Gotti and Carlton look like they will take this route. Carlton is probably afraid she will lose her career if she doesn't "sell out" and Gotti has dollar signs in his eyes with the idea of using fear to convince Carlton she has to use sex to sell her image which will sell her music.
Carlton has aggressively spoken out in the past against using image to sell music, but it appears she would rather be a successful hypocrite than be sitting at home with her integrity and no one to hear her play the piano.
On Harmonium, her second album, Carlton sings a song she wrote about vampires devouring unicorns. This is an analogy for how evil labels (vampires) charm, corrupt and kill artists (unicorns). One would think that the person who wrote that song would be more aware of someone like Gotti and what he is all about, but if she is aware of what's happening to her, she seems to think it's her only hope for survival in the music industry and that is very sad.
What's next? Regina Spektor signs to Shady Records?
What is so shitty about this transaction is that Gotti appears to be poised to promote Carlton through MTV. In the past, Carlton has looked extremely uncomfortable on shows like TRL where she appears to be doing everything she can to keep herself from rolling her eyes at her "fans." But, to pick up the huge and lucrative teeny-bopper demographic Gotti and Carlton look like they will take this route. Carlton is probably afraid she will lose her career if she doesn't "sell out" and Gotti has dollar signs in his eyes with the idea of using fear to convince Carlton she has to use sex to sell her image which will sell her music.
Carlton has aggressively spoken out in the past against using image to sell music, but it appears she would rather be a successful hypocrite than be sitting at home with her integrity and no one to hear her play the piano.
On Harmonium, her second album, Carlton sings a song she wrote about vampires devouring unicorns. This is an analogy for how evil labels (vampires) charm, corrupt and kill artists (unicorns). One would think that the person who wrote that song would be more aware of someone like Gotti and what he is all about, but if she is aware of what's happening to her, she seems to think it's her only hope for survival in the music industry and that is very sad.
What's next? Regina Spektor signs to Shady Records?
Monday, November 27, 2006
ok go! is good
yesterday i had to work at the private ok go! acoustic set at the ladybug club. fm102.1 was doing this contest thing for people to win a chance to see their acoustic show before they opened for death cab for cutie at the rave. all i have to say is it's about friggin' time i get to meet some semi famous people. but anyways...for one, the ladybug club is sweet. it has a bunch of leather furniture and disco-y lights. i need to go "clubbing" more. for two, though ok go! isn't that famous they were really good. acoustic shows are harder to put on because you actually have to be good at playing the guitar instead of hooking it up to an amp and getting all that whatever it is that hides mistakes when playing. but there were only three guys and they harmonized really well. they played sitting down on the stage while everyone sat around them all indian style like a bunch of hippies. that's why i thought the ladybug club was a strange choice. anyway, my only negative comments about this band was that they were obviously trying way too hard to look bandish with their style. i hate when bands do that cause you know what they're wearing is uncomfortable. and also they had this one song where one of the guys sang the word "zero" like 10 times in a row in a monotone voice and it sounded really bad and annoying.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Rhythm Science Unbound
I had the extremely fortunate opportunity of catching DJ Spooky at the Basement last year thanks to a friend getting the gig together. Although it wasn't promoted well and turned out to be a lot less people than I would have expected for such a pioneer of the turntables, I look back at it now as true experiential growth. I saw one of his speeches at UWM on VHS yesterday where he both lectured and presented the philosophy of Rhythm Science. Essentially his perspective on this stage of the DJ is the role of a cultural guru, a storyteller, and a scientist. The power of rhythms and their direct link to cultures are peaked in their potential effect when the DJ can not only create the sound clash of one beat/record from the 60's to another from 2006. Or fusing Yates reading his poetry to Chuck D's 911 is a Joke. What Spooky has truly pioneered is the new use of in synch imagery to the beat, cut, and reflection. In one instance he synched a national flag sequence going faster and slower than 90 rpms to an "illbient" record clash where the flags, crests, and colors blinked, merged, transformed, and illustrated the cornerstone of rhythm science's converging vision of "the big blurry circle." Spooky, or Paul D. Miller, believes that in a service economy that has become so hyper condensed with information highways, any and everywhere we go in a day is packed with signs that lay in the vast subconscious of our mind. Billboards to food smells and stencil art in the city all effect us whether we register its effects or not. This is where the DJ intervenes with the promotion of culture over material commercialism. Essentially rhythm science unravels the confines of boxes, categories, and straight lines into that big blurry circle that seriously keeps coming up in my mind the more I think about it. I'm under the spell of Rhythm Science!!
Learn more about th philosophy, the musician, and his new novel at www.djspooky.com
Learn more about th philosophy, the musician, and his new novel at www.djspooky.com
Vinyl to MP3, Skip the CD
I have been a fan of music since as far back as I can remember. My musical tastes went from tapes of Ace of Base on Cassette to Green day on CD in grade school. As I got older I found out you could get free music on the Internet well before Napster became a household name. What a wonderful invention for music lovers and musicians alike (no matter what Metallica says). With all that said, my favorite form of music comes in the form of a disc three times the size of a CD. The sound of that needle hitting piece of round vinyl creating that soft crackle before the first note plays is almost as soothing as the price you paid for it. You can find almost everything you are looking for at a bargain. The hunt is as good as the trophy. Go to rummage sales, thrift stores, eBay, or even record stores like Atomic Records and you can find used treasures for a dollar or less. Turntables are not hard to find either; you can find a good one for under $100 at modern electronics stores. Record collecting is not only fun but also people think you are cooler (which you are) when they see your collection. If you like your music new, good music still comes in the classic form. If the band you want does not offer it on vinyl, it is probably not worth listening to (or at least paying for so just get it online). If you are into music, do yourself a favor and skip the CD. They are overpriced, over-rated, and just plain boring.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Too Young, Too Early?
I'm a little shocked at the recent release of JoJo's second album. I never heard her first one, and I won't bother.
JoJo is only 15 (will be 16 in December); that makes her a minor, and as a minor, it's illegal to have sex, do drugs, drink alcohol, etc, etc. So what the hell? Half the tracks on the CD are about having sex. Anyone see a problem with a 16 year old singing about sex? She sings about "going the distance," "some of that good ol'," "how to touch a girl," "the way you do me," and more.
My friends and I liked her first single from the CD, "Too Little, Too Late." I'll be blunt: we are all cooks at a restaurant and we sing more than anyone else we know. That song was a pretty damn good song to wail to in a hot kitchen to get the energy going. (Dance music and heavier rock work best though.)
While she has a good voice, I think either the record company or her parents screwed up on this one. People can have all the sex they want and sing about it (Snoop and Akon come to mind right away), but having a 15 year old do it is pushing it.
JoJo is only 15 (will be 16 in December); that makes her a minor, and as a minor, it's illegal to have sex, do drugs, drink alcohol, etc, etc. So what the hell? Half the tracks on the CD are about having sex. Anyone see a problem with a 16 year old singing about sex? She sings about "going the distance," "some of that good ol'," "how to touch a girl," "the way you do me," and more.
My friends and I liked her first single from the CD, "Too Little, Too Late." I'll be blunt: we are all cooks at a restaurant and we sing more than anyone else we know. That song was a pretty damn good song to wail to in a hot kitchen to get the energy going. (Dance music and heavier rock work best though.)
While she has a good voice, I think either the record company or her parents screwed up on this one. People can have all the sex they want and sing about it (Snoop and Akon come to mind right away), but having a 15 year old do it is pushing it.
Anton Corbijn is a hack.
Ok, not really. But I can safely say that at least _two_ of the videos he shot for Depeche Mode are not nearly as good as he (or the rest of the world, for that matter) would have you think. Those videos? Enjoy The Silence and Strangelove.
Enjoy The Silence is a hell of a song. In fact, it's one of the best singles Depeche Mode has released, period. But the video? Boring. It features "king" Dave Gahan wandering around mountains and hillsides with a folding chair, so he can "enjoy the silence." Um...ok? And this is visually stimulating...how? (In defense of the video, there are occasional black and white shots of the band and a rose. But they're sparse.)
Strangelove....one of the first videos banned from MTV. Corbijn gets credit for letting his girlfriend dance around the stage in her underwear. And, yes, a video featuring scantily-clad models would seem to fit damn well with a song about sexual fetishes. Except for one thing...the Strangelove '88 video, which is simply much better done. And who cares if it completely rips off Fritz Lang's Metropolis? It wouldn't be the first time.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Depeche Mode. And, most of their videos are excellent. But give me Clive Richardson's Blasphemous Rumours or D.A. Pennebaker's Everything Counts (101) over anything Corbjin's done any day.
Enjoy The Silence is a hell of a song. In fact, it's one of the best singles Depeche Mode has released, period. But the video? Boring. It features "king" Dave Gahan wandering around mountains and hillsides with a folding chair, so he can "enjoy the silence." Um...ok? And this is visually stimulating...how? (In defense of the video, there are occasional black and white shots of the band and a rose. But they're sparse.)
Strangelove....one of the first videos banned from MTV. Corbijn gets credit for letting his girlfriend dance around the stage in her underwear. And, yes, a video featuring scantily-clad models would seem to fit damn well with a song about sexual fetishes. Except for one thing...the Strangelove '88 video, which is simply much better done. And who cares if it completely rips off Fritz Lang's Metropolis? It wouldn't be the first time.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Depeche Mode. And, most of their videos are excellent. But give me Clive Richardson's Blasphemous Rumours or D.A. Pennebaker's Everything Counts (101) over anything Corbjin's done any day.
Monday, November 20, 2006
because you're ugly
As i mentioned on the first day of class, thesuperficial.com is the best website ever. The guy who updates it is hilarious, and he updates it everyday. He always has the same stories as People Magazine and USWeekly, but sooner. The latest is, of course, Britney Spears. How did she suddenly loose 50lbs? Cheetos are definetly still around so that one is throwing me for a loop. Also, she dumped KFed via text message? Who does that? Isn't KFed the man of every woman's dreams? How could she break a delicate heart like his over text? If you go to the website there is a documentary of him getting the sad news. Also, did you know that the ever classy Kevin is threatening her with releasing a sex tape? Supposedly she is going to beat him to the punch and release it before he can. That is one amazing relationship.
As a side not, who does Tom Cruise think he is not inviting Oprah to his wedding?
That's enough celeb gossip for a lifetime for me, go check out the site and laugh :).
As a side not, who does Tom Cruise think he is not inviting Oprah to his wedding?
That's enough celeb gossip for a lifetime for me, go check out the site and laugh :).
Links
Here are some of the things I was talking about today.
-I quoted from an Advertising Age article about online video. Here is the quotation:
-The music site I mentioned is Rhapsody.
-The book I discussed is The Long Tail by Chris Anderson. Much, more more about it can be found on Anderson's blog. Anderson is the editor of Wired Magazine.
-Finally, the missed connections page for Milwaukee on Craigslist. Enjoy.
-I quoted from an Advertising Age article about online video. Here is the quotation:
Until about five minutes ago, remember, almost all video-entertainment content was produced and distributed by Hollywood. Period. That time is over. There was a time when advertisers could count on mass audiences for what Hollywood thought we should be watching on TV. That time is all but over. There was a time when broadband penetration was too slight and bandwidth costs too prohibitive for video to be watched online. That time is sooooo over. "The era of the creepy blue light leaking out of every living room window on the block is now officially at an end," says my pal and occasional colleague Steve Rosenbaum, founder of video-sharing startup Magnify.net and one of the inventors a decade ago of citizen video. "The simple, wonderful, delirious fact is that people like you and me can now make and share content."-The site for monitoring web traffic is Alexa. That's where I got the current top twenty list.
Delirious or not, it's a fact that Buzzmachine.com's Jeff Jarvis believes has changed the meaning of TV. "Just as our kids don't understand the difference between broadcast and cable," he says, "the line between TV and Internet TV is about to disappear."
-The music site I mentioned is Rhapsody.
-The book I discussed is The Long Tail by Chris Anderson. Much, more more about it can be found on Anderson's blog. Anderson is the editor of Wired Magazine.
-Finally, the missed connections page for Milwaukee on Craigslist. Enjoy.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
PS3's and other random acts of violence
So I work at a local Best Buy in the area, and because of that, I was very fortunate to witness an unusual phenomenon occur last week. I saw a line of about 100 people sitting outside lined up in front of the store on a chilly November night. Why you might ask? For the release of the Play Station 3 last Friday. Die hard gamers could line up overnight the night before the “big day” to reserve a spot for themselves in securing one of the coveted systems.
I made the venture out to work last Thursday to see some of my friends (co-workers) who were some of the winners who were freezing their asses off in line that night. When I got there a local news station was setting up to do a portion of their 10pm broadcast, interviewing some of the hopeful gamers. The people in line (God bless them, but I truly think they were all idiots) looked absolutely miserable, which made me wonder what would possess someone too waste that much time and energy for a gaming system?!
Ok, ok I know there is a lot of money to be made once people start selling their PS3’s on EBAY, but seriously! It’s a gaming-thingy people!!!! Is two grand really worth risking hypothermia and wasting about 48 hours of your life?! I don’t think so, but hey, that’s just me. Anyways, the next day when the PS3’s were actually released, I saw a news broadcast on them. The reporter said people in line were actually being tackled, trampled, and seriously injured for these systems. This is ridiculous. I understand the amount of fat cash one can make from selling these, but causing personal harm to another human being basically over the supply and demand scarcity is just stupid in my book.
I do not “hate” on any of these hard core gamers (seriously, you should see my fiancé and his roommates), just find their choice and methods of purchase a little interesting to say the least. You know with all this chaos over ONE product……it’s safe to say I’m not officially concerned to be battling the mobs at work the day after Thanksgiving sales!
Happy holidays everyone. Just don’t kill yourselves (or anyone else) over a PS3 and we’ll get along fine.
I made the venture out to work last Thursday to see some of my friends (co-workers) who were some of the winners who were freezing their asses off in line that night. When I got there a local news station was setting up to do a portion of their 10pm broadcast, interviewing some of the hopeful gamers. The people in line (God bless them, but I truly think they were all idiots) looked absolutely miserable, which made me wonder what would possess someone too waste that much time and energy for a gaming system?!
Ok, ok I know there is a lot of money to be made once people start selling their PS3’s on EBAY, but seriously! It’s a gaming-thingy people!!!! Is two grand really worth risking hypothermia and wasting about 48 hours of your life?! I don’t think so, but hey, that’s just me. Anyways, the next day when the PS3’s were actually released, I saw a news broadcast on them. The reporter said people in line were actually being tackled, trampled, and seriously injured for these systems. This is ridiculous. I understand the amount of fat cash one can make from selling these, but causing personal harm to another human being basically over the supply and demand scarcity is just stupid in my book.
I do not “hate” on any of these hard core gamers (seriously, you should see my fiancé and his roommates), just find their choice and methods of purchase a little interesting to say the least. You know with all this chaos over ONE product……it’s safe to say I’m not officially concerned to be battling the mobs at work the day after Thanksgiving sales!
Happy holidays everyone. Just don’t kill yourselves (or anyone else) over a PS3 and we’ll get along fine.
I Wasted My Sunday
This is more of a confession than anything else. My roommate and I spent the entire day, and I literally mean the ENTIRE day, watching the complete season of an MTV reality show called Beauty and the Geek. For those of you who have not seen the show, it's a pointlessly predictable reality show where one geeky guy is coupled with a beauitful woman as they compete in challenges that teach the nerds social skills and fashion sense, while teaching the beauties general knowledge like geography, car maintenence, and astronomy. (Executive producer? Ashton Kutcher)
So you might be asking yourself why I watched the entire season of the show. I simply could not turn it off. I liked watching the beauitful women in swimsuits, I liked seeing the nerds awkward interaction with the ladies, and I loved making fun of the stupid hosts constant need to re-establish the premise of the show every ten minutes. So with this type of hook built into the show, by 1 o'clock I found myself determined to find out how the show would end. What can I say? I like watching awkward dating situations, scantily clad women, and making fun of people. Please don't think less of me.
So you might be asking yourself why I watched the entire season of the show. I simply could not turn it off. I liked watching the beauitful women in swimsuits, I liked seeing the nerds awkward interaction with the ladies, and I loved making fun of the stupid hosts constant need to re-establish the premise of the show every ten minutes. So with this type of hook built into the show, by 1 o'clock I found myself determined to find out how the show would end. What can I say? I like watching awkward dating situations, scantily clad women, and making fun of people. Please don't think less of me.
Friday, November 17, 2006
office merger
Last nights new episode of the Office(the XL 40 minute edition) was a huge move for the show. While episodes of the show have yet to disappoint me there is only so much they can do with the same characters in the same settings every day. The merger of the Stamford, CT branch with the Scranton, PA branch not only provided some hilarious new encounters, most notably Andy and Dwight competing to be Michael's "number 2", but the merger also provides so many new possibilities and assures a longer run for the series. The long running drama between Jim and Pam has had a wrench thrown into it by the addition of Karen to the picture. While this isnt my favorite part of the show and Id rather see more comedy, it is clearly central to the show and as long as the writers keep teasing their romance, you know they have more ideas and will continue to produce this masterpiece.
Big Papi-razzi
I found this article awhile ago. It amazed me the deceit and underhanded guile with which paparazzi operate. But the pay! Wow... read on:
5 Things You Didn't Know About The Paparazzi
By Craig Mazin
Entertainment Correspondent - Every other Sunday
Yahoo! Search Marketing Searches On Site: 32,937
according to the September 2006 report from Yahoo! Search Marketing
It isn’t often that you hear a good word about the paparazzi. Even if you aren’t moved by the shrill complaints of besieged celebrities; the idea of someone spending their life snapping unflattering, long-lens pictures of stars going about their everyday lives is still offensive to most people’s sense of decency. There’s also the perception that the job is easy and it lacks prestige. After all, snapping a photo of Cameron Diaz walking down Rodeo Drive without her makeup doesn’t seem to require much skill. Nor does the trade rank particularly high on the photojournalistic rung.
But believe it or not, not everyone can be a well-paid tabloid sharpshooter. Becoming a viable paparazzo actually requires a variety of skills, as it takes more than mere doggedness (although you will need that in spades) to succeed. The best celebrity photographers are equal parts glad-handers, sh*t-stirrers, independent businessmen, and secret agents. They cultivate a myriad of contacts and tightrope risky budgets, they are constantly on the make in a relentlessly competitive industry, and, yes, they actually have to know how to take a high-quality picture.
In the wake of the rare kind words I just threw their way, here are five things that you didn’t know about the paparazzi.
1- They have large networks of assistants
The general public’s widespread use of digital and cell phone cameras at movie premieres and galas has caused red-carpet celebrity shots to become a dime-a-dozen -- hence, they don’t sell for much more than that. Due to this intrusion on their traditional territory, successful paparazzi need to be as resourceful as possible in order to ensure that they can snag the rare candid shots that haul in the big bucks.
Therefore, the best paparazzi are now also the best connected, with networks of informants -- bodyguards, doormen, waiters, hairstylists, intimates, and even autograph hounds -- whom they cultivate or bribe in exchange for a tip about an elusive celebrity’s whereabouts. Noted paparazzo Mel Bouzad claimed to have nabbed $150,000-photos of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez together in Georgia after their breakup based on a tip from “Matt Damon's wife's hairdresser."
Find out the paparazzi's earning potential and their true power… Next >>
2- They can earn in the range of $250,000 a year
Paparazzi are so often viewed through a shady prism that it’s not widely known that they can rank among the best paid “journalists” in the world. In fact, while most established paparazzi earn a more modest $60,000 to $100,000 annually, quite a number of very successful paparazzi haul in the same income as your average medical specialist or corporate lawyer -- about $250,000 a year.
This salary doesn’t include the “big score” or one-time bonanzas like New York paparazzo Steve Sands’ reported $300,000 score from People magazine for pictures of Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin’s second child. Also, the market for a picture of Tom Cruise's and Katie Holmes' offspring reportedly reached seven figures. But aspiring photographers should note that, like in any profession, you have to work your way to the top. Unless you know Matt Damon’s wife’s hairdresser, entry-level positions generally pay about $3,000 per month.
3- Media savvy celebs share schedules with the paparazzi
Paparazzi commonly argue that though celebrities gripe endlessly about getting their pictures snapped every time they pick their noses, those same stars realize they need the paparazzi to ensure that they remain in the public eye and maintain their popularity. Some stars, at least partially, embrace this theory and have made a conscious decision to cultivate a more mutually beneficial relationship with their tabloid “friends.”
Common conciliatory acts include offers of temporary access or exclusives in exchange for a little privacy, and even celebs voluntarily coming out of homes to provide easier access for the paparazzi on stake-out duty. Some celebs actually work overtime to ensure that the paparazzi follow them around 24/7. Predictably, the talent-starved queen of all tabloid-anointed celebrities, Paris Hilton, has embraced this tactic by notoriously offering the paparazzi her schedule, ensuring a weekly parade of heavy-lidded, Jagermeister-addled, ”I’m about to retch in an alleyway” snapshots.
4- Paparazzi have organized "boycotts" of stars
Although they are historically on the wrong end of celebrity tongue-lashings and punches, the paparazzi have occasionally acted in tandem to eschew their usual state of victimhood. Witness the case of George Clooney, a notorious critic, after he blamed the paparazzi for causing Princess Diana’s fatal car crash in a 1997 interview. At his next public appearance at the premiere of 1997's The Peacemaker, the entire contingent of pissed-off paparazzi refused to take publicity shots of Clooney and booed him as he signed autographs for fans.
Clooney survived his freeze-out to become an even bigger star, but others have suffered long-term damage to their careers due to similar battles. Sharon Stone has had a running feud with the tabloids, and vocally backed a new privacy law aimed at stopping photographers from hounding celebrities. In response, the paparazzi has been ruthless in casting Stone in a poor light, including snapping an incriminating shot of her adopted son sleeping in a parked car -- under the chauffeur’s supervision -- as the star dined with a date.
They’ll go James Bond on you for a shot… Next >>
5- Their expenses can be enormous
The axiom that states that you have to spend money to make money certainly applies to the paparazzi. Photographers often have to shell out big bucks to get within camera range of a key celebrity sighting. Locked outside the gates of a swank star wedding or left ashore as a scandalous Hollywood romance blossoms at sea are mere obstacles to the determined paparazzo. It is common for the paparazzi to hire motorcyclists, helicopters, yachts, and even submarines to get in prime position for a clean -- and lucrative -- shot.
Yearly budgets aren’t publicized and the range depends on the size of the operation; one paparazzo estimated that the total expense of staking out Brad Pitt's and Angelina Jolie’s Paris apartment in the hopes of getting a picture of Shiloh would exceed $10,000 -- without any guarantee of return on the investment. In addition, pesky libel claims and restraining orders can eat away at earnings, so like the tabloid press they sell their wares to, independent paparazzi incorporate pricey lawsuit expenses into their budgets.
The paparazzi are endlessly fascinating because they so perfectly represent the double-edged sword of success in Hollywood. The lifestyle and money that come from fame and popularity is by all accounts pretty damn sweet, but the paparazzi serve as a prodding, aggravating check on that otherwise blissful existence. They also allow us regular folk to feel better about our lives by working up pity for the poor plight of paparazzi-tormented stars like Lindsay Lohan.
Although the paparazzi are almost universally criticized, their longstanding and increasing prominence is directly linked to the simple laws of supply and demand. In other words, the public has an insatiable appetite for all things celebrity and the tabloid photographers merely serve that market. Recent numbers indicate that the market continues to grow: While many magazines have recently suffered from stagnating sales, celebrity-focused operations like US Weekly and In Touch have seen their numbers soar.
5 Things You Didn't Know About The Paparazzi
By Craig Mazin
Entertainment Correspondent - Every other Sunday
Yahoo! Search Marketing Searches On Site: 32,937
according to the September 2006 report from Yahoo! Search Marketing
It isn’t often that you hear a good word about the paparazzi. Even if you aren’t moved by the shrill complaints of besieged celebrities; the idea of someone spending their life snapping unflattering, long-lens pictures of stars going about their everyday lives is still offensive to most people’s sense of decency. There’s also the perception that the job is easy and it lacks prestige. After all, snapping a photo of Cameron Diaz walking down Rodeo Drive without her makeup doesn’t seem to require much skill. Nor does the trade rank particularly high on the photojournalistic rung.
But believe it or not, not everyone can be a well-paid tabloid sharpshooter. Becoming a viable paparazzo actually requires a variety of skills, as it takes more than mere doggedness (although you will need that in spades) to succeed. The best celebrity photographers are equal parts glad-handers, sh*t-stirrers, independent businessmen, and secret agents. They cultivate a myriad of contacts and tightrope risky budgets, they are constantly on the make in a relentlessly competitive industry, and, yes, they actually have to know how to take a high-quality picture.
In the wake of the rare kind words I just threw their way, here are five things that you didn’t know about the paparazzi.
1- They have large networks of assistants
The general public’s widespread use of digital and cell phone cameras at movie premieres and galas has caused red-carpet celebrity shots to become a dime-a-dozen -- hence, they don’t sell for much more than that. Due to this intrusion on their traditional territory, successful paparazzi need to be as resourceful as possible in order to ensure that they can snag the rare candid shots that haul in the big bucks.
Therefore, the best paparazzi are now also the best connected, with networks of informants -- bodyguards, doormen, waiters, hairstylists, intimates, and even autograph hounds -- whom they cultivate or bribe in exchange for a tip about an elusive celebrity’s whereabouts. Noted paparazzo Mel Bouzad claimed to have nabbed $150,000-photos of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez together in Georgia after their breakup based on a tip from “Matt Damon's wife's hairdresser."
Find out the paparazzi's earning potential and their true power… Next >>
2- They can earn in the range of $250,000 a year
Paparazzi are so often viewed through a shady prism that it’s not widely known that they can rank among the best paid “journalists” in the world. In fact, while most established paparazzi earn a more modest $60,000 to $100,000 annually, quite a number of very successful paparazzi haul in the same income as your average medical specialist or corporate lawyer -- about $250,000 a year.
This salary doesn’t include the “big score” or one-time bonanzas like New York paparazzo Steve Sands’ reported $300,000 score from People magazine for pictures of Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin’s second child. Also, the market for a picture of Tom Cruise's and Katie Holmes' offspring reportedly reached seven figures. But aspiring photographers should note that, like in any profession, you have to work your way to the top. Unless you know Matt Damon’s wife’s hairdresser, entry-level positions generally pay about $3,000 per month.
3- Media savvy celebs share schedules with the paparazzi
Paparazzi commonly argue that though celebrities gripe endlessly about getting their pictures snapped every time they pick their noses, those same stars realize they need the paparazzi to ensure that they remain in the public eye and maintain their popularity. Some stars, at least partially, embrace this theory and have made a conscious decision to cultivate a more mutually beneficial relationship with their tabloid “friends.”
Common conciliatory acts include offers of temporary access or exclusives in exchange for a little privacy, and even celebs voluntarily coming out of homes to provide easier access for the paparazzi on stake-out duty. Some celebs actually work overtime to ensure that the paparazzi follow them around 24/7. Predictably, the talent-starved queen of all tabloid-anointed celebrities, Paris Hilton, has embraced this tactic by notoriously offering the paparazzi her schedule, ensuring a weekly parade of heavy-lidded, Jagermeister-addled, ”I’m about to retch in an alleyway” snapshots.
4- Paparazzi have organized "boycotts" of stars
Although they are historically on the wrong end of celebrity tongue-lashings and punches, the paparazzi have occasionally acted in tandem to eschew their usual state of victimhood. Witness the case of George Clooney, a notorious critic, after he blamed the paparazzi for causing Princess Diana’s fatal car crash in a 1997 interview. At his next public appearance at the premiere of 1997's The Peacemaker, the entire contingent of pissed-off paparazzi refused to take publicity shots of Clooney and booed him as he signed autographs for fans.
Clooney survived his freeze-out to become an even bigger star, but others have suffered long-term damage to their careers due to similar battles. Sharon Stone has had a running feud with the tabloids, and vocally backed a new privacy law aimed at stopping photographers from hounding celebrities. In response, the paparazzi has been ruthless in casting Stone in a poor light, including snapping an incriminating shot of her adopted son sleeping in a parked car -- under the chauffeur’s supervision -- as the star dined with a date.
They’ll go James Bond on you for a shot… Next >>
5- Their expenses can be enormous
The axiom that states that you have to spend money to make money certainly applies to the paparazzi. Photographers often have to shell out big bucks to get within camera range of a key celebrity sighting. Locked outside the gates of a swank star wedding or left ashore as a scandalous Hollywood romance blossoms at sea are mere obstacles to the determined paparazzo. It is common for the paparazzi to hire motorcyclists, helicopters, yachts, and even submarines to get in prime position for a clean -- and lucrative -- shot.
Yearly budgets aren’t publicized and the range depends on the size of the operation; one paparazzo estimated that the total expense of staking out Brad Pitt's and Angelina Jolie’s Paris apartment in the hopes of getting a picture of Shiloh would exceed $10,000 -- without any guarantee of return on the investment. In addition, pesky libel claims and restraining orders can eat away at earnings, so like the tabloid press they sell their wares to, independent paparazzi incorporate pricey lawsuit expenses into their budgets.
The paparazzi are endlessly fascinating because they so perfectly represent the double-edged sword of success in Hollywood. The lifestyle and money that come from fame and popularity is by all accounts pretty damn sweet, but the paparazzi serve as a prodding, aggravating check on that otherwise blissful existence. They also allow us regular folk to feel better about our lives by working up pity for the poor plight of paparazzi-tormented stars like Lindsay Lohan.
Although the paparazzi are almost universally criticized, their longstanding and increasing prominence is directly linked to the simple laws of supply and demand. In other words, the public has an insatiable appetite for all things celebrity and the tabloid photographers merely serve that market. Recent numbers indicate that the market continues to grow: While many magazines have recently suffered from stagnating sales, celebrity-focused operations like US Weekly and In Touch have seen their numbers soar.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Digital is the Best Ever!!!
I’ll be honest, I still live at home with my parents. There are many reasons why I like living at home: free food, free rent, and just this past week my parents got digital cable with HD on our big screen. So now I get that for free too. It is safe to say I have finally moved into the 21st. I never knew how clear the picture can be with digital cable. I was watching the Bucks game on Fox Sports HD and every now and then I would switch to regular Fox sports just to see the difference. Wow!!! I could see the sweat dripping off the players onto the court and I could see every little bump-grip on the basketball. It was amazing. When I would watch it on regular I could hardly see the crowd, but when it was on digital channel I could see every person all the way to the top of the arena. Then tonight I watched the college football game. I could see every blade of grass, even the missed patches the grounds crew forgot to cut. I noticed a little difference in the regular programming of the digital cable, but I would have to say watching digital mostly benefits those who watch sports. Lucky for me, my parents are huge sports fans.
Would the real Andy Griffith please stand up?
Again I am reminded that nothing entertains like the local news. I hope I'm not the only one who heard about the recent sasquatch or bigfoot sighting near Holy Hill. Indeed, some guy, whose job it is to clean up deer carcasses, said that some huge hairy beast jumped into the back of his pick-up and ran off with his roadkill. It's true that some tweekers out there make up stuff like this all the time, but for some reason TMJ4 decided that this story merited coverage on the ten o'clock report. The funny thing was that they didn't have anyone to interview. The lack of evidence is no surprise considering such lofty claims, but the only witness refused to be interviewed out of fear of being labeled a crazy fool. So there was this reporter out in the woods all by himself, in the dark, reporting live on an alleged bigfoot encounter. I hope the encounter really happened, but moreover, I hope TMJ4 does not consider blathering madmen and their moonshine induced hallucinations to be a reliable source for a news story.
There was also a story in the Journal Sentinel last saturday about Andy Griffith. Actually there was a story about both Andy Griffiths. Somewhere in Wisconsin, a man who was running for sheriff decided to legally change his name to Andrew Griffith. By assuming the identity of the renowned sheriff of Mayberry he had hoped to better his chances of winning the election. He lost the election and to add insult to injury he is being sued by none other than; Andy Griffith. If I was the guy being sued I wouldn't worry too much. I would just hire Ben Matlock to defend me in court. That crusty old S.O.B. never looses.
There was also a story in the Journal Sentinel last saturday about Andy Griffith. Actually there was a story about both Andy Griffiths. Somewhere in Wisconsin, a man who was running for sheriff decided to legally change his name to Andrew Griffith. By assuming the identity of the renowned sheriff of Mayberry he had hoped to better his chances of winning the election. He lost the election and to add insult to injury he is being sued by none other than; Andy Griffith. If I was the guy being sued I wouldn't worry too much. I would just hire Ben Matlock to defend me in court. That crusty old S.O.B. never looses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)