"The Dude abides, man....."
And now for the third installment of this blog assignment. This one asks about my favorite movies. Let me start in reverse order.
What format do you watch movies in and why?
I watch about 90% of my movies on my computer. I can watch it in hi-def, and pause and start at my leisure. For me, starting and stopping a movie is almost a requirement. I don't always have the attention span for long plot developments, so I will start a movie, pause it, start a second or even a third movie, pause it, return to the first movie, pause it, go make food, find something else to do, come back and un-pause the second movie, etc. The trouble comes from all that ranging from "all occurring in 20 minutes" to "spanning several days". I do keep the plots separate and follow the dual story lines. Many of the movies I like are classic and/or "foreign films" (that's right not all movies are born in Hollywood xD )and would never be carried in local theaters. Renting movies was fun for a while, but technology caught up with it. I do not see a reason to travel to a store to pay $7-and-change for 1 movie. Netflix is priced about the same with a (for now) bigger selection. Torrent files are free and can be blue ray quality (1900x1080p) without owning a Blue Ray player. With strong virus-protection and taking the time to read the comments for feedback/If-it-worked, anyone can find some of the most obscure titles. This also works for TV and books (text and audio both). I usually watch movies in .avi or .wmv format. The quality is high on AVIs and WMVs have really good compression codecs. Sometimes the higher quality flicks are in .mp4 or .mkv , but those files are big and tend to not play on as many players, including my Xbox. Xbox will play .avi and .wmv through the USB connection and a USB Flash Drive. The other major selling points for watching my movies in the privacy of my own home is a) I don't have to dress up (if at all), and b) most movie theaters don't have a liqueur license yet.....Why is that last fact important? ...Moving on.....
What movies do you really like and why?
First all time favorite movie I'll talk about is The Big Lebowski. THERE IS NEVER A BAD TIME TO WATCH THIS MOVIE. I tend to gravitate towards comedies and this is a particularly witty one. The movie starts with a clever and semi-cynical sounding cowboy giving a monologue. The protagonist, known as "the Dude", suffers from a case of mistaken identity which leads to several colorful side-plots meshing together with an all-star cast. This movie is also incredibly quotable. To give an earlier on example to avoid spoilers, two thuggish men burst in on a very surprised Dude. After a brief interrogation, one of them turns and picks up Lebowski's bowling ball. "what the F*** is this?" he asks. While wearing sunglasses, at night, inside, and with a tired smile on his face, the Dude calmly looks at his attacker and says "obviously, you are not a golfer." Priceless. Over two-thirds of the jokes in this movie are hidden in side comments, situational irony, and good timing from the actors. Not a "fart-joke" kind of movie.
Next movie came out in 2003 and is a Japanese film called Zatoichi. This is a story about a blind masseur who is secretly the world's #1 samurai in disguise. He hobbles from town to town righting wrongs similar to a samurai cross between Batman and Robin Hood. This story has samurai, ronin, geisha assassins, Yakuza, murder, betrayal, comedy, sword fights, and special effects. Plus, two good guys are pitted against each other, so you are not sure who to root for. The story is no slouch of a tale, but the editing is what really captured my attention. The director intended the blood splatter effect to be similar to the blooming of a rose. This results in some awesome fight scenes. The soundtrack was also really notable. In many scenes, the music syncs up to video and plot seamlessly. Farmers in a field hoe on beat. Carpenters working on a house saw and hammer percussively in time to the songs (which are instrumentals). Another upside to this movie, though a lot of the target audience in America wont go for it, is that it is in Japanese with English subtitles.
Third movie I want to discuss is a suspenseful movie called The Thing (circa 1989ish?). This movie stars many major actors of the time, but really focuses on Kurt Russel's character of the bitter helicopter pilot for a remote research facility out in the middle of Antarctica. The team realizes too late that they have uncovered an alien that specializes in changing its appearance to blend in perfectly with its intended victims. That in itself is enough to catch my interest, but then comes the puppeteering. The Thing is made by rubber, goo, and a whole lot of stop-motion filming (take a picture, slightly move the puppet, take a picture, slightly move the puppet, repeat...) These days so many movies rely on computers for special effects and monsters that everything starts to resemble a cartoon. Plus, I don't care how great an actor they are, they all act better when there is something to act with or at, as opposed to a clear space in the room where they are supposed to have onscreen chemistry with an object or character they could not see until post-production.
I was going to stop at three movies tonight, but if you read this far then I have a real gem for you. The movie is called Mary and Max. this is a true story of an 8 year old Australian girl becoming the pen pal for a 56 year old Autistic man in New York. There is a dark, film noir feel too the whole thing. It starts out shot in black and white and then slowly takes color as the story takes shape. The icing on the cake is that the whole movie is animated in clay-mation. Think of a dark, yet true, version of Wallace and Grommet infused with Edward Gory (the author).
I think of gone on long enough for now. Thanks for reading xD
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
blog assignment 1.2
"And now, the Evening News..."
This is when that saying "no news is good news" is a bad plan. Finding actual news on the news was my mission today. I get 10% of my news in the morning from The San Antonio Express-News, which is kind of a rinky-dink paper (as far as modern newspapers go :[ ). The beauty of the newspaper is how fast the human eye can scan it for articles of interest. I can troll for days in message boards, tweets, and blogs, but I will be missing something else in the process with the time-wasting I would do finding stories relevant to my day-to-day life. With the Express-News, I can quickly read an article of interest, summarily dismiss it as being total B.S., and then use the keywords to Google the story after work. The plus side of my cynicism proved itself when I did not have to wade through six hours of 9/11 pandering to get my local news. On a recommendation of a friend, I was told that if I were to look at an Online News Source, to look at http://www.reuters.com. That proved very useful in that they own and produce their own stories with their own investigative journalists (...or so it seems.... at least the bylines match this theory). Generally, I avoid Twitter/Facebook/blogs because there is no telling the whether the source is telling the truth, or for that matter if the source is actually "the source" and not a company paid to appear as an unassuming individual or concerned insider/whistle blower. I think it is safe to assume about 30% of my news comes from online sources. I prefer http://www.youtube.com. Youtube shows average people posting without all the corporate pressure (just dont re-post copyrighted programming). However, Reuters won for actual facts presented. I ignore Wiki Leaks. Although I support them constitutionally for freedom of speech, I don't support the buying/selling/receiving of stolen property. Saying it was to keep the Government in check sounds like sensationalist B.S. It also doesn't help when you consider how high an intake of cash they get for so little overhead costs (an estimated $1.3 Million compared to $40,000 in expenses) . I pray that it does not become another News Corp. The beauty of the online sources was how fast the information arrived. Posts were made around the world around the clock. Best part of it is that you can hyperlink to other articles allowing for a thread of consciousness. Despite that readily available source, 50% of my news comes from TV programming. I can tolerate CNN in the background of my day to day (in fact, it is playing right now on the monitor next to the one I'm typing this blog on!). The shortcomings of TV news is repetition and biased coverage. Stories about politcal campaigns dominated the cable-waves today. As this blog is not for me to vent my politcal views, rest assured reader...I was displeased. Moving on. The other constant part of the today's news was the coordinated Taliban attacks on Kabul. The event is tragic and people got hurt, but that was not the key portion of what I was looking at. Instead, I noticed that CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN ran the exact same story at the exact same time (plus or minus about a minute and a half). They probably do that to force the viewer to pick a channel and not "surf". To make matters worse, they all used the EXACT same file footage, GoogleMap, and interviews. I saw the same red-shirted civilian run past the camera about 18 times today on five different networks. The fifth was PBS. This version of the exact same story was broadcast between 1-2 hours later than the competion. By then, I am burnt out on the issues they presented and the dialogue was too dry for a solid hour of news consumption. Not having the ads allowed for slightly lengthier versions of the same clips, but no new news relevance was gained from this. CBS did well with live coverage and frequent cameras in helicopters, but they splashed their logo on EVERYTHING. NBC was a waste of time, but their track record is high enough that I tuned in anyway (at least during commercials on other networks). ABC ran the exact same stories that aired on the other networks an hour later, then dissolved into the first 15 mintues of the 2 hour Jaqueline Kennedy special they were set to run at 9 pm (two hours after that). The news from Comedy Central was the underdog. They aired the news with a comedic bias with the shows The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. Despite the hunt for laughs they do, the reporting was either fair and accurate or so obviously a comedy sketch that most people would not be confused. Bad news in a good and light-hearted way is WAY easier on the ears on stress-level of the audience. Biggest problem with these as a news source comes from it being a rerun from the night before. Even though they were late reporting, the subject matter still made them competitive in the same time slot as live news. Also, even though I have Time Warner as a cable provider, all shows on all channels were copyrighted to Tribune Media Services, Inc. Further googling leads me to the assumption that TMS engineered and own the digital rights to all the material Time Warner was broadcasting to me. The company specializes in media menus and celebrity information. They also produce everything from movies and IMDb entries to Frontline News. I am still not sure where this will lead if I "follow the money." The last 10% of my news comes from word of mouth with friends and family.
And there you have it! xD
This is when that saying "no news is good news" is a bad plan. Finding actual news on the news was my mission today. I get 10% of my news in the morning from The San Antonio Express-News, which is kind of a rinky-dink paper (as far as modern newspapers go :[ ). The beauty of the newspaper is how fast the human eye can scan it for articles of interest. I can troll for days in message boards, tweets, and blogs, but I will be missing something else in the process with the time-wasting I would do finding stories relevant to my day-to-day life. With the Express-News, I can quickly read an article of interest, summarily dismiss it as being total B.S., and then use the keywords to Google the story after work. The plus side of my cynicism proved itself when I did not have to wade through six hours of 9/11 pandering to get my local news. On a recommendation of a friend, I was told that if I were to look at an Online News Source, to look at http://www.reuters.com. That proved very useful in that they own and produce their own stories with their own investigative journalists (...or so it seems.... at least the bylines match this theory). Generally, I avoid Twitter/Facebook/blogs because there is no telling the whether the source is telling the truth, or for that matter if the source is actually "the source" and not a company paid to appear as an unassuming individual or concerned insider/whistle blower. I think it is safe to assume about 30% of my news comes from online sources. I prefer http://www.youtube.com. Youtube shows average people posting without all the corporate pressure (just dont re-post copyrighted programming). However, Reuters won for actual facts presented. I ignore Wiki Leaks. Although I support them constitutionally for freedom of speech, I don't support the buying/selling/receiving of stolen property. Saying it was to keep the Government in check sounds like sensationalist B.S. It also doesn't help when you consider how high an intake of cash they get for so little overhead costs (an estimated $1.3 Million compared to $40,000 in expenses) . I pray that it does not become another News Corp. The beauty of the online sources was how fast the information arrived. Posts were made around the world around the clock. Best part of it is that you can hyperlink to other articles allowing for a thread of consciousness. Despite that readily available source, 50% of my news comes from TV programming. I can tolerate CNN in the background of my day to day (in fact, it is playing right now on the monitor next to the one I'm typing this blog on!). The shortcomings of TV news is repetition and biased coverage. Stories about politcal campaigns dominated the cable-waves today. As this blog is not for me to vent my politcal views, rest assured reader...I was displeased. Moving on. The other constant part of the today's news was the coordinated Taliban attacks on Kabul. The event is tragic and people got hurt, but that was not the key portion of what I was looking at. Instead, I noticed that CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN ran the exact same story at the exact same time (plus or minus about a minute and a half). They probably do that to force the viewer to pick a channel and not "surf". To make matters worse, they all used the EXACT same file footage, GoogleMap, and interviews. I saw the same red-shirted civilian run past the camera about 18 times today on five different networks. The fifth was PBS. This version of the exact same story was broadcast between 1-2 hours later than the competion. By then, I am burnt out on the issues they presented and the dialogue was too dry for a solid hour of news consumption. Not having the ads allowed for slightly lengthier versions of the same clips, but no new news relevance was gained from this. CBS did well with live coverage and frequent cameras in helicopters, but they splashed their logo on EVERYTHING. NBC was a waste of time, but their track record is high enough that I tuned in anyway (at least during commercials on other networks). ABC ran the exact same stories that aired on the other networks an hour later, then dissolved into the first 15 mintues of the 2 hour Jaqueline Kennedy special they were set to run at 9 pm (two hours after that). The news from Comedy Central was the underdog. They aired the news with a comedic bias with the shows The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. Despite the hunt for laughs they do, the reporting was either fair and accurate or so obviously a comedy sketch that most people would not be confused. Bad news in a good and light-hearted way is WAY easier on the ears on stress-level of the audience. Biggest problem with these as a news source comes from it being a rerun from the night before. Even though they were late reporting, the subject matter still made them competitive in the same time slot as live news. Also, even though I have Time Warner as a cable provider, all shows on all channels were copyrighted to Tribune Media Services, Inc. Further googling leads me to the assumption that TMS engineered and own the digital rights to all the material Time Warner was broadcasting to me. The company specializes in media menus and celebrity information. They also produce everything from movies and IMDb entries to Frontline News. I am still not sure where this will lead if I "follow the money." The last 10% of my news comes from word of mouth with friends and family.
And there you have it! xD
Monday, September 12, 2011
blog assignment 1.1
So this is my third attempt at posting this assignment :( . I typed and typed, and either I hit a character limit or mis-clicked with the mouse pad. Theory three is the martians ate my blog assignment. I'll try to make this attempt more concise.
I start my day by logging onto my computer. I turn on a show or movie and let it play in the background while I wake up and get motivated. After I have "overcome gravity", I head to the kitchen to work on breakfast and read the morning paper. The San Antonio Express-News is not much of a paper but it gets the job done in this case. I am convinced they only make the story "continued on page six..." or whatever to force an extra chance at ads into my eyes. The act itself of reading the paper is what i find calming about it. This paper is not what I use as a primary news source. I still prefer the comics in it like Get Fuzzy, Bliss, Dilbert, Pearls Before Swine, and Doonesbury. Having accomplished my morning literary goals, I turn my attention toward the bright and shiny logos drawn on the packaging of milk, cereal, bread, eggs, etc. These tiny little billboards have enough effect on the eye as to suggest what the body is actually craving as a food source. After eating, I put on my work shirt with the company logo on it and walk to work. On the way, I cross Austin Highway which is a sea of billboards the whole length of the road from the ground to about 40 feet in the air. I also pass a tattoo shop, although whether that counts as "mass media" depends on the person and the design. My Tattoo is not a billboard but a lot of tats are. (here is a hint to those who get "drunken tattoos" on a vacation or with friends, DON'T GET A NOUN! tattoos that are persons, places, or things stretch out over time. they cease to represent whatever it was you thought was worth getting at 2 am in South Padre over spring break. besides, Tattooing a noun is DEFINITE billboard behavior.) By now I am at work. At work, we play "Italian Music" (it is an Italian restaurant) that comes from a corporation called Muzak. It plays everything from Opera to old Frank Sinatra songs. Basically, that particular channel sounds like the soundtrack for The Sopranos. I have my doubts whether all the songs are their original singers. Several of the songs sound very close, but subtly different, perhaps to avoid paying Royalties. Recently at work, we bought a TV so now I also have CNN and ESPN going on in the background. I also count the customers' clothing as Mass Media as well. Things like that say a statement about a person (or so they hope) in a non aggressive and nonverbal manner. However, I believe that is a passive-aggressive thing like "read the rest of the story on page six" that forces the eye to notice it whether it wants to or not. having put my time in at my job, I head home passed the same billboards and tattoo shop. Once home, I click on my computer and throw on some dubstep music before I fire up the old Xbox. The Xbox dashboard is the main screen for playing a game, but it is also the video, game, and music marketplace. I can download or buy all kinds of mass media from this convenient box under my TV. Then it is time for the News on TV and to cook dinner with more bright little logo splashed packaging. The news will be a topic for a different blog. After the News, I watch either Netflix or HBO with my family. I do not consider these products themselves to be mass media, but the movies themselves undoubtedly are. I brush my teeth with something with a major label and get ready for bed. When I fall asleep, I usually leave the computer or TV on. It is very likely that I am absorbing mass media by osmosis in a REM state, but seeing as I am not conscious, I can not assume either way. I would like to hope that my brain has more important dreams to dream on then whether Coke beats Pepsi in sales, but who knows?
Well...so much for concise. I think it is safe to say my day is bombarded constantly by companies and media giants. Even camping gear has logos and I would have the previous memories of life with TV, Newspapers, and Radio, so I never will escape it. I CAN recognize it for what it is and ignore most of it. All hail the mighty brain filter. On a side note, I originally typed this blog in the third-person, so thank the martians for eating that copy (JEB thinks it would have gotten old pretty quick! xD)
Until next Blog
I start my day by logging onto my computer. I turn on a show or movie and let it play in the background while I wake up and get motivated. After I have "overcome gravity", I head to the kitchen to work on breakfast and read the morning paper. The San Antonio Express-News is not much of a paper but it gets the job done in this case. I am convinced they only make the story "continued on page six..." or whatever to force an extra chance at ads into my eyes. The act itself of reading the paper is what i find calming about it. This paper is not what I use as a primary news source. I still prefer the comics in it like Get Fuzzy, Bliss, Dilbert, Pearls Before Swine, and Doonesbury. Having accomplished my morning literary goals, I turn my attention toward the bright and shiny logos drawn on the packaging of milk, cereal, bread, eggs, etc. These tiny little billboards have enough effect on the eye as to suggest what the body is actually craving as a food source. After eating, I put on my work shirt with the company logo on it and walk to work. On the way, I cross Austin Highway which is a sea of billboards the whole length of the road from the ground to about 40 feet in the air. I also pass a tattoo shop, although whether that counts as "mass media" depends on the person and the design. My Tattoo is not a billboard but a lot of tats are. (here is a hint to those who get "drunken tattoos" on a vacation or with friends, DON'T GET A NOUN! tattoos that are persons, places, or things stretch out over time. they cease to represent whatever it was you thought was worth getting at 2 am in South Padre over spring break. besides, Tattooing a noun is DEFINITE billboard behavior.) By now I am at work. At work, we play "Italian Music" (it is an Italian restaurant) that comes from a corporation called Muzak. It plays everything from Opera to old Frank Sinatra songs. Basically, that particular channel sounds like the soundtrack for The Sopranos. I have my doubts whether all the songs are their original singers. Several of the songs sound very close, but subtly different, perhaps to avoid paying Royalties. Recently at work, we bought a TV so now I also have CNN and ESPN going on in the background. I also count the customers' clothing as Mass Media as well. Things like that say a statement about a person (or so they hope) in a non aggressive and nonverbal manner. However, I believe that is a passive-aggressive thing like "read the rest of the story on page six" that forces the eye to notice it whether it wants to or not. having put my time in at my job, I head home passed the same billboards and tattoo shop. Once home, I click on my computer and throw on some dubstep music before I fire up the old Xbox. The Xbox dashboard is the main screen for playing a game, but it is also the video, game, and music marketplace. I can download or buy all kinds of mass media from this convenient box under my TV. Then it is time for the News on TV and to cook dinner with more bright little logo splashed packaging. The news will be a topic for a different blog. After the News, I watch either Netflix or HBO with my family. I do not consider these products themselves to be mass media, but the movies themselves undoubtedly are. I brush my teeth with something with a major label and get ready for bed. When I fall asleep, I usually leave the computer or TV on. It is very likely that I am absorbing mass media by osmosis in a REM state, but seeing as I am not conscious, I can not assume either way. I would like to hope that my brain has more important dreams to dream on then whether Coke beats Pepsi in sales, but who knows?
Well...so much for concise. I think it is safe to say my day is bombarded constantly by companies and media giants. Even camping gear has logos and I would have the previous memories of life with TV, Newspapers, and Radio, so I never will escape it. I CAN recognize it for what it is and ignore most of it. All hail the mighty brain filter. On a side note, I originally typed this blog in the third-person, so thank the martians for eating that copy (JEB thinks it would have gotten old pretty quick! xD)
Until next Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)