A clever array of my highly important thoughts

I can’t help but think about how reality television shows have spiraled into money-making ventures that are rather pointless. Producers of this genre have realized that audiences get hooked on the “story” of a certain show, so there are spin-offs of that show. For example, most reality shows now have a “reunion special” that airs after the original show’s season. It gets everyone back together in a talk show capacity for one final show of conflict. And then there are the shows like Real World/Road Rules Challenge that combines two totally unrelated reality shows and makes them play silly games against each other. Anything for a buck these days, I suppose.

The other thing I’ve noticed is that the character dynamics of the “casts” are very specifically chosen. There is a slutty one, a bossy one, a good girl/guy, a party animal, a brainy one, etc. Give them booze and see what happens. Take this same formula, and put the people in various different settings such as a house where they can’t leave, an RV, an island, a pawn shop, a swamp, or a job, and you have yourself some limitless possibilities. 

(I thought I posted this, but I didn’t; it saved itself as a draft. I hope that still counts!)

We talked about how many viral videos have the ability to make people famous, such as Karmin and various other musicians. There is a Florida-based comedian named Glozell who creates what appear to be video blogs that are quite hilarious and she also has several followers. This is a way for her to self-promote. 

We were also trying to think of “sad” viral videos since they are usually happy, and I can’t help but think of Kony 2012 which basically exploded over night, literally. I went to bed and one person on my facebook had posted the video. The next morning, it was everywhere. 

What about Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog? It is a made-for-web short film that is professionally produced and contains famous film actors. While it is recently out on DVD, its popularity was created by the Internet. This makes me wonder if it is another form of viral video.

Music videos, to me, have actually taken an artist or song I don’t normally like and made me like them even more (much in the same way that Glee does.) When Lady Gaga first gained fame, I was not a fan of hers. Then my roommate made me watch her video for “Bad Romance,” and I loved her aesthetic. I had a new appreciation for her and have liked most of her work since then, especially her music video for “Telephone.” 

Another music video “genre” we didn’t discuss was the movie soundtrack video. Posted above is the video for “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing” by Aerosmith for the movie Armageddon. There are several scenes from the movie, and the band’s performance is interspersed with those scenes, unlike the scenes from Bad Boys II in the Nelly video we watched. It definitely screams that the music video is promotional for the film, since a gimmick such as Steven Tyler replacing Liv Tyler’s character’s father in the video was used.

Finally, I think that videos on the Internet only have a chance to become famous because of social networking. I don’t go to youtube.com to search for random people; I look at what my friends post on facebook, and if I end up liking it, I’ll look at more videos in the sidebar. So networking is what makes these Internet videos famous, not the fact that they are just out there.

I found Archie Bunker to be offensive and terrible, and not in the funny way that South Park can be. However, I found it interesting that we discussed that he is supposed to be the character that the audience sides with. I think that this is because he was more of a bystander than part of the action. He is not part of the problem, but only because he purposely stays out of it. All he does is rattle off his opinions while still going about his daily business and somehow still controlling everyone. He is also much more assertive than the other characters.

I tried to think of examples that are atypical of their genres. We said that dramas usually don’t have episodes that can stand alone, but shows like Law and Order and NCIS, while they do also have season arcs, can be viewed on a case-by-case basis. 

Additionally, Arrested Development is a comedy with a story arc that progresses with time. If you know the premise of the show you can probably find it entertaining, but it is loads funnier if you know what happened in the past. For this reason, there is a narrator that sometimes recaps tidbits of information in a funny way. 

Laugh Tracks: Whack!

This is a clip of The Big Bang Theory without its laugh tracks, and the awkward silences that they caused. I don’t find it terribly funny, though many of my friends whose opinions I respect are loyal viewers.

That being said, I find the laugh track antiquated. The only sitcoms I find funny today include It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Modern Family, South Park and The New Girl. They don’t need jarred laughter to let us know what is supposed to be funny. Current shows that do need laugh tracks are far less clever in my opinion. 

There is also a certain sense of nostalgia that comes with older shows like The Dick Van Dyke Show and I Love Lucy. I don’t mind the laugh tracks as much, and I almost associate them with that kind of humor. 

As a side note, I found All in the Family to be highly offensive and not at all funny.

A few thoughts on today’s class:

I have decided that genres are more based in style than category. Just because a movie has some characteristics of a certain genre, does not mean it belongs to that genre. 

Musicals are not necessarily dead in film as long the film is a comedy. Dramatic musicals are harder for modern audiences to believe and connect to. There is a “cheesy” factor to spontaneously bursting into song that many people can’t get behind. I know many people that claim “I don’t like musicals.” That means to me that no matter what the story, these people will not give any musical a chance.  Additionally, audiences are highly enamored with realism due to overstimulation, which is why recent technology like CGI and 3-D have become so popular. 

As we all experienced, City Lights was a highly enjoyable film. The lively music and antics of Charlie Chaplin were very entertaining. I was glad to see a film from that era that actually had plot points and character development as opposed to a film in which the main attraction is the fact that it is, in fact, a moving picture. I know that such early films exist, but admittedly my exposure to them is sparse. What I can’t seem to figure out from my (Google) research is why the film is named City Lights. Does anyone have any insight or speculation about the title?

I was deeply saddened by the portrayal of the magic and discovery of early film. People back then knew that they were a part of something new and wonderful. When I was born, film had been around for over 80 years in one form or another; it was common place, a right, something we deserved. As a toddler I was plopped down in front of Peter Pan every day by a parent just to occupy my time. We modern folk are spoiled by such conventions. Not that I would have appreciated it, but I wish that when I was younger, someone would have explained to me that I was viewing something special and magical that hasn’t always been around.

While watching The Great Train Robbery, I found myself searching for little background details to entertain me when the primary action got too slow or boring. Then I paid attention to the music. Then I started taking notes. Then I started watching the reactions of my classmates. It made me distraught that I constantly needed more stimulation than what was going on, while in 1903 this was the most amazing and magical thing in the world.

The brief Garden State “argument” I started in class on Tuesday made me remember the melancholy independent film trend of the early 2000s. It was a defining time for me; my early college years were moody and I learned a lot about myself. If Garden State came out next month, I wouldn’t view it in the same light, but I hold an appreciation for what it means to me today.

But I digress; the most important thing I learned from Tuesday’s readings was that different film shots have various purposes. This might seem obvious enough, but all too often the choice can seem wrong. Zach Braff can’t pull off the same shots that Wes Anderson can. Simply using a particular shot doesn’t give the scene meaning; the scene and the shot have to hold the same meaning and make sense. If you punch a normal cat in the face, it looks like an expensive luxury cat…but it’s still the same cat.