Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

BBC trust

The BBC hopes to win back viewer trust with honesty after a flow of scandals ranging from fake competitions (and winners) on Comic Relief and other programs, to deceiving footage of the Queen. I find it interesting that honesty and clarity seem to be major tenants of the British entertainment industry, as they should be, because in the US it couldn't be more different. People expect deceit when they turn on most entertainment-infested TV news, or at least they should; reality television is everything but real. And many people know and understand that. Whereas in the BBC's case snowballing scandals caused largely because of the in-and-out nature of the entertainment industry (i.e. young employees there for only a short time) and an atmosphere that seems to not match corporation slogans of honesty and fairness.

Mark Thompson, the BBC's director, is working hard to change that, and he seems to be a competent enough person to clean up all this. The BBC Trust — the body at the top of the BBC's pyramid of governance — thinks so. Thompson has outlined measures to be taken — more serious, I might add, than the typical non-BBC reaction might be — including a suspension of competitions, editorial leaders, and a promise for new staff guidelines and stricter measures to offenders of the rules that form the foundation of public trust in the BBC. Honesty is very important to the BBC, as Thompson points out.

The BBC is a very large body with many programs on all the mediums: radio, internet, television. It has a huge amount of programming and deals with many production teams... it is, in a word, gigantic. Personally I view it's news as the standard for the news industry; Today, Newsnight and BBC News Online are examples of excellent news content. In addition their interviews are tough and to-the-point, which interviews should be like... however I do not see this kind of interviewing — which forces the interviewee to go beyond talking points and propaganda and actually lets the news consumer to get something worthwhile out of it — in the American mainstream media. Also the BBC often has the kind of reporting on global events unseen in most media circles, such as its dispatches from Burma or Iraq, as well as less bleak areas of the world.

In a fast-moving industry and with such a large body there are bound to be plenty of problems, which is still no excuse for these deceitful scandals. At least the BBC deals with them, and, being a government-funded body (via a Royal Charter), it is forced to. Most other content isn't held to the same standards; maybe that is why the BBC is so good, at least in my opinion. If only trust and integrity instead of sensationalism and deceit and opinionizing were qualities of many of the BBC's counterparts in the entertainment and news industries.

Sunday, 22 July 2007

Farewell, Harry Potter series

I just finished the seventh and final Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows (Wikipedia), released just yesterday. Abiding by the Golden Rule, I shall not give away any spoilers. Although I haven't had time to reflect much upon the overall quality of this much-hyped novel, it was clearly a good read. (The sixth book was also good; it chronicled Voldemort's life as the new book focuses more on Dumbledore's.) The events of this book also illustrated ties to the rise of the Nazis in Germany, with the Death Eaters — followers of the Dark Lord — being the Nazis and the rebels and non-purebloods being the Jews and other hated groups. Of course that connection doesn't totally fit, but the parallels are clearly seen. For a while the story also reminded me of Orwell's epic 1984.

It's too early to say whether this was my favorite of the seven Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling, but it is at least among them. The fourth and fifth were a bit weaker than the best; for some time I felt the sixth to be the best, now I am unsure.

I started reading the books nearly a decade ago, when I was at a fairly young age, in a totally different mindset than I am in now. Of the many changes that have occurred in those eight or so years, one thing that hasn't budged is my interest in reading. The Harry Potter books aren't the best written books, but they flow and captivate their readers — child or adult. While they are presumed to be aimed at younger readers this series has attracted a literary following of all ages, the likes of which has brought a rare, all-ages, cultural phenomenon causing people who rarely pick up a book to read.

As a whole this, to use the two words the inside cover flap of the US edition of Deathly Hallows uses, "epic tale" (or rather, series of epic tales) of witchcraft and wizardry will remain a classic in the eyes of mainstream readers everywhere. While I did not don a wizard's outfit and wait in front of the bookstore for three days, I did anxiously await the arrival of this book. It has brought closure to a great series in literature, in fantasy and in the art as a whole for it has made reading more accessible for the general population without dumbing the story down for the rest of us.

At long last, the adventures of Harry Potter are now over. Closure feels good, in a way (I often get too sucked into books of fiction, which is why I'm not always reading fiction, because I would be if I didn't stop myself). The question is, what are people of all ages going to read next? I.e., will there be another Harry Potter? Will more people embrace reading because of it?...

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , ,

Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Sir Rushdie the infidel

A religious row over the knighthood of a controversial writer turns political, on an international scale.

Salmon Rushdie — I mean Sir Salmon Rushdie — has a history of flaring the tempers of more hard-line Islamists (can you say death threats? like the fatwa against the British-Indian novelist by Iran), as well as the Muslim world as a whole. The Iraqi foreign minister has condemned the honoring of Rushdie, whose novels, namely the popular Satanic Verses, often attack Islam (it's fiction!). His knighthood has also sparked large, widespread protests in Pakistan and Malaysia, among other nations. This has even turned into a (minor) diplomatic crisis for the UK.

Whenever any certain group feels it has been attacked at all by a book, a movie, or other works of art — e.g. Catholics and albinos for The Da Vinci Code; Muslims for Rushdie's books; Italian-Americans for The Sopranos — they blame it on mere works of fiction and get all up in arms about it. "Your [type of fiction] makes our people look bad. It is blasphemy to us [group of people]. We will [action taken by aforementioned peeved group]." Get over it people.

Cross-posted with modification; originally from In Perspective's sister blog, In Perspectives.

Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Rock music and American pop counterculture

From the early origins of rock and roll, to the age of rebellion, to modern fads...
Popular culture and entertainment have always served something people could copy — whether that thing is a lifestyle, a drink, or a hair style. The Beatles were idolized and modeled by Western youth in the 1960s. Fonzie in the American TV show Happy Days provided a role model for many of that generation. He was cool; people wanted to be like him. Jennifer Aniston's character's hairstyle in Friends was copied enough for it to earn its own place in American fashion: "The Rachel". American pop culture has served as a promoter of turning points in American culture.

Pop culture — the widespread appeal of modern or radical cultural elements in a society — seemed to flourish in the 1960s in the form of art, just as being a rebel (i.e. counterculture) seemed like the cool thing to do. It's important to note that like many phrases, pop culture has various definitions believed by various people. A pop culture reader, Common Culture, defines pop culture as

the shared knowledge and practices of a specific group at a specific time...pop culture both reflects and influences people's way of life...pop culture is transitory, subject to change, and often an initiator of change.


Rebellion is a common theme in modern pop culture, especially in regards to music. Punk and its early rock predecessors created a lifestyle in the style of its music. Art has always been a good measurement of a society's openness, its cultural diversity, and even its political feelings. Just as punk music rocked to the voices of angst and rebellion, and the more recent emo movement has played to the (intentionally) depressed, hip-hop and rap saw their beginnings in African Americans venting against the white foundation of the United States. Dr. Dre's (et al) "Fuck the Police", Public Enemy's "Fight the Power", and, in modern rap, "Ridin' [Dirty]" have served as an outlet against a real or perceived oppressor — it's time to stand up, to rebel.

Punk rock was brought to the US in great part by the many great rock bands of the United Kingdom. Bob Dylan's pop-folk became legendary and lasted decades; Elvis Presley's individual popularity saw the role of rock and roll music in pop culture exemplified with his country and blues "rockabilly" (1950s); The Beatles brought pop and rock in general to the United States from Britain (1960s); the Rolling Stones paved the way for more blues and rock and roll (1960s-'70s); David Bowie, the 'chameleon' of rock, was especially influential in the 1970s; the Sex Pistols rocked in a purely punk fashion (1970s); Pink Floyd ushered in progressive rock (1970s) and Led Zeppelin hard rock and heavy metal (1960s-'70s); Queen created an explosion in glam, arena, and hard/progressive rock (1970s-'80s); Nirvana's grunge rock brought in an era of its own in the '90s. Most of the aforementioned came from the UK, a common trend in the history of rock, especially punk.

Especially in their beginnings, movies also served as great pioneers in change of culture and opinion. Though Hollywood didn't used to be so 'liberal' as it is today, movies and television did break down a good many of taboos. But the real counterculture movement rested in the hands of the music industry, with many of the artists introducing pop rock, punk, etc., to our borders coming from Britain. The roots of rock rest in the US though, thanks in part to the great racism against blacks in the US. Such racism also later resulted in hip-hop and rap music from mostly-black urban inter-city areas. Jazz and blues were the predecessors to rock. Scott Joplin in 1899 published a very important composition, "The Maple Leaf Rag", that would come to usher in an age of jazz by boosting the genre of ragtime. Jazz became particularly prevalent in the 1920s and '30s. Ray Charles influenced soul, and thus rock, in the '50s. Motown and soul, which branched off from early jazz in a separate direction than rock, grew in the 1950s and '60s. The early rock and roll innovators bridged what was then experimental and classical music into pop rock.
As rock became more prevalent on American airwaves and in its culture, more bands came and more branches of rock were creates. There are some who believe that rock in general is a force to use to fight against 'the man', just as Public Enemy fought 'the power'. There have often been "rock against..." movements — like "Rock Against Bush" or "Rock Against Racism". Charity events like Live Aid use rock music for a reason: it is often seen as the music of change. It's also popular and culturally influential. And how much many punk rebels want others to think of them as a small, distant, underground minority, punk and related forms of rock have entered the veins of American music, with political and cultural venting galore, and mainstream appeal. Alternative rock, hard rock, progressive rock, psychedelic, and punk rock all express in their music a means of change from the status quo, a rebellion of sorts also seen in some urban music (e.g. rap, hip-hop).

1970s punk rock helped build alternative rock, which was more of a culmination of various rock genres, including electronic, folk, and jazz, and indie music. Alternative rock resulted in more forms of indie, as well as grunge, Britpop, and post-punk. Marginalized in the 1980s, alternative saw its true calling in the '90s and the beginning of the next millennium. All Music Guide states:
Alternative pop/rock is essentially a catch-all term for post-punk bands from the mid-'80s to the mid-'90s. There is a multitude of musical styles within alternative rock, from the sweet melodies of jangle-pop to the disturbing metallic grind of industrial, yet are all tied together by a similar aesthetic -- they all existed and operated outside [sic] of the mainstream.


What effects on the fabric of pop culture in the United States have rebellious music reaped? The 1960s and '70s saw the real formation of modern (post Second World War) counterculture. Counterculture is the political opposition of the current mainstream by a cultural group creating a movement for a period of time. There have been many times of counterculture prevalence, but possibly none so influential, rebellious, and liberal as the counterculture of the modern era. This counterculture was spread throughout developed nations (i.e. North America, Western Europe, New Zealand, Australia) by the rebel youth largely of the Baby Boom.

Hippies were the main group of US counterculture, as opposition to the Vietnam war grew, sex, drugs, and other moral issues became less taboo (within that cultural group), and the conservative politics and culture seemed too restricting, especially in terms of civil rights (segregation) and governmental powers during the Cold War. Briefly put, counterculture of that time period brought about change by those in wealthy, educated nations. Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and non-musical figures like Andy Warhol, played large roles in this movement. Nowadays, hippies are almost nonexistent, emphasizing the place of pop-counterculture in specific period of time, and not a more evolving, drawn out phenomenon like general culture.
Just as counterculture is a wider movement, rebellion can be large or small in scale. Rebels or pseudo-rebels popped up during and after the counterculture that lasted from roughly 1965 to 1978 in the United States. Punks and indies are seen as the more mainstream survivors or evolution of the counterculture movement. Any sort of rebellious movement has fought conformity, the establishment, and the social status quo — e.g. embracing communism throughout the Cold War, opposing the Iraq war today. The main timeframe where counterculture wasn't a subculture was in its 20th century, post-WWII heyday.

There is no doubt there will be future punk manifestations in the now-postmodern art era. However, it is unlikely we will see another era of hippies, music revolutionaries, and a shift in nearly every form of Western art and culture anytime soon. Who will be the next Beatles, the next Warhol, or the next Sex Pistols? Pop culture will evolve just as art does in one sense and society in another. The anti-establishment voices in music and entertainment will continue to cry out — as long as there is an establishment or movement to fight against.

References
  • "Alternative rock." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
  • "Black History Month 2003: Timeline of Key Dates in African-American History". NPR. 2003.
  • "Counterculture." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
  • Cousin Steve. "Timeline: Significant events in the history of Rock Music". 1998.
  • "Genre: Alternative/Indie-Rock." All Music Guide.
  • McKinney, Jessie. "Pop Culture Definition". Homepage. 13 Feb 2004.
  • Palmer, Robert. "Critic's Notebook; The Evolution of Rock, a Long and Winding Road". New York Times. 22 August 1985.
  • Petracca, Michael and Madeleine Sorapure. Common Culture. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2004.
  • "Punk ideologies." Wikipedia.
  • "Queen declared 'top British band'". BBC News.
  • Robb, John. "Popular culture: The Birth of Punk". The Independent. 5 Nov 2005.
  • Turnwall, Craig. "The apparent indeterminable classification of counterculture", an essay.
  • Van Dorston, A.S. "A History of Punk". Fast 'n' Bulbous Music Webzine.

  • Thursday, 7 June 2007

    Get out of jail free, like Paris Hilton!

    Hey I'm a celebrity so the law doesn't apply to me! Not only do all too many think that, but it is true in many cases.

    The story of Paris Hilton. She contributes nothing positive to society, yet gets out of prison early. She should have been in jail, which I'm sure was made cushy for her liking (and it was), for 45 days, which was then cut to 23 days. How many days did she end up spending? Three.

    It's not often I talk about these useless celebrities who dominate the national headlines, pushing out more deserving topics like the G8, but it's amazing how American law caters so much to celebrities. The rich and the famous can evade the law in ways not acceptable to the justice system or public safety or fairness.

    I will be in LA later this summer, and I don't want to be run over by a drunk and drugged Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. And really the wider issue is that in the United States' large, refined legal system, a celebrity can just evade their right punishment.

    Hilton drove drink. Thats a pretty damn serious offense and she has basically gotten away with it. It would have been even worse if she was granted a pardon; considering all the high-profile letters California courts were swarmed with, we should be glad that didn't happen.

    As I said I usually don't care a bit about entertainment stories, but when it affects how American justice sees the criminals stories like the Hilton DUI arrest and imprisonment become more serious. Needless to say it has also received far to much press coverage.

    Hilton will be under house arrest for the remaining 40 days of her sentence. Considering the size of her mansion that shouldn't be a problem.


    NOTICE: This blog is Paris Hilton (and other unimportant persons) -free until another one of them finds a way to receive special treatment on such a level that the story is deemed worthy of a blog post.

    8 June UPDATE: A screaming and crying Hilton has been ordered back to jail to finish out her 45 days by a judge. CNN and other US news organizations have complete coverage of the Paris Hilton story, as it is their top story. Apparently a spoiled rich socialite serving out the time in jail she was meant to serve is more important than the G8 summit, Iraq, and American immigration politics combined. Another fine moment for American (celebrity) journalism...

    Technorati technorati tags: , , ,

    Tuesday, 29 May 2007

    Teletubbies equal gay?

    Here's the culprit:

    How unimaginably evil. Don't be fooled by his innocent caricature, this guy is out to get you.
    Some facts/things to consider about this vile character:

  • The late Rev. Jerry Falwell, in all his craziness, once attacked the Telletubby named Tinky Winky.
  • A malevolent homosexual wishing to make your kid gay in some way or another? A menace to your child's morals and heterosexuality? ...Or an innocent young children's TV character?

    The Polish government is quite worried about a certain television show. No, its not because of sexual content or violence, or any other inappropriate content for that matter. Their worries stem from what is perceived as homosexuality exhibited in a TV show aimed at children not even old enough to write.

    BBC News:
    A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle.

    The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head.

    "I noticed he was carrying a woman's handbag," she told a magazine. "At first, I didn't realise he was a boy."

    EU officials have criticised Polish government policy towards homosexuals.

    Ms Sowinska wants the psychologists to make a recommendation about whether the children's show should be broadcast on public television.

    Poland's authorities have recently initiated a series of moves to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality among the nation's children.
    ...
    One radio station asked its listeners to vote for the most suspicious children's show. Some e-mailed in, saying that Winnie the Pooh had only male friends.
    ...
    Poland was criticised recently after its education ministry announced plans to sack teachers who promote homosexuality.

    Last month the European Union singled out Poland for criticism in its resolution condemning homophobia in the 27-member bloc.


    Even if the show did 'promote a homosexual lifestyle' — which it obviously doesn't — wouldn't that be fine considering the countless shows that promote purely heterosexual 'lifestyles'?

    Before I get to the whole 'there's something wrong with being-gay' part, or rather my argument quashing the 'evil homosexual agenda' homophobia, let me just say this: Kid's aren't going to turn gay from watching the Telletubbies, nor any other television shows. The same applies to the fact that one will not turn magically into a gay fashionista by watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. And you certainly won't likely become the next Sherlock Holmes by watching all the crime dramas you can.

    Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, and it certainly is not a dangerous ideology being imposed involuntarily. In fact, if a parent — in Poland or anywhere else — does not think their child should watch a certain TV program, all they have to do is press a button. It's hard to grasp how somehow the perceived homosexual qualities of the Telletubbies — which doesn't even have sex nonetheless things that would imply a character's sexual orientation — are malevolent, a menace to their children so large that the government needs to step in and take care of the problem! In addition, this homophobia, while not uncommon, emphasizes the public in belief in gender role stereotypes (e.g. that a guy with a purse is gay, just because he has a purse). Something as simple as stopping with a click of a button should not create this much stir; nor should the government care if Tinky Winky has a handbag and an upside-down triangle on the top of his head; or whether he's a boy or a girl, or whatever he is. None of that is a danger to Polish children.

    The EU is right to denounce Poland's state-sponsored human rights abuses and homophobia. However the United States and many other countries have the same problems of homophobia and not accepting differences as Poland. And it's not only the government — it's society too. There is rampant homophobic nonsense echoing from governments everywhere too, and a state's politics greatly shapes its society and its qualities, for better or for worse. Considering America is more developed, open, democratic, and liberal than Poland, one would hope it would also clean up its act. It's pitiful, the state of LGBT rights in the US.

    With Poland (still) being bullied by its neighbors to the east and immediate west, Russia and Germany, over energy resources this time loosing political support from other countries and the European Union is not a good thing as Polish political policies go down the drain.

    It is now — and has been — completely known that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's biological.

    Thank goodness we have the Polish government to protect our young's sexual orientation...

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Sunday, 13 May 2007

    US tries to block progress on climate change agreement

    Every nation but the United States seems to be rightfully worried about global climate change. The warming of the earth is not a light topic, and it is morally negligible for the US to continue blocking any progress wished to be made on the subject.

    The US is trying to block sections of a draft agreement on climate change prepared for next month's G8 summit.

    Washington objects to the draft's targets to keep the global temperature rise below 2C this century and halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
    ...
    With UN talks struggling to move beyond the current Kyoto Protocol targets, the G8 summit is seen as a key opportunity to regain political momentum.


    It appears all other members of the G8 are taking global warming very seriously — Shinzo Abe, Angela Merkel, and Tony Blair among them — even conservatives.

    The fourth IPCC report has come out. It says greenhouse gasses can be brought down to non-dangerious levels, for relatively low costs.
    COSTS OF STABILISATION
    IPCC assesses the likely impacts on global GDP by 2030 if cost-effective routes are used
    Stabilisation between 445ppm and 535ppm would cost less than 3% of global GDP, it concludes
    Between 535ppm and 590ppm would cost 0.2-2.5%
    Between 590ppm and 710ppm would bring anything between a net benefit of 0.6% and a net cost of 1.2%
    Different greenhouse gases have different impacts on warming per volume; total concentrations are expressed as the equivalent in parts per million of a certain volume of CO2 (ppm CO2-eq)
    Current concentration is about 425ppm CO2-eq

    So this newest report offers some optimism on tackling climate change. One should keep in mind the vast impact and speed of global warming. For example, it is predicted that by 2100, the Arctic will have ice-less winters.

    The economics of climate change are complex, and ideas like carbon trading are hated as much or more than they are revered. Offsets — an aspect of carbon emission trading — are also seen as a cop-out by some as they can allow the country to get around tackling the real emissions problem. Ultimately greenhouse gas trading schemes may just have to do. Taking action on climate change really is the only economic option.

    Greed is a basic human urge, and to get the support of the wider population, politicians must find some way to make climate change a 'sexy' issue. The other option is to use massive fear to accomplish political goals like George Bush has after 9/11. Al Gore seems to have picked up on the tactic, albeit in a more Hollywood manner. Policy makers must also refrain from crying wolf as it is, so that when climate change does come around full force people will believe them and appropriate actions can be taken.

    It is no surprise of course that climate change is set to hurt the poor the most. The wealthy nation's pleasures often come at the cost of the poorer nation's well being. For example, in the case of Africa, global warming's potential impact is very worrying, especially for such a poor and already troubled continent.


    We already know full well that climate change is happening, and that humans are greatly encouraging it. Now the governments of the world, even the US, must take action.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Monday, 19 March 2007

    Fighting over a (fictional) war movie

    Iran, among others, are quite peeved of the historical representation of the Persians in the Frank Miller graphic novel-turned-movie, 300 (which won at the box office again this past weekend).

    The hit American movie “300” has angered Iranians who say the Greeks-vs-Persians action flick insults their ancient culture and provokes animosity against Iran.

    “Hollywood declares war on Iranians,” blared a headline in Tuesday’s edition of the independent Ayende-No newspaper.
    ...
    Still, it touched a sensitive nerve. Javad Shamghadri, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the United States tries to “humiliate” Iran in order to reverse historical reality and “compensate for its wrongdoings in order to provoke American soldiers and warmongers” against Iran.

    The movie comes at a time of increased tensions between the United States and Iran over the Persian nation’s nuclear program and the Iraq war.

    But aside from politics, the film was seen as an attack on Persian history, a source of pride for Iranians across the political spectrum, including critics of the current Islamic regime.


    It's just a movie! Fiction, for heaven's sake. Is there any free speech left; or are we to let our entertainment outlets be bullied by fundamentalists or people who can only think in one mindset?

    Terrorism is the fear of violence. Many extremists fighting against the Muhammad cartoons or 300 are using violence to try to scare the newspapers or movie studios into not publishing or releasing what they have the right to release. It is their judgment that decides what is put out — not that of the government, the radicals, or any other people. I think they should exercise good judgment for the greater good (and thus their own), as should anyone, and should not be pressured into not releasing contented some deem offensive.

    It's just like when Catholics, among others, protested against the Da Vinci Code. Amazing waste of time and energy on both sides — the side protesting and the side (if there is one) trying to subdue and be submissive of the protesters.

    Religion, not least Christianity, is built on faith, not facts. If people thought the facts surronding Jesus Christ were contorted in a work of fiction, which the Da Vinci Code was, then they were overstepping the bounds from faith to fact. A classic rebuttal by Christians to sceptisizm from non-believers is that it takes faith to believe in Jesus Christ; faith and fact are entirely different concepts. Therefore, the protests against the Da Vinci Code — even if it was presented as fact (which it wasn’t) — lack merit. Just the fact that the movie, like 300, is fiction is enough to argue people are fighting against a demon that should pose no real threat to them other than contort the pop culture of them, which is tarnished more by their protesting, whether it be hunger strikes or shooting a newspaper editor.

    No doubt the choice of representation of the Persians in 300 was a poor choice by the film's makers indeed. There is obviously a political angle to framing the Persians as evil in every way and the Greeks as noble, like how the Bush administration views its own foreign policy ventures.

    As Slate's Dana Stevens puts it:
    If 300...had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war. Since it's a product of the post-ideological, post-Xbox 21st century, 300 will instead be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games.
    ...
    The comic fanboys who make up 300's primary audience demographic aren't likely to get hung up on the movie's historical content, much less any parallels with present-day politics.




    See also "Bong hits 4 Jesus" student free speech case.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , ,

    Friday, 10 November 2006

    Borat gets sued

    I just thought this was kinda funny:
    Humiliated frat boys sue 'Borat' (AP/Yahoo! News):

    AP: SANTA MONICA, Calif. - Two fraternity boys want to make lawsuit against "Borat" over their drunken appearance in the hit movie.

    The legal action filed Thursday on their behalf claims they were duped into appearing in the spoof documentary "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," in which they made racist and sexist comments on camera.


    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , ,


    In Perspective

    Friday, 22 September 2006

    Have you failed me, "Law & Order"? (TV talk)

    Let me just start out saying I am not the kind of person who watches much television. The TV I do watch is restricted to episodes of decent shows I have not seen before. That being said, the season premiere of 15-year (or so) American TV crime/legal drama veteran, "Law & Order" was quite disappointing. L&O is one of the shows I can always count on; maybe because of that I had set the bar too high.

    Detective Fontana — who I was starting to warm up some after he had replaced Det. Briscoe (one of my favourite characters of all time — has been replaced by a newbie with what sounds like no experience. Never before in Law & Order history (that I know of) have you had such a young detective pair. What was Dick Wolf, mastermind behind the L&O franchise (writer, executive producer, etc) thinking? Also, since the short-lived ADA Borgia was killed off (literally) at the closing of the last season, we have yet another new ADA. Maybe I will feel different next week, but "Law & Order" reruns (new episodes to me,mind you) are starting to look really good — and nostalgic — right now. There were also plenty of flaws in the story-line... I think the premiere of L&O:CI, while also having a new character introduced (the Major Case Squad's new captain), was much, much better.

    In other TV news, I did not get a chance to watch NBC's "Studio 60", but I am TiVo-ing a rerun of the pilot episode and will skip through to see if it is any good.

    I will probably post some more important news soon tonight (EDT).

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    In leu of Technorati acting like a pompus brat that says I have not updated the blog in four days even after a barrage of pinging for the past several days, I will also using Del.ico.us tags... which is why you see duplicate tags.

    Digg!