Was browsing MGoBlog, and it appears Bill Martin is some kind of two-face. He has gone ultimate form for the hockey and basketball scheduling for 2009 and 2010, but the football scheduling is still inexplicably mediocre (though it has been rumored we are floating Tennessee for the 2010 opener).
2009 Basketball season just added Kansas to the schedule
2010 hockey, on the heels of the epic December Michigan vs Michigan State game in Michigan Stadium, will play the final game while the student body is *still* in town thanks to Spring Break being a week later than usual...so Michigan gets a senior night game that the students can actually witness.
Woo!
13 June 2009
11 June 2009
Bye Tiger Stadium
I attempted to write this for Preservation Wayne. Fingers crossed as to whether they publish it or not:
The Lost Battle for Tiger Stadium
By Kevin Bunkley
Normally an economically-crimped city wouldn't spend 400,000 dollars over using a 3.8 million dollar grant, but the city of Detroit is full of surprises. It's new mayor, the honorable Dave Bing, was mute on a major issue that stood before him, and now, after a week-long fight, Tiger Stadium will be no more. The Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy worked hard to protect what was still standing of the stadium, and at the end of a long and difficult road to preservation, more powerful business interests won out. 27 million dollars worth of it. The Conservancy had Ernie Harwell, and they had Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.). They had the money (almost), and they had plans. The city was gracious in the amount of time it granted to attempt to finish raising the money, but political and economic pressure did in the final push to save the old ballpark on Michigan and Trumbull. It's hard to decide where more blame resides between the office of the mayor or the members of the Economic Growth Corporation, but the only thing that will be left is the fleeting memory that another historic site, both for the country and the state, will be buried beneath new, sterile structures designed to bring in dollars.
"The retention of this historic gem has and could draw positive attention to Detroit and your administration," The OTSC said in a letter submitted to the mayor's office. "On the other hand, the demolition of the remnants of Tiger Stadium would increase the negative impressions of Detroit and your administration. The impacts on future development interests in Detroit would be put in jeopardy," the letter continued. But a long tradition of community pride and the potential for a beacon of restoration has been lost at the end of this process, and the story of Tiger Stadium deserved a better ending.
Baseball had been played there since 1896. The Tigers moved in in 1912, and remained there until 1999. It hosted American League Championship games, and housed the Lions (the old Lions) for two decades. It is as old as Fenway Park, yet stood vacant for ten long years -- a generous epoch of time for certain Detroit-area individuals to devise some sort of use for the structure. Anything other than complete destruction would have been a win, given the circumstances under which its life was threatened. At times it was used for smaller baseball events or community activities, but it was in such disrepair, it became hard to justify leaving it standing. The Conservancy advocated for saving at least the most vital parts -- the field, the facade, things that still identified that spot in downtown Detroit as the spot in which Cobb, Gibson and Kaline made Detroit cheer. Why is it that its sister park, Fenway, can be refurbished and modified, but Tiger Stadium cannot even be partially saved for the benefit of a community that cherishes it?
Former team owner John Fetzer never would have wanted Tiger Stadium destroyed. His generosity in 1978 allowed the Tigers to continue playing there for twenty more years, by allowing the city of Detroit to lease back the stadium to help finance renovations. I myself know he wouldn't have wanted this fate. I once worked in the Kalamazoo building that bears his name. I've stared at the World Series trophy he won as the owner of the team, and never thought the stadium that hosted those championship years would be torn down.
The battle to save the stadium went on for far too long, and was plagued by inaction by too many people in important positions. Former mayor Kilpatrick notwithstanding, present Mayor Bing and even Mike Ilitch are responsible for the large stadium slipping through their fingers. Mayor Bing is to be comended for not voting in the 6-1 decision by the Economic Growth Corporation that authorized the full demolition, but failed to recognize the merits of saving the structure. "Most of the stadium was demolished in 2008, but what remains still carries historical significance," Conservancy board member Gary Gillette said in an article that appeared in The Michigan Messenger.
The city turned away a four million dollar fund, and a potential net gain of 22 million dollars, to provide itself with a prominent empty lot in a city overpopulated with empty lots. This newest one being in plain view of the hub of Detroit's rebirth. The paradox of a city that is attempting to cleanse away its unsightly side allowing a glaring and ugly public dispute over historic property to create a wedge between leadership and its constituents is nothing short of shocking.
In the end, the Conservancy ran out of time in an environment where time was not a constraint. Suggestions were floated for turning the site into a space in which the field would remain along with parts of the structure, in the interest of creating a green space in a downtown that has no true green spaces. The OTSCG put forth an exceptional effort, but the Detroit City Council and the Office of the Mayor washed their hands of any involvement in saving Detroit's premeir landmark. The demolition has begun, and with it go the hopes that Detroit would back up its rhetoric for reinventing its districts with tangible action. May the empty corner on Michigan and Trumbull forever serve as a reminder that when historic preservation and public officials don't find common ground, the result is one that neither side wants, and in turn everyone suffers; There's only so many "Most Endangered Places in America," and when we fail to save them, the result is always the same: an empty lot.
The Lost Battle for Tiger Stadium
By Kevin Bunkley
Normally an economically-crimped city wouldn't spend 400,000 dollars over using a 3.8 million dollar grant, but the city of Detroit is full of surprises. It's new mayor, the honorable Dave Bing, was mute on a major issue that stood before him, and now, after a week-long fight, Tiger Stadium will be no more. The Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy worked hard to protect what was still standing of the stadium, and at the end of a long and difficult road to preservation, more powerful business interests won out. 27 million dollars worth of it. The Conservancy had Ernie Harwell, and they had Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.). They had the money (almost), and they had plans. The city was gracious in the amount of time it granted to attempt to finish raising the money, but political and economic pressure did in the final push to save the old ballpark on Michigan and Trumbull. It's hard to decide where more blame resides between the office of the mayor or the members of the Economic Growth Corporation, but the only thing that will be left is the fleeting memory that another historic site, both for the country and the state, will be buried beneath new, sterile structures designed to bring in dollars.
"The retention of this historic gem has and could draw positive attention to Detroit and your administration," The OTSC said in a letter submitted to the mayor's office. "On the other hand, the demolition of the remnants of Tiger Stadium would increase the negative impressions of Detroit and your administration. The impacts on future development interests in Detroit would be put in jeopardy," the letter continued. But a long tradition of community pride and the potential for a beacon of restoration has been lost at the end of this process, and the story of Tiger Stadium deserved a better ending.
Baseball had been played there since 1896. The Tigers moved in in 1912, and remained there until 1999. It hosted American League Championship games, and housed the Lions (the old Lions) for two decades. It is as old as Fenway Park, yet stood vacant for ten long years -- a generous epoch of time for certain Detroit-area individuals to devise some sort of use for the structure. Anything other than complete destruction would have been a win, given the circumstances under which its life was threatened. At times it was used for smaller baseball events or community activities, but it was in such disrepair, it became hard to justify leaving it standing. The Conservancy advocated for saving at least the most vital parts -- the field, the facade, things that still identified that spot in downtown Detroit as the spot in which Cobb, Gibson and Kaline made Detroit cheer. Why is it that its sister park, Fenway, can be refurbished and modified, but Tiger Stadium cannot even be partially saved for the benefit of a community that cherishes it?
Former team owner John Fetzer never would have wanted Tiger Stadium destroyed. His generosity in 1978 allowed the Tigers to continue playing there for twenty more years, by allowing the city of Detroit to lease back the stadium to help finance renovations. I myself know he wouldn't have wanted this fate. I once worked in the Kalamazoo building that bears his name. I've stared at the World Series trophy he won as the owner of the team, and never thought the stadium that hosted those championship years would be torn down.
The battle to save the stadium went on for far too long, and was plagued by inaction by too many people in important positions. Former mayor Kilpatrick notwithstanding, present Mayor Bing and even Mike Ilitch are responsible for the large stadium slipping through their fingers. Mayor Bing is to be comended for not voting in the 6-1 decision by the Economic Growth Corporation that authorized the full demolition, but failed to recognize the merits of saving the structure. "Most of the stadium was demolished in 2008, but what remains still carries historical significance," Conservancy board member Gary Gillette said in an article that appeared in The Michigan Messenger.
The city turned away a four million dollar fund, and a potential net gain of 22 million dollars, to provide itself with a prominent empty lot in a city overpopulated with empty lots. This newest one being in plain view of the hub of Detroit's rebirth. The paradox of a city that is attempting to cleanse away its unsightly side allowing a glaring and ugly public dispute over historic property to create a wedge between leadership and its constituents is nothing short of shocking.
In the end, the Conservancy ran out of time in an environment where time was not a constraint. Suggestions were floated for turning the site into a space in which the field would remain along with parts of the structure, in the interest of creating a green space in a downtown that has no true green spaces. The OTSCG put forth an exceptional effort, but the Detroit City Council and the Office of the Mayor washed their hands of any involvement in saving Detroit's premeir landmark. The demolition has begun, and with it go the hopes that Detroit would back up its rhetoric for reinventing its districts with tangible action. May the empty corner on Michigan and Trumbull forever serve as a reminder that when historic preservation and public officials don't find common ground, the result is one that neither side wants, and in turn everyone suffers; There's only so many "Most Endangered Places in America," and when we fail to save them, the result is always the same: an empty lot.
04 June 2009
To Me It's the Electronics Envy Expo
*Apologies* some of G4's video embeds aren't working because they use shockwave. Grr Blogger...
Prepare for information overload. There is a lot of it, with my trademark spin included.
E3 has been going on, and two things always come to mind: I can't get G4 here, and I daydream about being a games journalist.
Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo all had entertaining press conferences...but I was blown away by Sony in particular. Not only was their CEO good at giving the presentation, they actually had impressive games and technology to show off. Some complained that (a) half the stuff had been leaked prior to E3, and (b) that he spent too much time on going over Sony's financial numbers. I hadn't seen any information leading up to E3 so it was fresh to me, and I actually like seeing financial reports of the big game companies (call it an old habit from my Junior Achievement days...Mr. Hinkel would be proud), but it just reminds me that these are companies that are seeking a profit and have goals for the upcoming year, and are concerned about their consumers' needs.
Sony Presser
Meet Milo:
Ubisoft is working on two big franchise updates. Splinter Cell Conviction is finally near completion, and they came up with in-game storytelling to eliminate the need for "briefing sessions" for the first time. "Assasin's Creed II" enters the Renaissance with Ezio, and promises to be more varied than its predecessor.
In the "holy crap it actually exists" department, "Alan Wake" exists and is looking mighty fine.
Holy Crap Alan's Here
The game with the most intriguing interface and combat goes to "Heavy Rain." I've dreamed of a game in which combat is basically on-the-fly and the plot is shaped by the main characters' choices, and this game does it. Finally!
Lots and Lots of water
The one good Xbox 360 franchise not named Halo is coming along nicely with "Mass Effect 2" that has beefed up combat and a darker storyline.
ME2
Bungie demoed "Halo ODST" but it wasn't anything spectacular, and it's already confirmed that they'll be charging $60 for add-on content. But they announced another game that could be the mystery Peter Jackson game.
Reach
Microsoft also snagged a brand new "Metal Gear" game. I can't decide if I'm excited for this because I've always liked that Playstation laid claim to Metal Gear
MGS Rising
"Modern Warfare 2" looks like they started from scratch rather than making "Call of Duty 2/3" with modern skins and maps.
Lastly, LucasArts rolled out physical evidence that a "Star Wars" MMO not named "Galaxies" is coming by 2010. Besides the Sony stuff, this was the most exciting piece of video, because it's Blizzard-quality and suggests it might actually be cool.
Biggest disappointments:
VALVE I HATE YOU. They announced one game: "Left 4 Dead 2," due in November. I really don't think this game needed a sequel, but what do I know. It's not like people were expecting them to say when Episode 3 of HL2 was coming.
Nothing big from Microsoft as usual, just some sequels and Halo milking up the wazzoo. No new IPs of any kind or indication that they are making an original game.
EA didn't do anything special, and PC Gamers get the shaft as usual from all three big companies. Blizzard nowhere to be found.
Quizzical look goes to Bioware for how they presented "Dragon Age: Origins," and for not having "Old Republic" footage.
Pure Hatred to Peter Molyneaux for creeping me out with the "Milo" presentation
Biggest Moments: The "oooh" from the crowd during the "MAG" demo, the cheering for "Final Fantasy XIV," and of course the "Halo" stuff.
My most favorite item from the convention: Actually, it's "God of War III," I was awestruck by the amount of stuff going on onscreen at one time, and it reminded me of Diablo...and it convinced me to make the investment in a PS3 as soon as the price is slashed. When a game can cause a Playstation avoider such as myself to want to get one, then Sony has accomplished their mission to get more people to buy their products.
I only wish E3 could get a few "darkhorse" games from some smaller developers each year. "Sins of a Solar Empire was never shown at E3, yet it's a fantastic game.
Prepare for information overload. There is a lot of it, with my trademark spin included.
E3 has been going on, and two things always come to mind: I can't get G4 here, and I daydream about being a games journalist.
Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo all had entertaining press conferences...but I was blown away by Sony in particular. Not only was their CEO good at giving the presentation, they actually had impressive games and technology to show off. Some complained that (a) half the stuff had been leaked prior to E3, and (b) that he spent too much time on going over Sony's financial numbers. I hadn't seen any information leading up to E3 so it was fresh to me, and I actually like seeing financial reports of the big game companies (call it an old habit from my Junior Achievement days...Mr. Hinkel would be proud), but it just reminds me that these are companies that are seeking a profit and have goals for the upcoming year, and are concerned about their consumers' needs.
Sony Presser
Meet Milo:
Ubisoft is working on two big franchise updates. Splinter Cell Conviction is finally near completion, and they came up with in-game storytelling to eliminate the need for "briefing sessions" for the first time. "Assasin's Creed II" enters the Renaissance with Ezio, and promises to be more varied than its predecessor.
In the "holy crap it actually exists" department, "Alan Wake" exists and is looking mighty fine.
Holy Crap Alan's Here
The game with the most intriguing interface and combat goes to "Heavy Rain." I've dreamed of a game in which combat is basically on-the-fly and the plot is shaped by the main characters' choices, and this game does it. Finally!
Lots and Lots of water
The one good Xbox 360 franchise not named Halo is coming along nicely with "Mass Effect 2" that has beefed up combat and a darker storyline.
ME2
Bungie demoed "Halo ODST" but it wasn't anything spectacular, and it's already confirmed that they'll be charging $60 for add-on content. But they announced another game that could be the mystery Peter Jackson game.
Reach
Microsoft also snagged a brand new "Metal Gear" game. I can't decide if I'm excited for this because I've always liked that Playstation laid claim to Metal Gear
MGS Rising
"Modern Warfare 2" looks like they started from scratch rather than making "Call of Duty 2/3" with modern skins and maps.
Lastly, LucasArts rolled out physical evidence that a "Star Wars" MMO not named "Galaxies" is coming by 2010. Besides the Sony stuff, this was the most exciting piece of video, because it's Blizzard-quality and suggests it might actually be cool.
Biggest disappointments:
VALVE I HATE YOU. They announced one game: "Left 4 Dead 2," due in November. I really don't think this game needed a sequel, but what do I know. It's not like people were expecting them to say when Episode 3 of HL2 was coming.
Nothing big from Microsoft as usual, just some sequels and Halo milking up the wazzoo. No new IPs of any kind or indication that they are making an original game.
EA didn't do anything special, and PC Gamers get the shaft as usual from all three big companies. Blizzard nowhere to be found.
Quizzical look goes to Bioware for how they presented "Dragon Age: Origins," and for not having "Old Republic" footage.
Pure Hatred to Peter Molyneaux for creeping me out with the "Milo" presentation
Biggest Moments: The "oooh" from the crowd during the "MAG" demo, the cheering for "Final Fantasy XIV," and of course the "Halo" stuff.
My most favorite item from the convention: Actually, it's "God of War III," I was awestruck by the amount of stuff going on onscreen at one time, and it reminded me of Diablo...and it convinced me to make the investment in a PS3 as soon as the price is slashed. When a game can cause a Playstation avoider such as myself to want to get one, then Sony has accomplished their mission to get more people to buy their products.
I only wish E3 could get a few "darkhorse" games from some smaller developers each year. "Sins of a Solar Empire was never shown at E3, yet it's a fantastic game.
02 June 2009
An Attempt at a Music Commentary
Notice I went against saying "review" there?
Since the release of "Stand Up" in 2005, Dave Matthews Band has had a roller coaster of existence. I learned from a piece on CBS Sunday Morning that a year ago, Dave Matthews was ready to quit the band. Then Leroi Moore passed away suddenly, and Matthews rallied his band and got them to finish working on their latest album.
Part tribute, part return to their roots, "Big Whiskey and the Groogrux King" has finally emerged into existence.
It plays like a jam session, especially the two keynote tracks, "Funny the Way it Is" and "Why I Am," but it is a polished jam session. My complaint with "Stand Up" was that it sounded like a Dave Matthews Band hip-hop album for most of it ("American Baby" aside), and that was because they hired Eminem's producer, Mark Batson, who let the band sit around and smoke weed and work on the album. And so did he.
Leroi Moore's spirit hangs over "Groogrux" like a guiding force, and I think DMB knew it had to get this album right. The artwork on the cover invites us to a Bayou-style party, with Dave and the gang as the trumpeters. You can't help but dance along with the Groogrux King, as Matthews signs in "Why I Am."
Matthews himself sounds a lot better, too. Occasionally Dave has a problem sounding like some kind of monster with a beard, but this time he has a combination of his "Crash" voice and his "Crowded Streets" voice.
The only direct nod to Moore is a brief intro track of only his saxophone, and it is an eery little omen that sets the rest of the album up. But that's what makes it great. Rather than being a somber or dark collection, the band actually sounds like they're having fun again. Considering they were on the brink of destruction, Matthews deserves every bit of credit for keeping it all together to get the album out.
After several listening sessions, the album has everything that diehards like myself wanted, and some new sounds courtest of some horn players, Tim Reynolds, and Matthews on a banjo. The best thing about DMB is that the whole band is comprised of talented musicians who can also sing and play every instrument imaginable. The beauty of "Big Whiskey" is that it's got the jam session sound and great lyrics again.
It might not be as great as "Under the Table and Dreaming" and "Crowded Streets," but that's all relative when listening to DMB. Their work is viewed as a whole instead of epochs. And "Big Whiskey" proves that they're still doing what they do best.
What Has Happened to MTV!?
Twenty years ago, "Music Television" debuted to blaring rock music, a moonman planting a flag, and no sight of Carson Daly or Paris Hilton anywhere.
Sunday night, my worst fears were confirmed as I watched the MTV Movie Awards. MTV's audience has become an army of tween girls and tool guys.
This fact was confirmed by the following: awards were given to "Twilight," and "High School Musical 3" (lovingly referred to as an all-gay school by Andy Samberg). No awards to "The Dark Knight" or or any other remotely good movie. The best award was the fake award to the sound engineer (Mr. Carl Berman) who bleeped out all the cursing and vulgar words.
Still, this was a Movie Awards Show for the ages. It was the first legitimately good show since they made the decision a few years back to finally do it live again...and it appeased my complaints since they no longer leak who all the winners were before the show even aired.
The Movie Awards may not have been around as long as the far-superior Music Awards, but there is something refreshing about devoting a whole show to the cult movies and sillier movies of the year. Sure it's often poorly-written, hurried along, and filled with lame jokes, but it's a fun time. Most of the time it depends on who the host is. Andy Samberg gets my approval because he's fully comfortable with being a complete goof and actually is not afraid to say shocking things.
Still, the Movie Awards are an interesting corner of pop culture. MTV has never been socially relevant...catering more to the fraternity/sorority crowd and the college demographic that we all love to hate. But MTV's relevance still says something about the times we live in: giving TV shows to women who won't ever have to struggle to find a job, or trumpeting the existence of the fraternity pretty boy who was born into affluence, is not that far off from the actual pitfalls of society. This fact became absolute truth when Miley Cyrus won Female Breakthrough, and had a complete country bumkin moment as she struggled to piece together coherent sentences.
Perhaps more importantly, the Movie Awards say something about consumerism and the pursuit of advertising dollars. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the two movies that made millions of dollars and are terrible win the golden popcorn. Is it MTV pandering to the viewers that will blindly buy fifty dollars of "Twilight" crap, and aspire to become the next Zach Efron, or is it a fundamental flaw in what people my age perceive as worthwhile entertainment? The Best Movie winner was determined by text voting, in the mold of American Idol, rather than merit. No wonder "Dark Knight" didn't win. Rather than doing the noble thing and giving Heath Ledger props for best male performer, they trot out Efron to thank his millions of screaming fans in the theater. Here is a kid that has more money than I will ever see, and is it alarming that MTV has switched over to the flashy and mass-appealing as opposed to the culturally shocking and anti-establishment refuge for teenagers and college students? Definitely.
The Movie Awards of old are certainly gone, but this year was a step in the right direction. Never have I seen such a stark contrast in two camps of culture than I did on this show. During one segment, thousands of girls are screaming for Robert Pattinson (by the way, does anyone else besides me remember that he was in Harry Potter #5 and played a character that dies?), and in the next segment, three credible actors sing "My Dick in a Box" and "Jizz in My Pants" behind an orchestra...followed by hottie Hayden Panettiere cursing like a sailor.
It was like watching a clash of two vastly different culture titans, and at the end they both decide to make out with each other. If that's not a signal of the times we live in, I don't know what is. This is not to say MTV is attempting to become socially progressive, but it was just hysterical that they mixed these two worlds that if ever mixed in mainstream society, the world would likely implode on itself.
The Movie Awards of old wouldn't have faked this, they would have let it happen, just like when Madonna and Britney Spears kissed that one time.
When Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, Jimmy Fallon, Sarah Silverman and Jack Black served as hosts for the Movie Awards, there were better movies out at that time, yes, but they embraced them, celebrated them. Now I fear a movie like "Austin Powers" wouldn't even make it onto a Movie Awards ballot because a majority of MTV viewers would say they hadn't seen it. In a few days I'll be seeing "The Hangover," and if MTV is listening, they'll put it in next year's show, because it's the kind of comedy that has been absent from theaters since "Anchorman."
The perfect summation for my feelings about the state of MTV and of our pop culture, is when Michael Bay marched onstage with Megan Fox in tow, a guy in the audience shouted, "I love you Micheal Bay!" Ten years ago Michael Bay was praised for "Pearl Harbor," and is now a god among the MTV masses. Myself notwithstanding. Either I missed something or I'm just not in the business of appreciating terrible movies (But yes, you will find a copy of "Pearl Harbor" in my basement that hasn't been touched since I first got it).
I'm happy MTV has gotten away from the days of "TRL" and "Spring Break," even though I willingly admit to watching both those things on occasional afternoons because it was cool at the time. But I am sure there is a whole demographic of people my age that want the old MTV back. But as long as they keep the Movie and Music Awards the same obscene and hysterical escape that they are, I'm willing to believe that MTV knows what it's doing.
Prediction for next year's show: "New Moon" beats out "Star Trek" by a 2 to 1 margin, as the average age of an MTV viewer is stable at a ripe sixteen.
Sunday night, my worst fears were confirmed as I watched the MTV Movie Awards. MTV's audience has become an army of tween girls and tool guys.
This fact was confirmed by the following: awards were given to "Twilight," and "High School Musical 3" (lovingly referred to as an all-gay school by Andy Samberg). No awards to "The Dark Knight" or or any other remotely good movie. The best award was the fake award to the sound engineer (Mr. Carl Berman) who bleeped out all the cursing and vulgar words.
Still, this was a Movie Awards Show for the ages. It was the first legitimately good show since they made the decision a few years back to finally do it live again...and it appeased my complaints since they no longer leak who all the winners were before the show even aired.
The Movie Awards may not have been around as long as the far-superior Music Awards, but there is something refreshing about devoting a whole show to the cult movies and sillier movies of the year. Sure it's often poorly-written, hurried along, and filled with lame jokes, but it's a fun time. Most of the time it depends on who the host is. Andy Samberg gets my approval because he's fully comfortable with being a complete goof and actually is not afraid to say shocking things.
Still, the Movie Awards are an interesting corner of pop culture. MTV has never been socially relevant...catering more to the fraternity/sorority crowd and the college demographic that we all love to hate. But MTV's relevance still says something about the times we live in: giving TV shows to women who won't ever have to struggle to find a job, or trumpeting the existence of the fraternity pretty boy who was born into affluence, is not that far off from the actual pitfalls of society. This fact became absolute truth when Miley Cyrus won Female Breakthrough, and had a complete country bumkin moment as she struggled to piece together coherent sentences.
Perhaps more importantly, the Movie Awards say something about consumerism and the pursuit of advertising dollars. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the two movies that made millions of dollars and are terrible win the golden popcorn. Is it MTV pandering to the viewers that will blindly buy fifty dollars of "Twilight" crap, and aspire to become the next Zach Efron, or is it a fundamental flaw in what people my age perceive as worthwhile entertainment? The Best Movie winner was determined by text voting, in the mold of American Idol, rather than merit. No wonder "Dark Knight" didn't win. Rather than doing the noble thing and giving Heath Ledger props for best male performer, they trot out Efron to thank his millions of screaming fans in the theater. Here is a kid that has more money than I will ever see, and is it alarming that MTV has switched over to the flashy and mass-appealing as opposed to the culturally shocking and anti-establishment refuge for teenagers and college students? Definitely.
The Movie Awards of old are certainly gone, but this year was a step in the right direction. Never have I seen such a stark contrast in two camps of culture than I did on this show. During one segment, thousands of girls are screaming for Robert Pattinson (by the way, does anyone else besides me remember that he was in Harry Potter #5 and played a character that dies?), and in the next segment, three credible actors sing "My Dick in a Box" and "Jizz in My Pants" behind an orchestra...followed by hottie Hayden Panettiere cursing like a sailor.
It was like watching a clash of two vastly different culture titans, and at the end they both decide to make out with each other. If that's not a signal of the times we live in, I don't know what is. This is not to say MTV is attempting to become socially progressive, but it was just hysterical that they mixed these two worlds that if ever mixed in mainstream society, the world would likely implode on itself.
The Movie Awards of old wouldn't have faked this, they would have let it happen, just like when Madonna and Britney Spears kissed that one time.
When Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, Jimmy Fallon, Sarah Silverman and Jack Black served as hosts for the Movie Awards, there were better movies out at that time, yes, but they embraced them, celebrated them. Now I fear a movie like "Austin Powers" wouldn't even make it onto a Movie Awards ballot because a majority of MTV viewers would say they hadn't seen it. In a few days I'll be seeing "The Hangover," and if MTV is listening, they'll put it in next year's show, because it's the kind of comedy that has been absent from theaters since "Anchorman."
The perfect summation for my feelings about the state of MTV and of our pop culture, is when Michael Bay marched onstage with Megan Fox in tow, a guy in the audience shouted, "I love you Micheal Bay!" Ten years ago Michael Bay was praised for "Pearl Harbor," and is now a god among the MTV masses. Myself notwithstanding. Either I missed something or I'm just not in the business of appreciating terrible movies (But yes, you will find a copy of "Pearl Harbor" in my basement that hasn't been touched since I first got it).
I'm happy MTV has gotten away from the days of "TRL" and "Spring Break," even though I willingly admit to watching both those things on occasional afternoons because it was cool at the time. But I am sure there is a whole demographic of people my age that want the old MTV back. But as long as they keep the Movie and Music Awards the same obscene and hysterical escape that they are, I'm willing to believe that MTV knows what it's doing.
Prediction for next year's show: "New Moon" beats out "Star Trek" by a 2 to 1 margin, as the average age of an MTV viewer is stable at a ripe sixteen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
