A friend sent me this article, which gives away the important news in the exciting headline, "People Play 1900 Years of Call of Duty Multiplayer Every Day."
That's...a fair number of people playing a fair amount of Call of Duty every day. I was almost impressed, until I looked up how much TV people watch.
According to this random page I found on the internet, which must be absolutely true because I read it online (it cites A.C. Neilsen, but this page does not include the annual total, which must have been calculated separately), Americans watch 250 billion hours of TV every year. That works out to about 78,000 person-years every day, assuming I know how to work a calculator.
Those Call of Duty slackers need to step it up a few dozen times.
To give the game its due, 1,900 is a pretty good number for a single title. After all, it takes hundreds of TV channels to keep us watching 78,000 years a day.
On the other hand, the 78,000 years a day is only for the United States, while I think the Call of Duty numbers were worldwide.
On the first hand again, 1,900 is, as mentioned, only for a single title, so people play a lot more hours of video games if other titles are included. This TED Conversations page says 3 billion hours a week worldwide, which would be about 156 billion hours a year, or slightly under 49,000 years a day.
Still not close to the TV-watching numbers, but more of a contest. Except that the TV numbers are still only for the United States, and I bet people in other countries also enjoy television.
I could keep looking for numbers on the internet, but the bottom line is, people obviously need to spend more time playing video games.
Right? That's clearly the take-away here, isn't it?
My problem with that is that video games tend to demand more attention than television, so it's harder to find the 49,000 years per day that you need. Not all games, of course, but a lot of them. So if you have to do some stuff on the computer, say, you can put on a TV show at the same time and watch it with half your attention, but it's harder to do that while you're playing a game.
I bet a lot of the TV-watching numbers are from people doing other things at the same time. The true heroes are the people who watch TV and play games at the same time, and I salute them.
In closing, we spend...a fair amount of time with screens in this exciting modern world.
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Sunday, July 15, 2012
To The Internet Television!
This is the world we live in:
I got an email from Netflix letting me know, just in case we might be interested, that they've added the 4th season of Breaking Bad to their streaming video lineup.
In fact, we are interested. As they no doubt know considering we watched all the previous seasons this way.
Then we can immediately turn on the TV, and the PlayStation, which plays games that look like movies and also transfers video through the internet at our whim.
So we live in this world in which a company knows what we want, tells us when it's available, and we can be looking at it two minutes later, in between playing video games.
Yeah, it's weird. Convenient, though!
I got an email from Netflix letting me know, just in case we might be interested, that they've added the 4th season of Breaking Bad to their streaming video lineup.
In fact, we are interested. As they no doubt know considering we watched all the previous seasons this way.
Then we can immediately turn on the TV, and the PlayStation, which plays games that look like movies and also transfers video through the internet at our whim.
So we live in this world in which a company knows what we want, tells us when it's available, and we can be looking at it two minutes later, in between playing video games.
Yeah, it's weird. Convenient, though!
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Good News, Everyone!
Good people! The 6th season of Futurama is streaming on Netflix!
Must watch now.
Must watch now.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Things I Miss Not Reading Blogs
I hear yesterday was the 45th anniversary of Star Trek (first broadcast September 8, 1966). And I missed it. If I'd known, I'd have baked a cake. Or at least thought about baking a cake.
The original series streams on Netflix now (as well as Next Generation), so I was watching some of those episodes a while ago.
They are exactly as wonderful as I remembered from when I watched the show in re-runs at my grandparents' house when I was a kid, although for somewhat different reasons. Amazingly dated in so many ways, frequently ridiculous, but also optimistic, sometimes thought-provoking, and just plain interesting.
Science fiction on television? Brilliant!
Second only to anything featuring Bugs Bunny (not that there was actually competition, since Bugs Bunny was a morning thing, and Star Trek ran in the evening), it was the show we always wanted to watch.
I don't remember particularly caring about anything else on TV around that time, come to think about it.
Star Trek, you had my love, and will always hold a special, highly dramatic place in my heart.
The original series streams on Netflix now (as well as Next Generation), so I was watching some of those episodes a while ago.
They are exactly as wonderful as I remembered from when I watched the show in re-runs at my grandparents' house when I was a kid, although for somewhat different reasons. Amazingly dated in so many ways, frequently ridiculous, but also optimistic, sometimes thought-provoking, and just plain interesting.
Science fiction on television? Brilliant!
Second only to anything featuring Bugs Bunny (not that there was actually competition, since Bugs Bunny was a morning thing, and Star Trek ran in the evening), it was the show we always wanted to watch.
I don't remember particularly caring about anything else on TV around that time, come to think about it.
Star Trek, you had my love, and will always hold a special, highly dramatic place in my heart.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Tripping on Tropes
I've decided I don't write enough about exciting topics like feminism and childbirth and religion.
So here's this video from Feminist Frequency on 'Tropes vs. Women: #5 The Mystical Pregnancy.' It's about how science fiction and fantasy shows have this thing that they do, where female characters will have mysterious and/or horrifying pregnancies involving aliens and genetic experiments and demonic possession and what not. Often, whatever it is is conveniently resolved within the course of a single show.
Basically, pregnancy is dramatic and makes for an exciting storyline, but having the characters actually raise a child would put a crimp in the show's style, so they have weird, quickly resolved pregnancies instead.
Near the end, the video mentions the case of the Virgin Mary as an early example of a mystical pregnancy.
The Unnecesarean, which addresses unnecessary cesarean section deliveries as well as representations of birth in popular culture, posted this video, and a couple of people commented to object that Mary's case was not a 'mystical pregnancy' trope because "Mary had a choice" and "Mary was chosen/asked."
Now if you want to argue that Mary's wasn't a mystical pregnancy in accordance with the trope because it doesn't match up with the usual quick resolution without lingering consequences for the female character, I'd be nodding thoughtfully along with you.
But I don't know if arguing that's it's fundamentally different on the 'consent' basis is going to help much.
I agree that if Mary was asked and did freely consent to bear Jesus, that makes it different from the trope, which almost invariably features things happening to women without their willing participation or, usually, even their knowledge, but I'm not sure we can really argue this based on the available text.
The King James just says that the angel showed up and says "behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
She asks how that can be since "I know not a man" and the angel says "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
So she's not exactly being asked if this is cool with her, she's just informed that it's going to happen. There is no suggestion that it's a choice on her part, or that she has been given any option to refuse.
She is told about it in advance, which is different from the examples in the video in that she at least understands what's happening, but advance warning does not necessarily equal a request for consent.
She of course famously says "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word," which certainly expresses agreement/consent to what she's been told is going to happen, but one could argue that when God tells you to do something, consent is meaningless.
God, who has ultimate power over everything, says it's going to happen!--what are you going to do, adjust reality?
To take it way far away from the starting point, imagine your boss says "from now on, we're going to be filling out all our timesheets electronically instead of on paper as we have been." You can complain about it, or you can do it with a good will and even think it's a great idea, but since you were informed that it was going to happen rather than consulted about it, you couldn't exactly be said to have a choice in the matter.
Also, since your boss is God, you can't even quit your job because there's nowhere else in the universe to work.
Seriously, we're talking about Mary's GOD. Your GOD says something is going to happen to you. Talk about a power differential.
Arguably, a human being can no more consent to the actions of an all-powerful god than a newborn infant can consent to the actions of its parents. Or a bunch of fruit flies consent to the actions of a scientist in a lab.
Consent means little unless a refusal without fear of punishment is possible. And it would seem likely that you cannot refuse your God, who is sending angels to tell you things and promising to make you pregnant against everything you know about human reproduction, and who has a long history of smiting people who don't do as he says, and expect that everything's going to be totally cool.
This fact is all over in religious thought, in the idea that we must humbly submit ourselves to God's will. Submission is key, and it is not consent.
It is not important that humans consent to God's will, it is important that they submit to it.
In old-school terms, we should submit because something terrible will happen to us if we don't (hence, I suppose, the term "a god-fearing person" as a positive descriptor: if you're properly afraid of God, you will also be a law-abiding and socially upstanding sort).
In many modern interpretations, we should submit not because we're terrified, but because God knows better than we do and only wants what's best for us. Here, it starts to make more sense to think of consenting. Now that God's not actively smiting people right and left for disobeying his commandments, it's possible to conceive of just declining to obey his will.
"No thanks, I think I'd rather not bear the Son of God. I was actually looking forward to bearing children with my human spouse. I particularly hope for some daughters."
Of course, this is a flawed presentation because we're often told that horrible things will still happen to us if we don't obey, just later on, in hell. Again, consent is meaningless if refusal without fear of retribution is impossible.
Therefore, however annoying it may seem to a Christian to have the Annunciation lumped in with modern fiction tropes, I don't think it's unfair to make the connection.
I would be more inclined to argue that it doesn't entirely fit because Mary's not a recurring character in an ongoing story who has a pregnancy happen to her and then moves on; she's more like a supporting character in another character's story who has a pregnancy happen to her and then spends the rest of her recorded history being renowned for it.
The mystical pregnancy is Mary's story, it's not just an episode in her TV show. Without it, she would be of no interest.
Nevertheless, as I said, I think it's a fair point for discussion. I obviously got some food for thought out of it myself.
Mmm...thought food.
.
So here's this video from Feminist Frequency on 'Tropes vs. Women: #5 The Mystical Pregnancy.' It's about how science fiction and fantasy shows have this thing that they do, where female characters will have mysterious and/or horrifying pregnancies involving aliens and genetic experiments and demonic possession and what not. Often, whatever it is is conveniently resolved within the course of a single show.
Basically, pregnancy is dramatic and makes for an exciting storyline, but having the characters actually raise a child would put a crimp in the show's style, so they have weird, quickly resolved pregnancies instead.
Near the end, the video mentions the case of the Virgin Mary as an early example of a mystical pregnancy.
The Unnecesarean, which addresses unnecessary cesarean section deliveries as well as representations of birth in popular culture, posted this video, and a couple of people commented to object that Mary's case was not a 'mystical pregnancy' trope because "Mary had a choice" and "Mary was chosen/asked."
Now if you want to argue that Mary's wasn't a mystical pregnancy in accordance with the trope because it doesn't match up with the usual quick resolution without lingering consequences for the female character, I'd be nodding thoughtfully along with you.
But I don't know if arguing that's it's fundamentally different on the 'consent' basis is going to help much.
I agree that if Mary was asked and did freely consent to bear Jesus, that makes it different from the trope, which almost invariably features things happening to women without their willing participation or, usually, even their knowledge, but I'm not sure we can really argue this based on the available text.
The King James just says that the angel showed up and says "behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
She asks how that can be since "I know not a man" and the angel says "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
So she's not exactly being asked if this is cool with her, she's just informed that it's going to happen. There is no suggestion that it's a choice on her part, or that she has been given any option to refuse.
She is told about it in advance, which is different from the examples in the video in that she at least understands what's happening, but advance warning does not necessarily equal a request for consent.
She of course famously says "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word," which certainly expresses agreement/consent to what she's been told is going to happen, but one could argue that when God tells you to do something, consent is meaningless.
God, who has ultimate power over everything, says it's going to happen!--what are you going to do, adjust reality?
To take it way far away from the starting point, imagine your boss says "from now on, we're going to be filling out all our timesheets electronically instead of on paper as we have been." You can complain about it, or you can do it with a good will and even think it's a great idea, but since you were informed that it was going to happen rather than consulted about it, you couldn't exactly be said to have a choice in the matter.
Also, since your boss is God, you can't even quit your job because there's nowhere else in the universe to work.
Seriously, we're talking about Mary's GOD. Your GOD says something is going to happen to you. Talk about a power differential.
Arguably, a human being can no more consent to the actions of an all-powerful god than a newborn infant can consent to the actions of its parents. Or a bunch of fruit flies consent to the actions of a scientist in a lab.
Consent means little unless a refusal without fear of punishment is possible. And it would seem likely that you cannot refuse your God, who is sending angels to tell you things and promising to make you pregnant against everything you know about human reproduction, and who has a long history of smiting people who don't do as he says, and expect that everything's going to be totally cool.
This fact is all over in religious thought, in the idea that we must humbly submit ourselves to God's will. Submission is key, and it is not consent.
It is not important that humans consent to God's will, it is important that they submit to it.
In old-school terms, we should submit because something terrible will happen to us if we don't (hence, I suppose, the term "a god-fearing person" as a positive descriptor: if you're properly afraid of God, you will also be a law-abiding and socially upstanding sort).
In many modern interpretations, we should submit not because we're terrified, but because God knows better than we do and only wants what's best for us. Here, it starts to make more sense to think of consenting. Now that God's not actively smiting people right and left for disobeying his commandments, it's possible to conceive of just declining to obey his will.
"No thanks, I think I'd rather not bear the Son of God. I was actually looking forward to bearing children with my human spouse. I particularly hope for some daughters."
Of course, this is a flawed presentation because we're often told that horrible things will still happen to us if we don't obey, just later on, in hell. Again, consent is meaningless if refusal without fear of retribution is impossible.
Therefore, however annoying it may seem to a Christian to have the Annunciation lumped in with modern fiction tropes, I don't think it's unfair to make the connection.
I would be more inclined to argue that it doesn't entirely fit because Mary's not a recurring character in an ongoing story who has a pregnancy happen to her and then moves on; she's more like a supporting character in another character's story who has a pregnancy happen to her and then spends the rest of her recorded history being renowned for it.
The mystical pregnancy is Mary's story, it's not just an episode in her TV show. Without it, she would be of no interest.
Nevertheless, as I said, I think it's a fair point for discussion. I obviously got some food for thought out of it myself.
Mmm...thought food.
.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Recording in Color
I was reminded at the grocery store this evening that security cameras are in color now. I remember it was some months back I first noticed it, but it wasn't so long ago that when you stopped to wave to yourself in the TV above the door (everyone does that, right?), it was only in black and white.
Catching hair color, clothing details, etc., must make it easier to identify people on the footage. Blurry color pictures are probably better than blurry black and white pictures.
Technology upgrades everywhere.
.
Catching hair color, clothing details, etc., must make it easier to identify people on the footage. Blurry color pictures are probably better than blurry black and white pictures.
Technology upgrades everywhere.
.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Exciting Weekend Plans
Here's what's been on my to-do list:
Read Let the Right One In
Play some Bioshock
Watch some Doctor Who
Drink some wine
Things are proceeding very nicely according to plan so far.
.
Read Let the Right One In
Play some Bioshock
Watch some Doctor Who
Drink some wine
Things are proceeding very nicely according to plan so far.
.
Monday, July 26, 2010
What's Awesome Today
Streaming Netflix videos directly to the TV through the PlayStation console.
Seriously, is there any reason to leave the house?
Well, there's work, I guess. The wages of which help to support the streaming video habit. So that's important.
.
Seriously, is there any reason to leave the house?
Well, there's work, I guess. The wages of which help to support the streaming video habit. So that's important.
.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sh! TV.
Bless you, Hulu, for you have Fringe.
Just getting caught up on some episodes of one of those shows I've neglected. That is all.
Except, did they just misspell 'Manhattan' as 'Manhatan'? Was that intentional, or did some proof reader fall asleep on the job there? Maybe that was the Manhattan in the alternate universe, where they don't believe in double letters?
I'm freakin' out here!
.
Just getting caught up on some episodes of one of those shows I've neglected. That is all.
Except, did they just misspell 'Manhattan' as 'Manhatan'? Was that intentional, or did some proof reader fall asleep on the job there? Maybe that was the Manhattan in the alternate universe, where they don't believe in double letters?
I'm freakin' out here!
.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Multi-Tasking
I find that since I got a laptop, I don't just watch stuff anymore. I used to sit down on purpose to watch TV or a movie, and I'd just sit and watch it, but now I've always got something else going on.
Reading blogs, usually, in an attempt to keep up with the relentless deluge of my feed reader.
As I write this, for example, I'm watching Supernatural on DVD. It's the latest show we're giving a shot to, on account of someone told us it was good.
I love TV on DVD. Also streamed from online, of course, depending on the particular situation.
Basically, just give me TV in some asynchronous fashion that doesn't require me to be paying attention to when things are showing and on what channel.
Anyway, that doesn't address the issue of my fractured attention. Am I really even watching this show, given that I'm also musing about delivery methods for other TV shows I've seen in the past?
Did I really watch any of them either? It's a mystery.
.
Reading blogs, usually, in an attempt to keep up with the relentless deluge of my feed reader.
As I write this, for example, I'm watching Supernatural on DVD. It's the latest show we're giving a shot to, on account of someone told us it was good.
I love TV on DVD. Also streamed from online, of course, depending on the particular situation.
Basically, just give me TV in some asynchronous fashion that doesn't require me to be paying attention to when things are showing and on what channel.
Anyway, that doesn't address the issue of my fractured attention. Am I really even watching this show, given that I'm also musing about delivery methods for other TV shows I've seen in the past?
Did I really watch any of them either? It's a mystery.
.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Modern Technology
We have figured out how to get our TV to display things that are playing on our computers. We can now enjoy our streaming video in fine color and brilliant large-size-iness!
We could also enjoy enormous images of our email if we wanted.
We may not leave the house again.
.
We could also enjoy enormous images of our email if we wanted.
We may not leave the house again.
.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Here's Money: Entertain Me!
Grim rumor via Cinematical holds that Hulu, our favorite place to watch TV shows online for free, may begin charging for said TV-show-viewage in the future. Maybe as soon as next year.
If you read the linked story, it isn't clear that there would actually be fees for all content on the site, so maybe some shows/episodes would still be free while others would have a cost.
While the natural response to hearing you have to pay for something that used to be free is protests and screaming (fun, too!), I'm actually withholding judgement on this until details are available. Because depending on how much it cost, I might be quite willing to pay to watch a show online.
Say there's something that runs on a channel I don't get. We'll use the example of Battlestar Galactica.
While it was on, BSG ran free on Hulu on a weeklong delay (each episode became available online a week after it aired, so if you watched only on Hulu you were always a week behind and had to carefully guard yourself against exposure to spoilers). It was a fair deal and I was happy to get it, but I have to say that if I could have paid a couple of bucks to watch each week's episode immediately, rather than wait a week to see it free, I probably would have done it.
Also, I know someone who watched the first seasons on DVD as the last season was starting, and then couldn't follow the last one with us, because only the most recent few episodes were available at any particular time, so you couldn't start from the beginning. She totally would have paid (if it weren't too much) to get caught up so we all could have discussed plot twists in glorious and geeky fashion.
I imagine (perhaps over-optimistically) that this new situation, if it encourages even greater participation in Hulu (which does not actually have every single show out there right now, ahem) might help with an issue that I personally am bitter about: the fact that you can't order cable channels a la carte.
I really only want about four of them, but you can't get them that way, you have to pay a large amount of money for a large package of channels, most of which you don't care about (the Big Deal of television subscriptions). In my home, we basically decline to pay a lot of money for cable, so we get basically no channels. It's the choice we've made, and we live with it, but we still complain, because darn it, we can imagine a better world, and why aren't we living in that world right now?
If there were a way it worked out to be cheaper to pay per episode online than upgrade cable to include a certain channel for the sake of a single show, I could easily see spending a few bucks to watch a show on Hulu, rather than waiting for DVD (which is the other way we watch a lot of our television).
So, Hulu, and shows that aren't currently available on Hulu (pointedly glancing at Mad Men here), work with me, and I'm willing to work with you.
On the other hand, I won't lie to you, if I think it costs too much I'll just keep waiting for Netflix. I am a patient person, and canny with my entertainment dollars. And obviously, you couldn't charge for stuff that's already on video the same way you could for current shows. Stuff that's on video would have to stay pretty darn cheap. If you're competing with my ability to rent a DVD, you have to go some to make it a deal.
But certainly for new shows, if there's a price point that seems inexpensive enough to me that I'd just as soon pay it as wait for video, and that's still enough to make it worth the content owners' while to sell it to me, I don't see why we can't all live happily ever after.
.
If you read the linked story, it isn't clear that there would actually be fees for all content on the site, so maybe some shows/episodes would still be free while others would have a cost.
While the natural response to hearing you have to pay for something that used to be free is protests and screaming (fun, too!), I'm actually withholding judgement on this until details are available. Because depending on how much it cost, I might be quite willing to pay to watch a show online.
Say there's something that runs on a channel I don't get. We'll use the example of Battlestar Galactica.
While it was on, BSG ran free on Hulu on a weeklong delay (each episode became available online a week after it aired, so if you watched only on Hulu you were always a week behind and had to carefully guard yourself against exposure to spoilers). It was a fair deal and I was happy to get it, but I have to say that if I could have paid a couple of bucks to watch each week's episode immediately, rather than wait a week to see it free, I probably would have done it.
Also, I know someone who watched the first seasons on DVD as the last season was starting, and then couldn't follow the last one with us, because only the most recent few episodes were available at any particular time, so you couldn't start from the beginning. She totally would have paid (if it weren't too much) to get caught up so we all could have discussed plot twists in glorious and geeky fashion.
I imagine (perhaps over-optimistically) that this new situation, if it encourages even greater participation in Hulu (which does not actually have every single show out there right now, ahem) might help with an issue that I personally am bitter about: the fact that you can't order cable channels a la carte.
I really only want about four of them, but you can't get them that way, you have to pay a large amount of money for a large package of channels, most of which you don't care about (the Big Deal of television subscriptions). In my home, we basically decline to pay a lot of money for cable, so we get basically no channels. It's the choice we've made, and we live with it, but we still complain, because darn it, we can imagine a better world, and why aren't we living in that world right now?
If there were a way it worked out to be cheaper to pay per episode online than upgrade cable to include a certain channel for the sake of a single show, I could easily see spending a few bucks to watch a show on Hulu, rather than waiting for DVD (which is the other way we watch a lot of our television).
So, Hulu, and shows that aren't currently available on Hulu (pointedly glancing at Mad Men here), work with me, and I'm willing to work with you.
On the other hand, I won't lie to you, if I think it costs too much I'll just keep waiting for Netflix. I am a patient person, and canny with my entertainment dollars. And obviously, you couldn't charge for stuff that's already on video the same way you could for current shows. Stuff that's on video would have to stay pretty darn cheap. If you're competing with my ability to rent a DVD, you have to go some to make it a deal.
But certainly for new shows, if there's a price point that seems inexpensive enough to me that I'd just as soon pay it as wait for video, and that's still enough to make it worth the content owners' while to sell it to me, I don't see why we can't all live happily ever after.
.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Entertainment News
I'm pleased to hear that Fox has renewed Dollhouse. I really wasn't too impressed with it at first, but it got pretty interesting as it developed, and I look forward to seeing where it goes with another season.
I've also enjoyed the detailed and thoughtful reviews of each episode by Maia at Alas! A Blog. Lots of good points.
And I swear, the plot is getting closer and closer to Altered Carbon territory, as I previously speculated.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Science Fiction-Inspired Musing
A question for anyone in my legions of devoted followers who both watches Dollhouse and has read Altered Carbon and/or its sequels:
With the most recent episode's presentation of a sort of backup drive with "the unabridged [character's name]," aren't we inching towards sleeving in the Dollhouse world?
The show is putting more emphasis on a lingering 'self-ness' being inextricably tied to an original physical body, but really, there's theoretically no reason you couldn't imprint the 'unabridged whomever' into any body you wanted.
And while the Actives' working imprints, as far as we've seen, are composites of different skills and traits rather than transferring the full consciousness of a individual, The Hendrix in Altered Carbon was essentially a recreation of a personality based on historical records rather than stored memory.
Plus, it's easy to see that backup drive being re-formatted into a cortical stack. Could something like this be the mysterious Purpose behind the Dollhouses?
Just sayin.'
From time to time, one unavoidably geeks out over the stories that enliven one's life.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Ascending the Peaks of Fabulousness
Did you know that there was a television show that "defined a generation"?
About "the school where America came of age"?
Apparently Beverly Hills 90210 was way more momentous than I ever thought. All those times I wasn't watching it seem kind of wasted now. No wonder I'm so out of touch with my generation.
This really doesn't have anything to do with anything except that despite many years' exposure to advertising, I am still occasionally startled by the grandiose language used to hype things (in this case, the new 90210 show, advising me of its hot new awesomeness by summoning up the generation-defining ghost of the original).
Seriously, "the school where America came of age"? The whole country? All in unison?
And what does it mean to "define a generation" with a TV show, anyway? I suppose by saying "this generation was a group of people who potentially watched this TV show," which might be true, but is not very informative.
But I imagine they mean to suggest that this show, rather than setting the parameters of the generation, actually says something about the generation: perhaps, as TV.com reports, something about how its members dealt with "travails as they tried to maintain their friendship while dealing with romances, family and personal crises, tragedies and countless drug addictions."
This is about who we are as a generation!
If only we had been watching TV at the time. Some of us were probably too busy struggling with our countless drug addictions. Others of us simply didn't have televisions. In any case, I'm going to define my cohort right now as the Left Out of 90210 Generation. Life has been hard for us in many ways, but we bear up as best we can.
I'm not actually trying to rag on the show, which I never saw but do not claim to be too good for, and which could have been great for all I know. (I could Netflix it!...nah.)
I just want to quibble with clearly exaggerated descriptions, because I sometimes like to get nitpicky about language.
I would not go far in advertising.
"Watch this show: it's based on another show of which you may have heard!" would be my kind of tag line.
Now that's something that could define a generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)