Aren't the British always supposed to be one step ahead of us? Fashion, social movements, etc.?
Apparently, they aren't as open-minded as we are about one topic: disabilities. According to a Today show/ MSNBC article, BBC viewers are complaining about a children's show host since she has an incomplete right arm. Parents claim that their children will have nightmares from watching the host.
In the article, disability advocates claim that something like this would never happen here in the United States. They say people with disabilities go to public schools, and they are accepted in the mainstream.
I think for the most part this is true because I was upset when I heard that people were trying to get the host fired. Just because she has one incomplete arm, that doesn't mean she isn't fit for her job. She could be the most charismatic and loving person ever, and in my opinion, I would rather have a charismatic and loving person with one incomplete arm hosting a children's show rather than a mean and nasty person with the most perfect appearance.
Plus, I think it would be good for children to have the host, Cerrie Burnell, as a role model. For children with disabilites, it shows that people with disabilities can do anything they want. For other children, it might inspire conversations with their parents about disabilities and in the end, make them more comfortable with people with disabilities.
"I'd never comment on anyone's parenting or the time for them to have a discussion with their child about disabilities," Burnell said in the article. "It's a totally personal thing and people have to do it when they feel comfortable to do it. But I would just hope that, I guess, me being on CBeebies would present an opportunity for them to do that in the comfort of their own home."
I agree Ms. Burnell. The British need to have discussions with their children about disabilties and help them become more comfortable with people who are "different." In this respect, the British need to follow our lead.
**For more information on this story, you can also watch a Today show video.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Presumption of Openness
The South Dakota Senate decided on Feb. 25 that the government should operate under the "presumption of openness." SB 147 passed unanimously on the Senate floor on Feb. 24. The bill was first read in the House on Feb. 25 and was referred to the House State Affairs committee. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing.
This bill would be great for the media because it would give them substantially more access than they have today and help them keep public officials accountable. It would be good for the public because it would give them access to records about how its money is being spent. According to the Argus Leader, this bill needs to pass because the state should be able to "conduct its government business openly and protect private information at the same time."
I agree with the Argus. Why can't government be a bit more open? Do government officials have something to hide; is that why they want to keep the records closed? Really, with the exceptions that are included in the bill (medical and personnel records, trade secrets, correspondences about campaign finance issues, etc.) I don't see how any of the information released could hurt the state.
No, the state is being hurt by a government who doesn't believe in the public's right to know.
This bill would be great for the media because it would give them substantially more access than they have today and help them keep public officials accountable. It would be good for the public because it would give them access to records about how its money is being spent. According to the Argus Leader, this bill needs to pass because the state should be able to "conduct its government business openly and protect private information at the same time."
I agree with the Argus. Why can't government be a bit more open? Do government officials have something to hide; is that why they want to keep the records closed? Really, with the exceptions that are included in the bill (medical and personnel records, trade secrets, correspondences about campaign finance issues, etc.) I don't see how any of the information released could hurt the state.
No, the state is being hurt by a government who doesn't believe in the public's right to know.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Welcome to "The Jungle"
In this assignment, we had to find someone who was an expert on something and make a short how-to. The video needed to have studio interviews and B-roll. My partners and I chose to give other students some tips on parking at SDSU.
This was really our first outside video project, and I learned a lot. I now know that the Flip camera doesn't always adjust well to moving objects, you shouldn't try to do an interview in a crowded Union and Final Cut can sometimes have a mind of its own. All in all, my FCE experience was decent, and I am excited that I learned a few new tricks: like giving the video a green tint, speeding up or slowing down clips and making the image flash.
I also discovered that a person an easily get addicted to editing video. I spent way too much time on this project. But at least I know I was having fun because otherwise, I wouldn't have been so picky. Well, I hope you all enjoy!
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Economy through photos
I found today's featured photos on the BAGnewsNotes Blog to very interesting. These photos, originally found on Newsweek, highlighted some part of the recession.
The first photo features cans of Spam in focus in the right third of the photo while a shopper is blurred out in the left third. I thought this was a great, attention-getting photo. Professor Klock would really be proud with the classic rule of thirds and depth of field principles being used.
I also liked how the blog described the photo. The post says, "At the edges of the photo, both the fate of the American grocery shopper, as well as his or her nutritional status, grows more blurry."
The first photo features cans of Spam in focus in the right third of the photo while a shopper is blurred out in the left third. I thought this was a great, attention-getting photo. Professor Klock would really be proud with the classic rule of thirds and depth of field principles being used.
I also liked how the blog described the photo. The post says, "At the edges of the photo, both the fate of the American grocery shopper, as well as his or her nutritional status, grows more blurry."
The second photo is obviously of a man in a bar, and it highlights the fact that many people will drink more in response to the hard times. I really like the composition of this photo because the way the man's face is framed by the bottles, it seems like the viewer is sneaking up on the man and catching him during a very vulnerable moment. For me, just the framing makes the man's expression (and what I see as despair) all the more genuine, and after seeing the photo composed this way, the viewers can see why more and more are turning to the bottle for comfort.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Oh, Joaquin
Say it ain't so, Joaquin! You were magnificent in Walk the Line, Ladder 49 and Gladiator, but apparently you are giving up acting to rap. Sounds like a joke to me, and maybe it is.
Some sources say that Phoenix's rapping career might be a hoax after all. Gaylee Fee and Laura Raposa of the Inside Track suggested that Phoenix might be making a mockumentary with his brother-in-law Casey Affleck. In their article, the pair cited the TMZ Web site as saying that the mockumentary would document Phoenix's false transformation from an actor to a rapper and show how the media fell for the obviously fake prank. They also said that Phoenix's crazed behavior on Letterman and his botched performance at a Las Vegas club (the one where he falls off the stage) are only adding to his fun.
Dana Stevens has another theory. In his article "The Phoenix Rises," Stevens says that this is "Phoenix's playful way of coping with the brain-eating pressures of celebrity, an attempt to yank the rug (or the red carpet) from beneath his audience's expectations."
I for one hope that one of these theories is true because Johnny Cash was not a rapper, so I've decided Joaquin Phoenix can't be either.
Some sources say that Phoenix's rapping career might be a hoax after all. Gaylee Fee and Laura Raposa of the Inside Track suggested that Phoenix might be making a mockumentary with his brother-in-law Casey Affleck. In their article, the pair cited the TMZ Web site as saying that the mockumentary would document Phoenix's false transformation from an actor to a rapper and show how the media fell for the obviously fake prank. They also said that Phoenix's crazed behavior on Letterman and his botched performance at a Las Vegas club (the one where he falls off the stage) are only adding to his fun.
Dana Stevens has another theory. In his article "The Phoenix Rises," Stevens says that this is "Phoenix's playful way of coping with the brain-eating pressures of celebrity, an attempt to yank the rug (or the red carpet) from beneath his audience's expectations."
I for one hope that one of these theories is true because Johnny Cash was not a rapper, so I've decided Joaquin Phoenix can't be either.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Books vs. Movies: The ultimate battle
What can be more scary to a book lover than a dog-eared page? The movie version of their most beloved book.
It's true. I hardly hear anyone who loves books as much as I that say they really prefer movie versions over the original novel. These bibliophiliacs dread the added scenes, the dropped details and the changed endings.
I agree with Willing Davidson in his article, "Great Book, Bad Movie," that movies ruin great books in two major ways. First, books are long, while movies are short. Within large novels, the author can include lengthy conversations, internal thoughts, differing tones and vivid details that spark the reader's imagination. For movies to achieve all that, they would have to be several hours long. Realistically, having extremely long films is not feasible because like me, many moviegoers get antsy after an hour and a half. Bookworms on the other hand, read for hours on end.
Movies' second error is that they substitute plot for character. This really isn't the movie's fault, though. As a moviegoer, we expect action. That is the beauty of the visual medium. However, most of the time, action overtakes the process of getting to know a character. In a book, you know every thought and feeling of the main character. You know their likes, their dislikes, their fears and their hopes. You get to be the character's best friend. In a movie, that character-reader relationship is lost.
On the other side, some people do think movies are better than books. Elisabeth Rappe argues in her discussion "Movies that are Better than the Books" that some movies are actually more enjoyable than the books. She says that The Sword and the Stone is better than the book The Once and Future King because it lacks cat torture and misogyny. For me, the movie could be better because of the book's language. I would probably understand the story line in the movie, whereas I might not quite understand the book's complex phrasing and old words.
So, I can see some reasons for making books into movies, but overall, I still think that books present complex topics better and also give bookworms close character-reader relationships that are unparelled by movies. Or in other words: books rule and movies drool!
**If you are interested in seeing a list of "based on the book" movies, here are two sites that list those movies by year: Mid-Continent Public Library and Based on a Book.
It's true. I hardly hear anyone who loves books as much as I that say they really prefer movie versions over the original novel. These bibliophiliacs dread the added scenes, the dropped details and the changed endings.
I agree with Willing Davidson in his article, "Great Book, Bad Movie," that movies ruin great books in two major ways. First, books are long, while movies are short. Within large novels, the author can include lengthy conversations, internal thoughts, differing tones and vivid details that spark the reader's imagination. For movies to achieve all that, they would have to be several hours long. Realistically, having extremely long films is not feasible because like me, many moviegoers get antsy after an hour and a half. Bookworms on the other hand, read for hours on end.
Movies' second error is that they substitute plot for character. This really isn't the movie's fault, though. As a moviegoer, we expect action. That is the beauty of the visual medium. However, most of the time, action overtakes the process of getting to know a character. In a book, you know every thought and feeling of the main character. You know their likes, their dislikes, their fears and their hopes. You get to be the character's best friend. In a movie, that character-reader relationship is lost.
On the other side, some people do think movies are better than books. Elisabeth Rappe argues in her discussion "Movies that are Better than the Books" that some movies are actually more enjoyable than the books. She says that The Sword and the Stone is better than the book The Once and Future King because it lacks cat torture and misogyny. For me, the movie could be better because of the book's language. I would probably understand the story line in the movie, whereas I might not quite understand the book's complex phrasing and old words.
So, I can see some reasons for making books into movies, but overall, I still think that books present complex topics better and also give bookworms close character-reader relationships that are unparelled by movies. Or in other words: books rule and movies drool!
**If you are interested in seeing a list of "based on the book" movies, here are two sites that list those movies by year: Mid-Continent Public Library and Based on a Book.
What a Day: Audio
*Music courtesy of freeplaymusic.com
In this project, we learned how to use audio by adding music to our monologue assignment. Let's be honest: I was on the struggle bus today. Things were just not working right, and the computer seemed to hate me. I'm just glad to be alive right now.
Despite all the struggles, I did learn things from this assignment. I learned how to add audio, make the levels higher or lower, add transitions and troubleshoot. I will definitely use the lessons I learned today because I will be using audio in all my future projects.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Make 'em pay
I'm going to be honest: I love free things, but I'm starting to get sick of freeloaders.
I'm talking about people who expect their news to be free. Though I agree that making news free helps spread knowledge to all people, I would also argue that by not reimbursing media outlets and journalists for their hard work, we are working to kill the dissemination of knowledge. Papers are struggling, and if they die, some communities will no longer have anyone to present the news.
There are some remedies to help the media in their current struggle.They should work on adding exclusive content and video technologies to their Internet pages. This will give readers extra incentive to visit their sites, and the more page views a site has, the more the paper should be able to charge advertisers.
Internet advertising will not save the paper’s budget, though. As Walter Isaacson says in his article “How to Save Your Newspaper,” a paper is still losing subscription and newsstand sales dollars if it relies on advertising money alone. That’s why I think Isaacson’s idea of charging readers a small fee for reading that day’s online edition is a good one.
However, I would more so agree with Josh Quittner in “The Race for a Better Read” that newspapers will need to develop a new reading device before the thought of paying for Internet journalism will take off. Readers are accustomed to receiving Internet news for free, so they will complain and probably not purchase the news unless there is some novelty or new technology attached.
For example, Quittner said that music listeners began purchasing music after the iPod came out. Prior to the iPod’s invention, people were downloading music for free, much like people read news sites for free. With that in mind, I would say that people will expect some cool device they can show off to their friends or an enhanced reading experience if they are going to start paying for news.
I encourage newspapers to explore these new technologies. I also encourage readers to realize that maybe they should start paying for their news. Otherwise, we might lose valuable resources, and thereby lose knowledge in this age of information.
I'm talking about people who expect their news to be free. Though I agree that making news free helps spread knowledge to all people, I would also argue that by not reimbursing media outlets and journalists for their hard work, we are working to kill the dissemination of knowledge. Papers are struggling, and if they die, some communities will no longer have anyone to present the news.
There are some remedies to help the media in their current struggle.They should work on adding exclusive content and video technologies to their Internet pages. This will give readers extra incentive to visit their sites, and the more page views a site has, the more the paper should be able to charge advertisers.
Internet advertising will not save the paper’s budget, though. As Walter Isaacson says in his article “How to Save Your Newspaper,” a paper is still losing subscription and newsstand sales dollars if it relies on advertising money alone. That’s why I think Isaacson’s idea of charging readers a small fee for reading that day’s online edition is a good one.
However, I would more so agree with Josh Quittner in “The Race for a Better Read” that newspapers will need to develop a new reading device before the thought of paying for Internet journalism will take off. Readers are accustomed to receiving Internet news for free, so they will complain and probably not purchase the news unless there is some novelty or new technology attached.
For example, Quittner said that music listeners began purchasing music after the iPod came out. Prior to the iPod’s invention, people were downloading music for free, much like people read news sites for free. With that in mind, I would say that people will expect some cool device they can show off to their friends or an enhanced reading experience if they are going to start paying for news.
I encourage newspapers to explore these new technologies. I also encourage readers to realize that maybe they should start paying for their news. Otherwise, we might lose valuable resources, and thereby lose knowledge in this age of information.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
21,300 Google hits
I admit it. I'm one of those people who gets a kick out of Googling themselves every now and again. Today's result: 21,300 hits for Amy Poppinga and 229 for "Amy Poppinga." If the first few pages are any indication, most of the results for "Amy Poppinga" are about me. I have to say I'm flattered, but then again this little exercise does raise some Internet privacy concerns for me.
In the Life section of today's Argus Leader, the featured story is "Everything we want to know about you, courtesy of the Web." Although the story was not filled with as many "oh-crap" moments as I thought it might have, it did once again remind me of how open information is on the Internet.
For example, the article mentions two Web sites: pipl.com and zabbasearch.com that I had never heard of before. These sites dig up as much information as they can about you and display it for anyone who types in your name. My pipl.com page was filled, not surpisingly, with stories I had written for The Collegian or this blog. I was surprised to find, however, a 2003 Keloland story that I had been quoted in. I'm certainly not ashamed of the things I said in that story, but I was really surprised that the Kelo story is still floating around. I guess that just proves that once something is on the Internet, it will probably be around for a long, long time.
My zabbasearch.com profile was actually quite dull. It didn't even have my correct address. But it was creepy that the site correctly identified the addresses (and past addresses) of my siblings and relatives. Let's just hope I don't have any stalkers!
Moral of the story: protect yourself on the Web. Facebook users, make sure to set privacy settings and don't put things up that you don't want potential employers to see. And everyone in general, be smart. Don't post things that you are not comfortable with sharing to millions of people. Pipl are watching.
In the Life section of today's Argus Leader, the featured story is "Everything we want to know about you, courtesy of the Web." Although the story was not filled with as many "oh-crap" moments as I thought it might have, it did once again remind me of how open information is on the Internet.
For example, the article mentions two Web sites: pipl.com and zabbasearch.com that I had never heard of before. These sites dig up as much information as they can about you and display it for anyone who types in your name. My pipl.com page was filled, not surpisingly, with stories I had written for The Collegian or this blog. I was surprised to find, however, a 2003 Keloland story that I had been quoted in. I'm certainly not ashamed of the things I said in that story, but I was really surprised that the Kelo story is still floating around. I guess that just proves that once something is on the Internet, it will probably be around for a long, long time.
My zabbasearch.com profile was actually quite dull. It didn't even have my correct address. But it was creepy that the site correctly identified the addresses (and past addresses) of my siblings and relatives. Let's just hope I don't have any stalkers!
Moral of the story: protect yourself on the Web. Facebook users, make sure to set privacy settings and don't put things up that you don't want potential employers to see. And everyone in general, be smart. Don't post things that you are not comfortable with sharing to millions of people. Pipl are watching.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
I really haven't jumped unto the Twitter bandwagon, because let's be honest, I'm not that interesting. If I was forced to constantly update people on my life, it would be basically: working at The Collegian, eating, working some more, more eating, little more work and then sleep. Yep, my life is that dry.
Well, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that they would suck at Twitter. Some celebs appear to be a bit self-conscious, too. They hire microbloggers to do their twittering for them. In their case, I suppose they are worried that their lives will be too interesting (i.e. they will implicate themselves on a crime or say something that will get them in trouble.)
As for businesses, they can now outsource their tweets. Twit4hire was started last week, and though the business doesn't have any clients yet, it could potentially become the go-to for companies that want to stimulate conversation between themselves and their customers.
Well, if everyone else is doing it, maybe I'll give Twitter a try. My first post: Amy is blogging about Twittering. Dang, I'm cool.
Well, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that they would suck at Twitter. Some celebs appear to be a bit self-conscious, too. They hire microbloggers to do their twittering for them. In their case, I suppose they are worried that their lives will be too interesting (i.e. they will implicate themselves on a crime or say something that will get them in trouble.)
As for businesses, they can now outsource their tweets. Twit4hire was started last week, and though the business doesn't have any clients yet, it could potentially become the go-to for companies that want to stimulate conversation between themselves and their customers.
Well, if everyone else is doing it, maybe I'll give Twitter a try. My first post: Amy is blogging about Twittering. Dang, I'm cool.
Friday, February 13, 2009
"Well done, Young Jedi"
Oh, Jon Stewart. What a gem!
Mr. Stewart did something recently that totally blew my mind. He actually made fun of President Obama. Wait a minute. I thought that was Colbert's job.
Actually, Stewart did a fabulous job of lampooning our new president, inspiring giggles and admiration from me for being an equal opportunity jokester.
First, I really enjoyed how he made fun of everyone for still being excessively enamored with Obama despite his recent nomination missteps and the crappy state of the country. Stewart shows a clip of Obama saying that the country is still in turmoil. Afterward, Stewart stares lovingly at the screen and utters a phrase so funny that you must watch it yourself. (Follow the link below.)
Later, Stewart discusses some of the questions that were asked during the conference. Stewart, like most people, was surprised to see a reporter from the Huffington Post at the conference. What was even more surprising to Stewart was the thoughtful question that the Post's reporter asked. If only another Post reporter (the one from the Washington Post) would have followed suit and asked a thoughtful -- or relevant -- question. (Watch the clip around the 5:40 mark to witness a What-the-Heck moment.)
At other points during his show, Stewart makes fun of the long, drawn out pauses in Obama's answers, and he also does a montage of the reactions of Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews to Obama's press conference. It's comedic, and slightly ridiculous, how different O'Reilly and Matthews' reactions were.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this segment. I recommend it to everyone, which is why I am posting the link here. (The segment I discussed begins at the 2:20 mark.)
Mr. Stewart did something recently that totally blew my mind. He actually made fun of President Obama. Wait a minute. I thought that was Colbert's job.
Actually, Stewart did a fabulous job of lampooning our new president, inspiring giggles and admiration from me for being an equal opportunity jokester.
First, I really enjoyed how he made fun of everyone for still being excessively enamored with Obama despite his recent nomination missteps and the crappy state of the country. Stewart shows a clip of Obama saying that the country is still in turmoil. Afterward, Stewart stares lovingly at the screen and utters a phrase so funny that you must watch it yourself. (Follow the link below.)
Later, Stewart discusses some of the questions that were asked during the conference. Stewart, like most people, was surprised to see a reporter from the Huffington Post at the conference. What was even more surprising to Stewart was the thoughtful question that the Post's reporter asked. If only another Post reporter (the one from the Washington Post) would have followed suit and asked a thoughtful -- or relevant -- question. (Watch the clip around the 5:40 mark to witness a What-the-Heck moment.)
At other points during his show, Stewart makes fun of the long, drawn out pauses in Obama's answers, and he also does a montage of the reactions of Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews to Obama's press conference. It's comedic, and slightly ridiculous, how different O'Reilly and Matthews' reactions were.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this segment. I recommend it to everyone, which is why I am posting the link here. (The segment I discussed begins at the 2:20 mark.)
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Internet Law
First before I say anything else, I want to do the blogging equivalent to shouting from the rooftops. I'M DONE WITH MY FIRST LIBEL REPORT FOR MEDIA LAW! Wow, I feel so much better!
Wait, before you run away and commit me to an insane asylum, there is a point to my little rant. While compiling my report for Media Law, I did discover something that pertains to blogging and Internet communication.
In the California Supreme Court case Barrett v. Rosenthal, the justices ruled that on the Internet, people or service providers cannot be held accountable for the republication or posting of defamatory information created by someone else. (The following commentary will probably make more sense if you read the ruling or stories about this case with the links below. To find the ruling, Google Barrett v. Rosenthal and then go to this site: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/ruling.pdf. Sorry, my link was not working!)
In one way, I find that case to be very encouraging. It would really suck if I unknowingly linked some defamatory article to my blog and then got sued for libel. On the other hand, if I did know that I was publishing libelous material, shouldn't I be accountable in some way for spreading the defaming material even if I'm not the original author?
Overall, I think the California Supreme Court handled this case well. They followed federal law (Communications Decency Act 1996), and I believe one of the justices made the note that you probably shouldn't spread libelous information about people over the Internet even after the court's ruling. Basically right now, there seems to be a hole in the federal legislation that allows individuals who know information is defaming to republish that information on the Internet anyway. I think as an individual you should look out for others. For example, I will strive to not post libelous content on this blog, no matter if I am the author or not.
As for internet providers, though, I think they should not be held accountable for what people post on their sites or what people say through comments. These providers probably get hundred of posts or comments a day, so to ask them to go through all the content to make sure it's not objectionable is unreasonable. Plus, they might just erase questionable comments before making sure the information is actually libelous. That practice would just chill online speech and silence honest discussion.
Well, I've just brushed the surface of this case. If you are interested in learning more, I encourage you to visit these sites: Citizen Media Project, ACLU of Northern California or just Google Barrett v. Rosenthal.
Wait, before you run away and commit me to an insane asylum, there is a point to my little rant. While compiling my report for Media Law, I did discover something that pertains to blogging and Internet communication.
In the California Supreme Court case Barrett v. Rosenthal, the justices ruled that on the Internet, people or service providers cannot be held accountable for the republication or posting of defamatory information created by someone else. (The following commentary will probably make more sense if you read the ruling or stories about this case with the links below. To find the ruling, Google Barrett v. Rosenthal and then go to this site: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/ruling.pdf. Sorry, my link was not working!)
In one way, I find that case to be very encouraging. It would really suck if I unknowingly linked some defamatory article to my blog and then got sued for libel. On the other hand, if I did know that I was publishing libelous material, shouldn't I be accountable in some way for spreading the defaming material even if I'm not the original author?
Overall, I think the California Supreme Court handled this case well. They followed federal law (Communications Decency Act 1996), and I believe one of the justices made the note that you probably shouldn't spread libelous information about people over the Internet even after the court's ruling. Basically right now, there seems to be a hole in the federal legislation that allows individuals who know information is defaming to republish that information on the Internet anyway. I think as an individual you should look out for others. For example, I will strive to not post libelous content on this blog, no matter if I am the author or not.
As for internet providers, though, I think they should not be held accountable for what people post on their sites or what people say through comments. These providers probably get hundred of posts or comments a day, so to ask them to go through all the content to make sure it's not objectionable is unreasonable. Plus, they might just erase questionable comments before making sure the information is actually libelous. That practice would just chill online speech and silence honest discussion.
Well, I've just brushed the surface of this case. If you are interested in learning more, I encourage you to visit these sites: Citizen Media Project, ACLU of Northern California or just Google Barrett v. Rosenthal.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Paul Blart: Mall Cop Review
While I’m on a movie kick, I want to take this opportunity to warn the masses about Paul Bart: Mall Cop. I was not a fan of this comedy, and I’m not sure why others are.
Apparently, this movie is doing really well at the box office. It was the top money grossing film two weeks in a row, and it only slipped to second place in its third week. In total, this movie has grossed $83.2 million even though it only cost $26 million to produce.
I am confused by the movie’s success. The first half an hour of the movie just makes fun of Paul Blart (played by Kevin James) for being overweight, hypoglycemic and lonely. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t find it funny that someone has to stop every 20 minutes to take a shot of sugar. That’s no way to live if you ask me.
Then there’s an extremely awkward bar scene. I think this part was supposed to incite hysterical laughter, but all I did was cringe. Since I am an awkward person at times, it was not fun to watch one of my greatest fears being played out on the big screen.
After the sadness and awkwardness, there is some comedy in this movie. I did laugh a few times towards the end, but the last half of the movie wasn’t good enough to save the first.
Before attending this movie, I advise you to read some reviews. Then, save some money and rent this movie. I can’t say my experience was worth the $8 I had to shell out.
Apparently, this movie is doing really well at the box office. It was the top money grossing film two weeks in a row, and it only slipped to second place in its third week. In total, this movie has grossed $83.2 million even though it only cost $26 million to produce.
I am confused by the movie’s success. The first half an hour of the movie just makes fun of Paul Blart (played by Kevin James) for being overweight, hypoglycemic and lonely. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t find it funny that someone has to stop every 20 minutes to take a shot of sugar. That’s no way to live if you ask me.
Then there’s an extremely awkward bar scene. I think this part was supposed to incite hysterical laughter, but all I did was cringe. Since I am an awkward person at times, it was not fun to watch one of my greatest fears being played out on the big screen.
After the sadness and awkwardness, there is some comedy in this movie. I did laugh a few times towards the end, but the last half of the movie wasn’t good enough to save the first.
Before attending this movie, I advise you to read some reviews. Then, save some money and rent this movie. I can’t say my experience was worth the $8 I had to shell out.
Dudes in Drag
Jude Law 'looks like a lady!'
In his upcoming movie Rage, Law dons dresses and eyeliner to play a transgender supermodel. When I first saw the news, I was shocked. Jude Law is a very good looking man, why would he want or need to dress up like a lady for a role? I think it has something to do with expanding his horizons as an actor.
"Jude, whose beauty has sometimes been held against him as an actor, made the courageous decision to accept the role and took on a kind of hyper-beauty for this persona, a 'female' beauty which gradually unravels as the story unfolds," said Rage director Sally Potter in a Press Association article.
"Strangely, the more he became a 'she', coiffed and made-up - the more naked was his performance. There was great strength in his willingness to make himself vulnerable. It was an extraordinarily intense part of the shoot."
After my Jude Law discovery, I begin to wonder how many other celebs have donned drag for a role. Apparently, playing a different sex is in vogue. Here are some famous drag roles:
- Robin Williams, Mrs. Doubtfire
- John Travolta, Hairspray
- Felicity Huffman, Transamerica
- Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There
- Patrick Swayzee, Wesley Snipes: To Wong Foo
- Eddie Murphy, Norbit and the Nutty Professor movies
- Martin Lawrence, Big Momma's House
- Johnny Depp, Before Night Falls
- Guy Pearce, Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
- Tyler Perry, Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion
- Dustin Hoffmann, Tootsie
- Nathan Lane, The Birdcage
- Jack Lemmon, Some Like it Hot
- And many more!
If you are interested in testing your knowledge about drag roles, check out the Men in Drag Movies Quiz. Or check out these photos of famous faces in drag.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Monologue assignment
For this assignment, we composed a monologue about something we are passionate about. Catey and I chose Valentine's Day/ Single's Awareness Day because we both detest Feb. 14.
I learned a lot in this assignment. I had never placed a text slide within a video in Final Cut, so that was an experience, as was placing text in the lower third. I felt really professional when I put text in the lower third because that's what newcasts do to identify people.
I also learned how to transition between clips, which will be very useful when working on future projects. Videos always look cheesy when they don't have good transitions, so I'm glad I'll be able to produce more professional-looking videos.
I really liked this assignment and thought it was very helpful in learning new skills in Final Cut. It also helped me to become more comfortable with the Flip Camera, the process of taking files from the camera and putting them onto the computer, the Final Cut program and the exportation of videos to my blog. Like they say, practice makes perfect.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Slim invests in Times
I found some more information today pertaining to my Jan. 28 post. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu has given the New York Times a $250 billion loan. A Times article said that the paper needed the loan "amid flagging advertising sales and approaching deadlines." The Times Company needs to pay back a $400 million credit line by May and must pay back a total of $1.1 billion in debt in the next few years.
Slim appears to be the Times' savior after he loaned the Times Company $250 million on Jan. 19. Still, Slim's six-year loan notes carry a 14 percent interest rate. Maybe I'm just overly critical, but that seems to be a high interest rate since Slim owns 6.9 percent of the company. If he really cared about the company's well-being as a stockholder, wouldn't he want to give the Times a lower rate? Wouldn't a lower rate help the company's finances and in turn help his own finances as a stockholder?
Although I'm not an economist and can't tell you the exact answers to the above questions, I do know that Slim has received stiff criticism from no one other than the "Gray Lady" in distress. On Aug. 27, 2007, Eduardo Porter wrote an editorial about Slim in which he called the Mexican billionaire a "robber baron" who has committed the "sin of the monopolist." Porter also criticized Slim for a lack of charity. Even though Slim was the richest man in the world in 2007 according to Fortune, as cited in the Times article, Slim gives $20 billion less to charity.
And this is the Times' savior? I know that when you are in financial trouble you will grab onto any life preserver thrown to you. But this is the Times, one of the most highly regarded papers in the country. I had hoped that a winner of almost 100 Pulitzers would have had held themselves to higher standards.
Slim appears to be the Times' savior after he loaned the Times Company $250 million on Jan. 19. Still, Slim's six-year loan notes carry a 14 percent interest rate. Maybe I'm just overly critical, but that seems to be a high interest rate since Slim owns 6.9 percent of the company. If he really cared about the company's well-being as a stockholder, wouldn't he want to give the Times a lower rate? Wouldn't a lower rate help the company's finances and in turn help his own finances as a stockholder?
Although I'm not an economist and can't tell you the exact answers to the above questions, I do know that Slim has received stiff criticism from no one other than the "Gray Lady" in distress. On Aug. 27, 2007, Eduardo Porter
And this is the Times' savior? I know that when you are in financial trouble you will grab onto any life preserver thrown to you. But this is the Times, one of the most highly regarded papers in the country. I had hoped that a winner of almost 100 Pulitzers would have had held themselves to higher standards.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Super Advertising
Like millions of Americans yesterday, I watched the Super Bowl and loved every minute, including the advertisements. Unlike most days when I usually walk to the refrigerator or grab something from my room during commercial breaks, I was glued to the screen, enjoying ridiculously expensive but extremely exciting ads.
This year, it cost $3 million for a 30-second spot during the big game, according to Msnbc.com. With that kind of money out on the table, companies should make sure they have amazing ads. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
According to FOXSports.com editors Zack Faigen, Jim McCurdie, Jenny Cohen, Al Tays and Zack Pierce, the big losers in the ad department this year were: Toyota- Venza; Castrol- Monkeys; Cars.com- Nervous car buyer; Gatorade- What G means; Bud Light- Skier; Hyundai- Global Domination; Nextel- Roadies; Coca-Cola- Strangers; Heineken- Vanguard; and Bud Light Lime- Summer State of Mind.
I was glad to see Bud Light's Skier ad on this list because anyone who has ever had a major ski injury (which would be me) got to relive one of their worst moments through that ad. I can't say that I really laughed when the guy tumbled down the mountain because last Christmas that was me.
I was surprised that the Cheetos ad didn't make the worst list. It was really good (an obnoxious rich girl gets attacked by a pack of pigeons on the "ugly" side of town) until the ending. Then the pigeon with the weird face mask just freaked me out. Cheetos should have stopped with that commercial while it was still ahead. (Check out the video on YouTube.)
As for the best, I wasn't really too surprised with the winners, as decided by FOXSports.com: Bud Light- Office Meeting; Doritos- Office Ball; Bridgestone- Potato Heads; Budweiser: Clydesdale plays fetch; E-Trade- Babies; Monster.com- Moose; Careerbuilder.com- It's time; Coke Zero- Polamalu; Cash4Gold.com; Hulu- Alec Baldwin.
Almost all of these commercials were awesome, though I have to say that the Monster.com- Moose ad was one of my favorites. I think it really made people appreciate their situations. Even if their job sucks, at least they aren't looking at a moose's rear end all day!
This year, it cost $3 million for a 30-second spot during the big game, according to Msnbc.com. With that kind of money out on the table, companies should make sure they have amazing ads. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
According to FOXSports.com editors Zack Faigen, Jim McCurdie, Jenny Cohen, Al Tays and Zack Pierce, the big losers in the ad department this year were: Toyota- Venza; Castrol- Monkeys; Cars.com- Nervous car buyer; Gatorade- What G means; Bud Light- Skier; Hyundai- Global Domination; Nextel- Roadies; Coca-Cola- Strangers; Heineken- Vanguard; and Bud Light Lime- Summer State of Mind.
I was glad to see Bud Light's Skier ad on this list because anyone who has ever had a major ski injury (which would be me) got to relive one of their worst moments through that ad. I can't say that I really laughed when the guy tumbled down the mountain because last Christmas that was me.
I was surprised that the Cheetos ad didn't make the worst list. It was really good (an obnoxious rich girl gets attacked by a pack of pigeons on the "ugly" side of town) until the ending. Then the pigeon with the weird face mask just freaked me out. Cheetos should have stopped with that commercial while it was still ahead. (Check out the video on YouTube.)
As for the best, I wasn't really too surprised with the winners, as decided by FOXSports.com: Bud Light- Office Meeting; Doritos- Office Ball; Bridgestone- Potato Heads; Budweiser: Clydesdale plays fetch; E-Trade- Babies; Monster.com- Moose; Careerbuilder.com- It's time; Coke Zero- Polamalu; Cash4Gold.com; Hulu- Alec Baldwin.
Almost all of these commercials were awesome, though I have to say that the Monster.com- Moose ad was one of my favorites. I think it really made people appreciate their situations. Even if their job sucks, at least they aren't looking at a moose's rear end all day!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
