The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies was sullied by many things. It smelt of the boardroom, for one. It was kind of uncool to the source material, for two. And for three (threes are gonna be important): parts of it functioned as a commercial for a video game and quite possibly a theme park addition as well. Don't be surprised if in the next five years a middle-earth theme park opens (if it hasn't already, I am not bothering to look). And it wasn't just the action scenes, major characters were added to make it right. Maybe you don't care, but if this were middle-earth, then there is only a handful of villains spooky and evil enough to think up such a subtle and convincing marketing scheme.
Another thing you might have noticed if you watched it (and it was a grand spectacle, there is no denying that) is how each movie had at least one theme park ride of a scene in it. For instance the sterling standard of 'theme park ride scene' that anybody could recognize is the barrel escape (lazy river/barrel ride variant) from the second movie in the series. There were other such moments... I can't afford to go back to document them.
I'll admit, I'm the wrong person to point this out. The last time I read the book I had not yet lain with a lover, driven a car, or drank alcohol. I read The Hobbit at least five times. It's a slim volume packed with adventure, humor, and the odd dwarf song/elfin slam poetry session that you may skip if you're a kid. In short: it's brief, to the point, and quite fantastic. I don't think there's a lot of modern fare that could boast it was better, if any. It might be the best, but I don't indulge in fantasy as such anymore, so I don't know. In my mind it gets the gold.
However that's not even to the point. To clarify: I may be the wrong person to look upon the Hobbit Trilogy Franchise because as soon as I heard it was to be a trilogy I already thought 'Oh, oh no. This is not how things should be. I must ride... to New Zealand!' because damn it all, it is not impossible to pack the whole little book into a single two and a half hour (three and a half extended) film. It could've been done, it would've been considerably more exciting, taken more skill, more risks with narrative, trusted the audience more... in essence it would've been greater than it was, doing more with less. I'll state that one of my chief contentions with the modern world is its increasing inability to do more with less, and how it instead does less with more, and leaves the increasingly tone-deaf uncritical audience squalling with idiotic delight anyhow. That is the degradation brought into the world by the explosion of Nerd Culture... that is what has been wrought. I will say no more at this time.
It would've taken skill to condense the story into a manageable screenplay. It'd take some 'hard' decisions like throwing Frodo Baggins and Legolas out, which would've saved about an hour. All the backstory nonsense could've been stripped out (1.5 hours), the business with the Necromancer could've handled as it was in the book (saving roughly another hour), and the love story could've been shit-canned (which would've hurt Orlando Bloom's feelings and destroyed Evangeline Lilly's lifelong dream of playing a cute elf – and also saved another hour and a half). So with basic, sensible ideas I have already cut the length of the movie by 5 hours, making my originally stated aim possible. Plus I'm reducing the budget - you're welcome.
There could've been less bloat in this fantastic franchise vehicle. I won't say the series is shit. It's pretty good – not as good as the LOTR movies (which confronted me with less major issues, though the omission of Tom Bombadil was unforgivable) but I suppose that's the price you pay when Nerd Culture rampages through the things you loved as a child. The technical achievement of the movie cannot be understated: many talented people worked hard to make it happen and I do not deride their efforts in saying the movie could've been better. Parts were cheaper than I liked, and cheapening the source is somewhat of a sin. And sometimes it all looked a little plasticky, a little too videogamey for my tastes. Which leads to the most interesting angle: the commodification of middle-earth.
What really burned me, what really made me feel squeamish, and what really sullied and cheapened the experience is the fact that it was a big old commercial – a vehicle to create retail appetite in the viewer. As stated earlier, it was a subtle one (or at least subtler than Transformers), but not too subtle for this viewer (who, cards on the table, never played Shadow of Mordor). The game was quite hyped and the movie was incredibly hyped, so much so that I, who was quite outside of the media ecosystem, still heard more than enough about the trilogy's finale. Two rentals and a discount midweek viewing later I had all the facts at hand to make my dismal voice heard in the matter. I was free to state my opinions bloggishly, and I knew I had to.
The videogame-like action sequences (when Galadriel, Elfin Agent Smith, and Saruman battle the ghost skeleton warriors springs to mind, or almost every other major straight-up fight or battle) set the tone to a degree where I cannot hold my peace. Watch the rhythm of the fighting, artificial enough in execution, and you can almost imagine someone pressing B three times and forward once on the joystick to execute a daring feint or parry, or the blatant finishing moves... not that filming the chaos of battle with any fidelity is possible in a staged event, but care should be taken to keep it separate from interactive experiences. The choreography doesn't have echo the digital dance. One can almost see the gang teaming up for an epic loot raid, Radagast complaining meekly about having to buff everyone and that he's got to go to sleep while the rest slash meaninglessly at a big enemy, hacking away the health bar and exchanging terse gamese jargon.
Most of my contention stems from the final movie, when all the pieces fell into place, confirming my suspicions. Azog the Defiler is a clear Shadow of Mordor Nemesis-system entity, and so is Golg. The final fight at the end, gratuitous as it is, is nothing more than a winking reference to the videogame. The whole backstory of Thorin and Azog is basically an example of the Nemisis system – wherein you slay an enemy only to find out it survived, gained power, and has your death on its mind. Their final battle is so on the nose that I had to Google, Yahoo, and AskJeeves search about the commercial theory, and finding nothing begin to write this very post you are reading. The media are so interlaced it boggles my mind, and chilled my enjoyment of the show. Also there's a little part in the second movie where the gang climbs up a blocky staircase that looked specifically Minecraftish... dreary, maudlin, maybe even unintentional, but I could not escape the connection.
The writing could've used polish and was almost painfully amateurish at times. Dain repeatedly saying bugger as if he knows of no other term for orc. The 'forcing the hand' of the Necromancer (this phrase is used and reused so much as to be admirable - a true testament to recycling lines) is the only idiomatic phrase the writers seemed to know. The love story is filled with lines that groan under their own dull and predictable weight. The earnestness with which the lines are delivered is sometimes their only saving grace, but all deviations from the book are apparent because the lines are either too flat or too flowery, and the actors make them work, but a critical ear will hear what it will. The Master of Laketown and his wormish assistant are so baldly written they become parodic, which was out of place in a movie that took almost everything else too seriously. I did enjoy Stephen Fry's portrayal for all that, but it was really very super on the nose... a little subtlety would've carried it far. The wormish guy was just... feh, super overdone, even a deaf-blind fish would've grimaced a bit at the character as he kicked infants and old women, exhibited unrealistic cowardice, stole gold from the poor, and threatened to transform into a cartoon villian. I don't recollect if they were this blatant in the book, but probably not. Tolkien was a little subtler than that.
The schmaltzy love story was for the girlfriend, the insipid video game action sequences (you can literally tell when a character has unlocked Quad Damage, Rage Counter, or God Mode by how easily they plough through the abundant fodder enemies, and there must be Life Regeneration going on) were for the boyfriend. Good for more than dates, even, but best for dates... millennials will go crazy for it. Everyone will love it, in fact, except the critics and who gives a shit about their pernicious skepticism? What a perfect creation, what an essential excretion of our era – a timeless expression of the values of 2014. The book got shafted again by the light rays of the cinema, the synergistic marketeering of commerce, was it ever any different, et cetera...
Finally: what's up with the alleged Brian Cranston cameo? It might be the most underlooked part of all, and the least offensive. I truly hope that it was Brian Cranston I saw at the horn-blowing sequence after the battle... others have noticed it as well, but I'd like to know more. If anyone gets the DVD/BluRay, please do screenshot that moment and post it. It would be good to confirm or deny this one.
There could also be a great two-hour epic of all the walking scenes in the entire Peter Jackson middle-earth series. I wouldn't watch it, but it would be hilarious enough after five minutes of steady walking in various beautiful locations.
Showing posts with label commercials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commercials. Show all posts
1/21/15
5/9/13
Has the Golden Era of Adblockers Passed?
Recently I tried to watch some online video on a television channel's website. The video applet failed to load completely and it didn't take long for me to develop the correct suspicion. I disabled my adblocker and reloaded the page. No fucking video. So I open the page in a vanilla browser and it loads, a wild contrast from what I had, up till that point, been used to. On the vanilla browser there is a banner and large square add. Then the video starts and I am subjected to extra-loud advertising, TV style, with a vengeance. In addition to the other adds. Another advertisement plays, and a third, before my content is loaded.
Adblockers, with the advent of hijacked banner ads and unscrupulous marketing, to say nothing of the paranoid or political users of the internet, are not simply a tool entitled users employ to rid themselves of annoyances. Ad-blockers are legitimately a way of keeping your computer clean, of preventing your oft-used technological distractions from compromise. The fact you don't have to watch commercials (which are basically always: manipulative, insulting, indoctrinating or some shameful combination of all three) is an added bonus to not having your internet-accessing-device fucked with.
I am not a poweruser but I've been adblocking for years - since I discovered it was possible. I understand that advertising revenue drives some smaller sites, and, yes, I'd agree they deserve their due - assuming they police their advertisements for some level of quality. Fine, whatever, have your .005 cents per impression. You deserve it, plucky little website. However, the worst offenders are often large media sites – sometimes even those which already use paywalls. Let me present a brief overview of the galloping trend of online advertising.
In the early 90's during the second wave of the internet, when things became graphical enough that advertisement in the classic sense became possible, it was largely internet entities that advertised for themselves, and certain forward looking companies often related to the tech-sector. It was a simpler time. By late 1999 basically everyone who wasn't under a rock or a dinosaur was getting into online advertisement. 'Hey, check out our website at http://www.geocities.SonnysPizza/index.htm for some coupons' and other types of hilarity abounded. Whatever, wherever you got advertised to, it took a slice of your pitiful bandwidth and generally wasted time and resources, but you had to face it. Eventually MSN Messenger (R.I.P) becomes huge, and eventually it begins to advertise to you.
Side banner; top banner; .gif flames - all of these things were familiar. Between then and now the internet has grown up and come of age to the point where a huge section of people use it. All the troglodytes, termites, attractive well-adjusted people, and infants came out of the woodwork and the internet is full of everyone now. Whatever, other people will tell you about it, and some gigantic nerd could probably make a convincingly venomous deal about it... all I'll say is it drove a wave of advertising intensity that eventually rivaled the notorious realm of television adverts.
Fucking pop-ups were one thing, but there came layers of advertising that would jump into existence around key-words. Video sidebars that glitched out your browser and had to fling their audio payloads into your ears. 'Interactive' commercials made by committees of dullards and shills. YouTube videos became clogged with side, top, and skippable pre-video advertisements for every user account considered important enough to waste your time for their profit. What was once dumb, became even dumber, amen. So it goes, right? Absolutely. Yet there were additions to your browsers that would kill all advertising.
True to form, adblockers were free. They worked, and nobody who adopted them ever looked back. Surfing without them was like going back in time. It sucked, you were exposed to all the reprehensible shit that barely existed in your ideal internet experience. Going back to ads is like hitting yourself in the face with a shoe. Beautiful adblocking programs, released by benevolent and right-minded developers, worked on classic print ads, video ads, and even ads played in video content. It is like a magic balm that drives mosquitoes far, far away. For those who use adblockers, the internet just is that much less shitty. It's less claustrophobic and it can seem like the terminal cash-in state of the world has been opposed.
So of course, it comes to an end, by hosted content ('hosting ain't free, yo') which a profitable broadcaster puts online. Until very recently I had never been blocked for anything but geographical reasons (though nationalization of the internet is another ugly recent phenomenon) but a week or two ago I was denied a show I had been following online. I imagine in a year it will be impossible to skip video-advertisements everywhere, and only the smug power users will know what to do about it. Hopefully the same people who did the good work of blocking online advertising will keep up and their programs will not lapse into irrelevance due to some frightening and monstrous online advertising epidemic.
Because what the hell? You're running a profitable business already, and why not add some more revenue? Why not even more? Why not three advertisements every five-and-a-half minutes on video content? Why not have it be 30% louder than actual content, like on TV? Who cares is the commercial is ideologically loaded or bankrupt of all value? Who cares if it's annoying? 'I like money, gentlemen, and nobody gets a free lunch!'
A browser without an adblocker is a sign of a pitiable person trapped in the commercial arena, a hopeless square, a submissive lackadaisical fuck, a worthless shit hyperbole rapist. This is one fight the internet should not lose.
Adblockers, with the advent of hijacked banner ads and unscrupulous marketing, to say nothing of the paranoid or political users of the internet, are not simply a tool entitled users employ to rid themselves of annoyances. Ad-blockers are legitimately a way of keeping your computer clean, of preventing your oft-used technological distractions from compromise. The fact you don't have to watch commercials (which are basically always: manipulative, insulting, indoctrinating or some shameful combination of all three) is an added bonus to not having your internet-accessing-device fucked with.
I am not a poweruser but I've been adblocking for years - since I discovered it was possible. I understand that advertising revenue drives some smaller sites, and, yes, I'd agree they deserve their due - assuming they police their advertisements for some level of quality. Fine, whatever, have your .005 cents per impression. You deserve it, plucky little website. However, the worst offenders are often large media sites – sometimes even those which already use paywalls. Let me present a brief overview of the galloping trend of online advertising.
In the early 90's during the second wave of the internet, when things became graphical enough that advertisement in the classic sense became possible, it was largely internet entities that advertised for themselves, and certain forward looking companies often related to the tech-sector. It was a simpler time. By late 1999 basically everyone who wasn't under a rock or a dinosaur was getting into online advertisement. 'Hey, check out our website at http://www.geocities.SonnysPizza/index.htm for some coupons' and other types of hilarity abounded. Whatever, wherever you got advertised to, it took a slice of your pitiful bandwidth and generally wasted time and resources, but you had to face it. Eventually MSN Messenger (R.I.P) becomes huge, and eventually it begins to advertise to you.
Side banner; top banner; .gif flames - all of these things were familiar. Between then and now the internet has grown up and come of age to the point where a huge section of people use it. All the troglodytes, termites, attractive well-adjusted people, and infants came out of the woodwork and the internet is full of everyone now. Whatever, other people will tell you about it, and some gigantic nerd could probably make a convincingly venomous deal about it... all I'll say is it drove a wave of advertising intensity that eventually rivaled the notorious realm of television adverts.
Fucking pop-ups were one thing, but there came layers of advertising that would jump into existence around key-words. Video sidebars that glitched out your browser and had to fling their audio payloads into your ears. 'Interactive' commercials made by committees of dullards and shills. YouTube videos became clogged with side, top, and skippable pre-video advertisements for every user account considered important enough to waste your time for their profit. What was once dumb, became even dumber, amen. So it goes, right? Absolutely. Yet there were additions to your browsers that would kill all advertising.
True to form, adblockers were free. They worked, and nobody who adopted them ever looked back. Surfing without them was like going back in time. It sucked, you were exposed to all the reprehensible shit that barely existed in your ideal internet experience. Going back to ads is like hitting yourself in the face with a shoe. Beautiful adblocking programs, released by benevolent and right-minded developers, worked on classic print ads, video ads, and even ads played in video content. It is like a magic balm that drives mosquitoes far, far away. For those who use adblockers, the internet just is that much less shitty. It's less claustrophobic and it can seem like the terminal cash-in state of the world has been opposed.
So of course, it comes to an end, by hosted content ('hosting ain't free, yo') which a profitable broadcaster puts online. Until very recently I had never been blocked for anything but geographical reasons (though nationalization of the internet is another ugly recent phenomenon) but a week or two ago I was denied a show I had been following online. I imagine in a year it will be impossible to skip video-advertisements everywhere, and only the smug power users will know what to do about it. Hopefully the same people who did the good work of blocking online advertising will keep up and their programs will not lapse into irrelevance due to some frightening and monstrous online advertising epidemic.
Because what the hell? You're running a profitable business already, and why not add some more revenue? Why not even more? Why not three advertisements every five-and-a-half minutes on video content? Why not have it be 30% louder than actual content, like on TV? Who cares is the commercial is ideologically loaded or bankrupt of all value? Who cares if it's annoying? 'I like money, gentlemen, and nobody gets a free lunch!'
A browser without an adblocker is a sign of a pitiable person trapped in the commercial arena, a hopeless square, a submissive lackadaisical fuck, a worthless shit hyperbole rapist. This is one fight the internet should not lose.
1/13/11
Commericals Should be Taxed
Since they are a form of noise pollution, it is only reasonable to tax commercials unless advertisers stop cranking up the volume or begin to focus on quality and variety. And I mean television, here. Radio is as dependent or more on ad revenue than print media.
Maybe I sound like an old, embittered man for complaining about noise pollution, but the truth stands: television programming is pretty bad at times, but commercials are always worse by at least a factor of two. And they are loud, so they pollute with noise the very homes we live in. And people without televisions feel smug about it.
Television advertisements should be taxed because they are at least as bad for your health as cigarettes. Ads convince people to eat at greasy franchise restaurants, buy insidious deep-fried snack foods, participate in 'Cash 4 Gold' schemes, and pay to watch crappy movies in theaters. All of this drives the economy, sure, but also makes each and every person a compulsive and hollow shell. The bottom line has always been worth the common man, of course, but cannot the sham democratic system throw at least one bone to the very small percentage of people who watch TV and dislike being condescended to between their 22 minutes of show?
Smokers, used to the glares of passerby, now have to deal with being unable to smoke in places of business. Now this is somewhat of a twist unlogical, but why should normal people have to deal with business being brought into their place of living? And this analogy holds, because as smokers are addicted to tobacco (or the quest to look cool), so are TV addicts to their shows and dramas and sporting events and news. There are enough opportunities for untaxed product placements in television programming, so it's not like either taxing or abolishing televised commercials will really change everything.
Maybe I sound like an old, embittered man for complaining about noise pollution, but the truth stands: television programming is pretty bad at times, but commercials are always worse by at least a factor of two. And they are loud, so they pollute with noise the very homes we live in. And people without televisions feel smug about it.
Television advertisements should be taxed because they are at least as bad for your health as cigarettes. Ads convince people to eat at greasy franchise restaurants, buy insidious deep-fried snack foods, participate in 'Cash 4 Gold' schemes, and pay to watch crappy movies in theaters. All of this drives the economy, sure, but also makes each and every person a compulsive and hollow shell. The bottom line has always been worth the common man, of course, but cannot the sham democratic system throw at least one bone to the very small percentage of people who watch TV and dislike being condescended to between their 22 minutes of show?
Smokers, used to the glares of passerby, now have to deal with being unable to smoke in places of business. Now this is somewhat of a twist unlogical, but why should normal people have to deal with business being brought into their place of living? And this analogy holds, because as smokers are addicted to tobacco (or the quest to look cool), so are TV addicts to their shows and dramas and sporting events and news. There are enough opportunities for untaxed product placements in television programming, so it's not like either taxing or abolishing televised commercials will really change everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)