censoring the web? for now, not so much.

if you’ve stumbled your way over to facebook today (shame on you, by the way. i know you did it in class), i’m sure you were bombarded with status after status about sopa/pipa and you probably feel informed. if there’s one thing i’ve learned about facebook, it’s a whole lot of monkey see-monkey do.

here’s the gist of what’s going on. sopa (stop online piracy act) works something like this:

the beating heart of sopa is the ability of intellectual property owners (read: movie studios and record labels) to effectively pull the plug on foreign sites against whom they have a copyright claim. if warner bros., for example, says that a site in italy is torrenting a copy of the dark knight, the studio could demand that google remove that site from its search results, that paypal no longer accept payments to or from that site, that ad services pull all ads and finances from it, and—most dangerously—that the site’s isp prevent people from even going there.

sopa in its original construction lets ip owners take these actions without a single court appearance or judicial sign-off. all it required was a single letter claiming a “good faith belief” that the target site has infringed on its content. once google or paypal or whoever received the quarantine notice, they would have five days to either abide or to challenge the claim in court. rights holders still have the power to request that kind of blockade, but in the most recent version of the bill the five day window has softened, and companies now would need the court’s permission.

this is an excerpt from a wonderful description found on gizmodo, a prominent tech website, and i strongly encourage you to read it in its entirety. the article intertwines a strong summary between paragraphs that reads:

sopa is an anti-piracy bill working its way through congress that would grant content creators extraordinary power over the internet which would go almost comedically unchecked, to the point of potentially creating an “internet blacklist” while exacting a huge cost from nearly every site you use daily and potentially disappearing your entire digital life while still managing to be both unnecessary and ineffective, but stands a shockingly good chance of passing unless we do something about it.

there are a few videos out there that also go on to explain how sopa/pipa will affect sites like youtube – the ultimate in user-created content – in such a way that the cute 6-year-old belting out a selena gomez jam in front of a webcam can be sued for copyright infringement. blogs, social networks, the lot of them, are all subject to the worst kind of abuse by the major players promoting this bill (hollywood, the music industry, etc.).

but it looks like, in light of everyone freaking out over not being able to do their research on wikipedia today, people have missed an important bit of news.

a few days ago, the white house released a statement (again, i strongly recommend you read this. it’s very, very important and i will not cover it nearly as extensively as the language found in the statement) that basically says that sopa/pipa, in it’s current form, will not receive the support of the president.

here’s the bottom line – if sopa passes in the house of reps, and it’s counterpart pipa passes in the senate, and their committee irons one consensus copy, it all likelihood obama will veto that sucker when it reaches his desk. vetoes aren’t the end all-be all, of course, but in most cases they are pretty damn ironclad.

extreme edits will have to be made, to both bills, for it to have any chance to see executive approval. in cases like these, regulation seems almost necessary. letting hollywood run wild on the internet, shutting down sites as they see fit, will never end well. the white house was adamant in conceding that piracy is real problem and they are open to taking measures to preventing it as best they can, but sopa/pipa is not the answer.

so for now, we’re safe. we’ll all be able to use wikipedia tomorrow. we’ll be able to post music to our blogs, upload youtube videos, and go ham on twitter. and while i felt like the reaction on social networks to sopa today was overblown, there is one thing for certain – congress has noticed. it’s impossible to deny it, and for that, i’m thankful for status update after status update. all i’m saying is don’t worry about a thing, cause every little thing is gonna be alright.

political cartoons get it. whatever it is.

political cartoons are very funny, make a great point, and can whittle down hours worth of satire into a few sentences and a clever picture. they save you time and you get a respectable opinion all with a quick browse of the funny papers. perhaps the most interesting part of political cartoons, and maybe the cartoonists themselves, is that the cartoons always seem to hit the nail on the head. i mention the cartoonist because it almost seems like they see a “big picture” that you’d never get watching a major news network or reading a typically narrow-minded op-ed for the new york times or washington post. i’ve never been an avid fan of political cartoons and after looking over a few of these gems i can’t figure out why.

there are tons more, and if i remember to keep up with political cartoons i’ll throw a post like this on the web from time to time for your enjoyment.

watch movies the right way.

ridley scott recently wrote an op-ed for the huffington post about the only way moviegoers should ever see a film – and that’s in a theatre.

believe it or not, films shown in theaters are the clearest picture you’re ever going to get, with the most accurate tone, brightness, clarity, and the accompanying sound that goes with it. in his article, scott (legendary director, known for alien, gladiator, black hawk down, american gangster, and countless other films) slams the digital media revolution, for you netflix instant queue streaming on your iphone doesn’t quite live up to the original specs of the film.

i have to say, i strongly agree. allow to preface with this: i’m no theatre-head. i rarely go to theaters to see movies and when i do i make it count. i save it for the big ones. most other films i catch at home, on my computer (dvd, streaming, etc.) and i enjoy them thoroughly. but watching the big movies by the big directors in a theatre is an absolute must, and i think so for one reasons mr. scott only alluded too.

aside from aspect ration and clarity and sound and all that technical mumbo jumbo, i firmly believe that, with the very best directors (ridley scott, stephen spielberg, martin scorcese, christopher nolan, among a select few others), every single thing you see in their films is there for a specific reason. these guys pay so much attention to detail and have so much creative control that i feel that every spec of dust you see floating around a set is there because they wanted you to see it.

if you buy a dvd, you get kinda close, but the lack of high definition brings the film down. with blu-ray, you get far closer (perhaps the closest we have, as mr. scott suggested in his article), but there’s still something quite not right (i blame this not on blu-ray but on the televisions they are viewed on a consumer preference. people tend to adjust their sets to display the most vivid [read: bright and colorful] picture possible, which is not what you get in a theatre, which has a dusty, darkened layer about it).

and spielberg doesn’t shoot his film with a blu-ray disc in the camera. he shoots with film. for a reason. it looks better and captures what he wants you to see far better than anything digital can so far achieve.

bottom line, the next time you see blockbuster, if you are excited about it in any way, see that sucker in a theatre. my big up and comer is the final chapter in christopher nolan’s batman trilogy - the dark knight rises. i would consider it an insult to mr. nolan if anyone saw that one for the first time outside the comfy tempur pedic seats of an upscale theatre, preferably imax. buy two bags of popcorn, extra butter, and prepare to be wowed.

super bowl halftime show returns to form. hopefully.

it’s recently been announced that madonna will have the pleasure to perform the halftime show during the world’s largest television event.

to this i say “thank goodness” as i cross my fingers behind my back. i want to be excited, excited about the super bowl going to back to the tried and true halftime show with a legendary act blowing the stadium speakers out with classic rock. prince? awesome. paul mccartney? awesome. the who? not awesome, but pretty damn good. black eyed peas? awful.

last year’s super bowl halftime show was a complete fiasco. the black eyed peas are perhaps the only group who can ride a series of megahits to the top of the world and then totally blow the live performance of said hits on the world’s biggest stage.

i understood the decision. with the who, viewers felt detached. there was a bit of blow-back for the decision to play those guys. roger daltrey (lead singer) admitted to never really watching football, and he was supposed to take the band onstage during the biggest football game of the year and sell his enthusiasm to an enormous crowd? not happening. the younger viewing demographic was outraged. bridgestone (sponsors of the past 4 super bowl halftime shows) had to make a change. they did, and it backfired.

so here we are, approaching super bowl xlvi and the show is going back to what typically works – legendary music. madonna surely is legendary. she has one of the most recognizable, marketable names ever. some of her hits are considered the best of their genre, and she has managed over the years to always stay in the news.

but here’s why i cross my fingers – madonna isn’t a slam dunk. not like u2 or the rolling stones or prince or bruce springsteen. those guys have ultra hits that everyone knows and can sing along to. i don’t think madonna’s best quite stacks up with those guys’ best. she’s really going to have to nail the song selection and crush the onstage presence (she’s bringing cirque du solei so that should be a huge boost) to keep me interested.

maybe she’ll bring some awesome special guests to supplement the show, kinda like in 2001 when the super bowl broadcast this gem of a halftime show (n’sync, aerosmith, britney spears, mary j. blige, and nelly):

comic book movie overkill. and inconsistency.

i’ve decided that summer 2012 should be the end-all-be-all for comic book movies. because the fad is starting to get ridiculous. i’ve seen some comic book movies recently that have been laughable at best, and the news surrounding some others has that “what the spiderman?” quality to it that puts moviegoers into a state of perpetual confusion.

first things first, we’ve had so many comic book movies so often recently that the genre is getting diluted, and movies that should be awesome suck really hard. i can’t think of one time i’ve heard a good word about the green lantern. no joke. and that film earned that reputation. it was awful. it was too damn short, ryan reynolds forgot how to act, and the conflict in the film was presented so poorly that i forgot to care about what was happening. i get that dc comics is trying to make a splash but beyond superman, who the hell cares? apparently not anyone working on the green lantern.

i haven’t seen thor but i felt the same about this movie as i did going into lantern: should i even care? chris whatever his name is (joking, i know it’s hemsworth, just making a point) wasn’t anywhere near the draw i would’ve liked to have seen for that movie and i felt the people at marvel were trying to squeeze it in before captain america came out.

captain america was pretty good, i’ll admit, but i still felt like it was lacking a key element. there wasn’t a tremendous character stealing the show (see: tony stark in ironman and the joker in the the dark knight) or an epic storyline (see: the dark knight). marvel just made it to squeeze it in.

i know that marvel is doing these things in anticipation for next summers avengers and they need to introduce all of the characters. captain america is going to play a prominent role, as is thor. and we all know tony stark is going to rule that film. but let’s see some consistency! i’m referring to the unfortunate news that edward norton has a scheduling conflict or some shit and can’t reprise his role as the hulk in the upcoming epic. his replacement, mark ruffalo, is no slouch, but now i feel cheated into seeing the incredible hulk. what was the point? i know it needed to build into the avengers storyline but at the same time, i already saw the hulk on the big screen once before. it was terrible, but what else did i need to know about the character?

i have another consistency beef with the spider-man franchise as well. if i were stan lee, i’d feel 100% satisfied with the success of the original trilogy starring tobey maquire and company. i feel like sam raimi did a fantastic job directing the spider-man films, and aside from trying to cram too much into the last film, all three were huge blockbuster events. so pardon me if i’m a bit bored with the upcoming the amazing spider-man flick due in summer 2012 starring that scrawny dude from the social network and emma stone. it’s supposed to be more true to the comic books but i get the same feeling with this movie as i did with the hulk reboot: what more do i care to know? i’ve seen his origin story on screen once before, i don’t need to see it again.

with this movie coming out next summer, as well as the avengers and the dark knight rises, i’d be perfectly content if these were the last string of comic book movies to hit theatres. i’m sure the batman movie is going to be phenomenal and a major pick-me-up from films that are shaping up to be disappointments, so let’s go out on top hollywood, shall we?