Saturday, April 4, 2009
If you listen to everything he's saying it's so true, and quite clever! I like when the big whale comes in after that guy upsets everyone in Twitter (if you're not familiar with Twitter, it's the whale that appears when Twitter's down or is having technical troubles).
I also especially like how he says that "we now communicate in bite-sized yippity yaps!" It is true, most of us do not call our friends to make plans, we are either texting them or sending MSN and Facebook message. The article I thought this related to was by Nancy Miller on wired magazine. The link is below, but she just talked about how we consume popular culture in little bite sized snacks, and coined the term snack culture. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/snackminifesto.html
Friday, April 3, 2009
For my last post I decided to do a wrap up of the course, and the most interesting concepts I took away from it; similar to last class' seminar. It is a little funny to think how far I've come since the beginning of class. I remember saying the first day of class that I've never blogged or read a blog before, little did I know Perez Hilton is a blog. Now I find myself blogging like a pro, weekly throughout the semester for more than one class.
One of the debates I found most interesting was the debate about journalism, and if bloggers were considered journalists. This is a difficult debate, but I do have to conclude that no bloggers are not true journalists. Yes they can be writers or a form of reporting, but I would classify them more as an alternative to journalism. Though blogging is a growing social network, and to get information out to the mass audience quick and easily, it can still not be considered journalism. I find journalists to have a prestige and professional title, which I don't think bloggers should be categorized under; not all but most journalists take their work more seriously, and are doing extensive research and observations to write a piece. By categorizing bloggers and journalists, I think is a mistake, because it will only take away from the professionalism of journalists and thus allowing just anybody to be called a journalist.
Also with viewing the Hacktivism blog and listening professor Werschler's presentation were very interesting. Hacktivism I think is OK, I don't see too much wrong with it when it is used in the right places for the right purposes. Hacking into sites decentralizes power, and takes it away from the government and major corporations. I do not agree with hacking into people's personal information, such as the government and CIA wanting to get access to Skype to be able to hack into others phone conversations. Thirdly, what I found most interesting was the discussion of media convergence and fan cultures. There are many outlets online such as YouTube, blogs and Fanlib.com that were not available to fans prior to the rise of the internet; thus making it more difficult for fans to connect and interact with one another with common interest. I think fan culture is very beneficial to both the fans, TV shows, and the Hollywood producers since it creates popularity and buzz around their film. In closing, great class and great way to end of my undergrad!
Thursday, April 2, 2009
I thought I`d try something new for one of my last posts, and from what I`ve read I don`t think anyone has wrote on this yet (but I could be wrong). I decided to check out flickr today. I know a few people who subscribe and have it, and it has worked out very well for them. Flickr is a form of participatory media, but a different genre or form of a social network; unlike twitter which focuses on status updates, Facebook on friend connections, YouTube on videos, Myspace on music... Flickr is about photography.
Flickr is a sight that anyone can subscribe to and create a simple profile by uploading your photography. This site is used for a variety of reasons, both professionally and personally. Some users use it for personal uses, upload and share family pictures so that other family members can view them and save them if they wish. It is also good for family who lives far away, it`s a place that they can go to catch up and see their new baby grand daughter or cousin and see what is new in their life. Others can use it for professional purposes; for instance if they are a professional photographer they can post pictures that they have taken to promote and get other prospective clients viewing their pictures. It is a good way for everyone with the common hobby of photography to join and connect together to post and view others photos. There is also the option to have contacts, these are the people that you are connected to such as Facebook`s friends and Twitter`s followers. These people and others can leave comments on your photography, and rate it to give you feedback and criticism to improve on your shots. It is a good way for everyone who has this hobby to communicate, get together and compete with their photography.
Like all other social networking sites, it is a form of participatory media. It is a place online where people with the same hobby and interests can interact and share photos with others. Though there are many benefits to these sites, there are negative aspects to it as well. One would include that there are people that can take your pictures and save them to their own personal computers. One way to protect your images online is to place copyright symbols and your name on your photos so that everyone is certain they belong to you. All in all this is a positive social networking site, for all people interested in photography to just view or even to post and get their photography out there.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Fans now can create their own takes, alternate endings and even spoofs on the films they watch. Below is an example of a spoof done by fans on the movie Twilight. They spoofed it, which is the act of taking an original piece in this case a film, and putting their own humorous meaning into it.
Enjoy: (it's at the end of this post!)
This topic is also discussed by Henry Jenkins on his Blog: http://henryjenkins.org/.
I agree with him, in that he says the internet has provided many outlets and sites for distribution of these fan films. There is also an above blurb which discusses how some of these film makers may think of these fan films. Some may think of it as no big deal, others may believe it to be further promoting their movie or take it as a compliment, where as others take it negatively, amateurs changing their hard work. There is more participation for these fans, which is a greater benefit to themselves as well as the film industry. I believe that these forms are harmless, these sites allow these fans to form together to discuss a common interest. It also allows them to be more creative and create forms of art for themselves; I also believe it is harmless to the film industries and that if anything it creates more hype or buzz around the film. If it is good enough to spoof, then it must be good!
From Henry Jenkins Blog:
Hollywood has been fairly alarmed by them--and with good reason. While I'm an advocate of fan filmmaking, I think the studios are right to be concerned. If you owned a sleek Maserati and the 12-year-old next door took it for a joyride, you'd be furious even if it came through without a scratch. That's something like what's going on with the studios, because amateurs are basically hijacking these billion-dollar franchises and doing whatever they want with them.
The internet also provides varied levels of distribution, from simple YouTube clips to over-the-top efforts like Revelations, which was available in a variety of forms, from iPod-friendly MP4 files to a Bit Torrent package that that could be burned to DVD-Rs to create a two-disc set--one for the movie and one for the behind-the-scenes extras, naturally.
As for publicity, websites and the blogosphere are certainly the main forum for spreading the word about fan films today, because a simple link will get your work seen.