Award Ceremony Criticism

I am certainly not a fan of award ceremonies. As such, when "big" nights roll around like tonight, when the Academy Awards are presented, I present the idea of me watching the ceremonies satirically and find myself doing activities that I actually enjoy, instead of being guaranteed for disappointment.


Before continuing, you should know that I don't disapprove of the concept of award ceremonies. I love the ideal ceremony; deserving actors, directors and workers in the business get rewarded for their convincing performances, phenomenal ideas, and hard work. However, that's just it -- This is an ideal concept. Every winner is trivialized for various reasons.

My biggest problem with any of these ceremonies is the ridiculous approach of attempting to shoehorn a massive amount of content into so few categories (in comparision), that nothing seems fair. Looking straight at the Grammys (because I feel it's the most prevalent there), there is an ungodly amount of music produced in one year, and certainly not enough ears to listen to all of it and then judge on all categories fairly. So, the attention is then focused on what sold the most and what generated the most buzz. This severely limits the amount of music that then is put up for possible awards, then the best seven or so are given a free ride on the hype train to hell, until they reveal which "big surprise" won the category. Yay for music!

I will say that the approach to awards with "sold and buzz" is a very clean idea; clean as in it makes the most sense, as that specific media was popular to the point where it garnered a lot of public attention. However, as any good researcher knows, consumers are simple-minded -- they fail to do a lot of their own research, choosing to let the media do research for them. Most people won't look into a new product for themselves with an open mind, attempting to find all the pros and cons, ultimately weighing the consequences. Rather, they choose to watch advertisements and trailers, follow popular people's opinions, or decide what to buy based on reviews.

Advertising, then, in this sense, has the capability to create the buzz that a media product needs to make it to the medium's respective awards ceremony. Following this trend of thinking, it becomes a matter of who has the most money and when the movie was released. "Oscar Season" is a pivotal time for those directors and producers who are looking to score in the ultimate, publicity-based game show -- the Academy Awards. Releasing at a time when the cutoff date is just around the corner, using that lateness to stay fresh in the minds of the critics and Academy members.

Why do I even have a problem with these ceremonies? Because it causes people to want to go see the movies that win or get nominated. Why is this a bad thing? It's the same reason I hate reviews of movies or albums or anything as such that give an artistic work a number or letter, in hopes of grading it appropriately; there is very little independent thought involved. This is not an argument of "I saw it before it got popular" -- this is arguing for people to use their cognitive abilities to discern and define their own tastes. I am certainly against pop culture for a multitude of reasons, but the one reason I will always stand behind is the idea that it breeds and fosters to inhibit people's ability to think for themselves. An anecdote will help me here.

My sister is a 15 year old girl; she is in the heart of pop culture. She goes to school and receives feedback from her friends about what to watch, listen to, and ultimately like. As a result of this, she spends her time watching Jersey Shore and listening to Lady Gaga, recently buying a $80 North Face jacket. When I asked why she does these things, she responded with, "Because that's what my friends watch/listen to/have!" I spent a good 15 minutes attempting to get her to buy a much cheaper jacket that was much more colorful. She repeatedly said no.

Where's my point? Pop culture, in her case, makes it so she "has to have or be a part of something" in order to be "in". How is what is "in" decided? By the products that are advertised best, or, less frequently, have a notoriety for being the better product. This all seems to hark back to the age old "everyone else is doing it" mentalities.

Genres play a role in my argument that is so large, I think I should just say "Genres" and force you, as the reader, to think about my possible arguments.

My final thoughts; I see the point of award ceremonies. They award great people in the industry. I deeply respect that, as the people who work the hardest should be recognized. However, oftentimes, there are sometimes swaying when total sales are involved, or (especially) when the media in question has the use of a person the industry likes and whom they think should be "rewarded" for winning their approval, ultimately resulting in that production making more money. It is this gross perversion that makes me tired of award ceremonies.

To end, I think the best way to handle these ceremonies would be to approach it like a Groundhog's Day thing. The Academy members adopt a child who is then forced into captivity, effectively keeping it from all forms of media, bias, and advertising, and is raised to be in it's mid-twenties. The child is properly educated and told stories of the movies of old, and shown a select handful; One per decade, to be specific. Finally, at the end of the season, when it's time to decide the winners, all the Academy members seal themselves off in a dark cave for about three months; it is during this time they all watch the most popular movies of the year, and each one of them has to also nominate a movie that grossed less than $15 million dollars. Every member then watches all these movies together, discussing them afterwards, refusing to get in any confrontational situation, defending or attacking any of the entries. Then, emerging from their cave in a fashion bigger than Jesus Christ's resurrection, these media moguls announce the six nominations. No more and no less. Then, around Groundhog's Day, they expose the adopted child to the sunlight and make him watch all six movies; one per week, starting on Sunday. He is then asked a series of questions for a day, then asked to ponder and consider the movie in its own rights for the remaining five days. At the end of this process, the child decides which movie was really the best. And then no one can say anything negative about the winner, ever.

If they do, they are killed.

Why the Sonic Fanbase is Terribly Horrifying

The reason for this post is mainly because I am a Sonic fan, and, without a doubt, the Sonic fanbase is a prime example of how criticism just isn't understood. Not a prime example for the internet for several reasons, but still a great example to show why the internet has ruined criticism. The idea of face to face communication has been destroyed, with people opting to use the net to attack someone who has an idea or has created something they clearly do not like.

The best example lies in the release of a Sonic fan film sequel and a one minute teaser for another "possible" animated Sonic fan film. To give a taste of the reception of the sequel, the fanbase, demonstrating the ignorance of not understanding how difficult and costly it can be to produce a "good" (by present standards) independent film, tore it to shreds. On one hand, I agree with the base, as the film was not a good film, much less a good Sonic "thing". I have yet to actually watch it, but from the sounds of it, it sounds messy. In this sense, I cannot criticize it, as I have not seen it. From what I have read, however, the fan base takes it to the extreme and makes fun of the whole cast and crew in that movie, totally tearing the director to pieces.

As for the animated proposal, after a long year of promises and anecdotes, Richard Kuta (the director of the project) finally released a one minute animated piece that, to be honest, wasn't very good. The issues surrounding the whole thing, production wise, made it understandable why it was terrible -- animation was outsourced to a foreign company who could not speak fluent English (native language of Kuta), so there were great communication problems. On top of that, it was literally animated in Flash, with an After Effects filter thrown on.

Regardless, it took less than 48 hours for the fanbase to notice all the things wrong with it and repeat them repetitively. Supposedly, people sent death threats (trolls?) and that's what has inspired me to go on a long rant about this whole issue. Kuta's earlier drafts of his script were leaked mere weeks before this reveal, and people were quick to rip into that. I didn't read the script, but I can't imagine going into it and coming out feeling the need to tell everyone what was so dumb and stupid and pointless about it. You can't really go into that and expect the best Hollywood-caliber script possible. Instead, people were talking about pacing, dialogue, character development, and plot structure, as if a thousand dramatists had crawled out of the walls.

The biggest point of contention for both of these big projects is that "they didn't understand the subject material and frequently proved that." What baffles me is how these supposed "leaders" of the fanbase know everything and have the right to tell people that their offshoots and ideas are wrong and not good because of that.

What this effectively does is frighten off possible members (and all their ideas, too) from attempting to join any discussions. How do I know this? Because I've been on that fence for years now, and I just can't imagine attempting to socialize with these people. I'd be afraid that no one would care or listen to anything I have to say, or they would tell me that my opinions and ideas are wrong and to just leave them at the door. Hell, I've been in situations like that with them. I've never seen such a level of negative energy collect in one place before, and it doesn't help when the big players continue to spread and infect the negativity. It encourages those potential newcomers to join their ranks to be accepted, which is mighty appealing to someone in that situation.

I think it's a case where the entire group has lost their sense of humor, humility, and passion. I'm sure a large part of that is because of the terrible Sonic games that have come out, but what's the point of hating something you used to love to the point where you can't approach it with rose-tinted glasses, but rather hatred and spite? There's a fine, thin line these people are drawing between the fanbase and the "anti-fanbase," and it's culminating in a total disaster. It all has the smell of "I never got over that one horrible Sonic game," and I can't believe how grudge-centric these people are, over a series of video games, an activity that is meant to be entertainment and not a political campaign.

And here I am, glad to not be a part of it! How good it feels to be positive!