Beyonce in Three Frames
While watching Lady Gaga - “Telephone” featuring Beyoncé, I couldn’t help but think that these shots were inspired by Threeframes.
Also, the video references the Command And Conquer Videogame? (4th ingredient)
The Shaqintosh
Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé - Telephone. Song starts at 2:45.
There’s something really interesting here, which I think is really good for the art of film and TV.
As the screen medium has evolved, and the world of entertainment has ventured towards more realism and naturalism, TV and film has become a medium of reality. Batman has been rebooted as a more “real” Batman. The modern movie musical now must exist in the ‘reality’ plane. As audiences, we want things to be real, so we can connect with them.
this music video is a good step backwards. It represents a more surrealist version of reality, which has been missing from the screen. And because of this, Beyoncé sticks out like a sore thumb.
In case you missed it, here is Beyoncé’s other video with Lady Gaga:
This is naturalism/realism. It’s sexy, and most importantly, features the performers as real people. You could easily step into this world and have a naturalistic conversation with these people. Dramatically, the reality isn’t as heightened as the “Telephone” video.
And here’s why I think Beyoncé doesn’t fit in the “Telephone” video, but Lady Gaga does fit in the “Videophone” video:
In performance, if you extend your boundaries, it’s easier to take them down than to expand them for the first time. It’s similar to stretching out a balloon: once you’ve stretched it out, it’s easier for it to become bigger. Gaga has stretched her boundries, whereas Beyoncé has not.
Beyoncé, however, has embiggened her boo-tay.
Regarding My Boredom and Prostitution Economics.
- Elon: Hire a prostitute to play Scrabble. Or hire two prostitutes to play Scrabble while you watch.
- Me: But then they'll judge me.
- Elon: They're not being paid to judge. They're being paid to play.
Them Crooked Vultures - Mind eraser, no chaser
Dave Grohl is always a master, and I was always on the fence about Josh Homme, but this helps his case. And the bassist used to be in a little band called Led Zeppelin.
A new Facebook design is coming. You already hate it.
A new Facebook design is rolling out as we speak, and I can already hear you all making comments of how you hate it. I, for one, am looking forward to it, as
- There are some VERY intelligent people at Facebook, and another UI redesign is meant to make the service better, or at least further push the Facebook directive in a way that benefits their bottom line. They won’t be removing features, just making it easier for you to access the service.
- I like new internet things.
I know that many of you don’t agree with me on number 2, but I know this. You’ll hate on it for a week, and then forget about it.
So please, spare me your I HATE NEW FACEBOOK DESIGN comments and group invite requests, because it’s just noise.
#teamconan
What Marketers Miss About Social Media
The Bruno Movie, starring Sacha Baron Cohen, has a Facebook page and a Twitter page. These destinations have been created for fans to get more Bruno content.
But what happens when the hype machine dies down? The Bruno brand is no longer active, and therefore, is lost to the ether that is “The Internet”. The Bruno social media presence is now lost. But how do you keep fans activated after a brand has dissolved?
This is what I think marketers miss about social media: that loyalty does not die after a brand has become irrelevant. Loyalty CAN be extended beyond a brand’s grave.
These brands are not long term entities: they exist for less than a year (or less than a few years, if they’re very lucky). The entities that have long term potential are the performers themselves. I would rather have brand loyalty for a director of a film, or an actor in a film, rather than the film itself. I would like to get more content about a TV or Film project from the people involved with the project, rather than a marketer. I think that is more genuine.
In my stream of content (in Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, etc), I want to increase my signal-to-noise ratio. I want less spam, and more genuine content. I feel that marketers see social media as a way to push a brand, rather than adding additional content to a brand (but there exceptions).
My main question to marketers is this: why should I follow you on social media? What do I get out of it? Just being in those arenas for the sake of being “hip”, I feel, is not reason enough. There should be a reason why I need to keep you in my consciousness. Coca-Cola has a Facebook page, but why should I get your content? What is the reason to having you in my stream of content? There is so much noise out there, why should I be giving you my attention?
My message to Marketers is this: give me a reason to keep you in my stream of content. Internet users are digesting so much content a day, that they are leaving media sites that have too much noise. Give us a reason to stick around.
Facebook changes the layout again, and people are angry. I am not one of them.
I keep seeing people complain about how much they hate the new facebook layout. Here are some status updates from people who don’t like it:
“WTF to this new setup on Facebook.”
“New face book blows. Its going threw more make overs than britney spears.”
“Why does Facebook keep changing its format? I’m getting annoyed.”
“is not happy with new facebook homepage!”
I could go on and on. But this sentiment goes along with what I had said a year or so ago: people should get off of Facebook, and move into independent platforms like Flickr, Tumblr, Twitter, etc, and then aggregate. If one platform fails a user (professional, personally, techincally), you don’t lose your other content on a different service. However, Facebook is a simple case of the “all my eggs in one basket”. That makes things convenient. But when the whole service changes their layout, or their TOS, you have to either grin and bear it, or abandon the entire platform all together (like Scott Bourne).
So, for all of you whiners out there, I say this: If you don’t like it, leave Facebook. It’s really that simple. If you make them hurt by removing your presence on their service, they’ll be forced to make changes to get people back. Simply protesting by creating a group, or changing your picture won’t make a difference because you’re still in their environment, and digesting their advertisments. There are plenty of social networks out there to join. Go and make Facebook hurt for what they did to you! Leave Facebook!
I for one, will not leave Facebook. You know why? Because Facebook is smarter than their users will give them credit for. Facebook have used their mountains of cash to hire the smartest people in the industry, and these “smarties” drive innovation and technology. They create things that I like: tagging photos, Facebook Connect, and helping my parents reconnect with people they knew in high school. Facebook isn’t stupid. They have to be competitive.
And they have to be competitive with the (relatively) decentralized services that I like, such as Flickr and Twitter. They have to steal users to build business. So they have to change things in order to make a difference. They have to change those things today, or Twitter and Flickr will take over. Internet technology changes fast, and Facebook has to keep up.
I remember when people were angry when the news feeds came in, and the user numbers grew. There is a difference between not liking something, and not being used to it. I think people will wipe their asses, and move on.
So, my advice to you is get used to it, or go support a community that you actually like.
The only reason I stick with Facebook is that it’s the “NBC of social networks”. I’d much rather them visit my Twitter page, my Tumblr page, my Flickr page, or even the aggregate of it all on my Friendfeed page. But because everyone is on Facebook, I use it to drive people to my other content.
So get over it. I support the new layout, and I’m sticking with Facebook. For now.
Recursive Reaction
There is a saying in acting that “There is no action, only reaction”, but I’ve come to realize that it can be used for a large amount of socially conditioned behavior. As we mature and grow, we react to the stimulus around us. The choices we make from the day we are born are from instinct first, then our reactions to imparted wisdom and the events we participate in. There is no psychological action from nothing, only reaction to other psychological action.
