Assignment # 6 - Vantage Point

A movie that I found interesting and like something I wouldn't mind going to see would be Vantage Point, starring Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker and Sigourney Weaver and directed by Pete Travis. Vantage Point is about secret service agents are assigned to protect the president but when there is an assassination attempt on his life people come forward with video tapes and evidence showing who the shooter is and where he is hiding out, but each person has a different story and point of view, you can read the full review and see the trailer and pictures here. This movie is rated PG-13 because of sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images and brief strong language. The review of the movie I found was on Fandango.com and it offered a lot more than you think it would. From the web site I found when and where the movie was playing near me, it had the movie trailer and actual clips from the movie, other movie details, fan reviews and even a critics page that gave a review of the movie from the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Variety, what ever that is.

Some additional information that the web site had to offer that I don't think I would have gotten from just seeing the movie would be the reviews from critics and other people who have already seen the movie. I think this is the kind of movie that you have to see more that once to really comprehend all of the aspects of what is really going on, since it might be a little confusing after seeing it for the first time, and since you are seeing it from many different peoples' points of view you can get lost easily. Its like when someone points out something that you may have missed the first time and seeing it again makes the movie all that much better, and on the site there are reader reviews that help point out these things to you. I also learned from the website that the movie opened on February 22, 2008 and runs for 1 hour and 30 minutes, and that it is currently number one in the box office pulling in a whopping 22.8 million dollars thus far.

Overall I think this website served as a tool to get out the details of the movie and its cast and to make it easy for people to find reviews and even buy tickets for whatever movie they choose. I don't think it promoted the movie as much as it did inform the audience, this movie isn't pushed hard in advertisements more than any other movie is on the site. Allowing people to give feedback on the movie and write a review to me doesn't really scream "cult following" but it does give people who are interested in seeing the movie and who want an honest opinion on weather they should waste their money or not to see it. I don't think it is possible for there to be a sequel to this story since it sounds like it wraps up pretty nicely in the end, but you never know with Hollywood, they'll throw anything out there for the all mighty dollar...hey, there was a Back to the Future 3.

Assignment #5 - Ugly Beautiful

I think that we have just about all see The Evolution of Beauty on youtube, if not you can check it out here, but it's pretty crazy to think that it takes that much work and that many people and especially that much digital enhancement to create what we think of as beauty. So why are they doing this? To sell more magazines? To create the illusion that these women actually look like that?

I think that the publication's practicing of altering photos is morally wrong and it should not be allowed. Thousands of women have subscription to these magazines and it isn't only hurting their self esteem, what about the young girls whose hands these magazines may fall into, their daughters or little sisters. Seeing these falsified images of these women and how they look can lead these young women to depression and in some severe cases an eating disorder.

Here reputable news anchor Katie Couric from Photoshop.com, is shown in a touched up photo that she didn't even know was going to be altered. The photo on the left is the original image taken and you can see on the right they have lightened her skin tone, and slimmed down her face and waist.

Sometimes editors are doing these kind of things without the model knowing it, but in most cases the person being photographed is well aware of the improvements made to this bodies and happy about the non surgical adjustment. The editor should only be able to do something like that if they have the consent of the person being photographed, it is never acceptable to change how someone looks without them knowing about it or asking for permission.

I think this particular photo was altered because when people see a skinny person they expect them to have a perfect face and body and not to have wrinkles, pimples of cellulite. This picture shows that just being thin doesn't make you beautiful or free from any flaws.

This is not an acceptable use of alteration because that picture on the left is who that girl really is, not the airbrushed cartoon on the right, allowing young girls to think that that is what she really looks is sad and damaging to their self esteem. Seeing people for who they really are can help improve the outlook our shallow society has on what beauty really is.

Assignment #4 - The Great Debate...Online vs. Print

A version of newspaper that I, and probably everyone else at UB, am familiar with would be The Spectrum. In today's paper, Wednesday, February 6, 2008, in both forms of media they discuss on the front page UB researchers find potentially dangerous side effect of popular drug. They both also have a side bar that gives you a preview to other stories and their page numbers to jump right to if they strike you as interesting. Both the paper in print and the online paper are easy to navigate, well laid out, interesting and easy to read.

Something that I found funny that was left out of the paper online was that another front page article that talks about celebrating Fat Tuesday, and handing out beads and fried dough to students. Also available online were a few extra articles that I was unable to locate in the actual paper, as well as a few extra restaurant reviews including Gramma Mora's on Hertal and The Melting Pot in the Galleria Mall.

The online material showed you some of the more important articles on the main screen while the paper ran that same article, entitled Event forces black students to sit in segregated section, on page 3. This might be because when someone is online they are usually in a rush to find something specific and if they weren't to see something like that at first they might just skim right over it, where as if someone is reading the actual paper they are usually relaxing with a cup of coffee and planning on going through the whole paper, not just looking for specific articles.

As far as the advertising went, in the online paper there wasn't any. Not one advertisement about anything, it was a nice change from visiting other online papers like the USA today where the entire perimeter is jam packed with people trying to sell you something. For the print version, the advertising was limited to campus events including Springfest, UB football games, the Distinguished Speakers Series and programs like study abroad. Over all I think that The Spectrum is a well run paper, with informative and interesting topics to read about in that boring class that you can never seem to stay awake in.

Assignment #3 - Parental Discretion Is Advised

Today most of the Cd's that you would see on the top ten list would most likely have this warning label on it. It is what children want and what they think is cool, to have the latest rappers CD where he is talking about guns, gangs and hoe's. I think the the labels are a good idea to have. Parents today can barely keep up on all their children get into, from the music they listen to, to their myspace account. I think the labels are a good indicator weather they should be listening to it or not. We have warning labels on everything from Cd's and video games to even out coffee cups telling us the contents is hot, so why not have one on books? Some of the books out there for teen age girls gets a little raunchy and if her mom were to pick it up and just judging by its cover would be happy her daughter was reading a book instead of on the Internet, but she would have no idea what her daughter is actually reading. Schools shouldn't ban books from coming into the library just use the rating system to help dictate whose hands the book falls into. Obviously the rating system isn't perfect, kids sneak into rated R movies, I even remember when I was in high school I went to Media Play to try and buy the new DMX CD, but the cashier wouldn't let me because I wasn't 18 at the time, so I just walked out and had my brother walk back in and get it for me. Nothing is going to be fool proof but its a start.

I think that is definitely appropriate for music, movies, video games and even books to have warning labels. Ratings for all media can help parents have a better understanding of what their children are looking at with just one glance, we all instantly know the difference between PG-13 and R. The ratings are especially important for video games, music is just words, but in video games you can actually act it out. In games like Grand Theft San Andreas, players can recruit new characters into a street gang and take over by leading drive-by shootings against rivals, without some sort of rating how else would parents have any idea what goes on in the game when all their kid tells them is that its just a driving game.

I used to read Goosebumps when I was younger, I don't remember exactly how young but I do remember getting nightmares from them. On Amazon.com the books are listed as unrated and I think to have a rating there could help. For me personally after reading Stay Out Of The Basement, there was no way you were getting me to go down there, it took me years to go down there, even today it still creeps me out at night. The Goosebumps books are classified as Horror, so that right there is an indicator that it might not be to child friendly.

Assignment #2 - Freedom of Speech...For Now

3) So far the internet has allowed anyone that had something to day, the ability to say it and for anyone to hear what they had to say. Even we are able to say whatever we want in our blogs and let our voices be heard. The Internet has been an open market for opinions to be heard on anything from the latest pictures of Britney in an ambulance to the hottest book on the bestseller's list. The internet is a great tool to help people start home businesses or look for their treasured childhood lunch box on eBay. But will it always be this way?

Some day can the companies that run the internet monolopies actually censor what we can see and post? It may be a possibility. In China their government already filtering their internet and watches it carefully. According to CBS News, Internet sites on democracy, Tibet and Taiwan were among Web destinations most frequently blocked by the Chinese government. Other sites that were also blocked included those on health, education, news, entertainment, religion and pornography.

If this is already happening in China whats to stop it from happening to us? It may be happening today but in its early stages. "After September 11, the government has the access to increased email monitoring, retention of Web logs and communications data. A wide variety of methods are used to restrict and/or regulate Internet access. These include: applying laws and licenses, content filtering, tapping and surveillance, pricing and taxation policies, telecommunication markets manipulation, hardware and software manipulation and self censorship" (Source). This sounds scary to think about but it may be an issue that is so far off in the future that it will have no impact on us.

Even though we might have that whole freedom of speech thing behind us, there is probably a good possibility that someday in the not to distant future the government and the huge cable company tycoons will probably be limiting what we say and see on the internet. It is sad to think but its bound to happen, I'm sure the government will say its for our own safety or scare us into thinking it is what is best for us, and what can we do about it? Nothing, hang our heads and just accept it. Well while its all still uncensored I'm talking full advantage of it while we have it, and I would urge you to do the same.

Assignment #1 - Media...Making us dumber since 1704

I think that the media can help improve peoples' media literacy, if used in the right way. Reading an article from the New York Times of the USA Today are some of the ways that the media improves peoples' literacy, but for the most part that is not how the majority of people are using the media. The media is just bombarding us with as much information as possible without giving us any time to process what we've just heard, how can that help even the smartest person?

For me personally I use the media for entertainment purposes, thinks like surfing the web at TMZ and Perez Hilton are the things I generally do online. Even when I get a free paper at school all I do with it is the word jumble, and for the most part I think that is also what other people are using the media for. People get easily distracted or bored so we are in need of a constantly changing environment, if we don't like the particular song on the radio, we change the station, if we don't like the re-run of Full House, we turn the channel, we need to be entertained at all times by physically doing as little as possible.

Even now a days people are beginning to not trust the news because they say that they are biased one way or another and might not give you the other side of the story or leave out some unfavorable information. It is impossible to know weather or not you are getting the whole story or just what that news broadcaster wants you to hear, their acting as a filter and that should not be allowed. The public should be given all the information and the correct facts and then leave it up to them to come to their own decision on the subject. When the media smacks us in the face with all of this ever changing information, it can confuse us and we may just believe what is being said even though we may not know for sure.

For the most part the media is not helping peoples' literacy because the media is just that, media. All the news is, is people reading the paper to you and you can see them, they give you fancy pictures to look at and keep you entertained, you really don't have to think about anything, its all told to you. For the fast paced world we live in today picking up a paper and spending all morning reading it over a cup of joe takes to long, we want to news and we want it fast, some news channels start airing as early as 5 am. The media is only out there to scare us into believing what they are telling us, they spend more time on things like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton, when there are far more worth while things to spend their air time talking about. The media is not helpful for the most part, if you want the real news minus the celebrities get an AP.