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.
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
Are you sure it's a great idea?
What if Slashdot applied it to your editorials? Granted, they've been much more svelte since your interview, but you must admit that "Don't like it, don't read/watch/hear it" would do you more good than "Don't like it, vote to kill it".
You're not taking the concept of Interactive far enough. Registered Slashdot readers can block your articles from displaying on the front page. Why not let Oscar viewers block acceptance speeches over three minutes individually? Instead of letting a plurality (as the word majority probably doesn't apply to entertainment preferences) ruin things for everyone else, how about letting everyone customize as he or she sees fit?
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
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?
Welcome to the U.S. And for the guy who asked why Katz hates our media. This is it.
--
+&x
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
The form of magick depicted in The Matrix is the application of Will, as described by even the earlier sorcerors and actualised by the likes of Crowley and the others of the Golden Dawn in the early 20th Century. It never depicts reality as a concensus, but rather as a personal entity. M:tG was, for all intents and purposes, mythical mumbo-jumbo written by idiots who had no grasp of what the historical depiction of magick was about.
As for the actual depiction of the Magus' Path in Matrix: I don't know why you thought it was such crap, because it was, to me, fairly accurate and traditional. Neo dies and then his 'divine' nature is revealed. Think this is crap? Then sue the Apostles for not dwelling enough into Jesus' psyche before he was crucified and made God... Because that's exactly what Matrix's ending was. Death is the shedding of the material form to reveal the divine. Really, really traditional, and Christianity didn't invent it either.
(*): I know, I do hate the spelling. I'm just trying to avoid rabbit-pulling jokes by making the spelling unambiguous.
That doesn't sound like either "interactivity" or "a great idea". It sounds like a tyranny of the majority.
The cake is a pie
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 left the theatre feeling really disappointed, actually. I mean, it was a cool action flick and the special effects were neat and all that, but they could have done so much more with the movie than they did. The central point of the plot
was the the Metaphysic of Magick, and the transformation of the individual from a mundane into a mage. They could have cut 5 minutes of the random mayhem (and still had enough blood and guts to satisfy any action-movie freak),
and used that time to focus more on the process of the transformation, as Neo becomes aware of the true nature of reality, and then becomes aware of how this newfound knowledge allows him to control reality. But instead the
transformation was virutally instantaneous: Neo went from clueless shmoe to uber-mage in one scene.
And I'm not even going to get started on the absurdity of the basic premise that the machines were using humans as a power source.
All of the fantasy stuff I have read is usually based on the concept of having magic from birth. Usually you can't learn a damn thing as an average person and all the power is usually concentrated with a few people who are then secretive with their knowledge.
Who exactly is Neo and why does he wish to gain power? Is he getting picked on? Is he just bored? Family die?
I think machines would consider humans as a liability rather than a blessing. You have to feed a human and keep neural activity alive and such. You end up loosing power and work to keep that human alive. Plus you can use "dangerous" levels of say radiation or other things to get it to work efficiently.
Maybe I just expect too much from Hollywood. I guess there is a reason I don't see many movies. Sigh...
I don't see many movies because I am poor but that's another matter entirely.
NB: The references to the Metaphysic of Magic, etc are from Mage: The Ascension. The MofM, in a nutshell, is the principle that reality is a fluid thing that is created by our common perception of reality. (Yes it's circular. Don't ask
me.) Understanding this key fact allows a person to manipulate reality, in a limited fashion, by imposing their version of what should be on the consensual reality. This is what makes someone a mage.
Ahh but the problem with the concept of altering reality or doing things like say on a large scale like creating a storm is rather impossible. Telekenesis would be I would think the best your could hope for considering how much raw energy it takes to do anything. Also you mind has to create this energy and it has to come from somewhere and it also has to be directed and focuses in a highly rigorous manner. Plus the fact that magic is not a reality.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I think this is a great idea and I believe in four or five years, this is almost precisely what they will be doing.
Speeches I think are a small price to pay for something that is considered "entertainment". In general if someone spends considerable time to actually go to the trouble of producing a movie and takes their valuable time. The least we can do is listen to a speech on why they did what they did. I like to know the motivations behind why people do things.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
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.
Actually I haven't seen it yet. What would be the good selling points of the movie? Will it be (or is it currently on) VHS? What makes it so good? special effects, good acting, good plot?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
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.
I notice you've failed to comprehend one of the most salient points here, so I shall enlighten you. We are right. Granted, we all disagree, but we're still right. They're wrong. Hell, they probably don't even use Linux, so you know they're stupid, clueless scoundrels, totally inferior to our own enlightened herd.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Once, there was a mediocre non-fiction writer who decided to write for a "hip" pseudo-news website to aid his aging career. Unfortunately, he was so clueless, he lost the affections of Natalie Portman, who was engrossed in a bowl of grits while staring at a picture of Rob Malda. Yet, by focusing his laser-like intellect, he was able to develop new hi-tech theories about a special turtle-nerd culture being persecuted in the Galapagos Islands. These turtle-nerds, grititarians all, were more than welcome to accept this writer, so long as he buttered their grits and stroked their necks. Unfortunately, the writer for got to yell "FIRST POST!" Knowing that there was an unsavory crowd from wence he came, he lauched a tacticle nuclear strike against the critics from his past, thus abolishing them to the moronic demnsion of their deciet! Just then, 300 shipwrecked teenage cheerleaders swam onto the island, their tight sweaters and skimpy skirts clinging to their bodices and fundaments. The turtles, grits buttered and necks stroked, were excited -- they hadn't had any fundaments for years. No good could come from this.
WHILE THIS HAPPEN, OOG BUSY IN CAVE MAKING QUALITY POST ON SLASHDOT, THOUGH STUPID MODERATOR NO UNDERSTAND OOG'S PROFOUND AND ELOQUENT STATEMENT, SO CLUELESS MODERATOR MARK DOWN POST AS OFFTOPIC!!! OOG BURN WITH HOMICIDAL FURY, SWIM TO ISLAND, AND BREAK HEAD OF TURTLES!!!
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
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
I left the theatre feeling really disappointed, actually. I mean, it was a cool action flick and the special effects were neat and all that, but they could have done so much more with the movie than they did. The central point of the plot was the the Metaphysic of Magick, and the transformation of the individual from a mundane into a mage. They could have cut 5 minutes of the random mayhem (and still had enough blood and guts to satisfy any action-movie freak), and used that time to focus more on the process of the transformation, as Neo becomes aware of the true nature of reality, and then becomes aware of how this newfound knowledge allows him to control reality. But instead the transformation was virutally instantaneous: Neo went from clueless shmoe to uber-mage in one scene.
And I'm not even going to get started on the absurdity of the basic premise that the machines were using humans as a power source.
Maybe I just expect too much from Hollywood. I guess there is a reason I don't see many movies. Sigh...
NB: The references to the Metaphysic of Magic, etc are from Mage: The Ascension. The MofM, in a nutshell, is the principle that reality is a fluid thing that is created by our common perception of reality. (Yes it's circular. Don't ask me.) Understanding this key fact allows a person to manipulate reality, in a limited fashion, by imposing their version of what should be on the consensual reality. This is what makes someone a mage.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
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.