Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Oscar and Interactivity 150

Posted by JonKatz from the open-sourcing-culture,-cont. dept.
Sunday night's Oscarcast may have been the usual long, boring and self-congratulatory affair. But there were distinct signs that interactivity -- which is about content, not just the means of delivery -- is beginning to creep into even this arrogant culture. Read more.

If you were able to stay awake through the interminable posturing and back-slapping, the Oscarcast also revealed in small ways the growing impact of interactivity on culture and creativity.

Aside from the fact that The Matrix scored more Oscars than any movie except the big winner American Beauty, it was obvious that the show's producers had for the first time incorporated at least one of the primary principles of interactivity: open the doors and let people see inside the process.

It would be a stretch to say that Sunday's show was a truly interactive production, but interactivity is becoming more central all the time as creative industries -- publishing, music, Hollywood, TV -- try to figure out how to respond to the Net and the Web, and especially to the growing open-source model of information distribution. The answer: knock down the walls, bring the public into both the creative and decision-making processes. For many existing corporate/cultural institutions -- newspapers, publishing, the recording industry -- interactivity is the most difficult challenge executives face, since it requires yielding some power to consumers.

Newspapers have assumed for years, for example, that interactivity means simply putting editorial content online. Book publishers are following this dubious instinct, hailing the e-distribution of Stephen King's novella two weeks ago as a landmark event. But interactivity requires much more than that.

For the first time, the Oscar producers let the public get a closer look. They pulled back the curtain. Original music and screenwriting scripts were displayed on screens. Cameras went backstage and showed raw sets, unpainted and unfinished backdrops. They offered perspectives from the participants' point of view. This isn't ceding any real power, obviously, but still represents a new production ethic. Actors and producers were shown getting ready to go onstage, fidgeting, fixing their clothes, rehearsing their lines, and nervously yakking with one another.It was one of the first times cameras were brought into the off-stage process, an elemental notion of interactivity: permitting people to participate, at least vicariously. Peter Coyote, an actor/announcer even manned a desk backstage introducing segments and performers.

If broadcasts like the Oscars were really interactive, of course, they would give the public greater say in the production itself, perhaps by online voting about the length of speeches, the choice of hosts and presenters, and eventually, the nominees and awards themselves. That's where real interactivity could take a broadcast like this. The Academy would still have more clout than anyhone else, but the public would have more than it has now. Such a change is nearly inevitable.

Interactivity doesn't have to mean abolishing the original form, as newspapers publishers have done, and book publishers are beginning to do. The Matrix was a powerful example of interactive culture because it captured the experience of virtual, versus material, reality.

Novels like the best-selling A Staggering Work of Heartbreaking Genius by David Eggers are also interactive (some would call it post-modern) in that they acknowledge the process of writing a book -- prologues, epilogues, blurbs are all openly addressed, becoming part of the book itself. Eggers acknowledges self-promotion, the pointlessness of hype and the often self-serving choices authors make, throughout the book. Published in traditional textual form, the book still qualifies as interactive, because it allows the reader into the process, lowering the barriers that exist between consumers and vendors of information. Traditional publishing makes for an inherently unbalanced relationship.

That relationship crept into the mammoth Oscar presentation last night, albeit gingerly.

Creative interactivity changes the relationship between agenda-setters -- TV producers, filmmakers, authors, journalists, music producers -- and consumers. The equalization of the relation becomes a long, ongoing process -- a literal open-sourcing of culture. This ethic has become a powerful force. Interactive media are ascending everywhere, and passive media, institutions that refuse to cede power and sensibility to customers, are stagnant or declining. Although the Oscars remain a classic reflection of a stubbornly non-interactive culture -- Hollywood -- even the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is beginning to succumb.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oscar and Interactivity More

Oscar and Interactivity

Comments Filter:

  • breasts and gowns (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    No way. I want to see Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise gab on end to each other (in a serious manner) about gowns and how they don't have the breasts the other actresses have.

    Or Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf. He would work too.

  • Heh.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "the interminable posturing and back-slapping"...

    You just described Slashdork in a nutshell, Jon.

  • Interactive Story! Join in! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Okay, I'm sick of hearing all this shit about "interactive" movies and "interactive" novels. Okay, you want that? Let's do it! SOme of you may remember this format. In school, there was this ridiculous method of "fun" that involved each person adding a sentence or a word to a story. As the story progressed, it showed just how stupid and sucky the "average" person is as writers. Rules for this: Add only one sentence per person. TRUE INTERACTIVE MOVE PART I: Once, there was a mediocre non-fiction writer who decided to write for a "hip" pseudo-news website to aid his aging career. Your TURN!
  • The only movie worth spit last year was Man on the Moon, plain and simple. I even vote for Kaufman as Man of the Millennium. What could be a better performance than 30-45 minutes of a guy eating mashed potatoes on stage? What's most pathetic is even the comedy award show last week on Fox failed to give it many awards. There's gotta be a conspiracy there, or a monopoly on the award-granting hierarchy.

  • Matrix? (Score:1)

    by whoop ( 194 )
    What's with you people and your obsession with The Matrix? Is it that it used computers to do animations? I mean, I didn't find the story very interesting. You can find just as many fancy-pseudo buzzwords in the last couple seasons of Sliders. Speaking of which, in the reruns on SciFi channel last week, they had the one where the O'Connell boys up and left. It is really stupid now with that fake Quinn and the Diana girl. They do nothing but spew out crap about the quantum fluctuations. I mean come on, with the real Quinn they didn't bore us with the math, it was an interesting side-topic. But here they move it to the forefront.

    Anyway, what really is the point of obsessing over Matrix? I've seen better sci-fi from the movies on MST3k.
  • Maybe I just expect more out of a movie to mark it as great. I went through the thing easily able to guess what comes up next. Keanu goes through the entire thing being a clueless schmuck, then all at once he knows all. I mean, what's the sense in that? Build it up gradually. I see all these Hollywood movies using computer animations more as a crutch to their poor storytelling skills. Something simple, like Life of Brian/Holy Grail, is a much better story, not cliched scene after scene.

    Now they want to remake Planet of the Apes, no doubt to add as much useless CGI as they can and make Charleton Heston's girlfriend even more scantily clad. I wouldn't be surprised if they took out the "damned dirty apes" line with "you poor misguided fellows" for fear that monkeys everywhere will be insulted, or it'll only cause a greater gap between moneky-human relations. Can't we all just get along?

    If I ever find myself in Hollywood, I'll be sure to find a way to piss on that sign. ;)
  • Much of the problem lies in people's unwillingness to think. They prefer to be fed things via the television than yell at it, "You didn't invent the f*ing Internet, mofo!" like myself. In the one vein where a few of them select someone to head up the country, they choose the one with nice hair and says, "I feel your pain." You'll end up with the same if people actually voted for all these hollywood award shows, basing things on how nice the dress was in some scene of Titanic, or how cute a mouse looks.

    Anyway, it is important to teach these people to put two and two together. The longer they sit there being fed from the television, the more rights will be given up to Washington. The only thing worse than having these lazy types choosing things for you, is allowing them to choose politicians who want to decide what to do with you.
  • Television (as in Taxi) wasn't really his forte. It was a means to getting the name recognition so he could go on and do national tours. His specials were nicer, but didn't have the full bang the live performances had. That, or you don't get it because he wasn't a comedian. It would be like whining because Windows programs don't run on Linux. Those people expect all PCs to behave like Windows. His performance isn't that of a traditional stand-up comic, setup-punchline-laugh. Nonetheless, it is folks like you that kept him going. 90% of an audience will hate him, boo him, etc while the other 10% (like myself) are laughing our asses off at you people. Once you put him in perspective, you see all the emotions he gets the audience into, and thus the humor.
  • I have many such buttons on this device I call a remote. I would have used it had I tuned into the oscars, but Tivo knows me better than that. I mean, what's the point in any of these award shows? Every "speech" is the same. They get up there, cry, say it's an honor to just be nominated, claim the other nominees were just as good, say they never expected / have nothing ready, then go on to thank every director/producer/people you never heard of and never will again, then they wrap it up thanking their parents/spouse for putting up with their arrogance, etc. Why go through this 46 times every year, when you could be watching the Sopranos or something worthwhile?

    An exception is granted for women/gay folk. I recognize that they enjoy watching Joan/Melissa Rivers gab on end about gowns and how they don't have the breasts the other actresses have.

  • Slashdot is pretty arrogant, and if it were any more interactive, JonKatz would get the *crap* beaten out of him on a daily basis...

    Hmm. Well, he wouldn't like that, but some of us might... I mean, he does ask for it... But then he'd have to write about it, and it'd be "Another Columbine" and "Voices from the Bathroom" and whatever... :)
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].

  • The Matrix did NOT deserve to win visual effects at all and Film Editing was a big maybe. The effects done in The Matrix were cool, and even impressive, but TPM had it beat hands down for quality and depth of visual effects.

    I've been told that the effects presentations by the TPM crew were some of the best ever and the Matrix crew absolutely hosed theirs, which begs the question "Why did The Matrix win it?" Massive campaigning is all I can guess.

  • I have to say I feel the same...

    Heck, if you want to get down to it, in a way Star Trek has even insulted the tech crowd with the Borg-gee, a technologically advanced race, who obviously has taken prostetics and networking to its "logical" end. Please.

  • Good point.

    The fact that the Oscars are _interesting_ doesn't necessarily mean that they are a useful tool for picking good movies. This is especially true when the judges (for some reason that only an "elite insider" would fathom) vote differently than the people buying tickets at the box office.

    I suppose that I personally just don't like movies that were written for Hollywood "insider elites."

  • Personally, I have a problem with any rating system in which a small group of industry "experts" tells me what is good or bad, especially when it comes to something as subjective as "Best Motion Picture." I would much rather have a system where I have some say in the outcome (even if my voice gets mixed in with the unwashed masses).

    Which is why I am glad that the metric that really counts is box office sales. When push comes to shove a movie has to make money to be sucessful. Make too many critically-aclaimed flops and even the PHBs in the movie industry will balk at making your next flick.

    Now I suppose I have some washing up to do, and after that maybe some sit-ups and some side-bends are in order. After all, I wouldn't want Mr. cultural elite to mistake me for a sheep or a moron. Oh wait I forgot, I don't really care what you think.

  • Actually, what makes the awards _interesting_ for me is that they are awarded precisely by a small "elite" group... there's the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe Awards, and a few others like this, and it is interesting to see what they have to say, rather than simply looking at box office returns.

    That's the point of these groups like the Academy and whoever does the golden globes-- give an award based on what they, the "insider elites", think, and take that for what it's worth, if anything.

    When "the masses" act in the aggregate, their reactions are pretty predictable, but it is the quirkiness and unusual nature of decisions make by the small groups and individuals that gives me insight into why movies are considered "worthy" of recognition.

    -Dean

  • Pudding. (Score:1)

    by law ( 5166 )
    Eating the pudding would be interactive? No?

    Try harder, analogies and sarcasm, sheesh.

    Think lime green jello, a bathtub, and two frisky teenagers. Now thats interactive!

    Think Castaways, a desert island, Skipper, Giligan,....

  • Interactive is my ability to to block out articles
    by buffoons like you Jon. Watching you write a book, or any of your articles is in no way interactive. The same goes for watching actors prepare their speeches, we didn't get to decide what they would say.


    I guess our definition of interactive differs, watching you write, or watching people backstage is about as interactive as going to the zoo and watching a tiger in a cage. Sure you see him eating lunch, but you don't get to get to pick what he eats, the zookeeper does.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go and turn your filter back on. You did a great job with, voices from the hellmouth.. this is just pathetic.

  • "... may have been the usual long, boring and self-congratulatory."
    Gee, that sure does remind me of something around here but I can't quite put my finger on it.
  • which part of this makes sense?

    the oscars ceremony decides to show people backstage and to reveal a little of the inner workings of the movies it promotes. this isn't irony, let alone interactivity. it's not reflexive, it's not insightful, it's not even novel.

    all that happened was the producer of the show got a dvd player for christmas and thought the documentary about the techniques behind leonardo's floppy fringe was kewl.

    mr katz's attempts to dignify this nonsense with references to genuinely provocative (if rather dull) works of art only serve to highlight the banality of his attempts to throw geeky tropes at the daily headlines and see if they stick.

  • You seem to forget that jon katz is a hypocritical, uninformed, bitch-for-hire writing for slashdot to bring in audience. He doesn't give half a rat's ass about anything he drivels about. His articles rarely have any content at all. Just buzz words about the new wave of communication through the internet. Yea. Tell that to the 78% of the world population without internet access. Tell them about how the communications revolution is going to usher in the new wave of democracy. Or whichever phrase happens to bring in hits this week.

    Jon Katz has no journalistic integrity. He's out to make a buck. EVERY Jon Katz article is a rehash of the previous one.
  • I think this is a great idea and I believe in four or five years, this is almost precisely what they will be doing.
  • The correct title is _A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius_.

    Look out for Jon Katz's new book- _Leeks_!

    =)
    Bo

  • I don't care for the Oscars, but as a general principle, I don't want a million-headed hyrdra making content choices for me.
    I have visions of:
    Bogie getting on the plane at the end of Casablanca.
    Obiwan beating Vader
    Romeo and Juliet living to a ripe old age, all their fire long since burned out.
    The Yankees always winning the world series (er....strike that one)
    and of course, Sid Shienberg's cut of Brazil.

    Personally, even if they don't always perform up to the task, I believe that the professionals in media and entertainment industry have a better idea of how to construct a satisfying media experience than amateurs, let alone a mob of amateurs with no cohesive vision (not even a bad one).

    "Sunday night's Oscarcast may have been the usual long, boring and self-congratulatory. But there were distinct signs that interactivity -- which is about content, not just the means of delivery -- is beginning to creep into even this arrogant culture."

    We wouldn't know anything about arrogant culture here, would we now? Katz presumes that these people are developing crappy entertainment in a vacuum. The fact is, most of them are hardworking, if misguided, people who DO care, and DO cede power to the consumers. Ever hear of audience testing?

    Apart from that, Katz's definition of "interactive" is bunk. Saying that Eggers lets people into the process is not true because
    a) Just because the reader can "see" the writing process doesn't mean he can affect it. An intelligent reader can "see" the writing process anyway, by paying careful attention to word choice, etc. Does this make the Iliad interactive? I really don't think so.

    b) Eggers doesn't even really let the reader in. You get a highly mediated version of the writing process. It's not the real deal. Publishing a collection that had every draft... that might be a bit closer, but it's definitely not something I want to read. I want a finished, edited product, unless I'm already in the culture and am looking for insight into a colleague's methods.

    The fact is, it's not easy to write even a bad book, or stage even a crappy awards show. It's even harder to do it by committee, and the difficulty only increases with the size of the committee.
  • Special effects a no-brainer? Uh-uh... Whatever you may have thought about the movie, the graphics FX in Star Wars were far, far better than The Matrix. I think that Star Wars probably didn't win because too many people thought something like "We shouldn't let Star Wars win, because it's Star Wars, so I'll vote against it."

    For sound, film editing, yes, The Matrix was excellent, but for visual effects, I don't think it deserved it.
  • > Maybe this helps explain why The Matrix is so >popular, however it still is a mystery why >American Beauty got off the ground.

    Mena Suvari breasts.

    Need I go on?

    Thought not. :)
  • Isn't that a case of the pot and the kettle? I mean really, who is more arrogant than a bunch of geeks who know we're right? Just take a gander at any single OS/license/culture thread right here to see that geeks are as arrogant as humans get. Me included ;)

    not only is the universe stranger than you imagine,
    it's stranger than you are capable of imagining

  • Either Jon has diarreah of the brain [I dunno, which may be the case], or else he wrote most of this article before the event last night ...... just how interactive is that ??

  • He was the least funny person evver on television. I have never wanted to see some one get hurt so much as I did that dink.

    I read a sentence like that and whether or not the AC really means it, I instantly realize that Andy Kaufman did his job and he did it well.

    Rock on, Andy, wherever you are.

  • But there were distinct signs that interactivity which is about content, not just the means of delivery -- is beginning to creep into even this arrogant culture One would think that based on this statement the author would demonstrate how this year the Oscars changed and gave the views some input into the content. However, Jon just rambles on about nice new sets and behind the scenes views. I don't get it. I usually enjoy Jon's subject material but where is the substance of this essay. What is the point?????
  • But there were distinct signs that interactivity -- which is about content, not just the means of delivery -- is beginning to creep into even this arrogant culture.


    You know, if this were a user comment I think it would be moderated as FlameBait.

    As for open sourcing the Academy awards - I don't think it needs to be interactive. It's a show. Part of the enjoyment comes from not knowing what's going to happen, to watching the evening unfold. To equate this to software developement is silly; It's generally important to know what's going to happen with software, not so with television.

    IMHO, as per

    J:)

  • Am I the only person in the world who gets very sick of anti-technology movies? Yes, yes, I know all about the Bill Joy interview. And yes, he raises some issues about technology that we need to be concerned about. However, his was not just a knee-jerk piece saying "technology bad." When's the last time you saw something from Hollywood that wasn't? Anytime technology shows up in a movie the result is as predicable as the plucky heroine of a Disney movie. The Matrix was no better than any other movie in this respect (and probably worse than some). How long until Hollywood makes a movie about technology whose theme is not the loss of humanity that tech inevitably brings? Will we ever see a movie in which technology is empowering, and not just for a Bond villian who wants to destroy the world? Although I should point out that the Bond movies (at least the later ones) do a better job of showing technology as a tool that can be used for good or evil than most. (RIP Desmond Llewelyn) Surely I'm not the only geek in the world who gets sick of seeing my life's work portraied as a way to enslave humanity. Dr. Faustus was a great play. But how many times do we have to remake it?
  • Totally... what's the crap about "Sound Editing" .... Blew American Beauty away!

    __

  • Yeah... there are too many awards shows anyway (now getting even worse, with several new shows just to promote different sub-sects of industries), though people will continue to watch them, just as they continue to care about things like Princess Di (and I don't mean her humanitarian efforts, which were commendable) and her marriage to Charles, the rest of the 'royal family', who has more power in America than they do in the U.K. (judging by the number of commemorative plates sold and tabloid covers). People want to see *stars*. They are awed by them. Many of us still can't understand why. I've been a Yankees fan all my life - collect cards, memorabilia, but I'm not following the personal lives of my favorite players like a soap opera. I met Yogi Berra. Thought it was neat. Didn't grovel for an autograph, scream 'ohmigodthereheisarealyankkee!!!' or anything. I think Samuel L. Jackson is a kick-ass actor, but t be honest, I'd be able to get over it if he never made another film. Wouldn't take long.

    People fall into the herd (not GNU) mentality too easily, and are too easily impressed with the mystical society that is hollywood. Get over it.

    Let the flaming/moderating begin.
  • Matrix had a lot of good qualities that are usually overlooked in favor of the special effects and whoopass:

    - It has an involving plot in which the main character is as clueless as the audience, therefore eliminating the need to explain everything that goes on.

    - People can identify with the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar. Most everyone likes to see the underdog win, people sometimes betray others for their own good, and it would be cool if you didn't have to dodge bullets.

    - It was well directed, IMHO, and the use of sound effects and music (which sometimes are indistinguishable) to enhance emotion. The rotating POV visual effect not only looks really cool, it is a good way to quickly describe the entire scene to the audience.

    I've always thought that a good movie is one that is interesting enough to understand without having to conciously take note of things, and Matrix is a good example of this. Maybe this helps explain why The Matrix is so popular, however it still is a mystery why American Beauty got off the ground.
    --
  • You're a cheap bastard

    Dear Captain Flame,
    Please observe my email address, more specifically the ".edu" part. I'm a college student, so of course I'm cheap, dammit. ASFs and MPEGs are cheap (duh), convenient to watch, and always out before VHS or DVD. Do you have any illegal MP3s?

    Thank you.


    --
  • I have to agree. Even though Fight Club was an extremely close second, it didn't leave me thinking "Wow, that kicked ass!" as much as Matrix did.

    Plus my copy of The Matrix is 576 MB at VHS quality; Fight Club isn't nearly that nice.
    --

  • Why so angry Jon?

    Maybe the local News station told him he had a face for radio, the radio guys said he had a bad voice, and the newspaper guys read an article of his and said "Okay.. You restated your point ten times, now show us some supporting arguments."

    This left poor JonKatz no choice but to work at pseudo-media sites such as Wired and Slashdot.

    On the bright side, he has learned to put in a couple supporting arguments in the past couple years that I've been reading his articles. It's also nice to have some original content at this site to show us why there isn't more.

    ------

  • I think I will disagree with your statement about Titanic only winning because of popularity.

    If you notice, it didn't win ANY Oscars for acting. There's a reason: the acting sucked.

    It won all but one of its Oscars for technical or artistic things like screenplay and music or sound/visual editting (like the Matrix).

    The only non-technical/artistic award was for best picture (and to a lesser extent, best director). If 100 million people loved it and watched it 20 times, and it evinced emotions in the viewer, AND it won all those other awards I think it deserved best picture even though I personally hated the movie.

    Technically, it deserved those awards completely.
    Artistically, (screenplay, music, etc) I'm not so sure, but I'm not an artist either.
    I think Cameron deserved best director, but I don't like it as best picture.

    my $.02

  • I didn't know that that many /.ers actually watched the Oscars. It's not a show that I'd stay awake till midnight to watch. Oh, well.
  • To describe something as interactive implies communication in both directions... I'm sorry I don't think the Oscars were in any way interactive.

    Screw you guys, I'm going home -- Cartman
  • I think matrix won in all the right places. Special effects (no brainer), visual effects (ditto), audio effect (a nice touch), and film editing (a close call with American Beauty). I would have like to have seen it nominated for best film, but nominated only. American Beauty is definitly an all around better film.

    $.02

    ~Jester
  • Matrix was the best remake of Tron I've ever seen!
  • It seems to me that real achievable interactivity at the Oscars would be along the lines of letting viewers choose between various simultaneous broadcasts all covering different aspects of the event.

    For instance, besides the overall (same old same old) Oscars presentation we all saw last night, we should have had a chance to check out the backstage goings-on when things got dull. Back stage at the Oscars is where a lot of the real action is as all the various winners have to instantly face off against a sort of media scrum (a sort of ongoing press conference with constantly changing faces). It's all expertly timed so that as soon as one winner is finished, the next one stumbles in, a little stunned and unprepared. All good fun.

    I also think it would be interesting to have a static sort of security cam in the theater's main foyer areas so we could check out who was leaving the show early or taking a pee-break (and during whose speech). This kind of thing is already being done with European Formula 1 motor racing coverage, and elsewhere no doubt.

  • You know, I'm surprised no one responded to this earlier. Maybe I shouldn't give this troll the time of day, but I can't help but say a few things.

    I didn't catch exactly where you live, but if you don't like it - MOVE! Quit complaining. If you don't get up an do something about it, then you're no better than the people you are harping on.

    Mark
  • For a very good approach of "coincidental magick" as it relates to the true spirit of magick, I'd recommend the Hellblazer comic series up to issue 40 or thereabouts. John Constantine has to be the best depiction of a Magus in popular fiction, and my feeling is that the authors of M:tA took many of their concepts from this story without really understanding them. To quote from shoddy memory, "Reality always seems to get on its knees and beg him."

    Also of great interest is Books of Magic, written by Neil Gaiman.

  • Yeah, I agree with your assessment of Titanic's wins. I thought it was absolutely ironic that no Oscars were won for Best Actor/Actress.

    However, Titanic also won in categories that didn't make much sense, and were awarded mostly to "boost" the total number of Oscars won. While the movie deserved 'Visual Effects', I'm not sure what was so spectacular about Editing and Sound Editing in Titanic. Like I said, they were used to rack up the number of awards.

    It's good that Matrix won those. They did make sense for Matrix, and I'm saying this objectively.

    I disagree with you on the merits of Titanic: I think it should have won Best Picture, which is attributed to the Producer; that is the job Cameron did superbly well, by being uncompromising and pushing the budget to its limits despite doomsayers. As a director, he was mostly average in this movie.

    So, I think Titanic should have won: Best Visual Effects, Best Costumes, Best Art Direction, Best Sound Effects and Best Picture. At least these 5 would be deserved. Fortunately, this year, all of American Beauty's awards were deserved.

  • How did M:tG (Magic: the Gathering) get into this discussion? Or did you intend to refer to Mage: The Ascension? At any rate, I don't think Mage:tA was attempting to be historical or authentic, but I do think they suggest a valid and useful perspective on the manipulation of reality. Whether or not it passes the review of a purist like yourself is another question.

    Oops. I did mean M:tA, not M:tG. Wrong acronym.

    I realise M:tA was not trying to be authentic, but what irks me is WW gamers nowadays acting as if M:tA was an exact historical retelling of what hermetical traditions are all about. The teachings of Western occultism are much more powerful than this, and in a sense, much closer to the presentation of the Mage as a Hacker.

    M:tA states that reality is a concensus against which you have to struggle. In essence, it is a doomed attempt, as you are but one voice in a sea of reality definitions. It states that you can alter reality only by paying great attention to what other individuals have to say, and thus are in constant danger of being 'juged'.

    This was never a statement made by Western occultism; it's more or less a game mechanic designed specifically to hinder power gaming. In Western occultism, the only thing that matters is Will, not Reality. It is yourself you have to change, and not a concensual, undefinable entity. You will see the difference may be subtle, but it's drastic.

    In this vision, the Mage and the Hacker become archetypes that are much closer in essence. The Hacker can manipulate Reality (systems, code) by only his Will; there are no rules to the Hacker but those he sets for himself (ethics). The Hacker does not care about concensus (established programming conventions, security practices, network architecture), only about the application of his knowledge through Will.

    You see why Matrix has nothing to do with M:tA's vision of things.

    Seriously, I agree, it's a traditional scenario. Heh. Everybody made a big deal out of how The Matrix went off the beaten path and broke new ground, but it's just another formulaic fantasy plot.

    Yeah. But you'll notice that Star Wars was nothing more than a rip-off of Hidden Fortress set in space. Matrix did the same thing... It borrowed from traditional storytelling and archetypes, and placed it in a sci-fi genre. Is this worth praise in and on itself? It's debatable. I say it does... There are but a limited number of stories in the world, and we constantly spew them under new shapes. How many times did Hollywood remake the Hero's Journey of Ulysses? Lord of the Rings is just that, after all. But I think there's merit in the form as well as in the function.

  • Did anybody else notice that a particular editorial writer who seems to be pleased that the Oscar celebrations are showing signs of 'interactivity' (using his definition) is the same editorial writer who doesn't respond to feedback or take part in discussions?

    Admittedly, his definition of 'interactive' is "[unusual] content, not just the means of delivery" (square brackets inferred from content of editorial). Anybody want to chip in to buy a copy of Webster's for Jon?

    mewse
  • Who is Jon Katz, and does he really take himself as seriously as he seems to? Most importantly, why does Slashdot keep posting his unbelievably bad articles?
  • After having seen VH1's "The List" several times, I think I know what you're getting at. Never mind Clueless Joe Sixpack. The ones we regard as cultural heroes are about as dumb as the masses.

    I mean ,really, who gives a flying f$@c% what Carmen Electra thinks about Dr. Dre videos.
  • OK OK I'll change my sig in the interest of civilized discourse. No worse than your insulting and untrue sig though...
  • I understand Monkeys-Bananas, Bear-Honey, but what's with Pigs and Acorns?
  • You had severad buttons to choose from. Here is a sample:
    Channel
    Power
    Play

    I did it. It was easy. And if your TV has PiP, you can check to see if it's over every once in a while.
  • I really don't understand what the point of this article is. The premises (some unstated) behind it seem to be:
    • Interactivity is inherently better than non-interactivity
    • Any work that references itself (via "backstage" or "making of" information) is somehow "interactive"
    • "The Matrix" was somehow "interactive" because of its subject matter, even though the audience just sat there and watched it without any control over what was seen, just like every other movie out there
    • The awards won by "The Matrix" (a supposedly "interactive" movie) show that the big, bad boys in Hollywood are starting to "get it" when it comes to interactivity
    • When audiences have control over the content of entertainment it will automatically be made better
    Ugh! Don't people realize that "interactive" entertainment could have been done during the days of pre-history? A storyteller sitting by the campfire could have simply asked the listeners what they wanted to happen next every once in a while. But people didn't and still don't do that because they know it would ruin the story!! The whole point of entertainment is to let a storyteller convey his or her vision to you. The content is supposed to come from the person telling the story, not the audience.
  • this is exactly the problem is with this.
  • Showing raw backstage footage, nervous stars, or other such not-part-of-the-big-show information on camera is something MTV award shows have been doing for a while. Now the bigger ones are starting to catch on to these ideas. Who knows why -- perhaps to appeal to a younger audience? (Robin Williams doing Blame Canada also points to this)

    -------------
    The following sentence is true.
  • "Thank you very much; I'll have a list of everybody I want to thank up at [insert URL] later tonight." And get off the stage.

    Someone came close to that. I can't remember if they were technical winners or documentary winners, but as they were being rushed away from the mic, one of them blurted out a URL and asked everyone to visit.


    --

  • The Bible and the Matrix both speak of the same truth. But the Matrix is a metaphor, or parable.

    And the bible is a storybook full of fables.

    Some will understand it and some will not.

    Just like every other item in the universe. Woo.


    --

  • You must have loved Pokemon: The First Movie.
    --
  • Well..the story is russian.. i am not sure what
    pigs eat in this part of the world but it is
    a common beleief of biology scolars out there
    that (wild) pigs thrive on acorns..the hell
    i know why:)
  • Why do so many think that audience "participation" in the form of voting is interactive? As long as you have a large group of folks you can call an "audience," there is no interactivity. Only when all participants are equally producers and consumers can we judge that a medium is interactive. AFAIK, Usenet and internet chat rooms are the only places that fit this definition.

    Look at it this way, if I vote on what is to be the best movie, my "power" in the vote is inversely proportional to the size of the audience. I am not on equal footing with the producers, directors, etc. (not that I should be, given the purpose of broadcast TV). Even as a voting audience member, I am still just a passive consumer, deluded into thinking that, had I not voted, the outcome would be different.

    True interactivity will arise when I can ad running comments to the President's State of the Union address, and have them available for anyone to download as streaming content. Interactivity will be a contender when you give *me* control of the camera at the oscars, for 30sec, etc. Have people at home dial in, register, and randomly pick one to control each light, mike, camera, etc.
    This is interactivity.

    I don't want the vote. If I watch the show, it's because I want to *watch*. For it to be interactive, I should be able to turn mikes on or off, control a spotlight, add cartoon characters to the corner (ala MST3k) for the broadcast, etc. In short, the sort of total anarchy that the producers could never tolerate.

    Giving an individual control of content is interactive. Condescending to let us feeble masses "vote," is not. Besides, the public already voted on the best movies, with their wallets.
  • When the techie-type who accepted the award for The Matrix gave out its URL at the end of his speech, I figured I'd see what the slashdot effect was like for the old media.

    I couldn't get through to its webserver for almost an hour. It responded to pings but the HTTP port was completely overloaded. I don't know what this guy expected (unless he just did it so he could laugh at the outrageous web logs the next morning). If only 1% of the audience tried the site, that was still as many as a million people typing in the URL at the same time, every hour, as the show crawled into new timezones.

    I think this was the first time that a domain name was mentioned in an acceptance speech. I'm sure it won't be the last.

    Jamie McCarthy

  • It is imperative that I give you the following information, which Jon Katz wants concealed from the public. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Jon's particularly obdurate form of paternalism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of beer-guzzling politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Might I suggest that he search for a hobby? It seems Jon has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to distract attention from more important issues. Due to the power relationship between the dominator and the dominated, the comparison between him and unambitious hostile fogeys is remarkable. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that his malignant ramblings run counter to human nature and, as such, are doomed to failure. Jon wants all of us to believe that you and I are morally inferior to virulent lunatics. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.

    When he looks in the mirror in the morning, does Jon see more than the same, jejune face that all grungy wheeler-dealers share? Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that he, in his hubris, has decided that he has the right to lower our standard of living. If there's a rule, and he keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? Of particular interest to me is the way that Jon continuously denies that he masterminded last year's now-infamous attempt to convince perverted benighted profiteers that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him, and besides, this is a free country, and I insist we ought to keep it that way. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting him authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize prodigal Comstockism. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that he makes it a point to lead to the destruction of the human race, so to speak.

    I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but the trouble with such vengeful chauvinistic carpetbaggers is that they intend to take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. Faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Jon has had, I must undoubtedly educate the public on a range of issues. Nonetheless, he should show some class. You've heard me say that Jon's cronies are all invidious cult leaders. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Moreover, Jon's stories about faddism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.

    I'm inclined to think that until we subject Jon's musings to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant, Jon will continue to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart. While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that the nicest thing that can be said about his lackeys is that they are witless dorks out to inculcate stolid communications. Jaded expostulations have consequences. A careful appraisal of Jon's perversions raises some thought-provoking issues.

    If I am doomed to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street, then Jon will obviously drive us into a state of apoplexy any day now. It may be coincidence that his slogans eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. It may be coincidence that they make excessive use of foul language. And it may be coincidence that they relabel millions of people as "birdbrained". But that's a lot of coincidence! What's interesting is that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.

    Essentially, my personal safety depends upon your starting to knock some sense into Jon, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same. The idea of basing our entire society on despicable narcissism is so far from reality, it's laughable. This implies that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he is devoid of all social conscience. So what's the connection between that and his shell games? The connection is that it would be grossly premature for Jon to claim final victory.

    More concretely, there is something patently unprofessional in the notion that Jon is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Of course, his henchmen form a gutless organization devoted to harassment and barratry. I say "of course," because his tracts are a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children. Is that such a difficult concept? To be sure, Jon's modus operandi is to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques, but the petty tone used by Jon in his offhand remarks clearly shows what kind of person he really is.

    To simplify, if he had done his homework, he'd know that as a concerned citizen, I will forge ahead in my brave quest to snap his assistants out of their trance. Letting Jon invade every private corner and force every thought into a militant mold sends a clear message to two-faced depraved vagrants that they can overthrow democratic political systems, but, as you know, in this era of rising chauvinism, we must plant markers that define the limits of what is inimical and what is not. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but each day, I see the world becoming more careless as a determined Jon carries out his phlegmatic clueless plans. I have resisted taking legal action against him, as others have advised me to do. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, Jon's maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely ploys are actually quite abominable when you look at them a bit closer.

    Did Jon cancel his plans to abet a resurgence of lackluster filthy larrikinism because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. There are two classes of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and uppity cocky-types like him. Let me put it this way: he would have us believe that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. Yeah, right. Don't kid yourself: Jon should think about how his philosophies lead ridiculous stirrers to force me to lie awake at night wondering who his next victim will be. If Jon doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different kinds of pestilential nativism.

    Jon's treatises run on pure irony. Frightful Marxism is the shadow cast on society by Jon's convictions, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. If you need proof that Jon tends to forget what matters most, then just take a look at Jon. The jackbooted antagonism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of insane provocateurs, nor of the maladroit troglodytes who reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. It is the fault of Jon Katz. Vindictive windbags are deeply impressed by his guff, and I'm not making that up! And that's it. I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Jon Katz more vehemently.

  • JK seems to suffer from an extremely subjective view of reality. He looks at the world, and sees everything in terms of how it fits in with how he thinks the world works.

    Would someone please explain to him, that the world is not run by, and for the benefit of geeks? It never ceases to amaze me, that everything that we (IT aware people) do, is good and proper. And everything that anyone does that isn't for the benefit of technologically aware people, is bad, and MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

    The fact that /. gives him a bully pulpit from which to pontificate, is a huge black eye, on the operators of this place. When I first found the site, I used to read faithfully, because it had alot of good material. Now I read it, mostly because I'm bored out of my skull at work.
  • Jon, I think you need to elborate more on your perceived differences between post-modernism and interactivity... or at least the relationship between them.

    I think that what you're calling "interactivity" is nothing more than post-modernism creeping into the most banal of media events - the Oscars. It only took 20 years for it to sink in. (Post modernism is hard to define, but it is generally accepted that one characteristic of a post modern work is that it shows its construction to the audience... basically it reveals its pipes and duct tape, the structure of its formal qualities, etc).

    I am at a loss when you say that the Oscars (and other films) are interactive because of the post modern qualities. Why is this so? I just do not same share the same definition of interactivity.

    It seems that you are focusing to closely on the power relationship between audience and performer/artist (you discuss the idea that by showing the workings of the Oscars the audience is empowered). I do not think this is the key aspect of interactivity, but hey, maybe that's what your going on about. It's hard to tell,... you have to be a great deal more clear Jon.

    You are going to have to try again. Rethink your ideas and clarify what you are trying to express. Email me, or update this post.


  • Are you sure it's a great idea?

    What if Slashdot applied it to your editorials? Granted, they've been much more svelte since your interview, but you must admit that "Don't like it, don't read/watch/hear it" would do you more good than "Don't like it, vote to kill it".

    You're not taking the concept of Interactive far enough. Registered Slashdot readers can block your articles from displaying on the front page. Why not let Oscar viewers block acceptance speeches over three minutes individually? Instead of letting a plurality (as the word majority probably doesn't apply to entertainment preferences) ruin things for everyone else, how about letting everyone customize as he or she sees fit?

    --

  • Thora Birch's are bigger :P

    Pope
  • I would much rather have a system where I have some say in the outcome

    You do. If you want to know what the public thinks of a movie, look at the box office receipts.
  • Does anybody else find it interesting that the two films with the most awards, both share the theme of incredibly realistic illusions replacing any real feeling and meaning to life?

    Welcome to the U.S. And for the guy who asked why Katz hates our media. This is it.

    --
  • Does anybody else find it interesting that the two films with the most awards, both share the theme of incredibly realistic illusions replacing any real feeling and meaning to life? And that both of them are films from Hollywood? If that isn't irony defined, I need a new dictionary.
    --
  • According to NPR's "Morning Edition", last night's ceremony was the longest in Oscar history

    Really? I try to catch the Oscars regularly, and I thought this year's was pretty short. Of course, I didn't time it specifically. Maybe it jsut seemed that way. It seemed to flow pretty well.
  • Others have already pointed out the dubious value of "interactivity". For me, interactivity is but one means to the end of enjoyable experience. The "new media" seems to be in love with interactivity as its own end.

    I'd suggest, actually, that better music/movies/entertainment is in fact interactive. Great entertainment manages to engage the mind and the heart at the same time. There's no less interaction just because I'm not manipulating the medium myself.

    And thank heavens! I tried writing fiction once, and it sucked. Hard. I'm thrilled to let people who have devoted their lives to the craft take the reins. We all get to live with our ideas nearly 24/7 - what refreshment there is in letting someone else drive for a bit.

    Incestuous, self-centered, feedback-loop interactivity doesn't interest me one bit.

  • Not everything has to do with the Internet. Isn't it about time you give it a rest? BD
  • Sorry, but if you're gonna say Neo's mythical awakening in Matrix is a reference to Mage: the Ascension, then you might as well say it's a reference to Mickey Mouse in the Sorceror's Apprentice; especially since the later has at least a faint grasp about the root of magickal(*) concepts.

    The form of magick depicted in The Matrix is the application of Will, as described by even the earlier sorcerors and actualised by the likes of Crowley and the others of the Golden Dawn in the early 20th Century. It never depicts reality as a concensus, but rather as a personal entity. M:tG was, for all intents and purposes, mythical mumbo-jumbo written by idiots who had no grasp of what the historical depiction of magick was about.

    As for the actual depiction of the Magus' Path in Matrix: I don't know why you thought it was such crap, because it was, to me, fairly accurate and traditional. Neo dies and then his 'divine' nature is revealed. Think this is crap? Then sue the Apostles for not dwelling enough into Jesus' psyche before he was crucified and made God... Because that's exactly what Matrix's ending was. Death is the shedding of the material form to reveal the divine. Really, really traditional, and Christianity didn't invent it either.

    (*): I know, I do hate the spelling. I'm just trying to avoid rabbit-pulling jokes by making the spelling unambiguous.

  • So in essense what you are saying is that if 50% of the people click a button, I'm denied the right to watch the entirety of a speech I might want to watch.

    That doesn't sound like either "interactivity" or "a great idea". It sounds like a tyranny of the majority.

  • <A href="http://www.m-w.com/">M-W</A> lists "mutually or reciprocally active" as one definition of "interactive" (and I think it's the common usage of the word). Under this definition, however, books, television and newspapers are not and can not be interactive. Aside from tearing up a paper, burning a book or shooting the television, the action is all one-way. Playing q3a against human players is interactive. Books and television are not.
  • Holding everyone around you in disdain says a lot more about you than about them. Where I live I see a lot of honest, hard working people getting through day by day. I see immigrants working their asses off to make a better life for themselves or their children. It ain't perfect, but it's what *you* make of it.

    I was born in the Philippines, and I've been to over a dozen countries. I've really enjoyed just about all of them, and there is usually something valuable to be learned from everyone. But I wouldn't trade places with *anyone*. If you think you're so unfortunate to live here, you can leave anytime you wish. Go right ahead, I sure as hell won't stop you...
  • I left the theatre feeling really disappointed, actually. I mean, it was a cool action flick and the special effects were neat and all that, but they could have done so much more with the movie than they did. The central point of the plot
    was the the Metaphysic of Magick, and the transformation of the individual from a mundane into a mage. They could have cut 5 minutes of the random mayhem (and still had enough blood and guts to satisfy any action-movie freak),
    and used that time to focus more on the process of the transformation, as Neo becomes aware of the true nature of reality, and then becomes aware of how this newfound knowledge allows him to control reality. But instead the
    transformation was virutally instantaneous: Neo went from clueless shmoe to uber-mage in one scene.
    And I'm not even going to get started on the absurdity of the basic premise that the machines were using humans as a power source.

    All of the fantasy stuff I have read is usually based on the concept of having magic from birth. Usually you can't learn a damn thing as an average person and all the power is usually concentrated with a few people who are then secretive with their knowledge.

    Who exactly is Neo and why does he wish to gain power? Is he getting picked on? Is he just bored? Family die?

    I think machines would consider humans as a liability rather than a blessing. You have to feed a human and keep neural activity alive and such. You end up loosing power and work to keep that human alive. Plus you can use "dangerous" levels of say radiation or other things to get it to work efficiently.

    Maybe I just expect too much from Hollywood. I guess there is a reason I don't see many movies. Sigh...

    I don't see many movies because I am poor but that's another matter entirely.

    NB: The references to the Metaphysic of Magic, etc are from Mage: The Ascension. The MofM, in a nutshell, is the principle that reality is a fluid thing that is created by our common perception of reality. (Yes it's circular. Don't ask
    me.) Understanding this key fact allows a person to manipulate reality, in a limited fashion, by imposing their version of what should be on the consensual reality. This is what makes someone a mage.

    Ahh but the problem with the concept of altering reality or doing things like say on a large scale like creating a storm is rather impossible. Telekenesis would be I would think the best your could hope for considering how much raw energy it takes to do anything. Also you mind has to create this energy and it has to come from somewhere and it also has to be directed and focuses in a highly rigorous manner. Plus the fact that magic is not a reality.
  • I think this is a great idea and I believe in four or five years, this is almost precisely what they will be doing.

    Speeches I think are a small price to pay for something that is considered "entertainment". In general if someone spends considerable time to actually go to the trouble of producing a movie and takes their valuable time. The least we can do is listen to a speech on why they did what they did. I like to know the motivations behind why people do things.
  • The Matrix was the best movie of the 1999. Who agrees with me on that one? I have seen it like 15 times on the big screen, have CD version of it (MIRC :) and I still watch it time to time.

    Actually I haven't seen it yet. What would be the good selling points of the movie? Will it be (or is it currently on) VHS? What makes it so good? special effects, good acting, good plot?
  • Thinking of interactivity (or at least a more personal feel, with backstage cameras, etc.), I noticed one thing in particular that seems atypical of previous Oscar celebrations: when the guy from King Gimp [imdb.com] started spasming wildly once his film won an Oscar, the camera didn't turn away. It showed the older man (William Whiteford) and woman (Susan Hadary) trying to calm him, and it showed (15? 20? more?) backstage security people in tuxedos lining up ready to control anything out of the ordinary.

    I don't mean to harp on the man's disability, or make it more of a subject than it is, but it's something I distinctly remember from the show. It was indeed something that was not intended by the producers, but I thought it was odd that the camera didn't cut to something else. The shot was uncomfortably long.

  • Ok, so let's try to use logic for a change. It may
    surprise you..:)

    a) From whatis.com: Interactivity - In computers,
    interactivity is the sensory dialog that occurs
    between a human being (or possibly another live
    creature) and a computer program.
    So i gather from this that interactivity elsewhere
    would be a form of a feedback from the person to
    a medium whatever it may be. Interesting..Once
    the big word is out - we are getting somwhere.

    b) Now feedback is a novel idea. I always though
    thats what the "Reader Letters" in newspapers,
    "Public Opinion Polls" in politics and viewers
    paying for movie tickets have been. But hey, thats
    just a simple ol' me...

    c) How "showing the guts of a process" is related
    to being "interactive "beats me. I am also not
    sure what is e-commerce and B2B. Anyone here
    knows?

    d) Keeping to original meaning of "interactive"
    (see "feedback") i woul like to note that too much
    of it is clearly not good. Doesn't FOX feed us
    with enough reality/behind-the-scenes drizzle
    already? "The animals attack/cops/who wants to
    shtoop a rich guy/direct from the bathroom" shows
    seem to be all over. They are clearly a result
    of TV directly responding to demands of viewing
    public. The public *is* in the giant experiment.
    It has been put in a cage, given a big red
    button to push. Every time they do - they get
    a bigger doze of self-gratification. The lab
    monkey that we are is happy to pound on this
    button with all the might and with every push
    TV/media spurts yet another chunk of what we
    want most.

    e) A story goes that one painter asked an opinion
    of his friends on his new work. His friends all
    being animals they replied (feedback, interactive)
    that things they like most were missing (bear-honey)
    (pig-acorns)(monkey-bananas) and so he included
    all their requests. Once he did they all agreed
    that a new picture is just crap. Think
    what you want but any kind of media be that
    TV or writing or otherwise is (or better be)
    an art. Art is a production of *one* persons
    mind and soul presented to us after hard work
    for our possible enjoyment. It is the fact that
    that person thought it all *by himself* without
    any help from us and the fact that he put all
    his work to make this art easy to see/read/understand
    without us knowing all the work behind the scenes
    that makes it so valuable.
    Also remember that the "web" - most interactive
    media we have now is filled with porn and
    small-time money making schemes. This is what
    we peoples demand and it gives us the full
    measure. G-d save us if other mediums go the
    same way.

    f..) Jon Katz. Please find someone who doesn't
    just pick a big word from an "internet lingo
    for dummies" and writes a whole book around
    it on a random topic.
    --Ugen
  • This article shows a huge lack of Mr Katz's understanding of art. Works of art, for the most
    part, are not interactive. Interactive art means that the audience effects the shape of the art.

    Most art is not this way. It is contemplative. Much of the art that one experiences is aimed at
    conveying an idea and causing a reaction. When you see "Guernica", "The Nighthawks", or "The
    Mona Lisa", you don't move or shape it, you experience it, and when it has its essence to you,
    you contemplate it and discuss it with others.

    This is what most art forms have in common, from literature and poetry, visual art, and theater and
    film. Good art, whether on screen, television, canvas, or paper, does not need to be
    interactive to be effective, and is infact most often better when the creator is allowed to
    direct what you see and where you go. If you direct it, then the creator has little ability to achievbe his message.
  • OK, honest question here.

    Every article by Jon Katz (alias JonKatz!) seems to be about how the 'net (i.e. the web) is bringing a 'new age of interactivity and open-source' which is 'destined to destroy the arrogant behemoths of the old, closed-source media.' I mean, every article! Invariably he describes the media as arrogant, dinosaurs, and so forth.

    Why so angry Jon? Has the media hurt you so badly that you can't simply ignore it like many (most?) of us do? Whatever the reason for your venom, it's pretty clear that you're impossibly biased as a reporter. (and pretty short on content as an editorialist, but that's another issue)

    As someone else pointed out, if Jon's articles were posted 'in thread' instead, they'd get moderated down as trolls or flaimbait.

  • Yes, it had problems. People for butteries? - it's stupid I know, kungfu? - well, what can I say, it's what the audience wants, but tell me, have you ever seen a computer program with such personality as Mr. Smith? Enough said
  • Isn't that a case of the pot and the kettle? I mean really, who is more arrogant than a bunch of geeks who know we're right?

    I notice you've failed to comprehend one of the most salient points here, so I shall enlighten you. We are right. Granted, we all disagree, but we're still right. They're wrong. Hell, they probably don't even use Linux, so you know they're stupid, clueless scoundrels, totally inferior to our own enlightened herd.

  • > have you ever seen a computer program with such personality as Mr. Smith?

    Can you say "Linux". It's dry, a pain in the ass, get's pissed off when you don't do things right and hates everything that's considered normal.

  • Once, there was a mediocre non-fiction writer who decided to write for a "hip" pseudo-news website to aid his aging career. Unfortunately, he was so clueless, he lost the affections of Natalie Portman, who was engrossed in a bowl of grits while staring at a picture of Rob Malda. Yet, by focusing his laser-like intellect, he was able to develop new hi-tech theories about a special turtle-nerd culture being persecuted in the Galapagos Islands. These turtle-nerds, grititarians all, were more than welcome to accept this writer, so long as he buttered their grits and stroked their necks. Unfortunately, the writer for got to yell "FIRST POST!" Knowing that there was an unsavory crowd from wence he came, he lauched a tacticle nuclear strike against the critics from his past, thus abolishing them to the moronic demnsion of their deciet! Just then, 300 shipwrecked teenage cheerleaders swam onto the island, their tight sweaters and skimpy skirts clinging to their bodices and fundaments. The turtles, grits buttered and necks stroked, were excited -- they hadn't had any fundaments for years. No good could come from this.

    WHILE THIS HAPPEN, OOG BUSY IN CAVE MAKING QUALITY POST ON SLASHDOT, THOUGH STUPID MODERATOR NO UNDERSTAND OOG'S PROFOUND AND ELOQUENT STATEMENT, SO CLUELESS MODERATOR MARK DOWN POST AS OFFTOPIC!!! OOG BURN WITH HOMICIDAL FURY, SWIM TO ISLAND, AND BREAK HEAD OF TURTLES!!!

  • When will we see this? (Score:3)

    by imac.usr ( 58845 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @10:19AM (#1167517) Homepage
    "Thank you very much; I'll have a list of everybody I want to thank up at [insert URL] later tonight." And get off the stage.

    Personally, I think that'd be a better example of Oscar interactivity than showing the sets backstage. Of course, whoever does this first needs to make sure their server can handle the /. effect of a billion Oscar watchers checking out their site.

  • Definition of "Interactive" (Score:3)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @10:35AM (#1167518) Homepage Journal
    The author seems to be using a definition of the word "interactive" of which I have been previously unaware. Something is "interactive" if the viewer has control over what is viewed. Pure and simple. And while perhaps a poll on when people shold stop talking would be marginally "interactive", most of what is mentioned as evidence of interactivity, simply isn't. Seeing behind the curtain has absolutely nothing to do with interactivity. Zero. Zip. Nada. Interactivity is not about what you can see. It is about what you can control.

    Even allowing polling is only barely "interactive". To be truly "interactive", what you see changes each according to your commands. Not according to the commands of you and a million other people. According to yours alone. Saying that an online poll is interactive is like saying that you get to hand-pick the president. Obviously, a broadcast medium can't be interactive, by definition. I don't see the point in bothering to try...

  • Re:Here's why not (Score:3)

    by slashdot-terminal ( 83882 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @12:23PM (#1167519) Homepage
    Three words:
    people are stupid.

    Five words:
    You are a person too!

    You get everyone involved in the Oscars, and suddenly Mouse Trap would have won all the awards because people thought the mouse was cute. I deal with the American public every single day because I'm unfortunate enough to live
    there, and let me tell you, I do everything I can to stay away from it as much as I possibly can.

    So you are telling me that you are a xenophobe and live in rural Montana right? Do you hide in your basement? How exactly do you avoid Americans? Does anyone who has ever lived in American count, born in America. I feel sory for you.

    They're fat, they're lazy, they're stupid, and they don't know enough to care. They sit and eat potato chips in front of the TV after driving home alone in their car from work which was mind-numbingly boring, except that they have
    too little ambition or self-respect to even have the idea that they could look for another one.

    Really, I am sure that several million people would disagree with you. Although I know a few people who are like that I think that concept is not totally accurate. First of all most Americans are not fat and so on. Just because the rest of the world goes around and is usually malnourished and poor because they have roving bandits killing off their friends and burning their fields dosn't mean I have to starve.

    You really don't get it do you. There are times when I wonder how in the hell I will ever get a job. Not everyone actually has the ability to code straight assembly language for 30 different processors and can create at least 6 new OSS projects a year you know. Everyone has a choice in their life that can go one of three ways, work in some job, work in no job, or just take a visit to Kavorkian and get it over with. What will you do. I don't know what country you come from but I can probably find the same class of people you are talking about right in your own country.

    Simple logic for you. If getting a job is so uncertain and difficult why do you think people work in a job at all. Hell my own dad has been working in a job that he hates for at least 15+ years and he still does it each and every day. Is it because he was lazy I think after he submitted over 500+ applications all over the continental USA to get the job that he wanted and still didn't get it. That's a start. Everyone has self respect but you have to make a choice sooner or later and you always have to ask yourself what would rather do try and make some money and live to see another dawn or just die? Well make up your mind already.

    Do I want these people selecting the best movies of the year? Hell no. I mean, sure, it's minor. But it already scares the hell out of me that they get to choose who runs the goddamn country! If you live in the US, take a look at your
    neighbors. Do you want them choosing anything for you? The thought terrifies and disgusts you, most likely. It does the same for me.

    What do I really care if they select the "movie of the year" does that really mean a damn thing to anyone? Not to me. Hell I have watched movies that were considered "good" TPM and ST Insurrections leap to mind as the last 2 movies that I saw and logical fallacies and problems with both but they still got rave reviews from cult like followers of the movies. So I guess even "educated" people still make mistakes.

    Making a choice about a movie is not the same as running the country. I can't exactly say that the choice of people in other countries is any better. Let's see in Austria we have a Natzi wanna be, and in Russia we have an ex KGB guy to run the supposedly "free" nation. Boy that brings back fond memories. Mix that with the various smart people in Australia who decided that looking at boobies is bad for your health, add to that China where a communist regime decides what you can and cannot say and beats people and runs your over with a 1960's era tank if you disagree. Yeah all the other people in the world are better than the US ..*not*.

    Well if you are as distant from people as you let on you most likely don't even know your neighbor's names. What do they do for a living. What are their interests. If you are one of those people living in one of the tech centers you may actually be working in the same building doing similar things and never know it (easy to do in a place as big as some sectors of IBM, or Hewlett Packard).
  • I left the theatre feeling really disappointed, actually. I mean, it was a cool action flick and the special effects were neat and all that, but they could have done so much more with the movie than they did. The central point of the plot was the the Metaphysic of Magick, and the transformation of the individual from a mundane into a mage. They could have cut 5 minutes of the random mayhem (and still had enough blood and guts to satisfy any action-movie freak), and used that time to focus more on the process of the transformation, as Neo becomes aware of the true nature of reality, and then becomes aware of how this newfound knowledge allows him to control reality. But instead the transformation was virutally instantaneous: Neo went from clueless shmoe to uber-mage in one scene.
    And I'm not even going to get started on the absurdity of the basic premise that the machines were using humans as a power source.

    Maybe I just expect too much from Hollywood. I guess there is a reason I don't see many movies. Sigh...

    NB: The references to the Metaphysic of Magic, etc are from Mage: The Ascension. The MofM, in a nutshell, is the principle that reality is a fluid thing that is created by our common perception of reality. (Yes it's circular. Don't ask me.) Understanding this key fact allows a person to manipulate reality, in a limited fashion, by imposing their version of what should be on the consensual reality. This is what makes someone a mage.

  • Interactive Speech Limiting (Score:4)

    by DanMcS ( 68838 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @09:53AM (#1167521)
    They should have put up a website that said that when X number of people voted, the microphone would be turned off and the acceptance speech would be over. /That/ would have been useful interactivity. I've acted before, I've seen the back sides of sets, that's not that cool; but making the actors shut up, that would be real power :)

  • One question: Why? (Score:5)

    by Glytch ( 4881 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @09:57AM (#1167522)
    Why does everything *need* to be interactive? If I write a book, and just happen to use the Internet as a delivery mechanism, why should I care if it's truly "interactive"? The same goes for movies. It'sfilmed, and shown for the approval or disapproval of audiences. Games are and should be interactive, but somethings might not benefit from users getting involved.

    Having The Matrix win some academy awards didn't depend on the audience being able to see the process. It was a group of film industry bignames voting on what *they* thought deserved to win. Interactivity would be if the public at large could nominate and vote by themselves.

    Besides, I don't see how this year's Oscars were any different from the last ~70 years. A small group of people voted for what they liked, or what they were encouraged to like by others. Simple as that.

  • Astounding (Score:5)

    by skroz ( 7870 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @10:43AM (#1167523) Homepage

    Jon, you never cease to amaze me. Your ability to tie just about anything into your narrow perception of the culture you've helped create, (one that doesn't really exist,) is unparalleled. Here's an exercise: Take a bowl of rice pudding, right out of the fridge, and set it on the table in front of you. Now, make the bowl of rice pudding interactive. Here's an example.

    Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a bowl of rice pudding. Good stuff. But terribly non interactive. We went behind the scenes into the creation of this rice pudding, and found some truly amazing things. This is grand master chef Sioux-Foo-lu-doo-doo, and he's here today to walk us through the rice-pudding process. Just look at the way he masterfully mixes the ingredients. Isn't that amazing? Not like that lame non-interactive tapioca pudding, no sir. This is ePudding. See? He's using an electric mixer, ordered online at Amazon.com. Ooh! He's putting it on the stove now, (the stove, incidentally, was purchased used on e-bay,) ASTOUNDING! What a truly interactive experience! While that's cooking, let me take time to tell you about my new book, "Geek Pudding," available in stores now. It chronicles the lives of three bowls of pudding, chocolate, vanilla, and bananna. It... oh, the pudding is ready! Now, into the fridge, (purchased at Sears. I found the car I drove to get to Sears at autonation.com, though!) OK, the pudding is in the fridge. Shortly, we'll have a nice bowl of _interactive_ pudding to eat. Yum. Doesn't that just make it taste better?

    Jon, this really is getting old. Give it up, try something new. And have some pudding.

  • Why bother (Score:5)

    by Chris_Pugrud ( 16615 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @10:08AM (#1167524)
    Interactivity? Why bother. If I want interactivity I talk to people, whether on line or in person. If I want to learn something I dig through the web and books. If I want some good mindless drivel to distract me while I crunch really big problems, I watch TV.

    why all of the push and lust for shared experiences? Shared Experiences may be intersting reference points and convenient for psuedo historians to declare "The event that shaped a generation"

    Nobody can experience any event the same as any other person. They each have their individual perspective colored by the masks of their past. We can learn a great deal by discussing shared experiences and looking for the differences between individual perspectives and looking for the causal relationships of those viewpoints. But to grow as a culture, to identify with other groups and people it is more important that we express our personal thoughts and perspectives.

    The whole gamut of shared experiences is nothing but sheep cloning in the nature vs. nurture argument.

    chris
  • Jon said, "If broadcasts like the Oscars were really interactive, of course, they would give the public greater say in the production itself, perhaps by online voting about the length of speeches, the choice of hosts and presenters, and eventually, the nominees and awards themselves."

    I've got to disagree with this idea. The Oscars are not intended to be a form of recognition by the general populace; they are intended to be a form of recognition by the film industry. There is a great difference in having your work judged by everyone and having it judged by your peers. Both are valuable, and they should not necessarily be intertwined.

    Someone will, I hope, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the People's Choice awards granted on the basis of polling of the general populace? Let this award represent the sentiment of the public, and let the Oscars continue to represent the sentiment of the film industry.

  • Is this honestly interactivity?

    How does my viewing of someone adjusting a tie backstage, or someone adjusting themselves, or someone practicing a speech add to my enjoyment of the event?

    Do I need to see the sets and props for "The Fugitive" or "Apollo 13" painted and selected before I can watch the movie?

    And even if I do, how is that "interactive"? There's no interaction there. My seeing Kevin Spacey backstage lends nothing to my relationship with Kevin Spacey. I didn't "interact" with him or anything else - they just stuck an extra camera guy back there.

    Finally, I don't think the screenplay/music display was anything special. It was a set dressing decision. They could've easily shown cast pictures, or stills from the movie. The screenplays weren't up there long enough for anyone to read or parse.

    In short, I don't see anything these Oscars did that previous years didn't do. Other then being relatively short(for the Oscars) and pretty funny, thanks to Billy Crystal.

  • What interactivity? (Score:5)

    by Enoch Root ( 57473 ) on Monday March 27, 2000 @10:03AM (#1167527)
    I'm sorry, but what interaction is there in showing backstage clips? None. The Oscars show is still about a television broadcast, your power over which is limited to the mute button or changing the channel.

    Neither was The Matrix interactive in any way. It remains a good 2-hours movie, but you hardly have an impact on the story's development.

    Nor should either of them be fully interactive. Movies in general, as an artform, don't require interactivity any more than Van Gogh's paintings. The Oscars, by definition, are awarded by a commity of professionals, and if any sort of poll had its say in the matter, this would become a popularity contest. Sure, it already is (vis. Titanic), but at least they're pretending it's not.

    Sides, all we'd get is 'Hank, the angry drunken dwarf' nominated for a Lifetime Achievement Award.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close