City of Kik |
|
|
Media, entertainment, speculative fiction -- it's all here at the City of Kik. Discuss movies, television, theater, books, music, comics. Everything from mainstream pop culture to fringe cult delights. HOME Archives: 
|
Monday, January 26, 2004
LONG LIVE DVD
A cool discussion emerged on my friend Speaker's Web site, -- he basically criticized Hollywood's attempts to come up with a new format to outsell DVDs. But he and I and others figure, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Speaker mentioned digital VHS. I wrote: It's still TAPE though, and tape sucks (remember audio cassettes?) -- One of the joys of CDs and DVDs is that you can jump to any scene, any track, any bonus feature, that you want. "Rewinding" and "Fast-forwarding" is so much easier. Sure, D-VHS might have solved the image-clarity problems of its predecessor, but it's still TAPE. Might as well come out with DIGITAL vinyl or DIGITAL 8-tracks. Long live DVDs. Then Q responded wisely: Do not support any initiative by the media companies (physical or broadcast media - both apply) to help them tighten their control over content distribution, whether the proposal be technically superior or no. (And I sincerely doubt that D-VHS is a technically superior product except on the relatively unimportant grounds of having a better picture than DVD - that's only one measure, and DVD is already so good that does any home viewer really care?) We're in a war right now that most people don't pay much attention to or care about - and the end result is going to be that you have to pay Sony or Vivendi for permission to tune in your car radio, watch a movie that you've already purchased (but which has per-viewing fees enforced by checks across the Internet, since our home appliances will all soon have their own IP addresses), or watch a movie in your living room that is stored on the device in your bedroom on which it was originally downloaded. (The latter problem is already here - TiVo extorts a $100 one time fee from you to allow this even though their boxes already come with the necessary hardware). People will care when those things happen, unless it happens so gradually that they don't notice it, but it'll be too late by the time they do. Fight content control in any format you find it, even when it comes packaged in a nice shiny new format. You've been warned. Anyway really, VHS? Yeech... To which the Great and Powerful Kik responds: Word up, Q. That's why that wacky "rental no return" DVD crap format is failing (the one that Disney tried to support, in which the disc would "self-destruct" or become unviewable after 5 days or some such nonsense). The studio propaganda is "hey, you can now rent DVDs and not worry about returning them." Of course they would love for that format to work because they cost more than regular rentals (average $5 I think) and the disks become useless garbage after only a few views, so the customer needs to rent it again to watch it. Fuck 'em all! The big corporations have to realize that it's it's bullshit like that that is making the population sick of all the high costs of movies and DVDs and CDs, etc., and that's why free file-sharing is so attractive to so many. You won't get people to go see more movies by raising ticket prices, you won't get people to spend more money by offering gimmicks that swindle them out of their hard earned cash. The best thing for them to do is offer incentives for frequent movie-goers to get discounts and bargains, and offer cheaper DVDs for collectors like me. But the studios view us as the enemy. Bunch of retards. It just pisses me off that these studio bigshots want to milk fans dry. They'd make more money by using common sense instead of alienating us all with their greed. Don't support their crazy new formats with your hard-earned cash -- spend your money wisely. Again I say, long live DVDs. Monday, January 19, 2004
KIK'S ORIGINAL CRITICS ESSAY
My current essay on the sorry-state of professional "criticism" is on the new City of Kik Web site at http://www.cityofkik.com but here's a blast from the past -- my original essay which inspired me to write my new essay. This original version was published a few years ago -- I sent an e-mail commenting on film critics to David Poland, writer of the "Hot Button" and he was kind enough to name me "reader of the day" for Friday, January 5, 2000, and post my message on his column in TNT's Rough Cut website which is now dearly departed -- he referred to me as "Nick the Non-Greek." Here are my original pearls of wisdom... 
"My problem, Mr. Poland, is the very term used to describe your profession and the many amateurs out there ready to usurp you and Roger Ebert and Elvis Mitchell, et al. ‘Film criticism’ has a negative connotation, and that is part of the problem. The word "critic" has come to represent a stereotype in and of itself -- someone who looks for flaws, rather than someone who looks to enlighten the masses with a point of view that might enrich their moviegoing experiences. "A better term would be ‘film analysis.’ Opinions are a dime a dozen. The early ‘critics’ that you mentioned (before the era of Siskel and Ebert and the dawn of the Internet) were ‘film analysts.’ They were schooled in film theory and they discussed the merits of particular films not just on visual aesthetics and story structure and characterization but also on how those films fit in the broader light of cinema history and within their own specific genres. "Nowadays, as the cliché goes, ‘everyone’s a critic.’ As you mentioned, people aren’t even ‘reviewing’ films anymore. There are no film analysts out there. Legitimate critics just rehash the plots and tell us in 500 words of meaningless verbiage or less whether the movie ‘sucked’ or ‘ruled.’ Sites like Ain’t It Cool News and others aren’t about "film analysis and discussion," they’re more about trying to find out anything and everything about a film before the movie comes out. Film criticism has mutated into a bizarre act of judging a film before it even comes out based on leaked scripts and costume designs and storyboards and ‘insider gossip’ and that all-important pre-release ‘buzz.’ So is it any wonder that so few movies really enchant us the way they used to? And is it so surprising that these ‘critics’ are just pop-culture ‘media whores’ without any real insight on the films they write about? "Most of these critics can’t even write, if I can be perfectly blunt. And I’m not just talking about Harry Knowles’s ellipses-abuse and stream-of-consciousness style. A lot of professional writers for the mainstream press can’t seem to put decent sentences together or elaborate on profound ideas that make film-buffs like me take notice. "You’re right that today’s ‘critics’ need to define themselves better. Most of them are just Naysayers of Doom reporting fluff on the ‘biz’ rather then sharing their reactions to the art of cinema. Hollywood is concerned about the bottom line and, in their case, rightfully so. BBut critics should become analysts again and not dumb down ttheir craft to feed the lowest common denominator. If they ttake their profession seriously and view themselves as more than just media whores, then maybe the general public will start taking them more seriously again and be influenced by them again. But as of right now, I value the opinions of critics no more than I do anyone else’s...and oftentimes less. They no longer are the arbiters of taste that they have long claimed to be." Monday, January 05, 2004
The Crocodile Hunter is now being criticized for dangling his baby over a crocodile. True, the guy is a putz. But a lot of parents have no sense when it comes to caring for their kids.
What about parents who playfully toss their kids in the air and catch them? Or grab them by the hands and spin them in a circle? Aren't they putting their kids at risk? I think the Crocodile Hunter did have the baby under control, and it's not like a total novice was feeding a crocodile while holding a baby in their arm, but STILL it was a dumb thing to do. Luckily it didn't turn into a tragedy. Parents need to show common sense. People blame the media for a lot of things, but often when kids get hurt it's because parents weren't watching or were being stupid.
Pete Rose has allegedly finally confessed (in his new autobiography) that he did indeed bet on baseball. Now some people think he's been "punished enough" and should be immediately reinstated into baseball (allowing him to work again in Major League Baseball) and placed in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
My opinion is he definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame, but he should continue to be banned from the MLB. There are allegedly signs in every Major League clubhouse clearly stating that no gambling is permitted. For Pete Rose as a manager of a major league club (and one of the greatest players to have ever played the game) to flagrantly disregard that rule (and law) and knowingly bet ON BASEBALL is inexcusable. He shamed the sport and tarnished his reputation forever. However, I also agree that the Hall of Fame should be about accomplishments on the field, not off. Gambling is an addiction -- should Mickey Mantle not be in the Hall because he stated that he was an alcoholic? Pete Rose got the most hits in the history of baseball -- he deserves to be up there with others who had lesser talent but still have a plaque. But that still doesn't lessen the stupidity of Rose's actions. He deserved to be banned from baseball for what he did. Saturday, January 03, 2004
|