I like Merlin, but I also forgive poor characterization, plot holes, and general stupidity when it happens. The acting and the beautiful cinematography usually make up for it. Unfortunately, I was doing a lot of forgiving for the finale.
Spoilers after the cut.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
Fixing the Future
I watched Back to the Future parts 1 and 2 earlier this week (for the thirty-fifth time, probably), and this is the first time I realized the problem with the part that takes place in 2015.
Marty can’t make changes in the future that will stay permanent and set, not if his timeline (and by extension, his family’s) is in flux.
There are two basic theories of time travel. One, everything is in flux all the time, so you can make changes anywhere on the timeline that will affect other parts of the timeline. Two, everything is fixed so no matter when you are and what you do, you cannot change what is supposed to happen.
The Back to the Future trilogy seems to follow the first theory, except for when Marty and Doc Brown go to 2015.
Marty poses as his son to save him from getting caught up in gang activity and going to jail. But just because Marty saved his son in one instance, that doesn’t mean his future is all right in every instance.
I understand when Marty meets his teenage parents in 1955 and his interaction with them changes who they are in 1985. The past affects the present. Makes sense.
But 1985 Marty can’t go to the future and make permanent changes. When Marty goes to 2015, he’s going to the future that results from the moment he left in 1985. The choices that he makes in his life will always be tweaking his future. If he chose to go to 2015 from a different point in his life, he would be going to a different 2015. So saving his son once doesn’t save him in every possible future.
If Doc Brown wanted to help Marty and his family avoid bad things in 2015 (one possible 2015), all he had to do was tell Marty what happens and when. Then Marty could take the appropriate action when the time came, instead of jumping to the future to make changes. And maybe all along, with Marty knowing what could happen to his son in 2015, he’s making changes to his life that bypass the problem Doc Brown saw in the first place.
That’s the flaw in Back to the Future’s plot: characters from the present make changes in the future that are supposed to take hold.
I was thinking about another character who interferes with his own timeline: John Connor in The Terminator. But his situation is different. Future John sends people and information back in time to help his younger self. Future John is making changes in the past, but we see the story from the younger John’s perspective. Even so, there’s a paradox here: if Future John is changing his past, he is changing himself. All the changes he makes to younger John’s life should result in a different life for and a different John in the future. If that’s true, then how was there the Future John who made those changes in the first place? The other option is, John’s timeline is fixed and The Terminator follows theory 2. But then Future John would realize that no matter what he changed in the past, the same events happened and he ends up in the same position. It would be pointless for him to keep interfering with his past if he knows he can’t make a difference. Paradoxes, time loops, alternate universes. These are themes in most of the stories I enjoy.
I’ve been watching a lot things that deal with time travel and alternate universes (or the things I’ve watched have had this common thread running through), and I find myself using theories from one show to explain events in another show.
Kyle Reese and John Connor’s birth never made sense to me until I watched “Blink,” an episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor explains that time is not a straight line but rather “more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”
Peter Bishop (Fringe) linked two universe to avoid destroying both, but in the process, he deleted himself from existence. Or, nearly. But where was he in between his non-existence and his return? The Doctor rebooted the universe and now Amy has parents when she didn’t have them before. Or did she and she doesn’t remember? I’m still working those out, but I find myself thinking of all these characters and ideas together. I sort out which theory explains which situation.
But Amy has an interesting situation. Mad, Impossible Pond. When we first met her she was a young girl who lived in a big house with no parents and an aunt that was away. But she doesn’t know what happened to her parents--she just never had them. Did they abandon her? Were they erased from existence? Where did Amy come from? She’s been in two seasons of Doctor Who, and we still don’t know. Then, more confusion, the Doctor rebooted the universe, and now Amy has parents. Where did they come from? Or did they come back? Amy tells the Doctor she’s scared/worried/frustrated/concerned because she remembers both versions: her life when she didn’t have parents and her life when she does. Both feel true to her. Amy gains a set of parents, and that makes no sense to me even though it shouldn’t matter. Rebooting the universe has nothing to do with timelines. The Doctor didn’t change anything about Amy’s past or future. He pushed the universe’s reset button and some things came out differently. But because we’re watching the episodes sequentially, I feel like Amy’s parents came out of nowhere because we knew her without parents first. But that’s not the right way of thinking about it. New universe, so things can be different. There doesn’t have to be any continuity or progression.
But there’s still the question of existence and non-existence. Either Amy didn’t exist and then she did (and still does) or her parents did exist but then didn’t (and now do). And the Doctor knows Amy is impossible. He knows her life doesn’t make sense and that’s why he wanted to travel with her. But I wonder, is he trying to figure out why Amy doesn’t make sense? Or is he content with the nonsense (and should we be too)?
Marty can’t make changes in the future that will stay permanent and set, not if his timeline (and by extension, his family’s) is in flux.
There are two basic theories of time travel. One, everything is in flux all the time, so you can make changes anywhere on the timeline that will affect other parts of the timeline. Two, everything is fixed so no matter when you are and what you do, you cannot change what is supposed to happen.
The Back to the Future trilogy seems to follow the first theory, except for when Marty and Doc Brown go to 2015.
Marty poses as his son to save him from getting caught up in gang activity and going to jail. But just because Marty saved his son in one instance, that doesn’t mean his future is all right in every instance.
I understand when Marty meets his teenage parents in 1955 and his interaction with them changes who they are in 1985. The past affects the present. Makes sense.
But 1985 Marty can’t go to the future and make permanent changes. When Marty goes to 2015, he’s going to the future that results from the moment he left in 1985. The choices that he makes in his life will always be tweaking his future. If he chose to go to 2015 from a different point in his life, he would be going to a different 2015. So saving his son once doesn’t save him in every possible future.
If Doc Brown wanted to help Marty and his family avoid bad things in 2015 (one possible 2015), all he had to do was tell Marty what happens and when. Then Marty could take the appropriate action when the time came, instead of jumping to the future to make changes. And maybe all along, with Marty knowing what could happen to his son in 2015, he’s making changes to his life that bypass the problem Doc Brown saw in the first place.
That’s the flaw in Back to the Future’s plot: characters from the present make changes in the future that are supposed to take hold.
I was thinking about another character who interferes with his own timeline: John Connor in The Terminator. But his situation is different. Future John sends people and information back in time to help his younger self. Future John is making changes in the past, but we see the story from the younger John’s perspective. Even so, there’s a paradox here: if Future John is changing his past, he is changing himself. All the changes he makes to younger John’s life should result in a different life for and a different John in the future. If that’s true, then how was there the Future John who made those changes in the first place? The other option is, John’s timeline is fixed and The Terminator follows theory 2. But then Future John would realize that no matter what he changed in the past, the same events happened and he ends up in the same position. It would be pointless for him to keep interfering with his past if he knows he can’t make a difference. Paradoxes, time loops, alternate universes. These are themes in most of the stories I enjoy.
I’ve been watching a lot things that deal with time travel and alternate universes (or the things I’ve watched have had this common thread running through), and I find myself using theories from one show to explain events in another show.
Kyle Reese and John Connor’s birth never made sense to me until I watched “Blink,” an episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor explains that time is not a straight line but rather “more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”
Peter Bishop (Fringe) linked two universe to avoid destroying both, but in the process, he deleted himself from existence. Or, nearly. But where was he in between his non-existence and his return? The Doctor rebooted the universe and now Amy has parents when she didn’t have them before. Or did she and she doesn’t remember? I’m still working those out, but I find myself thinking of all these characters and ideas together. I sort out which theory explains which situation.
But Amy has an interesting situation. Mad, Impossible Pond. When we first met her she was a young girl who lived in a big house with no parents and an aunt that was away. But she doesn’t know what happened to her parents--she just never had them. Did they abandon her? Were they erased from existence? Where did Amy come from? She’s been in two seasons of Doctor Who, and we still don’t know. Then, more confusion, the Doctor rebooted the universe, and now Amy has parents. Where did they come from? Or did they come back? Amy tells the Doctor she’s scared/worried/frustrated/concerned because she remembers both versions: her life when she didn’t have parents and her life when she does. Both feel true to her. Amy gains a set of parents, and that makes no sense to me even though it shouldn’t matter. Rebooting the universe has nothing to do with timelines. The Doctor didn’t change anything about Amy’s past or future. He pushed the universe’s reset button and some things came out differently. But because we’re watching the episodes sequentially, I feel like Amy’s parents came out of nowhere because we knew her without parents first. But that’s not the right way of thinking about it. New universe, so things can be different. There doesn’t have to be any continuity or progression.
But there’s still the question of existence and non-existence. Either Amy didn’t exist and then she did (and still does) or her parents did exist but then didn’t (and now do). And the Doctor knows Amy is impossible. He knows her life doesn’t make sense and that’s why he wanted to travel with her. But I wonder, is he trying to figure out why Amy doesn’t make sense? Or is he content with the nonsense (and should we be too)?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
NBC's Grimm - Pilot episode
Whoever schedules shows on NBC needs to take a look at Friday nights. The 9 o'clock slot already has Supernatural and Fringe. Most of Grimm's potential audience will be tuned to FOX or the CW, but that's okay. That's why we have Hulu.
I don't want to spoil the pilot episode, so I'll say it is a re-imagining of Little Red Robin Hood. The main character, Nick, is a policeman and he inherits the family gift/curse: he sees monsters who are blending in as humans. Everything has a Buffy feel (but the dialogue isn't as good) and the original Grimm fairy tales will offer great episodic material.
Grimm has the potential to be a great series, a mini scary movie each week, much like how Supernatural started out. But Fridays nights are Fringe nights for me, so I'll be watching on Hulu.
Did you watch the Grimm pilot? What did you think of it?
I don't want to spoil the pilot episode, so I'll say it is a re-imagining of Little Red Robin Hood. The main character, Nick, is a policeman and he inherits the family gift/curse: he sees monsters who are blending in as humans. Everything has a Buffy feel (but the dialogue isn't as good) and the original Grimm fairy tales will offer great episodic material.
Grimm has the potential to be a great series, a mini scary movie each week, much like how Supernatural started out. But Fridays nights are Fringe nights for me, so I'll be watching on Hulu.
Did you watch the Grimm pilot? What did you think of it?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Sidebar: A higher caliber of children's TV
If networks took children's programming as seriously as some adult programming, I can't even imagine the quality of work that would come out of that line of thinking. Imagine a Jason Katims, Joss Whedon, J.J. Abrams, or Steven Moffat for kids' TV. Imagine if we had storytellers of that caliber who wanted to make shows children would enjoy.
We'd get something like what J.K. Rowling did for children's literature, but this time for children's television. That's what we need.
We'd get something like what J.K. Rowling did for children's literature, but this time for children's television. That's what we need.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Sidebar: McGonagall and the Slytherins
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Professor McGonagall sent all the Slytherins to the dungeons after the Death Eaters attacked Hogwarts. The scene is the same in the book and in part two of the film. Some fans made a fuss about it, saying McGonagall assumed all the Slytherin students were untrustworthy. I don't see it that way.
Many of the Slytherin students' parents were Death Eaters and supporters of Lord Voldemort. Chances are, many students' parents were part of Voldemort's followers who attacked Hogwarts. By ordering all the Slytherin students to the dungeons, McGonagall took them out of the fight. Those students didn't have to choose between fighting against their parents or against their peers. They didn't have to make a difficult decision in dangerous circumstances. McGonagall's decision kept students safe and minimized unpredictability among them. That's good for the students and good for the school. Sending the Slytherins to the dungeons was the best decision McGonagall could have made.
Many of the Slytherin students' parents were Death Eaters and supporters of Lord Voldemort. Chances are, many students' parents were part of Voldemort's followers who attacked Hogwarts. By ordering all the Slytherin students to the dungeons, McGonagall took them out of the fight. Those students didn't have to choose between fighting against their parents or against their peers. They didn't have to make a difficult decision in dangerous circumstances. McGonagall's decision kept students safe and minimized unpredictability among them. That's good for the students and good for the school. Sending the Slytherins to the dungeons was the best decision McGonagall could have made.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Does everything a spider can
For several weeks in July, August, and September, I watched every episode of Spider-Man, the animated series that was on FOX from 1994 to 1997. I had seen most of the episodes growing up, but seeing them again now, I realize how much this cartoon series respected children as an audience.
I see respect for the audience in several aspects of the show:
1. Complex characters. Peter Parker is consistently an intelligent and flawed character. We see how smart he is in figuring how to defeat villains, and when he makes mistakes it's because his arrogance, carelessness, or anger. Everything Peter does makes sense, though. His actions are logical reactions to what happens to him and around him. The villains are relatively flat compared to Peter, but even they have logical motivations. Doc Ock needs resources for his research. The Green Goblin sabotages the King Pin's work so that Norman Osbourne can keep a clean reputation.
2. Multiple story lines at the same time. Episodes often contain one problem for Peter Parker and one for Spider-Man. Besides those, we see plot developments with Mary Jane, Harry, and Aunt May.
3. Multi-episode stories. Spider-Man often carried a story over several episodes. Recaps at the beginning of every episode probably helped children follow along, but even so, children had to pay close attention to make sense of the larger story. Characters and other elements from early seasons came back in the final season of the show. That's a lot of detail to ask children to remember.
4. Crossovers. I'm impressed with the number of Marvel characters Spider-Man features. I started keeping track after I realized crossovers were a recurring theme. The X-Men, Punisher, Daredevil, Iron Man, War Machine, Captain America, Blade, Red Skull, and Fantastic Four all teamed up with or fought against Spider-Man in the series.
Spider-Man respected its child audience by offering entertaining, complex stories. The banter and action scenes so typical of superhero cartoons are there, but so are deeply emotional scenes, like when Peter loses Mary Jane. The creators of the series must have felt that children could follow and enjoy these stories. Or else, why would they bother writing such developed plots and characters?
I feel like today's creators of children's television have much lower expectations for their audience. Children today are lucky to watch characters who behave rationally, let alone see complicated and satisfying story lines.
I see respect for the audience in several aspects of the show:
1. Complex characters. Peter Parker is consistently an intelligent and flawed character. We see how smart he is in figuring how to defeat villains, and when he makes mistakes it's because his arrogance, carelessness, or anger. Everything Peter does makes sense, though. His actions are logical reactions to what happens to him and around him. The villains are relatively flat compared to Peter, but even they have logical motivations. Doc Ock needs resources for his research. The Green Goblin sabotages the King Pin's work so that Norman Osbourne can keep a clean reputation.
2. Multiple story lines at the same time. Episodes often contain one problem for Peter Parker and one for Spider-Man. Besides those, we see plot developments with Mary Jane, Harry, and Aunt May.
3. Multi-episode stories. Spider-Man often carried a story over several episodes. Recaps at the beginning of every episode probably helped children follow along, but even so, children had to pay close attention to make sense of the larger story. Characters and other elements from early seasons came back in the final season of the show. That's a lot of detail to ask children to remember.
4. Crossovers. I'm impressed with the number of Marvel characters Spider-Man features. I started keeping track after I realized crossovers were a recurring theme. The X-Men, Punisher, Daredevil, Iron Man, War Machine, Captain America, Blade, Red Skull, and Fantastic Four all teamed up with or fought against Spider-Man in the series.
Spider-Man respected its child audience by offering entertaining, complex stories. The banter and action scenes so typical of superhero cartoons are there, but so are deeply emotional scenes, like when Peter loses Mary Jane. The creators of the series must have felt that children could follow and enjoy these stories. Or else, why would they bother writing such developed plots and characters?
I feel like today's creators of children's television have much lower expectations for their audience. Children today are lucky to watch characters who behave rationally, let alone see complicated and satisfying story lines.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Facebook so you don't have to
Facebook is supposed to make social interaction easier. You post status updates and photos. All of your friends see them. Your news feed shows you everything your friends have been doing lately. It makes sense: friends update each other all the time. We have a central hub that shows what's happening in each others' lives.
But more and more, I find that Facebook gives me less of a reason to talk to friends, or to catch up with those I haven't seen in a while. Facebook has taken on the effort of maintaining relationships so we don't have to.
Before Facebook, if I wanted to ask a friend how she's doing at her new job, I'd pick up the phone and call her. Or we'd hang out sometime and chat. With Facebook, all I have to do is read her status updates to know if she likes her job or not.
It's not just status updates. I don't have to remember birthdays anymore. We don't print photos and share them. Job promotions, accomplishments, and even wedding announcements are on my news feed before I talk to the person offline.
But reading a Facebook update is not the same as talking to the person and, for some reason, there's still an unwritten rule about Facebook conversations crossing over into "real life." That leaves us in an odd place.
Say I wish a friend happy birthday on Facebook. Then I see that friend over the weekend. Does my birthday message on Facebook replace me saying happy birthday in person? If I say happy birthday in person after saying it on Facebook, am I repeating myself? Should I mention the Facebook message when we talk in person? Or is that a faux pas?
Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but Facebook is changing the way people interact and I don't think it's an improvement.
But more and more, I find that Facebook gives me less of a reason to talk to friends, or to catch up with those I haven't seen in a while. Facebook has taken on the effort of maintaining relationships so we don't have to.
Before Facebook, if I wanted to ask a friend how she's doing at her new job, I'd pick up the phone and call her. Or we'd hang out sometime and chat. With Facebook, all I have to do is read her status updates to know if she likes her job or not.
It's not just status updates. I don't have to remember birthdays anymore. We don't print photos and share them. Job promotions, accomplishments, and even wedding announcements are on my news feed before I talk to the person offline.
But reading a Facebook update is not the same as talking to the person and, for some reason, there's still an unwritten rule about Facebook conversations crossing over into "real life." That leaves us in an odd place.
Say I wish a friend happy birthday on Facebook. Then I see that friend over the weekend. Does my birthday message on Facebook replace me saying happy birthday in person? If I say happy birthday in person after saying it on Facebook, am I repeating myself? Should I mention the Facebook message when we talk in person? Or is that a faux pas?
Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but Facebook is changing the way people interact and I don't think it's an improvement.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A network model for children's television?
I don't know a lot about how the television industry works, but it seems like children's shows don't start the same way as adult dramas. For a show like House, they figured out the cast and characters, story lines, and a pilot episode. Then they pitched it around to network executives until they found one (FOX) that wanted to add the show to its fall line-up.
Children's television isn't treated the same way. We've got two superpowers, Disney and Nickelodeon, that host most of children's programming. Cartoon Network, Fox Kids, Kids WB, and PBS have a few original shows too, but they've been on a decline since Saturday Morning TV faded away.
Why can't we give children's programming the same treatment as network dramas? Have an idea, do the leg work, produce a pilot, and pitch it around.
In the current system, the best chance to make children's programming is on Disney and Nickelodeon. Maybe if those networks had outside competition, we'd have better programming for children to watch. Kids definitely deserve better entertainment than what's on TV right now.
Children's television isn't treated the same way. We've got two superpowers, Disney and Nickelodeon, that host most of children's programming. Cartoon Network, Fox Kids, Kids WB, and PBS have a few original shows too, but they've been on a decline since Saturday Morning TV faded away.
Why can't we give children's programming the same treatment as network dramas? Have an idea, do the leg work, produce a pilot, and pitch it around.
In the current system, the best chance to make children's programming is on Disney and Nickelodeon. Maybe if those networks had outside competition, we'd have better programming for children to watch. Kids definitely deserve better entertainment than what's on TV right now.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Meanwhile on Etsy
About two weeks ago, I started a shop on Etsy to sell beaded jewelry that I make. This happened for a few reasons.
I usually work with beading wire, elastic cord, and glass beads. Here's a screenshot of my shop, Beaded Thoughts, so far:
I've been spending more time on Etsy looking at various crafts and shops, and there's so much to see. When you make an Etsy account, you can rate items according to your taste. Then the site generates lists of items that match your taste, but that's only one way to browse Etsy. You can navigate by categories, most recent items, and items made by people in your local area.
I like that I'm able to incorporate my hobby with a site like Etsy and have exposure to so much creativity.
- Job searching is frustrating, and I needed to do something fun and productive when I wasn't combing through job postings, submitting resumes, and writing cover letters.
- I've been making beaded jewelry for a while and I enjoy it, so spending more time doing that is a plus.
- There's potential to make my hobby self-sustainable.
I usually work with beading wire, elastic cord, and glass beads. Here's a screenshot of my shop, Beaded Thoughts, so far:
I've been spending more time on Etsy looking at various crafts and shops, and there's so much to see. When you make an Etsy account, you can rate items according to your taste. Then the site generates lists of items that match your taste, but that's only one way to browse Etsy. You can navigate by categories, most recent items, and items made by people in your local area.
I like that I'm able to incorporate my hobby with a site like Etsy and have exposure to so much creativity.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Chameleon Circuit's Still Got Legs
 Image from dftba.com |
Chameleon Circuit released their second album, Still Got Legs, last week. The band makes music inspired by Doctor Who with well-written lyrics, catchy melodies, and enough variation to make distinct tracks but a cohesive album.
I've been listening to Still Got Legs for the past six days. I could write about each track, but I'd rather write about my three favorite songs on the album.
Regenerate Me sounds like the Doctor's victory song. A Gryffindor Rally Cry for the last Time Lord. My favorite part is from 1:11 to 1:28, a five-part chorus that quotes the Doctor Who soundtrack. This is the second song on the album (after a twenty-three-second instrumental track), and it serves as an introduction to the Doctor. From the lyrics:
Ten personas, I've walked the earthMr. Pond is from Rory's perspective, about his concern for Amy's safety around the Doctor. My knowledge of classic Doctor Who is limited, but I think Rory and Amy are the first married couple to travel with the Doctor. We've seen companions' friends and families voice concerns about traveling with the Doctor, but never a husband. This track captures Rory's feelings perfectly.
Sole protector of the human race
You will know me by the big blue box
But you may never know my face
I've loved The Doctor Is Dying since Alex Day posted an acoustic version of it on his channel. The song is about the Tenth Doctor's death. Like many of the songs on the album, the lyrics quote lines from episodes. The Tenth Doctor's emotions as he approaches his end are all here: his fear when the Time Lords return, his anguish when he realizes he has to die to save Wilfred, and his serenity when he visits past companions.
This is a sampling of the songs I like the most on Still Got Legs, but all of the songs on the album are fun to listen to (and addicting, you've been warned).
You can listen to all of Still Got Legs for free on Alex Day's website, buy the physical copy from DFTBA Records or download tracks from iTunes.
Other things of interest...a video from Chameleon Circuit about the album release and a handy graphic that shows who did what on each track.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Venom to his Spiderman
Since Netflix added Spider-Man, the animated series (1994-1998), to instant streaming, I've been watching season 1 and remembering what a great show it was.
"The Alien Costume" is a three-part story in the middle of season one. The symbiote comes to Earth with a space shuttle and attaches to Spider-Man. Peter fights it off, and it takes over Eddie Brock to become Venom. This story is the animated version of everything Spider-Man 3 should have been. But I don't want to talk about the film's emo Peter Parker.
I want to talk about how Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man and why that makes him such an interesting villain.
I'm going off the animated series here (which I expect is close to the original story in the comics). Venom knows everything about Spider-Man and Peter Parker because the symbiote tried to bond with Peter first. This gives Venom a few advantages.
1. Venom can block Spider-Man's spidey sense. Venom is the only thing that can sneak up on Peter, and we see how jumpy and paranoid Peter feels because of that.
2. Venom has Peter's memories, so he knows Mary Jane Watson and Aunt May.
3. Venom has all the same powers as Spider-Man, except he's stronger.
Venom matches and beats Spider-Man in strength and ability. He plays mind games. He threatens to expose Spider-Man and hurt his loved ones. Venom is dangerous because he knows how to fight Peter Parker and Spider-Man. He can attack both identities.
This idea of a villain who is a reflection of the hero reminded me of "Amy's Choice," a series 5 episode of Doctor Who. The Dream Lord is a mocking version of the Doctor (Time Lord) that comes from the Doctor's mind. He hates the Doctor, he taunts Amy, and he puts Amy, Rory, and the Doctor in a cruel test of distinguishing dreams from reality.
But there's an important difference between the Dream Lord and Venom. Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man, but a separate entity. The Dream Lord is part the Doctor, the dark thoughts about issues the Doctor doesn't want to face. Venom's threat is in being able to match Spider-Man. The Dream Lord's threat is in the Doctor torturing himself.
These types of villains are compelling because they aren't simply evil: they're evil that comes from the hero. That complexity shows a flawed side of the hero, and that's good storytelling.
"The Alien Costume" is a three-part story in the middle of season one. The symbiote comes to Earth with a space shuttle and attaches to Spider-Man. Peter fights it off, and it takes over Eddie Brock to become Venom. This story is the animated version of everything Spider-Man 3 should have been. But I don't want to talk about the film's emo Peter Parker.
I want to talk about how Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man and why that makes him such an interesting villain.
I'm going off the animated series here (which I expect is close to the original story in the comics). Venom knows everything about Spider-Man and Peter Parker because the symbiote tried to bond with Peter first. This gives Venom a few advantages.
1. Venom can block Spider-Man's spidey sense. Venom is the only thing that can sneak up on Peter, and we see how jumpy and paranoid Peter feels because of that.
2. Venom has Peter's memories, so he knows Mary Jane Watson and Aunt May.
3. Venom has all the same powers as Spider-Man, except he's stronger.
Venom matches and beats Spider-Man in strength and ability. He plays mind games. He threatens to expose Spider-Man and hurt his loved ones. Venom is dangerous because he knows how to fight Peter Parker and Spider-Man. He can attack both identities.
This idea of a villain who is a reflection of the hero reminded me of "Amy's Choice," a series 5 episode of Doctor Who. The Dream Lord is a mocking version of the Doctor (Time Lord) that comes from the Doctor's mind. He hates the Doctor, he taunts Amy, and he puts Amy, Rory, and the Doctor in a cruel test of distinguishing dreams from reality.
But there's an important difference between the Dream Lord and Venom. Venom is a reflection of Spider-Man, but a separate entity. The Dream Lord is part the Doctor, the dark thoughts about issues the Doctor doesn't want to face. Venom's threat is in being able to match Spider-Man. The Dream Lord's threat is in the Doctor torturing himself.
These types of villains are compelling because they aren't simply evil: they're evil that comes from the hero. That complexity shows a flawed side of the hero, and that's good storytelling.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Merlin Fan-made Trailer
I'm consistently impressed by the quality of some fan-made videos on YouTube. Not only are they well-made in terms of sound editing, selection of clips, and special effects, but they go beyond the content of the original source to create something new.
Today via tumblr, I saw this fan-made trailer for season four of Merlin by jenskii.
Jenskii used clips from previous seasons to create this trailer that shows Arthur's rise to becoming King, Merlin at his side, and Morgana as their adversary. Everything in the video is a logical extension of what we've seen in the series so far.
Jenskii did such a good job in putting the video together that it looks like it could be official promotional material from the BBC. I'll be happy if the official trailer is half this good.
Today via tumblr, I saw this fan-made trailer for season four of Merlin by jenskii.
Jenskii used clips from previous seasons to create this trailer that shows Arthur's rise to becoming King, Merlin at his side, and Morgana as their adversary. Everything in the video is a logical extension of what we've seen in the series so far.
Jenskii did such a good job in putting the video together that it looks like it could be official promotional material from the BBC. I'll be happy if the official trailer is half this good.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Fringe Season Four - A Paradox?
Hypable posted an interview from FEARnet with Anna Torv. She doesn't know much about season four of Fringe, so the interview is about what she'd like to see happen.
I haven't thought about the season three finale for a while, but this interview got me thinking again. Peter linked the two universes and erased himself from existence. Olivia, Walter, their alternate versions, and the rest of the characters have to find a way to patch up the universes and stop fringe events from happening.
But Peter didn't just go away--he made it so he was never born. So then, how did the initial tear in the universes happen if it wasn't Walter kidnapping Peter? Who linked the universes if Peter doesn't exist anymore? I'm most interested in seeing what the characters think of their situation. Do they simply accept that the universe is damaged without knowing the cause? Or did something else happen that had the same consequences?
Is it September yet?
I haven't thought about the season three finale for a while, but this interview got me thinking again. Peter linked the two universes and erased himself from existence. Olivia, Walter, their alternate versions, and the rest of the characters have to find a way to patch up the universes and stop fringe events from happening.
But Peter didn't just go away--he made it so he was never born. So then, how did the initial tear in the universes happen if it wasn't Walter kidnapping Peter? Who linked the universes if Peter doesn't exist anymore? I'm most interested in seeing what the characters think of their situation. Do they simply accept that the universe is damaged without knowing the cause? Or did something else happen that had the same consequences?
Is it September yet?
Friday, June 24, 2011
Hypable Potential
When I co-founded Supernatural.tv in 2005, I saw the difference between corporate-run and fan-run sites. Finding news and writing about Supernatural was a joy. The moderators in the forums were as passionate about the show as the visitors to the site. We had better discussions, more activity, and more fun than people were having in the CW's official Supernatural forum. Now BuddyTV owns Supernatural.tv and even though the forums remain fan-run, the community has suffered. We were better as a fan-run site. Running fansites takes a lot of time and effort, so finding ones that are well-run, organized, and updated is rare.
But that's changing with Hypable.
Andrew Sims (of MuggleNet and MuggleCast) started Hypable, a site that covers entertainment news for several shows and fandoms. He noticed that "general entertainment sites do not cover specific fandoms as good as individual fansites do" *, so he wanted to create a fan-run site that would offer great coverage for lots of fandoms.
Right now, Hypable writers cover Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, Doctor Who, Fringe, Supernatural, True Blood, Dexter, Mad Men, Saturday Night Live, Disney, The Office, X Factor, and more...the list is growing all the time. Registering on Hypable allows you to filter posts by fandom so that the news you see in "My Feed" is what interests you specifically. Columns and podcasts offer fan commentary on news and events. All around, it's a great setup.
The About Us page talks about the power of fans to cover topics that interest them without corporate influence. "Fan-powered" is good. Fan-driven is better.
A core group of writers is necessary for Hypable: fans rely on frequent updates, so Hypable needs a dedicated writing staff. But as a fan of fantasy and sci-fi shows, more than news interests me.
I want a place where I can read news about my favorite shows, but I also want to read theories and commentary by fans. Right now, when I want to see what people thought of the latest episode of Doctor Who, I search tags on Tumblr. It's not ideal, but it works.
I can't help thinking about the diversity of content Hypable could have if they accepted writing from visitors to the site.
The Write for Hypable page states writers must be able to post at least five stories each day. That's the kind of dedication you need for a news site, but I'm sure there are people out there (like me) who would love to write for fan sites but can't dedicate that much time every day.
Why not take submissions? Submissions allow people to make less of a commitment without lessening the quality of writing. Set guidelines for the kind of content you want. For example, episode commentary, theories about what will happen next in your favorite show, and character studies. All you need is a section on the site for non-news content and editors to review submissions. (I'd volunteer.) Post the quality writing and send explanations to writers when their submissions won't be used.
Accepting submissions does two things. First, it's an easy way to build content on the site. Second, submitting articles is a good way to test out potential staff writers. Frequent submitters can see what it's like to write for a fan site, and the Hypable staff has writing samples to review before they take on committed writers.
I don't know if Hypable wants to be strictly a news site. If it does, it's doing fine. But if Hypable wants to be a hub for fandoms, it needs to have more than news. It needs to offer more fan-written content.
But that's changing with Hypable.
Andrew Sims (of MuggleNet and MuggleCast) started Hypable, a site that covers entertainment news for several shows and fandoms. He noticed that "general entertainment sites do not cover specific fandoms as good as individual fansites do" *, so he wanted to create a fan-run site that would offer great coverage for lots of fandoms.
Right now, Hypable writers cover Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, Doctor Who, Fringe, Supernatural, True Blood, Dexter, Mad Men, Saturday Night Live, Disney, The Office, X Factor, and more...the list is growing all the time. Registering on Hypable allows you to filter posts by fandom so that the news you see in "My Feed" is what interests you specifically. Columns and podcasts offer fan commentary on news and events. All around, it's a great setup.
The About Us page talks about the power of fans to cover topics that interest them without corporate influence. "Fan-powered" is good. Fan-driven is better.
A core group of writers is necessary for Hypable: fans rely on frequent updates, so Hypable needs a dedicated writing staff. But as a fan of fantasy and sci-fi shows, more than news interests me.
I want a place where I can read news about my favorite shows, but I also want to read theories and commentary by fans. Right now, when I want to see what people thought of the latest episode of Doctor Who, I search tags on Tumblr. It's not ideal, but it works.
I can't help thinking about the diversity of content Hypable could have if they accepted writing from visitors to the site.
The Write for Hypable page states writers must be able to post at least five stories each day. That's the kind of dedication you need for a news site, but I'm sure there are people out there (like me) who would love to write for fan sites but can't dedicate that much time every day.
Why not take submissions? Submissions allow people to make less of a commitment without lessening the quality of writing. Set guidelines for the kind of content you want. For example, episode commentary, theories about what will happen next in your favorite show, and character studies. All you need is a section on the site for non-news content and editors to review submissions. (I'd volunteer.) Post the quality writing and send explanations to writers when their submissions won't be used.
Accepting submissions does two things. First, it's an easy way to build content on the site. Second, submitting articles is a good way to test out potential staff writers. Frequent submitters can see what it's like to write for a fan site, and the Hypable staff has writing samples to review before they take on committed writers.
I don't know if Hypable wants to be strictly a news site. If it does, it's doing fine. But if Hypable wants to be a hub for fandoms, it needs to have more than news. It needs to offer more fan-written content.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Home videos
My dad was watching home videos today, and I realized that my family and my extended family stopped recording home videos when my cousins and I were about ten years old. I understand that most parents want videos of their kids when they're young, so maybe that's why the videos stopped. We grew up.
But with increasingly smaller video cameras and easier ways to share videos, I think it's strange that we don't record home videos anymore (with possible exceptions for family vacations and weddings).
I have only my own experiences to go on, so I'm curious: did your family record home videos, and did the videos stop at some point?
But with increasingly smaller video cameras and easier ways to share videos, I think it's strange that we don't record home videos anymore (with possible exceptions for family vacations and weddings).
I have only my own experiences to go on, so I'm curious: did your family record home videos, and did the videos stop at some point?
Sunday, May 29, 2011
When Arthur Finds Out
No spoilers here. Just my speculation.
Here's a scenario I'd like to see on Merlin when Arthur finds out that Merlin has magic.
The knights of Camelot, Lancelot, Arthur, and Merlin are away from Camelot, fighting a small army or maybe magical creatures. The knights are losing and Merlin knows he can save them all if he uses magic. Similar situation to that episode about his hometown. Problem is, he'll definitely expose himself. But Merlin can't let everyone die so he uses magic, defeats the bad guys, and saves everyone.
Everybody saw it. Everybody is stunned.
Arthur orders two knights to grab Merlin and bring him to Arthur.
"All this time, Merlin?" Arthur says.
Merlin looks at him and nods. "Yes."
Arthur takes a step back, rubs his hand across his face. "I thought I knew you. I trusted you."
Merlin doesn't say anything for a moment and then: "Arthur, look, I'm sorry. I couldn't tell you."
Lancelot hangs back, watches both Merlin and Arthur carefully.
"Merlin, all that time," Arthur answers. "You were in the castle. Close to Father. Close to me. And..."
"And what?"
"I don't know. What were you doing?"
Merlin stands up straight. "Serving you."
"Using magic."
Merlin sighs. "Yes, when I had to so that I could help you. To protect Camelot."
Arthur shakes his head once and steadies his voice. "You can never return to Camelot."
"What?" Merlin tries to step closer to Arthur but the knights hold him back.
"The king will have you executed if you do."
"Arthur--"
"No."
Lancelot steps in. "Arthur, Merlin just saved all of our lives."
"With magic."
"Yes, with magic. He's a brave man. He knew what you'd think but he did the right thing. And you're going to punish him for it?"
But Arthur won't listen. He orders the knights to ride back to Camelot. He tells Merlin not to follow them.
Then Merlin is in exile for a few episodes until he hears about some attack on Camelot and he has to go back to protect the castle. After Camelot is safe, Uther orders Merlin's execution. Uther questions Gaius to find out if he was helping Merlin keep his secret. Arthur doesn't say anything in public.
Then it's up to Arthur to save Merlin, to convince Uther that Merlin did nothing wrong. If Arthur can get over the way Merlin lied to him over the years.
-----
However the show deals with Arthur finding out, I want it to last a few episodes. We've seen the measures Uther takes to forbid magic in his kingdom. We've seen Arthur question Uther and evaluate the pros and cons of magic. All the while, we've seen a friendship between Arthur and Merlin that grows stronger. When Arthur finds out that Merlin has magic, they will have a messy problem. I don't want to see it tidied up nice and neat in one hour.
Here's a scenario I'd like to see on Merlin when Arthur finds out that Merlin has magic.
The knights of Camelot, Lancelot, Arthur, and Merlin are away from Camelot, fighting a small army or maybe magical creatures. The knights are losing and Merlin knows he can save them all if he uses magic. Similar situation to that episode about his hometown. Problem is, he'll definitely expose himself. But Merlin can't let everyone die so he uses magic, defeats the bad guys, and saves everyone.
Everybody saw it. Everybody is stunned.
Arthur orders two knights to grab Merlin and bring him to Arthur.
"All this time, Merlin?" Arthur says.
Merlin looks at him and nods. "Yes."
Arthur takes a step back, rubs his hand across his face. "I thought I knew you. I trusted you."
Merlin doesn't say anything for a moment and then: "Arthur, look, I'm sorry. I couldn't tell you."
Lancelot hangs back, watches both Merlin and Arthur carefully.
"Merlin, all that time," Arthur answers. "You were in the castle. Close to Father. Close to me. And..."
"And what?"
"I don't know. What were you doing?"
Merlin stands up straight. "Serving you."
"Using magic."
Merlin sighs. "Yes, when I had to so that I could help you. To protect Camelot."
Arthur shakes his head once and steadies his voice. "You can never return to Camelot."
"What?" Merlin tries to step closer to Arthur but the knights hold him back.
"The king will have you executed if you do."
"Arthur--"
"No."
Lancelot steps in. "Arthur, Merlin just saved all of our lives."
"With magic."
"Yes, with magic. He's a brave man. He knew what you'd think but he did the right thing. And you're going to punish him for it?"
But Arthur won't listen. He orders the knights to ride back to Camelot. He tells Merlin not to follow them.
Then Merlin is in exile for a few episodes until he hears about some attack on Camelot and he has to go back to protect the castle. After Camelot is safe, Uther orders Merlin's execution. Uther questions Gaius to find out if he was helping Merlin keep his secret. Arthur doesn't say anything in public.
Then it's up to Arthur to save Merlin, to convince Uther that Merlin did nothing wrong. If Arthur can get over the way Merlin lied to him over the years.
-----
However the show deals with Arthur finding out, I want it to last a few episodes. We've seen the measures Uther takes to forbid magic in his kingdom. We've seen Arthur question Uther and evaluate the pros and cons of magic. All the while, we've seen a friendship between Arthur and Merlin that grows stronger. When Arthur finds out that Merlin has magic, they will have a messy problem. I don't want to see it tidied up nice and neat in one hour.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Up in the Air's product placement
I watched Up in the Air (2009) today and I noticed every single time the Hilton and American Airlines logos were on screen. I know that's the point. But I don't mind when logos and brand names are in the background. I don't mind if characters say a brand name instead of something generic. But I do mind when product placement is a prominent part of the plot. Ryan Bingham (played by George Clooney) always flies on American Airlines and stays in Hilton hotels, and he has special frequent customer privileges. That's most of the story.
Maybe I'm not being fair. The movie is well-made. Beautiful shots, well-edited, good performances. That's all true. A plot twist I didn't predict. Points for that. But I didn't find myself caring about the characters that much.
I felt distanced, but maybe that's me.
Maybe I'm not being fair. The movie is well-made. Beautiful shots, well-edited, good performances. That's all true. A plot twist I didn't predict. Points for that. But I didn't find myself caring about the characters that much.
I felt distanced, but maybe that's me.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Finding the Little Guys
On April 24, Andrew Bravener posted this video:
He addresses the problems he sees within the YouTube community, and his biggest complaint is that people with low numbers of subscribers have a difficult time getting exposure on YouTube. His video has sparked an enormous discussion and 242 video responses have been uploaded so far.
In one of those response videos, finchiphile made a suggestion to start a Tumblr page where people can submit interesting content from new vloggers or vloggers who do not have a huge subscriber base. The hopes are to kickstart the YouTube community, have video conversations, and share the fun of making videos.
Regardless of what you think of the points Andrew made in his video, this Tumblr page that came out of the conversation is a neat idea. The page is a good place to find little-known YouTubers, and anyone can submit videos they think deserve more attention.
I've watched several of the video responses, so I don't remember who said YouTube has to cater to the masses in order to survive, but that's true. At least the people who are interested in the community aspect have a way to find each other on Tumblr.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Unsubscriptions
I went through my YouTube subscriptions and cut them down from 60 channels to 32. Some of the channels I unsubscribed from don't post videos anymore, but many of them post videos too often. They sit in my subscription box and I don't bother watching them. The thing is, I'll remember those YouTubers who post videos too often because they upload for the sake of uploading. If I feel like popping over to their channels to watch some of their videos, I'll do that. In the meantime, I don't care to keep up with everything they upload.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Reading List
I started a list on my fiction blog to keep track of the books I'm reading. This was inspired by Matthew Elmslie, whose blog you should check out.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Hearing what I can't see
I'm taking an intro to music class this semester that's basically a historical survey. We started in the Middle Ages and by the end of the semester we'll be talking about modern music. I haven't had a formal music class since 8th grade and since this is my last semester of college, I thought I should fit in one.
I'm a visual learner, so what's difficult for me about studying music is that all the things you learn about are things you hear. In a literature course, I can find passages and make connections between them. I can analyze film scenes. I can write out Spanish compositions.
I can't see music. The professor can explain where a chord change is but I still have to listen for it. We can talk about separate voices in imitative polyphony, but it's nothing I can point out.
These aren't difficult concepts, but they don't come naturally to me. I have to pay extra attention and take careful notes. It's funny how this 101 class takes more effort than my 400-level Spanish lit. But that's how it goes for me.
I'm a visual learner, so what's difficult for me about studying music is that all the things you learn about are things you hear. In a literature course, I can find passages and make connections between them. I can analyze film scenes. I can write out Spanish compositions.
I can't see music. The professor can explain where a chord change is but I still have to listen for it. We can talk about separate voices in imitative polyphony, but it's nothing I can point out.
These aren't difficult concepts, but they don't come naturally to me. I have to pay extra attention and take careful notes. It's funny how this 101 class takes more effort than my 400-level Spanish lit. But that's how it goes for me.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Apologetic Professors
I have a professor this semester who is really nice and a great teacher, but he constantly apologizes for the work we have to do for his class. What is that about? The whole point of college is reading, writing, and going to class. That's what full-time students do.
That soft attitude that apologizes for giving work is exactly why students get away with not doing any work. You don't have to do the reading if you know the professor won't call on you unless you raise your hand. You don't have to worry about answering questions incorrectly if you know the professor will sugar-coat his correction and move on. ("Well, that's one way of thinking about it but does anyone have a different idea?") You can BS and the professor won't call you on it.
I've had moments when I considered a teaching career. Students would hate me for calling on them randomly and making sure they do their work, but I think I'd be a good teacher. My Spanish teachers in high school were like that: they expected us to do a lot of work, they called on us on the spot, and they weren't always nice about correcting us. I hated it sometimes but I also learned a lot.
I know in college your work is your own responsibility, but I would be delighted if professors called out students for not doing their work.
"What do you mean you don't know the answer? Did you do the reading?"
"No..."
"Then see to it that you do for the next class." Then the professor randomly calls on someone else. Repeat until he finds someone who knows the correct answer.
Keep doing that to students and they'll learn to do their work so they're not embarrassed in front of the whole class. I know I'm a little old-fashioned in the way I think students and teachers should be, but this easy-going attitude drives me crazy. People wonder why the U.S. is falling behind other countries in education. The reason is we have this education system that doesn't hold students accountable. We're more concerned with pleasing people than making sure students learn.
That soft attitude that apologizes for giving work is exactly why students get away with not doing any work. You don't have to do the reading if you know the professor won't call on you unless you raise your hand. You don't have to worry about answering questions incorrectly if you know the professor will sugar-coat his correction and move on. ("Well, that's one way of thinking about it but does anyone have a different idea?") You can BS and the professor won't call you on it.
I've had moments when I considered a teaching career. Students would hate me for calling on them randomly and making sure they do their work, but I think I'd be a good teacher. My Spanish teachers in high school were like that: they expected us to do a lot of work, they called on us on the spot, and they weren't always nice about correcting us. I hated it sometimes but I also learned a lot.
I know in college your work is your own responsibility, but I would be delighted if professors called out students for not doing their work.
"What do you mean you don't know the answer? Did you do the reading?"
"No..."
"Then see to it that you do for the next class." Then the professor randomly calls on someone else. Repeat until he finds someone who knows the correct answer.
Keep doing that to students and they'll learn to do their work so they're not embarrassed in front of the whole class. I know I'm a little old-fashioned in the way I think students and teachers should be, but this easy-going attitude drives me crazy. People wonder why the U.S. is falling behind other countries in education. The reason is we have this education system that doesn't hold students accountable. We're more concerned with pleasing people than making sure students learn.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
YouTube Likes
There was a time when I would click the thumbs up button on videos made by people I'm subscribed to on YouTube when the video started. That's not the case anymore.
My mouse still hovers over to the thumb buttons but I don't click. I watch the video and sometimes halfway through I'll click the thumbs up button. Sometimes I wait until the very end. Sometimes I don't click at all.
It's not that I dislike the videos I've been watching lately, but many of them are not worth the three-ish minutes it takes to watch them. Many of them are of a lower quality than what I watched a year ago. Two years ago. Vloggers get better cameras and lighting. They learn to edit better. But in a lot of cases the content quality goes down.
I don't click the thumbs down button, though. Instead I'm waiting for the videos to be better again. I'm waiting for minutes better spent.
My mouse still hovers over to the thumb buttons but I don't click. I watch the video and sometimes halfway through I'll click the thumbs up button. Sometimes I wait until the very end. Sometimes I don't click at all.
It's not that I dislike the videos I've been watching lately, but many of them are not worth the three-ish minutes it takes to watch them. Many of them are of a lower quality than what I watched a year ago. Two years ago. Vloggers get better cameras and lighting. They learn to edit better. But in a lot of cases the content quality goes down.
I don't click the thumbs down button, though. Instead I'm waiting for the videos to be better again. I'm waiting for minutes better spent.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Content Saturation
Alan Lastufka wrote a tumblr post about being bored with YouTube videos because people are uploading for quantity rather than quality.
His post reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's words:
I feel the same way Alan does about some of the vloggers I watch, but I hadn't bothered to voice my thoughts anywhere. For me it's a passing feeling of apathy every time I go to YouTube. Too many videos from the same people in too short of a time for me to care. Then I saw Alan's post on tumblr and realized other people are feeling the same way for the same reasons.
I'm much more inclined to watch a video posted by someone who hasn't updated in a while or someone who updates at irregular intervals. I don't expect regular videos unless it's something that has to have regular updates like VEDA or the Ford Fiesta project from a few years ago. I expect vloggers to post videos when they have an idea for a video. Like Alan said, I don't see the point in making a video for the sake of uploading a new video on a regular basis.
If vloggers post videos only when they have something to say, show, or announce, then I know that when I see their videos in my subscription box, they will be something exciting to watch. Something new.
When I go to YouTube and see a handful of videos from one person, all posted this week, I'm going to assume it isn't worth the time to watch them all. They're probably more of the same instead of a little something different.
Besides YouTube, I've noticed that I've been getting bored with content on other sites as well. I hardly log in to Twitter anymore because it's a lot of noise and very little substance. I've unsubscribed from blogs I used to love because nowadays they update 5 times a day with filler posts. There might be something worth reading once a week.
I let tumblr off the hook because that's supposed to be a stream of a lot of content. Even so, I limit the number of people I follow so that I can actually keep up with their blogs instead of having to dig through a lot of excess content.
Saturation, saturation. Every time this happens, when I get bored with the sites I'm on, I go looking for another site to browse. Last week, I finally joined Reddit, but that's barely keeping my attention. I poke around for a few minutes and then I find something else to do.
His post reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's words:
In every work of genius, we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.
I feel the same way Alan does about some of the vloggers I watch, but I hadn't bothered to voice my thoughts anywhere. For me it's a passing feeling of apathy every time I go to YouTube. Too many videos from the same people in too short of a time for me to care. Then I saw Alan's post on tumblr and realized other people are feeling the same way for the same reasons.
I'm much more inclined to watch a video posted by someone who hasn't updated in a while or someone who updates at irregular intervals. I don't expect regular videos unless it's something that has to have regular updates like VEDA or the Ford Fiesta project from a few years ago. I expect vloggers to post videos when they have an idea for a video. Like Alan said, I don't see the point in making a video for the sake of uploading a new video on a regular basis.
If vloggers post videos only when they have something to say, show, or announce, then I know that when I see their videos in my subscription box, they will be something exciting to watch. Something new.
When I go to YouTube and see a handful of videos from one person, all posted this week, I'm going to assume it isn't worth the time to watch them all. They're probably more of the same instead of a little something different.
Besides YouTube, I've noticed that I've been getting bored with content on other sites as well. I hardly log in to Twitter anymore because it's a lot of noise and very little substance. I've unsubscribed from blogs I used to love because nowadays they update 5 times a day with filler posts. There might be something worth reading once a week.
I let tumblr off the hook because that's supposed to be a stream of a lot of content. Even so, I limit the number of people I follow so that I can actually keep up with their blogs instead of having to dig through a lot of excess content.
Saturation, saturation. Every time this happens, when I get bored with the sites I'm on, I go looking for another site to browse. Last week, I finally joined Reddit, but that's barely keeping my attention. I poke around for a few minutes and then I find something else to do.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Flicker In The Night
I've been updating my short fiction blog often over the last few weeks. I'm not sure if that's only because I've been home on break of if it's something that will continue, but it's something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)