Saturday, March 31, 2007
cartoons
I was thinking about a lot of the provocative shows on TV, and I realized that quite a lot of them are cartoons, in spite of the fact that a lot of people don't take cartoons seriously. Maybe that's how shows such as Family Guy, The Simpsons, South Park (not exactly a cartoon, but cartoonish), and the Boondocks get away with what they do. I can't think of a lot of live shows that tackle issues head on the way some of these shows do. Maybe their cartoony look somehow allows them to deal with issues in a way that softens them since cartoons usually aren't taken too seriously here. Seems like most of em deserve more credit than they get. Way I figure it, if you don't take anyone or anything seriously, you can say more and get away with more. They definitely deserve more credit.
Friday, March 30, 2007
watching CNN all day sucks
So the receptionist at my work is on vacation and I have been sitting up front doing her stuff for the past two days. We just got new HD Flatscreen plasma TV's (not even sure what that really means) and it plays CNN all day long. I am not a big CNN watcher but I assumed that it was this big news station that covered all kinds of news, especially political. Well I happen to think that CNN sucks. They play the same news stories over and over and over again. I am really suprised. I thought that being a news station, they would cover more stories and current events than they do. I am especially surprised to find out that they cover celebrity news almost as much as real news. I'd like to hear more current events instead of hearing over and over again about how tornados hit yesterday and Gonzales is fighting for his job. I thought I'd never say this but thank god I actually have some work to do while I sit up here so that I can tune CNN out because if I have to hear about Britney Spears and Kevin Federline's divorce settlement one more time today, I think I'm gonna just walk out.
ok back to work!
ok back to work!
REAL NEWS OR FLUFF
The homepage on my home computer is Yahoo.com. I chose this as my homepage because Yahoo holds my email account and I like the layout of their page. It seems to be a good mix of links and news.
Almost every day there seems to be a news story about a suicide bombing in Iraq or somewhere else in the Middle East. Most recently there was one about 5 near-simultaneous suicide bombings that killed at least 122 people. Is this the featured story on Yahoo.com? No. A story about a Legoland re-creation of the Las Vegas strip at a California theme park is. To find the suicide bombing story at JSOnline.com you have to scroll down to the second story in world news. A worthless story about Bud Selig gets top billing at JSOnline.com.
So what gives? Is this more of the 'fluff sells' marketing approach that news outlets have been adopting to retain their audiences, or are we sick of seeing the same story over and over, and therefore it loses its newsworthiness? Probably both, but I still think the death of 122 people in one day in one city due to five suicide bombings is more important than fluff.
Maybe the newspapers are losing their audience because they don't report what's really going on in the world. Or because we've been bombarded with fluff stories, is this what we've been conditioned to want when we watch or read the news? I guess it's the same as asking what came first, the chicken or the egg?
I guess you just have to find a news outlet that agrees with you. I like CNN.com. It conveniently divides out stories into these sections: Latest, U.S., World, Technology, Entertainment, Politics, Law, Health, Science & Space, Travel, Education, Sports, and Business. This way one can ignore sports and entertainment because, while interesting and exciting, generally have about as much newsworthiness to me as a story about the weather. I take that back. The weather is more important to me than a story about whether Angelina Jolie adopted another foreign kid or not. But that's just me. . . .
Almost every day there seems to be a news story about a suicide bombing in Iraq or somewhere else in the Middle East. Most recently there was one about 5 near-simultaneous suicide bombings that killed at least 122 people. Is this the featured story on Yahoo.com? No. A story about a Legoland re-creation of the Las Vegas strip at a California theme park is. To find the suicide bombing story at JSOnline.com you have to scroll down to the second story in world news. A worthless story about Bud Selig gets top billing at JSOnline.com.
So what gives? Is this more of the 'fluff sells' marketing approach that news outlets have been adopting to retain their audiences, or are we sick of seeing the same story over and over, and therefore it loses its newsworthiness? Probably both, but I still think the death of 122 people in one day in one city due to five suicide bombings is more important than fluff.
Maybe the newspapers are losing their audience because they don't report what's really going on in the world. Or because we've been bombarded with fluff stories, is this what we've been conditioned to want when we watch or read the news? I guess it's the same as asking what came first, the chicken or the egg?
I guess you just have to find a news outlet that agrees with you. I like CNN.com. It conveniently divides out stories into these sections: Latest, U.S., World, Technology, Entertainment, Politics, Law, Health, Science & Space, Travel, Education, Sports, and Business. This way one can ignore sports and entertainment because, while interesting and exciting, generally have about as much newsworthiness to me as a story about the weather. I take that back. The weather is more important to me than a story about whether Angelina Jolie adopted another foreign kid or not. But that's just me. . . .
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Last night, like every other Wednesday night, I plopped myself down in front of the TV at 7 p.m. to tune into The CW's "America's Next Top Model." This is my second year watching the show, and I have to say I really enjoy it!
I know what most people think about the show. "Oh, it's just a bunch of anorexic, stuck-up women who think they're better than everyone else." I've heard these comments from many people who may or may not have ever watched the show. Even some of you in this class may be opposed to the idea of selecting a woman to become the next "top model." But, there are some things about this particular season that I find to be empowering to the "average" woman, if you will.
For anyone who does not know the basics of America's Next Top Model, I'll give a little background. Model Tyra Banks hosts the show in which aspiring models live in a house together and compete against eachother through a series of challenges, most often difficult and demanding photo shoots. Each week the judges review the day's photos and ultimately send one woman packing at the end of the episode.
Most of the women on the show are tall, probably 5'10"-ish and have very small frames. I'd have to guess the average women on the show weighs 125 or so.
However, this season, Tyra Banks and those involved with casting selected two "plus size" models to compete also. These women are significantly bigger than the other women in the competition, yet they are just as beautiful and talented. One model, Whitney, said she wears a size 8. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the average American woman wears a size 11-14. So, I don't necessarily agree that these women are "plus sized," but I am nonetheless proud that the show is beginning to represent women of all sizes.
This is really a huge accomplishment. I'm not saying that the thin women aren't average either. Women come in all shapes and sizes, and having confidence is yourself is what really makes you attractive. But, compared to the shrinking size of models nowadays, seeing a show representing women of different sizes, and even different races and ethnicities for that matter, is good for society.
As a result of watching this show, I've come to understand the modeling business a bit more. Instead of thinking of modeling as an easy endeavor, I've seen how difficult it is to convey an emotion for a photo just through your eyes. Seriously, look in the mirror and try to be happy without smiling-it isn't easy! (but it is pretty amusing)
I'd encourage people to check the show out if you don't already. I'm not saying it's a feminist revolution, but it's a good show that may keep you interested. It has all the drama and backstabbing of reality TV too, which is something we all love.
I know what most people think about the show. "Oh, it's just a bunch of anorexic, stuck-up women who think they're better than everyone else." I've heard these comments from many people who may or may not have ever watched the show. Even some of you in this class may be opposed to the idea of selecting a woman to become the next "top model." But, there are some things about this particular season that I find to be empowering to the "average" woman, if you will.
For anyone who does not know the basics of America's Next Top Model, I'll give a little background. Model Tyra Banks hosts the show in which aspiring models live in a house together and compete against eachother through a series of challenges, most often difficult and demanding photo shoots. Each week the judges review the day's photos and ultimately send one woman packing at the end of the episode.
Most of the women on the show are tall, probably 5'10"-ish and have very small frames. I'd have to guess the average women on the show weighs 125 or so.
However, this season, Tyra Banks and those involved with casting selected two "plus size" models to compete also. These women are significantly bigger than the other women in the competition, yet they are just as beautiful and talented. One model, Whitney, said she wears a size 8. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the average American woman wears a size 11-14. So, I don't necessarily agree that these women are "plus sized," but I am nonetheless proud that the show is beginning to represent women of all sizes.
This is really a huge accomplishment. I'm not saying that the thin women aren't average either. Women come in all shapes and sizes, and having confidence is yourself is what really makes you attractive. But, compared to the shrinking size of models nowadays, seeing a show representing women of different sizes, and even different races and ethnicities for that matter, is good for society.
As a result of watching this show, I've come to understand the modeling business a bit more. Instead of thinking of modeling as an easy endeavor, I've seen how difficult it is to convey an emotion for a photo just through your eyes. Seriously, look in the mirror and try to be happy without smiling-it isn't easy! (but it is pretty amusing)
I'd encourage people to check the show out if you don't already. I'm not saying it's a feminist revolution, but it's a good show that may keep you interested. It has all the drama and backstabbing of reality TV too, which is something we all love.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Search for the Next Doll...hahahahah!
I watched my first, and last, episode of "The Search for the Next Doll." This show is on The CW and it is about adding a member to the now extremely commercial group The Pussycat Dolls. This show, in a nutshell, is The CW's attempt to reel in some of the MTV audience for "Making The Band." The Pussycat dolls started out as a dance troupe... and in 2005 were nominated for a GRAMMY (that alone should prove how pointless Grammy’s are).
This show in particular is one of the worst ‘compete for fame’ shows that networks have come up with. At least on ‘Idol,’ you don’t get constant drama or 10 minutes spent on “But you said I dance like a drag queen…waaahhh.”
The classic use of the “confessional camera” permeated every segment of the show. When someone got kicked off she told
Oh like you never stay in on Saturday nights to watch SNL. :)
I love Saturday Night Live. I love the old casts from the 70s, the new cast today and everything in between. I understand that the bad skits in the show greatly out numbers the good, but I watch nonetheless. I am a fan. Since I am still pretty young and most, if not all, of my friends are out on Saturday nights, what usually happens is that I’m the only one who has watched the latest episode. This doesn’t stop me from asking them if they saw the last episode. They usually say “no” which prompts me to start explaining one or more skits that I found amusing. They usually sit there looking at me like I’m crazy, and I end the failed explanation by saying, “Well, I guess you had to see it to get it”. It’s embarrassing for more than one reason. So, now what I do is, instead of trying to explain to them what happened, I just go on youtube or myspace and find the video. I post it on to their myspace page so that they can enjoy the beauty of what I like to call, SNL. It’s great for everyone involved. Plus, I get to watch the clip over again. It makes me happy.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
CELL PHONES
Anyone else notice how huge cell phones have become in video media today?
I recently watched "The Departed" and was appalled and kind-of disgusted at how much screen time cell phones got. It seemed like every thirty seconds someone was talking on the phone, sending a text message, or receiving a text message. I bet if you deleted all the cell phones scenes in the movie it might be 20 minutes shorter.
This is also getting to be an annoyance in TV as well. Just take any reality show on MTV as an example.
Well, I guess as technology changes, each new technology gets its fifteen minutes of fame. I remember when cordless phones and answering machines were prominent in movies. Then it was beepers for a while. Now it's cell phones and PDAs, etc.
But it seems to be more exploitative now, more of a product placement thing than a part of the screenplay or story.
Has product placement gotten out of hand in today's media? I think so. It's bad enough we have commercials in TV and endless trailers in the movie theaters, but now we get commercials and trailers, and tons of subconscious ads during the movie. It's gross. I think it needs to be toned down big-time.
I recently watched "The Departed" and was appalled and kind-of disgusted at how much screen time cell phones got. It seemed like every thirty seconds someone was talking on the phone, sending a text message, or receiving a text message. I bet if you deleted all the cell phones scenes in the movie it might be 20 minutes shorter.
This is also getting to be an annoyance in TV as well. Just take any reality show on MTV as an example.
Well, I guess as technology changes, each new technology gets its fifteen minutes of fame. I remember when cordless phones and answering machines were prominent in movies. Then it was beepers for a while. Now it's cell phones and PDAs, etc.
But it seems to be more exploitative now, more of a product placement thing than a part of the screenplay or story.
Has product placement gotten out of hand in today's media? I think so. It's bad enough we have commercials in TV and endless trailers in the movie theaters, but now we get commercials and trailers, and tons of subconscious ads during the movie. It's gross. I think it needs to be toned down big-time.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Irony? Anti-Drug Commercials Send Mixed Messages
I've been amused by the latest anti-drug commercials.
Does anyone else feel as though the tactics employed are a bit ironic? Everything from the deranged carnival music to the entire 'I've let my four year-old toddler fiddle with my marker set' scheme screams trippy.
It just seems as though those behind the anti-drug campaign are giving kids a mixed message. In order to fully appreciate the anti-drug message, I have to be on drugs to grasp the beauty of this commercial?
At first, I though it was just me, but then I stumbled across this site. It seems as though some other viewers are more than slightly confused by these commercials.
Does anyone else feel as though the tactics employed are a bit ironic? Everything from the deranged carnival music to the entire 'I've let my four year-old toddler fiddle with my marker set' scheme screams trippy.
It just seems as though those behind the anti-drug campaign are giving kids a mixed message. In order to fully appreciate the anti-drug message, I have to be on drugs to grasp the beauty of this commercial?
At first, I though it was just me, but then I stumbled across this site. It seems as though some other viewers are more than slightly confused by these commercials.
Friday, March 23, 2007
XM Radio
XM Radio
I just bought a new car and it came with 3 months of XM Radio for free. According to Wikipedia, XM Satellite Radio Holdings (XM) is one of two satellite radio services in the United States and Canada, along with SIRIUS Satellite Radio. XM provides pay-for-service radio, analogous to cable television. Its service includes 73 different music channels, 39 news, sports, talk and entertainment channels, 21 regional traffic and weather channels and 23 play-by-play sports channels.
So, knowing basicly nothing about XM Radio except what you guys read above from the Wikipedia defination and also what the car salesmen told me in his three minute pitch about it, I am finding it hard to acutally use the XM Radio. I find myself playing around with it for afew mintues but then switching back to regular radio, using a CD or hooking up my MP3 player. I think that it is just easier for me to stick with technologies I am use to. I mean with XM I am having trouble finding the station that plays music I like. With traditional radio, I know what stations I like already, its just easier.
Now, I know this seems crazy and I know XM has lots of pirks like no commericals, etc. Also, everyone I talk to that has XM loves it and say they would never go back to standard radio. I just think the adjustment to it is hard. Also, I think that at this point in my life I can see myself paying $15 dollors a month or more for radio service once the 3 free months are up.
I just bought a new car and it came with 3 months of XM Radio for free. According to Wikipedia, XM Satellite Radio Holdings (XM) is one of two satellite radio services in the United States and Canada, along with SIRIUS Satellite Radio. XM provides pay-for-service radio, analogous to cable television. Its service includes 73 different music channels, 39 news, sports, talk and entertainment channels, 21 regional traffic and weather channels and 23 play-by-play sports channels.
So, knowing basicly nothing about XM Radio except what you guys read above from the Wikipedia defination and also what the car salesmen told me in his three minute pitch about it, I am finding it hard to acutally use the XM Radio. I find myself playing around with it for afew mintues but then switching back to regular radio, using a CD or hooking up my MP3 player. I think that it is just easier for me to stick with technologies I am use to. I mean with XM I am having trouble finding the station that plays music I like. With traditional radio, I know what stations I like already, its just easier.
Now, I know this seems crazy and I know XM has lots of pirks like no commericals, etc. Also, everyone I talk to that has XM loves it and say they would never go back to standard radio. I just think the adjustment to it is hard. Also, I think that at this point in my life I can see myself paying $15 dollors a month or more for radio service once the 3 free months are up.
I wish MySpace was Completely Useless, So I Wouldn't Have to Go There Anymore!
Ok...there has been a lot of blogs about Facebook and MySpace lately. I have both, but my desire to constantly check them has dropped to almost zero. When I first signed up, I checked them both every day, multiple times a day. Honestly, I probably spent more time crafting and looking at my own profile than other people’s profiles (I am self-centered, I guess).
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Challenge YouTube
Well all know what uisw happening to YouTube and how it is being sued by Viacom for copyrighted material. Well, the other media gaints on now teaming up to challenge the all powerful YouTube.
A story was featured today on NPR's all things considered about how the parent companies of NBC and FOX are planning to create a media platform in which they would feature televison shows and movies that are copyrighted by NBC Universial and News Corp. Another intresting thing is this platform would be availiable to and Yahoo, AOL, MSN, or Myspace users, making this new media open to basically all interent users. The parent companies also said they would make their material able to viewed on YouTube if the price is right. For the complete story. . .
kari.
A story was featured today on NPR's all things considered about how the parent companies of NBC and FOX are planning to create a media platform in which they would feature televison shows and movies that are copyrighted by NBC Universial and News Corp. Another intresting thing is this platform would be availiable to and Yahoo, AOL, MSN, or Myspace users, making this new media open to basically all interent users. The parent companies also said they would make their material able to viewed on YouTube if the price is right. For the complete story. . .
kari.
VIACOM! AIEEEE!
Sorry.
I found this Daily Show parody of Laguna Beach, but since Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, the video had been removed due to Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube.
I actually think it's a poor decision for Viacom to include The Daily Show in this suit because the show is not released on DVD (the exception being the "Indecision: 2004" set it released) and I find a lot of the clips I missed on YouTube if I missed the television broadcast. If anything, YouTube is advertising for the program by allowing its content to be instantly accessible.
The Comedy Central website has a lot of clips to watch, but it certainly does not have the number that YouTube provided. Oh well. Viacom would rather take down the more convenient source than actually offer a better product themselves, which usually seems to be the case. Lawsuits are probably cheaper than developing a better product anyway, especially when you have your own team of attorneys.
I found this Daily Show parody of Laguna Beach, but since Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, the video had been removed due to Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube.
I actually think it's a poor decision for Viacom to include The Daily Show in this suit because the show is not released on DVD (the exception being the "Indecision: 2004" set it released) and I find a lot of the clips I missed on YouTube if I missed the television broadcast. If anything, YouTube is advertising for the program by allowing its content to be instantly accessible.
The Comedy Central website has a lot of clips to watch, but it certainly does not have the number that YouTube provided. Oh well. Viacom would rather take down the more convenient source than actually offer a better product themselves, which usually seems to be the case. Lawsuits are probably cheaper than developing a better product anyway, especially when you have your own team of attorneys.
Monday, March 19, 2007
So, I do not know much about facebook at all but here are my feelings about it for what they are worth.
I don’t have it and I don’t want to have it.
People are always like I tried to find you in facebook and I couldn’t…then I tell them that I don’t have it. They act shocked and tell me I need to sign up.
Everyone I talk to says that they have it because it allows them to keep in contact with friends but I think it is a lot more than that. I mean people have hundreds of people on it that they don’t even really know and even if they do know them they probably are not friends with them. I think it’s just away for people to be able to find out more information about you then they need to know. For example, a year ago I was sitting in a class with a friend and some girl came up to my friend and knew who he was and about him…they had never met in person or ever talked before but she had searched for people in the class and recognized him from his picture. This is just too much for me. I don’t want people to know who I am, where I am etc.
Now again, I don’t know much about how facebook works. So, maybe I am way off here but I guess until I learn more about it…I will be staying away.
I don’t have it and I don’t want to have it.
People are always like I tried to find you in facebook and I couldn’t…then I tell them that I don’t have it. They act shocked and tell me I need to sign up.
Everyone I talk to says that they have it because it allows them to keep in contact with friends but I think it is a lot more than that. I mean people have hundreds of people on it that they don’t even really know and even if they do know them they probably are not friends with them. I think it’s just away for people to be able to find out more information about you then they need to know. For example, a year ago I was sitting in a class with a friend and some girl came up to my friend and knew who he was and about him…they had never met in person or ever talked before but she had searched for people in the class and recognized him from his picture. This is just too much for me. I don’t want people to know who I am, where I am etc.
Now again, I don’t know much about how facebook works. So, maybe I am way off here but I guess until I learn more about it…I will be staying away.
Friday, March 16, 2007
What? A Blog?
So recently I was at work doing some of my homework and I was telling my co-workers that I should really post a blog for this class. To my amazement, most of them did not even know what a blog was! I had to explain what posting a blog was all about. This is really stunning in this day and age. People use myspace and facebook nearly everyday and they do not know how to use a blog. Even one our regulars at the restauartant that I work at, who is a suave business owner, did not know what a blog was, but yet at the same time as telling my this he was looking at music videos on myspace. This brings me to a question. Is media there just for intake and analysis or are we becoming a culture in which is becoming o.k. to particpate in the media that we see? We dont have to keep our comments to ourselves anymore. We tell producers and movie/music studios what we think without writing a letter. We can just tell our friends and everyone who comes across our review or blog. I think that some people are ready for the participating in the media that we see and some others are not quite there yet, but they are learning.
kari-
kari-
Nostalgia
You know, these days I run the risk of feeling nostalgic for "the good old days", which I feel way too young for. I just realized that a lot of time me and my friends usually invite each other to events using facebook and myspace instead of calling and talking to each other. Usually we don't even talk about the event on the phone; we message each other. Ergo I caught myself feeling nostalgic for just a few years ago when I actually talked to many of my friends on the phone. And at 20 I feel a little young to be nostalgic, though many people seem to be feeling that way about the 90s already. I guess anything feels great once it's gone! But it's almost mind boggling to think about how big myspace has grown. Everyone has a profile on it, and every movie and tv show seems to have a page. Furthermore, it seems that any show or music group that's popular or just promoted on myspace earns a good profit. It makes me wonder what else will happen with it in the next few years.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
300
myspace is wasting my time
Ok, so i thought it as time to stop being shy and post a blog. I spend about three hours of my day online. Usually researching something for school when i'm here. But, there is a darker side. That side of my wasted internet experience is MYSPACE. IF you dont have a myspace im sure you know what its about. Posting blogs, sending messages to friend and etc. I have recently noticed that a good hour of my day is spent deleting random spam send to me on myspace. That means im wasting about a days worth of time on myspace every week. Is this time i want to waste. NO! But i keep my myspace to try and do the same thing all these other spammers are doing. I want to sell music. Seems easy enough. Put music online, create page, sell music. It's a tough call. Do i accept the enemy and learn to deal with the wasted time for the positive aspects of selling my band?? Or, do i freak out and complain to the class blog. Hopefully none of you have wasted as much time as i have deleting myspace spam. If you have i salute you!
Here's an example of my daily 100 messages
COCAiTLiN™'s Comment:
"Ok I know this is hard to believe but you remember seeing that message and bulliten a little while ago about the peniz pills to make it bigger? Well.... Just like you I am sure, thought it was funny and a joke, but today I find out that my own brother Aaron has been taking the pills since he heard about them on myspace and yes, they actually did work on him, he hooked me up with some and its been 2 weeks now already see a big difference and I ordered nine more bottles from YMBOB.COM
Yes My brother is living proof that they do work, he never used to get girls, now since a few months he is all popular with the girls in his class and work too. They made his saussage grow a full 3 inches in hardly any time, they really work fast on any guy.
If you order some now from YMBOB.com you will even get a full money back guarentee, so don't worry about them not working on you as well as they did on my bro and starting to on me as well.Tell them I sent you as a friend if they ask Just copy and paste this address into your browser and hook yourself up today YMBOB.COM
G88486158"
thanks for listening,
mike
Here's an example of my daily 100 messages
COCAiTLiN™'s Comment:
"Ok I know this is hard to believe but you remember seeing that message and bulliten a little while ago about the peniz pills to make it bigger? Well.... Just like you I am sure, thought it was funny and a joke, but today I find out that my own brother Aaron has been taking the pills since he heard about them on myspace and yes, they actually did work on him, he hooked me up with some and its been 2 weeks now already see a big difference and I ordered nine more bottles from YMBOB.COM
Yes My brother is living proof that they do work, he never used to get girls, now since a few months he is all popular with the girls in his class and work too. They made his saussage grow a full 3 inches in hardly any time, they really work fast on any guy.
If you order some now from YMBOB.com you will even get a full money back guarentee, so don't worry about them not working on you as well as they did on my bro and starting to on me as well.Tell them I sent you as a friend if they ask Just copy and paste this address into your browser and hook yourself up today YMBOB.COM
G88486158"
thanks for listening,
mike
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
I Suppose Nothing Lasts Forever
Though I'm not an American Idol fan, I found this article interesting.
Maybe the big shots behind AI will come up with a twist to renew the show's fanbase?
Oh, Fox, I can only wonder...
Maybe the big shots behind AI will come up with a twist to renew the show's fanbase?
Oh, Fox, I can only wonder...
Guilty Pleasure
Ok, so by writing this blog, I’m about to admit to the world my guilty pleasure. Please try not to judge me. In fact, there is a good chance you yourself have dabbled in this same guilty pleasure. So, the other day I went down to Chicago to see a concert. It was a Justin Timberlake concert to be exact. There…I said it. It was awesome. Anyways, there was about a twenty minute intermission when Timberland, a famous music producer/artist, came out and performed. His “performance”, however, involved him spinning/mixing records while, at the same time, a series of videos and images were being shown on the big screen. It reminded me a lot of some of the videos we’ve watched in class. (For example, the “No Scrubs” remix we watched) He mixed together a lot of the artist’s songs, which he produced, to make one long music video. It was really a lot of fun to watch, and very entertaining. This is clearly an example of the remix culture we seem to be immersed in today. A culture where it has become accepted to take forms of media and improve, change, basically “remix” it. So, now the world knows that I heart Justin Timberlake, but can you really blame me? He’s dreamy. (Yes, I did just use the word dreamy). Could this entry get any more embarrassing?
Monday, March 12, 2007
CARTOON MOVIES
I read Andy’s entry for the movie “300” and I couldn’t help but also comment on this movie. I’m familiar with Frank Miller’s work (Sin City), and based on Andy’s comments—and trailers I’ve seen for the movie—I can predict with confidence exactly the type of movie it is.
It disturbs me, because with the advent of CGI (computer-generated image) effects, the movie industry is moving very close to eliminating real sets in their movies. There seem to be more and more movies per year that are, for all intents and purposes, cartoons with human actors. This, for me, ruins all believability in the storyline—even the movie itself.
Has anyone seen “A Scanner Darkly.” If so you know it’s a sci-fi movie that was filmed with real sets and real actors and then changed to a cartoon after-the-fact. That one blew my mind. I was asking myself after I watched it why would any film-maker want to ruin a perfectly good movie by doing this? It took away all the emotion and realism of an otherwise intriguing story and seemingly good acting.
Anyway, I won’t be rushing off to the theater to watch “300”—the cartoon-film with human actors. Maybe Hollywood will grow a brain and realize no one wants to see this crap and that’s why tickets sales dropped off in the past five years. Amazingly, I think it was the top movie for it's opening weekend (which says nothing for a film's longevity), which means people are going to see it, which means as long as people keep going to see these crap movies, Hollywood will keep making them. It's a consumer-perpetuated cycle. I, for one, won't contribute.
HOLLYWOOD: No one wants to see cartoons with human actors. Stop gypping us theater-goers and make real movies, with real sets, real effects—and real actors. Oh yeah, you haven’t eliminated actors yet. Well, before you do, let it be known that we want you to keep those, too.
It disturbs me, because with the advent of CGI (computer-generated image) effects, the movie industry is moving very close to eliminating real sets in their movies. There seem to be more and more movies per year that are, for all intents and purposes, cartoons with human actors. This, for me, ruins all believability in the storyline—even the movie itself.
Has anyone seen “A Scanner Darkly.” If so you know it’s a sci-fi movie that was filmed with real sets and real actors and then changed to a cartoon after-the-fact. That one blew my mind. I was asking myself after I watched it why would any film-maker want to ruin a perfectly good movie by doing this? It took away all the emotion and realism of an otherwise intriguing story and seemingly good acting.
Anyway, I won’t be rushing off to the theater to watch “300”—the cartoon-film with human actors. Maybe Hollywood will grow a brain and realize no one wants to see this crap and that’s why tickets sales dropped off in the past five years. Amazingly, I think it was the top movie for it's opening weekend (which says nothing for a film's longevity), which means people are going to see it, which means as long as people keep going to see these crap movies, Hollywood will keep making them. It's a consumer-perpetuated cycle. I, for one, won't contribute.
HOLLYWOOD: No one wants to see cartoons with human actors. Stop gypping us theater-goers and make real movies, with real sets, real effects—and real actors. Oh yeah, you haven’t eliminated actors yet. Well, before you do, let it be known that we want you to keep those, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)