If you know me, I'm a sucker for puppies and dogs of all ages. Youtube shares 55% of revenue from their advertisements to videos that go viral. Watch this video and share it to help Pedigree raise money for dogs in need. For more info visit http://www.pedigreeadoptiondrive.co.nz
Really really! Every dog deserves love, food and safe homes. So go ahead… watch these cute puppies be cute.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Global Television
A post for my Media + Communications class
Admittedly, all the television shows I watch or have watched in the past have been American shows. And honestly, besides Downton Abbey, I haven't really heard of any other TV shows from abroad. I suppose it's not entirely my fault, since American TV networks (with the exception of PBS) only really play nationally made shows, and most Americans do only watch these programs. This article, by June Thomas, is about several TV shows which Thomas argues are captivating and well worth watching from overseas. She says "If you're not watching foreign TV, you're missing out", and this is probably true. Why is it that American TV is so limited to American programming? Thomas suggests a myriad of reasons- the language barrier, cultural differences that just don't work in other countries, and "appropriateness", or levels of sexuality, foul language, etc., that American programming usually does not include.
While these reasons may be true, I also hold the opinion that it is a level of aesthetic taste that vary from culture to culture. Something that is fairly inexplicable happens on a psychological level when simply LOOKING at something, that differentiates in people based on where we grew up. When watching trailers for various foreign TV shows, something just didn't click for me, and I later noticed that it had nothing to do with the language or content, but rather the VISUAL aspect of the program. This could involve differences in lighting and settings, and even the pace of cuts between shots. Of course, I have formed this opinion based only on trailers for the programs, and would be curious to see if this diagnosis would carry out during an actual episode of said television shows. But, honestly, the trailers I did watch unfortunately did not intrigue me to the point of actually wanting to begin a series…
Hmmm… Maybe my theory on cultural differences in aesthetic taste corresponds with the phenomenon of American remakes of foreign television (you can read about the remake of France's The Returned here). Another remade TV show is, of course, The Office (one of my favorites), but the reason behind that one being recreated based on it's British predecessor has something more likely to do with language and humor barriers….
I do agree with Thomas that the language barrier could pose a problem. While I have no problem reading subtitles in a foreign movie, I do think it might become a bit of a hassle after hours and hours of episodes. Even foreign English language television shows (from Australia or England, for example) could be difficult for American audiences to grab onto. First, there could be an issue with heavy accents (which sometimes sound like a foreign language- but with no subtitles), and secondly, slang varies from country to country, even if said countries do share a language. Humor, and how an audience translates humor is vast and varying, and sometimes, what one person finds hilarious may be completely incomprehensible to another. This difference in "what is funny" becomes an even bigger gap when considering different countries.
While I am a fan of watching foreign films, I admit that most foreign television does not interest me… Maybe this does make me a little short sighted, but I suppose my reasoning is along the lines of not wanting to commit to watching a series in a language that makes no sense to me (Even though subtitles are handy, it's not the same!). My issues with the visual aspect of moving image arts also plays largely into this.
…I may also just be worried I'll find a TV show I really get sucked into, and there goes a whole weekend.
Admittedly, all the television shows I watch or have watched in the past have been American shows. And honestly, besides Downton Abbey, I haven't really heard of any other TV shows from abroad. I suppose it's not entirely my fault, since American TV networks (with the exception of PBS) only really play nationally made shows, and most Americans do only watch these programs. This article, by June Thomas, is about several TV shows which Thomas argues are captivating and well worth watching from overseas. She says "If you're not watching foreign TV, you're missing out", and this is probably true. Why is it that American TV is so limited to American programming? Thomas suggests a myriad of reasons- the language barrier, cultural differences that just don't work in other countries, and "appropriateness", or levels of sexuality, foul language, etc., that American programming usually does not include.
While these reasons may be true, I also hold the opinion that it is a level of aesthetic taste that vary from culture to culture. Something that is fairly inexplicable happens on a psychological level when simply LOOKING at something, that differentiates in people based on where we grew up. When watching trailers for various foreign TV shows, something just didn't click for me, and I later noticed that it had nothing to do with the language or content, but rather the VISUAL aspect of the program. This could involve differences in lighting and settings, and even the pace of cuts between shots. Of course, I have formed this opinion based only on trailers for the programs, and would be curious to see if this diagnosis would carry out during an actual episode of said television shows. But, honestly, the trailers I did watch unfortunately did not intrigue me to the point of actually wanting to begin a series…
Hmmm… Maybe my theory on cultural differences in aesthetic taste corresponds with the phenomenon of American remakes of foreign television (you can read about the remake of France's The Returned here). Another remade TV show is, of course, The Office (one of my favorites), but the reason behind that one being recreated based on it's British predecessor has something more likely to do with language and humor barriers….
I do agree with Thomas that the language barrier could pose a problem. While I have no problem reading subtitles in a foreign movie, I do think it might become a bit of a hassle after hours and hours of episodes. Even foreign English language television shows (from Australia or England, for example) could be difficult for American audiences to grab onto. First, there could be an issue with heavy accents (which sometimes sound like a foreign language- but with no subtitles), and secondly, slang varies from country to country, even if said countries do share a language. Humor, and how an audience translates humor is vast and varying, and sometimes, what one person finds hilarious may be completely incomprehensible to another. This difference in "what is funny" becomes an even bigger gap when considering different countries.
While I am a fan of watching foreign films, I admit that most foreign television does not interest me… Maybe this does make me a little short sighted, but I suppose my reasoning is along the lines of not wanting to commit to watching a series in a language that makes no sense to me (Even though subtitles are handy, it's not the same!). My issues with the visual aspect of moving image arts also plays largely into this.
…I may also just be worried I'll find a TV show I really get sucked into, and there goes a whole weekend.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Hollywood's Blockbusters
Note: This is another assignment for my Media+Communications class
Other Note: Listening to this may enhance reading experience
Here are two articles discussing Hollywood, the "Blockbuster" sensation, and the trap this has possibly become: Why Hollywood is Caught in the Blockbuster Trap and The Rise and Rise of the Comic Book Movie
The first article, written by Anita Elberse, basically discusses how Hollywood is caught in this regime of cranking out blockbuster hits which make a ton of money but perhaps take away some creativity from the industry. She states that "Of the 6,000 films released in the past decade, nearly a quarter were based on another film or media property, and the share of such “non-original” films has gone up over that period". This, Elberse argues, is because Hollywood has a "Love Affair With Past Hits"- that if a film performs exceptionally well in the box office, there is almost no doubt that Part 2, 3, 4, and 5 will come out in the near future and possible spin offs of that film are already in pre production, as she says "so many executives try to borrow from past successes in their efforts to create new hits, and why they can’t seem to stop adding installments to successful film franchises". It is evident that series of movies do better at the box office, and often it is the super hero movie genre that kick sales out of the park on opening weekends. This chart shows us that Iron Man 3 was the biggest seller on its opening weekend out of any movie that came out in 2013. Following Iron Man comes The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Man of Steel, Fast & Furious 6, and Thor: The Dark World, all of which are part of a series of films, and 2 of which are based on Marvel Comics, as is the Iron Man franchise.
The second article here, written by Evelyn Harrison, discusses this comic book movie sensation. Seeing how well these film franchises perform financially (Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Iron Man… (hmmm…all men by the way but that's a different subject I guess)), these guys are truly THE biggest blockbusters. Harrison suggests that perhaps these films do so well in the box office because they may contain a connection to America's social and political changes since 2001. She says "the threat of terrorism has become a reality, and a particular set of ethical questions has become more relevant", and that this set of ethical questions connect with the heroes of these movies.
My opinion on the comic book movies may be a bit brief since I have never seen any of them. Well, I saw the last Batman movie but obviously it made no sense to me since I'd never seen any of the other ones. Anyways. I found this article interesting because prior to reading it, I never considered the possibility of these movies actually being relevant to culture, people, and politics. Although I haven't seen the films, the article certainly write about them as though they can be connected to today's mindsets, especially regarding "good versus evil". While considering this a possibility, my initial thought is similar to another statement by Harrison in her article: "…these films may just be popular because the combination of fighting, special effects, sci-fi and witty one-liners is enough to encourage an audience to buy the Blu-ray". Certainly, there is an argument here that Hollywood plays to its lowest common denominator, and these movies are consumable and understandable by nearly any person.
So what's up with the "trap" that Anita Elberse talks about? I would definately look at this problem from the perspective of Hollywood being a BUSINESS. Like any business, they will make as many moves and decisions as they can that have PROVEN to make money in the past. Hollywood is going to invest most of their money into the movies that will evidently make the most money in return. Of course, this makes any business "stuck" in a way, but, to their favor, they will be stuck making money…
Does this hurt the film industry? In my opinion, no, it doesn't. I do not believe that this Hollywood business strategy harms the process of creativity and innovation which is so important in the movies. Even if a film like Iron Man 3 comes from another movie, which comes from a comic book, and follows similar patterns and frames as numerous other Hollywood hits, there is still a creative core to any piece of work. This creative center is, in my opinion, the essence of what the movies should be about. For me, as long as there are movies being made, this creative flame will always be burning. And that's the real blockbuster
Other Note: Listening to this may enhance reading experience
Here are two articles discussing Hollywood, the "Blockbuster" sensation, and the trap this has possibly become: Why Hollywood is Caught in the Blockbuster Trap and The Rise and Rise of the Comic Book Movie
The first article, written by Anita Elberse, basically discusses how Hollywood is caught in this regime of cranking out blockbuster hits which make a ton of money but perhaps take away some creativity from the industry. She states that "Of the 6,000 films released in the past decade, nearly a quarter were based on another film or media property, and the share of such “non-original” films has gone up over that period". This, Elberse argues, is because Hollywood has a "Love Affair With Past Hits"- that if a film performs exceptionally well in the box office, there is almost no doubt that Part 2, 3, 4, and 5 will come out in the near future and possible spin offs of that film are already in pre production, as she says "so many executives try to borrow from past successes in their efforts to create new hits, and why they can’t seem to stop adding installments to successful film franchises". It is evident that series of movies do better at the box office, and often it is the super hero movie genre that kick sales out of the park on opening weekends. This chart shows us that Iron Man 3 was the biggest seller on its opening weekend out of any movie that came out in 2013. Following Iron Man comes The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Man of Steel, Fast & Furious 6, and Thor: The Dark World, all of which are part of a series of films, and 2 of which are based on Marvel Comics, as is the Iron Man franchise.
The second article here, written by Evelyn Harrison, discusses this comic book movie sensation. Seeing how well these film franchises perform financially (Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Iron Man… (hmmm…all men by the way but that's a different subject I guess)), these guys are truly THE biggest blockbusters. Harrison suggests that perhaps these films do so well in the box office because they may contain a connection to America's social and political changes since 2001. She says "the threat of terrorism has become a reality, and a particular set of ethical questions has become more relevant", and that this set of ethical questions connect with the heroes of these movies.
My opinion on the comic book movies may be a bit brief since I have never seen any of them. Well, I saw the last Batman movie but obviously it made no sense to me since I'd never seen any of the other ones. Anyways. I found this article interesting because prior to reading it, I never considered the possibility of these movies actually being relevant to culture, people, and politics. Although I haven't seen the films, the article certainly write about them as though they can be connected to today's mindsets, especially regarding "good versus evil". While considering this a possibility, my initial thought is similar to another statement by Harrison in her article: "…these films may just be popular because the combination of fighting, special effects, sci-fi and witty one-liners is enough to encourage an audience to buy the Blu-ray". Certainly, there is an argument here that Hollywood plays to its lowest common denominator, and these movies are consumable and understandable by nearly any person.
So what's up with the "trap" that Anita Elberse talks about? I would definately look at this problem from the perspective of Hollywood being a BUSINESS. Like any business, they will make as many moves and decisions as they can that have PROVEN to make money in the past. Hollywood is going to invest most of their money into the movies that will evidently make the most money in return. Of course, this makes any business "stuck" in a way, but, to their favor, they will be stuck making money…
Does this hurt the film industry? In my opinion, no, it doesn't. I do not believe that this Hollywood business strategy harms the process of creativity and innovation which is so important in the movies. Even if a film like Iron Man 3 comes from another movie, which comes from a comic book, and follows similar patterns and frames as numerous other Hollywood hits, there is still a creative core to any piece of work. This creative center is, in my opinion, the essence of what the movies should be about. For me, as long as there are movies being made, this creative flame will always be burning. And that's the real blockbuster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)