One Way Ticket to TV Land?

The average American watches 28 hours of TV per week, according to Neilson ratings.  That’s over one full day dedicated towards only television.  Are they really watching, though, or are they using it as white noise?  Whereas TV used to be an event, it may be becoming more commonplace.  To get an insight on television and where it’s headed, I interviewed Professor Ellie Pye at Endicott College.

Known as “Professor Ellie” or “Ellie” to her students, this gung-ho teacher takes an enthusiastic Firefly, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones.  Before coming to Endicott two years ago, she’d worked with community media, totaling almost twenty years of experience.  Her interest was cemented in high school, when her guidance counselor called her down for the “What do you want to do with the rest of your life?” chat.  She’d always loved television and stories and, having recently read about the industry in the news, made her decision.  Afterwards, her mother bought her a camera (which was really expensive back then, she said, not to mention that it was a “behemoth of a thing”).  She loved everything about the field.

approach to all of her classes, throwing in jokes left and right to keep the atmosphere light, and making fairly frequent references to her favorite shows:

She remembers watching a lot of TV as a kid.  Although she wasn’t consciously studying it or watching all the behind-the-scenes specials, she was certainly picking things up.  For starters, it spurred her imagination.  Now a very inventive teacher, always looking at things from new angles, it’s no surprise that Ellie enjoyed creative writing—though she never took a class.  She recalls one of the stories she wrote, in eighth grade, had been a murder mystery titled “Death Ring.”  She’d written it as part of a contest.  Contemplating it now, she muses that it may have been okay back then, but in today’s society, “I probably would have been psychoanalyzed, pulled out of class, like, ‘What’s wrong with you, Ellie?’”

She shares an anecdote about, more currently, helping her son clean out his room.  Being only a little younger than she was when writing “Death Ring,” she’s amused to find he has a similar imagination.  Elli supports that creativity, but makes sure there’s a line between fiction and reality, okay and not-okay.  It’s a delicate balance, one that’s being constantly tested in today’s society.  It’s a “different era.”

Ellie kept up her writing and, a few years after working in the television business, had her own television series airing on public access channels.  She describes it as being a serial, a soap opera, and a comedy all in one.  It was, essentially, everything she loved about television.  It “clicked” for her.

She could probably talk for hours about what she likes and dislikes in television: acting, delivery, writing, writing, writing….For her, the best part is the “what if?”  It that moment when you fall so in love with a show that you are always questioning what will happen next or what could have happened had things gone differently.  (I’m fairly certain that’s the entire base behind fanfiction.)  By doing this, you have to look deeply into the program, “breaking it down.”  She says that kind of analysis is her favorite part to teach.  It shows.

Ellie definitely knows what she’s talking about.  Each lesson is usually accompanied by a story of some sort.  She’s also very observant, in tune with the progression of the field.  Since going into the industry, she’s noticed quite a few things about how our world of television has evolved and, even, where it’s going.

Q: In teaching and studying TV, how have you seen that it’s changed in the last fifty years?   What are the biggest aspects of that?

A: I think the box has kind of opened.  Someone took the lid off and everything just kind of went poof!  All these ideas, you know?  My big mantra I’ve always had is always ask “What if?”  And it seems like that’s what a lot of forces are trying to do.

Sometimes you feel like it’s going over the top and it keeps going over the top, getting more and more worse, like those reality shows….How far can they go with people getting really drunk and having a lot of sex if that’s all they do?  There are times where it gets pushed to one side of the extreme.

But, you know, I think there’s so many more opportunities.  People can do it right and, because there are so many more channels now, there’s so many more niches, that a lot of shows may not have had that opportunity before because there were only like three networks and they had to gear themselves toward the greatest denominator.

Q: Do you think TV acts as a mediator between new ideas and public acceptance?

A: I think so because I think TV [networks], like anything, have things they know are going to be successful and that allows them to try the less successful things and be able to afford to do that.

Sometimes there is that one thing that just clicks, you know, like The Walking Dead….This is something that’s new and original and people are taking right to it.  But would that have worked twenty years ago or even ten years ago?  Or ten years from now?  Will it still be on the air?  Who knows?

Q: So, it seems like now, as there is more and more TV, one method of babysitting or parenting is to, like, stick your kid in front of the TV.

A: Absolutely.

Q: What do you think about that idea?  Does it limit creativity?  Do you think it works or it doesn’t work or, maybe, it’s overdone?

A: I think it could be bad.  It really depends on the kid and the parents.  My kid watches TV.

My daughter, she’ll watch TV in the morning, when she gets home, that kind of thing…so she’s watching stuff and watching content.  There’s definitely a fine line between getting her to understand that it doesn’t need to be on all the time.  And also watching what she watches. If my son is watching South Park, I’m like, “Okay, maybe the eight-year-old shouldn’t be watching this with you.”  And he’s really good about making sure he’s not watching South Park when she wanders into the room.

I think it’s really up to the parents.  The biggest thing that drives me crazy is when the TV is always on.  When people are doing other things.  Like it’s just normal to have it on in the background.  And I’m really adamant about that.

Q: Do you then think that maybe we’re growing more addicted to television?  That we’re just more accustomed to having it all the time?

A: I don’t know if it’s television.  I think it’s just content in general.  You can watch stuff anywhere now.  I just loaded the Netflix app on my phone and I’m like, “What am I doing?  This is just crazy!”

It’s tough.  It’s a rough road that you’ve got to back away from a lot.

Q: What are some of the most recent developments in TV?

A:  Definitely the original content…the streaming stuff on Netflix.  It’s a powerful tool.  Like, you’ve heard me talk about this, but one of my favorite series is Firefly, which I never would have been able to check out if it wasn’t on Netflix.

It is really an exception if I watch a show while it is actually on the air.  Like everything is either on the DVR or On Demand or streaming.  That’s huge.  That’s amazing.  And I think it’s going to keep going in that direction.

Q: Is there a specific way you’d like to see TV evolve?

A: I don’t know.…I guess just kind of trying to continue to think outside the box because I really hate it when one idea latches on and fifteen copy cats shows have to come out after it.  Just try new things.

The Population Scales Have Tipped

When World War II ended, there was a surge…of kids.  This generation, now known as the “Baby Boomers,” was partially due to the economic prosperity following.  It was feasible to keep so many children.  In 2013, we’re facing the opposite situation.  The economy is down.  We’re having fewer babies.

At first, it seems logical and fine.  The economy can’t support too many children, so we shouldn’t have them.  Because of the Baby Boomers, though, there’s a large increase in the population moving on to its elderly stages.  These elders need to be supported financially by the younger generation…which we now have less of.

An article from USA Today, titled “As U.S. birth rate drops, concern for the future mounts,” says, “In 1970, there were 22.2 Americans age 65 and over for every 100 working-age adults ages 25 to 64, Myers says. By 2010, that had gone up to 24.6 and based on Census projections, the ratio will rise above 40 by 2030.”  Essentially, the retired population is growing while the working population is shrinking.

This means that each of the younger generation will have to dole out more money than their predecessors.  Such a situation will further burden the economy.  After all, if these future-adults are spending large sums of cash on income taxes, they’ll be spending less to push along our capitalist economy.  As seen during the Great Depression, no one is happy once that starts happening.

What this seems to imply is that people should have more kids in order to stabilize things.  My personal opinion is that this won’t work.  Overall, our nation (and the world, which is following this trend) needs fewer people to support, not more.  We’re already nudging toward overpopulation.  2012 brought Earth’s population to 7 billion.  The Earth wasn’t really meant to handle 7 billion people!  We’re straining the resources.

When China realized it was facing overpopulation, it put into place new laws.  The main concept allowed only one child to each family.  Some women were told to abort an extra pregnancy.  Couples were often sterilized if they did have two children.  The U.S., as well as other countries, protested such laws.  The rules have since lost strictness.  However, the population did go down and, as a result, the standard of living did increase.

I’m not saying we should be like China.  (Besides, I don’t see us having a need to enforce any laws because people seem to be trending towards smaller families on their own.)  I’m saying that having fewer people in the long run could be a good thing.  It’s a problem now, but it may be a saving grace later.  In fifty years, we don’t want a future where half the population is starving, housing is cramped, and hardly anyone can afford anything but public transportation.

A restructuring may be in order.  There has to be a happy medium between proper retirement funds and not wringing the working force dry, therefore causing the capitalist economy to all but collapse.  Before that medium is reached, I have a feeling that things will get worse.  We’ll want to rage at the government and hate our president and blame whoever we can for making decisions that need to be made.  We’ll want to complain about how the world’s gone down the drain.  We’ll make movies with stories allegorical to increases in poverty, perhaps a few more dystopian sci-fi flicks.  Really, though, whose fault is it?

You could say “no one’s” I suppose.  There isn’t an individual to blame.  This kind of thing is something that couldn’t be foreseen or controlled—which raises the question: What would stop this from happening again?

The Back to the Future II Accuracy Check and Review

The movie starts where its predecessor left off: with Doc Brown (time travel expert and resident mad scientist complete with Einstein-esque hair), Marty McFly (the fumbling teenage protagonist with a penchant for knee-jerk reactions), and Jennifer Parker (Marty’s girlfriend who, up until this point, hasn’t had much of a role) adventuring off to the future to save Marty and Jennifer’s children from an unknown but supposedly disastrous fate.

Released in 1895, the “future” for the characters takes place in 2015, a year we are coming upon quickly.  The depicted setting is more fantastic than our current reality in some ways, yet behind in others.  A thorough study of the movie has picked up on several technologies and trends as well as where they stand at the moment.

Mr. Fusion: A device that takes trash and can apparently generate 1.21 gigawatts of electricity from it.  Let’s put it this way: the average nuclear power plant, which is the size of a large neighborhood, puts out about one gigawatt (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nuclear-Power-2462/2008/10/energy-nuclear-plant-generate.htm).  It would take a gigantic nuclear power plant to put out the amount of electricity needed to power the time-traveling DeLorean.

Flying cars: They are not the commodity predicted.  What we have right now is this.

Sleep-inducing alpha-rhythm generator: The equivalent of knock-out gas, but with lights.  We do not have this, either.

A weather service that can actually control the weather:  No.  Not even close.

“The justice system works quickly in the future now that they’ve abolished all lawyers”: It is highly unlikely that, in the next two years, all lawyers will cease to exist.  In America’s current economic state, we need more jobs, not less.

Power laces: Shoes that tie themselves.  We have the technology for this, just not the need.  At the moment, though, the idea makes for a great gag because 80s Marty wears converse and, almost thirty years later, we still wear converse.

Ridiculously colorful and patterned pants and shirts: Check.

Doc’s invisible tie: Not yet, but maybe.  I know a few people who would wear this.

The double tie: Numerous characters wear two ties around their neck rather than one.  Both ties are the same pattern and assumed to be part of the same mechanism.  I have not seen anyone wear this in public and hope that is not something that will change within the next two years.

Hologram movies: In Back to the Future II, there’s a holographic Jaws shark preying on pedestrians from the front of the theater.  Believe it or not, this is actually something we do have, though not in theaters.  In Japan, a concert was held in which an animated holographic image was set on stage.  The concert was for Miku, who is not a real person, only a collection of computer generated sounds.

Videogames that don’t involve hands: I describe it as this because the device is not actually seen, only mentioned by two children who complain about an arcade game that does involve the use of hands.  This could take on two different approaches.  Either it could be like the Kinect, which is motion-sensitive and now widely spread across the game-playing culture, or it could be more similar to the Emotiv EPOC, which is an interface that uses the brain as its controller.

Sound effects vest: One of the antagonistic minor characters wears a vest that looks to be made out of metal and is covered in buttons that emit different sounds, one of which is a chicken, used to goad Marty into a fight.  In present day 2013, these do exist (and are sleeker), although are more often worn by preteen boys than young adult thugs.

Hoverboard: We don’t specifically have a board, but we have created hovercrafts.  Still, they are a long way off of what’s in the movie.

Digital camera:  We have this!

On-the-spot DNA identification: We…do not have this.  Labs are still necessary.

Dehydrated food: This kind is not the strange substance given to astronauts.  Rather, it’s a mini-pizza that can be stuck in a hydrator and transformed into a full-size pizza.  We’re behind on this one.

Media glasses: In the movie, Marty’s kids both use visors that can intercept phone calls and are possibly connected to other media outlets.  The devices accurately represent the kind of dinner table distraction that can be seen today with teens and texting.  Other than this, their role isn’t very clearly defined, and thus it can’t be said whether they are more archaic or advanced compared to our current technology.  Google Glass may trump even the more advanced assumptions, though.  Set to be released in 2014, it is a computer that can be worn on the eyes, inputting information into our visual field.

When the movie first came out, these gadgets were probably seen as more “cool” than “funny.”  It’s the recent comparisons that add the humor.  Even without this, though, the movie is still hilarious for three main reasons.

Reason #1: The expressions.  Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown) and Michael J. Fox (Marty) have, arguably, some of the best reactions in movie history.  Their faces contort to cartoonish degrees.

Reason #2: Michael J. Fox playing both of his children.  The first, his son, Marty Jr., is a complete wimp with a whiny voice and a snarky attitude.  His hair is greasier and usually worn under a hat to make him look different.  What’s funnier, however, is that Fox also plays Marty’s daughter, Marlene.  Yes, that’s right—he slaps on a wig, adds some dark eye make-up, fills out a curvy figure, and pitches his voice higher.  After realizing that it is the same person playing Marty, Marty Jr., and Marlene, this becomes one of the best things ever.

Reason #3: Miscellaneous humor.  This is going to be a category all on its own.  Slapstick comedy receives the most frequent usage.  The bad guys are always slamming into solid objects.  Add to this a few comedic sound effects and you have yourself a laugh.  Next up is situational humor.  There are some things that are just inherently funny, such as having two Martys.  One is sassy enough.  Then, there’s the ironic humor, presented from the contrast between two events.  Specific examples can’t be given here for fear of real spoilers.  Lastly, there is the verbal humor, carrying all of the snappy lines and exclamations of “Great Scott!”  My only protest here is that Marty’s “Hey, what’s that?!” gag starts getting a little stale.

That joke in particular has been carried over from the first movie.  There’s true benefit in watching both within close proximity of each other.  If nothing else, doing so lets you understand the truly ridiculous proportions of continuity.  The second movie makes many references to the first, but uses different angles to attain another viewpoint on the situation.

Due to involvement of past-selves and future-selves at the same time, there are numerous moments of “double acting”: two versions of the actor on screen, talking to each other.  The timing is impeccable.  All of the reactions are spot-on and the result makes it highly believable.  One case of “triple acting” is evident, too, when Fox had to play those three characters simultaneously.  Despite the complication of the filming for this kind of effect, it wasn’t reduced by any large amount.  If anything, it was flaunted.

That’s another thing: this movie flaunts what it’s got.  Aside from a few exceptions, like awkward stunts, the special effects are magnificent.  There were very few moments where I thought, “That is so fake.”  Considering how many futuristic devices are involved, such as the flying cars and other levitating objects, that is a matter of serious importance.  Bad special effects certainly could have damaged half the movie.  I only say “damaged,” though, and not “ruined” because the storyline is still very strong.

Everything speeds forward—ban g, bang, bang—twisting consecutive complications together in a raging stream so that there’s no time to get bored.  Once one problem is resolved, another one rises, and there’s never nothing going on.  When people are talking, it’s active, it’s relevant, and it’s revealing.  As a result of this non-stop, machine-gun tempo, Back to the Future II tends to juggle a few plot lines, almost making it seem like it was meant as two or three movies.  The first half hour seems like its own storyline at first, then works almost as prologue for the rest of the movie, making it difficult to summarize in brief what the main point is.  Regardless, things stay interesting and, if nothing else, the logic sticks.

I would highly recommend this movie, even to those who are not fans of science fiction.

How To: Preserve Important Objects in Resin (Using A Mold)

There’s a prom corsage sitting on your dresser, an opening-night movie ticket from what you think could be your all-time favorite, or a treasured childhood trinket.  Everyone has something that holds such a strong memory that they’d never be able to let it go.  If it’s something you think that, maybe, you want to protect and pass down with a story and a wish, you should consider casting it in resin.

Resin, when hardened, is a preservative casing.  It’s often used for plants and insects.  However, it works just as well for charms.  I’ve used it before to create a casing for an origami lily, which I was then able to turn into a necklace for my friend’s birthday.  Resin-cast objects make for high-grade mementos.

Materials Needed

·         Easy Cast resin and hardener (purchasable at many craft stores)

 

      ·         A resin-specific mold

·         2 plastic measuring cups

·         2 wooden stirring sticks (toothpicks work)

·         A small object you wish to preserve (make sure it will fit inside the mold)

·         Wax paper or news paper

·         Time and patience

Instructions

1.      Spread the news or wax paper out onto a clean, dry surface for protection.  (You may also wish to wear a smock over your clothes if you’re the messy type.  Any resin that spills should be cleaned up A.S.A.P.  Its sticky and you don’t want it hardening on anything.)

2.      Fill the selected mold with water, then pour that water in one measuring cup.  This should tell you how much resin mixture you will need to fill it.  Afterwards, dry both cup and mold with cloth.

3.      Divide the measurement you just took by half.  Let’s say you measured that you will need 2 tbsp of resin mixture.  In one measuring cup, you would pour 1 tbsp of the actual resin (labeled Easy Cast resin).  In the second measuring cup, you would pour 1 tbsp of hardener (labeled Easy Cast hardener).  Make sure to do all of this over your wax or news paper.

 

 

4.      Now, pour the contents of one measuring cup completely into the other.  You can use your first wooden stirrer to scrape it all out.  Still using the wooden stirrer, mix the two substances together for two minutes.  You will see small, foamy bubbles, but that’s okay.  They won’t appear in the finished piece.

5.      Pour the contents of the measuring cup back into the other measuring cup, using your second stirrer to stir for another minute.  This is called a double-mixing process.

6.      Carefully, pour this mixture into your clean mold.  DO NOT OVERFILL.  Also, leave enough space that you will be able to fit your charm inside.

 

 

7.      Place charm inside the resin mixture.  The second stirring stick can be used to position it if necessary.  For example, I am using silver sparkles and a bead.  (As a fair warning, materials placed in resin will sink to the bottom of the mold.)  If you notice bubbles, they will rise and remove themselves during the settling process.

 

 

8.      Keep your mold in a warm, dry area to harden.  It will be “soft set” in 24 hours, at which point it is removable, but easily scratched, dented, or otherwise damaged.  It will be “hard set” in 72 hours, by which point it will be more durable and should have a glassy texture.

9.      When your resin is set, bend the mold to pop the charm out.  It may take some effort.  Do not try to hack it out with a knife, lest you do damage.

10.  Your piece is finished.  Enjoy and remember well.

 

How To Make A Memory Collage (for kids)

Think about the last time you went to a museum.  Imagine all the glass cases and pictures.  Each one of those is someone’s memory, kept safe for everyone to see.  We have museums because history and memory are important.  To protect memories of the world you know today, you could try making a collage.

What You Need

·         A piece of thick construction paper

·         Scissors

·         Pictures or favorite magazine clippings that your parents are okay with you using

·         Glue

·         A pen

Instructions

1.      Set the construction paper down on a flat, clean surface.

2.      Organize your pictures on the paper so that all of it will be covered.  Pictures can overlap as long as you can still see what the picture is supposed to be about.

3.      Remove a single picture, cover the back in glue, and stick it where you had it on the paper.  Repeat this for all of the other pictures.  Be careful not to use too much glue or else your pictures will turn soggy and crinkled.  (Plus, it will get all over you!)

4.      Once you are done gluing, let your collage dry in a safe space.

5.      Your collage is almost done.  For the finishing touch, write your name and date on the back in pen so that everyone will know whose memories these are.

The Laser Tag Expedition

Because laser tag is a game ever-increasing in popularity and could very well be one of the big future sports, I decided to venture out to Laser Quest on Thursday night to test it out.

Once everyone was signed in, we were herded into the "Briefing Room" pictured above for an explanation of the rules and regulations.

 

These were my temporary enemies.

 

 

Although not much can be deciphered due to darkness, it is evident that there were blacklights and glowy things everywhere.

 

The person featuring in the cartoonified portrayal above is not in a very good hiding spot, but with twenty-some-odd people in there, a good hiding spot was relative and attack was encouraged.

The Olympic Evolution

According to the BBC article, “Wrestling to be dropped from the 2020 Olympics,” there’s a potential change in the air.  While the decision is not final, wrestling is up for an out.  Seven other sports are competing for its place.

1.      Baseball/Softball: America’s Pastime is taking a stab.  Though developed in America during the 1800s, the game actually takes elements from a 14^th century Russian game of similar nature called “Lapta” (http://www.19cbaseball.com/). 

2.      Squash: The sport began in a schoolyard near London circa 1830, according to Squash 2020, a website dedicated to getting the game into the 2020 Olympics in place of wrestling.  Squash is a sport similar to American racquetball.  During both, players use netted rackets to hit a rubber ball off of the walls of an enclosed room.  The differences are actually very small details.

3.      Karate: The art doesn’t have an exact time of appearance.  It started in secrecy.  Its history is rather long, though.  It is one of the few sports in this new batch able to compete with wresting in age.

4.      Sport Climbing: Rock walls at the Olympics.  That could be interesting.  According to the climbing.com article, “Climbing in the Olympics,” the three types of climbing to be presented are “lead climbing, bouldering, and speed.”

5.      Wakeboarding:  The competition would be based on the number of stunts performed between two markers.  It is one of the more extreme (and newer) sports making a move for the spot.

6.      Wushu: A more common name for this activity is “kungfu.”  It’s a little bit like dancing, a little bit like gymnastics, and a whole lot like the movies.  That last point may be what’s culturally holding most of its weight in this decision.

7.      Roller Sports: The proposal for its part in the Olympics suggests four speed-skating competitions.  Notably, we do already have speed ice-skating in the Winter Olympics and this competition does heavily favor Europe, the Americas, and Asia through the number of competitors.

The largest complaints are not from only the wrestlers and their fans, but from those who seek tradition in the Olympic Games.  Part of its biggest draw is its history.  However, it’s not like the Olympics haven’t changed before.  That’s part of the reason the International Olympic Committee (IOC) exists.  A full list of sports, their appearances, and, if applicable, their departures can be found here, at lifescience.com.

From the sports listed above, only baseball specifically has made a previous appearance.  Water motorsports in general have entered, as has “rackets,” which bears likeliness to squash.  Whether this history improves or damages their chances at being selected is unknown.

How does this bode for the future?  The Olympics heavily influence our society.  Kids grow up training and training and dreaming and dreaming of making it onto the podium.  Needless to say, there’s a flux in those directions as well as in the directions of professional league sports.

Lately, ultimate frisbee has come into popularity and the IOC has recognized it as a sport.  It’s possible that, one day, this too could be considered for the Olympics—fifty years from now, maybe.  Then what?  There are so many sports out there, it may just depend on the tides of interest.  The Olympics also includes “demonstration sports,” which are essentially the host nation showing something off, even though it’s not technically part of the Games.

Ultimate Frisbee has not yet made it onto that list, but it could happen.  Other sports and games to consider for the future might be paintball and laser tag.  Both are interesting culturally because of America’s War on Terrorism and the general increase of violent videogames.  Counter arguments include the debate about gun control.

That said, the Olympics does have history with guns as part of the pentathlon.  Firearms were initially used as part of the shooting competition before they were replaced with air guns, which were, in 2012, switched out with laser guns.  (Laser tag as an Olympic sport isn’t sounding so crazy now, is it?)  Both require a certain level of technology, though, and are less adaptive to cultures around the world.  Thus, for now, we’ll have to start with the wrestling decision and take things from there.