1) Has someone tried to "protect" me from the "corrupting influence" of music? Not really. My mother has never really had a problem with what I listen too in regards to music (though my tastes might have something to do with that, but I'll get there). She might not like what I listen too herself, but she's never told me there were artists I could not listen too because of their music's "corrupting influence". The closest Mum ever came to that was telling me that I could not listen to some songs because they had liberal profanity, which I guess counts since she probably did not want me swearing like a sailor at the ripe age of seven; but then again I feel like that not quite the same as fearing the music would turn me into a delinquent.
2) When Mum told me I could not listen to certain song, which were only a few, I didn't really think too hard about it. I just accepted and moved on to another song that I could listen to.
3) My favorite music genre and artists? That's... hard to pin down. My favorite music genres are easy, classical, opera (even if I cannot understand it half the time), sea shanties, ballads (I actually have book of them), show-tunes/musical numbers, marching/historicalmusic, whatever this counts as... parodies of any of those genres... yeah my tastes in music is as varied as my taste in much anything else, my Spotify playlist is so varied it can't even recommend anything because the algorithm gets confused. I don't really have any favorite artists either, its more about the genre for me, I don't really care who sings it; as long as they actually can sing without needing to be auto-tuned to high heaven I'll probably enjoy it. I'll admit I've enjoyed Alan Menken's music for the various Disney film he worked on and his work on the TV show Galavant. I also enjoy Daniel Ingram's song-work on the current incarnation of My Little Pony, if I ever make a TV show that's a musical I want him writing the songs.
Topic II: Campus Radio
1) This is the first I've heard of the idea of a Campus Radio station being thrown about. I'll admit it could be a fun time for those who want to take part, or listen to what the station offers. That said, I have no idea how feasible it is because I don't know what all must go into making a radio station, outside of the required radio tower (or whatever transmitter we use today, but I think it is still a radio tower).
2) Two programs or formats? Perhaps one of them could be a podcast of sorts? Podcasts at large have sort of become the replacement for the radio show, save that you can usually watch/listen to podcasts more than once. Another option could be an ongoing scripted audio drama series, I'm sure there plenty of students (theatre majors or otherwise) who would be interested in trying out the voice acting that comes with such a program. And there are those students who want to be scriptwriters and could pen the scripts for each episode (I should know, I took a script writing class last term with about 20 other people and plan to do so again in winter).
3) Fund raising? Without bake sales? Well crap, that is the only kind of fundraiser I have ever organized myself. All others were planned by other people. If bake sales are off the table, the only other fundraisers I can immediately think of are plant sales or car washes, but I doubt that will get much of the needed money. Maybe hold a dinner catered by the student chefs? That might work.
I read more books than magazines, you have been warned.
1) Did I see any books on the ALA's "Frequently Challenged" list(s) that I recognized? Yes, yes I did as I'm sure several others who view the lists will. There was Harry Potter, Catcher in the Rye, Huckleberry Finn, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Twilight, just to name a few. Admittedly though, a lot of the books I recognized I know more through reputation or association than having actually read them. I (somehow) never had to read Huckleberry Finn in school and while Catcher in the Rye was on the reading list for my junior year literature class, we never actually got around to it. My poor sister had to read both of them though, and The Kite Runner, though that probably has to do with her going to a different high school than I did; yet weirdly we've agreed I ultimately went to the better one, and somehow the only common high school required book I had to read was Gatsby which has not been challenged, at least in recent years. The only book on the list provided that I have read, albeit not by choice, was To Kill A Mockingbird which I have mostly forgotten in the years since my freshman year of high school since at the time I found it boring. I probably still would if I am honest; I find most books of that nature unappealing.
2) My take on limiting access to certain books? Well, it's complicated. The most recurring reason for book challenging I can see on the list is matters pertaining to sex and (for lack of better phrasing) non standard sexuality (i.e. homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.). Violence and "occult" references do occur on occasion, but sex and LGBT matters seem to be the more common of the causes. If it was not the only reason for being challenged that it was at least one of them.
Personally I find this hilarious since I think it is less because of the content and more because, as a friend of mine put it: "Everybody wants to have sex, not talk about it." Having sexual content in a book means that younger readers might not understand everything and go to their parents for an explanation which, depending on the question asked, the parents might not be able to answer. Some parents would also probably rather their children not learn about something like sex or sexuality through means other than their parents, which is where "The Talk" comes in. Though in my experience "The Talk" only happens briefly in the car on the way to school and ends as soon as we get to the school and is never resumed afterwards. For my part, I wouldn't mind any kids I have learning about sex or sexuality through reading or learning about it on their own; I'll help them to the best of my ability if they ask, but it would be kind of hypocritical to keep them from learning this stuff on their own when that's pretty much what I did (please do not ask for specifics).
Ultimately I think it is the responsibly of the parents to decide which books to let their kids read, one parent might be perfectly fine with letting their kid read The Hunger Games, but another might not because, you know, it's a book about a bunch of kids between 12 and 18 killing each other for blood sport. Each kid will react differently to the same thing. I want to be a writer myself, and while what I want to write I would with the intention of making the books for anyone who wants to read them, young or old, I can totally see some people not finding my work appropriate for children (not that it would be written specifically for them anyway).
That said, while I do not endorse book banning, that are some cases where I think restricting a book is more valid. This is my opinion on books where legitimate arguments for their being potentially dangerous can be made beyond having "sexual content" and "LGBT themes" which are rather vague and uninformative. The Fifty Shades books are such examples. Thesethreevideos can explain how Fifty Shades can be dangerous beyond its being an affront to literature much more than Twilight ever could have been. Thirteen Reasons Why is another possible example, though that is a bit more up in the air because some people read it differently than others. Books where a reasonable argument for it containing harmful messages are probably better off away from the grasp of impressionable kids. There is a huge difference between handling a taboo subject with respect and tact to the subject matter (or including it in a more inconsequential way, think Dumbledore's homosexuality and how it is just a trait that does not really change anything in the long run) and merely using taboo subjects as window dressing or as an attention grabber, and I would like think most people are smart enough to tell the difference. The latter area is where I think people can argue restricting access to a book since such books are usually, well, legitimately dumb... and bad.
3) What kind of books do I like? Well, the books I can see on my bookshelves from where I am sitting at my computer are my copy of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, my collection of Redwall books, my copy of Ivanhoe, my My Little Pony IDW comic books... the only thing I can see that they all have in common is that they are fantasy and/or fiction. Which is fitting because I do enjoy fantasy and science fiction, they are two of the genres I want to write (although I have a leaning towards fantasy). Those are the printed books I read though, as I have mentioned in posts past I also read fanfiction online. I mostly use the website TV Tropes to pick a fanfiction to read sine they have a "Fanfic Recommendations" page to make it a bit easier. One that I read recently was a crossover and mashup of The Simpsons and Sailor Moon that saw Lisa becoming Sailor Moon instead of Usagi (no I have not read or seen Sailor Moon but I do know the basic premise) that I found legitimately funny; and then there was that impressive My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic take on Shakespeare's play Twelfth Night. Basically my taste in reading material is much like everything else: I like what I like, don't know why I just do.
Topic II: Magazines
1) Do I read magazines, online or print? No, not really. I've never really had an interest in reading them. Occasionally, I will use what I think count as online magazines (such was the case with my two Blog Projects where I used articles from, Vulture and The A.V. Club among others) for school work when I need information and sources of it. Otherwise I've generally had no interest in reading magazines.
2) Advertising in those magazines? It's impossible for me to tell. I don't read print magazines and I have an ad-blocker on my computer so any online magazines I visit won't show ads. And since I don't read magazines, I cannot say what my tastes in magazines would say of me.
I can talk about movies? FINALLY. SOMETHING I ACTUALLY ENJOY GOING ON ABOUT! GET READY FOR A WALL OF TEXT THAT I WILL NOT BE SORRY FOR THIS TIME!
1) Introduction
The movie I chose for this project is Zootopia. It's only two years old so it's probably recent enough.
Why did I chose this movie? Because a) it's one I have seen; and b) it works for this assignment. I would have preferred to talk about Frozen or the Star Wars sequel trilogy. But unfortunately I don't think those films would work as well as Zootopia; with those movies I would start ranting about their unflattering writing (big surprise coming from the amateur writer) instead of their place in and relevance to society and culture. Although I could possibly pull that with The Last Jedi*.
Here's the teaser.
And the trailer.
And because I want to include it, the Honest Trailer.
It was directed by Byron Howard and Rich Moore. Howard has been working at Disney animation since the 1990's, serving as an animator on various Disney movies from the time before his directorial debut with Bolt. He has since co-directed Tangled and Zootopia and is currently working on a new original animated movie with the guy who made Hamilton.Moore meanwhile is also a veteran in animation having worked on The Simpsons (notably the first Treehouse of Horror episode*) and Futurama before crossing over. His directorial debut was Wreck-it-Ralph and he co-directed its (currently) upcoming sequel.
The films main characters are voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin (Once Upon a Time) and Jason Bateman (Arrested Development). Supporting cast members include Idris Elba, Jenny Slate, Bonnie Hunt, Don Lake, J.K. Simmons, and Shakira. Its story involves rabbit police officer Judy Hopps (god I hate that surname) and her attempt to be taken seriously as an officer. She then attempts to do this by solving a mystery involving the city's predator animals with the aid of a red fox con artist named Nick Wilde (less annoying but still, really?).
I already mentioned it's box office return; and it won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. I'd say it was successful.
3) Analyze
I cannot say how similar or different this film is to Howard and Moore's previous work. Out of them I have only seen the first "Treehouse of Horror" and the Futurama episodes Moore directed, and I cannot in good faith use them as this movie is on a completely different level than those. However I can compare this film to previous films from Disney animation at large. Similarities include the film being, mostly, family friendly since there is nothing overly scary, gory, sexual or otherwise taboo in the film (well except the nudist club, but they're all featureless and it's not played for sexual elements so it doesn't count); having a more lighthearted tone; being animated; and being marketed primarily to children. Differences include the envoironment of the film (a modern world of anthropomorphic mammals), the lack of princesses and royalty in general, and the genre (buddy cop crime film as opposed to fairy tale-based fantasy). Not that it's the first Disney film to try a different genre.
For the purposes of this project lets run with the idea that Zootopia is an animated buddy cop movie; as such it has a lot in common with them. A large scale crime/conspiracy that needs to be solved, a more by the books character being paired with a wild card, even one of the two protagonists not being a police officer is not uncommon. However, one major similarity this film has with other buddy cop movies, especially the old ones from the 1970s through 1990s, is it is a film about race relations. Most buddy cop films of decades past were about two polices officers, one white and one not working together and trying to get along with each other despite the (then) recent racial tension. The point of these films was too comment on and help heal the racial divide in the country in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's. The major difference being that the characters in Zootopia are all animals (which is a problem with the film and its message, but I'll get to that in a minute).
4) Interpretation
Does matter? Is it important? In the grand scheme of things this film probably does not matter anymore that most other Disney films. It's another animated feature from Disney, the most famous animation company in the western hemisphere. It is notable for being the first Disney film to talk about racial differences in the way most other films do though (Hunchback kind of did, but this one has it more in the forefront).
Does it reflect a cultural trend? Possibly. If that cultural trend is placing content traditionally considered to be not child friendly in films/shows directed at children. Steven Universe has LGBT themes all over the place for one, and Gravity Falls had a lot of disturbing and scary imagery (like wall mounted animal heads bleeding with glowing eyes while chanting demonically. Gravity Falls was rated TV-Y7 for every episode, including that one).
Target Audience? Families and people with children. It's a Disney film.
Stereotypes? Offensive messages/material? Not really, Disney tries to avoid those. Unless animal stereotypes count, then the film has a few of those because most media starring anthropomorphic animals does in some form or another. The message of racial equality the film tries to convey is a good one though, even its method of telling it is not that great.
5) Evaluate
Strengths and Weaknesses? Its strengths are the usual strengths of a Disney movie. Great animation (even if I'm kind sick of 3D), great voice acting, and likeable characters; Judy Hopps for example is a great role model for both girls and boys, even her voice actress thinks so.
It greatest weakness is a common weakness in a lot of modern Disney movies: its writing. So I get to rant about writing after all. This is a film about race, but in order to make it a more kid friendly one the writers use anthropomorphic animals divided between "predator" and "prey" as an allegory. First of all, I'll let a quote from J.R.R. Tolkien explain my opinion of allegories in general. This film is also a good example of why I don't like allegories because I don't think this film completely understands the massive contrast between our world and Zootopia's. I am not the only one. Now I don't think it's as bad as Crash and I can think of two differentexamples of race relations allegories that try to use stand ins for minorities that are worse.
But where those two examples are uncaring and lazy respectively, Zootopia does have an air of competence and good intentions to it. The article above can handle Zootopia's misunderstanding of how racism works but I can handle why animals as an allegory does not work, especially in the films context. A world inhabited by animals, even if they were using human approaches to race, would function completely differently. Firstly, they would not just divide themselves down the lines of "predator" and "prey", not least of all because some animals are both in the food chain and predators often fight over territory and hunting grounds. Secondly, animals rely on each other for food and in order to form the world of the film they would have to stop hunting and killing each other to get there, which would be difficult when some of those animals have uncompromising dietary requirements. Thirdly the predators being the targets of bigotry in the film is the complete inverse of reality. If the film actually thought through a clear pecking order (which it completely lacks) then predators would probably be at the top (since their relation to prey is more akin to slave owners and slaves) and be racist (or more accurately species-ist) towards the animals they previously used for their benefit, albeit as food rather than free labor*. As the above article mentions racism requires a discriminatory system and people who benefit from it being complacent with, supporting, and defending it by dehumanizing and discriminating against those at the bottom of the systems pecking order. The way animals work, the system would be discriminatory towards prey and the predators would the the ones to develop bigoted views because of it. This Wisecrack video helps understand the "animals as allegories" problem in connection to the real world as well.
This is all the result of over thinking though, and to be fair trying to make a movie about race relations for kids is hard enough already. Do I think the film is good? Yes. I don't think it a great film, and certainly not a good film about race, but it's message of inclusiveness and harmony is a good one and it's wrapped in a kid friendly buddy cop/crime movie. And people don't tend to overthink kids movies anyway. So like that Wisecrack video said, if you don't over think it, it is perfectly harmless family fun.
Is it the artists best work? I'd say no. For the directors, I would prefer to watch Byron Howard's Tangled or Rich Moore's Simpsons and Futurama episodes. For the Disney animation studio as a whole I would rather watch Beauty and the Beast (1991) or The Hunchback of Notre Dame myself. My first choice for a buddy cop comedy is Blazing Saddles as well.
Is it memorable? Sort of, it not Disney's first film starring all anthropomorphic animals, but it is arguably the more notable and memorable one, even I personally really enjoy their version of Robin Hood myself (though it still has nothing on Men in Tights!). This like because it is a) more recent; and b) a lot less generic than Robin Hood.
Me vs. the Critics? Here's a place full of reviews for you, that and it won the Oscar for best animated feature (although I would have given that to Moana). They are all probably not overthinking the film like I am though, or maybe they are not overthinking it enough.
7) Engagement
I don't know if the directors have social media accounts. They probably do and the Disney Animation Studio as a whole definitely has one; as well as a YouTube channel. But no I don't follow them, nor have I subscribed to the Disney Animation Studio's channel because as far as I'm concerned, the social media atmosphere surrounding a film is irrelevant to the film itself; it can be helpful to understand what people think about a film, but the film itself does not change in regards to it, only your thoughts on it.
I do not own a copy of Zootopia on DVD or Blu-ray. If I want, I can just rent it from Xfinity again.
Do I look up the artists work? I mean, I try to go to a new Disney film when one is released and pay attention to what new films they are developing. Does that count?
What do my friends and family think about the film? Well, I don't know about my friends; with half of them I don't think this is their kind of movie so they probably have not even seen it. My sister, though, has and she likes it fine although she agrees the usage of animals as racial allegories was probably a bad idea, or at least badly handled.
8) Conclusion
I guess the moral of this project after all of that is that some writers don't think hard enough about what they are writing, especially in regards to more touchy subjects. And that good intentions can easily be muddied up by less than thought out allegories, which is why I personally hate them and heavily discourage their use by other writers.
I did learn a few things though. I had never known what Howard and Moore had done prior to doing Zootopia and I learned that I was not the only one who takes issue with the film attempts at allegory. Something I had suspected, but like to have confirmed nonetheless. I'd still recommend Zootopia to people, but more if you want to see a kids version of a buddy cop movie.
*Although for the "offensiveness" part of this project, Kylo Ren shirtless is definitely offensive to my sense of a guys attractiveness. The dude looks like he's got a mannequin chest.
*Which I watch, along with its sequels and "Halloween of Horror" every October.
*That probably would have resulted in a much more fucked up movie; think of it, predators at the top of a pecking order with prey animals (who have human level sentience) still being treated like farm animals whose only purpose is to serve as a food source... there's an alternate universe out there somewhere where that is what Zootopia is, I'm sure of it.
Note:
I'm still not sorry for this wall of text, I got to write about something I enjoy writing about for once.
This blog post is going to be a lot shorter than the previous ones, primary because I don't know much about this week's topic, hate this week's topic, and personally don't enjoy talking about this week's topic. If I don't post anything though I'll get a zero, and that is just unacceptable.
Anyway...
Topic I: Newspapers
1) I live in a small town where jack-all happens. If anything does happen you'll usually hear about it through either word of mouth, or you'll be there to see it first hand. I've done both. One time I watch a guy who took a baseball bat to someone in the library get arrested downtown (the library is right next to both the Sheriff's office and police department building). Another time I heard from a friend of mine that someone in a neighboring town literally blew up his house with an errant cigarette. Local news plays little in my daily life (partially because so little happens), and I know those two stories are true because I was there for the first one and saw the aftermath of the second.
2) No I don't subscribe to any online newspapers. I simply have no interest in having one, nor the money to sustain one if I wanted to.
3) I'm probably a three, maybe a three point five. I'm a bit more informed in some areas than in others. I can tell you which month Wreck-it-Ralph 2 comes out (November; which reminds me, I need to see the first one), but I could not tell what Congress decided not to agree on last time they were in session.
Topic II: Fake News
As if the last topic was not one I hated enough...
1) No I don't agree with the mutated cheeto man when he claims certain stories are fake. Primarily because 1, he's too consistent with which stories or news groups he calls that (you never hear him talk about Fox News the way he talks about CNN or the NY Times, so he's very clearly picking on whoever is not stroking his ego); and 2, most of the stories he claims are "fake" are things that, if proven true, could get him in serious trouble. Unless your in an action movie trying to hunt down the real perpetrator, the innocent usually don't vehemently deny things in such a way that makes them look even more guilty.
2) Yes, yes he is; or he's at least trying to, whether or not he's actually succeeding depends on who you ask.
3) I can't. I don't know enough and that is one rabbit hole I refuse to go down. It's pretty much a cavalcade of yelling and nonsense to me. I will say though that this whole mess has caused a lot of Americans to start double checking where their information is coming from, so that might end up being a good thing.
Note
I cannot help but find it ironic that I hate discussing real world journalism and news when a few characters (one of them a main character) I've come up with are journalists themselves (albeit more along the lines of The Daily Show's correspondents than CNN's).
Topic I: 1st Amendment, Copyright, Freedom of Expression
1) In case the following post does not make it clear I did not watch the entirety of "RiP! A Remix Manifesto". I simply do not have the time or attention span to watch someone go on about copyright and freedom of expression for an hour and a half.
That being said I did gather the whole idea of "remix culture" fairly easily since I have grown up in it. I've listened to remixed songs on occasion and I mentioned in an earlier blog am an unabashed reader of fanfiction, which is pretty much a remix of a preexisting work. The idea that "culture always builds on the past" was also an idea that was able to hold my attention before the documentary bored me into a coma. When I am writing I often rely on old stories and myths to create environments or creatures; so I am relying on past stories to write newer ones. Adaptations of books and plays from history probably count as remix culture as well, Romeo + Juliet, Baz Luhrmann's modern day adaption of Shakespeare's second most known play is probably a good example*.
2)I cannot speak for any other person's creative process, only my own. I will admit that my first attempts at writing were pretty much bad overt or thinly veiled fanfiction. The only thing is that I did not publish/post them online no... I wrote them in elementary school and once or twice had to read them out loud to the teacher and my classmates. Now fortunately, I was to naive to be embarrassed about it and the only people who really cared were my mum and teacher who then promptly forced me to try to be more creative and original after.
Now as someone who has read fanfiction or listened to audio plays based on and audiobooks of fanfiction I can safely say that there are a lot of creative people out there who channel that creativity through it or fan art. The legality of fan works is something of a grey area since the fanfiction writers or artists are almost never doing this for profit, unlike actual digital pirates, but the problem of course is that they are still using copyrighted material. Although as this video shows fanfiction and remix culture has possibly been around for centuries, but once copyright became a thing it became a lot more complicated. I personally would not mind fan works of my original creative works if they ever get published or made; and to be fair most creative artists for shows and movies don't seem to mind either. And I don't get why they would, it is effectively free advertising.
3) As someone who is partially intentionally blind to the world outside my own circle I cannot think of any events where someone when "too far" in exercising freedom of speech or the press. I would point to the Charlottesville Neo-Nazi's but that's a can of worms that I'm not really in the mood to open.
4) In relation to the above, I would have had them all imprisoned for hate speech and encouraging it (or shot for treason since they were explicitly evoking both Nazi Germany (a hostile power) and the Confederacy (literal traitors who killed U.S. soldiers and citizens)).
Topic II: WikiLeaks
If I say "screw this, I'm outta here" would I loose points?
...
Probably... ugh...
1) I've always found the less I know about WikiLeaks the better. That said, when I do hear about them I've generally gotten them impression that they can be rather irresponsible.
2) They generally don't seem to think through what the leak to the public. Different pieces of information can have different ramifications depending on where they come from and what they relate to.
3) WikiLeaks is pretty much doing what whistleblowers did in the early twentieth century when they revealed what was going on in the meet packing industry. That being said, I feel like there is a bit of a difference when leaking documents from businesses and corporations and leaking government information, which is often classified for very good reasons. Although even still, leaking stuff from the government is also something of a grey area since sometimes something that was supposed to be targeted at potential threats can spill into non-threats.
4) When it comes to the current state of free speech, freedom of information and freedom of expression/creativity, I see no reason to be immediately alarmed. Most people can still say whatever they want, they're more likely to get flak from other people than the government for it. If the White House leaks are any indication, government transparency (at least for the executive) is probably not a problem. Lastly, most creative artists and content creators are rather friendly towards their fandoms who remix their copyrighted characters and works through fanfiction for fan art, probably because (again) they get free advertising.
Although my intentional limiting of my understanding of topics like this makes me rather narrow minded here.
5) Didn't I just do that above? But here's an example of remix culture at work (two ways!) for you anyway.
There was no fucking way I was doing this project on advertising. Television though I can handle, the problem was that I'm not really watching a lot of television right now (I'm doing a lot of reading though) and what I am watching I don't think would work for this project. I am sure there is someone out there with a better brain who could make this assignment on Trollhunters or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, (two of the shows I currently watch with regularity) but I am not one of them.
Fortunately, there is one show I watch that does work, so welcome back to this class blog:
Date Time and Network: Despite its otherwise insane airing schedule new episodes of the show consistently air at 7:30 pm (Pacific Time, it might change for other time zones) on Cartoon Network. Days are harder to pin down because of the shows draconian airing schedule I outlined in a previous blog. Personally I record the show on DVR and watch it after it has recorded.
Episode Watched: I watched the most recent episode "Reunited". A basic rundown of the episodes story is that a wedding between two of the show's central characters is interrupted by the arrival of the series main antagonists. The main cast of Steven (Zach Callison), Garnet (Estelle) and her components Ruby (Charlyne Yi) and Sapphire (Erica Luttrel), Pearl (Deedee Magno Hall) and Amethyst (Michaela Dietz) are all present for the episode as are supporting cast members Greg (Steven's father voiced by Tom Scharpling), Connie (Grace Rolek), Lapis Lazuli (Jennifer Paz) and Paridot (Shelby Rabara). The episode also guest stars Uzo Aduba (Orange is the New Black) as Bismuth, Lisa Hannigan as Blue Diamond and Patti LuPone (any number of stage musicals) as Yellow Diamond.
I personally don't think any of the cast is typecast, but then again, I am probably the wrong person to be asked that question.
Research: Steven Universe first started airing in November of 2013. It was created by Rebecca Sugar who is both the first woman and first non-binary person (though she did not come out as such until recently) to create a show for Cartoon Network. Sugar first worked as a storyboard artist for Adventure Time before departing to work full time on Steven Universe. One of the shows story board artists, Ian Jones-Quartey, is the grandson of the designer of the Flag of Ghana and based one of the shows characters on her. Since its release (and especially as it has progressed) the show has enjoyed success and a cult following.
I need to move on but more in formation about the show and its creator can be found in this radio interview.
ADs: I skip them, so I'm not covering them.
Analyze
Attitude/Style: While it is technically set on an Earth with an alternate timeline (the Delmarva peninsula is a full on state here), it is other wise set in the modern day. The characters use modern speech patterns and dress in modern clothing. The show is animated which means they literally have no limits on where things can happen since they don't have to build expensive sets. Now I'm better at analyzing story and characters them filming techniques because I am a writer, so I'm going to have to skip describing the editing and that stuff because I'll have little to no idea what I am talking about.
Similarities: The one main similarity I can find worth mentioning here is that the show is more serialized that it was when it started, which is something a lot of shows have been doing or experimenting with of late. Trollhunters for example has an overarching story line for it's first thirteen episodes, and every Stevenbomb is effectively a serial as all five episodes tend to cover an overarching story.
Differences: A major difference the show has is that, despite having a male main character, there is still a large female presence in the main cast. In fact Steven is the only male main character (on a nominal level, Gems technically have no gender but project female forms and have female voices). Not to mention said male main character, while still the Hero, does not do much of the traditional hero things: he is not the leader (that's Garnet), and he does not do much sword swinging (usually but that's a whole other story). Instead he has more traditionally feminine powers, particularly healing, is a pacifist (until he's got no choice) and is rather emotional.
Further, the show takes advantage of the fact that Gems technically have no gender but appear female to discuss LGBTQ related themes; in fact that wedding mentioned above is between Ruby and Sapphire; it is presumably the first on screen same-sex marriage in an animated series aimed at children.
Interpret
Why can't I just have someone smarter and more qualified do this? Fine...
Stereotypes: There aren't really any. Steven (as outlined above) is anything but your usual sci-fi or fantasy hero character, Ruby and Sapphire's relationship has bumps in it (but so does every relationship) but is otherwise perfectly happy, Pearl is something of a neurotic perfectionist with a complicated relationship with almost everyone, Amethyst is laid back and more relaxed and no supporting characters rely on stereotypes for there character. They are all characters; as a writer I can say with confidence that a stereotype is not a character. Even some of what would be considered "stereotypes" are used advantageously. Connie, who is of (India) Indian descent, has somewhat controlling parents, but one of her major character arcs is resisting them and telling them it is unnecessary.
Demographics: While the show is perfectly okay for children, it seems to be aimed at families for the most part. Family is actually a major theme in the series since Steven is a Gem/human hybrid and thus has two families, even if his human family only accounts for his father Greg. Again I don't watch the commercials, but the glimpses I do get are pretty much the ads Cartoon Network always runs, toys and products aimed mostly at children.
I cannot say exactly what kind of cultural picture of the U.S. I would paint if I were a visitor from another country. It would probably be rather jarring compared to the news about the U.S. that circles the globe these days.
Evaluate
Strengths and Weaknesses: This article can go into the shows strengths better than I can:
I've already gone into detail about the shows insane airing schedule, but as this article explains there is method to the madness; in short, it is because of modern viewing habits like binge watching.
It's one potential weakness that I can see is a common weakness in children's television and movies that I see all the time. It can sometimes struggle to simplify a much more complicated subject. Now to be fair it does a better job of it because of clever writing, especially in regards to Gem fusion and its metaphors for everything revolving around relationships and sex, but for other topics like the rebellion that took place in the shows backstory it can be hard to compromise between an inherently complicated subject (rebellions usually are) and simplifying it for children. Although to get around that, the show focus on the simpler emotional causes and results as opposed to the complicated political ones.
What do I like about the show? Simple. I like it's story and writing (the latter is best exemplified hereWARNING: THERE BE MAJOR SPOILERS THERE), I like it's characters and the way they bounce off each other, and I love it's art style. It is one of the most unique looking shows out there right now.
Me vs. the Critics: There is a slight problem for this area. Most of the "critical" reviews of the show come from Gizmodo or the A.V. Club, which I'm not 100% sure counts as "professional". The likely explanation for this is that animation (be it TV or film) does not get much respect in the art world so more "important" critics probably ignore them. At any rate, the guys and gals from Gizmodo and the A.V. Club seem to be in agreement that that shows strengths are its writing, characters and artwork. The show has also been nominated for a few Annie Awards and Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards, though it has not won any of them.
Engagement
I do watch the show on a semi-regular basis. Binge watching the show is practically the only to watch new episodes when they come out, and I usually watch the show with my sister who is herself a more die hard fan of the show than I am. (I primary watch it with her because she has the best reacts to the repeated use of cliffhangers at the end of each Stevenbomb).
Alas the show does not have a dedicated website like others do. It does have a Facebook page, but as we have already established that I am not one for social media, I don't visit it.
How the Show Uses Social Media: It doesn't. As I outlined in a previous blog for this class the show does not really use social media for much. It's Facebook page is mostly links to either YouTube videos of clips and songs from the series instead of more useful information like air dates. As for what people say about the show on social media... well... here's a link. It can explain better than me. (I would like to clarify that is not meant to imply it has a shitty reputation, I just cannot condense it so it is easier to show then tell).
Conclusions
After spending the the last four hours straight typing and editing this, I can say my conclusion is that I bet on the right horse. I learned a few things more about the shows writing from those A.V. Club articles and I learned about the logic behind the draconian airing schedule the show has*.
I cannot say much surprised me about the show as I went deeper down the rabbit hole. As I have mention about 345 before in this and maybe other blogs I want to be a writer, and that means that very few writing tricks can surprise me anymore. What I was instead was even more appreciative of the show and what it does to be different from others, and how much it has influenced me in what I want to write.
*Just because I understand it though, does not mean I don't hate it. I still do.
Advertisement 1 (the good, or rather, clever one): Frozen's teaser
1) Now hopefully you've seen the teaser as provided above, but for those of you who did not, it is basically a short comedy skit. Olaf the snowman accidentally sneezes his carrot nose off and it lands in the middle of a frozen-over lake. He then races against a reindeer to reach it, both of them having to use comedic methods of moving due to the ice. Eventually the carrot gets flung back to land and the reindeer runs off ahead of Olaf. Olaf believes his nose gone, until the reindeer returns and gives him his nose... only for Olaf to sneeze again thanks to reindeer fur, except he holds his nose this time, which blows his head off instead.
Now what stands out about this ad is how little it ultimately tells you about the movie it is advertising. When one thinks of a movie trailer, or even teaser, they usually picture them telling at least a few things about the movie. But this one does not. Compare this teaser to that of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. This teaser at least shows you the new characters and teases other elements. Frozen's teaser by contrast tells you little to nothing and seems, for lack of a better word, childish.
2) This is an ad for a Disney movie, who do think the main target audience is? Children; although if you want specifics, probably anyone 12 and younger (not that you have to be that age to enjoy it).
3) This teaser does not really use persuasive techniques, instead it deliberately undersells the movie by making it seem like it is going to be some silly kids film that adults and older kids will not get anything out of; in doing this it persuades older viewers that the film is going be purely for little kids. However as time went on and the release date got closer they eventually released this trailer. This one is a bit more epic and interesting is it not? Releasing a deliberately "bad" trailer got people talking and the kids interested, and as the movie got closer the trailers got more traditionally interesting to everyone. What this ultimately was was a major gamble by the studio, to undersell the film so that when people did see it (because parents have to accompany their younger kids) everyone would be saying the movie was better than they expected thereby persuading others to see it. It was just as much a persuasive advertising campaign as a campaign of trickery and audience manipulation.
4) Frozen remains the highest grossing animated film and the twelfth highest grossing film of all time to this date. You tell me if the advertising method worked. This is also reflected in general audience reception to the film, although if this were a film critiquing class I could tell you why I personally don't like it that much.
1) These are all basic posters for the horror movies, all of which deal with supernatural elements, ghosts, daemons and what have you*. The posters are all ominous and unnerving like most horror movie posters, but you'll notice upon looking at them that they all claim to be based on a true story, something that is commonplace in a lot of movies like those based on history.
2) I honestly have no idea who the target audience for these posters is. I have no idea who the target audience is for horror films, period. I can only imagine it is those people who enjoy being scared because of the adrenaline rush it provides. Which I totally get, although I prefer to get it from video games myself.
3) Basically these posters and the advertising in general claiming these movies are based on real events are trying to persuade you accept the more ridiculous things in the movie. According to Joel Coen (of the Coen Brothers), claiming a story is true gives it that feel of authenticity so that the filmmakers can try to get away with things that the audience might not accept as realistic, like ghosts, daemons, or what have you in the case of horror movies. There is no such thing as ghosts or daemons, and those "true stories" horror films claim to be based on can never be verified because the eyewitnesses who allege they were real were either delusional, lying, or mistaken. In all likelihood their eyes were playing trick on them, the eye is a mysterious thing and it has a habit of doing that, it why Obi-wan says "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them."
4) Not all of these horror films were super successful, either critically or financially. Some did better than others so the whole "based on a true story thing" gimmick probably is unimportant to the films success or failure.
*Fun fact, in Greek mythology, daemons are considered good and benevolent instead of evil.
