blogorama

Well gamer week is upon us and like some of you, I’m less than thrilled. My gaming experience consists of the original Nintendo and Mario Kart and Goldeneye on N64. But that’s about it. And I generally only played those with friends. So basically, I’m not into the whole video game world. I read Zach Whalen’s article, “Game/Genre: A critique of Generic Formulas in Video Games in the Context of ‘The Real‘” and I can’t lie. I was bored. It took me a good three or four attempts to get through it. I tried the other articles as well, but I just couldn’t force myself through it.

I think that Whalen presented some slightly interesting ideas in regards to the typology and genre classification of video games, but it’s difficult for me to sit and read through something like that since it makes me want to crawl into my bed and sleep. I went to one of the websites he suggested and poked around for awhile just to see what it was all about. And it looked nice. Well-made. I guess it would be interesting to people… Whalen mentions the various categories that video games can end up being classified under on websites like gamespot, such as Grand Theft Auto III. Apparently in its case, it is classed under both action and Adventure. Is that weird for video games? To be two things? I’m trying to compare it to movies and there are romantic comedies and “dramadies”, so why not for video games too? Whalen notes that, “Action games typically rely on simulated violence or highly kinesthetic game play (or both) and generally lack narrative depth” and “Adventure games, on the other hand typically rely on a story to involve the player and successful game play requires understanding and advancing the story line.” Now, I have basically no experience with today’s video games, but the main two I can think of are Halo and Grand Theft Auto. And I would classify those two as Action and Adventure… According to Whalen, this is why video games should not be classified into various genres.

This is a really weak commentary. I apologize. That’s pretty much all I got out of the article. It bored me greatly. I can’t lie. (Sorry Paul! and Sorry Zach!). What can you do? I’d rather be watching The Hills and painting my toe nails.

Ok I feel as though I need to rant about something. Hollywood spawns the most ridiculous trends. Whether it’s designer bags, leggings, or adopting babies – they got it covered. The trend right now though, is rehab. And what the hell????? Seriously. Who has been to rehab lately? Lindsay Lohan, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears, Nicole Ritchie, Isaiah Washington and today I read the Jesse Metcalfe (of Desperate Housewives fame) is joining in on the fun. Now maybe rehab isn’t a trend and these people all have valid issues. But I don’t know. I just find it odd that going to rehab is part of my everday tabloid readings and that’s weird. It’s strange that ALL of these people are choosing to go into rehab around the same time. It’s also odd that their publicists send out a press release to announce it to the world. Shouldn’t something like going to rehab be a personal experience? If you don’t advertise that they’re going, maybe people wouldn’t know they’re there and would leave them alone! Geez.

I get so frustrated with the celebrity world sometimes. Maybe I should stop reading gossip blogs… If only I could somehow. I’m just addicted. Maybe I should go to rehab too!! hahaha. I hate that hollywood is making rehab seem like something easy. Easy to decide to go to, easy to be in, and easy to get back to your life after. Because it’s not! I think it’s horrible that rehab is becoming somewhat of a joke because it is a very serious form of treatment for very serious disorders. It’s frustrating. Anyways. That’s my rant!

This week I read the article “Should gay people seek to cultivate representations of a unified gay identity in the media, or is this counterproductive?” I read the other articles as well and I didn’t find them as compelling as this one. I can actually remember the first “gay” show I watched on TV and it was Ellen Degeneres’ sitcom “Ellen”. What’s interesting about this sitcom was that when the show first began to air, her role wasn’t a lesbian. But then she came out and so the character did as well. Even more interesting is that it was cancelled soon after. I watched a re-run of it awhile ago and I’m beginning to think that had more to do with how not funny it was…. but either way, it was cancelled.

If you look at the tv line up today, there is way more inclusion of gay characters. In the article Horsley explains that when he was growing up he could only see “gay things” on late night television and even then it was rare. Now anytime of day you can tune into Will and Grace. Plus there are shows like Queer as Folk and the L-word which are dramas solely based on gay characters. Frankly I think all three of these shows are great. I’ve watched Queer as Folk a number of times and there are graphic scenes that would shock me whether it was a hetero couple or a gay couple, but the storylines are amazing and the actors are GREAT (and hot!). I’m just glad that there is at least some media representation of homosexual people out there.

Horsely also mentions that Queer theorists seek to problematize the notion of a gay/lesbian identity so as to somewhat normalize the gay community with the straight community. I actually agree with them. Although I think shows like the L-word and Queer as Folk are great, I think people would benefit even more from having gay characters and straight characters together. Rather than making it a “gay show”, we really should be able to just recognize it as a “show”.

I loved the article for this week, “All of Your Insecurities Wrapped Up in A 30 Second Spot”. When I was in Sociology of Women, Men, and Gender we discussed advertising quite a bit and it totally fascinated. That was over a year ago and I still have a critical eye when I see ads. I’m constantly looking at print ads and commercials with almost a feminist point of view. I wouldn’t classify myself as being a feminist, but there are so many images that disturb me as a female. In the article, the book Reviving Ophelia is mentioned and i LOVE that book. I read it years ago, but it still resonates with me. It’s excellent. I recommend it to all!!

One of the quotes mentioned from the book is “Women are portrayed as expensive toys, as the ultimate recreation.” I love that!!! This one little sentence is just so accurate about the portrayal of women. In everything from music videos to print ads to commericals on TV, women are constantly hypersexualized and “dumbed down”. Even commericals for toilet paper or stomach medicine are sexualized – and women are almost always the target. It’s ridiculous! It really shouldn’t come as a surprise to people that girls have low self esteem and struggle with self image.

So obviously I agree that there are negative images and messages sent out to the masses through advertising, but sometimes it can go too far. Friedrich mentions in her article that women wearing white in ads symbolizes innocence and purity. Which on some level, white does represent. But I don’t necessarily agree that everytime a woman in an ad is wearing white, that the company is trying to sell the ideals of virginity and purity to the masses. A good majority of ads contain sexual undertones, but I think sometimes we are being unrealistic in chalking up everything little thing to sexual innuendo.

I was just perusing the many blogs I read on a daily basis and followed a link which brought me to another link, etc. In the end of the long line of links, I came upon an article on nme.com about the ‘Best Song Ever Poll’. Here’s the list:

The global top ten songs were:

1. ‘We Are The Champions’ – Queen
2. ‘Toxic’ – Britney Spears
3. ‘Billie Jean’ – Michael Jackson
4. ‘Hotel California’ – The Eagles
5. ‘La Tortura’ – Shakira
6. ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit’ – Nirvana
7. ‘Yesterday’ – The Beatles
8. ‘One’ – U2
9. ‘Imagine’ – John Lennon
10. ‘Sultans Of Swing’ – Dire Straits

So I’m confused. They’re telling me that ‘Toxic’ by Britney Spears is better than Billie Jean, Hotel California, and Imagine????? Is this a joke? I’m just really perplexed by this. That wasn’t even her most popular song! Apparently the survey was conducted in 44 different countries. I just don’t get it. The world’s gone mad! And Bohemian Rhapsody is better than We Are The Champions. Come on people! Bohemian Rhapsody is like four songs in one! It’s amazing!!!! Anyways, this post has no point really. I just found this pretty disturbing. Does anyone agree with the list?

OR

For this assignment I was planning on going to a major film on its opening night in hopes that I could see as many people as possible during their movie-going experience. However, a few weeks before this assignment was due, I went to a movie and decided I just had to use it as the subject of this paper. I went to the Mel Gibson film “Apocalypto” at the Movie Mill. It was a Friday night during “Midnight Movie Madness”, so the film didn’t start until 12:30am. Having said that, the theatre was quite empty. Although I didn’t go to the movie with this assignment in mind, after I got home and started thinking about the whole experience, I knew that it would work quite well for this paper.

After reading Russell Smith’s article from the Globe and Mail, I couldn’t help but be angry. He came off as being the most miserable, pompous, dramatic man I had ever read anything from. Smith not only spent a good 500 words spelling out his intense hatred of movie going, but he also made it explicitly clear that he is a pessimistic grouch. It’s easy to say that his article made me as mad as he felt when he went to the theatre. Needless to say, I interpret movie-going much differently than Smith does.

It was just before midnight when we got to the theatre. I had expected a really poor turnout and that it would mostly be college-aged people in attendance. On top of that, I figured most people wouldn’t be seeing the movie we were since who wants to read sub-titles for two and a half hours in the middle of the night? Apparently, seven of us do. We got in line to buy our tickets and I was shocked to see the people in front of us carrying a baby. Don’t babies go to bed earlier than midnight? And if they were asleep, wouldn’t the extremely high volume of the film wake them up? I thought that was a little strange. We waited to get into the theatre for probably about 10 minutes or so. There was a good thirty to forty people waiting in the lobby for their theatre to open up and I must say I didn’t see a single person gorging on super buttery popcorn or drinking a gallon-sized cup of Coke. People chatted with each other and glanced ever so often at the ticket booth to see if they could go in yet.

Finally we got into the theatre and sat in our ever-so comfy seats. Here is where I start loving the movie experience and disagreeing in every way with Russell Smith. I absolutely love going to movies. I enjoy every aspect of it. The seats are comfortable, theatres are now designed so that nobody’s huge head is obstructing your view, and it’s extremely dark. Nothing pleases me more than watching a movie in complete darkness. Even when we’re at home watching movies, most people turn out majority, if not all, of the lights (though I’m sure Russell Smith watches them in broad daylight with every single light on). We took off our jackets to get more comfortable and quietly took our “contraband” snacks which we pre-purchased as Super Sam out of our purses and jacket pockets and munched away. The thing with the Movie Mill is that you don’t get that fun trivia before your film starts. Smith hates this part, but I love the movie trivia. It makes the time fly by before the movie gets going. However, I was not so lucky to have this luxury. The Movie Mill plays really poorly funded ads and PowerPoint presentations from local business before the movie starts. I don’t mind the first go-around, but after that I get sick of seeing that real estate agent who advertises himself as being John Travolta (does that work? Do people hire him based on the fact that he looks like John Travolta?). So instead I people watch.

There was an older couple two rows in front of us that sat in the end seats. They shared a popcorn and did not speak a word to each other before, during, or after the movie. You could tell that they had been together long enough that silence was comfortable and they were just enjoying a nice night out of the house. The next two movie goers who walked in were two guys, probably in their early twenties. Their seating arrangement really intrigued me. They sat so that there was a one-seat “buffer” between them. I call this extra and completely unnecessary seat a “buffer” because I can only assume that this seat is being used so that it doesn’t appear to anyone else in the theatre that they are on a date. This blew my mind. If they’re so uncomfortable going to a movie with each other, then maybe they should just stay at home. It is presumptuous of me to make this claim, but I really cannot think of another reason for the “buffer seat”.

Apocalypto is a typical Mel Gibson creation. It is violent and bloody, yet at the same time, completely captivating. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. There were numerous times that I gasped out loud and I can’t even count how many times I covered my eyes due to the graphic scenes. The other patrons were doing the same thing, even the two guys NOT on a date. This is another reason I love going to movies in the theatre. The massive screens allow everything to come to life and get right in your face. There is no escaping the emotions, actions, and music on screen. I couldn’t disagree with Russell Smith’s article more. I think that having people talk during movies, the sticky floors, the overpriced concession food, and the anticipation of waiting for the lights to dim is an experience that cannot be matched. Whether there is seven people or three hundred people in theatre, it’s sure to be an experience far greater than one you could have in your own living room at home.

I was just looking at CNN.com and one of the headlines was “Brangelina Move to Orleans”. Even CNN uses those damn combo-names. And do you know who we have to blame for this? Kevin Smith. Damn you Kevin Smith for unleashing “Bennifer” upon the world when J.Lo and Ben Affleck were dating. It’s not entertaining anymore. I don’t know why people still insist on using these damn names. The only time I found this funny was when Ben Affleck hosted SNL after his big break up with J.Lo and he talked about being part of “Boprah”. Aaaah that was hilarious. Could you imagine Ben Affleck and Oprah?? Anyways, this is just bugging me. Especially when even CNN uses these damn things.