Apparently "coneing" is the new "planking." This is stupid on so many fucking levels, these are levels of stupid I wasn't sure existed. I now have incontrovertible proof that stupidity is a fractal, because of this new fact. I don't even know what "coneing" even is, and I have no interest in finding out.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what it is, it's either gonna be more, or less, or equal to how stupid planking was/is. It's just another thing people do to while away the time while they wait for love or death or taxes, whatever comes first. I mean, I write a blog complaining about other human beings instead of doing something productive, so it's not as if I'm in a privileged position where I can pass judgement on the validity to activities. I'm gonna judge the shit out of you, I personally find planking to be the dumbest thing out, but that's not to say I'm any more or less lame. Relax, mere mortals, plank on.
What does cause my eye to do that unhealthy twitching thing is the idea that "x" is the new "y". It pisses me off because, for one, it's never true. Ever. Like it or not, every fad, every passing interest anyone has, is unique. Yeah, sure, everyone is leaning over the shoulders of the past and copying ideas from yesteryear, but that's just the human condition, you can't not do that. You can be a pretentious snob and palm off any new idea as underneath you because it's just "the new x," but what does that achieve? Planking might be stupid, but the new thing might be alright. Look at Pokemon, that shit is still fun.
That's pretty petty, though. It's really your prerogative how you do anything at all, ever, and if you want to ignore a fad, go nuts. I'm doing it right now. My real problem is how music/film/art/food/anything critics feel that it's a valid comparison or evaluation of anything. I've heard bands called "the new Radiohead," "the new Nirvana" and "the new Replacements," but does that provide any critique, evaluation or new information about the group? Nope, it just provides people a familiar name in which to cram their new experiences into an old box.
We ran out of genres a while back, and so rather than describing experiences via arbitrary words, we now describe them as a new version of an old one. Is this progress? I don't even know. Fuck's sake, journalists, do your job right.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Devil's Advocate Time
Amy Winehouse died. Apparently she went off the rails again. I'm a little bummed that she's a member of the 27 club, mostly because everyone neglects to mention Jeremy Michael Ward in that list. Anyway, advocacy of Satan:
I understand it's really depressing to see news of a drunk dying knock a legitimate tragedy like the one happening in Norway off page one, but there are a lot of reasons for why this happened, and part of the blame falls on the people bitching about it. A quick breakdown from a 2nd year Journalism student:
1) News only sells if it's local. I know this is becoming a tad obsolete in the age of the internet, but for the most part, people's interest in news is almost directly related to its proximity to them. Amy Winehouse is a pop singer from an English speaking country who got some pretty decent airplay on our radios and sold albums and concerts pretty steadily over here. Norway is at the other end of the earth. As harsh as it is, when you don't filter your news yourself, you get drip fed the stuff that's going to play on your mind more. For the person with only a fleeting interest in global events, stories sell more and links get more hits when the news is local, and sadly, most people only have a passing interest in the world they live in. Better education and the ease in which we can find news ourselves may buck the trend, but old media is dying a stubborn death.
2) The suspect they have in Norway was on our side. And by "our" I of course mean the owners, editors and investors in news outlets. The money guys who control what we hear. If he was a Muslim extremist, this shit would be plastered everywhere, you couldn't move for hearing about it. Fact is, he's a white, conservative Christian. Rupert Murdoch (as if he doesn't have enough problems heh heh heh) and all those of his ilk are, at present, tugging their collars and shooting each other worried looks. Religious, right wing conservatism has suffered a lot of PR hits recently, and this one is a really big one. A nation of generally calm, secular, left leaning liberals suffering a tragedy at the hands of a conservative whackjob? Makes it really difficult to play the "traditional values" or "God is love" cards. Needless to say, this flies directly in the face of both the political dichotomy and the us vs. them mentality vis the War on Terror that news organisations are trying to feed, and so it'll get slowly, but surely, phased out of our collective discourse.
3) People are talking about Winehouse. Even if you're bitching about it, you're still talking about it. Even if you're posting a facebook status (or... a blog post... sigh...) bitching about why Norway isn't getting as much cover as Winehouse, you're still drawing people's attention to the fact that something happened to Amy Winehouse, and if people don't know what that is, they'll look it up. Editors and publishers realise this, and so pushing big news out for vapid news appeals to idiots who want vapid news, and stirs the pot resulting in more interest in both stories, not just the serious one. Of course, there are steps that can be taken to curb the trend...
Stop paying attention to it. For the love of god. I realise it's incredibly frustrating to see stuff like a celebrity news and reality television get more coverage than serious global issues, but don't draw attention to it. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing the industry I'm trying to enter play dumb to sell copies, but with this one final twitch I want to leave it dead. By not drawing any attention to her death, by making it seem like there is no interest, by letting the story go unread and un-linked, you do more to change the face of news reporting than bitching ever could. News organisations don't care about whining, they care about interest and attention, even bad attention.
It's that simple. Let the proper stories flourish while the fluff fades into unheard obscurity. Create an environment where the only news that's marketable is actual news. If this meme gets widespread enough, it is possible that the face of news reporting changes completely and becomes serious again. Maybe we could get news to a place where I'm OK with paying for it? It could happen.
I understand it's really depressing to see news of a drunk dying knock a legitimate tragedy like the one happening in Norway off page one, but there are a lot of reasons for why this happened, and part of the blame falls on the people bitching about it. A quick breakdown from a 2nd year Journalism student:
1) News only sells if it's local. I know this is becoming a tad obsolete in the age of the internet, but for the most part, people's interest in news is almost directly related to its proximity to them. Amy Winehouse is a pop singer from an English speaking country who got some pretty decent airplay on our radios and sold albums and concerts pretty steadily over here. Norway is at the other end of the earth. As harsh as it is, when you don't filter your news yourself, you get drip fed the stuff that's going to play on your mind more. For the person with only a fleeting interest in global events, stories sell more and links get more hits when the news is local, and sadly, most people only have a passing interest in the world they live in. Better education and the ease in which we can find news ourselves may buck the trend, but old media is dying a stubborn death.
2) The suspect they have in Norway was on our side. And by "our" I of course mean the owners, editors and investors in news outlets. The money guys who control what we hear. If he was a Muslim extremist, this shit would be plastered everywhere, you couldn't move for hearing about it. Fact is, he's a white, conservative Christian. Rupert Murdoch (as if he doesn't have enough problems heh heh heh) and all those of his ilk are, at present, tugging their collars and shooting each other worried looks. Religious, right wing conservatism has suffered a lot of PR hits recently, and this one is a really big one. A nation of generally calm, secular, left leaning liberals suffering a tragedy at the hands of a conservative whackjob? Makes it really difficult to play the "traditional values" or "God is love" cards. Needless to say, this flies directly in the face of both the political dichotomy and the us vs. them mentality vis the War on Terror that news organisations are trying to feed, and so it'll get slowly, but surely, phased out of our collective discourse.
3) People are talking about Winehouse. Even if you're bitching about it, you're still talking about it. Even if you're posting a facebook status (or... a blog post... sigh...) bitching about why Norway isn't getting as much cover as Winehouse, you're still drawing people's attention to the fact that something happened to Amy Winehouse, and if people don't know what that is, they'll look it up. Editors and publishers realise this, and so pushing big news out for vapid news appeals to idiots who want vapid news, and stirs the pot resulting in more interest in both stories, not just the serious one. Of course, there are steps that can be taken to curb the trend...
Stop paying attention to it. For the love of god. I realise it's incredibly frustrating to see stuff like a celebrity news and reality television get more coverage than serious global issues, but don't draw attention to it. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing the industry I'm trying to enter play dumb to sell copies, but with this one final twitch I want to leave it dead. By not drawing any attention to her death, by making it seem like there is no interest, by letting the story go unread and un-linked, you do more to change the face of news reporting than bitching ever could. News organisations don't care about whining, they care about interest and attention, even bad attention.
It's that simple. Let the proper stories flourish while the fluff fades into unheard obscurity. Create an environment where the only news that's marketable is actual news. If this meme gets widespread enough, it is possible that the face of news reporting changes completely and becomes serious again. Maybe we could get news to a place where I'm OK with paying for it? It could happen.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Hangover 2 Review
This is really superfluous, it's been out for ages and frankly, does anyone care? We all knew exactly what it'd be like, and if you didn't, well there's something wrong with you. Regardless, I post my first in donkeys because it's obvious and easy.
I liked the first installment in what I really hope doesn't become a franchise. Yeah, it was purile, it was lowbrow and it was never trying to be a classic. It shamelessly pandered to the guys who liked Dude, Where's My Car? But let's be fair, the character of Alan is unique enough to make the movie worthy of note by itself, and the fact that everyone who saw the movie said some variation of "OMG we totally do shit like that!" (fun fact, you probably don't) or "man, I want my bachelor party to be like that!" (although I don't know why you would, the guy who was getting married missed all the fun and got a vicious sunburn, so really it was his friends who scored) meant it was always going to be a success. Be a cynic here, that film was always going to go gangbusters. It was well written enough to appeal to pretty much everyone except people who dislike it on principle, for example my scriptwriting tutor this semester just past. Come get me, film students.
So, following up a success, you've really got two options:
1) Follow the formula of the original very closely, but try and amplify the aspects that made it successful in the first place.
2) Change the formula and try to make the follow-up as good as the original in its own right, not just piggybacking on previous successes.
If you have a pulse, you probably knew, without knowing anything else about the film, which option the producers were gonna take on this one. Kid A or Ritual de lo Habitual, this ain't (woo music references woo). It may come as a surprise to you, but this doesn't piss me off very much at all; if you went into this movie expecting anything other than a rehashing of the first film in a more extreme setting, you're a moron.
Which leads us to the inevitable bagging out of the film. Let me say before I tear into it, though, it was funny. It was very funny. It was worth the money spent on the ticket (my ticket was bought for me, but I spent 9 pounds at the candy bar, so it levels out, maybe? I don't care, piss off). Go see it if you have nothing better to do.
BUT! Fuck they dropped the ball on this one. The character of Alan went from being an interesting, eccentric individual to a set-piece manchild. The original Alan came off as a slightly tapped but otherwise functional human being. I mean, think about it. He was able to successfully count cards, carry out a drug deal and basically navigate social situations. The Alan in this film is completely inept at virtually everything he does. I know this seems petty, but when I wasn't laughing at something he had done, I was wishing the scene was over because he was pissing me off. It ended up being about 50/50.
Also, there's following a formula and then there's just flat out making the same film. I could wager that, if played side by side, the scenes would sync up almost scene for scene. Of course, they had to try and top themselves somehow, so how do they do it? More boobs, a few penises, lots more swearing and some overt references to buttsex between two men. Oh, and a monkey. Yeah, sure, it's set in Bangkok so it was always going to have some references to ladyboys, but seriously? There's such a thing as trying too hard. It didn't really sparkle like the first film, it was more an unpleasant glare.
Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm annoyed because they wrote a character differently to how I would have liked and tried a little harder to offend me. If my pettiness is surprising, I don't know what to tell you. I study Arts and Communications and practice being judgemental for fun. If you need some sort of succinct rating system, how about "it was pretty OK" stars out of ten? It wasn't a waste of cash, but it's probably not worth a repeat viewing until it's a weekly at the video shop. Alternatively, just download it. It wouldn't be a total waste of disc space.
I liked the first installment in what I really hope doesn't become a franchise. Yeah, it was purile, it was lowbrow and it was never trying to be a classic. It shamelessly pandered to the guys who liked Dude, Where's My Car? But let's be fair, the character of Alan is unique enough to make the movie worthy of note by itself, and the fact that everyone who saw the movie said some variation of "OMG we totally do shit like that!" (fun fact, you probably don't) or "man, I want my bachelor party to be like that!" (although I don't know why you would, the guy who was getting married missed all the fun and got a vicious sunburn, so really it was his friends who scored) meant it was always going to be a success. Be a cynic here, that film was always going to go gangbusters. It was well written enough to appeal to pretty much everyone except people who dislike it on principle, for example my scriptwriting tutor this semester just past. Come get me, film students.
So, following up a success, you've really got two options:
1) Follow the formula of the original very closely, but try and amplify the aspects that made it successful in the first place.
2) Change the formula and try to make the follow-up as good as the original in its own right, not just piggybacking on previous successes.
If you have a pulse, you probably knew, without knowing anything else about the film, which option the producers were gonna take on this one. Kid A or Ritual de lo Habitual, this ain't (woo music references woo). It may come as a surprise to you, but this doesn't piss me off very much at all; if you went into this movie expecting anything other than a rehashing of the first film in a more extreme setting, you're a moron.
Which leads us to the inevitable bagging out of the film. Let me say before I tear into it, though, it was funny. It was very funny. It was worth the money spent on the ticket (my ticket was bought for me, but I spent 9 pounds at the candy bar, so it levels out, maybe? I don't care, piss off). Go see it if you have nothing better to do.
BUT! Fuck they dropped the ball on this one. The character of Alan went from being an interesting, eccentric individual to a set-piece manchild. The original Alan came off as a slightly tapped but otherwise functional human being. I mean, think about it. He was able to successfully count cards, carry out a drug deal and basically navigate social situations. The Alan in this film is completely inept at virtually everything he does. I know this seems petty, but when I wasn't laughing at something he had done, I was wishing the scene was over because he was pissing me off. It ended up being about 50/50.
Also, there's following a formula and then there's just flat out making the same film. I could wager that, if played side by side, the scenes would sync up almost scene for scene. Of course, they had to try and top themselves somehow, so how do they do it? More boobs, a few penises, lots more swearing and some overt references to buttsex between two men. Oh, and a monkey. Yeah, sure, it's set in Bangkok so it was always going to have some references to ladyboys, but seriously? There's such a thing as trying too hard. It didn't really sparkle like the first film, it was more an unpleasant glare.
Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm annoyed because they wrote a character differently to how I would have liked and tried a little harder to offend me. If my pettiness is surprising, I don't know what to tell you. I study Arts and Communications and practice being judgemental for fun. If you need some sort of succinct rating system, how about "it was pretty OK" stars out of ten? It wasn't a waste of cash, but it's probably not worth a repeat viewing until it's a weekly at the video shop. Alternatively, just download it. It wouldn't be a total waste of disc space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)