|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
Thanks for stopping by! 
| |
As you're probably well aware at this point, movie adaptations are pretty popular. Whether from books (TWILIGHT, THE DA VINCI CODE), old television shows (S.W.A.T., the upcoming A-TEAM), comic books (X-MEN, SPIDER-MAN), toy franchises (TRANSFORMERS, G.I. JOE), or even theme park rides (PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, THE HAUNTED MANSION), Hollywood is crazy about adaptations ... the reasoning being that these properties have a built-in audience that will, in theory, translate into built-in revenue.
But at what point does a property cease to be a good idea and start to be a pretty clear exploitation of any little sliver of audience recognition? I'd say when you start acquiring the rights to objects and things rather than stories.
I'll give them TRANSFORMERS. At least there's years and years of storylines they can pull from. Heck, I'll even give them THE HAUNTED MANSION, because there's a rough semblance of a narrative in the Disneyland ride. But that's where I draw the line. Here's a list of source material (I swear I'm not making these up) that Hollywood is legitimately trying to turn into feature motion pictures:
MONOPOLY BOARD GAME
BATTLESHIP BOARD GAME
RISK BOARD GAME
CANDYLAND BOARD GAME
E*TRADE BABY COMMERCIALS
STRETCH ARMSTRONG
OUIJA BOARD
VIEWMASTER
And, just announced today:
MAGIC 8 BALL
Now, I realize that part of a screenwriter's job is to figure out how to create a coherent story... but isn't it a bit of a stretch to spend what typically amounts to millions of dollars to secure the rights to these franchises, only to pay a screenwriter separately to actually write the script based on the property? Now you've already got seven figures against the project before a single frame has been shot. Is the pool of audience members itching to see a Magic 8 Ball movie really high enough to offset that expenditure in advance of any production elements? 
Hollywood, to its credit, is just trying to figure out how to make movies people want to see. But at some point, you have to wonder if all the money and time spend securing these properties is worth it, when you can acquire an original screenplay for a fraction of the cost. As the box office has shown again and again ... there are no sure things. So if you're going to take a gamble either way, why not gamble with a good script and less money, rather than trying to figure out how to spend tens of millions of dollars bringing a movie based on the Viewmaster toy into the world. 
|
| |
So I've been loosely following this new immigration law that Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in Arizona, requiring law enforcement officers to determine if people are in the country illegally upon "reasonable suspicion." Opponents are worried that this is going to usher in an era of racial profiling, and I have to say that I agree with them. In a state with an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants (and almost 2 million legal residents of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity), I have to wonder what "reasonable suspicion" entails. How do you tell a legal resident from an illegal one? What does an illegal immigrant look or act like?
Are law enforcement officials going to consider ethnicity alone grounds for reasonable suspicion? Are they going to start stereotyping by profession and start hauling in day laborers? The law doesn't state what documentation is sufficient to prove legal status, so is everyone going to have to start carrying around passports just in case they get stopped by a cop?
I understand the need for immigration reform, but a law that ambiguously empowers government officials to challenge legal residency based on "reasonable suspicion" is just opening the doors to the same racial profiling issues that have plagued other states for decades. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that all citizens be treated fairly under the law... and if a person's ethnicity in Arizona is the basis for "reasonable suspicion," that's unconstitutional and a violation of their civil rights. And if ethnicity can't be used as a basis for "reasonable suspicion," then that begs the question of what can be used to enforce this new law?
Seems to me this is a misguided attempt to address a growing issue... and an issue that, as I understand it, is a federal issue. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that only the federal government has the power to set immigration policy. Depending on what the state of Arizona does with the illegal immigrants they uncover, this could be construed as an issue of a state overstepping their authority.
All in all, I can't help but think this new legislation is a bad, bad idea. 
|
April 21, 2010 at 10:48pm April 21, 2010 at 10:48pm April 18, 2010 at 12:05am April 18, 2010 at 12:05am
| |
For those of you who are at all interested, I finished the travelogue for the trip to London and Paris. Warning! Mundane details contained herein: 
Cheers!
|
| |
It seems like this current "3 Stars is Average" issue has inspired a little debate around WDC. On the one hand, the movement was suggested to remind people that 3.0 and 3.5 ratings for items are average, and people shouldn't consider those ratings to be disappointing or insulting. But it seems that, on the other hand, the question has been raised about whether this is, in fact, promoting mediocrity.
Tehuti, Lord Of The Eight  's blog addressed this debate and, apparently, referenced my own handle (or one similar to it) which says, "3 is Average & OK!"
Below is my response, which I've reposted here, as it hopefully explains my position on the issue.
I came across your blog entry today and figured I should weigh in, since my handle is the one with the "3 stars is average & OK!" tag. The reasoning for the "3 Stars" message has already been addressed by the previous comments... and the reason mine specifically says that 3 Star ratings are "okay" is because I wanted to promote the idea that it is acceptable to receive an average rating (not necessarily that average should be the goal).
While we may all want more, seek more, and attempt more, "average" is a reality for many people. By definition, "average" approximates an arithmetic mean... what's typical, common, or the norm. Sub-par and outstanding can't exist without average being the standard with which to compare those outliers... and as statistical bell curves teach us, there's a whole lot of "average" in the median 50% of a population.
I grew up in a small town where average was not okay. It was unacceptable to get a C (and often even a B) on a report card. If you scored 1200 out of 1600 on the SATs (well above the national average), you were a disappointment. If you weren't in accelerated math and English classes, but rather the "regular" classes for your grade, you were a failure. I graduated with a 3.83 GPA (all As except for one B every single semester) and was 38th in my class... 37 people in my graduating class of 400 (almost 10%) had better grades than that! Average was not okay.
The reason why I say "average is okay" in my handle is because I want people to know that average isn't a bad thing. It may not be something to strive for, but if you try something and end up performing adequately at the task, there's no shame in that. It means that you're normal... and if you want to excel, it's going to take hard work. My intent was not to say, "If you get a 3 Star rating, you should sit down, shut up and accept it." Rather, my point was to say, "If you get a 3 Star rating, there's nothing wrong with that... you're not abnormal or a failure."
To answer the question of whether I would tell my kids that Cs on a report card are okay, my answer is absolutely. I would try with all my heart to get them to aspire to achieve more, to work hard to achieve more, to make them want to have more... but if they came home and said, "This was the best I could do," I'll be damned if I'm going to let them feel like being average (and receiving a passing grade) is the same thing as being a disappointment or a failure.
When it comes to writing, for me, receiving an average rating or being told that my work is of average quality is merely a beginning. We can't all be outstanding all the time. Whether it's in comparison to someone else, or to ourselves, we all produce average work sometimes. It's then up to us to decide whether we have the desire, ability, and/or drive to keep at it and take it from average to exceptional. Writing is rewriting, as they say... and I doubt that maxim would have gained popularity if all writing were supposed to be outstanding right off the bat.
The message that I wanted to convey in my handle is that average, while maybe not something to aspire to, isn't a slap in the face either. Average is okay. In regards to WDC items, it's simply an opinion of the quality of the work as it currently exists. Nothing says it can't become exceptional later on.
Now if only I could get that all to fit into 30 characters... 
And don't even get me started on "TLC"... 
For anyone interested in reading the original blog post, you can find it here: "4/15/10"  . What do you all think? Are these 3-Star messages promoting mediocrity?
Interested to hear other people's thoughts on this issue.
|
© Copyright 2025 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 3 comments 
