Eighth and Final Post

I've really enjoyed this class, although it's had its ups and down. I've found that even though online classes are convient, I like being in a classroom and talking face-to-fac with fellow students and a professor, I find there are less distractions in a class room. I really liked being able to list and discuss my favorite TV shows. My least favorite assingment was from week 6 mainly because I don't like reality TV so I didn't enjoy having to watch them for an assingment (except for American Pickers I was okay with that one), let alone critique them, but that's life.

Seventh Blog Post: TV Shows Revisited

The first week of this class, we had to comprise a list of our favorite and least TV shows. Now at the end of the sessision we must revisited this list and elaborate from what we've learned these past few weeks.

Favorites:

•   Doctor Who

Doctor Who, has always been one of my favorite TV shows ever since I discovered it as a high school junior on the SyFy Channel (or was it still the Sci-Fi Channel back then?). Doctor Who has quitley ingrained itself into American Culture, becoming a bestseller on the iTunes store and a big hit on Netflix. Why would a throughly British TV show appeal so much to Americans? The main appeal of the show for me is in a way it's Britishness. In an age where Reality TV and all the competetion shows increasingly dominates the American TV market, Doctor Who with its escapist fantasy was something quite refreshing: you never know what you're gonna get an Alien-esque thriller in the distant future, or a  mystery in Victorian England. As acclaimed author Neil Gaiman has said: "Doctor Who has never pretended to be hard science fiction… At best, Doctor Who is a fairy tale, with fairy tale logic, about this wonderful man in this big blue box who at the beginning of every story lands somewhere where there is a problem." This is the main it has with most American fans. A polyvence that transcends cultural barriers is the ongoing battle with good and evil and the great costs and mental tramuas that comes from defeating evil. Despite it being my favorite show it does have flaws mainly due to Steven Moffat the current producer and head writer whose tenure has been marked by very complicated story lines that stretched out for three seasons (and that he all but left alone in the recent one) as opposed to his predecessor Russell T. Davies who favored simple storylines that would be resolved at the finale; so Moffat's tenure has beomce what resisitive reading, because the roughly half of the  fans don't approve that the show has evolved from escapist Sci-Fi to something roughly akin to Lost. Despite this, it's still my favorite show because even if the plots aren't what they were the characters are still there to tug at your heartscreens.

• Phineas and Ferb

Phines and Ferb is an animated comedy from the Disney Channel. Again, what it made it so appealing was just how different it was. It this day most kids cartoon are known for  crude humor and dumb characters. Phineas and Ferb is an intelligent, but simple kids shows. The show centers on the title characters, a pair of step-brothers who spend their summer break from school building fantasic contraptions and do amazing adventures ranging from a buidling a roller-coaster in the backyard, a moon rocket, or helping a friend build a portal to Mars for a summer science fair. Their sister Candance does not approve of their adventures and tries to show their mom the boys' antics in hopes she can stop them, she never does. Meanwhile the boy's pet playtpus Perry is actually a government secret spy, code name Agent P, who spends his days thwarting the plans of the rather inept mad scientist Dr. Doofenshmirtz. As you see the show follows the A, B, C plot line. Phineas and Ferb's adventures are the A plot. Perry's life as a spy in the B plot. Candance's antincs or teenage drama are the C plot (although many times she is often merged with A plot). The show relies on witty word play, and good old-fashioned slap stick humor and makes for excellent entertainment for anyone.

• Firefly

Firefly is a sci-fi Western from director, writer, and producer Joss Whedon (The Avengers, Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Despite lasting one season it's become a cult hit amongst Netflix users. The central premise is that in the future, Earth has been used up and humans have terraformed a new new galaxy with hundreds and dozens of planets and moons. The wealthy central planets form the Alliance, and decide that for the better of humanity all the planets must be with the Alliance, whether they want to or not. What follows is a brutal war between the Alliance and the outer worlds who want to remain independent-the Alliance wins. After the war Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds, an ex-soldier who fought on the losing side becomes a smuggler and thief, albeit with a moral code in defiance on the Alliance regime. Alone the way he takes in a young doctor who is has become a fugitive, ever since he helped his sister escape from a secret government facillity. Maltakes them both in. At it's heart Firefly has a very American idealogy, independence. Independence is vital part of American Culture and our idenity: we fought for our independence from Great Britian, and we won. Firefly however shows us a group of people who fought for independence and lost (Joss Whedon has said in interviews that Firefly was inspired by the losing Confederate soldiers from the American Civil War). However they never given up on that, and keep their independence by trying to live under the radar. Americans are the same, no matter what happens, or what laws are passed, Americans will try to live their lives as they see fit, no matter what any government says, or what the odds are. This is perhpas why it's so popular amongst young adults, we naturally rebel.

• Least Favorite Shows

The shows I really don't care for are stuff like The Voice, American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and Jershey Store. I don't like most reality TV shows, because I think the're just too shallow, they all revolve around people who want there 15 minutes of fames. When it comes to dramas I don't like anymore, such as House, it's because of poor writing usually. In House's case it was because of how they treated the main character. He had always been a jerk, albeit one who was amusing and with a very hidden heart of gold. However as the show went on, his antics were growing out of control, and the writers tried to counter by giving him character development to make him nicer, which never really stuck. It really came to a head when the writers had House commit a blatanty criminal act by driving his car into his ex-girlfriend's dining room, and more egriously that episode ended with House on a beach out of the country! He ended up in prison in the next season premire but there comes a point where even a character you love crosses the line, and that's what happened to me with House. With Downton Abbey, it was when two main actors wanted to leave, so the head writer killed them all off in very dramatic fashion, with no warning. Again, it's poor writing that makes me leave TV shows, if a writer can't handle something well, it alienates the audience.

Sixth Blog Post

American Pickers: Pint-Sized Pickers

http://www.hulu.com/watch/234775#i0,p0,d0

For this assingment, we had to analyze an episode of American Pickers. My fellow group memembers were Jade Merritt at: http://jademerrittmdia3110.blogspot.com, and Brian Fong at : http://mdia3110fong.blogspot.com. We did the discussion through email

I have always been a fan of the show, the unique odds and ends that Mike and Frank would find in their hunt in old building and barns, amused me. Everything from old automobile parts to antiques brought out the history buff in me (while still lamenting the lack of actual documentaries on the History Channel) But until this assingment I never had to actually sit down and think about an episode until this assingment. When I did I noticed something about the majority of the people Mike and Frank court; they are almost always somewhere out in the country. That seemed logical at first, after all people in the country are more likley to have old cars, and motorcycles sitting around than in the city, after all they have the space. But then it hit me: the people who call themselves "collectors" are actually hoarders. The first gentleman Mike and Frank called on in this episode, goes to auctions just to buy more stuff, justified by a love of American Nostalgia.

Although Jade and Brian would agree with me that most of the people on the show were hoarders , they didn't think it was the main point. They all concluded on dominant polysemic idea: namely that real heart of the show is the history from the items that Mike and Frank discover on their picks. That is the conclusion we eventually all got from it. Jade also noted how much of their picking is done in Rural America, in areas that can seem pretty run down, (Mike and Frank will avoid areas if they think they are too "nice" when they go out picking); and noted that "Maybe us Appalachians already own the cool stuff and that’s fine by me. But it does seem to suggest that those who have stuff to sell or those who collect live in the poorer parts of the country, but offer the more rich parts of American History. " In contrast Brian and I disagree noting that these people are hoarders who aren't that connected to their  items. Brian also chimed in, his intial polyvance reading that the main point of the show was how Mike and Frank made their living. These were the polyvance readings within the discussion, all and all we seemed to have the same interpeation with some small personal disagreements

Fifth Blog Post

The elderly in popular media seem to be under-represented. Although they are present they usually relegated to supporting roles that fall into three stereotypes: mentor/parental substitute figure, comic relief with rude manners, or an elderly badass who is not pass his glory days. The first one shows up a lot, usually in a positive light. In Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman gets his parental substitute in the form of his butler Alfred (played by acting legend Sir Michael Caine). In these films Alfred is the one who raised Batman after his parents were killed, and in a way never stops being that role in Batman’s life; he free to chastise Batman like any parent does when their child makes mistakes, is openly concerned about Batman’s welfare and happiness. By contrast Dame Judi Dench’s M in Skyfall although a parental figure to James Bond, she is in a totally different way: tough love. As head of MI6, M is Bond’s superior and will in no certain terms let him forget that. Although she cares for Bond, as head of espionage organization she is forced to make tough decisions: at the beginning of the film she orders Bond to abandon a fellow agent who is in need of medical help, and eventually gives an order that puts Bond’s life in danger (he’s shot but it’s non-fatal). Bond is enraged that his superior didn’t have enough faith in him to finish the mission and actually fakes his death to retire from espionage, which proves short lived. M’s willingness to sacrifice her agents is seen in the film as a negative trait as it comes back to haunt her through the course of the film, and eventually gets her killed, but not before reconciling with Bond.

            The examples from this next category can be described as having this mindset: “screw politeness, I’m a senior.” They use their age as an excuse to be incredibly rude, because nobody would retaliate against a senior. For the characters it’s misery, for the audience it’s hilarious. With popularity of Betty White this is perhaps the most common stereotype, in the media. In PBS’ Downton Abbey, one of the most popular characters is the Dowager Countess (played by Dame Maggie Smith), mainly due to the show’s writers giving her excellent one-liners such as “don’t be defeatist dear it’s very middle class” and “no Englishman would *dream* of dying in someone else's house - especially somebody they didn't even know.” Since the show is set in an aristocratic estate in the early 1900’s, her sense of humor comes off better than it would if the show was set in the present day. Moreover her sense of humor is counter-balanced by her devotion to her family-particularly her granddaughters. By contrast Pierce (played by Chevy Chase) from Community is not nearly so endearing, and shows us the negative qualities of this stereotype. His jokes and antics about sex and race often offend and try the patience of his friends to the point they often seem to the barely tolerate him, and the audience usually takes the side of the rest of the study group. What makes it worse is that the other elderly characters of the show the “Hipsters” are just as bad, but for most part are in the background, popping up now and again. The problem with this particular stereotype is that it gives a negative impression of elderly people, even though bad manners can be found amongst people of all ages, fiction has a tendency to color people’s perceptions about reality.

           

The third is the elderly badass, a character in their golden years, but when the time comes they more than capable of proving themselves badass and that with age comes experience, not hindrance. This stereotype is somewhat rare and mostly pops up in works of fantasy and sci-fi: Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings, Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Admiral Adama in Battlestar Galactica, etc. Disney’s Ducktales is a good example: one of the few shows where an elderly character is the main one: in this case Donald Duck’s uncle, Scrooge McDuck. In the context of the show he’s the richest duck in the world, whom happens to go on Indiana Jones-like adventures, battle evil witches, stop bank robbers from stealing his fortune all in the name of fun and profit. He’s a self-made man, he had to earn his fortune the hard way, through years of hard work prospecting and mining that would eventually be the seed of his business empire. He’s not content to sit on his laurels though; he’s always looking to make more money. He’s also very protective of his nephews, and woe to anyone who would dare harm them. Next we turn somewhat closer to reality in the live action sci-fi classic Doctor Who. Fan favorite Wilfred Mott only appeared in one season, but he certainly made an impression of fans. Wilfred is the granddad of Donna Noble, the Doctor’s companion in Season 4. Wilfred provides Donna the affection she lacks from her mum. He also happens to be a WWII vet, with a fascination with aliens and outer space. He distinctly gets pissed off whenever the latest alien invasion of London is happening: “it’s them aliens again!” He’s also not afraid to fight back, when the Daleks, invade London, Wilfred notices they only have one eyestalk, so he tries to blind them with a paintball gun, which would’ve worked if the Daleks weren’t able to melt the paint off (but it was more than what the rest of London was doing). In his last appearance on the show he even gets to man a spaceship’s laser cannon similar to Han Solo. Although elderly actors can make good living doing supporting roles, they are rarely allowed roles that allow characters of their age to act naturally; the get pigeonholed as the mentor, the comic relief, the badass, while younger actors have a chance to be themselves on screen.

            While the elderly have always had a present on screen the same cannot be said of homosexuals, mainly because of taboos and prejudices in our society, that are now slowly disappearing, even mass prejudice still exists. One of the first openly gay characters in American Television that I know of was the witch Willow from Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Willow’s coming out was perhaps a bit of shock, mainly because for the first few seasons, she’d been seriously dating boys, it wasn’t until she met a fellow witch Tara, that she came out of the closet. Apart from being witches, Willow and Tara’s relationship was portrayed just like any other young adult couple, with their ups and downs; their sexuality was not important, but there love for each other was. Not all portrayals of homosexuals are as accommodating as Buffy was. The film adaption of Alan Moore’s V For Vendetta featured a closeted homosexual TV entertainer Gordon Deitrich (Stephen Fry) living in dystopia police-state version of Britain. Gordon is forced to hide his true sexuality, knowing if his true sexuality would come out it would get him killed. In real life, it’s no surprise if a homosexual stays hidden in the closest; the reaction from those around you can range from supportive to downright hostile. Again, V For Vendetta is a positive portrayal of homosexuals; the only thing resembling a stereotype is Gordon working in the entertainment business, although a generalization is a positive stereotype. In today’s current media, perhaps the most prominent feature of homosexuals is the gay couple on the appropriate named sitcom Modern Family. Modern Family features an ensemble cast, and the gay couple is a part of that cast, and their misadventures in trying to raise a little girl. Although homosexual characters are rare in the media but not uncommon, a homosexual couple raising a child is something we’ve never seen before in the media (at least I haven’t). Although they exhibit the stereotypes often associated with homosexuals such as a taste for interior decorating, and fine designing etc, they are at the heart of the show portrayed just like any other couple trying to raise a family. While the previous mentioned examples of homosexuals don’t exhibit any of the stereotypes (at least none that I’m aware of), the couple of Modern Family does, so I would consider this a positive stereotype in that sense, that the stereotypical traits are not what are important about their characters.

            Asians have long been a part of American Culture: in the past it would usually involve them speaking bad English and doing laundry. In the Golden Age of Hollywood, there was the “oriental detective” which included such film series such as Mr. Moto; Mr. Wong, and of course Charlie Chan and almost everyone of them was played by actor in yellow face. Obviously there is nothing positive about a white actor making himself look like an Asian, Mickey Rooney’s character in Breakfast from Tiffany’s would not go over well in today’s culture.  Today the prime example is the smart Asian. On Disney’s Phineas and Ferb, one of the main characters’ best friends is Baljeet, an immigrant from India (India is part of Asia after all). He is portrayed as extremely smart, and extremely obsessed with school and grades, to the point that he’s in summer school because he wants to be there. His obsession causes him to be neurotic; the thought of not being the best at whatever he’s applying himself is enough to cause to have a breakdown. His Indian heritage is rarely touched upon within the show, although it is very obvious from his accent and his parents are rarely seen or mentioned so we are unsure whether this pressure comes from them, or is self-imposed. None of these qualities are positive, so this very negative impression of Asian culture on young children. It is this stereotype that is most prevalent and we seem to apply to every country in Asia, it is by no means the only presentation of Asians in the media. Take Abed from Community, although he is of Middle-Eastern descent (and the Middle East is Asia), he does not have an accent, or drive a cab in New York City. Although he is intelligent if a bit unorthodox, grades and academia are not his passion in life, filmmaking is. Although he loves TV and films, he is still in touch with his Middle-Eastern heritage; he is able to speak Arabic fluently with his relatives. Abed represent a positive version of the smart Asian: he is intelligent, but his intelligence does not define him. There is of course the negative stereotype of the Asian criminal, which can range from anything from an illegal gambling den in Chinatown as seen in an episode of Elementary to the Chinese mob accountant in The Dark Knight. These are negative stereotypes, and if they appear often enough they can influence how we think about an ethnicity and what we associate them with.

Fourth Blog Post: Media Criticism

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s life after leaving politics, as not been an easy one; it came out that he had an affair with his family’s maid and that he inadvertently fathered a child with her, which resulted in the end of his marriage by divorce. In 2012, his tell all memoir Total Recall was published. In order to help promote the book, Arnold did an interview for CBS’s 60 Minutes. As part of the interview, his affair was brought up and Arnold brought up deep regret over it, hoping one day to reconcile with his wife even they are in divorce. The same goes with his children. At the same time he refuses to answer certain questions such as do his kids have a relationship with their recently revealed half-brother, as he does not wish them to cause any more pain then he already has. It also came out that he begged the maid not to tell her family about the affair fearing that how’s it would leak. In short, Arnold is trying to do damage control. His image of “New Age” Guy has been shattered and his current image is of a man who has made a horrible mistake, accepts he made it, and now his hoping for forgiveness (60 Minutes).

Since leaving politics a few years ago he has returned to film, and his choices suggest an attempt to try and rebuild his image to what it was before he entered politics. The three films he has made that have been released are The Expendables  (2010), The Expendables 2 (2012), and The Last Stand (2013). His future films include returning to his most famous and indeed iconic roles: the Terminator and Conan the Barbarian (Movieweb). Obviously Arnold is doing his best to the put the scandal behind him, but the question is he going the right way about it? Naturally he would return to action films as part of his post political life, but announcing he return to not one, but both of his iconic film roles suggest he is hoping that his on screen persona will overshadow his activities off screen. Keep in mind that his most famous role of the Terminator, went from being a cold killing machine into a parental substitute, coinciding with his own growing family that he started back in the 1990’s. Now that his family life is in shatters, how will this affect the Terminator when he eventually comes back for the fifth film in the series? Will he playing a Terminator, who has been disgraced and is now looking for redemption and forgiveness? Of course this is all mere speculation. But there is one post-scandal film that ties in very well with the intextuality of Arnold’s screen and private life, The Last Stand, as pointed out in a review on the website Film School Rejects. In The Last Stand, Arnold plays a small town sheriff who used to be a member of the LAPYD, before career related injuries made him rethink his life, and became a sheriff in a border town in Arizona, echoing in way Arnold’s choice to leave the glamour of Hollywood to be a public servant in the form of California’s governor. In the film Arnold’s character when asked why he would ever leave LA for a sleepy Arizona town, he admits when he was a younger man he “wanted to be part of the action … but now, thinking back, I feel differently.” Arnold himself as gone on record that during his time as governor of California, he didn’t miss acting at all he even said so during the promotional campaign for the film.  After doing a film like that mirrors his personal life, one wonders why his next projects are return to his glory days. Obviously Arnold’s been out of the acting game for roughly a decade, and his film appearances have been low-key, or at least have not generated that much attention as once would expect (his baby scandal might have a hand in that). Arnold is hardly the first celebrity to be embroiled in scandal: Roman Polanski, Robert Downey Jr, and Woody Allen come to mind. But the main question is how he can overcome it.  Obviously, he did the smart thing and didn’t try to hide, or deny it (although it wasn’t enough to salvage his marriage), and he is sincerely repentant about it, which e professed publicly in interviews. He’s on the right track to rebuild his image, now his future films and time will have to do the rest. Going back to Terminator and Conan are his attempts to regain “trust” with the public, as these are his most famous characters and he can build a better connection using these characters than being in some average Hollywood action film.

Works Cited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv9u6ZNYFRI

http://www.movieweb.com/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-talks-the-legend-of-conan-terminator-5-and-triplets

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/the-reluctant-return-of-an-action-hero-the-last-stand-as-meta-comeback-for-arnold-schwarzenegger.php

Third Blog Post: MDIA 3110: Advanced Media Criticism!

Critic 1: Alasdair Wilkins
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-deep-end,93611/

A critic for the AV Club, Mr. Wilkins primarily reviews science fiction and animated comedy shows such as Doctor Who, Farscape, Arrow, Regular Show, and Gravity Falls. His reviews often involve a sort of analysis of the characters, not only as they function for the plot of that particular episode, but also for the show overall. He is also very professional not using slang, and giving a clear explination for his critiques.  He doesn't see things in his critiques as good or bad, but rather what works and what doesn't in an episode. That said he is cleary a fan of the show he reviews, or at least he watches them enough to be very familiar with them. He knows what the characters are like and what to expect, a special mention goes to Gravity Falls a show which premired last summer and which Mr. Wilkins is the sole critic for as of this writing; his writing betrays an affection for these characters, not a cool detachment. This works in his favor, in shows he likes the show he critiques and is not a snob. In any form of media:book, film, radio, television, the audience's love for a good character is usually what keeps them coming back for more. One nice feature is at the end of each critique he gives his thoughts on certain parts of the episode that would not fit in with the main review, but deserve a mention.

Critic 2: Mike Hale
http://tv.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/arts/television/22sherlock.html?pagewanted=all

A New York Times Critic, Mr. Hale reviews a wide variety of TV shows from PBS's Sherlock to NBC's The Office. Each review is tailor-made to the show. He knows that someone reading his review of Sherlock, will likley be a fan of other British TV shows, he even uses the phrase "Anglophilic television fans", and makes refrences to Doctor Who, a show that isn't exactly mainstream in American culture. But at the same time he notes similarities to the leads of American crime dramas like Monk and The Mentalist (both of which were inspired by Holmes himself), as a way to draw in viewers who normally don't watch British shows. Hale notes that the key elements of the talented actors and the scripts made for great television that's fun to watch, which ultimatley the best television is at the end; most television today is watched out of boredom, not entertainment which is something Mr. Hale like myself values.

Critic 3: Mac Rogers
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/tv_club/features/2013/doctor_who_season_7_recaps/week_2/doctor_who_season_7_the_rings_of_akhaten_recap.html

Mac Rogers is the critic for Doctor Who (the only show he reviews for the site) on Slate.com. Unlike most critics, Rogers' reviews are unconventional: they are on a weekly basis and take the form of an informal (but intelligent conversation not the stuff of YouTube comments) IM conversation with a fan or blogger. This form has it's merit as it offers two different viewpoints on an episode, but unless you've actually seen the episode for yourself they can be hard to follow. But in a way this what television is suppose to do: provoke discussion whether on social topics, or just on the quality on the episode. The first thing I wanna do after watching a film, show, or reading a book is to talk about it with someone esle. Media brings people together not isolate them, and that is what Mr. Roger's reviews do.

Second Media Blog post for MDIA 3110: Advanced Media Criticism!

I found it interesting on how modern TV criticism is done. I had assumed that detailed analysis and week-by-week recaps was only the work of diehard fans of the show. I never thought that professional criticism was written like this, such dedication I assumed would only come from a die-hard fan. But then I realized that such dedication makes sense, why else would one be a critic in the first place. However there are drawbacks to this form of criticism: its main appeal is not going to be the casual viewer, but rather the aforementioned die-hard fans. Also such criticism has a limited appeal because after a new episode airs, no one cares about last week. Also it never occurred to me that their peers might consider critics, who are active fans, might be labeled bias if they make cameos or do their best to save a show from the can.

Of the two hot links, I clicked on within the articles one was from the AV Club, about modern TV criticism has been changed by the new types of programs found in the new millennium, specifically serialized dramas like Mad Men, and The Sopranos which by nature demand more attention be spent on them, then your average sitcom, or legal drama. Such dramas are a product of the new millennium, and as such viewing habits and criticism have changed accordingly: recaps are the norms for viewers who enter a show midseason and wish to get a general idea of who the characters are and what has happened. I chose that hyperlink, because it seemed to offer a more in-depth view of modern TV criticism. The second hyperlink I clicked on was from Time Entertainment, and offered more light on the subject of critical objectivity. The opinions offered there suggest that critics should be above the fans, they note that Mr. Sepinwall stopped reviewing Modern Family, because of the anger the fans got from his reviews. Those who wrote this article argue that critics should remain above the fans and not let them influence them in any way. This is a recurring problem amongst critics whose reviews are read by a fan base, how to be impartial without losing your readership. These are not the views of amateurs, but of professional critics, who are under stress. There are concerns that recaps are counter-productive: you might find yourself frustrated over an episode that turns out to pay off in the long run, or may simply be disappointed with the results of a finale such as Lost.