When one of the world's most influential bands joins up with one of its most important websites, the show is stunning and U2 did not fail to disappoint during their performance tonight, which was streamed live from the Rose Bowl via YouTube.
U2's current series of stadium concerts is expected to be one of the biggest tours the world has ever seen, as they are performing from a gargantuan stage, which the LA Times profiles here. Furthermore, Bono's dreams of ruling the world have reached unprecedented heights (check out this article if you don't believe me). The interesting element of last night's concert, though, was not U2. It was Internet superpower YouTube, which is slowly dipping its toe into the mostly unexplored waters of live streaming.
As Mashable's Pete Cashmore notes here, Justin TV and Ustream have pretty much dominated the field so far, but if YouTube chose to become involved, their resources would make for a pretty lopsided competition. Furthermore, the Google power behind YouTube has the wealth to take the sometimes shady world of live streaming and completely legitimize it.
This could be both good and bad for the Internet, as it would be providing better service and showing companies how to make a profit, but, at the same time, moving further away from the open source heritage of the Internet's past. If YouTube could find a way to continue live streaming, albeit more in the vein of the smaller sites that are doing so right now, it would be a major step in the online revolution that we are in the midst of right now. If it was a step towards monetizing the Internet, though, that step may be futile.
(If you can't tell, I have extremely complicated feelings on this matter as a journalism major. On one hand, I want companies and organizations to be able to make gobs of profit off of the Internet so they can take advantage of the abundance of opportunities that it allows. On the other hand, though, I am an Internet consumer and like being able to find what I want for free. This may be the topic of another post soon.)
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why do we hate Kanye?
Kanye West is one of the most talented and influential music artists of the past decade, as The College Dropout and Late Registration both went triple platinum, while Graduation went double platinum. Even West's latest album, the polarizing 808's and Heartbreaks reached number one on the charts. The question then, is why were people so quick to jump on the "Kanye's Dead!" bandwagon last week when an unverified report claimed that the rapper had died in a car accident reminiscent of the 2002 one that the song "Through the Wire" is based off of?
Part of it may be that, for both better and worse, West has managed to hang onto the front pages of tabloids for much of his run. From the car accident to his mother's bizarre 2007 post-plastic surgery death to the drunken Taylor Swift incident to the Spike Jonze-directed short film that features a drunk (again!) West's demon stabbing itself (see below), Kanye always seems to be up to something. Much of this is undoubtedly self publicizing, but on the other hand much of it is also not West's fault.
Sure, the Taylor Swift incident was boorish and appalling, but, at the same time, he couldn't do anything about his mother's death and had the same initial reaction that many people do when tragedy hits them, turning to the bottle for comfort.
We are uncomfortable with Kanye because he is living out the same dramas that we do everyday on the stages where we expect perfection. It is not uncommon for the normal person to embarrass themselves, whether it is by innocently tripping down some stairs or saying something insulting while drinking. We don't like to be reminded of this, though, while we are watching entertainment. Watching the 19-year-old accept her pop star is much more comforting than watching the rap star come to the stage and interrupt her speech.
Kanye may be inappropriate at times, but, intentionally or not, he is one of the biggest acts in music and deserves to be treated as such. If the rumors of West's demise were true, the tabloids and music magazines would, at the very least, be much less interesting places.
Part of it may be that, for both better and worse, West has managed to hang onto the front pages of tabloids for much of his run. From the car accident to his mother's bizarre 2007 post-plastic surgery death to the drunken Taylor Swift incident to the Spike Jonze-directed short film that features a drunk (again!) West's demon stabbing itself (see below), Kanye always seems to be up to something. Much of this is undoubtedly self publicizing, but on the other hand much of it is also not West's fault.
Sure, the Taylor Swift incident was boorish and appalling, but, at the same time, he couldn't do anything about his mother's death and had the same initial reaction that many people do when tragedy hits them, turning to the bottle for comfort.
We are uncomfortable with Kanye because he is living out the same dramas that we do everyday on the stages where we expect perfection. It is not uncommon for the normal person to embarrass themselves, whether it is by innocently tripping down some stairs or saying something insulting while drinking. We don't like to be reminded of this, though, while we are watching entertainment. Watching the 19-year-old accept her pop star is much more comforting than watching the rap star come to the stage and interrupt her speech.
Kanye may be inappropriate at times, but, intentionally or not, he is one of the biggest acts in music and deserves to be treated as such. If the rumors of West's demise were true, the tabloids and music magazines would, at the very least, be much less interesting places.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Why Did We Care About Balloon Boy?
Last Thursday, the nation sat captivated as a silver object floated through the Colorado sky, supposedly carrying a 6-year-old boy as its passenger. Authorities couldn't figure out a way to free the boy from his shiny cage, so they sat helpless on the ground, waiting for the balloon to fall and hoping the boy would survive.
Once the balloon came down, though, it proved to be empty and the search began anew, as police believed that the boy had fallen out at some point during his flight. It was, therefore, much to the relief (and now anger) of everyone when Falcon Henne was found hiding in a box in his family's attic's garage the entire time.
The story wasn't one that we should have cared about, though, during a time when developments overseas could affect foreign policy, health care legislation is still developing and the economy is just beginning to peek out from the blanket of recession. So why has this story dominated our news cycles all weekend?
The answer is actually fairly simple. Originally, the story seemed interesting because a small child was in danger in large part due to the fact that his family was building an absurd-looking aircraft. Children in danger always capture the interest of the public, but we are even more fascinated by UFOs and crazy inventors than we are by kids. This story, therefore, was a huge story waiting to happen.
Then, once the story proved hoax-y and had a "happy ending," America began to wonder how it had been fooled, going from interested to angry. The United States is a country fascinated by news and by news cycles, so when something fools us as bad as this story did, we immediately want to know how and why it got past us. The next week or so will be followed by allegations and denials, but, ultimately, this story will be completely unimportant, just like it was from the very beginning.
Why Sunday Night Football is more important than Monday Night Football
When ESPN took the vaunted Monday Night Football franchise away from ABC four years ago, the sports giant assumed that the weekly games would maintain their dominance on the sporting landscape. Once that move was made, however, NBC instantly snatched up the floundering Sunday Night game that ESPN had relinquished and, ever since, the two franchises' roles on the weekly football landscape have been reversed.
There are several reasons for this, with the topmost being that NBC is a network while ESPN is on cable. America still has some subconscious discomfort with cable dating back to the days when ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only networks on the air. These are the networks that our parents' generation is most comfortable with despite the innovation of cable. For instance, when considering the new season's TV shows, the networks that receive the most attention are ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC, with cable shows receiving a lesser degree of attention. This has changed a bit in recent years, but that has more to do with the cable generation coming of age than anything else.
The other reason that NBC is more interesting is the presentation. To put it mildly, NBC's presentation is just sexier and stronger than ESPN's. NBC has put together the strongest announcing booth in the game, with Cris Collinsworth and Al Michaels serving as the only team worth listening to right now. ESPN, however, has failed to find the proper chemistry in the booth, experimenting with people like Tony Kornheiser that just seem uncomfortable. ESPN may be a sports conglomerate, but NBC is a media conglomerate and can afford an overall sleeker presentation.The final reason that NBC is stronger than ESPN is the flex schedule that Dick Ebersol ingeniously insisted on working into the contract. With the plan, NBC has a game that it schedules in the beginning of the year and then, 12 days before the game, the NFL and NBC can change the game that has been selected for the game of the week in order to stir up interest. ESPN, though, doesn't have this power. For this reason, ESPN is going to be stuck with games like the Giants at Washington in week 16, Arizona at San Francisco in week 14 (even though these teams are bad, it may matter in their division race), Tennessee and Houston in week 11, and Baltimore at Cleveland in week 10. There are restrictions on the games that NBC can pick, but instead of being stuck with games that don't matter, NBC can pick the game that matters the most.
Football will always do well in America, but right now NBC has managed to make the NFL an all-day Sunday thing (take today, for instance, when 1 o'clock featured a Saints-Giants and Ravens-Vikings matchup while 4 o'clock featured an excellent Bills-Jets game and the Sunday game featured a scintillating Bears-Falcons game), while Monday Night Football has lost some power since moving to ESPN.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Miley says goodbye
Miley Cyrus has decided that having a Twitter isn't worth it anymore and, in lieu of simply saying bye, the teenage superstar decided to instead go viral with this video:
Despite the obvious production value behind this clip, it does demonstrate something important about using the Internet: It no longer belongs to the technorati. Instead, stars are capable of turning to the Internet to further their own agenda, thereby spurning the view of the Internet as some kind of wild, wild west that belongs to the margin of society.
Someone like Cyrus can get fed up with the realities of the Internet and, instead of taking herself offline entirely, simply turn to a different element of the Web to make her point. By doing this, Cyrus is demonstrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Internet. She was able to delete her account entirely, simply wiping herself off of the map and effectively editing the past.
Those self-edits were, however, recorded for all posterity by the countless members of the media who were following the story. If Cyrus had been a more normal citizen, she would be able to self-edit herself even more easily than she was able to.
Cyrus, however, demonstrated the various uses of the Internet by producing an unfortunately not self-parodying rap video that comes off as more of a juvenile prank than something of actual value. The importance of it, though, resides in the idea that Cyrus was capable of deleting her Twitter and then creating an immediate, accessible response to the people who are concerned about why or who would attempt to criticize her.
Miley Cyrus is still a very small chip on the cultural mosaic, but her use of the Internet's various outlets demonstrates a valuable understanding of the modern media landscape.
Despite the obvious production value behind this clip, it does demonstrate something important about using the Internet: It no longer belongs to the technorati. Instead, stars are capable of turning to the Internet to further their own agenda, thereby spurning the view of the Internet as some kind of wild, wild west that belongs to the margin of society.
Someone like Cyrus can get fed up with the realities of the Internet and, instead of taking herself offline entirely, simply turn to a different element of the Web to make her point. By doing this, Cyrus is demonstrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Internet. She was able to delete her account entirely, simply wiping herself off of the map and effectively editing the past.
Those self-edits were, however, recorded for all posterity by the countless members of the media who were following the story. If Cyrus had been a more normal citizen, she would be able to self-edit herself even more easily than she was able to.
Cyrus, however, demonstrated the various uses of the Internet by producing an unfortunately not self-parodying rap video that comes off as more of a juvenile prank than something of actual value. The importance of it, though, resides in the idea that Cyrus was capable of deleting her Twitter and then creating an immediate, accessible response to the people who are concerned about why or who would attempt to criticize her.
Miley Cyrus is still a very small chip on the cultural mosaic, but her use of the Internet's various outlets demonstrates a valuable understanding of the modern media landscape.
Should children's classics be made into films?
It seems as if Hollywood is running out of original source material and, in a desperate effort to regenerate interest in non-Pixer blockbuster films, is turning to the one genre that people of all ages could enjoy: the children's classics.
Perennial favorites such as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Where the Wild Things Are, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox have either all been made into or are in the process of being made into feature films, and this may indicate a disturbing future for these stories.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is the first one of the three to have come out and, considering that it was not only my favorite as a child but that it's a claymation film, I am not interested in seeing it. I recall Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs as an unintentionally dark tale of greed and unintended consequences, but the film has turned it into a fun romp featuring actors like Mr. T and Anna Faris. Furthermore, the film suffers from not being live action. Much of the draw of making the classic children's book into a movie would be showing the massive pancakes slowly floating over the town like suffering zeppelins or showing boulder-sized meatballs forcing families inside by landing violently in front yards.
Maybe this would make the story a bit too dark, but it would certainly make the world hunger subplot more prescient than the silly and outdated claymation style does.
The Fantastic Mr. Fox will also suffer from this, but hopefully the Wes Anderson-written script will protect the aesthetic of the Roald Dahl novel without sacrificing any of the book's relatability. One thing that I am worried about, particularly with this film, is Hollywood's effect on the film. Dahl, who also wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and its much darker sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, didn't write time-wasting dialogue into his novels. Instead, he wrote frank and clear conversation that advanced the plot. Having playful, wasteful conversation would completely ruin the story, and Anderson must be aware of that.
Ironically, at least for me, Where the Wild Things Are could be the most successful and accurate of the movies, actually adding to the value of its source material as opposed to detracting from it. As a child, I never enjoyed Maurice Sendak's novel. Something about the large, furry creatures just seemed odd to me, maybe because I was freaked out by them or maybe because I didn't quite understand just why they were there. Unlike the other two films, though, Where the Wild Things Are is live-action, giving it the benefit of added believability (and, therefore, added meaning) when compared to its two brethren.
I'm not sure that the Spike Jonze adaptation will be the gift to film that some seem to think it will be, but out of these three films it certainly seems like it will be the most entertaining and potentially important. The goal of any adaptation should be not only to do justice to the original story, but also to give it additional meaning and to open the story to new audiences. Unfortunately, only one of these films seems guaranteed to succeed on that goal.
Perennial favorites such as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Where the Wild Things Are, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox have either all been made into or are in the process of being made into feature films, and this may indicate a disturbing future for these stories.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is the first one of the three to have come out and, considering that it was not only my favorite as a child but that it's a claymation film, I am not interested in seeing it. I recall Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs as an unintentionally dark tale of greed and unintended consequences, but the film has turned it into a fun romp featuring actors like Mr. T and Anna Faris. Furthermore, the film suffers from not being live action. Much of the draw of making the classic children's book into a movie would be showing the massive pancakes slowly floating over the town like suffering zeppelins or showing boulder-sized meatballs forcing families inside by landing violently in front yards.
Maybe this would make the story a bit too dark, but it would certainly make the world hunger subplot more prescient than the silly and outdated claymation style does.
The Fantastic Mr. Fox will also suffer from this, but hopefully the Wes Anderson-written script will protect the aesthetic of the Roald Dahl novel without sacrificing any of the book's relatability. One thing that I am worried about, particularly with this film, is Hollywood's effect on the film. Dahl, who also wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and its much darker sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, didn't write time-wasting dialogue into his novels. Instead, he wrote frank and clear conversation that advanced the plot. Having playful, wasteful conversation would completely ruin the story, and Anderson must be aware of that.
Ironically, at least for me, Where the Wild Things Are could be the most successful and accurate of the movies, actually adding to the value of its source material as opposed to detracting from it. As a child, I never enjoyed Maurice Sendak's novel. Something about the large, furry creatures just seemed odd to me, maybe because I was freaked out by them or maybe because I didn't quite understand just why they were there. Unlike the other two films, though, Where the Wild Things Are is live-action, giving it the benefit of added believability (and, therefore, added meaning) when compared to its two brethren.
I'm not sure that the Spike Jonze adaptation will be the gift to film that some seem to think it will be, but out of these three films it certainly seems like it will be the most entertaining and potentially important. The goal of any adaptation should be not only to do justice to the original story, but also to give it additional meaning and to open the story to new audiences. Unfortunately, only one of these films seems guaranteed to succeed on that goal.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Letterman apology fascinating, terrifying
If you haven't seen it yet, David Letterman's nerve-racking 10-minute apology at least provides for enthralling television. Part of the reason for this is certainly that Letterman gave America something that it doesn't see from its celebrities very often - complete and total honesty on a national stage. Before I go into the matter any more, check out the video:
What is perhaps most striking about the clip is the audience's reaction. They start the clip by laughing along with Letterman, expecting this to be a prototypical late-night monologue from a man who has established himself as one of the snarkiest commentators of the late night scene. Around halfway through, however, they suddenly realize that Letterman is not kidding, at all.
We as a culture have become so used to our celebrities being little more than glorified goldfish parading down runways in designer clothing that when one of them takes the step of exposing his own flaws before the media can do it, the step seems nearly unprecedented.
The Internet plays a major role in this, as we all seem to know everything about anyone. Once the tentacles of gossip and rumors extend into very private details like they did Thursday, they acquire a degree of menace that is absent from People Magazine and E!
Letterman took what could have been the scariest moment of his life and, by stepping up and addressing it on his own terms, managed to turn it into one of the most positive moments of his public life.
What is perhaps most striking about the clip is the audience's reaction. They start the clip by laughing along with Letterman, expecting this to be a prototypical late-night monologue from a man who has established himself as one of the snarkiest commentators of the late night scene. Around halfway through, however, they suddenly realize that Letterman is not kidding, at all.
We as a culture have become so used to our celebrities being little more than glorified goldfish parading down runways in designer clothing that when one of them takes the step of exposing his own flaws before the media can do it, the step seems nearly unprecedented.
The Internet plays a major role in this, as we all seem to know everything about anyone. Once the tentacles of gossip and rumors extend into very private details like they did Thursday, they acquire a degree of menace that is absent from People Magazine and E!
Letterman took what could have been the scariest moment of his life and, by stepping up and addressing it on his own terms, managed to turn it into one of the most positive moments of his public life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
