Avatar - a Revolution?

A lot of things have been said about James Cameron's upcoming Sci-fi epic, Avatar. The Movie that he reportedly has been working on ever since Titanic came and blew away all box-office records, and still holds quite a few to this day.

Avatar is now set to do something along the same lines. with an impressive "fresh" rating so far on Rotten Tomatoes, and comments such as "Cameron's epic space western is a cinematic landmark" one can't help getting excited for this movie. Personally I have remained skeptic about this movie, since the first trailer came out, as it just didn't look the way I had expected, but with the praising reviews rolling in, and the promise of a fully utilized 3-D and motion-capture technology I am getting pretty excited.

Lately there's been quite a few 3-D movies coming out. Toy Story 1-2 have been re-made with the technology, pretty much all the recent animated as well, and even the latest Final Destination had gory 3-D scenes of carnage. However, I do not feel like any of the movies have really done anything to "Wow" me. Sure it's fun at times, but it has seemed like little more than a gimmick so far, and I'm excited to see what IGN.com says "validates all the hype and investment in 3-D and motion-capture animation".

I have begun to imagine Avatar as the first of many extremely well done 3-D films, that will really pack a punch so to speak. 3-D (or Tru 3-D as this newer version of it has been called) is a cool new visual effect that will only become more and more prevalent in the media. In fact Sony promises a 3-D capable TV set in their Bravia line next year, and both the Xbox 360 and PS3 promises 3-D games coming soon as well. (check link for first impressions: Bravia 3-D TV impressions)

It'll be interesting to follow, if 3-D will become the new standard - I hope that the developers can utilize the technology right, and make use of it like James Cameron apparently has for Avatar. For if they do, 3-D I think, is here to stay.

Current TV shows promoting stereotypes?

We have been reading and talking a lot about stereotypes in the media these days. We have also been discussing how there is a lack of racial variety in especially TV entertainment, where for many years most shows have been very dominated by white characters. Thinking about what TV shows i had seen commercials for lately, i quickly remembered two TBS shows, namely Tyler Perry's "House of Payne" and "Meet the Browns".

Now at first sight, you may think "great! Finally some shows that aren't all white" but if you actually see one of these shows, you might start thinking otherwise. Yes, the main characters in both these shows are African-American, which does show that at least some of the large companies are taking some chances by putting tv-shows on the air that follows strictly minorities, however, the content of these two shows in particular, is downright horrible.

Don't just take my word for it, take USA Today's: "Indeed, if ever a show could cause actual physical pain, TBS' House of Payne might be the one. Glaringly, shamefully, insultingly inept, this new cable comedy from filmmaker Tyler Perry isn't just the worst sitcom of the year, it's one of the worst of the modern era."

Not only one of these few "all-minority" shows on TV extremely unfunny, but it is also filled with stereotypes about African-Americans, that we should be trying to get rid of, instead of putting them on prime-time TV. It is disturbing to see how TBS can get away with even airing this show, when the only thing it has going for it, is increasing Format Diversity. Same exact criticism goes for "Meet the Browns" take a look at a sneak-peak for an episode here, and judge for yourself.



Personally, I didn't laugh a single time - and I think that perhaps instead of just choosing to air a show, just because you show the population that you have diverse programming, TBS should find shows that are diverse but at the same time actually work - like "Everybody Hates Chris" or even "The Cosby Show"

The Media of the Future

In the video game industry, that is.

For a long while people have been talking about what really revolutionized gaming. Was it the 360 and PlayStation 3 with their crisp and beautiful HD graphics, or was it the little Wii with its motion control that had a "for anyone and everyone" appeal. Debate has been heavy on this issue on the internet, and it looks like it wont really be resolved anytime soon, even though quite a few are beginning to see the Wii mostly as a temporary entertainment solution.

So what's in store for the future?
Well, for one - Natal.

Microsoft's Project Natal, is going to be an add-on for the Xbox 360, which is coming out late year, and since its announcement at E3 this year, its been a very hot topic in the gaming industry. Many feel it will be another gimmicky entry into motion control, while others see great potential in it.

Natal is a form of camera, full of infrared sensors, voice recognition software and much more. It will allow you to control games with you body, your voice - nothing handheld needed. To turn off your Xbox - just say "goodnight" or "shut down". Play a quiz game with friends or family, and the first to answer the question will be recognized via voice recognition.

The main thing about this that is keeping people hopeful that it will truly become a revolution in the gaming media, is the support of major game developers and publishers. It seems it has attracted many of the big fish, and that can have a vital role in the product's progress from launch.

This project could truly change the way we look a video games, but it could also be another "eye-toy" or "vision camera". I for one see the potential, and encourage everyone to watch this video, they did include a bit of ridiculous content in it, but I guess Microsoft wanted to appeal to the largest audience possible. 


If you were as intrigued by this video as i was, you should look at this video as well. A bit of a mindblowing video on Natal, and one of the projects being worked on for it named Milo.

Natal is Microsofts 

On "Click-Through Activism"

Inspired by the nice discussion we had in class, I just wanted to dedicate a blog-post to this subject. After reading the Washington Post article on "Neda", I felt surprised about how many actually ended up supporting this cause on their facebook. According to the article currently, groups on the subject had "nearly 36,000 members; dozens more had 1,000, or 100, or 10.". This really shows that this Click-Through Activism has become a seriously big thing to participate in.

For one, I have not partaken in it, since around a year ago now probably. The worst case seen at my high school, was during the peak of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis this year, when practically everyone donated their status' to "the .... victims". It was obvious from the beginning that Palestine had the main support in our school (it was an international school - had it been a typical American high school, things would probably have been different). No one actually did anything apart from joining the "fad" of donating their status' and joining groups. I can say this because i was seeing it happen.

It actually got really bad because, even though it was only an online show of support for either nation - the overwhelming number of Palestine "supporters" would actually make fun of, or bad mouth whoever few were donating their status' to Israeli victims. Especially a few Jewish highschoolers  had a hard time during that period of time. It was almost as if this overwhelming online support for Palestine created a little form of antisemitism at our school. It is incredible to see how far these armchair activists can take something, that they won't even support beyond their facebook status, or in discussions in school.


 

So apparently

...I'm a "roving node".
"You are an Roving Node"

"If you are a Roving Node, you are an active manager of your social and work lives using your mobile device. You get the most out of basic applications – such as email or texting – and find them great for dealing with the logistics of your life and enhancing personal productivity. You are more of a hub for information flows than a source of digital content. You are heavily reliant on all of your ICTs for communicating and gathering information."

I guess when reading through this, it seems pretty true. Especially since getting a Blackberry, I feel like I'm constantly "online and connected". I don't really know whether or not this is a good thing or not though, sure I have an endless amount of information at my fingertips, but at the same time its probably the biggest source of distraction imaginable. Its basically procrastination in the form of a phone. Countless hours could be spent just browsing the internet on it, at least it used to be limited to my computer and therefore at home, but now - its everywhere.

With that though, there's the upside of always being able to find the solution to things immediately, instead of waiting till you get home, and possibly forget what you were going to look for. It allows one to stay in touch with friends and family, something that can be really important in some situations, and one can always reach emergency services.

The quiz also says I'm not really someone who adds new content to the net, which is true - I leave that to people who like (in some cases) humiliating themselves on youtube. -------------------->

Also, for other content, I'd just be afraid that I was posting something wrong, stupid or otherwise "flamable". No, I'm definitely a hub for information flows - most of the topics that come up during the day for my friends and I, are things some of us have read - or heard from someone who read them online.

Ads in Videogames?

First of all I'd like to say the reason for the recent inactivity on the blog from my part, has been due to me having to get a new PC. My old one died on me this October after 3 long years and I just recently found my replacement in a nice Vaio.

So to start off my blog again, I'd like to talk about advertising in videogames. This particular area is one that Advertising companies are currently working their way into. Actually, one can already find examples in specific games out there, that include advertising, but so far its mainly seen in sports games that advertise for other sports games. However, actual product placement has in rare cases found its way into videogames, for example EA's Need for Speed Underground 2 features product placement with companies like Best Buy, Cingular Wireless, Old Spice and even Burger King. It seems that EA Games, have been the first major game publishing house that has allowed serious advertising to take place in their games. Even other companies have included these as well, such as Ubisoft in their Splinter Cell series once had this huge glowing Axe body spray commercial featured:




Question is, do gamers want ads in their games?

There seems to be two different opinions on this question among many gamers. Some believe that ads in their games enhance the realism, as instead of seeing made up products, one could see things from the real world. This could let the gamer have an easier time really immersing himself in the game, and thereby enjoying it even more. On the other hand, some gamers see this as an intrusion into the one kind of media, that until now has remained relatively untouched by ads, and one place to escape from the constant bombardment of commercials found both on the internet, radio and TV.

Personally, I don't mind particularly, at least as long as we aren't forced to sit and watch an actual commercial in-game. If that was the case, i'd be extremely anti in-game advertising. It seems though that many advertisers are figuring video game advertising into their budget. Money previously spent on TV and print is now being redirected to in-game advertising.The interest in product placement in video games is increasing and the technology is already advancing to new levels. Massive Inc. is releasing new technology that gives advertisers a way to update their ads even after the game's release, which means advertisers will be able to constantly keep games updated with new ads.Something completely new, and which opens up many new possibilities for these companies, as they can also focus on specific target audiences in different games.

Should be an interesting thing to follow, as this last place without much advertising will probably soon be the newest to always feature them.

Censorship. Why?

Reading some of the censored articles for tomorrow, a few really struck my eye. One was originally Japanese, questioning the war on terror, 9/11's origins and also touched on other controversial issues. It specifically mentioned how during 9/11, World Trade Center, building 7 - a 47 floor tall building, collapsed mere hours after the main buildings, without any mention in any of the reports of the incident. Sure no one was supposedly killed, but leaving that big a building out of any reports? Seems a little suspicious, and no wonder conspiracy theories arose out of that one story alone.

However, after researching more in depth, I found several sources citing that the damage caused by the collapse of nearby WTC main buildings was extensive, and that fires had been burning inside the building for a long time, and was never put out. This ended up damaging the supporting concrete so badly that the building collapsed.

My question is therefore, why would this particular building be kept out of the reports - if there are actually firemen testifying to have witnessed these fires inside the building, seen the damage - why hasn't the media commmented on it. Many conspiracies surrounding the whole event, would have had a lot less credibility if people had been told the real story about this building - if it indeed is the real story.

By censoring this article, it makes it seem like there really was a reason why it was kept out of reports, and the fact that all these accounts detailing why it happened came out so late, just make it seem like an excuse had to be made, before the media could release any information about this particular building. The whole idea about all this censorship also just makes me question what happened to the supposed freedom of the press in this country? Having lived here for just 3 years, I don't know how all things work here in the States, but in Denmark, freedom of speech/press is taken very seriously - just look at the Mohammed cartoons if you want to know what I mean.

Is the government - and whoever else is behind it, really just hurting themselves by censoring articles like these? Are there really things we can't handle seeing? It all seems like fuel for the conspiracy train to me. If the government was indeed behind 9/11 (which I don't believe FYI) then maybe they should have their stories ready, and not leave out material that the public will definitely find.