Sometimes I wonder about the 'net. No doubt it is a powerful and world changing creation, simply due to how much faster it makes it to share information and communicate. But when I see things like Time magazine naming "You" the Person of the Year because of how people have empowered themselves over the Internet, I pause.
When the film Snakes on a Plane was released, every news outlet remarked about how Internet fans were gathering together to celebrate its creation and release, how they even got parts of the film to change based on their wants. The Snakes phenomenon was amazing.
Then no one actually went to see the film. Not even most of the people who were swept up in the hype. Because that's all it really was, hype. Something people played along with because it was fun, but in truth they really didn't give a shit. Snakes on the Plane was a joke (I still saw it).
Or how about Youtube? Apparently its one of the biggest tools to give the Power to the People on the 'net. This is certainly possible if Youtube was filled with morons. Sadly, 90% of the content on the site is like this . How is this power over anything?
Web 2.0. Apparently we'll all be changed by social networking. Because we all know that we can't contact close friends in person, or on the phone, or via IM. No, now have put it all on seven different sites so our pals can see it that many times. Every time I go on Facebook I see people joining clubs that no one will ever care about, not even them. Revolution indeed.
How many times have we seen online petitions, and how many have actually done anything. How many bloggers actually have enough power to warrant the attention (and party invites) they sometimes get?
Maybe its not big deal in the end.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 16, 2007
Pink
At the liquor store, I walked past a curious display on the way to the register. It was there that I discovered one of the most blatant attempts at making a lot of money off of young (mostly underaged), stupid drinkers.
Meet P.I.N.K. Its vodka with caffeine and guarana infused in it, so you can stay up and drink even longer than usual.
Times are changing in the world of alcohol. A new wave of young drinkers, especially women drinkers, is flooding the market, and it has become the case where even a freshman in high school can get to booze if they really want to, and college guys are following the ladies in their drinking habits so that everyone is happy. In order to attract these consumers, companies have been creating all sorts of wilder (or if you're an older drinker, blashpemous) concoctions using fruit juice, chocolate, vanilla, and anything else sweet. It has lead to vodkas, rums, malt beverages and others that taste like kool-aid more than a spirit. This kind of alcohol has the double benefit of tasting like something they already know and like while still getting them hammered, as opposed to the strong, burning flavor of your average spirit. New marketing techniques are also needed in order to make this stuff sellable (you're not going to see 40 year olds running out to by banana schnapps).
So let's break down PINK and see just how clever it is. Most traditional spirits try to convey a look of class and sophistication, proudly presenting their quality and heritage, and always come in a glass bottle. The drink comes in a frosted plastic bottle (it certainly didn't look like glass from my view), with a sleek and minimalistic label. Its shape and color reminded me of a shampoo bottle. A blog comment I saw said "it looks and sounds like something that would sit next to a tween's lip gloss", and I tend to agree. Kids these days detest anything that looks old or outdated - "sleek and sexy" is the phrase of the times, and having it look like another familiar product is quite clever. PINK's bottle is much easier to abuse (and hide) than a fifth of Scotch, and since everything's made of plastic these days a teen would feel right at home with it (whereas an adult might take offense to a premium vodka not being bottled in a glass).
Which leads to my next point; PINK goes for $40 a bottle, more apparently in some areas. That puts it in the super premium price range with other popular names like Grey Goose. As the Goose has shown, it is very easy to dupe young folk into paying more for a hyped up name in hopes of obtaining quality and luxury. Any taste test on vodka I've ever read puts Grey Goose squarely in the middle, and often misses "top 10" lists, whereas as cheaper stuff like Smirnoff usually impresses for the price. PINK could put any hooch in that bottle and make people believe it is liquid diamond. That is not to say that it isn't good without trying it, but it would be hard to convince me that part of that price tag isn't name and image.
Finally, I don't really like the idea of caffeine infused liquor. If PINK really is worth its price, then there are two things we know about it. One, it shouldn't be mixed with anything, and probably shouldn't be done as shots either. Two, you shouldn't be drinking a lot of it at once. Yet the idea of caffeine in your drink is to help you stay up and drink more, and while that doesn't necessarily mean you have to drink more PINK, if the night goes on long enough a group of kids probably will finish the bottle in a night. That's good for sales, and disrespectful to the fine art of enjoying quality spirits. My friends and I would never demolish a whole bottle of Gentlemen Jack in a night, but I guess when you're young, reckless and full of disposable income you don't really care about such things.
Will PINK take off? I'm sure it will. Hell, I'm surprised no one thought of this sooner. Nevertheless, I'm getting quite bothered at what the drinking scene is becoming, as college and high schoolers encourage wasting quality liquor and skimping on cheap beer. In fifteen years you might walk into an Applebee's and be unable to buy a drink that doesn't taste like Kool Aid.
I'll let you know if I ever see it on campus.
Meet P.I.N.K. Its vodka with caffeine and guarana infused in it, so you can stay up and drink even longer than usual.
Times are changing in the world of alcohol. A new wave of young drinkers, especially women drinkers, is flooding the market, and it has become the case where even a freshman in high school can get to booze if they really want to, and college guys are following the ladies in their drinking habits so that everyone is happy. In order to attract these consumers, companies have been creating all sorts of wilder (or if you're an older drinker, blashpemous) concoctions using fruit juice, chocolate, vanilla, and anything else sweet. It has lead to vodkas, rums, malt beverages and others that taste like kool-aid more than a spirit. This kind of alcohol has the double benefit of tasting like something they already know and like while still getting them hammered, as opposed to the strong, burning flavor of your average spirit. New marketing techniques are also needed in order to make this stuff sellable (you're not going to see 40 year olds running out to by banana schnapps).
So let's break down PINK and see just how clever it is. Most traditional spirits try to convey a look of class and sophistication, proudly presenting their quality and heritage, and always come in a glass bottle. The drink comes in a frosted plastic bottle (it certainly didn't look like glass from my view), with a sleek and minimalistic label. Its shape and color reminded me of a shampoo bottle. A blog comment I saw said "it looks and sounds like something that would sit next to a tween's lip gloss", and I tend to agree. Kids these days detest anything that looks old or outdated - "sleek and sexy" is the phrase of the times, and having it look like another familiar product is quite clever. PINK's bottle is much easier to abuse (and hide) than a fifth of Scotch, and since everything's made of plastic these days a teen would feel right at home with it (whereas an adult might take offense to a premium vodka not being bottled in a glass).
Which leads to my next point; PINK goes for $40 a bottle, more apparently in some areas. That puts it in the super premium price range with other popular names like Grey Goose. As the Goose has shown, it is very easy to dupe young folk into paying more for a hyped up name in hopes of obtaining quality and luxury. Any taste test on vodka I've ever read puts Grey Goose squarely in the middle, and often misses "top 10" lists, whereas as cheaper stuff like Smirnoff usually impresses for the price. PINK could put any hooch in that bottle and make people believe it is liquid diamond. That is not to say that it isn't good without trying it, but it would be hard to convince me that part of that price tag isn't name and image.
Finally, I don't really like the idea of caffeine infused liquor. If PINK really is worth its price, then there are two things we know about it. One, it shouldn't be mixed with anything, and probably shouldn't be done as shots either. Two, you shouldn't be drinking a lot of it at once. Yet the idea of caffeine in your drink is to help you stay up and drink more, and while that doesn't necessarily mean you have to drink more PINK, if the night goes on long enough a group of kids probably will finish the bottle in a night. That's good for sales, and disrespectful to the fine art of enjoying quality spirits. My friends and I would never demolish a whole bottle of Gentlemen Jack in a night, but I guess when you're young, reckless and full of disposable income you don't really care about such things.
Will PINK take off? I'm sure it will. Hell, I'm surprised no one thought of this sooner. Nevertheless, I'm getting quite bothered at what the drinking scene is becoming, as college and high schoolers encourage wasting quality liquor and skimping on cheap beer. In fifteen years you might walk into an Applebee's and be unable to buy a drink that doesn't taste like Kool Aid.
I'll let you know if I ever see it on campus.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Fantasy Baseball
A few years ago I dropped out of the Fantasy sports scene, and I thought it was for good. I felt it involved too much effort for little reward (we never played for money), and revolved around luck as much as skill. Plus it seemed to be dominating sports news, broadcasts and commentary. Real life games come first, fantasy always second. These days it is often hard to tell.
So what's the point of this post? I'm shamefully back in the game. One of my father's private baseball leagues ended up being short a team. With no one volunteering and their scheduled draft only days away, it was up to this washed up vet to come back to the game. My players have been drafted, and sooner or later it will be game time every day as I rotate pitchers and check the waivers.
So why the change? My aversion to fantasy sports hasn't vanished, but I suppose it has declined somewhat. In college there is so much going on that I can barely focus on my assignments, let alone baseball. After I graduate, I'll (hopefully) be in a much different daily routine as I begin working. I figured this would allow me more time and energy to focus on fantasy, either in the early morning or late at night. I also feel my baseball knowledge has sharply improved since past years, and the competitive male inside me wishes to flex that knowhow against the rest of the boys. Time will tell if this was a good choice or a bad mistake. but I know at the very least that this time, I'll actually look at my team at least once in the season (something I didn't do last time I did baseball. I literally played a season doing nothing, and was probably kicked out without me knowing). My pop will guarantee that.
So what's the point of this post? I'm shamefully back in the game. One of my father's private baseball leagues ended up being short a team. With no one volunteering and their scheduled draft only days away, it was up to this washed up vet to come back to the game. My players have been drafted, and sooner or later it will be game time every day as I rotate pitchers and check the waivers.So why the change? My aversion to fantasy sports hasn't vanished, but I suppose it has declined somewhat. In college there is so much going on that I can barely focus on my assignments, let alone baseball. After I graduate, I'll (hopefully) be in a much different daily routine as I begin working. I figured this would allow me more time and energy to focus on fantasy, either in the early morning or late at night. I also feel my baseball knowledge has sharply improved since past years, and the competitive male inside me wishes to flex that knowhow against the rest of the boys. Time will tell if this was a good choice or a bad mistake. but I know at the very least that this time, I'll actually look at my team at least once in the season (something I didn't do last time I did baseball. I literally played a season doing nothing, and was probably kicked out without me knowing). My pop will guarantee that.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
300
300 is out, all of my good friends have seen it, and the decision is unanimous; the film kicks seven layers of ass. As I expected, many Internet critics, both professional and amateur, have different things to say about the movie. I'm rarely one to take offense when something I like gets slammed in a review. However much of the criticism towards 300 bugs the hell out of me because of how very ridiculous it all is. Allow me to go over some of the more annoying things I've heard in the last few days. Note that none of these are direct quotations, but are paraphrases of some general opinions.
This one is the worst, because all you have to do to be sure is to do a bit of homework. The graphic novel for 300 was written in 1998. That means that a pro Bush piece was written.... in the Clinton years? How does that make sense? The real answer is that it is a film about the greatest soldiers to ever live partaking in grueling combat that just so happened to have been created in wartime. Clinton and Bush politics have zero influence on the nature and timing of 300 the novel or the movie. What did have an affect was the fact that Frank Miller had a very great success with Sin City, and it would be crazy not to further capitalize on his other works. Are people that desperate to find meaning in coincidence?
My brother made another good point; 300 is about a small, independent state defending against an overwhelming invasion. If anything it is anti-imperialist, and nothing like America's aggressive actions.
The worst part about this one is that it always comes from people who knew it wouldn't be accurate before they went to see the film. So what point do they have in bemoaning something they were prepared for? Simply to flex their intellectual muscles in front of the Internet crowds. We get that your smart. No one cares.
I'm getting sick of every critic grasping for something anti-war in action films, or for some deep political message in modern film of any genre. I've read reviews for children's movies where they seem to find some messages to ponder (and most of the time they're right!) I don't see why an action film about an epic Greek battle can't revel in themes of glory and resistance. Furthermore, it seems that every film made these days won't rest until it makes you think "man, I knew Bush was dumb, but I didn't know he was an idiot too!" I'm sick of all the not so subtle messages being thrown in my face every time I rent a DVD. I can think for myself Hollywood, so stop pushing whatever agendas you have onto me. Or in the case of 300, I won't think, but partake in a kickass action flick.
The moral of this story? Liberals are as bad as conservatives, though they won't tell you that. They seem to think that because they are the opposition, they're also the ones in the right. But they don't have the right answer, and they're not at all about equality and acceptance for all. It becomes more and more obvious that these folks try to attract the lower class and the common man so they can use a bit of pseudo intellectualism and persuade them to whatever agendas and bullshit they want. And when they see something that doesn't adhere to their strict rules, then its time for some haughty insults and condescension. In the case of 300, the film doesn't make everyone happy or treat everyone equally, and it doesn't try to mess with modern times in its attempt to look at more basic and ancient concepts. Apparently that is a bad thing.
Screw you guys, I'm buying the collector's DVD.
"In this time of war, 300 seems like serious Bush Administration propoganda"
This one is the worst, because all you have to do to be sure is to do a bit of homework. The graphic novel for 300 was written in 1998. That means that a pro Bush piece was written.... in the Clinton years? How does that make sense? The real answer is that it is a film about the greatest soldiers to ever live partaking in grueling combat that just so happened to have been created in wartime. Clinton and Bush politics have zero influence on the nature and timing of 300 the novel or the movie. What did have an affect was the fact that Frank Miller had a very great success with Sin City, and it would be crazy not to further capitalize on his other works. Are people that desperate to find meaning in coincidence?
My brother made another good point; 300 is about a small, independent state defending against an overwhelming invasion. If anything it is anti-imperialist, and nothing like America's aggressive actions.
"300 is clearly racist and homophobic"This one is tough. I guess you could see that in comparing the Spartans to the Persians. But it seems like a stretch to say that this is the movie where someone is making such bold statements, and instead is the reaction by an oversensitive America. Every group in the Persian army would have been likely found in the actual historical battle (though some Greeks probably would have been with them too). They also weren't viewed as incompetent. Maybe worse soldiers against the Spartans, but they still managed to win the initial battle and struck some fear into their opponents. As for Xerxes, the man thought he was a god. He had piercings all over. Clearly this is a deranged man. That's how I viewed him - crazy, but not gay. Not with all those women he had! The Persians were a massive army from all over the world. This was reflected in their look and numbers, end of story. Maybe they could have done a better job, but again, people are looking far too deep into things in order to satisfy themselves.
"The movie is not historically accurate blah blah blah"
The worst part about this one is that it always comes from people who knew it wouldn't be accurate before they went to see the film. So what point do they have in bemoaning something they were prepared for? Simply to flex their intellectual muscles in front of the Internet crowds. We get that your smart. No one cares.
"The film has no anti-war message, etc"
I'm getting sick of every critic grasping for something anti-war in action films, or for some deep political message in modern film of any genre. I've read reviews for children's movies where they seem to find some messages to ponder (and most of the time they're right!) I don't see why an action film about an epic Greek battle can't revel in themes of glory and resistance. Furthermore, it seems that every film made these days won't rest until it makes you think "man, I knew Bush was dumb, but I didn't know he was an idiot too!" I'm sick of all the not so subtle messages being thrown in my face every time I rent a DVD. I can think for myself Hollywood, so stop pushing whatever agendas you have onto me. Or in the case of 300, I won't think, but partake in a kickass action flick.
The moral of this story? Liberals are as bad as conservatives, though they won't tell you that. They seem to think that because they are the opposition, they're also the ones in the right. But they don't have the right answer, and they're not at all about equality and acceptance for all. It becomes more and more obvious that these folks try to attract the lower class and the common man so they can use a bit of pseudo intellectualism and persuade them to whatever agendas and bullshit they want. And when they see something that doesn't adhere to their strict rules, then its time for some haughty insults and condescension. In the case of 300, the film doesn't make everyone happy or treat everyone equally, and it doesn't try to mess with modern times in its attempt to look at more basic and ancient concepts. Apparently that is a bad thing.
Screw you guys, I'm buying the collector's DVD.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Something
Today is the day that Playstation Home was announced, and everyone is drooling like a dog over it. I'm seeing pictures and reports from rockstar game "journalists", and I'm realizing one of the more mature, interesting events of the year is becoming its own mini-E3. I just beat God of War a few days ago, and now I finally know what all the fuss was about.
Its so sad. Sad because I can't seem to stop myself from getting into a severe gaming depression. And I don't know if its me being a crumudgeon, or if this industry is really going to shit.
I keep telling myself its the latter. I reread that first paragraph, and I realize just how low our standards as gamers are. Home is essentially Animal Crossing crossed with Second Life, for free. And this, not any sort of game, is supposed to make me salivate for a Playstation 3. Someone wiser than me looked at Sony's GDC keynote and said it looked like Phil Harrison walked into a meeting and asked what is popular with the kids these days, then someone said "Mii's, gamerscores and Myspace", and Phil replied "do it". Can they really not see all those trends they're throwing around?
But then again, this is the same industry that gave GoTY nods to God of War, a game that tells us in its commentary how much the developers wanted to give their enemies gene nipples and genitalia. A game that set itself up for three sequels before it was even released. And I'm sure there are plenty of schmucks out there that will line up for each one of them, that listened to those developer comments and thought, "ah nipples, quite artistic. Jaffe is a man of genius!"
It takes nothing to get gamers and bloggers and journalists blowing a load. Make it indie, make it 2d, make it polished, and they'll slobber all over you. Doesn't matter how good it is, doesn't matter if it piles on heaps of bullshit so that the game's more movie than game, more work than play. They want publishers to whore out innovation until its stale as shit. They want multiplayer in places it doesn't belong.
And they all think they're so damn important, when to the rest of the world, we're still so much of a joke.
I need to find a few good games to soak myself in. Something older, something hard but not frustrating. Something to get away from it all.
Its so sad. Sad because I can't seem to stop myself from getting into a severe gaming depression. And I don't know if its me being a crumudgeon, or if this industry is really going to shit.
I keep telling myself its the latter. I reread that first paragraph, and I realize just how low our standards as gamers are. Home is essentially Animal Crossing crossed with Second Life, for free. And this, not any sort of game, is supposed to make me salivate for a Playstation 3. Someone wiser than me looked at Sony's GDC keynote and said it looked like Phil Harrison walked into a meeting and asked what is popular with the kids these days, then someone said "Mii's, gamerscores and Myspace", and Phil replied "do it". Can they really not see all those trends they're throwing around?
But then again, this is the same industry that gave GoTY nods to God of War, a game that tells us in its commentary how much the developers wanted to give their enemies gene nipples and genitalia. A game that set itself up for three sequels before it was even released. And I'm sure there are plenty of schmucks out there that will line up for each one of them, that listened to those developer comments and thought, "ah nipples, quite artistic. Jaffe is a man of genius!"
It takes nothing to get gamers and bloggers and journalists blowing a load. Make it indie, make it 2d, make it polished, and they'll slobber all over you. Doesn't matter how good it is, doesn't matter if it piles on heaps of bullshit so that the game's more movie than game, more work than play. They want publishers to whore out innovation until its stale as shit. They want multiplayer in places it doesn't belong.
And they all think they're so damn important, when to the rest of the world, we're still so much of a joke.
I need to find a few good games to soak myself in. Something older, something hard but not frustrating. Something to get away from it all.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Chart Stopping
Cnn on Taylor Hicks and his plummet on the album charts. The usual PR fluff from RIAA cronies, who remain confident in their made up star. It drives me nuts to see articles of this sort. It isn't difficult at all to see why Hicks isn't succeeding; he's a glorified karaoke singer with a silly schtick to his act. He's really not that good at what he does, certainly not to be called "American Idol", and like so many Idols before him he's faded faster than he started. Its quite telling to see that the after Kelly Clarkson, the most consistent and successful Idol singers are some of the losers, people with some real talent that simply didn't cut it in the eyes of a fickle television audience. Idol the show might be great at pulling in the ratings with its failures and its later drama, but damn the title, it is not effective at creating real talent. So let's stop worrying about it when it doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)