Sunday, December 11, 2005
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Blog #12 - A surprisingly interesting semester
So I was looking at my previous blogs, as well as classmates' comments, and I noticed that I actually put more thought into these than into my other classes. I was surprised by this because I expected to coast through this class without wasting any of my mind's boundless energy. But after the first couple of posts, I began to feel more comfortable expressing my feelings in them, and this actually made me look forward to posting. Even when we watched something in class that I didn't like at all (Bullwinkle...), I wanted to look for the details that I could criticize later. Then, I had fun saying how much I thought something sucked and why. Given the topic, I think that blogging about it, while annoying at times, is the best way to focus attention and expand the thoughts of students.
I realize that my positions on certain issues aren't popular, but I was glad to get forthright responses and some reasoned argument. Without it, I certainly wouldn't have put as much thought into what I wrote as I did. The whole "censorship" (in quotes because no one here has advocated further government intervention) debate interests me a good deal, because I am thinking about having kids soon, and I have begun thinking about how much of our modern culture is going to make my job as a parent more difficult than it "should" be. This is one of those things that I see so clearly, but some comments that were made made me think a second time. Also, the Pocahantas screening and posts were interesting because everyone seemed to have at least a slightly different opinion than everyone else, and I liked throwing in my two cents.
Another thing that I noticed in my posts/comments were inconsistancies in my own thinking. Not logical inconsistancies, but actual contradictions in what I believed from one time to the next. I think I called the characters in Pocahantas (am I spelling that wrong? because I feel like I am) deep on one comment, but shallow on another. I don't know what I was thinking... maybe I was thinking of "deep" in a different way each time or something; but I don't know how I would have applied that to characters from that film, no matter how I thought of "deep." But I actually look at this with some satisfaction, because I always seemed to make sense (at least to myself) in my posts, even if there were differences between them.
I'll end with a joke:
Q: Why does Snoop carry an umbrella?
A: Fo' drizzle
Keep it Real
I realize that my positions on certain issues aren't popular, but I was glad to get forthright responses and some reasoned argument. Without it, I certainly wouldn't have put as much thought into what I wrote as I did. The whole "censorship" (in quotes because no one here has advocated further government intervention) debate interests me a good deal, because I am thinking about having kids soon, and I have begun thinking about how much of our modern culture is going to make my job as a parent more difficult than it "should" be. This is one of those things that I see so clearly, but some comments that were made made me think a second time. Also, the Pocahantas screening and posts were interesting because everyone seemed to have at least a slightly different opinion than everyone else, and I liked throwing in my two cents.
Another thing that I noticed in my posts/comments were inconsistancies in my own thinking. Not logical inconsistancies, but actual contradictions in what I believed from one time to the next. I think I called the characters in Pocahantas (am I spelling that wrong? because I feel like I am) deep on one comment, but shallow on another. I don't know what I was thinking... maybe I was thinking of "deep" in a different way each time or something; but I don't know how I would have applied that to characters from that film, no matter how I thought of "deep." But I actually look at this with some satisfaction, because I always seemed to make sense (at least to myself) in my posts, even if there were differences between them.
I'll end with a joke:
Q: Why does Snoop carry an umbrella?
A: Fo' drizzle
Keep it Real
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Blog #11 - Now that I think about it...
So, as usual, I spent an unbelievable amount of time thinking about what to write for my blog, and then an idea just came up out of nowhere. I was going to write about the "new" classics compared to the "classic" classics. As I scanned the current animated landscape for such a show, I realized that nothing on TV now fits that category, except The Simpsons (For the purposes of this post, I will exempt it by calling it the exception that makes the rule). I had to go back to He-Man and Thundercats, but that was, like, 20 years ago; and both had more of a "cult" following, like X-men, today. Since then, what animated show can we reasonably call a "classic" (or soon can)? The quality of animated TV series', like pop music, has diminished to such a point that we are relegated to singing the praises of the likes of South Park and Family Guy (like Young Jeezy and Fall Out Boy) both of which, by justice, should be taking a sound thrashing in the ratings.
Live-action TV shows have gotten so much better, in terms of produciton quality, character development, story, creativity, entertainment value - any aspect that you can think of. Take Lost, 24, Rome, Prison Break, West Wing, for examples. Even sitcoms have stepped it up: Seinfeld, Married with Children, Drew Carey, and Friends (sorry, I hardly ever watch sitcoms anymore, but they are still recent) are all very well done, though technology for sitcoms can't add that much effect.
So given the facts that TV production, generally, has drastically improved, that the creativity level has drastically increased (partially due to the availability of new technology), and that new technology can add so much to animated shows, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that these shows should have advance along with the rest of the sector? Even in films, animation seems to have kept fairly close, partially by declining in quality in recent years along with live-action films.
When will another Popey, or Bugs, or even Mighty Mouse come along again? WB made an effort in the early/mid nineties with Tiny Toons and Animaniacs. Both of these were pretty good, but I seemed to get sick of them pretty quickly. AH! Maybe that is it. Maybe our attention spans have shrunk to such a level that unless someone makes us pay $25 and sits us in a dark room with a tremendous screen, we just won't watch a bunch of drawings do stupid stuff. Whatever the reason, it is certainly unfortunate for the kids today who have to stay up until like midnight to catch a rerun of X-Men and The Tick.
Live-action TV shows have gotten so much better, in terms of produciton quality, character development, story, creativity, entertainment value - any aspect that you can think of. Take Lost, 24, Rome, Prison Break, West Wing, for examples. Even sitcoms have stepped it up: Seinfeld, Married with Children, Drew Carey, and Friends (sorry, I hardly ever watch sitcoms anymore, but they are still recent) are all very well done, though technology for sitcoms can't add that much effect.
So given the facts that TV production, generally, has drastically improved, that the creativity level has drastically increased (partially due to the availability of new technology), and that new technology can add so much to animated shows, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that these shows should have advance along with the rest of the sector? Even in films, animation seems to have kept fairly close, partially by declining in quality in recent years along with live-action films.
When will another Popey, or Bugs, or even Mighty Mouse come along again? WB made an effort in the early/mid nineties with Tiny Toons and Animaniacs. Both of these were pretty good, but I seemed to get sick of them pretty quickly. AH! Maybe that is it. Maybe our attention spans have shrunk to such a level that unless someone makes us pay $25 and sits us in a dark room with a tremendous screen, we just won't watch a bunch of drawings do stupid stuff. Whatever the reason, it is certainly unfortunate for the kids today who have to stay up until like midnight to catch a rerun of X-Men and The Tick.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Post #10 - C'mon, it wasn't that bad...
Perhaps it's because of all the warnings we got about how bad Pocahontas was going to be, but I thought that it was, at least, decent. On a 4 star scale, that would be 2 stars. The aspect that I liked the least was the amount of unbelievably cheesy lines the film had; but this can be said of most Disney movies, or animated films generally. The song that Prof talked about was pretty bad, but they were simply making the point that there was a mutual ignorance shared by these two parties. Other than that, the soundtrack was first rate (Vanessa Williams' version of Colors of the Wind is one of my favorites), the animation was good, and the characters were clear but not over-exaggerated, the one possible exception being the governer. I think that a lot of people don't like the historical inaccuracy of the film, and that is legit, but I don't know if it is fair to burden a review of a film that makes no claim to be a true account of the legend with such a criteria. I was actually pretty entertained throughout the show, and cartoons usually have a hard time holding my attention. This is my most important standard, and Pocahontas meets it, so I think that some of the pre and post-viewing criticism was mistaken.
Now this isn't to say that I liked the movie. Why Pocahontas didn't just say "pops, this dude didn't cap your soldier, another white guy did" or words to that effect, is still racking my brain. I think that she just says "He was trying to help," and things of that nature. The tree's joke about her BARK being worse than her bite was almost as bad as this:
Q: What did 50 cent say to his grandma when she gave him
a sweater?
A: G-U knit!
Sorry.
So there were plenty of things to take issue with, but was it really worse than Rocky and Bullwinkle? The only reason I didn't go to sleep during that one was because I forgot to bring my snow gear to class that day and my body froze in the "awake" position. No one had a problem with the historical inaccuracies there. Sure they were part of the joke, but Pocahontas' were part of the entertainment.
Plus, even detractors would admit that the raccoon (sic?) was pretty funny, and the whole cast of animals worked out well. The sideplot of them becoming friends was additional depth. Like the humans' "coming together," it was a little bit "Oh, Please"-y for my tastes, but I can accept it like I would any worldview that differed from my own.
All in all, I can't see what was so bad about the film. It was certainly no Lion King or Aladdin, but it had its good aspects, and it kept me interested, so I was able to look past some of the horridness that I saw and take in an incredibly average film.
Now this isn't to say that I liked the movie. Why Pocahontas didn't just say "pops, this dude didn't cap your soldier, another white guy did" or words to that effect, is still racking my brain. I think that she just says "He was trying to help," and things of that nature. The tree's joke about her BARK being worse than her bite was almost as bad as this:
Q: What did 50 cent say to his grandma when she gave him
a sweater?
A: G-U knit!
Sorry.
So there were plenty of things to take issue with, but was it really worse than Rocky and Bullwinkle? The only reason I didn't go to sleep during that one was because I forgot to bring my snow gear to class that day and my body froze in the "awake" position. No one had a problem with the historical inaccuracies there. Sure they were part of the joke, but Pocahontas' were part of the entertainment.
Plus, even detractors would admit that the raccoon (sic?) was pretty funny, and the whole cast of animals worked out well. The sideplot of them becoming friends was additional depth. Like the humans' "coming together," it was a little bit "Oh, Please"-y for my tastes, but I can accept it like I would any worldview that differed from my own.
All in all, I can't see what was so bad about the film. It was certainly no Lion King or Aladdin, but it had its good aspects, and it kept me interested, so I was able to look past some of the horridness that I saw and take in an incredibly average film.
