DVD piracy has become such a major issue in the past couple of years, that advertisers have used a number of drastic tactics, in order to deter the public from, watching, buying, selling, or being in any way involved in copied DVD’s; including linking the piracy industry to terrorism. Slightly over the top it may seem, but it appears to have scared enough people to stop buying them. But can we really blame those who buy and watch them?
Of course, those with the intent of recording a new movie, burning it to disc, and then flogging it have the one goal of making money and of course they are technically stealing from the movie industry. But what about the general public? When a trip to the cinema costs on average £15 per person when you include the daylight robbery from the pic ‘n’ mix till, it is not difficult to see why generally a £5 copy of the movie, even if slightly less impressive in quality, is the most favoured option.
The advert intended to degrade piracy claims “You wouldn’t steal a car” in a way to compare watching copied material as theft. But I will admit, if it were possible to make a copy of an Aston Martin DB9, I sure wouldn’t think twice about getting my hands on one. Illegal or not.
Of course, cinema is being hit hard at the moment, and is making a damn good effort in order to compete with copied or even rented DVD’s. Orange Wednesdays and Movie Watcher points have been around for many years now to encourage regular theatre trips. And I’m sure they will always remain popular for weekend family outings, romantic dates, and for whatever else people may enjoy doing in dark rooms.
Film is such a huge industry and it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But perhaps it has become a time where DVD’s, copied or legitimate, are more practical, and the cinema has, like in the 50’s, become a luxury.
Only time will tell. But if I were to put money on it, cinema prices will remain high, if not higher, and DVD’s will continue to flourish. R.I.P cinemas.
Friday 18 January 2008
Monday 14 January 2008
Is it cos i is Ginger?
The average adult has approximately 120,000 individual hairs on their head. Redheads apparently have fewer (a pitiful 80,000) yet those with the lesser amount receive much more attention: negative attention that is. So why is it so much more of a big deal to be ginger?
In a society so full of discrimination, it is astounding to find that the problem in question is not disappearing, but merely taking a different shape. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or disability, But what about those other forms? Are they less important?
Redheads, for example, receive nothing but unpleasant comments in both the media and the playgrounds, and are amongst the most bullied category of people in the country despite only amounting to 4% of the world’s population.
In fact, the hatred for them has become so extreme that a number of petitions have been created on the internet to “take action to protect non-gingers”; one in particular not-too-subtly named “Put all Ginger-haired people in Concentration Camps” which many thousand people have signed. (No really, it is a genuine petition!)
Of course, it can be argued that there will always be some specific trait that can trigger painful mockery, but is sitting back and shrugging it off really a fair option? Or would taking action just take political correctness further than it has already gone?
Either way, the unpopularity of those with red hair has always been around, and it has never been agreed on where it originated.
In many cultures, redheads are worshipped due to their rareness, and are seen as a symbol of strength, sexual power, and fierce aggression. Perhaps then there is an association with threat that will forever haunt them. Women in the 16th Century with auburn locks were burned at the stake for having “hair the colour of the devil” which would certainly support the threat theory. But then, where did this originate from?
It has never been decided what moment in time those with copper tops were cast aside to join other minority groups as victims, but one thing is certain; Times have definitely not changed.
Last summer, the Chapman family from Newcastle were in the news after being forced out of their home 3 times due to horrendous targeting towards their four redheaded children. If that in itself was not degrading enough, their Council suggested the solution to the problem lay in a bottle of hair dye.
In 2003, an unfortunate 20 year old was stabbed in the back “for being ginger” and similarly, although not as severe, our beloved Prince Harry finally reached out for help last year, for a councillor to help him deal with constantly being called a Carrot-Top by the media and by his colleagues.
The pattern seems to repeat itself scrupulously through generations. And always in England. In America, redheads are supposedly adored and of course the Celtics would never punish their own, (13% of Scots are ginger, the highest percentage in the world) but in England, often with the addition of pale skin and an overload of freckles, redheads are not likely to be adored unanimously any time in the future.
A recent survey of UCLan students reflects this distaste. When asked which hair colour they would choose to have naturally, as predicted, blonde was the most popular choice, and some people oddly chose the colour green. But even more surprising, was that more people said that they would rather have no hair at all than to be ginger. And out of those already with red hair naturally, only 10% would keep it.
Those who are diverse have always received special treatment. And scientifically, redheads stand out not just to the naked eye. Technically, what makes the hair strands the vibrant colour they are, is the result of a genetic mutation (Which no doubt does nothing to help their reputation knowing that the genes are a mishap.) Two copies of the recessive “ginger gene” will unexpectedly become dominant and transform the hair of an innocent child’s head, into “that of the devil”….apparently.
Although some may find it bizarre and outrageously inappropriate to associate hair colour discrimination (any colour at all) with the likes of racial discrimination as an example, what exactly is different between the two when both use cruel gestures in order to make victims out of those that are different? Maybe it’s about time pointing fingers are put to rest and we give the gingers a break for one year.
In a society so full of discrimination, it is astounding to find that the problem in question is not disappearing, but merely taking a different shape. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or disability, But what about those other forms? Are they less important?
Redheads, for example, receive nothing but unpleasant comments in both the media and the playgrounds, and are amongst the most bullied category of people in the country despite only amounting to 4% of the world’s population.
In fact, the hatred for them has become so extreme that a number of petitions have been created on the internet to “take action to protect non-gingers”; one in particular not-too-subtly named “Put all Ginger-haired people in Concentration Camps” which many thousand people have signed. (No really, it is a genuine petition!)
Of course, it can be argued that there will always be some specific trait that can trigger painful mockery, but is sitting back and shrugging it off really a fair option? Or would taking action just take political correctness further than it has already gone?
Either way, the unpopularity of those with red hair has always been around, and it has never been agreed on where it originated.
In many cultures, redheads are worshipped due to their rareness, and are seen as a symbol of strength, sexual power, and fierce aggression. Perhaps then there is an association with threat that will forever haunt them. Women in the 16th Century with auburn locks were burned at the stake for having “hair the colour of the devil” which would certainly support the threat theory. But then, where did this originate from?
It has never been decided what moment in time those with copper tops were cast aside to join other minority groups as victims, but one thing is certain; Times have definitely not changed.
Last summer, the Chapman family from Newcastle were in the news after being forced out of their home 3 times due to horrendous targeting towards their four redheaded children. If that in itself was not degrading enough, their Council suggested the solution to the problem lay in a bottle of hair dye.
In 2003, an unfortunate 20 year old was stabbed in the back “for being ginger” and similarly, although not as severe, our beloved Prince Harry finally reached out for help last year, for a councillor to help him deal with constantly being called a Carrot-Top by the media and by his colleagues.
The pattern seems to repeat itself scrupulously through generations. And always in England. In America, redheads are supposedly adored and of course the Celtics would never punish their own, (13% of Scots are ginger, the highest percentage in the world) but in England, often with the addition of pale skin and an overload of freckles, redheads are not likely to be adored unanimously any time in the future.
A recent survey of UCLan students reflects this distaste. When asked which hair colour they would choose to have naturally, as predicted, blonde was the most popular choice, and some people oddly chose the colour green. But even more surprising, was that more people said that they would rather have no hair at all than to be ginger. And out of those already with red hair naturally, only 10% would keep it.
Those who are diverse have always received special treatment. And scientifically, redheads stand out not just to the naked eye. Technically, what makes the hair strands the vibrant colour they are, is the result of a genetic mutation (Which no doubt does nothing to help their reputation knowing that the genes are a mishap.) Two copies of the recessive “ginger gene” will unexpectedly become dominant and transform the hair of an innocent child’s head, into “that of the devil”….apparently.
Although some may find it bizarre and outrageously inappropriate to associate hair colour discrimination (any colour at all) with the likes of racial discrimination as an example, what exactly is different between the two when both use cruel gestures in order to make victims out of those that are different? Maybe it’s about time pointing fingers are put to rest and we give the gingers a break for one year.
Slut Epidemic
After the statistic, 1 in 50 girls between 13 and 15 become pregnant, [The Metro 3rd Jan 2008], I must admit, I had forgotten about the story by the time I had flipped the page. The fact that the Government was surprised by this, despite their “best efforts” to prevent underage pregnancies, now that grabbed my attention.
It would only take a slight glance out the window of the fancy offices they remain in, to realise, there is a real world out there, and believe it or not, people of all sizes, all genders, and all ages, are humping each other.
There’s no need to sugar coat it or try and be politically correct, because it is a real problem and needs to be addressed straight on. I am no better and really have no place to preach. The first ass I sniffed was when I was edging towards legal. But hey, i've learned from my mistakes.
The fact of the matter remains. Sexual urges are within us all, but controlling them is another matter. When I was 13 years old, sex to me was something they joked about on chat –shows I watched past my bed-time. Why have times changed so dramatically?
Not only are younger mothers, making younger grandmothers now, but they follow on the tradition and the ideology that becoming a parent at a younger age is okay. The last time I believe this was acceptable was in the time of The Tudors if I’m not mistaken. But my history has never been that good. Either way, it is a dated idea.
Before one can raise a child, should they therefore not put their own childhood behind them first? Giving birth at a young age, not just underage, but any young age, I believe sets the wrong impression. Of course, as soon as we all turn sweet sixteen we have the legal right to raise a child, but are schools and governments really “taking precautions” or are they in fact encouraging the issue?
Even to have a child at the age of 21 for example, the coming of age, the entering into adulthood, does not entirely mean ready for a family. Handing out contraception of course encourages safe sex, but sex none the less. I don’t have a single memory of being taught about sex, contraception or relationships. Everything I know today is from television and perhaps the questioning can stop there.
Education regarding sex is seen as risky, controversial, and to many parents, unnecessary. Perhaps because they would like the privilege themselves, or perhaps in order to shield their precious offspring from the big bad world. It is not clear to me, nor the government why this is the case. But generally, to hand out condoms to youngsters with no explanation as to why, can only lead to them finding out themselves and acting upon it.
The government is shocked by these statistics. Baffling.
Technically, as whores for money, perhaps they are not the best example to be setting for the youth of the nation. Let the kids keep their childhood. But who says they can’t know about sex?
It would only take a slight glance out the window of the fancy offices they remain in, to realise, there is a real world out there, and believe it or not, people of all sizes, all genders, and all ages, are humping each other.
There’s no need to sugar coat it or try and be politically correct, because it is a real problem and needs to be addressed straight on. I am no better and really have no place to preach. The first ass I sniffed was when I was edging towards legal. But hey, i've learned from my mistakes.
The fact of the matter remains. Sexual urges are within us all, but controlling them is another matter. When I was 13 years old, sex to me was something they joked about on chat –shows I watched past my bed-time. Why have times changed so dramatically?
Not only are younger mothers, making younger grandmothers now, but they follow on the tradition and the ideology that becoming a parent at a younger age is okay. The last time I believe this was acceptable was in the time of The Tudors if I’m not mistaken. But my history has never been that good. Either way, it is a dated idea.
Before one can raise a child, should they therefore not put their own childhood behind them first? Giving birth at a young age, not just underage, but any young age, I believe sets the wrong impression. Of course, as soon as we all turn sweet sixteen we have the legal right to raise a child, but are schools and governments really “taking precautions” or are they in fact encouraging the issue?
Even to have a child at the age of 21 for example, the coming of age, the entering into adulthood, does not entirely mean ready for a family. Handing out contraception of course encourages safe sex, but sex none the less. I don’t have a single memory of being taught about sex, contraception or relationships. Everything I know today is from television and perhaps the questioning can stop there.
Education regarding sex is seen as risky, controversial, and to many parents, unnecessary. Perhaps because they would like the privilege themselves, or perhaps in order to shield their precious offspring from the big bad world. It is not clear to me, nor the government why this is the case. But generally, to hand out condoms to youngsters with no explanation as to why, can only lead to them finding out themselves and acting upon it.
The government is shocked by these statistics. Baffling.
Technically, as whores for money, perhaps they are not the best example to be setting for the youth of the nation. Let the kids keep their childhood. But who says they can’t know about sex?
Saturday 12 January 2008
Couch Potato Newsreaders...No More
It is a great relief to hear of ITV finally going back to its roots and away from the couch.
In order to compete with the BBC’s News at Ten, the ITV equivalent will be presented by Sir Trevor and sat behind a desk as it used to be. But where did the professionalism go in the first place?
It is the continuing debate whether the media is dumbing down or simply becoming more accessible to the public, but it appears as though ITV has gone back to the drawing board and back to formality.
Currently on Granada, newsreaders make commentaries, giggle with one another, and then read the news in between. But personally, when I want to know what’s going on, I want to hear it from someone who takes it seriously.
With the attitude of a Saturday night talk show, the presenters are becoming TV personalities rather than reliable sources for our dose of information. Of course formality will always have the stuck-up association alongside it, but if the news of a Third World War broke out and it was told by someone lay back on a sofa with a brew, I’d feel insulted.
The slope is a slippery one but fortunately, a great step has been taken by acknowledging that making the news accessible to those who, quite frankly, were not interested in the first place, it is a step in the right direction.
There is a place for casual TV and personally, I don’t think the news is that place. Perhaps on E! Maybe where the news is more light-hearted, but when the news is serious, I expect it to be taken that way.
Why should a new channel adapt in order to attract a temporary audience? If the subject matter was of no interest in the first place, it certainly does not make it unimportant. News can only be sugar-coated so much but if the topics are not of interest, sticking a presenter on a couch doesn’t change that fact. To give in to the softer news that, let’s face it, the majority of the country prefers, is admitting defeat and will only take the media industry backwards.
In this case though, moving backwards is absolutely the way forward. That British voice, sat with notes, and a comb-over is the typical image of a newsreader first instated in the 50’s and as a traditional girl, I think it needs to be brought back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=507445&in_page_id=1770
In order to compete with the BBC’s News at Ten, the ITV equivalent will be presented by Sir Trevor and sat behind a desk as it used to be. But where did the professionalism go in the first place?
It is the continuing debate whether the media is dumbing down or simply becoming more accessible to the public, but it appears as though ITV has gone back to the drawing board and back to formality.
Currently on Granada, newsreaders make commentaries, giggle with one another, and then read the news in between. But personally, when I want to know what’s going on, I want to hear it from someone who takes it seriously.
With the attitude of a Saturday night talk show, the presenters are becoming TV personalities rather than reliable sources for our dose of information. Of course formality will always have the stuck-up association alongside it, but if the news of a Third World War broke out and it was told by someone lay back on a sofa with a brew, I’d feel insulted.
The slope is a slippery one but fortunately, a great step has been taken by acknowledging that making the news accessible to those who, quite frankly, were not interested in the first place, it is a step in the right direction.
There is a place for casual TV and personally, I don’t think the news is that place. Perhaps on E! Maybe where the news is more light-hearted, but when the news is serious, I expect it to be taken that way.
Why should a new channel adapt in order to attract a temporary audience? If the subject matter was of no interest in the first place, it certainly does not make it unimportant. News can only be sugar-coated so much but if the topics are not of interest, sticking a presenter on a couch doesn’t change that fact. To give in to the softer news that, let’s face it, the majority of the country prefers, is admitting defeat and will only take the media industry backwards.
In this case though, moving backwards is absolutely the way forward. That British voice, sat with notes, and a comb-over is the typical image of a newsreader first instated in the 50’s and as a traditional girl, I think it needs to be brought back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=507445&in_page_id=1770
Thursday 10 January 2008
Diets: The most self-indulgent fad going.
There is something about the clock striking midnight every new year’s eve that inspires some sort of positive attitude in all of us.
And as hard as we really do try to stick to our guns “this time around”, there is something which we love more than to keep resolutions: temptation.
Like every other female on the planet, my resolution was to eat healthier (translation: not look like the Michelin Man anymore. Diet. Diet. Diet!) And 2 days into January, with the willpower of Augustus Gloop in a candy store, I headed straight for the vending machine. Grade for effort….F.
If anything, the month of January signifies a new beginning, and a new “you” but it surprises me that as of yet, no advertising slogan has read “Change someone else’s life this New Year.” How selfish that we must continually think about nothing but ourselves year after year when the extra digit is added to the calendar.
And hey, maybe we don’t need to diet ladies! Ok, if you’re half a tonne, then I would recommend low fat options, but for the rest of us, curves are back. Celebs get nothing but stick for their bony physique and even Calvin Harris likes his "Iddy Biddy weight girls". So I ask, what’s wrong with a bit of wobble?
Punishing ourselves for an unattainable goal is not only a waste of our time and effort, but also money. The amount of Slim-Fasts sold in January must be sky-high and the amount of women that actually use them in a healthy balanced diet as recommended probably amounts to a tiny fraction. Every faded soap star to have left TV suddenly re-emerges with a workout video to exploit the insecurities of those women with a bit of holiday weight. So how about ignoring them this year? Be happy with what you have, and concentrate on what others don’t. Do something for your parents. For charity. Or just smile once a day to a stranger. It sounds as if I am about to burst into song, but the sincerity is there.
How about, this year, you make your resolutions, to do something for someone else for a change? C’mon girls, you can’t have eaten that many mince pies over the holiday! And if you fail at this resolution, at least you did it for a good cause. Mission accomplished. Roll on February.
And as hard as we really do try to stick to our guns “this time around”, there is something which we love more than to keep resolutions: temptation.
Like every other female on the planet, my resolution was to eat healthier (translation: not look like the Michelin Man anymore. Diet. Diet. Diet!) And 2 days into January, with the willpower of Augustus Gloop in a candy store, I headed straight for the vending machine. Grade for effort….F.
If anything, the month of January signifies a new beginning, and a new “you” but it surprises me that as of yet, no advertising slogan has read “Change someone else’s life this New Year.” How selfish that we must continually think about nothing but ourselves year after year when the extra digit is added to the calendar.
And hey, maybe we don’t need to diet ladies! Ok, if you’re half a tonne, then I would recommend low fat options, but for the rest of us, curves are back. Celebs get nothing but stick for their bony physique and even Calvin Harris likes his "Iddy Biddy weight girls". So I ask, what’s wrong with a bit of wobble?
Punishing ourselves for an unattainable goal is not only a waste of our time and effort, but also money. The amount of Slim-Fasts sold in January must be sky-high and the amount of women that actually use them in a healthy balanced diet as recommended probably amounts to a tiny fraction. Every faded soap star to have left TV suddenly re-emerges with a workout video to exploit the insecurities of those women with a bit of holiday weight. So how about ignoring them this year? Be happy with what you have, and concentrate on what others don’t. Do something for your parents. For charity. Or just smile once a day to a stranger. It sounds as if I am about to burst into song, but the sincerity is there.
How about, this year, you make your resolutions, to do something for someone else for a change? C’mon girls, you can’t have eaten that many mince pies over the holiday! And if you fail at this resolution, at least you did it for a good cause. Mission accomplished. Roll on February.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
