Culture and Entertainment

This is a very English-majory post, but I find it interesting, so hopefully some other people do too. Anyway, in one of my classes a couple semesters ago, I wrote a paper comparing the original Sherlock Holmes stories to the BBC show Sherlock and explaining how the differences between the two relate to changes that have occurred in society since the Victorian period. It was actually quite fascinating (the topic, not necessarily my paper). Since then, I've applied that thinking to other kinds of entertainment. I mean, think about it. What does our entertainment say about our society? I think it's a great window into the way we think as a culture. What makes certain things popular at certain times? Pacing, explosions, characters, plot twists? One thing that I've already commented on a few times (see "Iron Man 3" and "Superheroes") is the number of people who prefer Iron Man over Captain America. As a staunch Captain America fan, I have to wonder why. One of my college professors actually talked about this briefly before class and suggested it was a generational thing. Maybe so. Captain America is definitely an old-fashioned sort of hero, while Iron Man is very much the sarcastic darker hero that is so popular in a lot of entertainment today. So what does that say about us as a culture? It could be because of events such as 9-11, the Iraqi War, or recent economical problems. Maybe we as a people have become more cynical and therefore prefer more cynical characters. This seems especially likely if you look back on entertainment as it was basically anytime in the 20th century. I went to a symposium discussion that touched on this. The presenter was specifically talking about children's literature and how it has changed over the years in response to historical and current events. She compared children's entertainment that was popular in the 90's, such as Pokemon and Power Rangers, to what's popular now, like Hunger Games. She put Harry Potter in the 90's category as well, but I think it works for both, since it was started in 1997 and ended in 2007 and the overall tone of the series changes dramatically as it goes on. The happy, adventurous world of the first book changes into a practically post-apocalyptic world by the end of the series. It's definitely something to think about.

TV Shows

I didn't really watch that much TV until about a year ago, which was probably a very good thing. It's so addicting! It's so easy to get attached to the characters, and then it takes hours and hours to finish the story or get to the latest episode. I find it interesting to see how TV and movies are such different genres, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Movies have the advantage of being viewed in one sitting, so that the story naturally flows better and has a wider audience since those without the time or attention span to  watch an entire TV show can generally handle a 2 hour movie. TV shows, however, have the advantage of the time to really get to know the characters. Most shows I've watched often have episodes which focus on a certain character, so over time you can get to know all the main characters very well. The plots of TV shows generally aren't the most original, but they get away with it because people get so attached to the characters. The better shows have both good plots and characters, but I think those are definitely the minority. Another advantage of TV shows is that if you don't like it, you can just stop watching after one episode, whereas with movies you have to sit through the whole thing to get your money's worth. When it comes down to it, however, it seems like TV shows are given much more leeway with regards to quality in comparison to movies. Bad TV shows seem to be more popular than bad movies, especially in children's TV shows (watch Disney Channel and you'll see what I mean). However, when a TV show is good, it's good for much longer than a good movie and provides a lot more quality entertainment time. I've come to like both of these genres, although I definitely understand why people try to avoid wasting time watching TV.

Percy Jackson :)

Today I would like to dedicate a post to Percy Jackson. The cover for The House of Hades was released recently, and so I am in the mood for some demigod discussion. I just want to outline some of the defining aspects of Percy that make him such an amazing character. The first characteristic I want to talk about is his fatal flaw. While a lot of people have fatal flaws that are clearly a bad thing, Percy's flaw is that he simply cares too much. I suppose that some could argue that this is a definite weakness because it can expose him and make him vulnerable, but I think that it makes him stronger because his decisions are so morally grounded. Another reason that I love Percy so much is that he is pretty much accepting of everyone. Unless they have done something to harm his friends, he is willing to give them a chance to prove themselves. In The Mark of Athena, at one point Piper mentions that Percy is the first to notice her when she comes into the room and he gives her a smile. This alone just says a lot about his character because although he hasn't known Piper for very long, he still acknowledges her and wants to make sure she knows that she is welcome. I just love this aspect of Percy because he truly values all his friends. Another thing about him that I have admired since the first book is how much he respects and values his mother. He never gets in fights with her, and he would do anything to make her happy, and I think that that says a lot about the kind of person he is. Every time I read the part in Son of Neptune when he calls her and leaves a message I just tear up because you can tell that he loves her so much. The last aspect of Percy Jackson that I want to highlight is his  lighthearted approach to everything. He is very positive, and although his personality grates on some characters at first, his bright and happy demeanor truly benefits all of them in the long run. It is for this reason that I love the original Percy Jackson and the Olympians series so much, because his narrative is witty and humorous, and just plain fun to read. Anyway, that is my ramble dedicated to Percy Jackson, hopefully you can agree that he is just an all around amazing character.

Fantasy vs. Science Fiction

I haven't posted a "musing" in a while, so I thought I would today. Something I've always wondered is what specifically makes something "science fiction" and makes something else "fantasy". The genres are often combined, probably because they're both so rooted in imagination. Science fiction is often somewhat realistic, but not always. Often the "science" of the story wouldn't even come close to working, but it sounds smart enough that the readers/viewers buy into it. Fantasy, on the other hand, doesn't even bother seeming realistic. That would rather defeat the point. In my mind, the purpose of fantasy is to explore impossible ideas  and stretch imagination to the limit. Science fiction retains a tenuous hold on reality, while fantasy is pure make-believe. But both clearly have their place in fan's hearts, and both can be legitimate literature. I believe that despite their imaginary elements, fantasy and science fiction can be used quite effectively to inspire people and even cause change. Science fiction, especially science fiction based in a future twisted by current events, can be a very good tool for social criticism. This kind of science fiction is the one usually accepted as literature, and it can be very powerful. I still think of certain science fiction short stories I read in middle school when contemplating or discussing certain political or environmental issues. Science fiction, therefore, has a clear role in literature. Fantasy, however, is often dismissed as mere escapism. I don't believe that, however. Fantasy's role in literature may not be as clearly defined, but it is there nonetheless. Even the most unbelievable fantasy stories have subtle messages that matter in the real world. And sometimes the unrealistic nature of fantasy allows these messages to have a more profound impact on the reader simply because they are more immersed in the story (see my post "The Power of Fantasy" for further discussion of this topic). Science fiction often critiques and reflects the outer elements of our society, while fantasy does so much more for the inner lives of individuals. Either way, both are a force to be reckoned with.

After Earth

So as my first official post on this blog, I thought I would review a movie I saw today in the theater, After Earth. I went in to the movie theater with low expectations, and I wasn't really surpised at the results. I think that the concept of the story is fairly interesting, and it could have been a good movie except for two things. First, the acting. Will Smith wasn't bad, but I felt like his character showed no development and he had a very small emotional range. He literally didn't change his facial expression throughout the whole movie, which I found boring. Jaden Smith's acting was honestly pretty bad, and I feel like he still has a lot to learn about showing emotions. It seemed like the only emotions he ever portrayed were anger and fear, and he portrayed neither very well. The second thing that bothered me about the movie was the effects. From what I've heard, alot of money was spent on this movie, so I am disappointed with the quality of the animation. One last thing that wasn't necessarily bad was the character's accents. Both Will Smith and Jaden Smith are American, but everyone in the movie spoke in what sounded like a cross between a British and Polynesian accent which was very odd. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of that was, but it consistently bothered me throughout the movie. A redeeming feature of the movie, in my opinion, was the score. The music was done by James Newton Howard, and I thought it was very good. I enjoy a movie soundtrack when it really adds to the movie's mood, and I thought that the way James Newton Howard contributed to that was very well done. Overall, I thought it was an okay movie, but certainly not anything to get excited about.

Platypusluvver says hello!

Hello there, this is the new co-author of this blog. I'm probably going to post reviews of movies. I definitely have different views from bluejwrtr. I tend to think of myself as slightly less cynical. So if you're looking for contrasting views this is a good place to find them! I'm trying to practice my writing so I encourage any feedback you have, even if it's mean. I am very opinionated, and so I am always up for a good argument. You will definitely hear from me soon!

Comments Welcome

After my rather negative review last time, I thought I'd invite anyone who would like to offer their own opinion or constructive criticism to comment on whatever they'd like. I'll post anything that is polite and decently well written, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I know I can get tunnel vision sometimes when I'm reviewing something, so it's nice to get other points of view.

Pitch Perfect

My Ratings: 2/5
Rotten Tomatoes: 81%
Kids-In-Mind: 5.3.4

I watched this movie recently after hearing for months about how great and funny it was. Maybe that just set my expectations too high, but this movie was pretty much a flop for me. Sure, it had some funny parts and the ending was kind of cute in a chick-flicky way, but overall Pitch Perfect wasn't that impressive. I supposed what bothered me most was that the characters were all stereotypes, from the girl who pushes everyone away to the controlling cheerleader type who leads the a capella group and the sweet boy who's just trying to get the girl's attention. All the characters were depressingly flat, predictable, and cliche. It's kind of amazing really that they could have so many characters without a truly unique one among them. And then there's the plot. I find it strange that they would actually make fun of cliche endings of movies and then go and have a perfectly standard chick flick/underdog story ending, complete with (spoilers!) a win and a kiss. I've been told this movie is mostly about the music, and it really is. The music was by far the best part of the movie, and I didn't even find it that impressive. Admittedly their music isn't really my kind of stuff anyway, so I can't really be one to judge. But I think I am decently qualified to judge movies, and this the kind I recommend to either watch once for kicks and forget about or just not bother with at all.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes: 87%
Kids-In-Mind: 3.5.4

This movie can be summed up in one word: epic. Honestly, the only movie that comes close to this one in sheer epicness (not a word, but it should be) is the Avengers. And I loved the Avengers. I've seen a lot of reviews of this movie criticizing it for reusing plot points from the actual second Star Trek movie, the Wrath of Khan, but I thought it was more of a tribute to the Wrath of Khan than a copy. I've seen The Wrath of Khan and while Into Darkness does borrow several things from it, it is still an original, interesting and, of course, epic story. It's amazing to me how they can take these characters which were used so extensively in the original Star Trek show as well as several movies and create a new story around them that manages to take them to new heights of character development and exploration. Basically, there are several things that make this movie epic. First, the characters. As I already said, they manage to be so similar to the original characters yet different enough to keep the story riveting. The characters and their relationships with one another are very much the heart of the movie, but everything else does contribute beautifully. The music, as in the 2009 film, is amazing and deepens the emotions of the characters so well from the intense battle scenes to the quiet moments of sorrow and contemplation. The dialogue is alternately witty and tear-jerking, and the pacing was balanced well between the intense moments and the slower ones. And then there was the visuals. This is what took Into Darkness beyond the Avengers in my opinion. The Avengers had some awesome visuals too, but not quite at this level. J. J. Abrams just seems to have such a good feel for when stunning visuals accentuate the plot perfectly. Honestly, the only things I didn't like about this movie were a couple of totally unnecessary raunchy scenes (though nothing too bad). Even the violence, which generally does bother me (see my review for Iron Man 3) was used well so that it contributed to the plot without overwhelming it. If you're squeamish, I would recommend watching this when it comes out on DVD so you can skip parts, but it is definitely worth watching for both Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike.