Movie Magic: What I Want to Learn

When it comes to making movies, there is a lot I want to know.

First, why is the 1-2-8-7 sword fighting choreography so often used? If you don't know what that is, here is a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFVX-JKdYVo (between the seconds of 45-48 is where you can see it best), or I could simply say that a 1-2--8-7 is basically the circle around and over that swordsmen make with cutting over the right shoulder, bringing it back over the left and cutting down and then going down from the left knee to cut up and switching to the right knee and cutting up. Anyway, it tends to be seen in a lot more than just the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and I would like to know why it is so often used when there is far better choreography out there.

The next thing I would like to know is how do you get one effect to happen within a condensed place. (example: Hellboy where Liz is on fire but not the whole scene). Within the movie I'm creating, that would be pretty nice to have for a small area, but again, not the whole scene.

When it comes to other ideas, what can you do to make your storyline better?

There is one last thing I would like to know, and that is what makes one movie more memorable than another. I've always wondered, what made Bruce Almighty more exciting to people than say Evan Almighty, or Sin City over the Watchmen? I understand with the Watchmen the Graphic Novel was never as big as Frank Miller's Sin City, but the plot for me is the same: Good versus Evil. Sort of like comparing any super hero movie to any other super hero movie. What makes them different?
It is something that has bothered me for a long time.

I suppose when it comes right down to it I just want to know why one thing is better than the next. What makes a film so special that people are willing to spend 20 bucks at a Regal to see it, when most will refuse to spend 10 dollars on the book that the movie is based on?

Generation Girl: Ready for the 'Finicky Era"?

Intro:

In times of struggle, lay-offs, and money being cinched so tight we can barely breathe, this generation (and those before it) have to wonder "Where do I go from here?"

Growing up, I thought that was an easy question like a lot of people, and like most of those people I found out how wrong I was. I went from wanting to be a veterinarian to scientist with Pre-Med intentions and finally landed in a Psychology Major and Minor in Communications. I've wondered how I ended up in this field. Oddly enough if was by asking the following questions that were presented to me by a professor:

Questions:

1. Can a computer do it faster? 
-Well I would certainly like to see a computer psychoanalyze problems and fix the world for us, but I think that is a ways off. However, computers are now able to do a lot of things in the science fields and have greatly improved the animal medicine field as well.


2. Is what I'm offering in demand in an age of abundance?
- Not exactly, but if the Stock Market ever crashes again, I'm pretty sure people like me will be needed to help people. (At least I hope so). Also, it's human nature to feel things either positive or negative, I'm just a tool to be used to let people know how/when/why people may have crossed lines of overly positive or negative. 


3. Can someone overseas do it cheaper?
- Well in their country, sure. However, I don't think (recently looking at ticket prices) that bringing people over to the US is all too cheap. 


Pause:


So, yes *clap clap* Yay for choosing a major that a computer can't replace. However, what does the future hold for this Major that has a minor piece in society. Some people call Psychology a pseudo science (Mind you, that is far from true) and others rebel against that stereotype. What I'm asking is what employers will ask everyone "What do you have to offer that no one else can?"


My Tools of the 'Trade':

To be honest with you, when it comes to design, story, and symphony to the work I would like to do, I have no idea where to go. 


However, with the other three it is what my work is supposed to be based around? Trying to empathize while spacing one's self away from the situation?


Playing around and goofing off to make people more relaxed?


Then getting right to why they are there in the first place and getting them away from that plateau? 

Conclusion:


All I know is that I want to reach people, and that's as basic as it gets. I like analyzing and understanding things. It is the best way I know how to help. This may sound selfish, but getting right down to a person's basic side and right to the fruit of who they are makes me feel more accomplished than most things. A person at their basic is the most complex thing anyone can experience.

LEAP VS NCLB

         Think back to High School. Your feet are kicked up, friends are chit chatting, and the room has the usually beige or white walls that are beyond standard along with the smell of chalk and eraser burn. It's the end of the day and you just want to go jump in your car and get out there. When it happens. Your teacher comes in with that grin that can only come from comic books. It's big, wide and creepy making you reminisce back to the first time you saw Batman's Joker. They stride across the room and shut the window, continuing that grin. "Crap" is all you can think. You know what's coming.
         "Class, in the next week, we are going to be starting on our Standardized Tests. If you don't get a decent grade, then not only does the school suffer, but the school will make sure you suffer as well."
You have been trained most of your school life for this. Teachers are freaked because their jobs, funding for the school and students' grades are riding on this. However, some of the more twisted ones, who like torturing their students are elated.
         In West Virginia, pre 2002, we had the WES TEST. Then came in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and now Liberal Education and America's Promise (LEAP) is starting to make some waves. Standardized testing has become popular, and here is a look at two programs that claim they want to help make public schools a better place for everyone.


No Child Left Behind:
Enacted: January 8, 2002
By: George W. Bush
Proposes:
         That all students will help children 'make the grade on state-defined education standards by the
end of the 2013–14 school year." (US Department of Education 2004 with their explanation of how NCLB is supposed to work)
         It also implies that parents, teachers, and other staff members will have a say in what happens at 'their' school if it appears that it is in need of an educational boost. Along with that, they are saying (on more flexible spending) "In exchange for strong accountability, No Child Left Behind gives states and districts more flexibility in the use of their federal education funding".
        Along with all of the other great things NCLB does is that it is supposed to support America's Teachers, bring better report cards in, and allow for schools with problems to get better teachers.


          Before I go any further, I just want to say that this is a nice idea. It would be great if NCLB actually did what it was supposed to do, and it looks fantastic on paper. However, the biggest problem with the program is that it does not take into account children with handicaps or the fact that now teachers are being forced into teach what the government wants them to teach.
         Back when I was in school, I honestly learned so much more when the teachers were in 'their element'. Pigeon holing them is really not a great way to go when they're on pins and needles about not only their funding getting cut, but the fact that the are at risk for being fired if the students are not 'up to par'.
         So instead of redoing this Legislation, there is another idea circulating around with LEAP. Here is what they are trying to do:


LEAP:
Established: 2005-ongoing
By: Ronald A. Crutcher
Proposes:

• Essential learning outcomes—as a guiding vision and national benchmarks for college learning and liberal education in the 21st century
• High-Impact educational practices—that help students achieve essential learning outcomes
• Authentic Assessments—probing whether students can apply their learning to complex problems and real-world challenges
• Inclusive Excellence—to ensure that every student gets the benefits of an engaged and practical liberal education. (Found through LEAP's home page)

     Instead of using Standardized testing where it's nothing but a bunch of 'bubble testing'. LEAP is trying to use other methods that include real life. Making sure that students can keep up with today's college standards as well as focusing on figuring out complexities. 

     The difference between these two is simple. One is giving us tests that force a certain style of teaching (NCLB) where as the other is giving more of fluid approach. Personally I feel that using LEAP may be more beneficial if students are trying to solve real world problems. I mean, that is what we're supposed to be doing isn't it? Preparing students for life? 

      So let's go back to the scenario of preparing for a foul Standardized Test while you're sitting in that classroom. The teacher presents you with a choice. You can go for the test that has Scan Tron Sheets or you can take the test that let's you think and apply what you've learned through experiences with your class mates. Which would you choose?

Advertisers vs Artists

Photo By Polina Sergeeva                                                                                               Photo By: Gandalf's Gallery

So, what is the difference between Graphic Designers/ Architects and Advertisers?

Originally I thought it was simply based in philosophies. Artists want to entertain and Advertisers want to sell.

However, life, nor this concept, are quite that simple.

3 Advertisers being looked at: Bernays, Reeves, and Ogilvy, have different ideas, but all of them with similar characteristics. 


Reeves:


Reeves is known for hard selling. He finds, exploits, and commands a presence to a particular part of a product and sells it in some of the most memorable ways possible. (Example is his Anacin commercial that gave the example of a pounding headache and used Anacin as the cure)


Ogilvy:


Ogilvy is known for a softer approach. His approach was subtle and story telling. Instead of pummeling our minds with a harsh idea, Ogilvy made a product memorable over time because it propositioned us, and brought us in gently. 




Bernays:


(To be honest, I thought his blatant use of his Uncle Freud's work was disrespectful, but I digress)


Bernays used the principles set down by his Uncle Sigmund Freud in attempt to control the human psyche. Freud proposed that human beings have 3 bases (ever feuding) in our consciousness. There are primal urges that are battling our logical human sensibility and there is our neutral go-between. Bernays thought he could exploit our primal "ID" so that we would be more apt to buy things we didn't need, but that luxury is what we wanted.    



Artists:


Their goal is to entertain. Sure they want you to buy their things, but instead of being flashy, they appeal from being 'flashy' or 'overdone'. 


*I will continue this at a later date when I have a connection again.

Signifier/Signified

Gun Control

Video found on Youtube: Cory_Poiticalad_

We were asked to look at three (3) signifiers and what they signified. For my first ad, I looked at Cory's. His ad was witty, straight forward and his symbolism hit you in the face at times.

1. Signifier: Barack Obama standing in a picture with Fidel Castro (?) Hitler, and Mussolini (?). All of them raising their hands for support of gun control.
          1. Signifies that Obama is trying to place regimes in similar to the world's former tyrants, and that he may be a Communist or Nazi. The fact that they're all raising their hands signifies they all agree (allegedly) on the same thing.

2. Signifier: Knife in your face and the person wielding it being dressed in black wearing a ski mask to cover his face.
         2. Signifies that you should fear for your life if you don't have a gun in your home. People like this man will come to rob you of your home, children, and dignity.

3. Signifier: Barack Obama using his middle finger scratch his head while nonchalantly closing his eyes and turning his head in the opposite way.
          3. Signifies that Obama doesn't care and that he's going to do what he wants to do. He's basically giving everyone "the finger" to parlay that message.

tyler_moore_gun_control_candidate.mov

This campaign is for Ron Paul, and here are the three (3) signifiers I have chosen.

1. Music.
             1. Within the music there are highs and lows that make the scene feel like a battlefield. This battlefield is for our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, and Ron Paul is our "soldier" fighting to keep our Right to Bear Arms.

2. First thing you see in the ad is Ron Paul signing a document next to a sign that reads "Campaign for Liberty".
             2. He is signing a document that may possibly be giving us some our basic freedoms back. He is concentrating to make sure there are no loopholes (possibly) and clearly made a decision to sign it.

3. The sign that says "The Ron Paul R-evol-ution Continues".
            3. The music turns noble and the parting of the words in such a way signifies that not only is Ron Paul fighting and standing up for us, but that he loves the people. (Evol spelled backwards is Love). Not only has it started, but this sign says that he is continuing his fight for the people.

Unfortunately the ad I wanted to use for the last one was made to be private, and I cannot post it on my blog. However, if those in class are interested it is the Basil Marceaux ad.


                   Although you cannot see the ad, here is the basic description. Violins are playing in the background in a serious tone, drops of rain on dark glass are foregrounded by the words "Where are we headed?" which goes into looking off the side of a military plane that says "Our Soldiers are fighting..." "and we don't support them".  Following this is a parking meter with the word "Expired" inside. Words trailing over the picture state "The people in office" "have had their chance" "Their term has expired". Fade over to a picture of a podium where a man is standing off center near a microphone, the words here are "It's time for a Leader." "One who upholds the law." Then a sniper rifle is shown and yellow text appears to say "All firearms permits need to be revoked." "We need a leader who can do it". 
                 The serious music stops and some guitar music is playing as the American flag is revealed  and the words "America has such a leader...". Fade over to a photo of a man talking to a female. Words "Basil Marceaux is that man." "Firearms permits will be revoked if we elect Basil Marceaux." "That's a promise" as we zoom in on his face. As the transition begins "It's time for someone who can keep a promise. Vote Basil Marceaux for governor." The background relaying that same message. This was done by N. Guice.




Okay, signifiers and what they mean.


1. The meter with the "Expired" sign.
           1. This signifies that there are people that need to get out of office and let the 'new' blood in. We need a change and whoever this candidate is, is the new blood that we need.


2. The sniper rifle with yellow text in front of it.
          2. All gun permits will be revoked, therefore you can go out and get the sniper rifle of whatever gun back into your hands without having to fear having a permit.


3. The American Flag waving in the background as words scroll over it. 
           3. Apparently America has the man for a job. One such man who supports: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 


**Thank you to all of the creators for your videos, glad I could use them. Well done, at least from me on this because there was way more I could have written about.**

Ethos Pathos Logos

Ethos, Pathos and Logos:

Who is effective and who isn't? 

INTRODUCTION:

                   Looking at commercials from Song and from Dwight D. Eisenhower, I have come to a conclusion. Sometimes, it is a catchy jingle mixed in with some credibility and a dash of logic that makes all of the sense to a commercial.

SONG:

                First off, I would like to start with Song's advertisement. They are trying to get at the core of our Pathos (emotions) but there is no logic to selling an airline with people running at a gate while they're in the middle of a field. They aren't telling me at all what they offer or why they are offering it. They just expect the public to "get it" and quite frankly, I don't. If you were to give me an ad that had say "Come Fly With Me" by Sinatra and a waitress handing me a martini, while the seat looked like it was from first class and not coach, and your header is stating something like "High Class Luxury for the cost of Coach" then I will definitely get it. It's short, sweet and very much to the point. Not some logo that says "Song" and people running in a field from all directions to a gate. If I'm confused, I'm pretty sure more than enough people are.

Photo By: wbaiv

ROSSER REEVES and DWIGHT:


            I won't lie to you. I got caught up in a catchy jingle that was used during this man's campaign, and it's no wonder that he was elected. It gets stuck in your head and all you can think of is "I like Ike" and it was a brilliant move. All of his other ads were involved with issues surrounding the country at the time, including: corruption, cleaning 'house' at all government levels, the Korean 'Conflict' and the cost of living. He addressed different people and made logical points to all questions. This worked on both Pathos and Logos. The fact that he was a Five Star General in the Army probably didn't hurt his Ethos much either. He came to the public, said "here it is" and left it at that. Straightforward answers and well to the point when it came to what he wanted done. Rosser Reeves was ahead of his time when he thought to put Eisenhower in front of the camera like that. I just wish more politicians would go back to the old school and stop the mud-slinging.

Photo By: Cliff 1066

Is Cracked Losing Its Juice?

Cracked in and of Itself

            Cracked dot com is usually a happy, crazy, twisted world of ingenious ways to make people laugh and think all at the same time. Articles range from the likely straight into the world of the absurd. Articles such as 5 Deleted Bible Scenes in Which Jesus Kicked Some Ass and I Want to Put My Book Inside You: A Message to New Kindles to some "cutesy" ones like 5 Inspiring Act of Kindness by Terrifying Crime Syndicates and 5 Real Animal Friendships Right Out of a Disney Movie have shown that the site has some range, but not a ton of it. It may be obscure and inviting, but a fellow in a class that I attend found one that made the obscure have some sense. 

Photo By: Chesi - Fotos CC

The Bad Ideas Movies Give Us for Dealing With Bullies

Cracked's 5 Bad Ideas Media Gives Us for Dealing With Bullies

         I'll be honest, I was surprised by this article: Can We Change Bullies? When I looked at it, yes, it did take on a more serious approach than what Cracked is known for. Do I feel that was appropriate for a site that has been based on laughters? Sure, it's like a band that's all heavy metal suddenly hitting you in the side of the face with something surprisingly romantic and soft. (Example, Slipknot's "All Hope Is Gone" album with soft ballads like "Snuff" and "Vermillion Pt. 2".) 

          Another question asked is "Was this done appropriately or was there another approach that could be taken?" Sure, there are plenty of ways to take this, but I think that the Cracked Writer did it in a way that has some humor, but a very serious tone behind it. I don't think this turned people off of the site, but perhaps it has helped the general populous realize that dealing with a bully can be possible, but there are a lot of options that won't work. 

            The examples they use are pop culture references that most people know of, and there is some light warmheartedness, so the article keeps up to some standards, but puts forth more effort to convey a more meaningful message. 
            If people think that the writers of Cracked are getting too depressing over one article, then those few people that aren't deep fans of the site may be lost if they're in it for the laughs. Again, a comparison to music: it would be like fans leaving a musician, say Rhianna, because they decided to try a new direction. I feel that in this case, if they do lose fans, they will gain even more for doing something out of their shell. 

Conclusion

            Although a single Cracked Writer went outside of the box, I don't feel as though the repercussions will be too severe, if there will be any at all. There may be a few fans lost, but there are several to be gained through this serious article. The approach was a viable one, and rather smart option to be lighthearted but also serious. It's addressing an issue that a lot of people have, had, or are putting up with. To that, I say kudos Cracked for taking a shot in the dark and hopefully it turns out for the better.