Slashdot Mirror
Oscar and Interactivity
If you were able to stay awake through the interminable posturing and back-slapping, the Oscarcast also revealed in small ways the growing impact of interactivity on culture and creativity.
Aside from the fact that The Matrix scored more Oscars than any movie except the big winner American Beauty, it was obvious that the show's producers had for the first time incorporated at least one of the primary principles of interactivity: open the doors and let people see inside the process.
It would be a stretch to say that Sunday's show was a truly interactive production, but interactivity is becoming more central all the time as creative industries -- publishing, music, Hollywood, TV -- try to figure out how to respond to the Net and the Web, and especially to the growing open-source model of information distribution. The answer: knock down the walls, bring the public into both the creative and decision-making processes. For many existing corporate/cultural institutions -- newspapers, publishing, the recording industry -- interactivity is the most difficult challenge executives face, since it requires yielding some power to consumers.
Newspapers have assumed for years, for example, that interactivity means simply putting editorial content online. Book publishers are following this dubious instinct, hailing the e-distribution of Stephen King's novella two weeks ago as a landmark event. But interactivity requires much more than that.
For the first time, the Oscar producers let the public get a closer look. They pulled back the curtain. Original music and screenwriting scripts were displayed on screens. Cameras went backstage and showed raw sets, unpainted and unfinished backdrops. They offered perspectives from the participants' point of view. This isn't ceding any real power, obviously, but still represents a new production ethic. Actors and producers were shown getting ready to go onstage, fidgeting, fixing their clothes, rehearsing their lines, and nervously yakking with one another.It was one of the first times cameras were brought into the off-stage process, an elemental notion of interactivity: permitting people to participate, at least vicariously. Peter Coyote, an actor/announcer even manned a desk backstage introducing segments and performers.
If broadcasts like the Oscars were really interactive, of course, they would give the public greater say in the production itself, perhaps by online voting about the length of speeches, the choice of hosts and presenters, and eventually, the nominees and awards themselves. That's where real interactivity could take a broadcast like this. The Academy would still have more clout than anyhone else, but the public would have more than it has now. Such a change is nearly inevitable.
Interactivity doesn't have to mean abolishing the original form, as newspapers publishers have done, and book publishers are beginning to do. The Matrix was a powerful example of interactive culture because it captured the experience of virtual, versus material, reality.
Novels like the best-selling A Staggering Work of Heartbreaking Genius by David Eggers are also interactive (some would call it post-modern) in that they acknowledge the process of writing a book -- prologues, epilogues, blurbs are all openly addressed, becoming part of the book itself. Eggers acknowledges self-promotion, the pointlessness of hype and the often self-serving choices authors make, throughout the book. Published in traditional textual form, the book still qualifies as interactive, because it allows the reader into the process, lowering the barriers that exist between consumers and vendors of information. Traditional publishing makes for an inherently unbalanced relationship.
That relationship crept into the mammoth Oscar presentation last night, albeit gingerly.
Creative interactivity changes the relationship between agenda-setters -- TV producers, filmmakers, authors, journalists, music producers -- and consumers. The equalization of the relation becomes a long, ongoing process -- a literal open-sourcing of culture. This ethic has become a powerful force. Interactive media are ascending everywhere, and passive media, institutions that refuse to cede power and sensibility to customers, are stagnant or declining. Although the Oscars remain a classic reflection of a stubbornly non-interactive culture -- Hollywood -- even the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is beginning to succumb.
No way. I want to see Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise gab on end to each other (in a serious manner) about gowns and how they don't have the breasts the other actresses have.
Or Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf. He would work too.
"the interminable posturing and back-slapping"...
You just described Slashdork in a nutshell, Jon.
Okay, I'm sick of hearing all this shit about "interactive" movies and "interactive" novels. Okay, you want that? Let's do it! SOme of you may remember this format. In school, there was this ridiculous method of "fun" that involved each person adding a sentence or a word to a story. As the story progressed, it showed just how stupid and sucky the "average" person is as writers. Rules for this: Add only one sentence per person. TRUE INTERACTIVE MOVE PART I: Once, there was a mediocre non-fiction writer who decided to write for a "hip" pseudo-news website to aid his aging career. Your TURN!
The only movie worth spit last year was Man on the Moon, plain and simple. I even vote for Kaufman as Man of the Millennium. What could be a better performance than 30-45 minutes of a guy eating mashed potatoes on stage? What's most pathetic is even the comedy award show last week on Fox failed to give it many awards. There's gotta be a conspiracy there, or a monopoly on the award-granting hierarchy.
What's with you people and your obsession with The Matrix? Is it that it used computers to do animations? I mean, I didn't find the story very interesting. You can find just as many fancy-pseudo buzzwords in the last couple seasons of Sliders. Speaking of which, in the reruns on SciFi channel last week, they had the one where the O'Connell boys up and left. It is really stupid now with that fake Quinn and the Diana girl. They do nothing but spew out crap about the quantum fluctuations. I mean come on, with the real Quinn they didn't bore us with the math, it was an interesting side-topic. But here they move it to the forefront.
Anyway, what really is the point of obsessing over Matrix? I've seen better sci-fi from the movies on MST3k.
Maybe I just expect more out of a movie to mark it as great. I went through the thing easily able to guess what comes up next. Keanu goes through the entire thing being a clueless schmuck, then all at once he knows all. I mean, what's the sense in that? Build it up gradually. I see all these Hollywood movies using computer animations more as a crutch to their poor storytelling skills. Something simple, like Life of Brian/Holy Grail, is a much better story, not cliched scene after scene.
;)
Now they want to remake Planet of the Apes, no doubt to add as much useless CGI as they can and make Charleton Heston's girlfriend even more scantily clad. I wouldn't be surprised if they took out the "damned dirty apes" line with "you poor misguided fellows" for fear that monkeys everywhere will be insulted, or it'll only cause a greater gap between moneky-human relations. Can't we all just get along?
If I ever find myself in Hollywood, I'll be sure to find a way to piss on that sign.
Much of the problem lies in people's unwillingness to think. They prefer to be fed things via the television than yell at it, "You didn't invent the f*ing Internet, mofo!" like myself. In the one vein where a few of them select someone to head up the country, they choose the one with nice hair and says, "I feel your pain." You'll end up with the same if people actually voted for all these hollywood award shows, basing things on how nice the dress was in some scene of Titanic, or how cute a mouse looks.
Anyway, it is important to teach these people to put two and two together. The longer they sit there being fed from the television, the more rights will be given up to Washington. The only thing worse than having these lazy types choosing things for you, is allowing them to choose politicians who want to decide what to do with you.
Yesterday.
Television (as in Taxi) wasn't really his forte. It was a means to getting the name recognition so he could go on and do national tours. His specials were nicer, but didn't have the full bang the live performances had. That, or you don't get it because he wasn't a comedian. It would be like whining because Windows programs don't run on Linux. Those people expect all PCs to behave like Windows. His performance isn't that of a traditional stand-up comic, setup-punchline-laugh. Nonetheless, it is folks like you that kept him going. 90% of an audience will hate him, boo him, etc while the other 10% (like myself) are laughing our asses off at you people. Once you put him in perspective, you see all the emotions he gets the audience into, and thus the humor.
I have many such buttons on this device I call a remote. I would have used it had I tuned into the oscars, but Tivo knows me better than that. I mean, what's the point in any of these award shows? Every "speech" is the same. They get up there, cry, say it's an honor to just be nominated, claim the other nominees were just as good, say they never expected / have nothing ready, then go on to thank every director/producer/people you never heard of and never will again, then they wrap it up thanking their parents/spouse for putting up with their arrogance, etc. Why go through this 46 times every year, when you could be watching the Sopranos or something worthwhile?
An exception is granted for women/gay folk. I recognize that they enjoy watching Joan/Melissa Rivers gab on end about gowns and how they don't have the breasts the other actresses have.
Slashdot is pretty arrogant, and if it were any more interactive, JonKatz would get the *crap* beaten out of him on a daily basis...
:)
Hmm. Well, he wouldn't like that, but some of us might... I mean, he does ask for it... But then he'd have to write about it, and it'd be "Another Columbine" and "Voices from the Bathroom" and whatever...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The Matrix did NOT deserve to win visual effects at all and Film Editing was a big maybe. The effects done in The Matrix were cool, and even impressive, but TPM had it beat hands down for quality and depth of visual effects.
I've been told that the effects presentations by the TPM crew were some of the best ever and the Matrix crew absolutely hosed theirs, which begs the question "Why did The Matrix win it?" Massive campaigning is all I can guess.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
I have to say I feel the same...
Heck, if you want to get down to it, in a way Star Trek has even insulted the tech crowd with the Borg-gee, a technologically advanced race, who obviously has taken prostetics and networking to its "logical" end. Please.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Good point.
The fact that the Oscars are _interesting_ doesn't necessarily mean that they are a useful tool for picking good movies. This is especially true when the judges (for some reason that only an "elite insider" would fathom) vote differently than the people buying tickets at the box office.
I suppose that I personally just don't like movies that were written for Hollywood "insider elites."
Personally, I have a problem with any rating system in which a small group of industry "experts" tells me what is good or bad, especially when it comes to something as subjective as "Best Motion Picture." I would much rather have a system where I have some say in the outcome (even if my voice gets mixed in with the unwashed masses).
Which is why I am glad that the metric that really counts is box office sales. When push comes to shove a movie has to make money to be sucessful. Make too many critically-aclaimed flops and even the PHBs in the movie industry will balk at making your next flick.
Now I suppose I have some washing up to do, and after that maybe some sit-ups and some side-bends are in order. After all, I wouldn't want Mr. cultural elite to mistake me for a sheep or a moron. Oh wait I forgot, I don't really care what you think.
Actually, what makes the awards _interesting_ for me is that they are awarded precisely by a small "elite" group... there's the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe Awards, and a few others like this, and it is interesting to see what they have to say, rather than simply looking at box office returns.
That's the point of these groups like the Academy and whoever does the golden globes-- give an award based on what they, the "insider elites", think, and take that for what it's worth, if anything.
When "the masses" act in the aggregate, their reactions are pretty predictable, but it is the quirkiness and unusual nature of decisions make by the small groups and individuals that gives me insight into why movies are considered "worthy" of recognition.
-Dean
Eating the pudding would be interactive? No?
Try harder, analogies and sarcasm, sheesh.
Think lime green jello, a bathtub, and two frisky teenagers. Now thats interactive!
Think Castaways, a desert island, Skipper, Giligan,....
"Think of it as evolution in action."
by buffoons like you Jon. Watching you write a book, or any of your articles is in no way interactive. The same goes for watching actors prepare their speeches, we didn't get to decide what they would say.
I guess our definition of interactive differs, watching you write, or watching people backstage is about as interactive as going to the zoo and watching a tiger in a cage. Sure you see him eating lunch, but you don't get to get to pick what he eats, the zookeeper does.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go and turn your filter back on. You did a great job with, voices from the hellmouth.. this is just pathetic.
"... may have been the usual long, boring and self-congratulatory."
Gee, that sure does remind me of something around here but I can't quite put my finger on it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
which part of this makes sense?
the oscars ceremony decides to show people backstage and to reveal a little of the inner workings of the movies it promotes. this isn't irony, let alone interactivity. it's not reflexive, it's not insightful, it's not even novel.
all that happened was the producer of the show got a dvd player for christmas and thought the documentary about the techniques behind leonardo's floppy fringe was kewl.
mr katz's attempts to dignify this nonsense with references to genuinely provocative (if rather dull) works of art only serve to highlight the banality of his attempts to throw geeky tropes at the daily headlines and see if they stick.
You seem to forget that jon katz is a hypocritical, uninformed, bitch-for-hire writing for slashdot to bring in audience. He doesn't give half a rat's ass about anything he drivels about. His articles rarely have any content at all. Just buzz words about the new wave of communication through the internet. Yea. Tell that to the 78% of the world population without internet access. Tell them about how the communications revolution is going to usher in the new wave of democracy. Or whichever phrase happens to bring in hits this week.
Jon Katz has no journalistic integrity. He's out to make a buck. EVERY Jon Katz article is a rehash of the previous one.
I think this is a great idea and I believe in four or five years, this is almost precisely what they will be doing.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Look out for Jon Katz's new book- _Leeks_!
=)
Bo
I don't care for the Oscars, but as a general principle, I don't want a million-headed hyrdra making content choices for me.
I have visions of:
Bogie getting on the plane at the end of Casablanca.
Obiwan beating Vader
Romeo and Juliet living to a ripe old age, all their fire long since burned out.
The Yankees always winning the world series (er....strike that one)
and of course, Sid Shienberg's cut of Brazil.
Personally, even if they don't always perform up to the task, I believe that the professionals in media and entertainment industry have a better idea of how to construct a satisfying media experience than amateurs, let alone a mob of amateurs with no cohesive vision (not even a bad one).
"Sunday night's Oscarcast may have been the usual long, boring and self-congratulatory. But there were distinct signs that interactivity -- which is about content, not just the means of delivery -- is beginning to creep into even this arrogant culture."
We wouldn't know anything about arrogant culture here, would we now? Katz presumes that these people are developing crappy entertainment in a vacuum. The fact is, most of them are hardworking, if misguided, people who DO care, and DO cede power to the consumers. Ever hear of audience testing?
Apart from that, Katz's definition of "interactive" is bunk. Saying that Eggers lets people into the process is not true because
a) Just because the reader can "see" the writing process doesn't mean he can affect it. An intelligent reader can "see" the writing process anyway, by paying careful attention to word choice, etc. Does this make the Iliad interactive? I really don't think so.
b) Eggers doesn't even really let the reader in. You get a highly mediated version of the writing process. It's not the real deal. Publishing a collection that had every draft... that might be a bit closer, but it's definitely not something I want to read. I want a finished, edited product, unless I'm already in the culture and am looking for insight into a colleague's methods.
The fact is, it's not easy to write even a bad book, or stage even a crappy awards show. It's even harder to do it by committee, and the difficulty only increases with the size of the committee.
Special effects a no-brainer? Uh-uh... Whatever you may have thought about the movie, the graphics FX in Star Wars were far, far better than The Matrix. I think that Star Wars probably didn't win because too many people thought something like "We shouldn't let Star Wars win, because it's Star Wars, so I'll vote against it."
For sound, film editing, yes, The Matrix was excellent, but for visual effects, I don't think it deserved it.
not only is the universe stranger than you imagine,
it's stranger than you are capable of imagining
Either Jon has diarreah of the brain [I dunno, which may be the case], or else he wrote most of this article before the event last night ...... just how interactive is that ??
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
I read a sentence like that and whether or not the AC really means it, I instantly realize that Andy Kaufman did his job and he did it well.
Rock on, Andy, wherever you are.
But there were distinct signs that interactivity which is about content, not just the means of delivery -- is beginning to creep into even this arrogant culture One would think that based on this statement the author would demonstrate how this year the Oscars changed and gave the views some input into the content. However, Jon just rambles on about nice new sets and behind the scenes views. I don't get it. I usually enjoy Jon's subject material but where is the substance of this essay. What is the point?????
Predestination was doomed from the start.
You know, if this were a user comment I think it would be moderated as FlameBait.
As for open sourcing the Academy awards - I don't think it needs to be interactive. It's a show. Part of the enjoyment comes from not knowing what's going to happen, to watching the evening unfold. To equate this to software developement is silly; It's generally important to know what's going to happen with software, not so with television.
IMHO, as per
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Am I the only person in the world who gets very sick of anti-technology movies? Yes, yes, I know all about the Bill Joy interview. And yes, he raises some issues about technology that we need to be concerned about. However, his was not just a knee-jerk piece saying "technology bad." When's the last time you saw something from Hollywood that wasn't? Anytime technology shows up in a movie the result is as predicable as the plucky heroine of a Disney movie. The Matrix was no better than any other movie in this respect (and probably worse than some). How long until Hollywood makes a movie about technology whose theme is not the loss of humanity that tech inevitably brings? Will we ever see a movie in which technology is empowering, and not just for a Bond villian who wants to destroy the world? Although I should point out that the Bond movies (at least the later ones) do a better job of showing technology as a tool that can be used for good or evil than most. (RIP Desmond Llewelyn) Surely I'm not the only geek in the world who gets sick of seeing my life's work portraied as a way to enslave humanity. Dr. Faustus was a great play. But how many times do we have to remake it?
__
__
nothin' says lovin' like an open source penguin.
Yeah... there are too many awards shows anyway (now getting even worse, with several new shows just to promote different sub-sects of industries), though people will continue to watch them, just as they continue to care about things like Princess Di (and I don't mean her humanitarian efforts, which were commendable) and her marriage to Charles, the rest of the 'royal family', who has more power in America than they do in the U.K. (judging by the number of commemorative plates sold and tabloid covers). People want to see *stars*. They are awed by them. Many of us still can't understand why. I've been a Yankees fan all my life - collect cards, memorabilia, but I'm not following the personal lives of my favorite players like a soap opera. I met Yogi Berra. Thought it was neat. Didn't grovel for an autograph, scream 'ohmigodthereheisarealyankkee!!!' or anything. I think Samuel L. Jackson is a kick-ass actor, but t be honest, I'd be able to get over it if he never made another film. Wouldn't take long.
People fall into the herd (not GNU) mentality too easily, and are too easily impressed with the mystical society that is hollywood. Get over it.
Let the flaming/moderating begin.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
You're a cheap bastard
Dear Captain Flame,
Please observe my email address, more specifically the ".edu" part. I'm a college student, so of course I'm cheap, dammit. ASFs and MPEGs are cheap (duh), convenient to watch, and always out before VHS or DVD. Do you have any illegal MP3s?
Thank you.
--
Win98 sux without these 1337 toolz !!
I have to agree. Even though Fight Club was an extremely close second, it didn't leave me thinking "Wow, that kicked ass!" as much as Matrix did.
Plus my copy of The Matrix is 576 MB at VHS quality; Fight Club isn't nearly that nice.
--
Win98 sux without these 1337 toolz !!
Why so angry Jon?
Maybe the local News station told him he had a face for radio, the radio guys said he had a bad voice, and the newspaper guys read an article of his and said "Okay.. You restated your point ten times, now show us some supporting arguments."
This left poor JonKatz no choice but to work at pseudo-media sites such as Wired and Slashdot.
On the bright side, he has learned to put in a couple supporting arguments in the past couple years that I've been reading his articles. It's also nice to have some original content at this site to show us why there isn't more.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
If you notice, it didn't win ANY Oscars for acting. There's a reason: the acting sucked.
It won all but one of its Oscars for technical or artistic things like screenplay and music or sound/visual editting (like the Matrix).
The only non-technical/artistic award was for best picture (and to a lesser extent, best director). If 100 million people loved it and watched it 20 times, and it evinced emotions in the viewer, AND it won all those other awards I think it deserved best picture even though I personally hated the movie.
Technically, it deserved those awards completely.
Artistically, (screenplay, music, etc) I'm not so sure, but I'm not an artist either.
I think Cameron deserved best director, but I don't like it as best picture.
my $.02
IANAL, but I play one on
I didn't know that that many /.ers actually watched the Oscars. It's not a show that I'd stay awake till midnight to watch. Oh, well.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
I think matrix won in all the right places. Special effects (no brainer), visual effects (ditto), audio effect (a nice touch), and film editing (a close call with American Beauty). I would have like to have seen it nominated for best film, but nominated only. American Beauty is definitly an all around better film.
$.02
~Jester
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
Matrix was the best remake of Tron I've ever seen!
For instance, besides the overall (same old same old) Oscars presentation we all saw last night, we should have had a chance to check out the backstage goings-on when things got dull. Back stage at the Oscars is where a lot of the real action is as all the various winners have to instantly face off against a sort of media scrum (a sort of ongoing press conference with constantly changing faces). It's all expertly timed so that as soon as one winner is finished, the next one stumbles in, a little stunned and unprepared. All good fun.
I also think it would be interesting to have a static sort of security cam in the theater's main foyer areas so we could check out who was leaving the show early or taking a pee-break (and during whose speech). This kind of thing is already being done with European Formula 1 motor racing coverage, and elsewhere no doubt.
"Energy fools the Magician."
You know, I'm surprised no one responded to this earlier. Maybe I shouldn't give this troll the time of day, but I can't help but say a few things.
I didn't catch exactly where you live, but if you don't like it - MOVE! Quit complaining. If you don't get up an do something about it, then you're no better than the people you are harping on.
Mark
Also of great interest is Books of Magic, written by Neil Gaiman.
Oops. I did mean M:tA, not M:tG. Wrong acronym.
I realise M:tA was not trying to be authentic, but what irks me is WW gamers nowadays acting as if M:tA was an exact historical retelling of what hermetical traditions are all about. The teachings of Western occultism are much more powerful than this, and in a sense, much closer to the presentation of the Mage as a Hacker.
M:tA states that reality is a concensus against which you have to struggle. In essence, it is a doomed attempt, as you are but one voice in a sea of reality definitions. It states that you can alter reality only by paying great attention to what other individuals have to say, and thus are in constant danger of being 'juged'.
This was never a statement made by Western occultism; it's more or less a game mechanic designed specifically to hinder power gaming. In Western occultism, the only thing that matters is Will, not Reality. It is yourself you have to change, and not a concensual, undefinable entity. You will see the difference may be subtle, but it's drastic.
In this vision, the Mage and the Hacker become archetypes that are much closer in essence. The Hacker can manipulate Reality (systems, code) by only his Will; there are no rules to the Hacker but those he sets for himself (ethics). The Hacker does not care about concensus (established programming conventions, security practices, network architecture), only about the application of his knowledge through Will.
You see why Matrix has nothing to do with M:tA's vision of things.
Yeah. But you'll notice that Star Wars was nothing more than a rip-off of Hidden Fortress set in space. Matrix did the same thing... It borrowed from traditional storytelling and archetypes, and placed it in a sci-fi genre. Is this worth praise in and on itself? It's debatable. I say it does... There are but a limited number of stories in the world, and we constantly spew them under new shapes. How many times did Hollywood remake the Hero's Journey of Ulysses? Lord of the Rings is just that, after all. But I think there's merit in the form as well as in the function.
Did anybody else notice that a particular editorial writer who seems to be pleased that the Oscar celebrations are showing signs of 'interactivity' (using his definition) is the same editorial writer who doesn't respond to feedback or take part in discussions?
Admittedly, his definition of 'interactive' is "[unusual] content, not just the means of delivery" (square brackets inferred from content of editorial). Anybody want to chip in to buy a copy of Webster's for Jon?
mewse
Who is Jon Katz, and does he really take himself as seriously as he seems to? Most importantly, why does Slashdot keep posting his unbelievably bad articles?
After having seen VH1's "The List" several times, I think I know what you're getting at. Never mind Clueless Joe Sixpack. The ones we regard as cultural heroes are about as dumb as the masses.
,really, who gives a flying f$@c% what Carmen Electra thinks about Dr. Dre videos.
I mean
OK OK I'll change my sig in the interest of civilized discourse. No worse than your insulting and untrue sig though...
I understand Monkeys-Bananas, Bear-Honey, but what's with Pigs and Acorns?
You had severad buttons to choose from. Here is a sample:
Channel
Power
Play
I did it. It was easy. And if your TV has PiP, you can check to see if it's over every once in a while.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
- Interactivity is inherently better than non-interactivity
- Any work that references itself (via "backstage" or "making of" information) is somehow "interactive"
- "The Matrix" was somehow "interactive" because of its subject matter, even though the audience just sat there and watched it without any control over what was seen, just like every other movie out there
- The awards won by "The Matrix" (a supposedly "interactive" movie) show that the big, bad boys in Hollywood are starting to "get it" when it comes to interactivity
- When audiences have control over the content of entertainment it will automatically be made better
Ugh! Don't people realize that "interactive" entertainment could have been done during the days of pre-history? A storyteller sitting by the campfire could have simply asked the listeners what they wanted to happen next every once in a while. But people didn't and still don't do that because they know it would ruin the story!! The whole point of entertainment is to let a storyteller convey his or her vision to you. The content is supposed to come from the person telling the story, not the audience.Free Hans!
this is exactly the problem is with this.
Showing raw backstage footage, nervous stars, or other such not-part-of-the-big-show information on camera is something MTV award shows have been doing for a while. Now the bigger ones are starting to catch on to these ideas. Who knows why -- perhaps to appeal to a younger audience? (Robin Williams doing Blame Canada also points to this)
-------------
The following sentence is true.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Someone came close to that. I can't remember if they were technical winners or documentary winners, but as they were being rushed away from the mic, one of them blurted out a URL and asked everyone to visit.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
And the bible is a storybook full of fables.
Some will understand it and some will not.
Just like every other item in the universe. Woo.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
You must have loved Pokemon: The First Movie.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Well..the story is russian.. i am not sure what
pigs eat in this part of the world but it is
a common beleief of biology scolars out there
that (wild) pigs thrive on acorns..the hell
i know why:)
There was still a producer dictating what I was going to see; the speeches were still teleprompted; the Blame Canada number was still choreographed. Where's the freaking interactivity in that? Backstage and prop and set shots do not equate interactivity -- they just represent further commodification of the process of filmmaking. And this has been happening at least since David Gerrold wrote "The Making of Star Trek," and probably much before that.
Connecting the buzzwords may be a fine journalistic strategy at USA TODAY, but it ain't working here.
</KATZFLAME>
More seriously and constructively:
Interactive and passive entertainments scratch different itches. I don't see how either can be posed as being generally superior to the other. In fact, I'd say that some forms of entertainment *must* be passive in order to be effective. When I read a book or watch a play or a film -- all decidedly passive experiences, despite Katz' proclamations -- I'm doing so because I want to experience something that I can't conceive of myself. It's hard to imagine any interactive exercise duplicating the single-minded genius of an Iain Banks or the punkish sensibility of Bruce MacDonald.
In fact, judging by how my tastes mesh with the tastes of Western culture at large, I'm a little leery of letting interactivity creep into non-interactive entertainment. The last thing I'd want to do is be trapped in a theatre with a bunch of people voting America's Funniest Home Video style on how the film we're watching will end.
Additionally, passive media have a strength that interactive media generally do not and that's the presence of an editor. When you buy an issue of a newspaper or magazine, you have some assurance that the content therein has been vetted by an educated eye for entertainment value or relevance or whatever.
(Slashdot is an exception to this, of course, with its elegant moderation system. It's not perfect, of course, but it does tend to bubble the interesting stuff upwards.)
I predict that as more grassroots content providers pop up and the Web becomes more ubiquitous, broadcast channels will not be organized around broadcast hardware, but around editors (or, perhaps, discussion sites like Slashdot -- what content provider wouldn't love to be slashdotted, especially given the stats on blowthedotoutyourass.com?) whose tastes are well known.
So, when I want to check out what's happening or cool or whatever, I'll log onto AICN or Slashdot or Joe Bob's Science Fiction Culture Mine because when I do, I know I'll find links to stuff that will sync with my entertainment wants.
Of course, this kind of narrowcasting can strangle one's exposure to new experience, but no more so than, say, choosing only to watch The Family Channel or reading only Reader's Digest.
You know, if it were REALLY interactive and much of the interactivity was requested from an online source, I'm sure we'd be getting secret peeks into Natalie Portman's dressing room knowing some of the crowd around here.
=)
Heh
Cheers!
Tenement
--
Aren't the SAG awards supposed to be the "awards by your peers" awards?
Good point. The Oscars were never there to be interactive. The show is put on TV because people
are interested in who wins and what people are waering. Any notion about interactive voting on
winners, presenters, and speeches is nonsense.
Don't forget what the Oscars are, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awards. Think
what you will about insiderism, these people are still much more knowledgeable about filmmaking
than you or me. The Oscars are Hollywoods day to parade and promote itself, not pander to
the public. That's what the People's Choice Awards and the TV GUide awards are for.
I am interested in who the industry thinks are the
best actors, directors, producers etc., not participating in the show.
Interactive broadcasts are great for presidential debates, interviews, and other programs aimed at
public opinion, but not awards shows.
there are always going to be the few that will be like "aw, lets cause some ruccus!" and hit that button about 2 seconds into the lifetime achievement award :/
Why does Slashdot have to pander to the lowest common denomanator by having stories about the Oscars .I have nothing aganst Mr.Katz but this is a total waste of good bandwidth. I would rather have hot grits poured down my pants than worry about interactivity with the Oscars ,remember this is Slashdot not ZDNET. News for Nerds not News for Numbskulls
As long as you can expreience and appreciate a good thing, I don't think you should fret about the muck of the world doing the same thing..
Wow, my new 21" monitor (19.7" viewable) allow me to read an entire John Katz story without scrolling. What an amazingly "non-interactive" experience that was. I really think he's clutching at straws, trying to make disconnected events fit a grand scheme of a new digital millenium of which he is the leading social commentator. It's a shame that many of the pieces fit so poorly.
cheers,
Three words:
people are stupid.
Five words:
You are a person too!
NO, NO, NO! That's not what he said!!!
I think Tommy Lee Jones's character said it best in Men in Black:
Jay: Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.
Kay: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
The Oscors .....are a bunch of hype [easy ad space] and only the 'enlightend' films ....when I say enlightened....I mean films with budgets and big actors. There have been some terrific "B" movies......an no...."witch project" was not one of them. They script the night away.....and then say hey...if this person wins....THEN we can have this person on after....this would make it cool kindof 'publicity stunts' .......bhaaaa. I forget what they say.....and go see a movie that I like....
Wacked-Support NT
Wow... a first post that's more than 3 words. Bravo!
Anyway, yeah, Matrix kicked ass. I only have the VHS personally, but it's definately on the 'list' of stuff when I get a DVD player, along with Princess Mononoke and other Anime..
----
Don't underestimate the power of peanut brittle
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
Did you even read the whole article? The Matrix is mentioned SEVERAL times for various reasons (The Oscars it won, the whole virtual/reality thing..)
----
Don't underestimate the power of peanut brittle
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
Hollywood has its own Prime Directive:
SELL TICKETS.
If producers thought they could get a better return on their investment by offering interactivity, they would do it. If "faking it" were good enough, then they'd do that. H-wood is very good at "faking it".
How about a fully-interactive real-time-feedback model for linux kernel development? We can ask everyone, not just those "in the business", what they want, and give it to them! The customer is always right! Peter Coyote can ask Alan & co. "how did it feel to write that driver?"
I can see it now. Oscar night 2001 turns into a remake of the Gong Show. "Thank you, thank you, thanks to all my... " *GONG*
Would there be any harm done if Mr. Katz would trim back on his comments (or not, his option) and occasionally join the rest of us "in thread"?
Seems to me that this mini-article could easily have been merged with the pre-existing Oscars headline today. Over in that thread (I'm already straddling the two headlines), I commented to the effect that Slashdot was "too late" to report on the Oscars given the flood of Oscar-related news in advance of the actual ceremony. Now, to echo some sentiments in the *other* Oscar thread, is Slashdot giving us "too much" on the backend, as well?
Sometimes, perhaps, Mr. Katz need not stand out from the crowd, is all I wish to say.
Scratch that. I also want to say that the theme of this piece seems like a rehash of his earlier piece on interactive books. I'm sure others will come heap on the criticism later.
The Matrix was the best movie of the 1999. Who agrees with me on that one? I have seen it like 15 times on the big screen, have CD version of it (MIRC :) and I still watch it time to time.
You can't handle the truth.
Sorry I should have guessed. I know that if it was me and I didn't like to read an author, I would avoid him like the plauge. But then that is just me.
Woooaaaaaa! I thought you said you were a female?!?!?! Sorry I ain't into that!!!!
Understand that because of their specialized natures, participation in OpenSource projects is limited, to some degree, by competence. If you don't know how to do <insert necessary skill here>, you have no useful way to contribute to the project, and thus, can't. Sure, a few idiots who know just enough to be dangerous -- but not enough to be helpful -- get contributions in there on occasion, but their stupidity eventually gets optimized away through iterative improvement. Eventually, both despite and because of the free and open nature of the environment, enough skilled, talented people get their hands on the project to make it good.
There is no iterative improvement in an awards show, so I really don't see how the model that makes OpenSource so good can be applied here. Just letting the public vote, with no barrier to entry, and no iterative improvement, results in The People's Choice Awards. And to that, I say, no thanks.
That self-referential novel - post-modern, yes, interactive, definitely not. Look up the word "interactive" in a dictionary, Jon, if you have one.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
I wouldn't be surprised if they took out the "damned dirty apes" line with "you poor misguided fellows"
There's no way that they could take out the signature line from the movie. And I did think they did a good job of building up Neo's 'faith' during the movie, in a logical progression. Epiffany(sp?) is posible, you know.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
The matrix is a beautiful movie. Visualy stunning, and it has cool fight scenes. Ok, so it didn't really have much meaning other then the requisit surface gloss, but it was well put together and enjoyable.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
You know maybe it's me but i can't seem to understand what kind of interactivity a remote control can give me..well sure i can zap the channels when the oscar becomes boring but i don't think it interactivity anyway..well maybe i should buy a tamagotchi or anything like that!
You think i'm dead but i'll sail away in a wave of mutilation...
It sounds like he's talking about Bertold Brecht. This was like a hundred years ago. Brecht was all about changing the relationship between the performer and the audience, too.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Hmm, well instead, I think I'm going to branch a bit away from whether or not Jon's comments are grounded solidly or not and pick up on the "interactivity" he's focusing on.
;) Choice is a powerful and encompassing word, and the type of choice that I'm refering to is the ability to manipulate the parameters of the senairio unfolding in front of me. That, in my opinion, is choice.
;)
When I think of interactivity, the words "choice" and "curiousity" come to mind. Choice seems obvious, no? Well, not really...
"Curiousity". Now what does this have to do with interactivity? Well, alot, actually. Most people's curiousity is what drives them to be interactive, where it be online in a chatroom, in a RPG game, on the street or in the home.
In the end, what am I rambling on about? This whole business about seeing behind stage basically boils down to "LET PEOPLE HAVE INTERACTIVE TV" and leave the level of curiousity up to the viewer, as it should be.
$0.02 (ok ok, plus change
Chris
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
Um, who says that rap isn't music? Rap is very difficult and considering it's based on metered poetry, I would pretty much consider it music. If you've ever listened to Public Enemy, Trible Called Quest, or Arrested Development, you'd be aware that rap isn't just about gangsters, just like rock isn't just about Duran Duran. Unforunately, you are a part of the masses and seem to share their intelligence level...
Oscarcast Sunday night could be the usual length, inquiry and affair individu congratulatory. But there were the different characters, which are mutual effect regarding contents, not simply the means of supply begins to creep in same this arrogant culture. Read more.
If you could remain aroused by infinite posturing and the infinite friendship demonstration, Oscarcast likewise indicated the increasing effect of the mutual effect on the culture and creativity of small ways.
Excluded the fact that the stencil of more Oscars marked, any film excluded the American beauty of large winner, was obvious it that the producers of the exhibition have for the first time at least incorporate one of the primary principles of the mutual effect: open the doors and let the persons within the process see.
Nope. Doesn't make a darn bit of sense. But it sure is a lot funnier!
-JeremyT
http://www.conspiracygame.com/tughouse/
Shameless TUGHouse Plug
If broadcasts like the Oscars were really interactive, of course, they would give the public greater say in the production itself
/. readers than it is to find truly substantial subject matter, even if that means essentially making up issues of potential concern.
Q: So why does Katz even bother writing about something that is "sort-of" (translation: not really) interactive?
A: It is more important for Katz to keep his name in the conscious mind of
Katz is a lamer.
First of all I am utterly confused as to what JonKatz is talking about.
I sat through all 4+ hours of the Oscars last night and didn't notice a taste of anything that could even be remotely considered "interactive".
Sure, maybe there was some behind the scenes looks and so one, but these can be boiled down to simply attempts to provide a bit
of noveltly in a otherwise done-to-death event! Their not really trying to change the show - just breathe new life into so people don't get bored.
As for real "interactive" voting and TV, it won't work. Why? Because we already have it! The networks spend tons of time and money
doing research on what people want to see and hear. They want to produce the shows that people want to watch because they make more money that way.
There reason so much of what is on TV "sucks" in our opinion is because I suspect that many of us (slashdot)
is in the minority in terms of what we like to see. Most of America likes silly sitcoms and cheezy movies.
...I like this idea. You could have the option of watching some of the more "arcane" technical awards (or watch clips of the nominees, etc), during a segment that doesn't interest *you*. BTW: How do they make the Shrine look that good? The stage doesn't look nearly as big whenever I'm there (usually for the SIGGRAPH electronic theatre)
--- Speaking only for myself,
...I would have pushed a button and made that tribute to Warren Beatty that seemed like it ran for 6 hours go away!
--- Speaking only for myself,
Uh, attractive set and visual design do not interactivity make. What WOULD be interesting is making the Oscar voting public -- how many people voted for Swank, how many for Bening, etc. But, that won't happen, as the Academy has too much vested in the Myth of its competence.
well, he is a journalist... that means he's always trying to find a scoop or some type of angle. he wants to have something fresh to say, that no one else has said before, so he comes up with this stuff... guess he doesn't realize that no one else is saying this stuff NOT because they're not as quick-thinking as him, but because it's just plain stupid... HELLO JON! CAN YOU HEAR THIS? PLEASE stop making us read this stuff... you know w're addicted to slashdot and are still going to write about anything! so just please stop...
Soy el plátano! No tengo gusto de monos!
Well the guy is a genuis for doing it. Even over the past 6 months, which isn't a long time, I have started to notice URL's everywhere from the T-shirts of people who walk along the street to huge billboards on the side of buildings, and even on TV and Radio - the media's that the internet will eventualy kill (a case of Internet killed the TV star?)
Tane Piper
Lead Designer - Silent Space
http://www.silent-space.com
Tane Piper
Lead Designer - Legion
http://www.legiongame.nl
http://www.zzict.com
Why do so many think that audience "participation" in the form of voting is interactive? As long as you have a large group of folks you can call an "audience," there is no interactivity. Only when all participants are equally producers and consumers can we judge that a medium is interactive. AFAIK, Usenet and internet chat rooms are the only places that fit this definition.
Look at it this way, if I vote on what is to be the best movie, my "power" in the vote is inversely proportional to the size of the audience. I am not on equal footing with the producers, directors, etc. (not that I should be, given the purpose of broadcast TV). Even as a voting audience member, I am still just a passive consumer, deluded into thinking that, had I not voted, the outcome would be different.
True interactivity will arise when I can ad running comments to the President's State of the Union address, and have them available for anyone to download as streaming content. Interactivity will be a contender when you give *me* control of the camera at the oscars, for 30sec, etc. Have people at home dial in, register, and randomly pick one to control each light, mike, camera, etc.
This is interactivity.
I don't want the vote. If I watch the show, it's because I want to *watch*. For it to be interactive, I should be able to turn mikes on or off, control a spotlight, add cartoon characters to the corner (ala MST3k) for the broadcast, etc. In short, the sort of total anarchy that the producers could never tolerate.
Giving an individual control of content is interactive. Condescending to let us feeble masses "vote," is not. Besides, the public already voted on the best movies, with their wallets.
I couldn't get through to its webserver for almost an hour. It responded to pings but the HTTP port was completely overloaded. I don't know what this guy expected (unless he just did it so he could laugh at the outrageous web logs the next morning). If only 1% of the audience tried the site, that was still as many as a million people typing in the URL at the same time, every hour, as the show crawled into new timezones.
I think this was the first time that a domain name was mentioned in an acceptance speech. I'm sure it won't be the last.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
When he looks in the mirror in the morning, does Jon see more than the same, jejune face that all grungy wheeler-dealers share? Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that he, in his hubris, has decided that he has the right to lower our standard of living. If there's a rule, and he keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? Of particular interest to me is the way that Jon continuously denies that he masterminded last year's now-infamous attempt to convince perverted benighted profiteers that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him, and besides, this is a free country, and I insist we ought to keep it that way. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting him authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize prodigal Comstockism. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that he makes it a point to lead to the destruction of the human race, so to speak.
I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but the trouble with such vengeful chauvinistic carpetbaggers is that they intend to take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. Faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Jon has had, I must undoubtedly educate the public on a range of issues. Nonetheless, he should show some class. You've heard me say that Jon's cronies are all invidious cult leaders. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Moreover, Jon's stories about faddism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.
I'm inclined to think that until we subject Jon's musings to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant, Jon will continue to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart. While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that the nicest thing that can be said about his lackeys is that they are witless dorks out to inculcate stolid communications. Jaded expostulations have consequences. A careful appraisal of Jon's perversions raises some thought-provoking issues.
If I am doomed to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street, then Jon will obviously drive us into a state of apoplexy any day now. It may be coincidence that his slogans eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. It may be coincidence that they make excessive use of foul language. And it may be coincidence that they relabel millions of people as "birdbrained". But that's a lot of coincidence! What's interesting is that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.
Essentially, my personal safety depends upon your starting to knock some sense into Jon, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same. The idea of basing our entire society on despicable narcissism is so far from reality, it's laughable. This implies that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he is devoid of all social conscience. So what's the connection between that and his shell games? The connection is that it would be grossly premature for Jon to claim final victory.
More concretely, there is something patently unprofessional in the notion that Jon is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Of course, his henchmen form a gutless organization devoted to harassment and barratry. I say "of course," because his tracts are a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children. Is that such a difficult concept? To be sure, Jon's modus operandi is to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques, but the petty tone used by Jon in his offhand remarks clearly shows what kind of person he really is.
To simplify, if he had done his homework, he'd know that as a concerned citizen, I will forge ahead in my brave quest to snap his assistants out of their trance. Letting Jon invade every private corner and force every thought into a militant mold sends a clear message to two-faced depraved vagrants that they can overthrow democratic political systems, but, as you know, in this era of rising chauvinism, we must plant markers that define the limits of what is inimical and what is not. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but each day, I see the world becoming more careless as a determined Jon carries out his phlegmatic clueless plans. I have resisted taking legal action against him, as others have advised me to do. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, Jon's maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely ploys are actually quite abominable when you look at them a bit closer.
Did Jon cancel his plans to abet a resurgence of lackluster filthy larrikinism because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. There are two classes of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and uppity cocky-types like him. Let me put it this way: he would have us believe that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. Yeah, right. Don't kid yourself: Jon should think about how his philosophies lead ridiculous stirrers to force me to lie awake at night wondering who his next victim will be. If Jon doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different kinds of pestilential nativism.
Jon's treatises run on pure irony. Frightful Marxism is the shadow cast on society by Jon's convictions, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. If you need proof that Jon tends to forget what matters most, then just take a look at Jon. The jackbooted antagonism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of insane provocateurs, nor of the maladroit troglodytes who reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. It is the fault of Jon Katz. Vindictive windbags are deeply impressed by his guff, and I'm not making that up! And that's it. I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Jon Katz more vehemently.
pronoblem
JK seems to suffer from an extremely subjective view of reality. He looks at the world, and sees everything in terms of how it fits in with how he thinks the world works.
/. gives him a bully pulpit from which to pontificate, is a huge black eye, on the operators of this place. When I first found the site, I used to read faithfully, because it had alot of good material. Now I read it, mostly because I'm bored out of my skull at work.
Would someone please explain to him, that the world is not run by, and for the benefit of geeks? It never ceases to amaze me, that everything that we (IT aware people) do, is good and proper. And everything that anyone does that isn't for the benefit of technologically aware people, is bad, and MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
The fact that
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Jon, I think you need to elborate more on your perceived differences between post-modernism and interactivity... or at least the relationship between them.
I think that what you're calling "interactivity" is nothing more than post-modernism creeping into the most banal of media events - the Oscars. It only took 20 years for it to sink in. (Post modernism is hard to define, but it is generally accepted that one characteristic of a post modern work is that it shows its construction to the audience... basically it reveals its pipes and duct tape, the structure of its formal qualities, etc).
I am at a loss when you say that the Oscars (and other films) are interactive because of the post modern qualities. Why is this so? I just do not same share the same definition of interactivity.
It seems that you are focusing to closely on the power relationship between audience and performer/artist (you discuss the idea that by showing the workings of the Oscars the audience is empowered). I do not think this is the key aspect of interactivity, but hey, maybe that's what your going on about. It's hard to tell,... you have to be a great deal more clear Jon.
You are going to have to try again. Rethink your ideas and clarify what you are trying to express. Email me, or update this post.
Complexity Happens
Thora Birch's are bigger :P
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I would much rather have a system where I have some say in the outcome
You do. If you want to know what the public thinks of a movie, look at the box office receipts.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Does anybody else find it interesting that the two films with the most awards, both share the theme of incredibly realistic illusions replacing any real feeling and meaning to life? And that both of them are films from Hollywood? If that isn't irony defined, I need a new dictionary.
--
+&x
According to NPR's "Morning Edition", last night's ceremony was the longest in Oscar history
Really? I try to catch the Oscars regularly, and I thought this year's was pretty short. Of course, I didn't time it specifically. Maybe it jsut seemed that way. It seemed to flow pretty well.
I'd suggest, actually, that better music/movies/entertainment is in fact interactive. Great entertainment manages to engage the mind and the heart at the same time. There's no less interaction just because I'm not manipulating the medium myself.
And thank heavens! I tried writing fiction once, and it sucked. Hard. I'm thrilled to let people who have devoted their lives to the craft take the reins. We all get to live with our ideas nearly 24/7 - what refreshment there is in letting someone else drive for a bit.
Incestuous, self-centered, feedback-loop interactivity doesn't interest me one bit.
Not everything has to do with the Internet. Isn't it about time you give it a rest? BD
M-W lists "mutually or reciprocally active" as one definition of "interactive" (and I think it's the common usage of the word). Under this definition, however, books, television and newspapers are not and can not be interactive. Aside from tearing up a paper, burning a book or shooting the television, the action is all one-way. Playing q3a against human players is interactive. Books and television are not.
Holding everyone around you in disdain says a lot more about you than about them. Where I live I see a lot of honest, hard working people getting through day by day. I see immigrants working their asses off to make a better life for themselves or their children. It ain't perfect, but it's what *you* make of it.
I was born in the Philippines, and I've been to over a dozen countries. I've really enjoyed just about all of them, and there is usually something valuable to be learned from everyone. But I wouldn't trade places with *anyone*. If you think you're so unfortunate to live here, you can leave anytime you wish. Go right ahead, I sure as hell won't stop you...
I don't mean to harp on the man's disability, or make it more of a subject than it is, but it's something I distinctly remember from the show. It was indeed something that was not intended by the producers, but I thought it was odd that the camera didn't cut to something else. The shot was uncomfortably long.
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
Ok, so let's try to use logic for a change. It may
surprise you..:)
a) From whatis.com: Interactivity - In computers,
interactivity is the sensory dialog that occurs
between a human being (or possibly another live
creature) and a computer program.
So i gather from this that interactivity elsewhere
would be a form of a feedback from the person to
a medium whatever it may be. Interesting..Once
the big word is out - we are getting somwhere.
b) Now feedback is a novel idea. I always though
thats what the "Reader Letters" in newspapers,
"Public Opinion Polls" in politics and viewers
paying for movie tickets have been. But hey, thats
just a simple ol' me...
c) How "showing the guts of a process" is related
to being "interactive "beats me. I am also not
sure what is e-commerce and B2B. Anyone here
knows?
d) Keeping to original meaning of "interactive"
(see "feedback") i woul like to note that too much
of it is clearly not good. Doesn't FOX feed us
with enough reality/behind-the-scenes drizzle
already? "The animals attack/cops/who wants to
shtoop a rich guy/direct from the bathroom" shows
seem to be all over. They are clearly a result
of TV directly responding to demands of viewing
public. The public *is* in the giant experiment.
It has been put in a cage, given a big red
button to push. Every time they do - they get
a bigger doze of self-gratification. The lab
monkey that we are is happy to pound on this
button with all the might and with every push
TV/media spurts yet another chunk of what we
want most.
e) A story goes that one painter asked an opinion
of his friends on his new work. His friends all
being animals they replied (feedback, interactive)
that things they like most were missing (bear-honey)
(pig-acorns)(monkey-bananas) and so he included
all their requests. Once he did they all agreed
that a new picture is just crap. Think
what you want but any kind of media be that
TV or writing or otherwise is (or better be)
an art. Art is a production of *one* persons
mind and soul presented to us after hard work
for our possible enjoyment. It is the fact that
that person thought it all *by himself* without
any help from us and the fact that he put all
his work to make this art easy to see/read/understand
without us knowing all the work behind the scenes
that makes it so valuable.
Also remember that the "web" - most interactive
media we have now is filled with porn and
small-time money making schemes. This is what
we peoples demand and it gives us the full
measure. G-d save us if other mediums go the
same way.
f..) Jon Katz. Please find someone who doesn't
just pick a big word from an "internet lingo
for dummies" and writes a whole book around
it on a random topic.
--Ugen
This article shows a huge lack of Mr Katz's understanding of art. Works of art, for the most
part, are not interactive. Interactive art means that the audience effects the shape of the art.
Most art is not this way. It is contemplative. Much of the art that one experiences is aimed at
conveying an idea and causing a reaction. When you see "Guernica", "The Nighthawks", or "The
Mona Lisa", you don't move or shape it, you experience it, and when it has its essence to you,
you contemplate it and discuss it with others.
This is what most art forms have in common, from literature and poetry, visual art, and theater and
film. Good art, whether on screen, television, canvas, or paper, does not need to be
interactive to be effective, and is infact most often better when the creator is allowed to
direct what you see and where you go. If you direct it, then the creator has little ability to achievbe his message.
OK, honest question here.
Every article by Jon Katz (alias JonKatz!) seems to be about how the 'net (i.e. the web) is bringing a 'new age of interactivity and open-source' which is 'destined to destroy the arrogant behemoths of the old, closed-source media.' I mean, every article! Invariably he describes the media as arrogant, dinosaurs, and so forth.
Why so angry Jon? Has the media hurt you so badly that you can't simply ignore it like many (most?) of us do? Whatever the reason for your venom, it's pretty clear that you're impossibly biased as a reporter. (and pretty short on content as an editorialist, but that's another issue)
As someone else pointed out, if Jon's articles were posted 'in thread' instead, they'd get moderated down as trolls or flaimbait.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Yes, it had problems. People for butteries? - it's stupid I know, kungfu? - well, what can I say, it's what the audience wants, but tell me, have you ever seen a computer program with such personality as Mr. Smith? Enough said
You can't handle the truth.
Personally, I think that'd be a better example of Oscar interactivity than showing the sets backstage. Of course, whoever does this first needs to make sure their server can handle the /. effect of a billion Oscar watchers checking out their site.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Even allowing polling is only barely "interactive". To be truly "interactive", what you see changes each according to your commands. Not according to the commands of you and a million other people. According to yours alone. Saying that an online poll is interactive is like saying that you get to hand-pick the president. Obviously, a broadcast medium can't be interactive, by definition. I don't see the point in bothering to try...
The cake is a pie
Three words:
..*not*.
people are stupid.
Five words:
You are a person too!
You get everyone involved in the Oscars, and suddenly Mouse Trap would have won all the awards because people thought the mouse was cute. I deal with the American public every single day because I'm unfortunate enough to live
there, and let me tell you, I do everything I can to stay away from it as much as I possibly can.
So you are telling me that you are a xenophobe and live in rural Montana right? Do you hide in your basement? How exactly do you avoid Americans? Does anyone who has ever lived in American count, born in America. I feel sory for you.
They're fat, they're lazy, they're stupid, and they don't know enough to care. They sit and eat potato chips in front of the TV after driving home alone in their car from work which was mind-numbingly boring, except that they have
too little ambition or self-respect to even have the idea that they could look for another one.
Really, I am sure that several million people would disagree with you. Although I know a few people who are like that I think that concept is not totally accurate. First of all most Americans are not fat and so on. Just because the rest of the world goes around and is usually malnourished and poor because they have roving bandits killing off their friends and burning their fields dosn't mean I have to starve.
You really don't get it do you. There are times when I wonder how in the hell I will ever get a job. Not everyone actually has the ability to code straight assembly language for 30 different processors and can create at least 6 new OSS projects a year you know. Everyone has a choice in their life that can go one of three ways, work in some job, work in no job, or just take a visit to Kavorkian and get it over with. What will you do. I don't know what country you come from but I can probably find the same class of people you are talking about right in your own country.
Simple logic for you. If getting a job is so uncertain and difficult why do you think people work in a job at all. Hell my own dad has been working in a job that he hates for at least 15+ years and he still does it each and every day. Is it because he was lazy I think after he submitted over 500+ applications all over the continental USA to get the job that he wanted and still didn't get it. That's a start. Everyone has self respect but you have to make a choice sooner or later and you always have to ask yourself what would rather do try and make some money and live to see another dawn or just die? Well make up your mind already.
Do I want these people selecting the best movies of the year? Hell no. I mean, sure, it's minor. But it already scares the hell out of me that they get to choose who runs the goddamn country! If you live in the US, take a look at your
neighbors. Do you want them choosing anything for you? The thought terrifies and disgusts you, most likely. It does the same for me.
What do I really care if they select the "movie of the year" does that really mean a damn thing to anyone? Not to me. Hell I have watched movies that were considered "good" TPM and ST Insurrections leap to mind as the last 2 movies that I saw and logical fallacies and problems with both but they still got rave reviews from cult like followers of the movies. So I guess even "educated" people still make mistakes.
Making a choice about a movie is not the same as running the country. I can't exactly say that the choice of people in other countries is any better. Let's see in Austria we have a Natzi wanna be, and in Russia we have an ex KGB guy to run the supposedly "free" nation. Boy that brings back fond memories. Mix that with the various smart people in Australia who decided that looking at boobies is bad for your health, add to that China where a communist regime decides what you can and cannot say and beats people and runs your over with a 1960's era tank if you disagree. Yeah all the other people in the world are better than the US
Well if you are as distant from people as you let on you most likely don't even know your neighbor's names. What do they do for a living. What are their interests. If you are one of those people living in one of the tech centers you may actually be working in the same building doing similar things and never know it (easy to do in a place as big as some sectors of IBM, or Hewlett Packard).
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
They should have put up a website that said that when X number of people voted, the microphone would be turned off and the acceptance speech would be over. /That/ would have been useful interactivity. I've acted before, I've seen the back sides of sets, that's not that cool; but making the actors shut up, that would be real power :)
Communication is only possible between equals
Why does everything *need* to be interactive? If I write a book, and just happen to use the Internet as a delivery mechanism, why should I care if it's truly "interactive"? The same goes for movies. It'sfilmed, and shown for the approval or disapproval of audiences. Games are and should be interactive, but somethings might not benefit from users getting involved.
Having The Matrix win some academy awards didn't depend on the audience being able to see the process. It was a group of film industry bignames voting on what *they* thought deserved to win. Interactivity would be if the public at large could nominate and vote by themselves.
Besides, I don't see how this year's Oscars were any different from the last ~70 years. A small group of people voted for what they liked, or what they were encouraged to like by others. Simple as that.
Jon, you never cease to amaze me. Your ability to tie just about anything into your narrow perception of the culture you've helped create, (one that doesn't really exist,) is unparalleled. Here's an exercise: Take a bowl of rice pudding, right out of the fridge, and set it on the table in front of you. Now, make the bowl of rice pudding interactive. Here's an example.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a bowl of rice pudding. Good stuff. But terribly non interactive. We went behind the scenes into the creation of this rice pudding, and found some truly amazing things. This is grand master chef Sioux-Foo-lu-doo-doo, and he's here today to walk us through the rice-pudding process. Just look at the way he masterfully mixes the ingredients. Isn't that amazing? Not like that lame non-interactive tapioca pudding, no sir. This is ePudding. See? He's using an electric mixer, ordered online at Amazon.com. Ooh! He's putting it on the stove now, (the stove, incidentally, was purchased used on e-bay,) ASTOUNDING! What a truly interactive experience! While that's cooking, let me take time to tell you about my new book, "Geek Pudding," available in stores now. It chronicles the lives of three bowls of pudding, chocolate, vanilla, and bananna. It... oh, the pudding is ready! Now, into the fridge, (purchased at Sears. I found the car I drove to get to Sears at autonation.com, though!) OK, the pudding is in the fridge. Shortly, we'll have a nice bowl of _interactive_ pudding to eat. Yum. Doesn't that just make it taste better?
Jon, this really is getting old. Give it up, try something new. And have some pudding.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
Interactivity? Why bother. If I want interactivity I talk to people, whether on line or in person. If I want to learn something I dig through the web and books. If I want some good mindless drivel to distract me while I crunch really big problems, I watch TV.
why all of the push and lust for shared experiences? Shared Experiences may be intersting reference points and convenient for psuedo historians to declare "The event that shaped a generation"
Nobody can experience any event the same as any other person. They each have their individual perspective colored by the masks of their past. We can learn a great deal by discussing shared experiences and looking for the differences between individual perspectives and looking for the causal relationships of those viewpoints. But to grow as a culture, to identify with other groups and people it is more important that we express our personal thoughts and perspectives.
The whole gamut of shared experiences is nothing but sheep cloning in the nature vs. nurture argument.
chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
I've got to disagree with this idea. The Oscars are not intended to be a form of recognition by the general populace; they are intended to be a form of recognition by the film industry. There is a great difference in having your work judged by everyone and having it judged by your peers. Both are valuable, and they should not necessarily be intertwined.
Someone will, I hope, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the People's Choice awards granted on the basis of polling of the general populace? Let this award represent the sentiment of the public, and let the Oscars continue to represent the sentiment of the film industry.
Is this honestly interactivity?
How does my viewing of someone adjusting a tie backstage, or someone adjusting themselves, or someone practicing a speech add to my enjoyment of the event?
Do I need to see the sets and props for "The Fugitive" or "Apollo 13" painted and selected before I can watch the movie?
And even if I do, how is that "interactive"? There's no interaction there. My seeing Kevin Spacey backstage lends nothing to my relationship with Kevin Spacey. I didn't "interact" with him or anything else - they just stuck an extra camera guy back there.
Finally, I don't think the screenplay/music display was anything special. It was a set dressing decision. They could've easily shown cast pictures, or stills from the movie. The screenplays weren't up there long enough for anyone to read or parse.
In short, I don't see anything these Oscars did that previous years didn't do. Other then being relatively short(for the Oscars) and pretty funny, thanks to Billy Crystal.
Neither was The Matrix interactive in any way. It remains a good 2-hours movie, but you hardly have an impact on the story's development.
Nor should either of them be fully interactive. Movies in general, as an artform, don't require interactivity any more than Van Gogh's paintings. The Oscars, by definition, are awarded by a commity of professionals, and if any sort of poll had its say in the matter, this would become a popularity contest. Sure, it already is (vis. Titanic), but at least they're pretending it's not.
Sides, all we'd get is 'Hank, the angry drunken dwarf' nominated for a Lifetime Achievement Award.