I love music, and though the first question is asking for an experience where I tried to censor music I can honestly say that I've never tried to divert someone else's taste or drive them into some place where they wouldn't want to be. Music is a form of self expression and its upsetting when people try to curate others tastes. Has there been music that's 'crossed the line'? Most likely but I wouldn't want to see it go away. I listen to a lot of Punk Rock and Hardcore Punk and a lot of the White Power music that lodges itself into the Punk music is honestly horrible but there are so many bands that stand against that so they're in the minority.
I feel that music is important for us to grow as people because we are accepting a voice that is different from our own and I love hearing how others feel.
My favorite form of music is Hardcore Punk. I thought about top five for awhile and for me it would probably be Minor Threat, Agnostic Front, The Nihilistics, Reagan Youth, and the Dead Kennedys
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Week 8 Topic
For this week I decided to look at the controversial subject of banned books in the United States. There are some that I noticed right off the bat. All Quiet on the Western Front, The Call of the Wild, The Catcher in the Rye, and the one that surprised me the most was James and the Giant Peach. These books all feature some sort of content that would be seen as very controversial to give to kids who are just adapting to the literary world but I also feel like these books are crucial to understanding our world. All Quiet on the Western Front apparently featured 'anti-American' themes when the book tries to bolster the German military but how is that different from what our military does when confronting 'our' enemies. Call of the Wild has Socialist themes and during the time it came out the US Government was trying to restrict the outreach of the Communist agenda. The Catcher in the Rye follows a kid through a tough time, and honestly I think it's pretty boring and tame. James in the Giant Peach apparently was banned due to involvement with the psychedelic drug era.
I disagree with banning books. We should not limit what is accessible to developing minds. They should see other outlooks, and other ideas and learn to think about what it is they are reading about. Trying to contrive their minds does more harm than good. We cannot feed them safe books. I think feeding into this wave controlled viewing has also led to a narrow interpretation of world history, and events so I think we just need to let kids read.
I'm into spy novels like Ian Fleming and even Tom Clancy. I have Killing Floor, The Cardinal of the Kremlin, and Red Storm Rising just to name a few. The Cold War era spy novels jump into a world that might've existed beneath our very noses yet nobody really knows about. It's a genre of exploration into the sensibilities of nations, and the greed of the Arms Race. It opens my eyes to the possibilities of what is going on around us, and it has led me to think about many of our own issues and how it might all just be a ploy to keep us distracted when we think we're getting involved.
I disagree with banning books. We should not limit what is accessible to developing minds. They should see other outlooks, and other ideas and learn to think about what it is they are reading about. Trying to contrive their minds does more harm than good. We cannot feed them safe books. I think feeding into this wave controlled viewing has also led to a narrow interpretation of world history, and events so I think we just need to let kids read.
I'm into spy novels like Ian Fleming and even Tom Clancy. I have Killing Floor, The Cardinal of the Kremlin, and Red Storm Rising just to name a few. The Cold War era spy novels jump into a world that might've existed beneath our very noses yet nobody really knows about. It's a genre of exploration into the sensibilities of nations, and the greed of the Arms Race. It opens my eyes to the possibilities of what is going on around us, and it has led me to think about many of our own issues and how it might all just be a ploy to keep us distracted when we think we're getting involved.
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Blog Project 2
For my second Blog Project I really thought about what it was I should do, and it took me time to decide what kind of topic I wanted to fully immerse myself into. As an avid comic book fan I thought I'd delve into one of the more interesting comic book movies that came out recently. Avengers: Infinity War. It particularly stands out to me, as a comic book fan, because you can go to these movies without any prior knowledge of the comics and thoroughly enjoy them. In fact I think people who aren't engraved in comic book lore enjoy them the most because most who follow the comics always knitpick a little too much. The general public is going crazy for superhero films and Infinity War exceeds the high expectations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZfuNTqbHE8
The movie was directed by Joe, and Anthony Russo and has a huge list of star actors and actresses such as Robert Downey Jr, Chris Pratt, Josh Brolin, Scarlett Johansson, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista and many more. The actors all deliver very strong performances throughout, with many praising Spider-Man (played by Tom Holland's) character. The beginning of the movie is about a very powerful being known as Thanos who is hunting for the Infinity Gems so he can cleanse what he determines to be an overpopulated galaxy. Standing in his way is an assembly of Heroes from all over the galaxy who are driven to stop him and protecting the fate of the entire galaxy.
When it comes to similarities and differences the first thing we can do is look at the original subject material which is the comics themselves. Now they've streamlined a lot of the lore so that general audiences can enjoy the movies without having to diverge time to look through the many seas of comics to understand what's going on. The movies still maintain the relative feel of the comics without a lot of the baggage that comes with it. In the Original Quest for the Gauntlet storyline that the movie is based on it's actually a big reveal to be Thanos, in the movie though it mostly centers around Thanos as a central character instead of an antagonist that appears at the very end for an epic battle. Another way it's similar is Thanos' motivations for cleaning the galaxy and many of events throughout the movie are ripped straight from a comic panel which is a good ode to those that follow the books.
Within the genre I say it stands different just based on the scale of the film. Most superhero films have a central narrative which is the character it tries to follow throughout. In this one the narrative jumps around a bit and for some it can lead to people being withdrawn from the whole process of the film because we're never in one place for too long. They also work to develop the motivations of the villain. In many films in this genre we don't get a lot of depth into the villain apart from the fact that he's an evil bad guy, the only other movie in this genre that really gives the villain as much depth that I can think of is The Dark Knight with Heath Ledger's adaptation of the Joker. These two movies stand on their own when it comes to character development for the villain. It's similar to other hero films because we still get the colors, crazy unbelievable things that happen, the powers that many characters have. You can watch fifteen seconds of the trailer and know what kind of movie it is without any knowledge of what you're seeing.
I think this film is important because it is full recognition of a type of literature that hasn't been well received when translating over to films for generations. Are these films perfect? No, but they deliver on a lot of the quality that is missing when you turn a novel into a movie. I usually despise book-turned-movie projects because they remove the qualities of the book but for these movies they do the comic books a lot of justice. It matters to me, and many other comic nerds specifically because it wasn't popular to be into comics several years ago. Growing up I remember being made fun of for enjoying comic books and now it seems like everyone is. It's a big shift in our culture. I think with how cynical our culture is we look to demagogues from the comics for inspiration because a lot of us just want to find something to be hopeful about and the message these films send are very positive. The target audience is kids through young adults but I think anyone of any age can truly find enjoyment in this movie. For stereotypes there's only one I can really recall off the top of my head and that's Drax (played by Dave Bautista). He's kind of playing the big, muscular, drooling idiot. The film does good things for him but there are moments that are meant to make you laugh, even if they are slightly offensive. Such as when he claims that nobody can see him when he's completely still, even when that isn't true at all.
The strengths are in the set piece moments, costume designs, character interpretations, and action sequences. This movie really delivers on the imagination of the comic book fan. The CGI is really top notch and there isn't any movie out there that I think is better. There are still moments where you can tell that it's CGI but it doesn't take away from the experience. One example of CGI that was noticeably CGI and detracted from the experience was when Iron Man gets into his suit for the first time but beyond that the CGI is great. I only have two things that I'd consider to be a weakness for this movie and that's the campy humor which is a staple of these movies. In this it's just too much and I think they should've dialed it down a lot. The last thing is the pacing. Sometimes it slows down too much and we're left trying to catch up, but then it speeds up and you get lost trying to keep up and process everything. I think there must've been two sides in the development team that were conflicted about how fast the movie should be going at. The movie is very good.
I'm not too familiar with the work done by the Russo brothers but since they've taken on many of the Marvel films I've felt improvement in the quality of the movies so I'd say they did pretty good. Considering the movie came out four months ago and people still talk about it I guess you can say it's pretty memorable.
Critics for the film have been very positive, mostly citing the effects, action, and the characterization of Thanos to be the best points of the film. One such reviewer claimed that: "Thanos' plot is explicitly, enthusiastically genocidal." Which is exactly what his character so happens to be. Another reviewer said this in regards to a criticism: "the plot is extended absurdly due to the film trying to fit a little slot for every character to shine. While it's good at first it does get a little predictable with how it fleshes the characters out." For the most part I agree with the positive reviews, but can also understand the negative ones because they do make valid points.
The many actors and directors used social media to promote the film, with many of the actors posting iconic lines from their characters. I'd say fans were so hyped up for the movie that these little posts didn't really do much to draw interest because people were already excited but it satiated the taste of fans up until the release. I actually went out and bought the film even after watching it a handful of times. I'm familiar with many of the actors and actresses careers so I do already follow the ones I like. Most of my friends enjoyed it, as did my family even though I had personally catch them up on a lot of the details prior to watching the film.
In giving this critique one thing I learned is how different expectations are for these kinds of things. Also I learned how nuts the public is for these movies when ten years ago superhero films were mostly B-movies you bought in the 5 dollar bin at Walmart. We've definitely come a long way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZfuNTqbHE8
The movie was directed by Joe, and Anthony Russo and has a huge list of star actors and actresses such as Robert Downey Jr, Chris Pratt, Josh Brolin, Scarlett Johansson, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista and many more. The actors all deliver very strong performances throughout, with many praising Spider-Man (played by Tom Holland's) character. The beginning of the movie is about a very powerful being known as Thanos who is hunting for the Infinity Gems so he can cleanse what he determines to be an overpopulated galaxy. Standing in his way is an assembly of Heroes from all over the galaxy who are driven to stop him and protecting the fate of the entire galaxy.
When it comes to similarities and differences the first thing we can do is look at the original subject material which is the comics themselves. Now they've streamlined a lot of the lore so that general audiences can enjoy the movies without having to diverge time to look through the many seas of comics to understand what's going on. The movies still maintain the relative feel of the comics without a lot of the baggage that comes with it. In the Original Quest for the Gauntlet storyline that the movie is based on it's actually a big reveal to be Thanos, in the movie though it mostly centers around Thanos as a central character instead of an antagonist that appears at the very end for an epic battle. Another way it's similar is Thanos' motivations for cleaning the galaxy and many of events throughout the movie are ripped straight from a comic panel which is a good ode to those that follow the books.
Within the genre I say it stands different just based on the scale of the film. Most superhero films have a central narrative which is the character it tries to follow throughout. In this one the narrative jumps around a bit and for some it can lead to people being withdrawn from the whole process of the film because we're never in one place for too long. They also work to develop the motivations of the villain. In many films in this genre we don't get a lot of depth into the villain apart from the fact that he's an evil bad guy, the only other movie in this genre that really gives the villain as much depth that I can think of is The Dark Knight with Heath Ledger's adaptation of the Joker. These two movies stand on their own when it comes to character development for the villain. It's similar to other hero films because we still get the colors, crazy unbelievable things that happen, the powers that many characters have. You can watch fifteen seconds of the trailer and know what kind of movie it is without any knowledge of what you're seeing.
I think this film is important because it is full recognition of a type of literature that hasn't been well received when translating over to films for generations. Are these films perfect? No, but they deliver on a lot of the quality that is missing when you turn a novel into a movie. I usually despise book-turned-movie projects because they remove the qualities of the book but for these movies they do the comic books a lot of justice. It matters to me, and many other comic nerds specifically because it wasn't popular to be into comics several years ago. Growing up I remember being made fun of for enjoying comic books and now it seems like everyone is. It's a big shift in our culture. I think with how cynical our culture is we look to demagogues from the comics for inspiration because a lot of us just want to find something to be hopeful about and the message these films send are very positive. The target audience is kids through young adults but I think anyone of any age can truly find enjoyment in this movie. For stereotypes there's only one I can really recall off the top of my head and that's Drax (played by Dave Bautista). He's kind of playing the big, muscular, drooling idiot. The film does good things for him but there are moments that are meant to make you laugh, even if they are slightly offensive. Such as when he claims that nobody can see him when he's completely still, even when that isn't true at all.
The strengths are in the set piece moments, costume designs, character interpretations, and action sequences. This movie really delivers on the imagination of the comic book fan. The CGI is really top notch and there isn't any movie out there that I think is better. There are still moments where you can tell that it's CGI but it doesn't take away from the experience. One example of CGI that was noticeably CGI and detracted from the experience was when Iron Man gets into his suit for the first time but beyond that the CGI is great. I only have two things that I'd consider to be a weakness for this movie and that's the campy humor which is a staple of these movies. In this it's just too much and I think they should've dialed it down a lot. The last thing is the pacing. Sometimes it slows down too much and we're left trying to catch up, but then it speeds up and you get lost trying to keep up and process everything. I think there must've been two sides in the development team that were conflicted about how fast the movie should be going at. The movie is very good.
I'm not too familiar with the work done by the Russo brothers but since they've taken on many of the Marvel films I've felt improvement in the quality of the movies so I'd say they did pretty good. Considering the movie came out four months ago and people still talk about it I guess you can say it's pretty memorable.
Critics for the film have been very positive, mostly citing the effects, action, and the characterization of Thanos to be the best points of the film. One such reviewer claimed that: "Thanos' plot is explicitly, enthusiastically genocidal." Which is exactly what his character so happens to be. Another reviewer said this in regards to a criticism: "the plot is extended absurdly due to the film trying to fit a little slot for every character to shine. While it's good at first it does get a little predictable with how it fleshes the characters out." For the most part I agree with the positive reviews, but can also understand the negative ones because they do make valid points.
The many actors and directors used social media to promote the film, with many of the actors posting iconic lines from their characters. I'd say fans were so hyped up for the movie that these little posts didn't really do much to draw interest because people were already excited but it satiated the taste of fans up until the release. I actually went out and bought the film even after watching it a handful of times. I'm familiar with many of the actors and actresses careers so I do already follow the ones I like. Most of my friends enjoyed it, as did my family even though I had personally catch them up on a lot of the details prior to watching the film.
In giving this critique one thing I learned is how different expectations are for these kinds of things. Also I learned how nuts the public is for these movies when ten years ago superhero films were mostly B-movies you bought in the 5 dollar bin at Walmart. We've definitely come a long way.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Topic: Fake News
Do I think national media is obstructive? Yes, absolutely. When the president does it though it just seems a little hypocritical if I'm being honest because the role of the president is to provide a medium for shifting stories, and outright lying to the general public. When Trump started giving information about the ongoing conflict in Syria and how our military is to proceed the information given by Trump was very reminiscent of the information the Bush administration gave in 1991 (and again in 2003) to justify military action Iraq. This time the narrative was centered in Syria, however.
Again, the role of the president is to do disserviceable things that are hidden from the general public. Trump likes to wear his misdeeds on his sleeves and his followers covet this ability he has to nonchalantly act on his impulses. He even stated that he could 'shoot someone and not lose any followers.' He's fabricated this personality cult around himself and his loyal followers don't seem to have any issue with admitting that they admire him.
For the final question I have issues discerning whether it's a strength or a weakness. I think Trump is just as bad as any other lying, degenerate that's held the position of President. The things he says proves that he isn't above making comments that the previous presidents would rather keep in the shadows because he seems to have little fear of any ramifications regarding his erroneous comments. I wouldn't say he's telling it how it is because perspectives vary, but he's certainly telling it how I'd imagine an overconfident billionaire with no consideration for the people he views to be beneath would see the world.
Again, the role of the president is to do disserviceable things that are hidden from the general public. Trump likes to wear his misdeeds on his sleeves and his followers covet this ability he has to nonchalantly act on his impulses. He even stated that he could 'shoot someone and not lose any followers.' He's fabricated this personality cult around himself and his loyal followers don't seem to have any issue with admitting that they admire him.
For the final question I have issues discerning whether it's a strength or a weakness. I think Trump is just as bad as any other lying, degenerate that's held the position of President. The things he says proves that he isn't above making comments that the previous presidents would rather keep in the shadows because he seems to have little fear of any ramifications regarding his erroneous comments. I wouldn't say he's telling it how it is because perspectives vary, but he's certainly telling it how I'd imagine an overconfident billionaire with no consideration for the people he views to be beneath would see the world.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Topic: Wikileaks
I think the responsibilities and the actions of WikiLeaks are completely justifiable and are in service to the good of the general public. The fact that they face scrutiny from the federal security division (which has embezzled illegal currency, funneled arms to terrorist groups, and supplied groups like the cartel with drugs) is to me already a reason to trust them. Such a task could be deemed irresponsible if the WikiLeaks ever became invoked in Political discourse and started to cater to the Elite, but they haven't. They are people who have stuck to their guns and have risked their livelihoods just to get the real story across. Now I feel this way because corruption exists in all forms within not only the Government, but also through lines in the media. Corroborating false stories, favoring one Political monster over another, endorsing horrible candidates. Honestly as bad as many feel WikiLeaks is the only question I have is would you trust the other media circuses to have your back?
The video example given during the TED talk of unarmed Iraqi citizens getting fired upon with no provocation was a good example of how America carries itself out and demonstrates its power and aggression. The Iraq War was a cluster of violence and fatigue and the US did not even try to minimize its destabilization of the country while they occupied it and this video, along with many other videos that have surfaced, just shows how unwilling we are to abide by the rules we create and demand that others follow.
Free Speech and free expression are very broad topics of discussion for me. I think the state of both haven't really changed overtime as many have come to think. Our 'social liberties' have always been encroached upon. Politicians and authority figures like to dangle it in our face that we're 'free' and always bring the constitution and the liberties we are afforded but they often twist them to correlate with their actions, and resolve their guilty actions. Public schools teach impressionable kids to subscribe to their ideas instead of building them up to find out for themselves. While the freedom of our expressions may seem vast we've grown up in such a way that our minds think these sensibilities are nullified while the elite slowly strip us of our autonomy and our own thoughts.
The video example given during the TED talk of unarmed Iraqi citizens getting fired upon with no provocation was a good example of how America carries itself out and demonstrates its power and aggression. The Iraq War was a cluster of violence and fatigue and the US did not even try to minimize its destabilization of the country while they occupied it and this video, along with many other videos that have surfaced, just shows how unwilling we are to abide by the rules we create and demand that others follow.
Free Speech and free expression are very broad topics of discussion for me. I think the state of both haven't really changed overtime as many have come to think. Our 'social liberties' have always been encroached upon. Politicians and authority figures like to dangle it in our face that we're 'free' and always bring the constitution and the liberties we are afforded but they often twist them to correlate with their actions, and resolve their guilty actions. Public schools teach impressionable kids to subscribe to their ideas instead of building them up to find out for themselves. While the freedom of our expressions may seem vast we've grown up in such a way that our minds think these sensibilities are nullified while the elite slowly strip us of our autonomy and our own thoughts.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Topic 2: Television Show/Streaming Video Series
The show that I have chosen for this Topic is a show called House of Cards. I watched the very first episode of the first season on 7/11/2018, at roughly 8:00 pm, on the streaming service of Netflix. This show has been lambasted with controversy mostly following Kevin Spacey's scornful antics, but what lies underneath is a very tight, and well written political drama.
In the very first episode Congressman Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is a cold, and vicious man driven to get what he wants. When the newly elected president Garrett Walker (Michel Gill) doesn't honor his agreement to acknowledge the position of Secretary of State and appoint Underwood for that position Frank realizes that it's going to be a dirty game. We also meet Claire (Robin Wright), who is Frank's wife. The two are perfect for one another as they are both driven, determined, and cold to a fault. In the chaos of it all reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) sees the role Underwood could play in revealing the corruption in Washington and turns to him to offer information while also accepting her place as Underwood's informant in return. One thing I've noticed is that there's a certain drive and determination that all the characters have that is constantly shifting as they begin to unravel more information about their situation. With Zoe she is first doubtful of Frank but upon learning of his convictions is willing to open up to him some more.
Critics were all very favorable of the show, lauding Spacey and Wright's performance in their roles. Though Spacey is a well known actor many critics have described his role in the show as 'career defining' and that this is the greatest role in a movie or television show to date. From the first season they wanted to converge with the system of American politics and its corruption but by the time Donald Trump was put into office the show deviated from that and looked to feature a different approach.
The attitude of the show, to me, is America's lack of trust in those that claim to represent them. They wear clean suits with ties but the tasks they do cast a shadow over their clean appearance. Americans, even those that would claim to be apolitical, all have some level of distrust for their Government and this show is the confirmation of all our fears and doubts. It's for the culture of American paranoia in the post-9/11 era.
In comparison to other shows out there that are within the spectrum of dramas such as Breaking Bad, or even Game of Thrones the show is well written, with a strong cast, and it doesn't throw everything at you at once. It gracefully introduces new plot points naturally and uses the 'show-don't-tell' method of storytelling which is what viewers want, and not a lot of tv shows deliver on.
What makes it different, to me is the storyline. We're basically following the antagonists, though there aren't any other characters in the show that really give off the vibe of being heroes, or redeemably good people. Following the bad guys is a much different approach compared to shows like Madam Secretary or the West Wing which try to portray the characters as heroes of the free world. These politicians are not heroes and so there's a gritty realism to the whole show and it follows a path very few shows do.
The only real stereotype that I've found in the show is in the main character, Frank Underwood, himself. He is a driven, cold man who plays the role of a politician. He's sneaky, intelligent, motivated, and an evocative liar. The others are mostly natural characters who avoid clichés and though there are plenty to follow Frank I also believe that his clichés in character flow with a natural purpose to them. To me the show's demographics are mostly towards people in their mid twenties and up who are interested in this kind of thing. When you're younger it's hard to grasp the finer concepts of the show but an older audience will definitely enjoy most of what it has to offer. If I were from another country to me this would make me see America as a place where, behind all the 'American Dream' stuff there's a darker, more violent side to it all.
The strength of the show is in its consistency, character portrayal, and narrative. The show is so seamless in its narrative and will construct something that is easy to follow, yet very comprehensive as well. The only weakness I had was early on it was hard to get invested in any real character because most of the characters were very bad people but as the season goes on it becomes easier to side with the characters evil motives because they're realistic. It brings a real honest view of character morality and what I once saw as a weakness actually did turn into a strength. Another I wasn't fond of was the pacing, I felt like the season had an issue of running far too long and for Netflix shows that seems to be a running theme.
Most reviews of the show have been very favorable and praise its darker themes. "The tone is dark and delightfully tasteful." One rotten tomato reviewer stated.
To be honest I'm not big on television or watching series because it takes a lot of time to get invested into something like that and I just don't really have the time for it. That being said I have sat and watched quite a few episodes in a row and I've enjoyed the time watching it. I do have a few friendly acquaintances that watch it and they all personally enjoy it. I'm not personally a fan of Facebook. I mostly follow Twitter for updates and Robin Wright has always been one to post updates on the coming episodes as well. Though people used to make favorable comments now the fanbase is centered on Kevin Spacey and his horrible actions.
For the most part I've learned about the shows' response to our political culture and everything that goes along with it. This show isn't satire but the response is almost satire-esque in its approach to how it seems to acknowledge American politics in the 21st century. What was most surprising was the reaction to the show when it first came out and how that changed from applause to dismissal so quickly due to Spacey's antics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULwUzF1q5w4
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/house_of_cards/s01/
https://www.netflix.com/title/70178217
https://twitter.com/HouseofCards
In the very first episode Congressman Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is a cold, and vicious man driven to get what he wants. When the newly elected president Garrett Walker (Michel Gill) doesn't honor his agreement to acknowledge the position of Secretary of State and appoint Underwood for that position Frank realizes that it's going to be a dirty game. We also meet Claire (Robin Wright), who is Frank's wife. The two are perfect for one another as they are both driven, determined, and cold to a fault. In the chaos of it all reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) sees the role Underwood could play in revealing the corruption in Washington and turns to him to offer information while also accepting her place as Underwood's informant in return. One thing I've noticed is that there's a certain drive and determination that all the characters have that is constantly shifting as they begin to unravel more information about their situation. With Zoe she is first doubtful of Frank but upon learning of his convictions is willing to open up to him some more.
Critics were all very favorable of the show, lauding Spacey and Wright's performance in their roles. Though Spacey is a well known actor many critics have described his role in the show as 'career defining' and that this is the greatest role in a movie or television show to date. From the first season they wanted to converge with the system of American politics and its corruption but by the time Donald Trump was put into office the show deviated from that and looked to feature a different approach.
The attitude of the show, to me, is America's lack of trust in those that claim to represent them. They wear clean suits with ties but the tasks they do cast a shadow over their clean appearance. Americans, even those that would claim to be apolitical, all have some level of distrust for their Government and this show is the confirmation of all our fears and doubts. It's for the culture of American paranoia in the post-9/11 era.
In comparison to other shows out there that are within the spectrum of dramas such as Breaking Bad, or even Game of Thrones the show is well written, with a strong cast, and it doesn't throw everything at you at once. It gracefully introduces new plot points naturally and uses the 'show-don't-tell' method of storytelling which is what viewers want, and not a lot of tv shows deliver on.
What makes it different, to me is the storyline. We're basically following the antagonists, though there aren't any other characters in the show that really give off the vibe of being heroes, or redeemably good people. Following the bad guys is a much different approach compared to shows like Madam Secretary or the West Wing which try to portray the characters as heroes of the free world. These politicians are not heroes and so there's a gritty realism to the whole show and it follows a path very few shows do.
The only real stereotype that I've found in the show is in the main character, Frank Underwood, himself. He is a driven, cold man who plays the role of a politician. He's sneaky, intelligent, motivated, and an evocative liar. The others are mostly natural characters who avoid clichés and though there are plenty to follow Frank I also believe that his clichés in character flow with a natural purpose to them. To me the show's demographics are mostly towards people in their mid twenties and up who are interested in this kind of thing. When you're younger it's hard to grasp the finer concepts of the show but an older audience will definitely enjoy most of what it has to offer. If I were from another country to me this would make me see America as a place where, behind all the 'American Dream' stuff there's a darker, more violent side to it all.
The strength of the show is in its consistency, character portrayal, and narrative. The show is so seamless in its narrative and will construct something that is easy to follow, yet very comprehensive as well. The only weakness I had was early on it was hard to get invested in any real character because most of the characters were very bad people but as the season goes on it becomes easier to side with the characters evil motives because they're realistic. It brings a real honest view of character morality and what I once saw as a weakness actually did turn into a strength. Another I wasn't fond of was the pacing, I felt like the season had an issue of running far too long and for Netflix shows that seems to be a running theme.
Most reviews of the show have been very favorable and praise its darker themes. "The tone is dark and delightfully tasteful." One rotten tomato reviewer stated.
To be honest I'm not big on television or watching series because it takes a lot of time to get invested into something like that and I just don't really have the time for it. That being said I have sat and watched quite a few episodes in a row and I've enjoyed the time watching it. I do have a few friendly acquaintances that watch it and they all personally enjoy it. I'm not personally a fan of Facebook. I mostly follow Twitter for updates and Robin Wright has always been one to post updates on the coming episodes as well. Though people used to make favorable comments now the fanbase is centered on Kevin Spacey and his horrible actions.
For the most part I've learned about the shows' response to our political culture and everything that goes along with it. This show isn't satire but the response is almost satire-esque in its approach to how it seems to acknowledge American politics in the 21st century. What was most surprising was the reaction to the show when it first came out and how that changed from applause to dismissal so quickly due to Spacey's antics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULwUzF1q5w4
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/house_of_cards/s01/
https://www.netflix.com/title/70178217
https://twitter.com/HouseofCards
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Week 3 Questions
Topic 1:
https://www.facebook.com/NATO/<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FNATO%2Fposts%2F1860949817261674&width=500" width="500" height="569" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>
https://twitter.com/NATO
For the organization I've chosen it's NATO, which was a treaty established by the western powers to keep order within their countries, but also to impose on their enemies. Social media is used to showcase the readiness of their military units. This is seen by the posts they make, and the live feeds they stream over social media. They show off troops, training, equipment, and vehicles of the varying NATO countries and even show videos of them training together to show collaboration and how well they can work together.
The target audience isn't just NATO allies, but also those that would seek to challenge NATO in any capacity. During the 2014 crisis in Ukraine NATO escalated the process of sending these videos out, and there were multiple videos released daily showing the effectiveness of their units and even making dramatizations to show what a US campaign against Russia could possibly look like.
I think one thing I'd change in the marketing campaign was to make the videos less directed at an enemy. NATO loves to point the finger at any country they disagree with and make them their guinea pig. To me this shows the type of aggressive antics that NATO is inexplicably known for by quite a few countries.
Topic 2:
I don't watch television but on YouTube I've seen constant advertising of YouTube Red which is YouTube that is subscription based and is supposed to be about special content that is only released on Red. What stood out is that it didn't really change YouTube. Everything I wanted to watch was still made available but what it did was make 'special' videos available and they never really describe just what these videos are so it was a real sloppy advertising campaign if you ask me.I believe the target audience to be young adults. Most young adults are at the center of most online marketing campaigns and YouTube is a clear area where young people often use their own voice to spread their own message.
It's bandwagon effect. They're trying to build their following for Red by trying to indicate that they have some kind of following, which I'm not convinced they do.
I think this campaign has failed. Everyone I know uses YouTube in some capacity but YouTube doesn't work like Netflix or Amazon Prime. YouTube began as a free use model and so people are so accustomed to that. Now they're trying to adopt the pay-to-use model but in a limited way. Every person I talk to has stated that they don't like Red, nor do they use it in any way so I think it's a pretty unpopular thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)