wow. I just don't understand the value of devoting so much of your life to something fictional. I have nothing against Star Trek--it's a good show (Data was always my favorite...and Geordie LaForge...LeVar Burton and that cool visor he wore...) I just don't understand the devotion...the obsession... As I was watching the video this morning, I was trying to decide if there was something in my life that fit into the same category--is there some media text that I'm devoted to that parallels the devotion of star trek fans? So far, I haven't been able to think of anything. the only thing I go to "conventions" for would be Jesus probably. Is Star Trek a religion to some people? I think it very well could be.
I don't like to judge, or write people off as crazy or silly...but wow. That's all I have to say.
Friday, March 23, 2007
What is a good society?
I'm so used to living in this society. The society we live in has a lot of good characteristics, but there also so many terrible things that go on. I think I've learned to take the good with the bad and to accept the bad as inevitable. For this reason (and also because I live a self-centered life), I've never considered what actually makes a good society. The stories I've heard or read about so-called utopias, both real and fictional, always seem to show these utopian societies as communites where individuality is repressed and the society cannot last. Because I know that a perfect society cannot exist on earth, I haven't ever thought to ask what makes a good society.
But it is worth asking. We have a responsibility to form the society we live in, and if we don't know what it is we're aiming for, I think it's possible that we'll end up creating (or at least continuing) a society that we don't want to live in.
So, what makes a good society?
In my naive, underdeveloped opinion, a society can be measured by what it values. Regardless of the style of government or leadership, there are certain things that I think every good society will value.
Life. A good society will value human life at every level. This goes beyond simply banning abortion. A good society views life as precious and rare, and will have compassion on the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the unborn. Under this category falls things like public health and safety.
Truth. A good society will not tolerate dishonesty. Its members will desire to know the truth, not just to hear what they want to hear.
Order. A good society will have established rules that are in place to benefit all its members, and these will be enforced so that the society remains a safe place to live.
Love. This might seem a little far-fetched, but I believe a good society will follow the command: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
Family. A good society will value family over work or money.
Education. If you want to help someone escape the cycle of poverty, educate them. A good society will provide a basic education for all its members, and will value higher education as well by making it affordable and available to anyone who wants it.
I'm sure I'll think of more later...in fact I've probably forgotten some important ones...
But it is worth asking. We have a responsibility to form the society we live in, and if we don't know what it is we're aiming for, I think it's possible that we'll end up creating (or at least continuing) a society that we don't want to live in.
So, what makes a good society?
In my naive, underdeveloped opinion, a society can be measured by what it values. Regardless of the style of government or leadership, there are certain things that I think every good society will value.
Life. A good society will value human life at every level. This goes beyond simply banning abortion. A good society views life as precious and rare, and will have compassion on the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the unborn. Under this category falls things like public health and safety.
Truth. A good society will not tolerate dishonesty. Its members will desire to know the truth, not just to hear what they want to hear.
Order. A good society will have established rules that are in place to benefit all its members, and these will be enforced so that the society remains a safe place to live.
Love. This might seem a little far-fetched, but I believe a good society will follow the command: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
Family. A good society will value family over work or money.
Education. If you want to help someone escape the cycle of poverty, educate them. A good society will provide a basic education for all its members, and will value higher education as well by making it affordable and available to anyone who wants it.
I'm sure I'll think of more later...in fact I've probably forgotten some important ones...
Friday, March 16, 2007
What's the real issue?
We say that the media has too much control. We say that it tells us how to act and what to think--that the Big 6 or Big 8 or however many Bigs there are have far too much power over the public.
To me, these sound like excuses.
Saying that the media tells us what to think and leaving it at that is simply an excuse for us not to try to think. Even saying that the media is a negative influence on children is an excuse for the problems that we have allowed. I don't mean to say that the media doesn't tell us what to think or that it doesn't negatively affect kids. What I want to say is that we have a responsibility to own up to the problems in our society. Aren't we, as individuals and as American citizens, responsible for our own knowledge? Aren't we responsible for the well-being of younger generations? We can't blame everything on media. We create media, therefore the problems in the media are a reflection of the problems in us.
The media is not going to raise the standard. The government is not going to raise the standard. Deregulation of media conglomerates is not going to change anything. I'd like to borrow a quote that one of my friends has listed on her facebook site (I apologize, I don't know who to give the credit for this): "One of the greatest delusions is the hope that the evils in this world can be cured by legislation." Unless the individuals in a society want to see a change and are willing to work for it, new laws are not going to help.
We have to raise the standard. If we refused to watch and applaud programming with sick humor, if we responded to the nightly news with curiosity and a real desire for truth and put that desire into action by researching issues on our own, if we took responsibility for our choices and our actions and for the welfare of the people around us, would things change? I don't know. I'm just one person. You're just one person. But I believe it would be a good start.
To me, these sound like excuses.
Saying that the media tells us what to think and leaving it at that is simply an excuse for us not to try to think. Even saying that the media is a negative influence on children is an excuse for the problems that we have allowed. I don't mean to say that the media doesn't tell us what to think or that it doesn't negatively affect kids. What I want to say is that we have a responsibility to own up to the problems in our society. Aren't we, as individuals and as American citizens, responsible for our own knowledge? Aren't we responsible for the well-being of younger generations? We can't blame everything on media. We create media, therefore the problems in the media are a reflection of the problems in us.
The media is not going to raise the standard. The government is not going to raise the standard. Deregulation of media conglomerates is not going to change anything. I'd like to borrow a quote that one of my friends has listed on her facebook site (I apologize, I don't know who to give the credit for this): "One of the greatest delusions is the hope that the evils in this world can be cured by legislation." Unless the individuals in a society want to see a change and are willing to work for it, new laws are not going to help.
We have to raise the standard. If we refused to watch and applaud programming with sick humor, if we responded to the nightly news with curiosity and a real desire for truth and put that desire into action by researching issues on our own, if we took responsibility for our choices and our actions and for the welfare of the people around us, would things change? I don't know. I'm just one person. You're just one person. But I believe it would be a good start.
Money Talks
One of the ideas discussed in Reading 6 (I can't remember the author's name) is the reality that the people supplying the money have a direct say in the content of the tv show, news program, magazine, newspaper, radio station, etc. Lately, I have been listening to a radio station that is primarily listener-supported. This week was their annual membership drive, and consequently, every twenty minutes or so they would take a break from their usual programming and ask for money. This is extemely annoying, BUT it's a good reminder that the aspects of this station that most of its listeners value (the wide variety of news stories and viewpoints, the style and quality of the music, etc.) are only on the air because the listeners support these things financially. If the listeners were not happy with the station, they would stop sending their money, and the station would need to change it's content, find a different source of income, or go off the air.
By the same token, if a big corporate sponsor is pouring money into a media venue, that sponsor is going to want content that attracts the most consumers and sells the most products. The station, newspaper, etc. has to work to please the sponsor in order to continue to recieve the funding it needs.
This may or may not be good for the consumer. One of the problems with media conglomerates is that, not only are the numbers of options of sponsors decreasing, but these major companies are growing in power. The media can no longer decide what to give the public based soley on what the public wants; they must make their decisions with much more concern for what the sponsors want. I suppose you could argue that the sponsors and the general public want the same things, but I don't think that is always the case. (If it is, we're in more trouble than I originally thought!)
By the same token, if a big corporate sponsor is pouring money into a media venue, that sponsor is going to want content that attracts the most consumers and sells the most products. The station, newspaper, etc. has to work to please the sponsor in order to continue to recieve the funding it needs.
This may or may not be good for the consumer. One of the problems with media conglomerates is that, not only are the numbers of options of sponsors decreasing, but these major companies are growing in power. The media can no longer decide what to give the public based soley on what the public wants; they must make their decisions with much more concern for what the sponsors want. I suppose you could argue that the sponsors and the general public want the same things, but I don't think that is always the case. (If it is, we're in more trouble than I originally thought!)
Friday, March 9, 2007
Run, Forest, Run!
I watched Forest Gump for the first time the other night. (I loved it!) But, ever since we did that role-playing activity last week in class, when I watch movies, I find myself thinking about the movie before it was a movie... What did the story sound like when the idea was first presented to a director or producer? (*If you haven't seen this movie and you plan on seeing it, just go aheah and skip to the last paragraph*) The storyline of Forest's life is pretty ridiculous. I think if someone came to me and said, "We're going to tell the story of a man who has a severly low IQ, but is a super fast runner, plays college football, gets a degree (how?), fights in Vietnam, gets a medal of honor, becomes a world class ping-pong player, captains a shrimp boat and becomes a millionaire, runs nonstop for 3 years, and then marries his childhood sweetheart (who dies of aids) and has an adorable son (not exactly in that order)--and the entire story will be narrated by him, as he is sitting at a bus stop, talking to random strangers."
... I don't know, I just don't think I would go for it!
(Of course, that's not all the movie is about--it's about love and perserverance and other things like that--so I guess anyone trying to convince a producer to make this movie would probably not tell the story in the way I told it above!)
Now, despite the ridiculous plotline, Forest Gump is, in my humble opinion, a wonderful movie. So I find myself asking: What makes a good movie? How does one decide whether or not a story is worth telling? Does the storyline even matter, or is it the way a story is told that makes it a hit? It's fascinating to me to think about everything that comes together to make a movie--to think about the existence of the idea before anything was ever filmed, before the cast was chosen, before anyone knew whether or not this story or this idea would ever be tranferred to the big screen.
... I don't know, I just don't think I would go for it!
(Of course, that's not all the movie is about--it's about love and perserverance and other things like that--so I guess anyone trying to convince a producer to make this movie would probably not tell the story in the way I told it above!)
Now, despite the ridiculous plotline, Forest Gump is, in my humble opinion, a wonderful movie. So I find myself asking: What makes a good movie? How does one decide whether or not a story is worth telling? Does the storyline even matter, or is it the way a story is told that makes it a hit? It's fascinating to me to think about everything that comes together to make a movie--to think about the existence of the idea before anything was ever filmed, before the cast was chosen, before anyone knew whether or not this story or this idea would ever be tranferred to the big screen.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
In class on Wednesday, I learned...
...that I should never ever be a producer. In fact, I don't think I even want to go to Hollywood!
I was half of "Sprocket Productions" (and not the better half, lol). We were a low-budget production company, which didn't bother me at first... Then I took a look at our list of expenses. At 9 in the morning, my mental math abilities are certainly not at their peak. As I tried to add in different items and figure out how much we could pay actors and actresses and writers, all I could think was, "Why did I get out of bed...?"
And then writers approached. We had to decide what stories we liked and who we wanted to make a deal with and whether or not we could get actors for the storyline and whether or not we would be able to pay those actors and what if one of the actors signed with another company too and ahhh!!! Of course, I was also worried about how other writers would feel when we turned them down, because that's just how I am--I'm always worried about hurting someone else's feelings, even in a situation like this where it clearly does not matter. I think that was the worst part for me--I wanted to say yes to everyone!
I would never ever ever make it as a producer. I hate making important decisions--especially decisions that involve large amounts of money. Come to think of it, I don't even like to spend large amounts of money. 40 million dollars?!?! And that's cosidered "low budget"? oy.
One question that I still have about this whole process... As producers, the writers and actors approached us. Is this how it works? Or were we supposed to be approaching them? Do the producers seek out writers who have ideas that they want to promote, or do the writers seek out producers who will support their ideas?
I was half of "Sprocket Productions" (and not the better half, lol). We were a low-budget production company, which didn't bother me at first... Then I took a look at our list of expenses. At 9 in the morning, my mental math abilities are certainly not at their peak. As I tried to add in different items and figure out how much we could pay actors and actresses and writers, all I could think was, "Why did I get out of bed...?"
And then writers approached. We had to decide what stories we liked and who we wanted to make a deal with and whether or not we could get actors for the storyline and whether or not we would be able to pay those actors and what if one of the actors signed with another company too and ahhh!!! Of course, I was also worried about how other writers would feel when we turned them down, because that's just how I am--I'm always worried about hurting someone else's feelings, even in a situation like this where it clearly does not matter. I think that was the worst part for me--I wanted to say yes to everyone!
I would never ever ever make it as a producer. I hate making important decisions--especially decisions that involve large amounts of money. Come to think of it, I don't even like to spend large amounts of money. 40 million dollars?!?! And that's cosidered "low budget"? oy.
One question that I still have about this whole process... As producers, the writers and actors approached us. Is this how it works? Or were we supposed to be approaching them? Do the producers seek out writers who have ideas that they want to promote, or do the writers seek out producers who will support their ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)