Jason052714

In your concluding statement: “These “anti-capitalist” films are products of capitalism, they are the thing they say they go against” seems to inadequately capture the essence of your argument. What you are witnessing is that due to the concentration of media ownership we are seeing products synergized through vertically integrated subsidiaries. The novelty of the Hunger Games originates with his huge young adult fan base derived from the book series. This age group is one of, if not, the most sought after target markets. And finding away to repurpose the paperbacks as a quadrangle of sequels is an ideal situation. As for the incongruent values that are exposed in terms of acknowledged as to what themes are in the text versus what happens when the text is positioned within the media culture, is the way it is. Although I detest capitalism with its deficiencies, it will always be the most efficient system mainstreaming of content by making production, promotion and distribution possible.

Yikes! I can’t believe someone tried to make this argument. I am not at all coming from an objective point of view. And nor do I mind. These films essentially validate Theodor Adorno’s sentiment about art’s failure as a commodity. These films (all of them) represent how damaging to originality that the concentrated ownership and inordinate control over promotion, distribution and production of the media industry can be. What makes them worse, is that they were created by a man that started his career resenting that very system. They are, like all art, valid and can assume some space within our popular culture. But simultaneously they represent how economic constraints force independent voices, ideas and stories to the fringes and well funded CGI driven (and will eventually look painfully dated) trash dominates the discourse concerning mainstream film.

Good piece. What I found fascinating with this film was not only the dismal yet intriguing cityscapes of Bruges, but the characters’ uncomfortable relationship. Gleeson and Farrell appear to be awkwardly intimate; lacking the meager conviviality of Estragon and Vladimir. The poor decisions of their pasts foment frequently comedic bickering between one another while they establish some level of adhesiveness through their exasperated frustration. But being miserable criminals isn’t enough to make convincing cinematic chemistry. There is a sense that even when Gleeson is asked to kill his partner (Farrell), refusing to fulfill the request was even more pointless than reconciling his own personal mid-life crisis during the climax of the film. Though well acted, his toxic chivalry toward Farrell was an inevitable and predictable outcome in the script. It’s just I don’t think the sympathy of Farrell or his pathetic situation was powerful enough to inspire such a drastic change of heart. It could be simply reduced to yet another story of how an evil and aged criminal deserves a shot at redemption. But I guess I am totally exhausted from it (like vampires and zombies) because now I am feeling forced to forgive murderers, thieves, and cons. We are once again asked see how we can identify with this awful person who is purportedly ‘just like us’ and we could perhaps see making similar choices faced with such perverse conundrums, but we can’t–and I don’t want to.

*more secure with

Really great assessment of the ecology of the collectathon, rich analysis, and a solid walkthrough on the changes according to brands of console! The preoccupation of “collecting things” within video game objectives seems to point to broader socio-economic values associated with consumerism. And The redundant procedural aspects of this animated genre seem to suggest that the player may simply have a loyalty to a franchise or feels more secure from familiar platform styles.

I enjoyed reading the essay. There were some well cited points made about the traditional distinctiveness of a formal “text” in comparison to its digitized versions. However, I don’t think its a stretch to say that the argument is a bit oversimplified.

Whether it is functioning in some capacity as either a noun or a verb is relevant for a fact based chronology of technological advancements or reductionist literary logic, but isn’t really useful in a psychoanalytic conversation as to how the text is functioning to produce meaning. This is especially true when we think of the multimodal delivery systems that media infrastructure uses and the content primarily envisaged as a bricolage of competing presentational formats.

A “text” is the result. It is (re)created by its authorship (auteur)and/or readings by the subject (sujet); interpellation. Its fixity or agency in a static or electronic sense, respectively are mere forms that are activated within cultural or a collective (un)consciousness. The “deep” meaning the author is referring to has really nothing to do with the interface, the texture of the papyrus or the feel of warmly tattered book pages. Those media make the text perform better or worse, efficiently or not, within some scope of human perception, morality or ethic. Regardless, it always constructs unrestricted meaning; that is what the text does, is and was.

Indeed, the printing press had a perfunctory role in physically situating the text. But how the text then positions dyads, social groups or individuals is not entirely the result of ‘deeply’ engaging with a tangible artifact. In fact, as the limited effects model used in propaganda research points to the way opinion leaders or sharing in discourse upon encountering a media text are far more influential than that text itself (Lazarsfeld & Berelson, 1940). Evidence that the erratic semiotic domain of video games suggests that interactivity from simulation(s)involve cognitive activity so rapid, and immersive that innumerable firsthand life experiences that the players have had in their lives are instantaneously drawn from to complete game objectives, improve skill levels, comprehend game theme(s), subplot(s) or narrative(s) while adjusting their physical orientation. These activities can only be achieved through quick thinking abilities; a reactionary and highly developed system of recall.

This interaction with the game is also largely based on cues. Moreover, research within the communication and cognition literature suggests that frequently peripheral cues (PRP) are more effective at information processing than that of central route processing (CRP). Generally, CRP is only applicable with individuals that find content appealing.
Perhaps, texting or electronic means of communicating is way we have adapted to combine or reconcile the two disparate processes of(para)sympathetic arousal and appeal.

Thus if we are ‘texting’ this might account for the fact that we might actually be thinking more intently about the relationship though we might only use shorthand texts. Using a truncated form of symbolic codes, we are able to infer on a level that is perhaps more rapport based as opposed to report. Or perhaps Texting might find a faster route to the heart through a telemetric, albeit less sophisticated method than traditional modes, but not inferior. Rather than focusing on the mitigating potential of technology to assist us with connecting in new ways, the author relegates this to a literacy debate from the paranoiac style.
(Morley, 1996; Lacan, 1970; Barthes, 1975; DeLeuze & Guittari,1987; Reyes & Adams, 2010; Reyes & Smith, 2014;Gee, 2003)

The indictment of texting or recanting a “ho-hum” Neil Postman argument that “we are amusing ourselves to death” really translates to an opinion that ‘people are just becoming dumber.’ In fact, Postman’s book sharing the name of the aforementioned quote actually says “reading is hard” on its first page. Frankly, this piece comes across as quite elitist. It says that the only way to authentically read a text is to do it the old fashioned way by working hard and earning it simultaneously making you better than everyone else.

Incidentally, this line, “bringing us away from the highly developed…” is unclear. Either you “take something away” or “bring it to you”