Book vs Movie or rather Series vs Movie

For this I decided to look at the similarities and differences between Avatar: The Last Air Bender the animated series, and Avatar: The Last Air Bender the live action film.  Although I am not looking at a book and comparing it to the movie that came about because of the book, the live action film for the subject I chose to do this on did come about because of the popularity and craze that came about because of the animated series.

First allow us to explore the similarities between the animated series and the live action film.  The characters names were all kept the same, although within the live action film the pronunciations of the names were horribly wrong, and the title was kept the same as well.  The live action film follows the first "book," or season, from the animated series.  Within this book we meet most of the characters, with the exception of just a few, four to be exact, and the development of the dire perils that their world is facing, taking the gang of heroes on little side story lines to further develop the characters.  Unfortunately the film only incorporates the names, title, and one side story line and uses it as the main point throughout the whole movie.

What is unique to the movie is that they did do a pretty good job with the casting, it is very hard to find a cast that can look like animated characters, and it does do quite a good job introducing the characters and developing them as they did during the series, which is three books long each book containing four discs and four episodes per disc.  Now, I do understand that this was a movie geared more towards a younger crowd, and in order to keep the attention focused of said younger crowd on the movie and not allowing it to wander aimlessly, and that the movie had to cover so much information in a short amount of time, cuts are needed, but the movie does a great job at killing the name pronunciation, the main character's name is Aang, pronounced Ang (as in the word and), the movie decided to pronounce it Ong (as in gong).  All characters names were horribly pronounced, which is hard to do seeing as how the animated series came first, take the pronunciations from the series.  Secondly the movie follows a very very minor story line from the series, that really has nothing to do with the plot line at all, which was very disappointing.  I do understand that there had to be cuts to the massive amount of information covered in the series, but the least they could do was to follow the main story line and shorten that up.  I can however see why they chose the minor story line they did to follow.  It was short and gave background on the main character, and in the end they did come to the main story line to finish.

Above is a screenshot of my glog.  Unfortunately it would save and publish.

What if we were all skeptics?

For this I decided to choose the Myth Busters because I watch them all the time and really enjoy these guys go at proving or disproving common held truths that are not really ever challenged.

So, what is it really that the Myth Busters all about?  There is a team of four people that find commonly held truths within society, American society not all societies, and put them to the test, to see if they really are true, or if they are false information.

What is interesting about the Myth Busters is that they do not discriminate when it comes to choosing a topic for that weeks show.  Although now that I am thinking about it they do partake in some discrimination, they do not touch anything that is religious in practice, so with that in mind, the Myth Busters choose from urban legends and societal truths that have never been tested to see if they are true or not.
Each problem is basically taken on the same way within the show making almost every show the same essentially, with the only difference being the problem that is presented to them.  The first part of the show is research based, researching what the problem is, where it originated, where it is found, where it originated, and then how it could be possible to achieve the story's truth.  Then is the fabrication stage, where they go about fabricating and duplicating the environment that is stated within the "myth," trying to be as accurate as possible, following the smallest detail.  Then comes the testing stage, where they test the theory, the research and make sure that everything is working properly, and finally followed with the true or false verdict of the "myth."

What is interesting about the Myth Busters is that they engage the audience with them, showing the audience the steps taken throughout the show and how they reached the conclusion that they did, enabling the audience to agree or disagree throughout the show.  Although they do have specialized equipment that they use, many of their episodes contain items that can be found at any hardware store, which can be tested by the audience at home, and if it is a particularly dangerous "myth" they are testing, they do warn us not to attempt at home, although this does open themselves up to controversial testing results.
The question then arises, are these real, or are these staged for an audience?  With the information from above, I would have to say that the Myth Busters are not using a mass media to gain money, but rather using it to educate the masses about what can be commonly held as true, may or may not be what it is all cracked up to be.  The Myth Busters utilize television for the purpose of educating people and engaging the audience with critical thinking skills, rather than for mere amusement.

Dangerous Territory

There has been a serious debate going on within society about video games.  One side of the argument is that video games are impacting people in a negative way, whereas the other side of the argument is that video games actually improve a person's abilities within the world.  So, the question is, which side is correct?
Although is has been shown that video games can improve upon ones ability to socialize, building communication skills as well as improving on a persons ability to utilize tact within a social situation, there are examples of a negative impact on ones social abilities.  Within the gaming world, these people are known as "keyboard tough guys," and "trolls."  Both of these individuals make it a point to irritate others around them within the gaming community, to the point of people logging off just to escape the aggressors.

The second point that is often used is that video games lead to violent behavior within developing brains.  Although there are many genres to video games, the one most used within this argument is the FPS (First Person Shooter).  Within the FPS, a person takes control of a single unit and plays many different mission types, last man standing, capture the flag, resource based missions, etc.  But the object of all of these is to kill or be killed.  It is easy to see how worrisome this can be with the perception of when a person is killed they simply wait a "respawn timer" and will come back to life, ready to go at it again.  One problem is that parents do not monitor what games their children are playing, and if they are playing more aggressive and violent video games, this may lead to more aggressive behavior within their lives, more resistance towards parents, more violent towards peers and teachers, etc.  This trickle down effect has been seen in numerous studies.

Another problem within video games is that it actually decreases the social skills of people over time.  It has been shown that video games can lead to anti-social behavior observed in people.  What is interesting to note here is that this seems to be quite controversial.  Many studies have shown that video games do lead to anti-social behavior, and yet many more have shown that it improves on peoples social abilities.  One anti social behaviors observed is an obsession over the game they are playing.  Many players opting not to go out and interact with real people, instead staying at home playing their game, and when they are denied their video games, sometimes violence and self inflicted harm occurs.

As we can see although there are some good qualities gained from video games, there are many bad as well.  I do think that video games are good for people, but as with everything in life, moderation is the key.  Too much of one thing can lead to sever problems within ones life.

Check the news!

Ok, so I read Discover all the time and in the recent issue was an article about Underground Chemistry Labs.  The article was a good one, but I wanted to focus on a one Mr. Patrick Arnold, who almost single-handedly boosted the underground steroid trade.  What is interesting to note is that what really got him into trouble was that the company he was working in conjunction with, BALCO, was being investigated for tax evasion/fraud and that is how he got caught with his pants down so to say.  So, as I focused on that I had found some discrepancies between all the news outlets that I checked.  For example Discover, ESPN and CBS news all said that they raided his lab in Illinois, but NYDailynews said that they raided his home AND his business.  I think that this is interesting to note because I'm sure if the Feds wanted him that bad they would have raided both places as well, but why not mention it in the other news sources?  My only guess is that they couldn't find any real substantial evidence within the confines of his home so therefore it was not mentioned.  Another discrepancy that I found was that ESPN, CBS, and NYDailynews made it sound as if Patrick Arnold was the one going around selling his enhancements, whereas Discover reported that he never sold his own product, nor met with any of the clients, he sold it to distributors and that was the end of that, whereas the other three made it sound like Patrick Andrews was going out and actively recruiting everyone he sold to.  Those were really all the discrepancies that I found, the Discover article was all about the chemistry side of the story whereas the other three sources were all about what the cases and why they were being tried, but did give good information pertaining to what was used, drug wise, and what the circumstances were.

Twitting my Tweeps

So, the first twitter account that I have followed is Blizzard, the creators of Diablo I, II, and III, along with Starcraft I and II, with Warcraft I, II, III, Frozen Throne (which is and expansion for Warcraft III), and finally World of Warcraft.  I chose to follow Blizzard because of their business sense.  All of these games have huge followings of fans, but what is interesting to note is how each of these fans belong to one or the other and most usually do not mix the games, sometimes accompanied by resentment to the other games that come out.  But within this group of people, when one new Blizzard game or expansion comes out, there is curiosity and with this comes the purchase, with the reasoning "just to see."

The second person that I decided to follow was Margaret Weis.  I chose her because of her series Dragonlance that she has written (most of the Dragonlance are Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman), and are based off of DnD encounters that they had.  Now, why I chose them is because the series was originally debuted back in the '80's and has been going since then, with most of their books re-released, but there are new ones coming out too.  Definitely suggest them to any Fantasy readers, and have got to be one of the best series Fantasy wise!

Discover magazine

I am a subscriber to Discover Magazine and I have to say I have never really thought about what we are going to discuss today before.  First let us analyze the overt message for the magazine.
Like I said I have never thought of this before but I can see it now as I am looking through the recent issue and I have to say that Discover Magazine they definitely have an undertone of education, but more specifically that you should become educated within the realm of biology, science, quantum, astrophysics, etc, basically everything that has to do with science, and this undertone is most definitely one of arrogance, as if saying that if you don't know about these things, or don't have books about these subjects, then you really shouldn't be reading this magazine.
What is interesting to note about the values portrayed within this magazine is that all scientists are either very fit males, or quite (wouldn't say very) skinny, large breasted females.  I say this only because when they have an interview (it is usually 5 to 10 questions asked by the reporter) they also attach a picture of the person being interviewed, and 9 times out of 10 they are the above build, portraying that in order to be a leading scientist in a field you should be good looking as well.  These interviews are with people that are on the "cutting edge" within their fields, that is why I said that in order to be a leading scientist you should be good looking.  I have subscribed to this magazine for the past 6 years and I can only think of maybe 3 or 4 people that didn't follow the above guideline.
I would most definitely have to say that the values do conflict with what actually happens in the field.  My wife (being the exception to this rule!  >.<) has a major in Biology and a minor in Chemistry and when I would go do "sit-ins" in her classes, man, I don't mean to sound brash, rude and a jerk, but the ladies and gentlemen in her upper division classes were something that you joke about, living in the basement doing experiments with house cleaners.  Now, I have talked to a couple of said people, and they will be the next cutting edge biologists/chemists, they absolutely, 100% know their stuff, in and out, front and backwards, but as Discover portrays, they are not the material that are sought after, unfortunately.
But how do they seem to be authoritative?   What is it that they use to make it seem as if they are the ones who are the experts within these fields?  The one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb when reading the articles, and even looking at the advertisements is that they use the top and leading people within the fields that they are discussing through the issue.  For example, last months issue they interviewed Julian Barbour about his views that Einstein was a great physicist, but he did not go far enough into his research with his theory of relativity.  Julian Barbour took Einstein's theory and based his work and experiments off of that and found that there is too much missing within the theory to be applied to everything.  He does conclude that the theory holds up on Earth, but within space there begin to be holes apparent, and exceptions that shouldn't be there.  Going to the experts of each field and utilizing them in their interviews as well as articles they write, citing each one of them.
But visual stimulation is also needed to ensure that people know that your publication is legit, and not some tabloid that is read only while you wait in line at the check stand at the grocery store.  The covers are adorned quite simply, with usually a picture of something that pertains to the main, or longest, feature within the magazine.  For example, the issue I mentioned above had a picture of Albert Einstein upside down, claiming that Julian Barbour was taking Einstein's theory and turning it upside down and exposing how it does not cover all things, and how there are holes within the theory itself.  Along the sides there are the titles to other smaller articles that can be found within, as well as who the featured interview is for the month.  It is a quite simple design, allowing the reader to pick it up and know exactly what will be discussed within the magazine.  What is interesting to note here though, personal reflection, is that this may also be a downfall.  I say this because if the reader looking at the cover does not find any of this interesting, they may just put it back down and not buy it, again this is a personal interjection and do not know if this inhibits their sales from month to month, or how it impacts what they put on their covers.
The interesting thing that I find when I read discover is that I only skip 2 different pages, and they are actually back to back within the magazine and those are the advertisement pages.  Their advertisements are interesting in that on the front of the first page is an advertisement for Encyclopedia Brittanica.  I find this interesting, but not a shock, for the simple reason that this is a scientific driven magazine and to find an add for an Encyclopedia does not really come as a surprise, but what is interesting is the price.  The price is at roughly a hundred dollars per book, so suggesting that it is a pricey purchase, but should bring you closer to understanding what you have just read if you do not fully understand it.  The back of the first page, front and back of the second pages of advertisements are for various items, one being a massive weed whacker that has wheels, one for funding for corrective surgeries of people with cleft pallets, there is even one for a mirror for women to help them see their faces better to put make up on, the reason it helps them see better is that it has a ring of LED lights around the rim of the mirror, appealing not only to men, but to women who read the magazine as well.  So the advertisements are not gender restricted, meaning only advertisements that appeal to only men and there are no advertisements that appeal to women, this is not the case there are about equal amount of advertisements that appeal to both sexes contained within the magazine.

The Lovemark

Ok, so I would have to say that my lovemark is most definitely Apple.  I use Apple products and that is final.  Haha.  My wife and I argue about which is better, and usually I just go stomping around outside until I cool off.  No, it really isn't that bad.  Why is it that I am an Apple fan you ask?  Well, it all started way back when back when Windows had released Windows ME.  Oooh boy is what everyone says when I say that, but that was my first and last experience with Windows.  That operating system (Windows ME) was the biggest piece of garbage that was ever presented to the public, and that is what I based my decision on.  After a couple of years of not having a computer I got a Mac and was instantly impressed with the GUI (Graphical User Interface) and ease of usage.  I fell in love for the first time with an electronic piece of equipment!  But what really makes me love Macs is the longevity of the product.  For example the laptop that I am writing this on has just had its 5 year birthday last week, and it still plays all my games, as well as does all the stuff I need it to do for homework as well as boots up quickly.  Sure every now and then it does have a problem and needs to be restarted but so do all computers.  Last November I built my wife a computer with everything top of the line and it is already starting to have some problems, for example the USB drives on the front sometimes lock up her system, am I saying this is a Windows issue?  No, but if we would have gotten her a Mac we wouldn't have this conversation!
But, is this really what a love mark is all about?  Better than what the competition has to offer?  When I think of Apple, the first things that spring to my mind is not my laptop, or the products that Apple does put out, it is more of a feeling of sophistication, of superiority, a feeling of ease knowing that whatever I need will be there, also the color blue for some reason, but that color is accompanied by calm and an inner peace (I know this may sound weird).  This is what defines a lovemark, not actual product, but feelings, imagery that is produced when thinking of a certain brand.  Would I be heartbroken if Apple were to disappear tomorrow?  Absolutely, almost as if I were to be lost within a cruel world, followed by feelings of anger and retribution, for doing such a thing to my precious Apple.