So maybe that title is a little harsh. Yet I've had this conversation recently over the past month or so with my friends talking about how unoriginal we have become with our story telling - mainly from movies and TV shows.
Think about the countless sequels we've seen. How many times do they REALLY live up to the first one? Sometimes they just feel so forced and unnatural that it's actually painful. Real quick though - there's a difference between sequels and the continuation of a story. By that I mean something that was made with the purpose of having multiple iterations - the Star Wars / Lord of the Rings / Harry Potter / James Bond types. Movies that had a sequel when they weren't originally intended - name about 1000 different ideas in your mind - that were so terrible compared to the original.
Or think about the remakes we're seeing. The Spiderman franchise, which saw enormous success when it transitioned to film in 2002, is already seeing a reboot. Do we really need another one less than 10 years later? REALLY? Although the Batman/Dark Knight reboots have been fantastic, they are the rare stand outs. This summer we saw the release of a reboot of The A-Team, which from what I heard was really terrible transition from the show. There's a remake of 90210. I never watched it, but why?
This conversation was really stimulated by the last Indiana Jones that came out in 2008. I've always been a huge Indy fan and loved the original three, and the fan in me likes the fourth, but it sucked. Why wait 30 years to make the next one? And to make one that sucks? Brutal. Totally ruined everything I loved about the franchise. Part of that is cause George Lucas is high off his ass because of the unbelievable following his films have gotten (mainly Star Wars obviously) that I really believe he doesn't know how to make film anymore. The new Star Wars sucked too.
When things are considered "classic" or "historic" they are meant to stay that way. They aren't meant to be touched again. We don't try to re-write books, because it ruins the integrity of the author's vision. Why do we not respect that vision when it comes to film?
My easiest guess is the $$. The studios want an automatic home run every time. Take a successful film, create a second one, and it should be successful too, right? It should be more of a slam dunk than taking a risk on a film that may not make it (i.e. Inception/Avatar) So then, let's make a third one. Then we probably need a 3-D one. Soon we'll have a 4D or whatever the next craze is. We've become so dependent on franchises for everything - because they are the biggest money machine - that it's ridiculous. It does make sense - most of the movies that are "critically acclaimed" by awards shows, don't get seen by the average movie-goer. They like being entertained, not seeing a complicated, not-always-happy-ending story. I don't know a lot of people that saw The Hurt Locker, but who didn't see Avatar?
I also think some people want to re-make movies with today's technology. Think how different Jurassic Park could be today? I'm in no way encouraging a new reboot, but that's people's logic. Movies that are older probably get considered even more.
Quick tangent on other entertainment division - video games. I was looking at the video games I've been playing this summer, and all of them are sequels except for one. They have a "2" or a "3" or a "2010" on them, or they are based off of a movie franchise (what can I say, I love Ghostbusters - NEW TANGENT. NEXT PARAGRAPH.)
They're making a third Ghostbusters. Near 25 years after the original. I end my case. The creative minds are being lost or suffocated by the bigger money-making opportunities to create less-good movies with more potential for revenue. I really hope we can somehow break this cycle, but I don't know. Maybe it'll be a good thing so then we'll stop being so dependent on repetitive forms of entertainment.
In the meantime, who wants to see the super original Piranha 3D with me?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
NFL Holdouts
I was watching SportsCenter this morning, and there was a huge debate stemming on the Darrelle Revis hold out situation, which has now lasted almost the entire length of training camp as the season is now almost 10 days away. Revis has had to forfeit near $300,000 of his $1 million salary. There's talk he's sitting out for the entire season because he's demanding to be the highest paid player at his position.
This situation feels like it happens every year, and I don't really understand how or why. Some new player sits out and loses more money in order to try to get some. Sometimes, it works, but most of the time, it doesn't. Why is it that the NFL is the only league that seems to have this problem? Sure, every now and then you'll hear about the players who refuse to play for their drafted team (Kobe, JD Drew, Lindros) in other leagues, but it's nowhere near the annual rate that we see in the NFL.
I know the NFL is different from all other leagues in that their contracts are really hurtful to the players - nothing will be guaranteed. Players need to get the most money now because it may not be there later. This is a gift and a curse - you see too many contracts in the NBA where players are literally dead weight because they are given extensive deals based on their performance at age 32, but not accounting for age 36. Then it becomes about trading money to save for more upcoming free agents or being cheap, whatever.
While these players still gotta protect themselves, Revis is really setting up his team to fail. If he were to make the amount of money he wants, the Jets would have a hard time keeping most of their team for upcoming years - a team which has a lot of Super Bowl aspirations. What's more important - winning a Super Bowl, or making the most money? Clearly to Revis, it's about having the most money. It could cost the team all hopes or any serious commitments.
The concept that blows my mind the most if the idea that Revis might sit out this year. How does that help anyone? He'll still make a million dollars, and get a chance to keep proving that he deserves the money. He's going to lose a year of his prime over pride. Situations like this, where you're still making ONE MILLION DOLLARS, because you AGREED to a contract. You can't back out of that now. The Jets made an offer to give you something more deserving than what you are making, and you rejected it. Get over it. You had a shot to make more money. Now you're clinging onto nothing, and look like the fool.
These players are too greedy. They care too much about the money. Even if they are making one million dollars, that's probably 80% more than most of the population's annual salary. They get paid so much yet still act like such babies, it is so unbelievable, yet we continue to look up to them and root for them, and really are the cause for them to think so highly of themselves.
Anyways, who's got the Jets this year? Cause the Eagles look terrible.
This situation feels like it happens every year, and I don't really understand how or why. Some new player sits out and loses more money in order to try to get some. Sometimes, it works, but most of the time, it doesn't. Why is it that the NFL is the only league that seems to have this problem? Sure, every now and then you'll hear about the players who refuse to play for their drafted team (Kobe, JD Drew, Lindros) in other leagues, but it's nowhere near the annual rate that we see in the NFL.
I know the NFL is different from all other leagues in that their contracts are really hurtful to the players - nothing will be guaranteed. Players need to get the most money now because it may not be there later. This is a gift and a curse - you see too many contracts in the NBA where players are literally dead weight because they are given extensive deals based on their performance at age 32, but not accounting for age 36. Then it becomes about trading money to save for more upcoming free agents or being cheap, whatever.
While these players still gotta protect themselves, Revis is really setting up his team to fail. If he were to make the amount of money he wants, the Jets would have a hard time keeping most of their team for upcoming years - a team which has a lot of Super Bowl aspirations. What's more important - winning a Super Bowl, or making the most money? Clearly to Revis, it's about having the most money. It could cost the team all hopes or any serious commitments.
The concept that blows my mind the most if the idea that Revis might sit out this year. How does that help anyone? He'll still make a million dollars, and get a chance to keep proving that he deserves the money. He's going to lose a year of his prime over pride. Situations like this, where you're still making ONE MILLION DOLLARS, because you AGREED to a contract. You can't back out of that now. The Jets made an offer to give you something more deserving than what you are making, and you rejected it. Get over it. You had a shot to make more money. Now you're clinging onto nothing, and look like the fool.
These players are too greedy. They care too much about the money. Even if they are making one million dollars, that's probably 80% more than most of the population's annual salary. They get paid so much yet still act like such babies, it is so unbelievable, yet we continue to look up to them and root for them, and really are the cause for them to think so highly of themselves.
Anyways, who's got the Jets this year? Cause the Eagles look terrible.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Entourage's Tequila is Real
I know, I know, more TV talk? I swear I do other things, but do you really want to hear about my golf scores? Or how many laps I swam today in the pool? I thought so.
So if you've been watching this season of Entourage you're aware of Tequila Avion, the tequila that Turtle's (brutal) girl/love interest hooked up him with and that Vince seems to be supporting and relying on too much.
On my bus to New York last weekend I saw an ad for "Tequila Avion" on a New Jersey billboard, I wasn't sure what was going on. Entourage has taken out ads promoting their fake movies, blurring the line between reality and entertainment - something I love about the show.
I tweeted my concern about if this Tequila Avion was real, and in fact it is. It just recently launched, but their history has nothing to do with the history given on the show.
My first reaction was what a terrible portrayal of their product, creating this made up story line and being one of the reasons Vince's career seems to be in a downward spiral. I personally believe the Tequila has some kind of addictive ingredient (read: cocaine) that makes Vince able to drink it for 16 straight hours a day, drive drunk, show up drunk to his meeting with Stan Lee, etc. Do you want your product to be known as the tequila that causes the potential end of Vince and the boys? (even though it will end soon anyway)
Then I realized that most people aren't such flaming fans as me. Someone like me would say I wouldn't drink it because it was the end of Vince. Most normal people would say "OH THAT'S THE TEQUILA FROM ENTOURAGE? LET'S GET IT!!!" I'm pretty strange. I used to avoid New York because that's where the Yankees were, and I hated the Yankees. I've calmed down a bit, and should be in New York soon, but I still don't like the Yankees.
So when you think about it like that, what a great, (and free) platform to launch your new product. Entourage is still a popular show, regardless of how terrible the storylines have been this season, or last season, or the season before, or season four. The show is like a walking advertisement for the Tequila Avion. What an amazing launch for a new product.
So if you've been watching this season of Entourage you're aware of Tequila Avion, the tequila that Turtle's (brutal) girl/love interest hooked up him with and that Vince seems to be supporting and relying on too much.
On my bus to New York last weekend I saw an ad for "Tequila Avion" on a New Jersey billboard, I wasn't sure what was going on. Entourage has taken out ads promoting their fake movies, blurring the line between reality and entertainment - something I love about the show.
I tweeted my concern about if this Tequila Avion was real, and in fact it is. It just recently launched, but their history has nothing to do with the history given on the show.
My first reaction was what a terrible portrayal of their product, creating this made up story line and being one of the reasons Vince's career seems to be in a downward spiral. I personally believe the Tequila has some kind of addictive ingredient (read: cocaine) that makes Vince able to drink it for 16 straight hours a day, drive drunk, show up drunk to his meeting with Stan Lee, etc. Do you want your product to be known as the tequila that causes the potential end of Vince and the boys? (even though it will end soon anyway)
Then I realized that most people aren't such flaming fans as me. Someone like me would say I wouldn't drink it because it was the end of Vince. Most normal people would say "OH THAT'S THE TEQUILA FROM ENTOURAGE? LET'S GET IT!!!" I'm pretty strange. I used to avoid New York because that's where the Yankees were, and I hated the Yankees. I've calmed down a bit, and should be in New York soon, but I still don't like the Yankees.
So when you think about it like that, what a great, (and free) platform to launch your new product. Entourage is still a popular show, regardless of how terrible the storylines have been this season, or last season, or the season before, or season four. The show is like a walking advertisement for the Tequila Avion. What an amazing launch for a new product.
Monday, August 16, 2010
TV Commentary
I didn't really know what to call this post. I've had what we'll nicely call "some" free time over the past few months and caught up on A LOT of shows that I never wanted to watch, but did anyway. I like watching TV shows more than movies cause they're more involved than your movie in shorter bursts - 22-44 minutes a clip as opposed to 90-150 minutes - and there's so many more story lines going on. I thought I'd share my thoughts on what I'm watching, since, well, let's just say I have the time.
1) Mad Men
I tried to watch it last year, it was too slow. I watched it this year, it's slower, but I was determined to see why everyone was SO into it. I'm still not entirely sure. I think people are into the concept - the 60's are a time that was so fundamental to our country's growth, but I'm not sure if there's anything REALLY going on. If the biggest problem of an episode is if Campbell can have a kid or not, I'm really not intrigued.
I know it's more than that - the focal point is Don/Dick. While an interesting character, where is this going to go? How many times can we see him go to CA to be with the real Mrs. Draper and then try to fix things with his wife? I guess, in that time, divorce is a big deal, and we're so used to it now that it isn't - although it should be. I'm surprised Peggy having Pete's kid wasn't a BIGGER deal, although it's always the elephant in the room, especially now that Pete did conceive with his wife.
It's a period piece. One that glorifies drinking and smoking, and male hooliganism. I have no idea what the 60s were actually like, but sometimes it feels like the characters (mainly Peggy and Pete) are forced, as in they aren't acting naturally. I'm not saying they are bad actors, I think that's what they're supposed to do. It just seems weird. It's also weird to see these people outside of their 60s costumes. I'd say it's alright at best, but not GREAT. I'll watch because it took me so long to catch up, but I already know this is a show I won't watch twice.
2) Dexter
Okay, so I started Dexter last year, but I finally caught up this summer. It's gotta be my favorite show on TV now that Entourage is dropping off. Michael C. Hall gives a great performance as this tortured but good-guy portector of the peace and keeps the murderers away from the street.. After a weak season 3, season 4 was excellent and I'm really excited to watch season 5 when it premieres in a month. It even inspired me to (gasp) read the books - which aren't even the basis for the show past season 1. I like that the crew took over the idea, evolved it, and made it their own. Season 2 was kind of over the top, but it was fun. Great show.
3) Jersey Shore
just kidding!!!
4) True Blood
I've been watching True Blood since the beginning, and I've always been skeptical, given the teenage-girl-loves-vampire disease that has struck America the past three years, but I'm still watching. I'm just not sure what I want out of this show anymore. Season 1 was interesting the Vampire/Human love concept, and Season 2 was kind of interesting because of the Anti-Vampire movement, but this season seems to drag. Maybe I'm dragging. It has definitely gotten better in the past few episodes, but the first 6 or so were so strange I was close to calling it off.
5) Ochocinco - Ultimate Catch
There's not much to say, other than I've loved Ocho since last years Hard Knocks, and love watching him do this show. I know it's stupid VH1 nonsense, but it's a nice little "don't have to concentrate too hard for some cheap laughs to enjoy" type program. Child Please.
6) Weeds
I had the first three seasons on DVD, but never saw the others. I saw them this summer. It used to be funny, but now it's just kind of gotten absurd. The whole Mexico line is weird. I don't know how much longer I can do it. Kevin Nealon is the best thing about that show.
Okay, I'm out. I think I'm finally gonna start watching The Sopranos. I've never really had the time, but I think I have it now. I've seen bits and pieces, but never the whole thing. I heard it's good?
1) Mad Men
I tried to watch it last year, it was too slow. I watched it this year, it's slower, but I was determined to see why everyone was SO into it. I'm still not entirely sure. I think people are into the concept - the 60's are a time that was so fundamental to our country's growth, but I'm not sure if there's anything REALLY going on. If the biggest problem of an episode is if Campbell can have a kid or not, I'm really not intrigued.
I know it's more than that - the focal point is Don/Dick. While an interesting character, where is this going to go? How many times can we see him go to CA to be with the real Mrs. Draper and then try to fix things with his wife? I guess, in that time, divorce is a big deal, and we're so used to it now that it isn't - although it should be. I'm surprised Peggy having Pete's kid wasn't a BIGGER deal, although it's always the elephant in the room, especially now that Pete did conceive with his wife.
It's a period piece. One that glorifies drinking and smoking, and male hooliganism. I have no idea what the 60s were actually like, but sometimes it feels like the characters (mainly Peggy and Pete) are forced, as in they aren't acting naturally. I'm not saying they are bad actors, I think that's what they're supposed to do. It just seems weird. It's also weird to see these people outside of their 60s costumes. I'd say it's alright at best, but not GREAT. I'll watch because it took me so long to catch up, but I already know this is a show I won't watch twice.
2) Dexter
Okay, so I started Dexter last year, but I finally caught up this summer. It's gotta be my favorite show on TV now that Entourage is dropping off. Michael C. Hall gives a great performance as this tortured but good-guy portector of the peace and keeps the murderers away from the street.. After a weak season 3, season 4 was excellent and I'm really excited to watch season 5 when it premieres in a month. It even inspired me to (gasp) read the books - which aren't even the basis for the show past season 1. I like that the crew took over the idea, evolved it, and made it their own. Season 2 was kind of over the top, but it was fun. Great show.
3) Jersey Shore
just kidding!!!
4) True Blood
I've been watching True Blood since the beginning, and I've always been skeptical, given the teenage-girl-loves-vampire disease that has struck America the past three years, but I'm still watching. I'm just not sure what I want out of this show anymore. Season 1 was interesting the Vampire/Human love concept, and Season 2 was kind of interesting because of the Anti-Vampire movement, but this season seems to drag. Maybe I'm dragging. It has definitely gotten better in the past few episodes, but the first 6 or so were so strange I was close to calling it off.
5) Ochocinco - Ultimate Catch
There's not much to say, other than I've loved Ocho since last years Hard Knocks, and love watching him do this show. I know it's stupid VH1 nonsense, but it's a nice little "don't have to concentrate too hard for some cheap laughs to enjoy" type program. Child Please.
6) Weeds
I had the first three seasons on DVD, but never saw the others. I saw them this summer. It used to be funny, but now it's just kind of gotten absurd. The whole Mexico line is weird. I don't know how much longer I can do it. Kevin Nealon is the best thing about that show.
Okay, I'm out. I think I'm finally gonna start watching The Sopranos. I've never really had the time, but I think I have it now. I've seen bits and pieces, but never the whole thing. I heard it's good?
Sunday, August 8, 2010
LOST - The New Man In Charge
I really thought I would be done talking about Lost after it was over. I believed it. Of course, with the DVD/Blu-Ray of Season 6 coming out, and the news that the 12-minute Epilogue titled "The New Man In Charge" got my Lost-blood flowing again. The footage leaked, and of course it found it's way to my computer. Don't worry, I fully plan on buying the Blu-Ray when it's cheap enough for my no-job budget. Christmas is coming.
Anyways, I saw it. At first I thought it was too cheesy, as if it was made simply with the purpose of tying up some of the random loose-ends, which really don't have any purpose to the REAL storyline, more of the random mythology that Lost has provided us - the polar bears, Hydra Island, Room 23, Dharma food drops, etc.
It's good that we no long have to debate the polar bears and the random potential they could have had. I'm sure someone thought they were brought by Jacob because polar bears are white and Jacob's color is white. So we dispelled those randoms.
The big shocker: Walt.
We never found out the point of Walt throughout the story. In retrospect, Walt seemed like such an insignificant cog in the proverbial Lost universe - which really boils down to Jacob/MiB/Jack/Locke.
We still don't know the point of Walt - we know he's special. We knew that 4 years ago. It seems clear to me that he's got the same potential that Hurley has - to speak to the dead. That's how he can help Michael. Maybe there's potential for Walt to take over as the new Hurley.
It answers some of the questions that don't matter, but, in typical Lost style, provides more questions. I love it, I'll miss it. I want more. I'll never get more. I'm planning on having a massive post on the timeline of Lost, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Get ready.
Anyways, I saw it. At first I thought it was too cheesy, as if it was made simply with the purpose of tying up some of the random loose-ends, which really don't have any purpose to the REAL storyline, more of the random mythology that Lost has provided us - the polar bears, Hydra Island, Room 23, Dharma food drops, etc.
It's good that we no long have to debate the polar bears and the random potential they could have had. I'm sure someone thought they were brought by Jacob because polar bears are white and Jacob's color is white. So we dispelled those randoms.
The big shocker: Walt.
We never found out the point of Walt throughout the story. In retrospect, Walt seemed like such an insignificant cog in the proverbial Lost universe - which really boils down to Jacob/MiB/Jack/Locke.
We still don't know the point of Walt - we know he's special. We knew that 4 years ago. It seems clear to me that he's got the same potential that Hurley has - to speak to the dead. That's how he can help Michael. Maybe there's potential for Walt to take over as the new Hurley.
It answers some of the questions that don't matter, but, in typical Lost style, provides more questions. I love it, I'll miss it. I want more. I'll never get more. I'm planning on having a massive post on the timeline of Lost, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Get ready.
MTV Actually Has A Good Reality Show
If you're thinking I'm about to talk about Jersey Shore, child please.
Let's be honest. MTV has turn into a cest-pool for just trashy reality television shows. Nothing about it is meant to bring any cultural significance - but we're all obsessed with these insignificant people and their made-for-TV-lives. I love The Situtation, but why? He doesn't DO anything life-changing. Lauren Conrad is gorgeous, but that's about it.
The reality (pun-intended) is that most people age 12-30 watch MTV on a regular basis. Sometimes more than regular. MTV is my second go-to channel after ESPN. But why? The show's are so terrible. It's actually on while I write this, because I know I don't have to pay attention to get the gist of the show.
A quick rundown of the MTV shows (some past, some present)
True Life
Total Request Live
Made
Real World
Road Rules
The Bastard Child between those two - Gauntlet/Challenge/Special Olympics/Fight Club/Frat Rejects
The Osbournes
Punk'd
Jackass
-Followed by: Bam Margera's an Idiot
Laguna Beach/The Hills/The City (and single-handely creating the monster that is Spencer Pratt)
Super Sweet 16 - "even if I'm not 16"
Room Raiders
Papa Simpson pimping his daughters for a few shows
FAT CAMP
Engaged and Underage
16 and Pregnant
Teen Mom
Next
The X Effect
Beavis and Butthead
Date My Mom
Parental Control
The Britney Spears "My Hair Grew Back and My CD is Coming Out Soon" Special
The DJ AM Addiction Show
Silent Library
Fantasy Factory/Whatever
Okay, so maybe that wasn't so short. That goes to show you how easy it was for me to think of all the shows MTV has come up with. Which one of those is worthwhile television? True Life is the only one worth arguing for somewhat eye-opening lifestyles - steroids, OCD, and Tourettes come to mind - that many people may have no concept of. However, True Life: I spend too much/I'm broke/I'm 40 and live with my parents/I'm considering getting a divorce but as the episode goes on I reconsider and don't get a divorce until next time/I'm an only child/I'm unemployed/I wrestle/I blog - really aren't interesting at all. The other shows aren't going to change your life. It's pop-cultural relevant, and they keep things interesting, but why do we care? See: Spiedi.
I REALLY can't understand why the Engaged & Underage/16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom thing has caught on. It's actually awful television. I remember reading MTV's stance that it was "to educate youth about the consequences of their actions," but they show the program so much that you'd think they were glorifying it. How can anyone say this is helpful? The people on the show are lucky that child services doesn't use the tape as evidence for child abuse. It's all terrible. It's the one series of show that I actually despise (okay I lied; Silent Library is a waste) and would LOVE if it would disappear.
Enter the MTV show I actually like: If You Really Knew Me.
The concept is simple: take down the barriers of high school stereotypes and have conversations that start with "If you really knew me..." The high school jocks talk to the the nerds. They learn that they're totally different than perceived. Think about when you were in high school. You had your group of friends you stuck to, and there were also several groups you avoided, made fun of, fought with, etc. There were good times and bad. High school's about growing up and discovering yourself etc etc until you really find it in college. You're so insecure about it though you are too scared to do anything.
The show is deep. People talk about all their baggage. The ugly stuff that nobody ever brings up. The suicide attempts. The parental problems. The diseases. The self-image problems. It's great because it lets everyone on the show feel like they're not alone. Everyone's got their own problems on different levels. It's not meant to be pleasant to watch. Makes you think about things that we usually don't think about. That's what makes it good TV, particularly for the kids in high school who are going through the same experiences. To know they're not alone. These type of programs should be instituted in schools everywhere. It may seem like a waste of a few days, but it's much more of an experience than a few extra days of chemistry/algebra/gym/history (I promise I won't go on talking about education, I did that too much a few days ago)
You don't need to watch every episode to understand. Really, one is enough. It's still good for the soul to watch these people let go of their bottled-up emotions, break down the wall, and have real conversation. It's inspirational to say the least.
The problem: MTV doesn't promote the show as if it's something to watch. They put it at a bad time slot (after Teen Mom at 11 PM EST) so it's going to be less viewed. They don't advertise for it the same way they do for Jersey Shore or Real World. It's a shame. Nobody knows about it, nobody talks about it, because it's not advertised. It's not something the MTV crowd wants to watch. They should watch it.
A random sidenote: Maybe I used to be real dumb/naive, but I don't remember MTV being so explicit about drinking/alcohol/wasted when I was 13. I remember watching Real World religiously and they would just "go out" they would never be hammered. I saw a random episode of New Orleans and the cute girl says "I black out all the time, my friends black out, my parents black out, I vomit, whatever," as if it was no big deal. On Jersey Shore they can't be seen without a liquor in the room. Not the MTV I remember. Can't say that's the best example for today's youth. But this is the culture we live in.
If You Really Knew Me won't go down as the best show ever. Not even close. It's not meant to. It's just a story to help kids understand that everyone is normal, even if they don't think they are. True Life.
Let's be honest. MTV has turn into a cest-pool for just trashy reality television shows. Nothing about it is meant to bring any cultural significance - but we're all obsessed with these insignificant people and their made-for-TV-lives. I love The Situtation, but why? He doesn't DO anything life-changing. Lauren Conrad is gorgeous, but that's about it.
The reality (pun-intended) is that most people age 12-30 watch MTV on a regular basis. Sometimes more than regular. MTV is my second go-to channel after ESPN. But why? The show's are so terrible. It's actually on while I write this, because I know I don't have to pay attention to get the gist of the show.
A quick rundown of the MTV shows (some past, some present)
True Life
Total Request Live
Made
Real World
Road Rules
The Bastard Child between those two - Gauntlet/Challenge/Special Olympics/Fight Club/Frat Rejects
The Osbournes
Punk'd
Jackass
-Followed by: Bam Margera's an Idiot
Laguna Beach/The Hills/The City (and single-handely creating the monster that is Spencer Pratt)
Super Sweet 16 - "even if I'm not 16"
Room Raiders
Papa Simpson pimping his daughters for a few shows
FAT CAMP
Engaged and Underage
16 and Pregnant
Teen Mom
Next
The X Effect
Beavis and Butthead
Date My Mom
Parental Control
The Britney Spears "My Hair Grew Back and My CD is Coming Out Soon" Special
The DJ AM Addiction Show
Silent Library
Fantasy Factory/Whatever
Okay, so maybe that wasn't so short. That goes to show you how easy it was for me to think of all the shows MTV has come up with. Which one of those is worthwhile television? True Life is the only one worth arguing for somewhat eye-opening lifestyles - steroids, OCD, and Tourettes come to mind - that many people may have no concept of. However, True Life: I spend too much/I'm broke/I'm 40 and live with my parents/I'm considering getting a divorce but as the episode goes on I reconsider and don't get a divorce until next time/I'm an only child/I'm unemployed/I wrestle/I blog - really aren't interesting at all. The other shows aren't going to change your life. It's pop-cultural relevant, and they keep things interesting, but why do we care? See: Spiedi.
I REALLY can't understand why the Engaged & Underage/16 and Pregnant/Teen Mom thing has caught on. It's actually awful television. I remember reading MTV's stance that it was "to educate youth about the consequences of their actions," but they show the program so much that you'd think they were glorifying it. How can anyone say this is helpful? The people on the show are lucky that child services doesn't use the tape as evidence for child abuse. It's all terrible. It's the one series of show that I actually despise (okay I lied; Silent Library is a waste) and would LOVE if it would disappear.
Enter the MTV show I actually like: If You Really Knew Me.
The concept is simple: take down the barriers of high school stereotypes and have conversations that start with "If you really knew me..." The high school jocks talk to the the nerds. They learn that they're totally different than perceived. Think about when you were in high school. You had your group of friends you stuck to, and there were also several groups you avoided, made fun of, fought with, etc. There were good times and bad. High school's about growing up and discovering yourself etc etc until you really find it in college. You're so insecure about it though you are too scared to do anything.
The show is deep. People talk about all their baggage. The ugly stuff that nobody ever brings up. The suicide attempts. The parental problems. The diseases. The self-image problems. It's great because it lets everyone on the show feel like they're not alone. Everyone's got their own problems on different levels. It's not meant to be pleasant to watch. Makes you think about things that we usually don't think about. That's what makes it good TV, particularly for the kids in high school who are going through the same experiences. To know they're not alone. These type of programs should be instituted in schools everywhere. It may seem like a waste of a few days, but it's much more of an experience than a few extra days of chemistry/algebra/gym/history (I promise I won't go on talking about education, I did that too much a few days ago)
You don't need to watch every episode to understand. Really, one is enough. It's still good for the soul to watch these people let go of their bottled-up emotions, break down the wall, and have real conversation. It's inspirational to say the least.
The problem: MTV doesn't promote the show as if it's something to watch. They put it at a bad time slot (after Teen Mom at 11 PM EST) so it's going to be less viewed. They don't advertise for it the same way they do for Jersey Shore or Real World. It's a shame. Nobody knows about it, nobody talks about it, because it's not advertised. It's not something the MTV crowd wants to watch. They should watch it.
A random sidenote: Maybe I used to be real dumb/naive, but I don't remember MTV being so explicit about drinking/alcohol/wasted when I was 13. I remember watching Real World religiously and they would just "go out" they would never be hammered. I saw a random episode of New Orleans and the cute girl says "I black out all the time, my friends black out, my parents black out, I vomit, whatever," as if it was no big deal. On Jersey Shore they can't be seen without a liquor in the room. Not the MTV I remember. Can't say that's the best example for today's youth. But this is the culture we live in.
If You Really Knew Me won't go down as the best show ever. Not even close. It's not meant to. It's just a story to help kids understand that everyone is normal, even if they don't think they are. True Life.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Wire
This post has been a long time coming. It was recently encouraged by my buddy Josh. Josh, consider this your shout-out. You're now as famous as I am.
The way I like to talk about The Wire is that it's more than just the best show ever made, because I feel like it is the obligatory response for everyone. It ranks #85 on Stuff White People Like, as if everyone is "required to like it". Whenever anyone talks about it, all that's said is that it's "the best show ever". That's such a cop out. Let's talk about why.
People talk about literature, art, and music as "classic", "original" and "a masterpiece" but we don't typically see that for television. Some movies are starting to be given the same credentials, but television shows don't seem to be given the same praise. I believe The Wire is truly broadcast literature, art, and a social commentary on the state of failing American cities like Baltimore. It's an original story told in a masterful way that is engaging and captivating through the entire series.
I think The Wire speaks to the evolution of TV as a recognized medium for truly stimulating entertainment. It's not just the boob-tube anymore, where you can sit and lose brain cells while watching Jersey Shore. We're now creating shows that capture your attention and are thought-provoking. Shows like Lost, Mad Men, The Sopranos, etc. that are more than just the 48-60 in each episode. Of course, if you sit around and watch True Life, you might not be making any serious mental progress.
Most TV shows or movies are created based off something else - usually a book or "based on a true story." The Wire isn't that at all. While it draws some of it's characters based on real-people (mainly the criminals), it's an original story, which makes it that much more interesting in my mind. I get tired of movies where critics say "the book was better" - although it is usually true - and enjoy the fact that The Wire has no book component. It is it's own story. Like I said, we're seeing that developing more and more with TV, and I think it's great. You can't say the same for movies, as we're seeing Shrek 17, a re-boot of Spiderman (which didn't that JUST come out??) and real original movies like Piranha 3D.
What makes The Wire so excellent is it's originality in storytelling. Everything is projected as "real". There is no extra TV shenanigans to make the story feel like it was made for TV - no music, no necessary romances (because that usually ruins shows anyway), no hero that always wins (i.e. Jack Bauer), they don't dumb down the language to a 4th grade reading level, etc. The Wire is REAL. You don't see that in most shows. They talk like real people talk in Baltimore. Because it's HBO, there is no censoring of the content. They portray the police and politicians as corrupt and inept as the criminals - which is very believable to happen within your own local government. It's a show you have to actually watch. You can't have it on in the background. You have to put down the laptop and cell phone and focus for 60 straight minutes. In the 2010 ADHD tech world, that's incredibly difficult for anyone to do.
The show's true focus is on Baltimore, which used to be a thriving city for the working-class, has now become a broken, rundown city, full of empty rowhouses. There's not as much money as there used to be, so people turn to drugs, which leads to violence. In 2009 alone there were over 230 murders in the city. The reality is that most of these people are African-Americans who have fallen through the cracks. The city is falling apart, and The Wire tells the story about how it's citizens, weather they be drug dealers, police officers, politicians, young children, the working-class, etc. must deal with the consequences. The show doesn't portray Baltimore in a good light, because there isn't much good light to shine on (outside of Inner Harbor of course). You could say that about other cities in this country as well - Detroit comes to mind following the fall of the major motor corporations - who seem to be making somewhat of a comeback.
The Wire depicts an all-too-brutal view of how crime operates. How the police are held back by the judicial system and the law to clean the streets. Even if they were close to conviction, the crime crews scare any witnesses by threatening murder. It's an unwritten rule on the street that I personally don't know but have heard of - nobody snitches, because you'll be beaten up, or worse. It's seen from the very first episode, where a man stands up against the crime organization in court, and soon after is found dead. Most crime shows don't go through all of the legal procedures and show how many things can go wrong, which leads to the continuing crime.
The also can be said for within the police scheme. Do you really know how your local Homicide division solves crimes? Do you know what goes on in your local city hall? That's what The Wire depicts - things we've never really witnessed but is essential to our safety and survival in cities.
Even the portrayal of the newspaper - how they are failing and have to cut costs. An institution like a newspaper that represents the basis of American independence is losing money and falling apart. Our independence is dying.
In Season Four, the focus is the educational system, and how inner-city schools struggle to teach the children because of the violence and disruption even in grade schools. These kids have very little parental supervision and support, and are almost forced to hustle for any money. Their childhood innocence is stripped right away. The Wire makes you sympathize with the drug dealers, who literally don't know any other way to succeed unless they are out on the corner - and have accepted that they will die young while on the corner. It shows how the American political system has failed these people. These people don't vote, because it doesn't matter to them. They don't pay taxes, won't be getting any Social Security, etc.
Since 9/11, the government's focus has been on the war on terror, not the war on drugs, which is allowing the drug trade to grow and not have the same federal watch dogs as it used to. It now falls on the local police, who used to just deal with typical murders. The war on drugs is the same as the war on terror, but it's happening on our home turf. It's unspoken amongst politicians and the upper-class, but it's real and it's out there. People in Baltimore are terrorized to stand up in court because of the threat of death. How is that very different than what's going on in the Middle East? We're losing both wars, and not committing enough to work on it.
Then there are the characters that The Wire has created that all feel like protagonists fighting against each other. The cop who would do anything to see them win - McNulty - and how he doesn't do things by the book. The number-two drug dealer - Stringer - who tries to turn drug dealing into a true business coalition so everyone can deal peacefully. The modern day Robin Hood - Omar - who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The Union president - Sobotka - who turns to drug trade to see his Union stay afloat. The homeless addict trying to get by and be clean. The kids trying to grow up in school, sling, and prove their street cred to their elders. None of these people feel like a true "bad guy". Rather, they are all trying to succeed within the limitations with which they are given, and don't know any other way. You root for all of them, but know that they all can't succeed because of the system within which they operate. They all are full of hope to succeed, but all fail.
The plight of The Wire is that it never really received the recognition it deserved. Never won an Emmy or any real distinguished award. It was never given the chance, maybe because it felt too dreary and was depressing at some points. I'm not sure. It doesn't need the awards to prove it's excellence. It's slowly caught on and more and more people are watching it - even though it began over 8 years ago now. It's losing it's cool as "the best show that no one's seen or heard of" and transitioning to "the best show ever made". I always am in awe of how original and real the story feels. I remember the first time I saw it in 2005 and thought that this was groundbreaking and exciting on an entirely different level than anything I had seen. When a friend asks me for a show to watch, my first response is The Wire, and I'm jealous of the experience they have for watching it the first time. The story is still as good later on, but the excitement is lost.
The show will be the best ever for a while, and look forward towards more shows that tell an original story like The Wire once did.
I've been trying to think of a quote from the show to end this post with, and there are so many to choose from, so I'm going to go with a cop-out quote that summarizes the entire show: In this, all the pieces matter - Lester Freamon.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Rethinking the Educational System
When you're unemployed and in summer mode, you have a lot of time to think. This post counts as having too much time on my hands.
I'm not a political junkie. I know that George W. Bush tried to enact a "No Child Left Behind" educational policy, which from my understanding was generally a failure. It sounds like the goal was to meet certain objectives that made the results more important than the process (i.e. only thing that matters is the scores - doesn't matter how you get there)
I think it's time we re-evaluate how America does education. It's still far and away the best system in the world, which is why so many international students come to learn. However, I believe that it is somewhat failing in truly "preparing" students for the "real world."
Think about how many things you learned in high school that, unless it pertains to your specific current career, you probably won't remember. Chemistry sticks out in my head. When have I used Algebra? Trig? Calculus? The history of the Aztec/Mayan empires? Couldn't tell you. I can talk about things that I found interesting and was engaged in - a few classes on government, my English classes, and I remember Latin. I hated Latin, but it was great to actually understand it and own it.
My point is - there's so many classes that we all take that we don't remember. It's like the concept of the show Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? Because you may know more about how the world works, you may not know if a rhombus has four equal sides or if that's a parallelogram.
I know that the idea is to give youth a "general basis in all disciplines" and then hopefully they choose to study more of their interests in college and beyond. So nearly 70% of my educational time was on material irrelevant to what I wanted to do? I don't know what my future holds for me, but I am absolutely positive that it won't have anything to do with me in a Chemistry lab coming up with the next vaccine.
What I think could be done - and this is somewhat of a rip off of season 4 of The Wire - is to give students truly an education on how our society works. Call it a "life" class. Teach the students about things that are actually important to them fitting in and succeeding - how to work. What's involved in taxes? What's a 401k? How to build credit? How do mortgages function? How do you pay your bills? What is a good interest rate for a bank? The stock market. Health insurance? Everyone should know the details of Obama's health care bill - because it relates directly to them. Weather they like it or not doesn't matter - but they should be aware of it. Stuff that we can use because this is how society has been set up.
In those American Revolution classes you'd always learn about the Boston Tea Party and "No Taxation without Representation" stuff. What does that really mean for us now over 200 years later? How do I not only pay my taxes, but where do they go? I think that would be more helpful and beneficial than knowing the periodic table (I'm really ripping into Chemistry. You can see that it was my least favorite subject).
If you were to argue that by taking away any class to incorporate this "Life" class, then let's just add it onto the schedule - make the day longer or do something. In The Wire they took most of the "inner-city" troubled youth who seemed destined to be working the Corner and have an average life expectancy of 22. They didn't teach this kids how 2+2=4. Instead, they tried to teach them just general life behavior - how to order food at a restaurant, teamwork exercises. There was no real grades, because that wasn't the point. It was about teaching these kids how to live in the world and hopefully provide other options for them besides selling dope on the streets. I know that The Wire isn't real, but it's a feasible concept. The problem with it was that we are acknowledging these kids' likely outcome and stereotypically treating them different - as if they don't matter. I'm not sure that's the right answer, but something like what they did in the show would be more helpful than your average math class.
Which brings me to another point - the grading of education is weak. I don't know how to fix it. But it's garbage that I can take the same class as you - with different teachers - and our experience and our grades can reflect two totally different classes. Student X worked extremely hard to get a C, while Student Y didn't work so hard and cruised to an easy A. X knows much more than Y because X worked harder because the way it was taught was more difficult, but at the end of the day, when you judge purely on report cards, student Y did "better."
Think about those classes in college or high school that everyone took. The only difference was teachers. I can think of one class in college where all my teacher had us do was write press releases every other week. My friend was in the same class but different teacher, and she was stressing out over having to create a huge event for the school - for class! Two totally different learning experiences, two totally different work ethics, two totally different outcomes.
Then when you are making the transition from high school to college, or from college to grad school etc, your GPA is one of the key items of note. Using our friends X and Y from a few paragraphs ago, X may know much more than Y did, but Y had the easier teachers, and therefore was chosen before X. I know there's many other variables (pun intended) than just grades - but at the end of the day, it all comes down to GPA. And that can make the difference in being accepted or rejected from Z.
Another random annoyance - how we give tests. My grade on a test doesn't reflect what I know about a certain subject. The example that comes to my head is when a teacher asks a question on a test and you don't have the answer - but you could correctly answer questions that the teacher didn't ask. That shouldn't mean you fail the test - it's not a real accurate way of measuring how much you know. So much of test are just straight memorization. Does that prove I know a lot about European political parties or that I can remember how Parliament works "for the test" and then forget about it 20 minutes later. That's the flaw, that we learn it not to better ourselves, but to "pass the test" and then move on.
Again, I don't know the way to fix that, because we need to measure how well you are doing in class, but need it to be more regulated so that it is truly fair.
It's interesting because coming out of college I feel prepared to have a job - but I'm not sure about how to handle everything else that comes with being a "working" man. The stuff I mentioned above - how does it all work? Why don't I know that? Why wasn't that taught to me as part of my "education"? I know I'm not alone with that thought.
***ADDENDUM AUGUST 4, 2010***
Another thought came to mind - college is the exact opposite of the rest of the world. In high school, class goes from 7ish till 3ish. College is whenever you set it, and typically for around 16 hours a week. Then when you have a "real job" it's somewhere between 9-6 five days a week. Why give all that freedom in college? I know the stock answer - "to allow you to explore your passions and interests." I'm sure some people follow through. I'm sure other people didn't and instead slept, partied, slept some more, etc. I guess that is more of a "showing your maturity" issue, but it's kind of silly when you think about it.
With that said, I'm excited about going back in a few weeks. Oh wait.
I'm not a political junkie. I know that George W. Bush tried to enact a "No Child Left Behind" educational policy, which from my understanding was generally a failure. It sounds like the goal was to meet certain objectives that made the results more important than the process (i.e. only thing that matters is the scores - doesn't matter how you get there)
I think it's time we re-evaluate how America does education. It's still far and away the best system in the world, which is why so many international students come to learn. However, I believe that it is somewhat failing in truly "preparing" students for the "real world."
Think about how many things you learned in high school that, unless it pertains to your specific current career, you probably won't remember. Chemistry sticks out in my head. When have I used Algebra? Trig? Calculus? The history of the Aztec/Mayan empires? Couldn't tell you. I can talk about things that I found interesting and was engaged in - a few classes on government, my English classes, and I remember Latin. I hated Latin, but it was great to actually understand it and own it.
My point is - there's so many classes that we all take that we don't remember. It's like the concept of the show Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? Because you may know more about how the world works, you may not know if a rhombus has four equal sides or if that's a parallelogram.
I know that the idea is to give youth a "general basis in all disciplines" and then hopefully they choose to study more of their interests in college and beyond. So nearly 70% of my educational time was on material irrelevant to what I wanted to do? I don't know what my future holds for me, but I am absolutely positive that it won't have anything to do with me in a Chemistry lab coming up with the next vaccine.
What I think could be done - and this is somewhat of a rip off of season 4 of The Wire - is to give students truly an education on how our society works. Call it a "life" class. Teach the students about things that are actually important to them fitting in and succeeding - how to work. What's involved in taxes? What's a 401k? How to build credit? How do mortgages function? How do you pay your bills? What is a good interest rate for a bank? The stock market. Health insurance? Everyone should know the details of Obama's health care bill - because it relates directly to them. Weather they like it or not doesn't matter - but they should be aware of it. Stuff that we can use because this is how society has been set up.
In those American Revolution classes you'd always learn about the Boston Tea Party and "No Taxation without Representation" stuff. What does that really mean for us now over 200 years later? How do I not only pay my taxes, but where do they go? I think that would be more helpful and beneficial than knowing the periodic table (I'm really ripping into Chemistry. You can see that it was my least favorite subject).
If you were to argue that by taking away any class to incorporate this "Life" class, then let's just add it onto the schedule - make the day longer or do something. In The Wire they took most of the "inner-city" troubled youth who seemed destined to be working the Corner and have an average life expectancy of 22. They didn't teach this kids how 2+2=4. Instead, they tried to teach them just general life behavior - how to order food at a restaurant, teamwork exercises. There was no real grades, because that wasn't the point. It was about teaching these kids how to live in the world and hopefully provide other options for them besides selling dope on the streets. I know that The Wire isn't real, but it's a feasible concept. The problem with it was that we are acknowledging these kids' likely outcome and stereotypically treating them different - as if they don't matter. I'm not sure that's the right answer, but something like what they did in the show would be more helpful than your average math class.
Which brings me to another point - the grading of education is weak. I don't know how to fix it. But it's garbage that I can take the same class as you - with different teachers - and our experience and our grades can reflect two totally different classes. Student X worked extremely hard to get a C, while Student Y didn't work so hard and cruised to an easy A. X knows much more than Y because X worked harder because the way it was taught was more difficult, but at the end of the day, when you judge purely on report cards, student Y did "better."
Think about those classes in college or high school that everyone took. The only difference was teachers. I can think of one class in college where all my teacher had us do was write press releases every other week. My friend was in the same class but different teacher, and she was stressing out over having to create a huge event for the school - for class! Two totally different learning experiences, two totally different work ethics, two totally different outcomes.
Then when you are making the transition from high school to college, or from college to grad school etc, your GPA is one of the key items of note. Using our friends X and Y from a few paragraphs ago, X may know much more than Y did, but Y had the easier teachers, and therefore was chosen before X. I know there's many other variables (pun intended) than just grades - but at the end of the day, it all comes down to GPA. And that can make the difference in being accepted or rejected from Z.
Another random annoyance - how we give tests. My grade on a test doesn't reflect what I know about a certain subject. The example that comes to my head is when a teacher asks a question on a test and you don't have the answer - but you could correctly answer questions that the teacher didn't ask. That shouldn't mean you fail the test - it's not a real accurate way of measuring how much you know. So much of test are just straight memorization. Does that prove I know a lot about European political parties or that I can remember how Parliament works "for the test" and then forget about it 20 minutes later. That's the flaw, that we learn it not to better ourselves, but to "pass the test" and then move on.
Again, I don't know the way to fix that, because we need to measure how well you are doing in class, but need it to be more regulated so that it is truly fair.
It's interesting because coming out of college I feel prepared to have a job - but I'm not sure about how to handle everything else that comes with being a "working" man. The stuff I mentioned above - how does it all work? Why don't I know that? Why wasn't that taught to me as part of my "education"? I know I'm not alone with that thought.
***ADDENDUM AUGUST 4, 2010***
Another thought came to mind - college is the exact opposite of the rest of the world. In high school, class goes from 7ish till 3ish. College is whenever you set it, and typically for around 16 hours a week. Then when you have a "real job" it's somewhere between 9-6 five days a week. Why give all that freedom in college? I know the stock answer - "to allow you to explore your passions and interests." I'm sure some people follow through. I'm sure other people didn't and instead slept, partied, slept some more, etc. I guess that is more of a "showing your maturity" issue, but it's kind of silly when you think about it.
With that said, I'm excited about going back in a few weeks. Oh wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)