My cousin had a theory that due to the internet and social networking, no one can ever again be truly "famous."
It's an interesting idea. I think a person's initial reaction would be "What?! No! The opposite is true! The internet allows more people to be discovered and to become famous!"
But isn't that exactly it? It's like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "And when everyone's super, no one will be." [yes, I did just quote a Pixar movie]
I think the classic idea of "fame" was created by significant amounts of mystery. People became starstruck over actors and actresses, because though they portrayed all sorts of characters that viewers could intimately connect with, none of these personas were the REAL them. So who were they really? Rich, talented, enigmas hidden behind sunglasses, gracefully smiling at flashing cameras.
That romantic idea cannot remotely apply to today's "famous" people like the Kardashians or other reality stars.
I'm not sure whether or not my cousin was right about fame becoming extinct. But perhaps fame has become distorted. Just as over the years the beauty of cities becomes hidden in a layer of smog and pollution, fame now means every detail of the actor's life on display. Tabloids record the most intimate of facts and make up the rest. There is no privacy, and a person's entire lives are the viewer's entertainment. Such words as "mystery" and "class" are now meaningless.
Then again... cities were probably just as polluted, dirty, and smog filled back then, it's only now that we know that smog is dangerous and not just the romantic haze of the city lights. Drugs, depression, and scandal were as much a part of Hollywood then as they were now. Perhaps it's good that we now shine a spotlight on those on the stage, because now they can't get away with it (without public shaming at least).
I don't know... regardless of these meandering thoughts, I still think the celebrities of Audrey Hepburn's day are classy, romantic, and lovely. And yet.... I also think it would be quite nice to be famous today as well. Perhaps if I became famous, I could pull some mystery and intrigue back into the mix?
(Because shine as many spotlights on me as you like, good luck figuring me out. I've been living with me for 23 years and I've got no fucking clue what's going on.)
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Hunger Games vs. Battle Royale
So I hope everyone enjoyed my Sherlock reference in those first two blog posts. And if you didn't catch it, then we probably can't be friends. Or at the very least, it will be very difficult.
I've been meaning to write this for a while... like say right after I finished The Hunger Games and watched Battle Royale... but life, etc. you know.
I work at a bookstore, so of course, The Hunger Games are a BIG DEAL. Lots of people have been comparing them to Battle Royale, which when I read the books, I had not yet watched (I know, I know, travesty and all that). I have since amended this, and yes, Battle Royale was AWESOME. But I don't think it's fair to say that The Hunger Games were just copying Battle Royale and that Battle Royale was SOOOOOOO much better and The Hunger Games are TOTALLY lame and the same as Twilight.
First off, I should say I have not yet seen The Hunger Games movie. I plan on it, but I don't really pay for movies whenever possible and I work at least 6 days a week so it just hasn't happened yet. All I know about the movie is that the girl that plays Katniss is rather hot. [Wait. Is she legal? Ah, okay she is, never mind, we're good.] So that is to say, I'm comparing a book to a movie, which is never really fair to do.
I'm going to argue that all the naysayers that have been saying Battle Royale is AWESOME and The Hunger Games SUCKS are really just comparing apples and oranges. Why can't they both be delicious? Sure, they're both fruit, but despite that similarity, there are enough differences between the two to make it unfair to force someone to "choose sides" as it were.
The most basic argument I've heard is that both movies are about children being forced to kill each other. While this may seem like a very unique plot, some would say there is no such thing as a unique plot anymore. Every story, whether it be in a book, a movie, a tv show, or anything else, can be pared down to a basic plot that has been done before. Let's face it, it's 2012 and people have been coming stories long before a system of writing had even been created. As time goes on, the harder it will be to come up with unique stories, as is very obvious when one looks at the movies (read: sequels and remakes) that are coming out these days. It's not all bad though, this just is an opportunity for writers to really push the limits of their creativity. No more slacking and using basic ideas, and you can pretty much throw out that novella you started on the teenage vampire in love, because it's been done at least 32 times already. We have a best selling paranormal romance highlights section. Yes, it's come to that point.
Speaking of points, I should get back to mine... Battle Royale and The Hunger Games both play with a similar idea: what if children had to fight each other? But the answers that Koushun Takami and Suzanne Collins gave to that question were quite different.
I'm going to jump ahead to deal with one thing I heard said. "I don't get it, why didn't the kids just NOT kill each other in The Hunger Games? I mean, at least in Battle Royale there were BOMBS so they HAD to kill each other..." I hadn't thought of this until that person said this (a coworker I think) but it's a really interesting observation, and I actually thing it adds a deeper level of observation of the human psyche in both Battle Royale and The Hunger Games. Battle Royale looks at "what if the children were suddenly forced, with no prior knowledge, to kill each other?" whereas in The Hunger Games, the idea is "what if children were raised knowing there was the possibility they would have to kill each other?" These are VERY different scenarios not to mention the fact that in Battle Royale all the children knew each other whereas in The Hunger games, most were strangers. Of course any human, if forced to make the choice, would rather kill someone they didn't know than someone they did. It's easier to rationalize the death of a stranger.
Back to the idea The Hunger Games deals with. What if children were raised knowing they would have to kill each other? This is not so much a look into the human psyche as it is a look at society, humans as a whole. Battle Royale is more a psychological level whereas The Hunger Games could be called more sociological. Battle Royale looks at the individual classmates, all of whom have enemies, crushes, and friends they are now being told to kill. What would this do to a person? How would you react, if in your first year of high school, you were told only one of your class could survive? You have enemies in your class, best friends, and a crush. What horrible conflicting thoughts would battle in your mind? Battle Royale could really be called a psychological gore fest, if you look at it this way.
The Hunger Games is different. For generations and generations, this is the way things have been done. It's in history books. There is no other way. Why didn't the kids just not kill each other? If for no other reason, it's because that's just not the way it's done. When something lasts long enough to become tradition throughout the ages, there IS no other way. Especially not in the minds of young, fearful, society controlled, insecure teens. Not to mention if one kid refused to kill the others, he would be killed, and even on the impossible chance that all the children would not fight, then their families would likely be slaughtered. This is obvious with [slight spoiler] Katniss' rebellious act at the end of the first book and how she pays dearly in the second and last books. [end slight spoiler]
On to another difference. Battle Royale is a snapshot. Other than a few lines of setting the scene at the beginning and a few seconds of a hint of what kind of future awaits, the movie focuses on the single battle royale that this one particular class undergoes. The Hunger Games is more of an epic scale. [SPOILER] By the end of the third book, there are no more hunger games.[END SPOILER] But at the end of Battle Royale... [spoiler] the two surviving children haven't really changed their society at all. In fact, we don't even really know exactly how they are affected by their experiences.[end spoiler] Again I get the feeling of psychology versus sociology. But this particular argument could be different if I read the book Battle Royale. I will admit that.
One of my friends (whom I love dearly despite my disagreement on this particular point) said that by the second and third books, Katniss was so whiny it was intolerable. I would call this "realism." I think Katniss held up rather well considering the SHIT she underwent, I mean, we're talking major PTSD. The fact that she has nightmares for the rest of her life -I- would say was pretty damn realistic.
Something I read somewhere on the internet that I would also like to argue against. [MAJOR spoiler] They said it was out of character for Katniss to settle down and have a family at the end of the third book, because she was always so independent. Okay. For one, she was so opposed to having a family all along BECAUSE of the games. Why would anyone want to have children in a world in which you might have to watch your child die or at best, become a murderer? She didn't want to be with someone because it wouldn't be fair to whomever she was with if he wanted children. I would also argue she was afraid of her own feelings, due to that stubborn idea that showing feelings for someone can make someone look weak. Second. This argument implies that an independent woman (or person in general) cannot be in a committed relationship and be independent. Which I find quite rude and a bit personally insulting.
Final argument to deal with (that I can think of right now). The Hunger Games is just like Twilight.
No. No, no, no.
Okay, yes, movie companies are pushing the FUCK out of this movie and book series with marketing, the advertising is EVERYWHERE and it is COMPLETELY fucking ridiculous. I'm not trying to argue that The Hunger Games series is even worth all the hype. Sure, they're great, I ate them up, I couldn't put them down. But you should see the merchandise. At my bookstore, we sell Hunger Games UMBRELLAS. No joke. You name it, there is a Hunger Games version of it. Movie people are DESPERATE for something big, Harry Potter's over, Twilight is done (thank god) and they reeeeeeeeally need the next big thing. Twilight didn't get as big as Harry Potter and they're in withdrawal after having 8 years of guaranteed hit selling movies/books/posters/jewelry/underwear. So yeah, the hype is a bit over the top. But! That doesn't mean that it's not a great series definitely worth a read. I am guilty of the temptation to scoff at anything that is trending intensely, I understand that, but just because it's fad level popular right now doesn't make it TWILIGHT.
I'm not going to spend much time on this.
1. Plot is better. (and no sparkly vampires)
2. Characterization is better. (the main character has a personality, flaws, and strengths. Both male leads have both flaws and strengths.)
3. It's well written.
Okay. Done with that.
In conclusion, it's okay to love Battle Royale and The Hunger Games. See Battle Royale, read The Hunger Games. I highly recommend both. Comparing is fun, baseless hating is not fun :( .
So thanks for reading this ESSAY I unintentionally wrote. Sorry I didn't correctly italicize my book and movie titles. Are movie titles italicized or in quotes? Oh well, don't care, no longer in school. If anyone actually read all this then... wow... that's kind of amazing....
Next time my blog will probably be something more personal!
Now I'm going to go pee and watch CAPTAIN AMERICA yaaaaay if my internet doesn't fail because it sucks.
Bye!
I've been meaning to write this for a while... like say right after I finished The Hunger Games and watched Battle Royale... but life, etc. you know.
I work at a bookstore, so of course, The Hunger Games are a BIG DEAL. Lots of people have been comparing them to Battle Royale, which when I read the books, I had not yet watched (I know, I know, travesty and all that). I have since amended this, and yes, Battle Royale was AWESOME. But I don't think it's fair to say that The Hunger Games were just copying Battle Royale and that Battle Royale was SOOOOOOO much better and The Hunger Games are TOTALLY lame and the same as Twilight.
First off, I should say I have not yet seen The Hunger Games movie. I plan on it, but I don't really pay for movies whenever possible and I work at least 6 days a week so it just hasn't happened yet. All I know about the movie is that the girl that plays Katniss is rather hot. [Wait. Is she legal? Ah, okay she is, never mind, we're good.] So that is to say, I'm comparing a book to a movie, which is never really fair to do.
I'm going to argue that all the naysayers that have been saying Battle Royale is AWESOME and The Hunger Games SUCKS are really just comparing apples and oranges. Why can't they both be delicious? Sure, they're both fruit, but despite that similarity, there are enough differences between the two to make it unfair to force someone to "choose sides" as it were.
The most basic argument I've heard is that both movies are about children being forced to kill each other. While this may seem like a very unique plot, some would say there is no such thing as a unique plot anymore. Every story, whether it be in a book, a movie, a tv show, or anything else, can be pared down to a basic plot that has been done before. Let's face it, it's 2012 and people have been coming stories long before a system of writing had even been created. As time goes on, the harder it will be to come up with unique stories, as is very obvious when one looks at the movies (read: sequels and remakes) that are coming out these days. It's not all bad though, this just is an opportunity for writers to really push the limits of their creativity. No more slacking and using basic ideas, and you can pretty much throw out that novella you started on the teenage vampire in love, because it's been done at least 32 times already. We have a best selling paranormal romance highlights section. Yes, it's come to that point.
Speaking of points, I should get back to mine... Battle Royale and The Hunger Games both play with a similar idea: what if children had to fight each other? But the answers that Koushun Takami and Suzanne Collins gave to that question were quite different.
I'm going to jump ahead to deal with one thing I heard said. "I don't get it, why didn't the kids just NOT kill each other in The Hunger Games? I mean, at least in Battle Royale there were BOMBS so they HAD to kill each other..." I hadn't thought of this until that person said this (a coworker I think) but it's a really interesting observation, and I actually thing it adds a deeper level of observation of the human psyche in both Battle Royale and The Hunger Games. Battle Royale looks at "what if the children were suddenly forced, with no prior knowledge, to kill each other?" whereas in The Hunger Games, the idea is "what if children were raised knowing there was the possibility they would have to kill each other?" These are VERY different scenarios not to mention the fact that in Battle Royale all the children knew each other whereas in The Hunger games, most were strangers. Of course any human, if forced to make the choice, would rather kill someone they didn't know than someone they did. It's easier to rationalize the death of a stranger.
Back to the idea The Hunger Games deals with. What if children were raised knowing they would have to kill each other? This is not so much a look into the human psyche as it is a look at society, humans as a whole. Battle Royale is more a psychological level whereas The Hunger Games could be called more sociological. Battle Royale looks at the individual classmates, all of whom have enemies, crushes, and friends they are now being told to kill. What would this do to a person? How would you react, if in your first year of high school, you were told only one of your class could survive? You have enemies in your class, best friends, and a crush. What horrible conflicting thoughts would battle in your mind? Battle Royale could really be called a psychological gore fest, if you look at it this way.
The Hunger Games is different. For generations and generations, this is the way things have been done. It's in history books. There is no other way. Why didn't the kids just not kill each other? If for no other reason, it's because that's just not the way it's done. When something lasts long enough to become tradition throughout the ages, there IS no other way. Especially not in the minds of young, fearful, society controlled, insecure teens. Not to mention if one kid refused to kill the others, he would be killed, and even on the impossible chance that all the children would not fight, then their families would likely be slaughtered. This is obvious with [slight spoiler] Katniss' rebellious act at the end of the first book and how she pays dearly in the second and last books. [end slight spoiler]
On to another difference. Battle Royale is a snapshot. Other than a few lines of setting the scene at the beginning and a few seconds of a hint of what kind of future awaits, the movie focuses on the single battle royale that this one particular class undergoes. The Hunger Games is more of an epic scale. [SPOILER] By the end of the third book, there are no more hunger games.[END SPOILER] But at the end of Battle Royale... [spoiler] the two surviving children haven't really changed their society at all. In fact, we don't even really know exactly how they are affected by their experiences.[end spoiler] Again I get the feeling of psychology versus sociology. But this particular argument could be different if I read the book Battle Royale. I will admit that.
One of my friends (whom I love dearly despite my disagreement on this particular point) said that by the second and third books, Katniss was so whiny it was intolerable. I would call this "realism." I think Katniss held up rather well considering the SHIT she underwent, I mean, we're talking major PTSD. The fact that she has nightmares for the rest of her life -I- would say was pretty damn realistic.
Something I read somewhere on the internet that I would also like to argue against. [MAJOR spoiler] They said it was out of character for Katniss to settle down and have a family at the end of the third book, because she was always so independent. Okay. For one, she was so opposed to having a family all along BECAUSE of the games. Why would anyone want to have children in a world in which you might have to watch your child die or at best, become a murderer? She didn't want to be with someone because it wouldn't be fair to whomever she was with if he wanted children. I would also argue she was afraid of her own feelings, due to that stubborn idea that showing feelings for someone can make someone look weak. Second. This argument implies that an independent woman (or person in general) cannot be in a committed relationship and be independent. Which I find quite rude and a bit personally insulting.
Final argument to deal with (that I can think of right now). The Hunger Games is just like Twilight.
No. No, no, no.
Okay, yes, movie companies are pushing the FUCK out of this movie and book series with marketing, the advertising is EVERYWHERE and it is COMPLETELY fucking ridiculous. I'm not trying to argue that The Hunger Games series is even worth all the hype. Sure, they're great, I ate them up, I couldn't put them down. But you should see the merchandise. At my bookstore, we sell Hunger Games UMBRELLAS. No joke. You name it, there is a Hunger Games version of it. Movie people are DESPERATE for something big, Harry Potter's over, Twilight is done (thank god) and they reeeeeeeeally need the next big thing. Twilight didn't get as big as Harry Potter and they're in withdrawal after having 8 years of guaranteed hit selling movies/books/posters/jewelry/underwear. So yeah, the hype is a bit over the top. But! That doesn't mean that it's not a great series definitely worth a read. I am guilty of the temptation to scoff at anything that is trending intensely, I understand that, but just because it's fad level popular right now doesn't make it TWILIGHT.
I'm not going to spend much time on this.
1. Plot is better. (and no sparkly vampires)
2. Characterization is better. (the main character has a personality, flaws, and strengths. Both male leads have both flaws and strengths.)
3. It's well written.
Okay. Done with that.
In conclusion, it's okay to love Battle Royale and The Hunger Games. See Battle Royale, read The Hunger Games. I highly recommend both. Comparing is fun, baseless hating is not fun :( .
So thanks for reading this ESSAY I unintentionally wrote. Sorry I didn't correctly italicize my book and movie titles. Are movie titles italicized or in quotes? Oh well, don't care, no longer in school. If anyone actually read all this then... wow... that's kind of amazing....
Next time my blog will probably be something more personal!
Now I'm going to go pee and watch CAPTAIN AMERICA yaaaaay if my internet doesn't fail because it sucks.
Bye!
Friday, March 30, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)