Once again, my show(House) is put on the back burner while some other ridiculous program runs. Last week it was American Idol(see past entry) and this week it was George W. Bush. I really wish I could just talk about how much I dislike him but, I have to talk about a t.v. show.
I decided to choose Roseanne. I used to hate this show when I was younger. I didn't understand Roseanne's witty sarcasm until now. I actually find myself smiling and laughing out loud. For those of you who don't know what Roseanne is, it's a depiction of a lower to middle class family, The Connors. Roseanne is the mother who ultimately runs everything and everyone. She not only mocks her children but everyone she comes into contact with. She doesn't let anyone get the last word, either. She works in a diner with her sister, Jackie. Jackie is the opposite of Roseanne. She's not married and she's not that outspoken, as in mean. Roseanne's husband is Dan, who is an overweight mechanic who doesn't, in my opinion, do much of anything. He drinks a lot of beer and tries to make jokes that just aren't funny but I find myself laughing at because of how ridiculous he is. Roseanne and Dan have three children: Becky, Darlene, and D.J. Becky is the girly girl who complains about everything and only really cares about herself and boys. Darlene is the tom-boy that has the same sarcasm and humor as her mother, but gives off a creepy killer vibe. D.J. is the weird little brother who has been through masterbating stages and being alone with his girlfriend on. No wonder we've never seen any of these actors elsewhere.
In this episode, it starts out with D.J. bringing home a neighbor's dog. The family ends up deciding to keep it for a few days until the neighbors decide to come get it (how lazy are these people?). Becky complains about the dog using her untouchables as chew toys and my ears hurt after her shrieking, whining voice. Roseanne can't seem to get a hold of Jackie on the phone, who is sleeping off a drunken night and wakes up to an ex boyfriend showering in her house. Dan ends up having a poker night with the boys and invites Roseanne's boss, a middle aged gay man to a night of pizza beer and cards(this makes me think,"Are they making fun of gay people?"). Roseanne, in turn has a girls night at the diner where the ladies confess to things they're ashamed about, i.e. Jackie's one night stand. Back at Dan's poker night, it turns out he has second thoughts about having Roseanne's boss over, who is more feminine than any of Dan's friends and Dan's awkward-ness of having him there starts to show.
Basically my short description of the characters and an episode is to show how funny I think the creators are for coming up with this show! This 30 minute program shows the "white trash" of society. I don't know if this was made for people to laugh AT or to laugh WITH. I don't exactly know how popular this show was, considering I was in like, 4th grade and I didn't care so I don't know how people responded. My response towards this show, along with my families, is that we laugh WITH them. Even though I'm criticizing the creators, now that I think about it, they ended up depicting people that our society "looks" down upon but in a way where we can laugh with them in their situations and not at them.
I really like Roseanne.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Brought to you B(u)y
So I definitely read the wrong article, I think. I read (and highlighted!) The signs of Advertising. In the article, that seemed to drag on forever, it talked about Calvin Klein ads, among others, and how they have used controversial ads for decades now. This article used the words "child pornography," "sexual exploitation", "child sexuality","homosexuality," and "sadomasochism."
One would assume just by reading my review of the article, that some sick freak wrote the article and is once again, "corrupting today's youth." In my opinion, someone with a passion of "discovering" advertisers underlying messages in their campaign wrote this article OR someone who hates their life and has nothing better to do but to use their very talented imagination to ridicule the "messages" of ads.
In the article, it says something about some people having an attitude,"reading too much" into the ads, and I'll have to admit that I'm one of those people. I honestly don't understand how this article, which is about eleven pages, can go on and on explaining all the subtle and sometimes more open messaging advertisers can market in their campaign. I highly doubt that Calvin Klein himself supports child abuse and child exploitation, considering he has kids of his own. I understand that this has been expressed in his ads but it doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with it. It means that everything in our society is so taboo and the only way to really get any attention out in the marketing business is to throw an eye opener to the people, which they did and they made headlines. Even if it didn't create sales, it brought him into our homes and he was a household name. Because the writer viewed the ad as a sexual exploitation against children, it shows that he is projecting his subconscious desires for child pornography.
I'm not condoning this form of advertising, exploiting children and ultimately making the act of exploiting un-serious, BUT we as Americans have brought it upon ourselves. Ever wonder WHY sex "sells?" BECAUSE IT'S A TABOO FOR OUR COUNTRY and let's face it, we're all curious and want to hear about sexual things-come on, we've all went through a Jerry Springer and Maury stage.
One would assume just by reading my review of the article, that some sick freak wrote the article and is once again, "corrupting today's youth." In my opinion, someone with a passion of "discovering" advertisers underlying messages in their campaign wrote this article OR someone who hates their life and has nothing better to do but to use their very talented imagination to ridicule the "messages" of ads.
In the article, it says something about some people having an attitude,"reading too much" into the ads, and I'll have to admit that I'm one of those people. I honestly don't understand how this article, which is about eleven pages, can go on and on explaining all the subtle and sometimes more open messaging advertisers can market in their campaign. I highly doubt that Calvin Klein himself supports child abuse and child exploitation, considering he has kids of his own. I understand that this has been expressed in his ads but it doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with it. It means that everything in our society is so taboo and the only way to really get any attention out in the marketing business is to throw an eye opener to the people, which they did and they made headlines. Even if it didn't create sales, it brought him into our homes and he was a household name. Because the writer viewed the ad as a sexual exploitation against children, it shows that he is projecting his subconscious desires for child pornography.
I'm not condoning this form of advertising, exploiting children and ultimately making the act of exploiting un-serious, BUT we as Americans have brought it upon ourselves. Ever wonder WHY sex "sells?" BECAUSE IT'S A TABOO FOR OUR COUNTRY and let's face it, we're all curious and want to hear about sexual things-come on, we've all went through a Jerry Springer and Maury stage.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Hanes Her Way
I thought the essay about the Hanes commercial by Brittany Gray was odd. I guess I think it's odd because I wouldn't want to think of my mother if I was a man looking at my wife's untouchables. I understand how it's trying to convey "comfort" by taking him to a place/person that gives him that sense of security but, how Brittany described the commercial, that I've never seen before, isn't how I'd make a commercial to sell my underwear.
First of all, I'd want it to appeal to everyone, not just older aged, married adults. It's good to have a wide target range. Second, it seems as if the commercial is really boring. With the slow Mazzy Star song and the husband reminiscing about the good ole days while (creepily) watching his wife make the bed.
We get it. Hanes is comfortable, it's cotton. It's affordable too, so why not express that somehow and make that appeal to struggling college kids who are single.
I did like reading Brittany's interpretation of the commercial though. She got straight to the point and showed all the English techniques well in her writing. Although we had differing opinions, I still respect her talent in writing and her views on ads but I would have to say my essay would have been about the opposite of what she wrote.
First of all, I'd want it to appeal to everyone, not just older aged, married adults. It's good to have a wide target range. Second, it seems as if the commercial is really boring. With the slow Mazzy Star song and the husband reminiscing about the good ole days while (creepily) watching his wife make the bed.
We get it. Hanes is comfortable, it's cotton. It's affordable too, so why not express that somehow and make that appeal to struggling college kids who are single.
I did like reading Brittany's interpretation of the commercial though. She got straight to the point and showed all the English techniques well in her writing. Although we had differing opinions, I still respect her talent in writing and her views on ads but I would have to say my essay would have been about the opposite of what she wrote.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
American Idol
So I would have to say my favorite t.v. show is House. It comes on Tuesdays at 9pm on Fox. It wasn't on this past Tuesday because of American Idol(WHAT A JOKE). So, starting at 8pm, the TWO HOUR premiere of American Idol started.
Okay, I used to watch it. Back when Kelly Clarkson was chubbier and had bad highlights from an "average" person salon. Back when it was actually interesting to watch. Back when it didn't seem staged and the winner was actually a "real" singer after the contest. I pretty much lost touch with American Idol after Fantasia won.
But anyway, I had nothing better to do so I watched it. It was all the people trying out to get the okay that they were on their way to Hollywood. I'm pretty sure they showed just about every audition, or so it seemed. At first, it's kind of like, "Okay, these people suck, this is funny that they're humiliating themselves." In my opinion it's only funny for the first 45 minutes. I still had to sit through 75 more. I found myself concentrating on other things, playing with my boyfriend's newborn nephew, than concentrating on the "talent" on the screen. Don't get me wrong, a few of the contestants they showed were really good and I was really jealous but, do I remember any of these people's names? No. I could probably remember the worst singer's name before any of the good ones. (Remember William Hung a few years ago? Do you remember who won AI that same year?)
My point is to pretty much state how ridiculous I think this show is now. Excluding Kelly Clarkson, has any of the other "Idol's" been as successful? I don't believe so. I think it's time for Fox to throw in the towel and let other programs, like House, not be interrupted in the middle of their season to play a two hour premiere of screaming, crying, ridiculously dressed people show off their "talent."
Ryan Seacrest is STILL the host (does he even do anything?). He still gets crap about what his sexuality really is. He still hasn't aged and I think his botox is really working out for him...
I don't even want to talk about the judges. Jewel was a guest judge. She would nervously laugh and not give any input to the singers. I felt as if she was asking herself, "Why did I sign up for this again? I should go back to Nashville Star." All the rest of the judges are kind of predictable and boring now. Randy still says "Dawg." I pretty much cringe when he does. That was his big trademark when? 3 years ago? Nobody really knew who he was before Idol and I feel like he tries too hard to be "cool." And yes Randy, we all know you worked with Mariah Carey. However, we all know him to be nicer than Simon so I don't want to bash him too much. Paula went from sweet and encouraging to crazy and bratty. I'm sick of seeing headlines from US Weekly or Star saying "Paula's Idol Meltdown." I think Paula tries too hard NOT to be the nice one and acts more like Simon. (Oh yeah, I'm tired of the other headlines in magazines talking about Paul and Simon's "affair." I thought Idol ratings were at an all time high. What's this attempted publicity story then?) Simon, Simon, Simon. This English man is anything but nice. He had a pen/pencil in his mouth 90% of the show. He looked more bored than I felt. When he did speak, it was a bunch of words that ultimately put down the singers. I understand constructive criticism but, I don't think Simon Cowell does. Granted I would assume more than half of the contestants that try out and possess talent like William Hung, are either A. Paid by Fox to make the show more interesting B. Tone Deaf C. Don't care what it takes to get them on t.v. , but to those that fall under the Tone Deaf category or the really really love singing category-that I didn't mention-, I think it's awful to put them down and not give them any advice to make them even a LITTLE better! These three judges, especially Simon, have taken this "judging" job a little too far. You three aren't God and you shouldn't have the ability to crush someone else's dream. Maybe we should all judge Paula's past songs/music videos-maybe even wardrobe choices. Did anyone even know that a Simon Cowell existed? I already talked about Randy's celebrity-ness. Hmm...
Maybe I'm just bitter that MY show wasn't on. Or maybe I'm right.
Okay, I used to watch it. Back when Kelly Clarkson was chubbier and had bad highlights from an "average" person salon. Back when it was actually interesting to watch. Back when it didn't seem staged and the winner was actually a "real" singer after the contest. I pretty much lost touch with American Idol after Fantasia won.
But anyway, I had nothing better to do so I watched it. It was all the people trying out to get the okay that they were on their way to Hollywood. I'm pretty sure they showed just about every audition, or so it seemed. At first, it's kind of like, "Okay, these people suck, this is funny that they're humiliating themselves." In my opinion it's only funny for the first 45 minutes. I still had to sit through 75 more. I found myself concentrating on other things, playing with my boyfriend's newborn nephew, than concentrating on the "talent" on the screen. Don't get me wrong, a few of the contestants they showed were really good and I was really jealous but, do I remember any of these people's names? No. I could probably remember the worst singer's name before any of the good ones. (Remember William Hung a few years ago? Do you remember who won AI that same year?)
My point is to pretty much state how ridiculous I think this show is now. Excluding Kelly Clarkson, has any of the other "Idol's" been as successful? I don't believe so. I think it's time for Fox to throw in the towel and let other programs, like House, not be interrupted in the middle of their season to play a two hour premiere of screaming, crying, ridiculously dressed people show off their "talent."
Ryan Seacrest is STILL the host (does he even do anything?). He still gets crap about what his sexuality really is. He still hasn't aged and I think his botox is really working out for him...
I don't even want to talk about the judges. Jewel was a guest judge. She would nervously laugh and not give any input to the singers. I felt as if she was asking herself, "Why did I sign up for this again? I should go back to Nashville Star." All the rest of the judges are kind of predictable and boring now. Randy still says "Dawg." I pretty much cringe when he does. That was his big trademark when? 3 years ago? Nobody really knew who he was before Idol and I feel like he tries too hard to be "cool." And yes Randy, we all know you worked with Mariah Carey. However, we all know him to be nicer than Simon so I don't want to bash him too much. Paula went from sweet and encouraging to crazy and bratty. I'm sick of seeing headlines from US Weekly or Star saying "Paula's Idol Meltdown." I think Paula tries too hard NOT to be the nice one and acts more like Simon. (Oh yeah, I'm tired of the other headlines in magazines talking about Paul and Simon's "affair." I thought Idol ratings were at an all time high. What's this attempted publicity story then?) Simon, Simon, Simon. This English man is anything but nice. He had a pen/pencil in his mouth 90% of the show. He looked more bored than I felt. When he did speak, it was a bunch of words that ultimately put down the singers. I understand constructive criticism but, I don't think Simon Cowell does. Granted I would assume more than half of the contestants that try out and possess talent like William Hung, are either A. Paid by Fox to make the show more interesting B. Tone Deaf C. Don't care what it takes to get them on t.v. , but to those that fall under the Tone Deaf category or the really really love singing category-that I didn't mention-, I think it's awful to put them down and not give them any advice to make them even a LITTLE better! These three judges, especially Simon, have taken this "judging" job a little too far. You three aren't God and you shouldn't have the ability to crush someone else's dream. Maybe we should all judge Paula's past songs/music videos-maybe even wardrobe choices. Did anyone even know that a Simon Cowell existed? I already talked about Randy's celebrity-ness. Hmm...
Maybe I'm just bitter that MY show wasn't on. Or maybe I'm right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)