About a month ago, I did a post about the importance of movie soundtracks. All in all, I feel that a decent soundtrack can make a good movie great or a bad movie acceptable. In honor of the Halloween, I've decided to put together a top-ten list of my favorite movie soundtracks and themes from the 1970's to the present. And before anybody asks, Titanic and Requiem for a Dream did not make the list, as did several others many people would argue for.
Number Ten: Back to the Future: Main Theme (Alan Silvestri)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTGyeGgMpk8
A piece from one of my favorite movies of all. (Most of these are; part of what makes many of these movies my favorites are a combination of acting, character dynamics, story and soundtrack.) This piece is so brazen and brassy, so daring and dapper, it's impossible to think of a better score for the zany adventures of Marty McFly and Doc Brown, regardless of how inaccurate their predictions turned out to be. Although perhaps not so widely recognizable or as celebrated as some of the others on this list, my top ten wouldn't be complete without it.
Number Nine: Batman Begins: Molossus (Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZst_2xJHAI
Although not specifically the movie's theme, Molossus (named after a species of bat, as are all the tracks in this score) incorporates elements of much of the movie's score and heavily influences the soundtrack in all of of Nolan's trilogy. The track corroborates with this trilogy's inherent darkness, as compared to previously made Batman movies. The storyline is far more complicated, the villains far more complex, and even the heroes scarred on the inside from various events. They're certainly great films on their own, but compared with Arnold Schwarzenneger in a Mr. Freeze suit, they're practically Shakespeare.
Number Eight: Pirates of the Caribbean: Drink Up, Me Hearties (Hans Zimmer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkYko5OCnA4
This soundtrack, one of two on this list, does not come from a movie (or a series) I enjoy. Why don't I like Pirates of the Caribbean? It's not the shooting, which is excellent; it's not so much the characters themselves, which receive a great deal of development and grow over the course of the series; and it certainly isn't the brilliant score, written by Hans Zimmer. It's the plot. Oh, trust me, it's the plot. In its basics, the plot is fine. Respectable guy teams up with a ruffian to save his girl. A bit overused, but not bad. But certain devices of the plot are flawed, certain elements of the story don't make sense. Take the ending of the second film: everybody on the ship, which is being attacked by the Kraken, dies - with the exception of six key main characters. You don't really notice it the first time, since Jack Sparrow was among the casualties, but the second time, and all the times after that, it's blatantly obvious. But the score, from the genius of Hans Zimmer, is flawless; an icon in its own time.
Number Seven: Gladiator: Barbarian Horde (Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ5lQev52gk
If you don't feel like listening to nine minutes of music (albeit stunning music) while you wait for the movie's main theme, it starts around the nine-and-a-quarter minute mark (and is conveniently located in the first comment). Gladiator, an acclaimed box-office success story, deserves its notoriety. The characters are beautifully portrayed, their complicated relationships masterfully conveyed to the audience. Although the story may not be historically accurate, you begin to forget that once you get into the film. The plot has only a few insignificant holes that are more often than not overlooked entirely, and I only noticed them after watching the movie at least ten times. If you haven't seen the film, I wholeheartedly recommend it; I challenge you to to find any flaws in the film. And believe you me, you won't notice them if you don't look for them.
Number Six: Indiana Jones: Main Theme (John Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bTpp8PQSog
Few soundtracks are more recognizable than this icon. Perhaps I speak only for myself, but when I think "Indiana Jones," this soundtrack is the first thing that comes to my mind. Composed by the master/father of the modern soundtrack, Indy's theme corresponds perfectly with the brash, outspoken character so convincingly portrayed by Harrison Ford, helping even the average viewer differentiate between Indy the badass adventurer (pardon my French) and Professor Henry Jones. And don't even think about mentioning that abomination with the aliens and Shia LaBoeuf; we're forgetting that that ever happened.
This is taking longer than I had anticipated; to keep from boring all of you, I'll continue my list next week. The final five - the best of the best from these past forty years, in my own humble opinion (although it may be a bit too late for me to call myself "humble"). I would tell you not to get to excited for it...but you should get excited for it.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Big Think Post: The Putin Article From May 2012 (And How Very Wrong It Was)
On Big Think today, I was reading an article about economics, when I noticed that the site was suggesting I read an article on a "similar" topic. Clicking the link, this article, from May of 2012, popped up:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/watch-out-putin-spring-is-coming
The author of this article makes a multitude of predictions for the future of Russia. Let's list them, shall we? The author states that:
1) A "Russian Spring," presumably parallel to the Arab Spring of 2011, will occur if Putin does not increase reform.
2) To prevent such a Russian Spring, Putin will need to reform Russia's economy, infrastructure, industry and hardline political system.
3) Putin must consider human rights, democracy and rule of law when reforming the Russian government.
4) The educated middle class of Russia will become opposed to Putin's iron grip on Russia and call for change, which would catalyze a Russian Spring event.
5) Putin must consider the needs of the international community when he is considering reforms for the Russian government.
Now, let's discuss some of the things Putin has actually done since this article was written:
1) Putin has passed legislation preventing Americans from adopting Russian orphans.
2) Putin has passed legislature denying gays and lesbians virtually all rights. In fact, Putin has made it a crime for teachers and parents to tell their children that homosexuals exist.
3) Putin has cracked down on proponents of free speech and other democratic values we take for granted stateside, including bands and other liberal groups.
4) The educated middle class of Russia doesn't give a f**k.
5) To his credit, Putin diffused the Syrian crisis almost single-handedly. (That doesn't have anything to do with the rest of this post, but I feel it's worth mentioning.)
So, the author of this piece was dead wrong. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised. The main thing to remember here when we discuss why she was so wrong is a simple fact: RUSSIA IS NOT AMERICA. Take the author's prediction that the middle class would protest the hardline right-wing government and encourage liberal reform. The last time there was liberal reform in Russia, it was nineteen seventeen, and the middle class was losing their valuables (and in many cases, their lives) to the Bolsheviks. So under what frame of mind would we assume that the Russian upper class would care if laws and policies, that in many ways benefit them, are made by a government that doesn't meet western standards of democratic? Frankly, compared with the Soviet regime, Russia's modern government is too good to be true. Even the poor like it better than Communism; they brought the Soviet Union into this world, and they took it out just as easily. Nobody in Russia really cares that the government is suppressing human rights for the sake of order. Heck, very few people in the US care that our government does the same thing. The NSA's probably reading this post, as well as all my emails and text messages. Frankly, as long as they keep catching terrorists, they can put up a video feed in my room if they feel like it; I just don't care, and almost two-thirds of the nation agrees with me. We must also remember that, at the time of the article, Occupy Wall Street was still a big thing. More likely than not, this author naively assumed that such a movement would catch on around the world, not just here, and force Putin to reform his government. Just like it worked here, right? Because we have a socialist form of government that cares only about equality for all? While the Tea Party would say that we do, that isn't the point. All in all, I'm starting to think that the woman who wrote this article wasn't thinking straight when she sat down at her keyboard that day last May.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/watch-out-putin-spring-is-coming
The author of this article makes a multitude of predictions for the future of Russia. Let's list them, shall we? The author states that:
1) A "Russian Spring," presumably parallel to the Arab Spring of 2011, will occur if Putin does not increase reform.
2) To prevent such a Russian Spring, Putin will need to reform Russia's economy, infrastructure, industry and hardline political system.
3) Putin must consider human rights, democracy and rule of law when reforming the Russian government.
4) The educated middle class of Russia will become opposed to Putin's iron grip on Russia and call for change, which would catalyze a Russian Spring event.
5) Putin must consider the needs of the international community when he is considering reforms for the Russian government.
Now, let's discuss some of the things Putin has actually done since this article was written:
1) Putin has passed legislation preventing Americans from adopting Russian orphans.
2) Putin has passed legislature denying gays and lesbians virtually all rights. In fact, Putin has made it a crime for teachers and parents to tell their children that homosexuals exist.
3) Putin has cracked down on proponents of free speech and other democratic values we take for granted stateside, including bands and other liberal groups.
4) The educated middle class of Russia doesn't give a f**k.
5) To his credit, Putin diffused the Syrian crisis almost single-handedly. (That doesn't have anything to do with the rest of this post, but I feel it's worth mentioning.)
So, the author of this piece was dead wrong. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised. The main thing to remember here when we discuss why she was so wrong is a simple fact: RUSSIA IS NOT AMERICA. Take the author's prediction that the middle class would protest the hardline right-wing government and encourage liberal reform. The last time there was liberal reform in Russia, it was nineteen seventeen, and the middle class was losing their valuables (and in many cases, their lives) to the Bolsheviks. So under what frame of mind would we assume that the Russian upper class would care if laws and policies, that in many ways benefit them, are made by a government that doesn't meet western standards of democratic? Frankly, compared with the Soviet regime, Russia's modern government is too good to be true. Even the poor like it better than Communism; they brought the Soviet Union into this world, and they took it out just as easily. Nobody in Russia really cares that the government is suppressing human rights for the sake of order. Heck, very few people in the US care that our government does the same thing. The NSA's probably reading this post, as well as all my emails and text messages. Frankly, as long as they keep catching terrorists, they can put up a video feed in my room if they feel like it; I just don't care, and almost two-thirds of the nation agrees with me. We must also remember that, at the time of the article, Occupy Wall Street was still a big thing. More likely than not, this author naively assumed that such a movement would catch on around the world, not just here, and force Putin to reform his government. Just like it worked here, right? Because we have a socialist form of government that cares only about equality for all? While the Tea Party would say that we do, that isn't the point. All in all, I'm starting to think that the woman who wrote this article wasn't thinking straight when she sat down at her keyboard that day last May.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Free Post: Halloween History
Before I forget, I'm just going to mention that I misspelled the title as "Halloweed" rather than "Halloween." There's an idea in there just waiting to be developed. But that's irrelevant to my post. Forgive me.
As I hope you're all aware, a week from tomorrow is Halloween. However, I'm not entirely sure whether all of you are aware of the specifics of the holiday's origins. For those of you unaware, Halloween is perhaps Ireland's biggest export. Most aspects of Halloween we take for granted today came straight out of the island my grandparents called home. So, where does Halloween come from? The holiday itself is the evolved form of a harvest festival known as Samhain, which signified the end of the Celtic year. Samhain, lasting from sundown on October 31st to sundown the next day, was akin to today's Thanksgiving, with the Celts lighting bonfires to frighten away witches and demons. Later, when the Celtic world converted to Christianity, the first night became known as All Hallows' Eve; All Hallows' Day, better known as All Saints' Day (the Latin American Day of the Dead), was November first. Throughout Europe, but particularly in Spain and Ireland, it was believed that the souls of the dead, could return to their old homes. Only trick-or-treating, which was developed in Scotland, inhabited by ethnically Irish individuals (the Scots were a tribe from the north of Ireland who invaded Alba, the land know known as Scotland), originated outside of Ireland.
Perhaps the most intriguing Irish aspect of Halloween is the origin of the jack-o'-lantern. There are several different versions of the story, and nobody who knows of it seems to agree on what the true version is. All of the versions involve a character known as Stingy Jack, who tricks the devil in some way. In one version, Jack is a lazy farmer who tricks Satan into climbing an apple tree, which he proceeds to carve a crucifix on, rendering the devil powerless. In another version, Jack is a thief who tricks the devil into turning into a coin in order to play a prank on hapless churchgoers. The devil proceeds to become a coin and enters Jack's pocket, where he is forced next to a crucifix Jack happened to have. In both tales, in exchange for his freedom, Jack made the devil swear that he would never take his soul to Hell. However, when he died, he was denied access into heaven for his earthly crimes, and refused entry to hell for all eternity owing to his deal with the devil. The devil tossed him a coal of hellfire, which burns forever, to light his way through purgatory. Jack carved a turnip into a lantern, placed a coal inside, and became known as Jack of the Lantern, damned to wander purgatory for eternity.
My Irish grandfather, who spent the first thirty years of his life in the mountains and forests of County Kerry, told me a very different version of the tale. In his version, Jack was a seventeenth century English official living in Ireland. He was sadistic even by Tudor standards, which viewed the butcher of Catholic men, women and children as an acceptable practice, and one to be encouraged. The other English officials turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Irish people, so Jack's crimes only increased in number and severity. He became so ruthless and so vile, Satan himself left hell to bring Jack down to hell. Jack tricked the devil into climbing an apple tree as his last request, claiming he wanted a fruit from the top of the branches, and carved a crucifix into the bark, intending to strike a deal with the devil. However, because he had mocked God, the crucifix's power had no impact on Satan, who dragged Jack down to hell. Jack begged for the Irish citizens to help him, but they stood back and watched as he was pulled into the abyss. The devil tortured Jack long enough to turn him into a demon. Every year, on the anniversary of his death, the devil released Jack into the world to torment his enemies. Jack naturally picked the Irish as his targets, both for his own revenge and because of the Irish people's strong Catholic faith; he dared not cross the devil directly. The Irish used his fear to their advantage. Every year, on the anniversary of Jack's death, they would carve demonic faces into turnips and use them as lanterns outside their door. Jack would mistake these lanterns for the devil, and flee in fear. To this day, the Irish people place a similar lantern outside their door on the anniversary of Jack's death: October thirty-first.
Is this story true? It's probably easy for most of you to dismiss, especially if you don't have Irish blood, or haven't met your Irish ancestors, at which point you can't really consider yourself Irish. As for me, it's far more difficult to disregard. Ireland's wooded hills, which over a quarter of my brain sees as home, are a place where the lines between myth and history, separating faith from fact and distinguishing between science and magic are all very thin and blurred. Sometimes, these lines doesn't exist at all.
Happy week-and-a-day-before Halloween.
As I hope you're all aware, a week from tomorrow is Halloween. However, I'm not entirely sure whether all of you are aware of the specifics of the holiday's origins. For those of you unaware, Halloween is perhaps Ireland's biggest export. Most aspects of Halloween we take for granted today came straight out of the island my grandparents called home. So, where does Halloween come from? The holiday itself is the evolved form of a harvest festival known as Samhain, which signified the end of the Celtic year. Samhain, lasting from sundown on October 31st to sundown the next day, was akin to today's Thanksgiving, with the Celts lighting bonfires to frighten away witches and demons. Later, when the Celtic world converted to Christianity, the first night became known as All Hallows' Eve; All Hallows' Day, better known as All Saints' Day (the Latin American Day of the Dead), was November first. Throughout Europe, but particularly in Spain and Ireland, it was believed that the souls of the dead, could return to their old homes. Only trick-or-treating, which was developed in Scotland, inhabited by ethnically Irish individuals (the Scots were a tribe from the north of Ireland who invaded Alba, the land know known as Scotland), originated outside of Ireland.
Perhaps the most intriguing Irish aspect of Halloween is the origin of the jack-o'-lantern. There are several different versions of the story, and nobody who knows of it seems to agree on what the true version is. All of the versions involve a character known as Stingy Jack, who tricks the devil in some way. In one version, Jack is a lazy farmer who tricks Satan into climbing an apple tree, which he proceeds to carve a crucifix on, rendering the devil powerless. In another version, Jack is a thief who tricks the devil into turning into a coin in order to play a prank on hapless churchgoers. The devil proceeds to become a coin and enters Jack's pocket, where he is forced next to a crucifix Jack happened to have. In both tales, in exchange for his freedom, Jack made the devil swear that he would never take his soul to Hell. However, when he died, he was denied access into heaven for his earthly crimes, and refused entry to hell for all eternity owing to his deal with the devil. The devil tossed him a coal of hellfire, which burns forever, to light his way through purgatory. Jack carved a turnip into a lantern, placed a coal inside, and became known as Jack of the Lantern, damned to wander purgatory for eternity.
My Irish grandfather, who spent the first thirty years of his life in the mountains and forests of County Kerry, told me a very different version of the tale. In his version, Jack was a seventeenth century English official living in Ireland. He was sadistic even by Tudor standards, which viewed the butcher of Catholic men, women and children as an acceptable practice, and one to be encouraged. The other English officials turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Irish people, so Jack's crimes only increased in number and severity. He became so ruthless and so vile, Satan himself left hell to bring Jack down to hell. Jack tricked the devil into climbing an apple tree as his last request, claiming he wanted a fruit from the top of the branches, and carved a crucifix into the bark, intending to strike a deal with the devil. However, because he had mocked God, the crucifix's power had no impact on Satan, who dragged Jack down to hell. Jack begged for the Irish citizens to help him, but they stood back and watched as he was pulled into the abyss. The devil tortured Jack long enough to turn him into a demon. Every year, on the anniversary of his death, the devil released Jack into the world to torment his enemies. Jack naturally picked the Irish as his targets, both for his own revenge and because of the Irish people's strong Catholic faith; he dared not cross the devil directly. The Irish used his fear to their advantage. Every year, on the anniversary of Jack's death, they would carve demonic faces into turnips and use them as lanterns outside their door. Jack would mistake these lanterns for the devil, and flee in fear. To this day, the Irish people place a similar lantern outside their door on the anniversary of Jack's death: October thirty-first.
Is this story true? It's probably easy for most of you to dismiss, especially if you don't have Irish blood, or haven't met your Irish ancestors, at which point you can't really consider yourself Irish. As for me, it's far more difficult to disregard. Ireland's wooded hills, which over a quarter of my brain sees as home, are a place where the lines between myth and history, separating faith from fact and distinguishing between science and magic are all very thin and blurred. Sometimes, these lines doesn't exist at all.
Happy week-and-a-day-before Halloween.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Big Think: Can Nanotechnology Make Us Immortal?
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/ray-kurzweil-the-nanotech-revolution-will-bring-immortality
On Big Think this afternoon, I came across this article. Before you dismiss it as utter fallacy, I'd like to point out that this isn't a new idea; I've seen several documentaries on several networks that have discussed both the possibility and the potential of boosting the human immune system with nanobots. Said documentaries corroborate the claims made in this article. The article itself is extremely credible, quoting the futurist and inventor to whom it refers, a man by the name of Ray Kurzewil. Whether or not Kurzweil himself wholly credible is debatable, and requires more knowledge. However, the article establishes that this is a possibility, not fact, through careful word choice. For instance, the author states, "But IF life expansion becomes available..." rather than, "But WHEN life expansion becomes available...". A limited degree of subtlety establishes the author as a credible source; rather than stating that these claims are a fact, when they are in fact speculation, the author states Kurzweil's opinions and acknowledges their potential possibility. And the potential is there, make no mistake. Top scientists from around the globe have estimated that, within a few decades, we will have nanobots capable of being injected into the human body for an individual's entire life, preventing a specific type of illness without harming the individual. This theory opens up doors we have searched for, such as a cure for cancer; and doors we have barely even considered, such as a cure for rabies, HIV or other seemingly incurable infections. It's an appealing idea, isn't it? Get an injection of nanobots when you're a baby, and you'll never need to get treated for Tetanus? Or maybe even nanobots in the bloodstream to fight blood clots? That would certainly be popular in the US, especially when the future becomes the present. As for me, I could do with a set of nanobots to fight sunburn. I may hate technology in general, but I have to admit, it has potential.
The other question the article poses is whether such technology would become affordable to the masses, or solely to the one percent. The point made in the article is legitimate, that such life-expanding technologies (which would theoretically keep people young for longer periods of time) would initially be less effective, and only available to the extremely wealthy. The article cites the example of cell phones, which were initially extremely expensive and quite faulty by today's standards. The question here, assuming such technology is invented, is not whether it would improve over time; it's how long it would take for it to a) significantly improve, and b) become available to the majority of the population. We don't even know when such technology would come to be, assuming any form comes to be at all. Will any affordable version of such technology come to be in our lifetimes? It's doubtful at best. And even if it does, most of us will probably be on our deathbeds, and not overly interested in extending our lives for a few centuries. Now, if they could get working on a way to reverse aging - that'd be something. Will it happen? I'd say it probably will. Will it happen in time for it to impact us? I have my doubts. At any rate, I'm not getting my hopes up.
On Big Think this afternoon, I came across this article. Before you dismiss it as utter fallacy, I'd like to point out that this isn't a new idea; I've seen several documentaries on several networks that have discussed both the possibility and the potential of boosting the human immune system with nanobots. Said documentaries corroborate the claims made in this article. The article itself is extremely credible, quoting the futurist and inventor to whom it refers, a man by the name of Ray Kurzewil. Whether or not Kurzweil himself wholly credible is debatable, and requires more knowledge. However, the article establishes that this is a possibility, not fact, through careful word choice. For instance, the author states, "But IF life expansion becomes available..." rather than, "But WHEN life expansion becomes available...". A limited degree of subtlety establishes the author as a credible source; rather than stating that these claims are a fact, when they are in fact speculation, the author states Kurzweil's opinions and acknowledges their potential possibility. And the potential is there, make no mistake. Top scientists from around the globe have estimated that, within a few decades, we will have nanobots capable of being injected into the human body for an individual's entire life, preventing a specific type of illness without harming the individual. This theory opens up doors we have searched for, such as a cure for cancer; and doors we have barely even considered, such as a cure for rabies, HIV or other seemingly incurable infections. It's an appealing idea, isn't it? Get an injection of nanobots when you're a baby, and you'll never need to get treated for Tetanus? Or maybe even nanobots in the bloodstream to fight blood clots? That would certainly be popular in the US, especially when the future becomes the present. As for me, I could do with a set of nanobots to fight sunburn. I may hate technology in general, but I have to admit, it has potential.
The other question the article poses is whether such technology would become affordable to the masses, or solely to the one percent. The point made in the article is legitimate, that such life-expanding technologies (which would theoretically keep people young for longer periods of time) would initially be less effective, and only available to the extremely wealthy. The article cites the example of cell phones, which were initially extremely expensive and quite faulty by today's standards. The question here, assuming such technology is invented, is not whether it would improve over time; it's how long it would take for it to a) significantly improve, and b) become available to the majority of the population. We don't even know when such technology would come to be, assuming any form comes to be at all. Will any affordable version of such technology come to be in our lifetimes? It's doubtful at best. And even if it does, most of us will probably be on our deathbeds, and not overly interested in extending our lives for a few centuries. Now, if they could get working on a way to reverse aging - that'd be something. Will it happen? I'd say it probably will. Will it happen in time for it to impact us? I have my doubts. At any rate, I'm not getting my hopes up.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Library Post: Plant Plastics From Big Think
Today, on the Big Think website, I came across this article.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/a-durable-plastic-made-from-cellulose-and-water
Essentially, an Australian company has invented a plastic-type material they call Zeoform. What makes it unique? It's made almost entirely out of plant matter and water. The article explains the process, which entails the compressing of the plant matter, derived from fibrous plants, recycled paper or clothing scraps, and drying the material into pliable plastic-type sheets. The article goes onto explain the potential uses of such a material, and the beneficial impact it could possibly have, both environmentally and economically. They are also taking part in a crowdfunding campaign on the site Indiegogo rather than going corporate.
So, why is this important? Well, obviously, the implications of a biodegradable plastic-type material are astounding. If this material should become commonplace, we would no longer need to be wasting oil to make plastic. (For those of you who were unaware, plastics are processed from oil, and not the kind you cook Italian food with.) Sure, recycling goes on, and many companies are trying to lessen their environmental footprint...but that doesn't mean the footprint is gone. Take the Poland Spring bottles that claim that they use 35% less plastic than they used to (which they most likely do). That's great - their footprint is now 65% what it was. It's better than nothing, of course, and it's nice to know that they're making the effort; nevertheless, their environmental footprint is enormous, especially when you consider the number of people who buy Poland Spring water bottles. I have a huge case of them in my basement now, as do many Americans. And even though many Americans today recycle their plastic bottles, just as many do not. A significant minority go so far as to abandon their water bottles, and other such pollutants, in the middle of the natural world, a fact that downright disgusts me. If a plastic Poland Spring gets into the environment, it doesn't matter if it's 35% of what it used to be. Depending on the number of bottles and the location, the impact can be anywhere from nonexistent to devastating. Given the article's statement that the company producing the material Zeoform wishes to license itself to other companies rather than, shall we say, go commercial, it's quite possible that companies such as Poland Spring would adopt this eco-friendly alternative to plastic. This would create new jobs, which our debt-ridden economy desperately needs. Given that many people today wish to be more environmentally conscious, this would provide more revenue for Poland Spring, and allow them to pay for such careers. A win-win situation, don't you think? Of course, testing would need to be done, to ensure that such a product is safe for people, but in the end, I think that we may be onto something here.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/a-durable-plastic-made-from-cellulose-and-water
Essentially, an Australian company has invented a plastic-type material they call Zeoform. What makes it unique? It's made almost entirely out of plant matter and water. The article explains the process, which entails the compressing of the plant matter, derived from fibrous plants, recycled paper or clothing scraps, and drying the material into pliable plastic-type sheets. The article goes onto explain the potential uses of such a material, and the beneficial impact it could possibly have, both environmentally and economically. They are also taking part in a crowdfunding campaign on the site Indiegogo rather than going corporate.
So, why is this important? Well, obviously, the implications of a biodegradable plastic-type material are astounding. If this material should become commonplace, we would no longer need to be wasting oil to make plastic. (For those of you who were unaware, plastics are processed from oil, and not the kind you cook Italian food with.) Sure, recycling goes on, and many companies are trying to lessen their environmental footprint...but that doesn't mean the footprint is gone. Take the Poland Spring bottles that claim that they use 35% less plastic than they used to (which they most likely do). That's great - their footprint is now 65% what it was. It's better than nothing, of course, and it's nice to know that they're making the effort; nevertheless, their environmental footprint is enormous, especially when you consider the number of people who buy Poland Spring water bottles. I have a huge case of them in my basement now, as do many Americans. And even though many Americans today recycle their plastic bottles, just as many do not. A significant minority go so far as to abandon their water bottles, and other such pollutants, in the middle of the natural world, a fact that downright disgusts me. If a plastic Poland Spring gets into the environment, it doesn't matter if it's 35% of what it used to be. Depending on the number of bottles and the location, the impact can be anywhere from nonexistent to devastating. Given the article's statement that the company producing the material Zeoform wishes to license itself to other companies rather than, shall we say, go commercial, it's quite possible that companies such as Poland Spring would adopt this eco-friendly alternative to plastic. This would create new jobs, which our debt-ridden economy desperately needs. Given that many people today wish to be more environmentally conscious, this would provide more revenue for Poland Spring, and allow them to pay for such careers. A win-win situation, don't you think? Of course, testing would need to be done, to ensure that such a product is safe for people, but in the end, I think that we may be onto something here.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Free Post: Why Do We Find Things Funny?
Last night, I was watching one of my favorite movies of all time, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If you haven't seen it, it's all on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOfI88NKRzY. Stop whatever you happen to be doing and watch the whole thing from start to finish. It's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, but last night, it occurred to me that I have absolutely no idea why I find it, or anything else, funny. Just a heads-up - this post will be composed primarily of spoilers from the movie.
So why do we find things funny? Seems like a simple question at first, but think about it a bit. I dare you to come up with one good reason that could not possibly be contested. For example, the first thing I would have come up with is that the things we find funny are ridiculous or idiotic. This isn't necessarily true, though. If I came into school tomorrow with a swastika painted on my face, it would be completely ridiculous and just about as stupid as you could get. But nobody would find it funny, would they? (If you disagree with that statement, do yourself a favor and seek counseling.) And things don't necessarily have to be ridiculous to be funny, do they? For example, when somebody trips in an embarrassing way (usually me), people generally laugh. At the same time, this is something completely reasonable that I'd bet has happened to just about everybody out there. Of course, that's not to say that ridiculous things can't be funny. Take the scenes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the tenacious, invincible Black Knight, the trial of the purported witch, and the Knights Who Say Ni. But the reason these ridiculous scenes are so funny are that all the actors involved stay in character. Graham Chapman's (Arthur's) reactions when the armless Black Knight attacks are completely natural, which is, to me, what makes the scene as funny as it is. And the stupidity of the peasants accusing the woman of witchcraft is done just enough, not in excess. Would it be funny if they overdid it?...yes, it would be. But would it be as funny? I don't think so. And of course, the Knights Who Say Ni...who say ridiculous words that cause people pain (thanks to the ingenious acting of Graham Chapman and Terry Jones), who demand ridiculous sacrifices to horror movie sound cues (two shrubberies and a tree cut down by a herring), and who are weakened by common everyday words such as "it." As with the witch scene, the amount of ridiculousness is just right, not over- or underdone.
I feel as though another one of the most significant factors in humor is context. Going back to my example of the swastika, if such an event occurred in our daily life, it would definitely not be seen as amusing. But in a Mel Brooks-style scenario, which would likely involve a clearly fictional Nazi blundering around and trying to fit in, it would most likely be seen as funny. In the right context, you can make anything funny, as evidenced by Tim the Enchanter and his warnings. When Tim warns the knights that death awaits them, it wouldn't be funny save for two things; the fact that Tim is spitting in Arthur's face half the time, and the fact that his mannerisms are completely ridiculous. (For more on mannerisms, see the next paragraph.) When we see the context (a small furry rabbit), Tim's warnings become all the more humorous. When we see that Tim was actually telling the truth, the whole thing becomes even funnier (aided by Arthur's delicately placed line, "JESUS CHRIST!").
To an arguably greater extent, I feel as though an actor's mannerisms and tone, and even appearance, can be used to an unbelievable effect in humor. Perhaps the best example I can think of is the French taunting that the knights endure on their quest. John Cleese's character is so ridiculously over-the-top and worked up, it's almost amazing that the character isn't viewed (at least by me) as overdone. I feel the reason I find the French Taunter so funny is that his mannerisms corroborate his over-the-top nature. Couple that with lines like, "I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper," and, "Silly King! You tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms," and finally, my personal favorite, "I'll wave my private parts at your undies, you cheesy lot of second-hand electric donkey bottom batterers," all delivered in one of the most ridiculously stereotypical nasal French accents imaginable. I doubt that anyone who's ever seen this movie (and doesn't hail directly from France) hasn't laughed at this scene.
Are these the only things that make the things we find funny funny? Not by a long shot, no. These are just the three I personally feel have the greatest impact on what we view as funny. You could argue for or against any of these, or any others. But frankly, it's not as important to the audience why we find things in comedies funny; what's important is that we do.
So why do we find things funny? Seems like a simple question at first, but think about it a bit. I dare you to come up with one good reason that could not possibly be contested. For example, the first thing I would have come up with is that the things we find funny are ridiculous or idiotic. This isn't necessarily true, though. If I came into school tomorrow with a swastika painted on my face, it would be completely ridiculous and just about as stupid as you could get. But nobody would find it funny, would they? (If you disagree with that statement, do yourself a favor and seek counseling.) And things don't necessarily have to be ridiculous to be funny, do they? For example, when somebody trips in an embarrassing way (usually me), people generally laugh. At the same time, this is something completely reasonable that I'd bet has happened to just about everybody out there. Of course, that's not to say that ridiculous things can't be funny. Take the scenes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the tenacious, invincible Black Knight, the trial of the purported witch, and the Knights Who Say Ni. But the reason these ridiculous scenes are so funny are that all the actors involved stay in character. Graham Chapman's (Arthur's) reactions when the armless Black Knight attacks are completely natural, which is, to me, what makes the scene as funny as it is. And the stupidity of the peasants accusing the woman of witchcraft is done just enough, not in excess. Would it be funny if they overdid it?...yes, it would be. But would it be as funny? I don't think so. And of course, the Knights Who Say Ni...who say ridiculous words that cause people pain (thanks to the ingenious acting of Graham Chapman and Terry Jones), who demand ridiculous sacrifices to horror movie sound cues (two shrubberies and a tree cut down by a herring), and who are weakened by common everyday words such as "it." As with the witch scene, the amount of ridiculousness is just right, not over- or underdone.
I feel as though another one of the most significant factors in humor is context. Going back to my example of the swastika, if such an event occurred in our daily life, it would definitely not be seen as amusing. But in a Mel Brooks-style scenario, which would likely involve a clearly fictional Nazi blundering around and trying to fit in, it would most likely be seen as funny. In the right context, you can make anything funny, as evidenced by Tim the Enchanter and his warnings. When Tim warns the knights that death awaits them, it wouldn't be funny save for two things; the fact that Tim is spitting in Arthur's face half the time, and the fact that his mannerisms are completely ridiculous. (For more on mannerisms, see the next paragraph.) When we see the context (a small furry rabbit), Tim's warnings become all the more humorous. When we see that Tim was actually telling the truth, the whole thing becomes even funnier (aided by Arthur's delicately placed line, "JESUS CHRIST!").
To an arguably greater extent, I feel as though an actor's mannerisms and tone, and even appearance, can be used to an unbelievable effect in humor. Perhaps the best example I can think of is the French taunting that the knights endure on their quest. John Cleese's character is so ridiculously over-the-top and worked up, it's almost amazing that the character isn't viewed (at least by me) as overdone. I feel the reason I find the French Taunter so funny is that his mannerisms corroborate his over-the-top nature. Couple that with lines like, "I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper," and, "Silly King! You tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms," and finally, my personal favorite, "I'll wave my private parts at your undies, you cheesy lot of second-hand electric donkey bottom batterers," all delivered in one of the most ridiculously stereotypical nasal French accents imaginable. I doubt that anyone who's ever seen this movie (and doesn't hail directly from France) hasn't laughed at this scene.
Are these the only things that make the things we find funny funny? Not by a long shot, no. These are just the three I personally feel have the greatest impact on what we view as funny. You could argue for or against any of these, or any others. But frankly, it's not as important to the audience why we find things in comedies funny; what's important is that we do.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Library Post: Big Think: Do Politics Impact Mathematical Ability
http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/do-political-beliefs-affect-mathematical-ability
This is perhaps, one of the more interesting articles I've ever found on the internet. While the article itself isn't very long, it is certainly very credible. Discussing the ways in which political controversy affects an individual's skills in regards to everyday life, the article establishes itself as credible right off the bat, providing a link to a thirty-six page article on the experiment performed. In addition, it provides a video discussing the topic in great detail, which I highly recommend that you watch. It's an English guy in a seemingly professional setting, so it comes across as a legitimate source right off the bat. The guy explains the research, done at Yale University, in a straightforward, concise manner. Essentially, this test aimed to determine the ways in which a person's political views can impact their ability to solve math problems. The participants were first given an impartial math problem, relating to the use of skin cream and how it could impact rashes. The participants were given a pair of charts with values and asked to explain whether the use of a hypothetical cream helped people with rashes. For one of the charts, the cream would be more helpful; in another chart, the cream would be less helpful. This first problem assessed the participant's overall math skills. The second question, which mirrored the first, was about gun control. Of the two charts given to the participants, the first suggested that increased gun control lowered crime rate, and the second suggested that an increase in gun control raised the crime rate. People performed worse on the second question than the first question, as a result of their political views; participants who had identified themselves as conservative got results that suggested that increasing gun control raised crime rates for both charts, while those liberal participants arrived at answers suggesting that increasing gun control lowered crime rates for both charts. This scenario demonstrates the true power of human tenacity - when we are strongly opinionated or biased in favor (or against) a particular thing, we are less likely to listen to reason and more likely to take actions that reflect our support of our views. This is certainly very applicable for us today, what with the government shutdown and the threat of chaos knocking on our door. Maybe it's time we reconsidered what we're willing to negotiate.
This is perhaps, one of the more interesting articles I've ever found on the internet. While the article itself isn't very long, it is certainly very credible. Discussing the ways in which political controversy affects an individual's skills in regards to everyday life, the article establishes itself as credible right off the bat, providing a link to a thirty-six page article on the experiment performed. In addition, it provides a video discussing the topic in great detail, which I highly recommend that you watch. It's an English guy in a seemingly professional setting, so it comes across as a legitimate source right off the bat. The guy explains the research, done at Yale University, in a straightforward, concise manner. Essentially, this test aimed to determine the ways in which a person's political views can impact their ability to solve math problems. The participants were first given an impartial math problem, relating to the use of skin cream and how it could impact rashes. The participants were given a pair of charts with values and asked to explain whether the use of a hypothetical cream helped people with rashes. For one of the charts, the cream would be more helpful; in another chart, the cream would be less helpful. This first problem assessed the participant's overall math skills. The second question, which mirrored the first, was about gun control. Of the two charts given to the participants, the first suggested that increased gun control lowered crime rate, and the second suggested that an increase in gun control raised the crime rate. People performed worse on the second question than the first question, as a result of their political views; participants who had identified themselves as conservative got results that suggested that increasing gun control raised crime rates for both charts, while those liberal participants arrived at answers suggesting that increasing gun control lowered crime rates for both charts. This scenario demonstrates the true power of human tenacity - when we are strongly opinionated or biased in favor (or against) a particular thing, we are less likely to listen to reason and more likely to take actions that reflect our support of our views. This is certainly very applicable for us today, what with the government shutdown and the threat of chaos knocking on our door. Maybe it's time we reconsidered what we're willing to negotiate.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Free Post: Young Frankenstein, The Producers, and other Mel Brooks-y Goodness
Am I the only one who didn't know there was a Young Frankenstein musical?
In case I'm not, there is. What's more, the music and lyrics, as well as the book, were all written by the living legend himself, Mel Brooks. If you don't know who he is...I'm sorry, you do not deserve to call yourself human. Mel Brooks is the ultimate jack-of-all-trades, and the master of several, including theater and film. Well known for both original pieces and satirical parodies, Mel's works include films such as History of the World, Part One (there was never a part two), High Anxiety (a hilarious spoof of multiple Hitchcock films), Spaceballs (a Star Wars satire with an all-star cast), and a silent movie called Silent Movie, with a single spoken line. Many of Mel's movies, including Robin Hood: Men in Tights and History of the World, Part One, include a musical aspect, primarily for comedic relief. However, these short musical numbers clearly involved a great deal of planning, and more than a bit of musical skill on Mel's part. Mel even manages to make a subject as distinctly un-funny as the Spanish Inquisition into something anybody can laugh at. (Mel is Jewish, so that makes it all okay, right?) See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg
Part of Mel's brilliance is that he can make things go from macabre to absurdly funny with the greatest of ease, which he shows in his most famous musical, The Producers. Virtually everybody who knows theater knows this show, and many think fondly of it. Few people know it for the Nazi characters and ideas throughout, namely because Mel twists these elements of the plot to his own advantage and gets plenty of laughs from the audience. Take this example, of the song "Springtime for Hitler" and the scene that follows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo. Once again, Mel's brilliance is that he can make the play-within-the-play switch from Nazi propaganda to a mockery of the Third Reich and all it stood for. Gene Wilder, one of the stars of the original version of The Producers, also starred as Victor Frankenstein's grandson in Young Frankenstein, arguably one of Mel's best movies and one of my personal favorite films of all time. It is, in its loosest sense, based upon the Frankenstein movies we've seen in class. However, it is much different, in the plot, the relationships between the characters, and, of course, the humor. Now that there's a musical version of it, penned by Mel himself, which has apparently been compared to The Producers, this is certainly something that I'd like to see. Maybe there's a version on YouTube...
In case I'm not, there is. What's more, the music and lyrics, as well as the book, were all written by the living legend himself, Mel Brooks. If you don't know who he is...I'm sorry, you do not deserve to call yourself human. Mel Brooks is the ultimate jack-of-all-trades, and the master of several, including theater and film. Well known for both original pieces and satirical parodies, Mel's works include films such as History of the World, Part One (there was never a part two), High Anxiety (a hilarious spoof of multiple Hitchcock films), Spaceballs (a Star Wars satire with an all-star cast), and a silent movie called Silent Movie, with a single spoken line. Many of Mel's movies, including Robin Hood: Men in Tights and History of the World, Part One, include a musical aspect, primarily for comedic relief. However, these short musical numbers clearly involved a great deal of planning, and more than a bit of musical skill on Mel's part. Mel even manages to make a subject as distinctly un-funny as the Spanish Inquisition into something anybody can laugh at. (Mel is Jewish, so that makes it all okay, right?) See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg
Part of Mel's brilliance is that he can make things go from macabre to absurdly funny with the greatest of ease, which he shows in his most famous musical, The Producers. Virtually everybody who knows theater knows this show, and many think fondly of it. Few people know it for the Nazi characters and ideas throughout, namely because Mel twists these elements of the plot to his own advantage and gets plenty of laughs from the audience. Take this example, of the song "Springtime for Hitler" and the scene that follows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo. Once again, Mel's brilliance is that he can make the play-within-the-play switch from Nazi propaganda to a mockery of the Third Reich and all it stood for. Gene Wilder, one of the stars of the original version of The Producers, also starred as Victor Frankenstein's grandson in Young Frankenstein, arguably one of Mel's best movies and one of my personal favorite films of all time. It is, in its loosest sense, based upon the Frankenstein movies we've seen in class. However, it is much different, in the plot, the relationships between the characters, and, of course, the humor. Now that there's a musical version of it, penned by Mel himself, which has apparently been compared to The Producers, this is certainly something that I'd like to see. Maybe there's a version on YouTube...
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Free Post: "Remakes" of Classics (Spoiler Alert)
In class, we've been watching Frankenstein movies lately. Before we watched the original film, Luke forewarned us that it was made for a different audience, and that we would have to make our judgements with this in mind. That got me thinking about how Frankenstein would be presented if it were remade today. Conveniently enough, an ideal example of just such an instance exists today, in the classic horror flick The Wolf Man.
Released in 1941, this film was the start of the modern movie legend of the werewolf. In this film, the titular character, portrayed by Lon Chaney, Jr., is Larry Talbot, a successful businessman returning to his home in Wales after the death of his brother, who reconciles with his estranged father. Larry becomes romantically interested in a local girl named Gwen as he grows closer to his hometown. However, after a night visiting local gypsies, Gwen's friend is mauled by a wolf and dies. Larry kills the wolf, but is bitten first. Returning to the gypsy camp, he learns that the wolf was a gypsy named Bela, whose body was found in place of the wolf's, and he is suspected of murder. An old gypsy woman warns Larry that he will become a werewolf (which he does) when next the moon is full. In the end, after forty minutes of lycanthropic mischief, Larry (as the Wolf Man) is bludgeoned to death with a silver cane by his father. This classic was remade in 2010, and retitled The Wolfman. The title is the first of many changes in the movie to make it appealing to a modern audience. In this version of the film, Larry Talbot, played by Benicio del Toro, is returning home after the death of his brother, but that's where most of the similarities stop. In this version, Larry's brother was torn to death by an unknown animal, which Larry proceeds to hunt (and is bitten by). Gwen is his brother's widow, and the two become romantically involved. Larry's father, as opposed to being a kindhearted old gentleman, is a sadistic sociopath (later revealed to be the werewolf who killed Larry's brother and mother). Not surprisingly, Anthony Hopkins was chosen to play this role. Larry transforms, is accused of murder (rightly so), and is taken to a mental hospital in London, where he transforms and massacres a room full of doctors and slaughters quite a few civilians. Larry returns home, kills his father in a werewolf fight while their manor burns, and chases Gwen through the forest, where he temporarily regains control of himself before Gwen shoots him with a silver bullet.
The differences between the two versions of the film are astonishing. In the original, none of the characters are truly evil, and most of them try to help each other out. Larry's father and neighbors do all that they can to help him through what they see as a time of illness. The special effects, for the time, were cutting-edge, and even today, they don't look half-bad. Lon Chaney, Jr. portrays the madness of the beast extraordinarily. Benicio del Toro, on the other hand, lends a bloodthirsty, savage malice to the character, who spends less time tromping through the forest with a bemused expression on his face and more time ripping out throats and tearing off heads. In addition, whereas Chaney's transformation is quick and painless, del Toro's Talbot has to suffer through a full minute of agony and pain while he transforms. The reason for this, in addition to some of the other ways the remake is changed, is the fact that the werewolf legend has evolved since The Wolf Man. Today's werewolves are more animalistic, more violent, and more destructive than Chaney's wolf man, all three of which are traits of del Toro's werewolf, which spends half its screen time roaring at its next victim, blood dripping from its maw. Also, as in other werewolf movies from more recent times, del Toro's monster is able to temporarily recall snippets from his human life, like familiar faces and those he loves. Chaney's creature, more of a madman than a beast, lacks this capacity entirely.
How would Frankenstein be different if it were made today? Well, I think that the monster's torment at Fritz/Igor's hands would have been much longer and much more graphic. I don't doubt that we would have gotten more than one scene of Frankenstein and his flunky hacking up dead bodies for their experiments. The monster's accidental murder of the little girl probably would be much more graphic, and quite possibly would involve some other character. In all honesty, Fritz/Igor's death would have been much bloodier and much rougher, and the doctor probably would have fought for quite some time before he succumbed. And, as with The Wolf Man and its remake, the relationships between the characters, as well as their own personal traits, would likely be very different from the original's. Especially the monster.
If you're not convinced, here's a trailer for the original film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsrFMBWRC1M
And here's a trailer for the 2010 remake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPieOzIA7NM
Released in 1941, this film was the start of the modern movie legend of the werewolf. In this film, the titular character, portrayed by Lon Chaney, Jr., is Larry Talbot, a successful businessman returning to his home in Wales after the death of his brother, who reconciles with his estranged father. Larry becomes romantically interested in a local girl named Gwen as he grows closer to his hometown. However, after a night visiting local gypsies, Gwen's friend is mauled by a wolf and dies. Larry kills the wolf, but is bitten first. Returning to the gypsy camp, he learns that the wolf was a gypsy named Bela, whose body was found in place of the wolf's, and he is suspected of murder. An old gypsy woman warns Larry that he will become a werewolf (which he does) when next the moon is full. In the end, after forty minutes of lycanthropic mischief, Larry (as the Wolf Man) is bludgeoned to death with a silver cane by his father. This classic was remade in 2010, and retitled The Wolfman. The title is the first of many changes in the movie to make it appealing to a modern audience. In this version of the film, Larry Talbot, played by Benicio del Toro, is returning home after the death of his brother, but that's where most of the similarities stop. In this version, Larry's brother was torn to death by an unknown animal, which Larry proceeds to hunt (and is bitten by). Gwen is his brother's widow, and the two become romantically involved. Larry's father, as opposed to being a kindhearted old gentleman, is a sadistic sociopath (later revealed to be the werewolf who killed Larry's brother and mother). Not surprisingly, Anthony Hopkins was chosen to play this role. Larry transforms, is accused of murder (rightly so), and is taken to a mental hospital in London, where he transforms and massacres a room full of doctors and slaughters quite a few civilians. Larry returns home, kills his father in a werewolf fight while their manor burns, and chases Gwen through the forest, where he temporarily regains control of himself before Gwen shoots him with a silver bullet.
The differences between the two versions of the film are astonishing. In the original, none of the characters are truly evil, and most of them try to help each other out. Larry's father and neighbors do all that they can to help him through what they see as a time of illness. The special effects, for the time, were cutting-edge, and even today, they don't look half-bad. Lon Chaney, Jr. portrays the madness of the beast extraordinarily. Benicio del Toro, on the other hand, lends a bloodthirsty, savage malice to the character, who spends less time tromping through the forest with a bemused expression on his face and more time ripping out throats and tearing off heads. In addition, whereas Chaney's transformation is quick and painless, del Toro's Talbot has to suffer through a full minute of agony and pain while he transforms. The reason for this, in addition to some of the other ways the remake is changed, is the fact that the werewolf legend has evolved since The Wolf Man. Today's werewolves are more animalistic, more violent, and more destructive than Chaney's wolf man, all three of which are traits of del Toro's werewolf, which spends half its screen time roaring at its next victim, blood dripping from its maw. Also, as in other werewolf movies from more recent times, del Toro's monster is able to temporarily recall snippets from his human life, like familiar faces and those he loves. Chaney's creature, more of a madman than a beast, lacks this capacity entirely.
How would Frankenstein be different if it were made today? Well, I think that the monster's torment at Fritz/Igor's hands would have been much longer and much more graphic. I don't doubt that we would have gotten more than one scene of Frankenstein and his flunky hacking up dead bodies for their experiments. The monster's accidental murder of the little girl probably would be much more graphic, and quite possibly would involve some other character. In all honesty, Fritz/Igor's death would have been much bloodier and much rougher, and the doctor probably would have fought for quite some time before he succumbed. And, as with The Wolf Man and its remake, the relationships between the characters, as well as their own personal traits, would likely be very different from the original's. Especially the monster.
If you're not convinced, here's a trailer for the original film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsrFMBWRC1M
And here's a trailer for the 2010 remake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPieOzIA7NM
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Library Post: Big Think: Modern Marketing Concepts
http://bigthink.com/amped/struggling-to-stay-relevant-incorporate-these-cultural-marketing-concepts
This article automatically appealed to me because of the marketing project that we've been doing; I thought perhaps this article would have some degree of relevance to our project, and perhaps give us some ideas as to how to proceed on this topic. While I can't say that this site would be overly helpful to us, although perhaps another individual could come up with a convincing argument in its favor, it is certainly a very interesting piece. The article itself entails four strategies that modern corporations use to capture the attention of today's internet-addicted consumers.
The first strategy, which deals with timing, strikes me as being extremely important for any company aiming its products at teenagers (which we are not, hence my previous statements). The article states that when to state something is more important than where or how. I do not necessarily believe that this is the case now; however, I do believe that sooner rather than later, this will become the case, based on the way our society is progressing, with our ever-increasing demands for instant gratification and lack of patience in virtually every sphere. A problem I have with this section of the article is that it mentions only how timing influences the way companies react in lieu of a tragedy, rather than how timing influences our opinions in our everyday lives; which I feel is more than slightly unhelpful.
The second strategy, the use of symbols, is more applicable to our society today than the importance of timing. The symbols, in this case, are the popular captioned pictures known as Memes, which have been circulating around the Internet for the last few years. The idea that the Memes that a person enjoys speaks volumes about their personality is fantastical, and yet incredibly simple. And I personally have no doubt that it is actually true. If you think that marijuana should be legalized, you won't enjoy a Meme about how people who share your views are idiots. Perhaps this isn't the best example, but the point is the same. Thanks to Facebook, anyone in the world, including marketing agents at big-name companies, can see what Memes you like, and derive conclusions about your personality from that. No doubt, as the article suggests, there are marketing agents working round the clock at corporations across the globes, trying to analyze what a person's taste in Memes says about their personality.
I personally have multiple problems with the third section of the article, entitled "Hunch Farming." In this section, the author claims that "Science is confirming the power of the collective conscious and intuition. For example, social chatter spiked globally in the period leading up to the 2011 tsunami and before 9/11, like birds instinctively warning the forest of a predator." That's nice, author. Would you mind telling us where you got this information of yours? If a scientist told you that your head would explode if you didn't pour molten lead down your shirt, would you believe them? The lack of credibility in this section astounds me. Beyond this, the author fails to explain what "hunches" are. Does she mean in the "I have a hunch," sense, or the "I'm hunched over" sense? The author fails miserably in conveying whatever point she was trying to make in this section.
The author's fourth section, on the importance of a target audience's mood, is much more credible, largely owing to the fact that the author acknowledges that this technology is only in its infancy and very expensive so far. She cites Toyota's use of mood reading technology to keep drivers in a better mood. In this case, the author doesn't act as though she has a comprehensive knowledge of the topic without presenting evidence necessary to prove this point. She explains how this will most likely become an important factor in determining consumer choices at some point in the future, and I'd be inclined to believe her.
Well, I doubt that this article would be any help to us in our marketing campaign. However, it's certainly a tribute to the importance of credibility in anything publicly published.
This article automatically appealed to me because of the marketing project that we've been doing; I thought perhaps this article would have some degree of relevance to our project, and perhaps give us some ideas as to how to proceed on this topic. While I can't say that this site would be overly helpful to us, although perhaps another individual could come up with a convincing argument in its favor, it is certainly a very interesting piece. The article itself entails four strategies that modern corporations use to capture the attention of today's internet-addicted consumers.
The first strategy, which deals with timing, strikes me as being extremely important for any company aiming its products at teenagers (which we are not, hence my previous statements). The article states that when to state something is more important than where or how. I do not necessarily believe that this is the case now; however, I do believe that sooner rather than later, this will become the case, based on the way our society is progressing, with our ever-increasing demands for instant gratification and lack of patience in virtually every sphere. A problem I have with this section of the article is that it mentions only how timing influences the way companies react in lieu of a tragedy, rather than how timing influences our opinions in our everyday lives; which I feel is more than slightly unhelpful.
The second strategy, the use of symbols, is more applicable to our society today than the importance of timing. The symbols, in this case, are the popular captioned pictures known as Memes, which have been circulating around the Internet for the last few years. The idea that the Memes that a person enjoys speaks volumes about their personality is fantastical, and yet incredibly simple. And I personally have no doubt that it is actually true. If you think that marijuana should be legalized, you won't enjoy a Meme about how people who share your views are idiots. Perhaps this isn't the best example, but the point is the same. Thanks to Facebook, anyone in the world, including marketing agents at big-name companies, can see what Memes you like, and derive conclusions about your personality from that. No doubt, as the article suggests, there are marketing agents working round the clock at corporations across the globes, trying to analyze what a person's taste in Memes says about their personality.
I personally have multiple problems with the third section of the article, entitled "Hunch Farming." In this section, the author claims that "Science is confirming the power of the collective conscious and intuition. For example, social chatter spiked globally in the period leading up to the 2011 tsunami and before 9/11, like birds instinctively warning the forest of a predator." That's nice, author. Would you mind telling us where you got this information of yours? If a scientist told you that your head would explode if you didn't pour molten lead down your shirt, would you believe them? The lack of credibility in this section astounds me. Beyond this, the author fails to explain what "hunches" are. Does she mean in the "I have a hunch," sense, or the "I'm hunched over" sense? The author fails miserably in conveying whatever point she was trying to make in this section.
The author's fourth section, on the importance of a target audience's mood, is much more credible, largely owing to the fact that the author acknowledges that this technology is only in its infancy and very expensive so far. She cites Toyota's use of mood reading technology to keep drivers in a better mood. In this case, the author doesn't act as though she has a comprehensive knowledge of the topic without presenting evidence necessary to prove this point. She explains how this will most likely become an important factor in determining consumer choices at some point in the future, and I'd be inclined to believe her.
Well, I doubt that this article would be any help to us in our marketing campaign. However, it's certainly a tribute to the importance of credibility in anything publicly published.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)