menu

Viewpoint

  • Film franchises fail to please

    March 28, 2012 | Posted By: | Entertainment · Viewpoint |

    By: An Uong

    It’s Saturday. After a week of hard work at school, it’s time to visit the expensive albeit local theater. There, we scan for the posters that pique our interest, or the titles that have received positive reactions. I can assure you that at least one of them is the fifteenth or so installment of an established franchise. Iron Man 500 maybe, or Spiderman 360. It seems as though the film industry is stuck somewhere along the creative process.

    Psychologically, franchises that have already been acquainted with audiences are the ones that have returning viewers. The public naturally wants to know what happens to its favorite hero or heroine after the last film. It’s obvious that this marketing strategy is effective, but only to a certain extent. Money is at the crux of everything, so it seems. Because audiences would rather fall back on something they are more comfortable with rather than take a chance on something unknown, film producers know this is what brings in the big bucks.

    A franchise is like that favorite sweater you were gifted with five years ago. It might be comfy, but it’s starting to fall apart at its seams. New ideas must be tried, no matter how risky or else they’ll only have audiences walking away with disappointed faces.

    As an artist, it is one’s responsibility to create, not recycle. Granted, it’s quite difficult to produce an original piece of work due to how easily one artwork influences the creation of another, but, trying never hurts anyone. I understand the pressures of struggling to catch some bait in a competitive shark tank, but to return to the same old safety net is to set aside one’s creative abilities for lesser but more profitable projects.

    This July, “The Amazing Spiderman” is opening in theaters, yet another recycled idea that will most likely hit gold, but fall short on originality. Box Office Mojo reports that the original Spiderman franchise grossed $423 million with its debut film, but as more movies were added, the gross income gradually declined to $336 million with the third installment. After all, there are only so many times one can sit through a two-hour film of Spiderman swinging from one tall building to another with the same pitiful issues.

    After the third or so installment, it’s time to move on. The same topic keeps being used, wearing away at the archetypal plot line that involves a lot of action and riveting adventure.

    Some franchises, however, have actually succeeded in maintaining their entertaining aspects. Take “Pirates of the Caribbean,” a franchise that has been around since 2003. The success of this series of films has depended mostly on the excitable minds of the eager youth. Its first release garnered a gross of $423 million and sharply declined to $241 million by the fourth film. Jack Sparrow, no matter how amusing, is the same drunkard staggering about with his rum.

    With the entertainment industry reusing big ideas that people naturally gravitate towards, creativity has been somewhat stagnated, leaving viewers yawning in their seats, or worse, snoring.

    + Read more…

    Glee gets glee-ish

    October 8, 2011 | Posted By: | Entertainment · Viewpoint |

    By: Michael Yapujian

    “Glee” and I: we sort of have a love-hate relationship. The first season: incredible, no words to describe. The second season: really? Is this the same show? The third season: Yea! Oh no, wait! WATCH OUT FOR THAT TREE.

    When the third season started out, I was loving it: the writers were getting rid of all the extraneous characters, starting to focus on fewer people, bringing back plot lines they decided to ignore in the second season, and dealing with real, pressing issues again.

    At least, this is how the first two episodes were. Then, the third episode rolled around and I felt like I needed a V-8 (I wanted to slap my forehead in disappointment). Although I liked the whole Mike-Chang-actually-has-parents-and-he’s-afraid-of-what-they’ll-think-regarding-his dancing-career, it shouldn’t have been the main focus of the “Asian F” episode.

    In “The Purple Piano Project,” I felt like I was taken back to the first season—the episode stood for something greater, it wasn’t just high school kids fighting over the solo for vanity. Rachel and Kurt were scared for their futures: they saw performances of other Broadway-bound high school seniors and realized that they were not “hot stuff” outside McKinley’s walls, and Quinn was trying to find herself (behind dyed pink hair and cigarette smoke).

    And a stroke of genius must have struck the writers, when they brought Shelby Corcoran (Idina Menzel) back. Her arrival re-ignited plot lines from the first season, and, also, Menzel is simply incredible. The episode involved Rachel getting a better understanding of how her biological mom felt about her, Quinn and Puck realizing that they really love their baby and want to be in her life.

    Then, “Asian F” came around, and the entire episode consisted of Mercedes becoming a total (insert degrading term here), and Mike Chang talking with his dad about getting an A- on his chemistry test. Yes, it was very touching hearing Mike talk with his mom about his passion for dancing, I get it, but if this persists, “Glee” will just be heading down the same spiral it did in the second season.

    The moment that Brittany received a last name, I knew the show was heading towards the wrong direction. There needs to be a central focus on a few main characters. This is a television show where we can’t focus on a different person every episode, even if they all have very interesting and tear-evoking back stories.

    The second season of “Glee” was full-on hairography, which is ironic considering the fact that the episode “Hairography” in the first season was specifically composed to prove that the “New Directions” had an excess amount of talent, which would be wasted if given into this device.
    This is the last year that Rachel, Finn, Kurt, Puck, and Quinn are going to be attending McKinley High, and the show should really shift its focus to these four again, before they graduate and leave it in the dust.

    + Read more…

    Gaga not born this way

    June 9, 2011 | Posted By: | Entertainment · Viewpoint |

    By: Michael Yapujian

    “Rah, rah, ah, ah, ah. Roma, roma, ma. Gaga, ooh la la. Want your bad romance.” Totally meaningful stuff, right?

    This is what I think of Lady Gaga and most other artists today who seem to think that rhyming the words “Mars” and “cars” make them lyrical geniuses.
    I sit baffled at the lack of significance in lyrics nowadays—how audiences sit amazed at the fact that Lady Gaga “can’t read” a person’s “poker face,” and how Katy Perry wants an “extraterrestrial” to “infect [her] with lovin’.”

    All I used to do was ridicule these artists and tell my friends that such untalented people should not be on the tops of music charts.

    But one day I was asked if I had heard Lady Gaga sing before she was Lady Gaga—before she wore raw meat to the Video Music Awards and arrived at the Grammys in an egg.

    Overtaken by curiosity, I went home and searched “the real Lady Gaga” on YouTube, and found the name “Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta.”

    No costume, no two-worded attempt at an iconic name, no eggs—but an actual name. What I found was a little startling. It was Lady Gaga singing live while playing the piano. Not performing, but rather, just sitting on a piano stool, wearing a simple turquoise dress, and pouring her heart out to the audience. There were no stunts, no shiny, fatal accessories, just a girl and a piano.

    For once, she wasn’t performing fake songs deliberately composed to get stuck in peoples’ heads like Beyonce’s “Single Ladies.” Now, I’m not saying she was the most amazing singer I have ever heard, but at least she was real.

    If Lady Gaga was still Stefani Germanotta, maybe I wouldn’t despise her. Maybe her lyrics would actually mean something instead of desperately trying to be “different.”

    I’m all for individuality, but modern-day “artists” have lost the meaning of the word.

    They don’t try to be themselves, they try to stand out in order to attract audiences—to keep them hooked on their songs, ensuring that they make their millions.

    This is not Lady Gaga’s fault that she has become this metamorphic being that changes its form every 10 seconds. It is our fault, the audience.

    Where were we when Stefani Germanotta was first starting out? Were we there to appreciate her talent and help her rise above? No. And after years and years of trying, what other choice did she have but to become Lady Gaga? Not much.

    In her first album (when she was still Stefani) titled “Red and Blue,” her voice is actually heard. It’s not auto-tuned to the point where she doesn’t even sound human. The lyrics weren’t quotoable, but at least they had some sort of meaning.

    I have to admit, even back then she wasn’t as talented as other artists like Adele or Jason Mraz, but we could connect with her as just another person battling ordinary challenges.

    And now she, as many artists, has become a conformist to the modern day desire to be futuristic and unreal.

    + Read more…
/