Alright, I admit that I've been complaining a lot about the oil spill lately. Maybe a little too much. But while most of my complaining has been about who's to blame and who should be doing more to stop it, I'm going to take a different approach today.
A few nights ago I happened to catch the beginning of the CBS Evening News, and I saw some images that will probably stick with me for the rest of my life. I found the stills here, but you really can't get the full effect without seeing them in motion. Before you click that link, be prepared for some stuff that might shake you. The most poignant to me is the poor little seagull, on his back in the oil. The picture is bad enough, but in the video, you could see him struggling to get out of it. Every time a wave would lap up, it would overtake him, and all you could see were his two little legs kicking as he helplessly drowned.
Despite these heartwrenching images, I had to ask myself... is this too much? Has media crossed the line here? I know/hope that the photographer who shot that video was immediately after helping that little bird out of his mess, but should he have even shot it to begin with? It's a tough question if you really think about it, and it applies to just about all of the most emotionally stirring images captured by media. News people -- photographers especially -- are stuck in limbo with stuff like this. Do you capture a shot like that, knowing that it instantly creates an emotional response and greatly increases the impact of your story... even knowing that by doing so, you're allowing an innocent creature to suffer or maybe even die? Do you let the Tieneman Tank roll over that guy, knowing that it will become one of the most iconic visuals of all time... even though the guy will die in the process? Is it worth that one life to affect (and potentially save) thousands of others? For once, I will admit that I don't know the answer, but I think it's definitely something to think about.
As I've said from the beginning, the really unfortunate thing about this oil spill is the impact it's having on wildlife. I know thousands of people have lost their jobs and are now facing really tough times... but these poor animals who don't know any better, HAVE to dive into the oil just to eat and survive. It's like asking you to bite your tongue off every time you eat. And now I'm hearing that once scientist is saying that the "humane" thing to do is actually kill these oiled birds, as opposed to cleaning them off and letting them go. His argument is that these birds just go plop right back into the oil, and even if they do survive (apparently less than 10% do), they will be poisoning the population. Well, excuse me Mr. Scientist, but just who the hell do you think you are? God? I don't think so. How can you (or any of us) decide whether something should live or die in a scenario like this? I can think of quite a few people whose euthanization would actually improve the human population... but that doesn't mean they should be gathered up and killed. Who are we to say that these birds should be killed, especially over something that's our fault? If humanity has proven one thing throughout history, it's that anything we touch is going to be tainted or ruined, guaranteed. Mother Nature has always found a way, so has natural selection, so has everything else that we didn't create and (for the most part) don't try to mess with.
You know what? Go ahead, Mr. Scientist. Keep pushing your terrible, ridiculous ideas. You're getting plenty of attention for them, maybe it'll cause 3 people (instead of 0) to read your next paper on the "impact of mitochondria when stimulated by a certain protozoa." On second thought, Mr. Scientist, eat shit.
Shovin' Buddies
I work in advertising, so I see every day how our industry is slowly dying. I don't make it through a single day at work without seeing some article or email about how advertising is really hurting right now, how it's costing jobs, how no one's paying attention anymore and conventional ideas aren't working. I also see a lot about "great" new ideas, that are actually only making things worse. And so, in my constant attempt to help people make their lives better (and stop being such morons), here are some of the worst attempts at "creative new" advertising, and how they can be improved:
In-Show Product Placement - This is actually an old, old method of advertising that is now starting to make a comeback. In the 50s, your favorite sitcom housewife might take time out of her day to look at the camera and say something about a spiffy new cleaner she uses, or her favorite kind of detergent. Now it's a little more nuanced, like say, a character in "Fringe" using the Sync system in his Ford to get directions somewhere. I'm actually not too offended by this method, as long as it's done in good taste. Sometimes it's painfully obvious that it's an advertisement, enough that it pulls you out of the show, and that hurts. I think the next step here won't come until TV takes the next step (merging with the web), but I think it should involve creating hot-spots over the in-show advertising elements. Imagine buying the same sunglasses that the dumbass in "CSI: Miami" always wears. When he puts them on, you wave your remote at them, and voila... you're at the website (douchebags r us?).
Invader Advertising: This is easily one of the most annoying types of advertising, especially when it's not done right. You're watching your favorite show or movie, when all of the sudden half of your damn screen is taken up by a character from a show you've never even heard of and don't care at all about. She saunters out, her hair waving in the breeze, and she stares longingly into the distance. Oh yeah, there's a movie going on behind her too, don't forget. The benefit to these, of course, is that you can't really skip them because you'll also be skipping your show... the downside is that they've just gotten out of control. If you're going to make them take up half the screen, you might as well just pause the movie and let it run its course. And some of these even have sound now. Sound! I'm trying to watch TV and you're going to have some asshole pop up at the bottom of the screen and start talking to me? Get out of here. The best way to improve this method of advertising is to get rid of it, or at least keep it minimal. Discovery Channel is a great example of invaders done well... they're low-profile, they don't distract, and they look nice. Well done, Discovery.
Splitting Commercial Breaks: I've actually only seen one show do this ("The Ultimate Fighter"), but it's already stupid. They will actually put a 30-second segment of their show right in the middle of a commercial break. So you're skipping along, when all the sudden you have to stop, back up, and catch that little snippet. I get what they're trying to do here, they're hoping in your efforts to catch that snippet, you'll also sit through the remainder of the promo before and the beginning of the one after. However, in my experience, I'm more likely just to give that show snippet the middle finger and continue on until I get to the real meat. Here's an idea for this one: stop making commercials a uniform length. DVRs are set to either fast-forward or rewind normally, or to jump 15/30 seconds ahead at a time. If your commercial breaks aren't a set length, those jumping DVR remotes become a lot less effective, and the odds of you seeing more commercials increases.
Pre-Roll Ads: These are becoming more and more prevalent. Even YouTube is running them on their more popular videos. I'm torn with these, because even though they can be a pain, they're not nearly as bad as pop-ups. Usually when I see a pre-roll ad, I just open another window or do something else on my computer until it ends. Don't be surprised though if you start seeing more of these take over your computer to a point where it's very difficult to minimize or ignore them. So how do you improve on them? Simply don't go overboard. There's nothing worse than trying to watch a 20-second YouTube video, but you have to sit through a 30-second commercial first. That makes no sense and in a lot of cases will kill any desire to watch the video. Likewise with some videos that have so many ads triggered within them that you don't even know what you're watching anymore. Just back off a little, keep the length of the ads down, and get them out of my face, and you'll be okay.
Pop-Up/Under Advertising: By far the most annoying thing on this list, pop-up ads have been around forever. And it seems like while every browser out there has some kind of blocker, the advertisers are continuing to find ways around them. You block the pop-up windows? They put them UNDER the main window. You block that? They pop the ad up within your current window. Not to mention the pop-ups that are now showing up over videos. It's getting ridiculous, and for the most part they don't work. Sure you might get some people with your "punch george bush in the face" game that actually is an ad, but are they really worthwhile visitors? More than likely, you've now pissed them off and caused them to have an aversion to your online product. Real nice. The best way to improve these is to drop them. They may look like billboards, but they don't work and they clutter up the internet.
Sure in an ideal world, advertising would be gone completely. But that's just not going to happen. Content creators HAVE to make money, and other than charging you for their product (which some companies are considering), advertising is really the only game in town. And in the end, there HAS to be a balance. Think of it like Napster. Napster was great because you could download any song you wanted for free. But when you're not paying for those songs, the artists aren't making any money. Well, I don't care how much you love to sing or perform, if you can't make a living doing it, you've eventually got to draw the line. If there were no advertising, the companies and producers and performers wouldn't make ANY money, and it wouldn't be long before there was no more entertainment.
On the other side of that coin, a lot of the onus here is on advertisers. It's not enough just to be like "BUY ME BUY ME BUY ME!" anymore. You've got to think of good, solid, creative ways to grab people. You've got to sell them your product, but you've also got to entertain them. It's not impossible to do, several advertisers out there have nailed it (Geico, Apple, Jack Links Beef Jerky, and Target come readily to mind). I've actually backed up my DVR to catch a new Mac Vs. PC promo, or to see what Bigfoot is going to do to the guy who wouldn't give him a ride. But you give me another "SALE SALE SALE!" promo and I'm out just as fast as I can punch that fast-forward button on my remote.
I'm not saying you have to like advertising. Hell it's my job and I still get annoyed by it. I'm not trying to get you to click on pop-ups or to stop DVRing your favorite shows. All I'm saying is that when you see a well-produced, interesting, even compelling or creative promo on the air or online, take a minute to be thankful that someone is finally stepping outside of the box in their effort to turn you into a consumer whore.
Get Him to the Greek
In what I guess is a spin-off from "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," the rock star dude from that movie takes center stage in a story about his once glorious career and the following downfall of his entire life. Now he's a washed up rocker so drugged up he can barely remember his name, but a loyal (fat) fan has decided it's time for this guy to make a comeback. So said fat dude travels to said rock dude and tries to get him back to the states for his revival concert. Along the way the two laugh, they cry, they do a lot of drinking, and they learn a little something to boot.
I gotta be honest, I was not the least bit interested in seeing this movie. "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" was great, don't get me wrong, but I think the rockstar guy was probably my least favorite part of the whole thing. So now here we've got an entire movie centered around him... no thanks. But I'm also not one to turn down a free trip to the movies, so how could I say no when a good friend of mine handed me the ticket? In hindsight, I'm glad I saw it... though I certainly wouldn't pay to see it again.
Let me just get this out right away: there is no male nudity in this movie other than a brief shot of Jonah Hill's ass. While that was vomit-inducing, it certainly beats full-frontal. Okay moving on...
The story here is pretty standard. Lame-o music industry guy comes up with a bold plan to save his company, but executing said plan isn't going to be easy. What makes this movie great isn't the story. It's also not really the writing, if there was any (most of this movie seems improvised to me). No what makes this movie funny is the characters, and in that regard most of the casting was spot-on. Be advised: the humor in this movie is not for the young, the squeamish, or anyone who thought "Superbad" was a little too racy. But if you can get past that, there are some great lines and very awkwardly, painfully funny scenes.
Normally in these reviews I'll mention the soundtrack, but I don't know if you can really call most of the music in this movie a soundtrack. Sure there were some songs here and there in the background, but the main music was actually sung on stage, supposedly by the rock star dude. I don't know if you ever get all the way through any of the songs, but I certainly hope the full versions aren't on the CD. They were well performed, well mastered, but the actual songs themselves were just awful. "The Clap?" "Inside of You?" Awful awful awful.
Yeah, so, this movie was alright. Not super fantastic, not terrible. Not worth your money at the theatre. A rental at best, and worth waiting for (thank you Netflix). But if you're an Apatow kinda guy, and especially if you like Jonah Hill or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," you should give this one a go and see what happens.
Oscar and Lucinda
This guy named Oscar and this chick named Lucinda are born, right? And they don't know each other, and they grow up very differently, but they both share one thing in common: they both love to gamble. Well, eventually they meet and kinda sorta fall in loveish, but they're not sure, especially Oscar, who was raised religiously and who thinks everyone hates him an everyone is scrutinizing him. Basically he's a nutcase. Anyway, he and Lucinda kind of share an awkward relationship that may or may not turn into anything, depending on if you watch the movie.
Actually, you may not want to. I rented this movie solely for the soundtrack (Thomas Newman), and while I wasn't disappointed, it's certainly not something I would watch without the musical score to go with it. It was odd, and kind of disjointed, but somehow it still had enough charm for me to finish it up.
The interesting thing to me about this movie is that it has an epic feel, yet it retains its intimacy. Several countries are spanned, and there's even a big and dangerous adventure, and yet you still feel like you're peeking into the very innards of the relationship between Oscar and Lucinda. I honestly think the music had a lot to do with this. This is one of my favorites from Thomas Newman so far. It's quirky but it's big, a great score and one that I have yet to find for download on Amazon.
But enough about that. Should you watch it? Meh. Should you buy the soundtrack? Yep. Then make me a copy.
The Lost City
Andy Garcia runs a club in pre-revolution Cuba, but it soon becomes the center of all the action as the country starts to get violent and Castro fights to take over. Garcia finds himself in the middle of it all, trying to hold his family together and keep the peace both between them and inside of his club. The revolution continues, but will Garcia be able to keep everything together?
Let me just tell you how I found this movie. I was flipping through channels, when I see Bill Murray sitting at a bar making a funny face. Naturally, I'm intrigued, so I let it go for a little while. Then I see Andy Garcia standing behind the bar and I think to myself "what are these two doing in a movie together?" Then, Dustin Hoffman of all people, strolls in and starts playing tough guy with Garcia. Now what the hell is going on here? I check the Guide and discover this movie that I've never heard of, starring some of my favorite actors together. So I set the DVR to catch it the next time it rolls.
Turns out this movie is directed by Garcia, something that I guess he does quite a bit. I don't know where he shot it, or how he got all these big actors to join up, but I will say that it's not really what I expected. I know almost nothing about the Cuban revolution, but if there's any truth in this movie then it was pretty jacked up. I can't imagne going through what Garcia's character did, seeing his country fall to pieces around him, finding members of his own family involved in things that he doesn't approve of... Garcia did a great job of showing you what this must have been like.
The acting was also great, though at times it did appear that there was a little to be desired from the script. Bill Murray, for example, did his absolute best to play a character who could have been incredibly interesting (who is he? What is he? CIA? Military? Some joker? Who knows?)... but in the end there just wasn't enough material and he winds up looking pretty goofy. Garcia also seemed to ham it up a little bit... or maybe it's just that in my eyes, he'll never top his performance in "Ocean's 11." I dunno, but the best performance I think came from Garcia's characters' dad. That guy was very believable and I actually felt for him as he watched all of this unfold.
So in the end, this movie is definitely interesting. However, it's not for everyone. If you've got some time or Netflix slots to kill, you might give this one a shot. Otherwise, there's probably nothing really to see here.
Well folks, keep your eyes on the gulf... can't wait to see what happens next.
No comments:
Post a Comment