It occurs to me that most of my blogs so far have basically been me whining about one thing or another. That's really what blogs are for, so it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise. That said, there are a lot of things in the world that make me happy, so I thought maybe I'd share some of them.
It makes me happy when someone recognizes that they've been rude and apologizes about it. It's rare, but it does happen. One day I was waiting at a bus stop. Not for a bus, but just to confuse people. Someone near me lit up a cigarette. The wind changed direction, and the smoke blew toward my face. "I'm sorry," they began, "I didn't realize the wind had changed. Would you like me to put this out?" I thought briefly about how to answer that question. On the one hand, I did want them to put it out, because I don't particularly like the smell. On the other hand, it's so rare for someone to even consider someone else's feelings that I felt compelled to utter the following: "No it's okay." Boy. That really made me happy.
Seriously, I have nothing against smokers, or alcoholics, or people who hatch out crotch fruit as if they're trying to repopulate the Earth. I don't begrudge people their thumpy music on their blown out car stereos, or their weekly football game that causes them to leap into the air and shout "WOOOOO!". These are the things that make people happy, and that's great for them. We all need something.
I do, however, wonder if my perfume-saturated, loud-talking neighbors complain much about my habits. For example, it makes me very happy to play Castlevania for hours on end, swearing and throwing temper-tantrums and smashing the controller whenever a goddamn crow comes out of nowhere to peck Simon's eyes out. I imagine that might bother someone. They're probably sick of hearing the theme to "Friends" every night because, in lieu of actual friends, I choose to laugh at Chandler's lame jokes and Monica's obsessive neatness.
I guess my point is, it seems that everyone's happiness comes at someone else's expense. It's impossible to be truly happy without making noise or smelling really bad or taking advantage of other peoples' generosity. So if that's really true, perhaps this blog (and the movies and films of which this is an extension) are really trying to do just the opposite. Explore human misery (mostly my own) for the entertainment and happiness of others.
Or it might just be a giant masturbatory exercise. Whatever.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
If Walt Disney Was Alive Today...
...he would probably bend the current Disney company over his knee and give them a nasty spanking. Walt Disney (henceforth: "Walt" or "Disney") was about innovation and storytelling, and so is the current Disney company (henceforth: "Whiny Little Bitch" or simply "Bitch".) Unfortunately Bitch is more about telling stories to the judge or innovating new ways to legally hold copyrights that should have long since expired. Walt was more about innovating new filmmaking techniques and telling stories to children in order to entertain and enlighten them.
It's hard to blame Bitch for their legal meanderings, because they want to make money off of their perceived assets for as long as possible. That's what businesses do. Instead I think we need to look at the judges who actually listen to Whiny Little Bitch and then go along with it. It makes sense though. How would you like to be the judge who has to tell the most "beloved" producer of films for children that you're taking "Bambi" away from them?
There's another way of looking at it, however: You could be the judge who liberates "Bambi" from the Whiny Little Bitch and gives it back to the public where it actually belongs. After all, we the public have paid to protect your copyright for almost a hundred years now. The deal is, we're supposed to get it back at some point.
The sad thing is, I like the quality of Bitch's restorations. I actually want them to keep re-releasing better versions of their films. The trouble, really, is that we can't have all of the films we'd like to see, and they go out of print for years. So we're still paying to protect these films, and we're only allowed to see the films they let us see, when they let us see them. Does that seem right to you?
As an example, let's discuss "Song of the South." I've never actually seen this film, but I've read the stories from it, and it sounds charming. Apparently it portrays African Americans in a negative way, so we don't get to see it. But what about the way Native Americans are portrayed in "Peter Pan"? Apparently it's okay to portray stereotypes of the red man, but not the black man. It's also okay to stereotype Italians in "Lady and the Tramp". Did we get to decide these things? No, Whiny Little Bitch did. Which was fine up to a point, but now were at the point where we're still protecting their copyright for "Song of the South" and we're not allowed to even see it!
I'm going to stop rambling for now. Hopefully Whiny Little Bitch won't sue me for this. Apparently freedom of speech is protected when you comment on the government, but woe be the person who speaks out about copyrights. That, after all, is slander—or at least it will be by the time Bitch spins it through court. I'm going to go watch Fantasia. What a great film...
It's hard to blame Bitch for their legal meanderings, because they want to make money off of their perceived assets for as long as possible. That's what businesses do. Instead I think we need to look at the judges who actually listen to Whiny Little Bitch and then go along with it. It makes sense though. How would you like to be the judge who has to tell the most "beloved" producer of films for children that you're taking "Bambi" away from them?
There's another way of looking at it, however: You could be the judge who liberates "Bambi" from the Whiny Little Bitch and gives it back to the public where it actually belongs. After all, we the public have paid to protect your copyright for almost a hundred years now. The deal is, we're supposed to get it back at some point.
The sad thing is, I like the quality of Bitch's restorations. I actually want them to keep re-releasing better versions of their films. The trouble, really, is that we can't have all of the films we'd like to see, and they go out of print for years. So we're still paying to protect these films, and we're only allowed to see the films they let us see, when they let us see them. Does that seem right to you?
As an example, let's discuss "Song of the South." I've never actually seen this film, but I've read the stories from it, and it sounds charming. Apparently it portrays African Americans in a negative way, so we don't get to see it. But what about the way Native Americans are portrayed in "Peter Pan"? Apparently it's okay to portray stereotypes of the red man, but not the black man. It's also okay to stereotype Italians in "Lady and the Tramp". Did we get to decide these things? No, Whiny Little Bitch did. Which was fine up to a point, but now were at the point where we're still protecting their copyright for "Song of the South" and we're not allowed to even see it!
I'm going to stop rambling for now. Hopefully Whiny Little Bitch won't sue me for this. Apparently freedom of speech is protected when you comment on the government, but woe be the person who speaks out about copyrights. That, after all, is slander—or at least it will be by the time Bitch spins it through court. I'm going to go watch Fantasia. What a great film...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
