I refer to the movie Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Premiered recently here to massive first day earnings
In particular, i want to shift the focus away from the actions to the jokes. Now in my opinion most of the humour in the movie is what i might call "dirty humor". Not that it uses "naughty" words but it banks on sexual references to draw a laugh out of the audience. An absolutely random scene, of two dogs having sex, thrown into the middle of a dialogue scene between the protagonist and his parents is just one example. Jokes are laden with sexual innuendo. Ranging from "fuel injection system" to a transformer's scrotum made up of wrecking balls. Aside from that, many of the in jokes are very deeply steeped in american culture.
Amazingly, the local audience were able to relate to those jokes and references to american colleges, the civil war and american military procedures even though we in singapore had never had first hand experience with those.
This seriously begs the question, "why do so many locals like, or can relate to, such foreign things?".Of course there are many factors but one important among them is due to the result of US cultural imperialism.
That is due to all the American TV programs that feature American life that we have been broadcasting over the years. Their culture is so familiar to us now, causing the ever present tension between our traditional Asian cultures and the "western" culture. Whats more, through movies like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, liberal American values are being spread worldwide. Soon every child would think that only sexual jokes are good jokes since people laugh along.
But all this begs one question. Is it because we are so westernized here in Singapore that we relate better to American movies, thus encouraging them to keep flooding local cinemas?? Or is it because we show so many American movies that we become westernized? Is this a vicious cycle then?
Actually, It is more our own fault. Our Asian movies just cannot match up to the sheer "power" of American movies. Over the years, American movies have always found a way to beat the Asian movies. If it was not in terms of storyline, it was due to the famous actors or the humongous budget and spectacular special effects.
I realize one thing about Singapore cinemas when it comes to non-USA films. Local cinemas tend to take in only the "cream of the crop". As in they do not just import any old foreign film, but only the best foreign films. Usually those that have won awards at film festivals or are highly regarded by critics.
Why is this treatment not given to American films then? Instead of just taking in almost every film produced in America, why do the local cinemas not just take in the best among them? And mind you, Transformers is far from being the "best".
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Week 7: Down with The Sickness
H1N1, the disease that has been making headlines since it was identified back in April this year. Up till today, articles about the infection are still on the front pages of newspapers. Be it developments to counter the pandemic, or a new string of infection related deaths, the lingering presence of "swine flu" articles, and the way they are presented, world definitely stir up some anti-germ paranoia. So much as sneeze while in a crowded train and all of a sudden people treat you like you are the leaper of the new century. They will do whatever it takes to stay away from you, especially if that sneeze was followed by another or a bad case of sniffles. Gone are the good old days when a sneeze would not even cause a single head to turn in your direction. If that is not a sign of the growing paranoia about infection, I do not know what is.
First, "Hand foot and mouth disease" then "SARS" then the common cold and now this. This is called "Agenda setting" in which the media drums up the importance of the flu pandemic, which in my opinion, is blown up a little bit too big. If you thought that only the newspapers are responsible for fanning flames of the paranoia, I would gladly direct you attention over to many bus stops inSingapore
Anyone notice a pattern forming? Flu pandemic leads to increase attention paid to hygiene. To further help in the overall "hygiene campaign" and to bank on the increasing number of people growing paranoid about hygiene, the media drums it up further. But wait, a more sinister reason why the media might want to drum up the paranoia about germs is because they are paid to do so. Their sponsors, in the form of the advertisers of said sanitation and anti bacterial products would stand to gain if more people grew paranoid and bought more of their products. It is a cycle of conspiracy here!
The topic of "germs" is quite an unobtrusive one. Who has actually had first hand experience of getting a swab sample from a door knob and isolating the micro-organisms in a laboratory aside from biology students? And with the stringent control of laboratory equipment in various tertiary institutions, one is not allowed to use the equipment to "satisfy curiosity" only to do what the lesson for the day requires of you. Hence, very few people actually have first hand experience dealing with the actual number of germs found on a door knob. Most of the information about how unhygienic a door knob or a sand pit is comes from top scientists only anyway, hence people will believe anything the "experts” say.
Those of us who lived long enough would know that this growing over blown obsession with hygiene was not present back in the "good old days". Today, you get the impression that a child would die of infection if he were to as much as crawl through a puddle. Back then, children played in drains and wallowed in swamp lands yet they were just as healthy as children nowadays. In fact, based on basic biology alone, exposure to germs is required for the body to build its own immune system. We can thus see that this germ paranoia was cultivated indirectly, and was cumulative over time.
Now the conspiracy comes full circle. The media messages, funded by their sponsors, make people paranoid about hygiene. This increases sales of the products the sponsors are selling. The over reliance on those disinfectants and anti bacterial liquids will, in theory, indirectly create a generation of children with a weaker immunity system. Sooner or later, this new generation will become dependent on the anti bacterial products thus ensuring an enduring clientele for the marketers of the products. The media companies benefit, and so do their sponsors.
First, "Hand foot and mouth disease" then "SARS" then the common cold and now this. This is called "Agenda setting" in which the media drums up the importance of the flu pandemic, which in my opinion, is blown up a little bit too big. If you thought that only the newspapers are responsible for fanning flames of the paranoia, I would gladly direct you attention over to many bus stops in
Anyone notice a pattern forming? Flu pandemic leads to increase attention paid to hygiene. To further help in the overall "hygiene campaign" and to bank on the increasing number of people growing paranoid about hygiene, the media drums it up further. But wait, a more sinister reason why the media might want to drum up the paranoia about germs is because they are paid to do so. Their sponsors, in the form of the advertisers of said sanitation and anti bacterial products would stand to gain if more people grew paranoid and bought more of their products. It is a cycle of conspiracy here!
The topic of "germs" is quite an unobtrusive one. Who has actually had first hand experience of getting a swab sample from a door knob and isolating the micro-organisms in a laboratory aside from biology students? And with the stringent control of laboratory equipment in various tertiary institutions, one is not allowed to use the equipment to "satisfy curiosity" only to do what the lesson for the day requires of you. Hence, very few people actually have first hand experience dealing with the actual number of germs found on a door knob. Most of the information about how unhygienic a door knob or a sand pit is comes from top scientists only anyway, hence people will believe anything the "experts” say.
Those of us who lived long enough would know that this growing over blown obsession with hygiene was not present back in the "good old days". Today, you get the impression that a child would die of infection if he were to as much as crawl through a puddle. Back then, children played in drains and wallowed in swamp lands yet they were just as healthy as children nowadays. In fact, based on basic biology alone, exposure to germs is required for the body to build its own immune system. We can thus see that this germ paranoia was cultivated indirectly, and was cumulative over time.
Now the conspiracy comes full circle. The media messages, funded by their sponsors, make people paranoid about hygiene. This increases sales of the products the sponsors are selling. The over reliance on those disinfectants and anti bacterial liquids will, in theory, indirectly create a generation of children with a weaker immunity system. Sooner or later, this new generation will become dependent on the anti bacterial products thus ensuring an enduring clientele for the marketers of the products. The media companies benefit, and so do their sponsors.
Get down with the sickness ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the new age of paranoia.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Week 6: Un-cultured?
I would like to refer to the article in the Straits Times published on Saturday May 23 2009 entitled "Sex Education: Experts identify 2 'weak links'. "
The article speaks of the Singapore government's efforts to conduct sexuality education programs and why there is such a need in Singapore. The main reason cited was that many parents are simply not comfortable with discussing such matters with their children, and hence transfer the responsibility of sexual education to the education system and the teachers. Not only that, experts went on to say that it may be because the parents are not fully equipped to pass on "the right information and values" to the children.
The reason why the parents may not be comfortable about discussing such issues about sexuality boils down to our culture, more specifically the traditional Asian culture. What distinguishes the traditional Singaporean from most westerners is the more conservative mindset passed down from generation to generation.
Also, culture dictates what the "right information and values" about sexuality are. The problem rises when cultures clash, especially in a multicultural country like Singapore. Where the older generation still stick to the traditional Asian cultural mindset, the newer generatrion are developing a culture of their own, greatly influenced by the "big media powers" of the world. Most specifically America, Japan and to a smaller extent, other Asian countries like Taiwan. This so called "modern" culture is a lot less conservative.
So where does the conflict fit in? Traditional cultural values regarding sexual relationship was very straight forward. Abstinence until marriage, hence leading sex and discussion of sex being labeled a taboo by our culture. However the culture that the young ones are exposed to are in direct contradiction of the traditional Singaporean culture. For with a more liberal mindset when it comes to discussing sex, there would naturally follow a more liberal mindset concerning the act of having sex. In the long run many would argue that social degradation of values would be the end result. The counter argument is that the whole world is adopting this new culture and it is only right to follow suit.
Values are part of culture, they are the building blocks of culture. They provide the context within which society's norms are established and justified.
What then should happen when two cultures collide? Culture is passed on from generation to generation, yet it is ever changing. Do we stick to old adage of "everyone is allowed their say" thus acknowledging the subjectivity of the very concept culture? Or do we fall back on objective truths about right and wrong?
The article speaks of the Singapore government's efforts to conduct sexuality education programs and why there is such a need in Singapore. The main reason cited was that many parents are simply not comfortable with discussing such matters with their children, and hence transfer the responsibility of sexual education to the education system and the teachers. Not only that, experts went on to say that it may be because the parents are not fully equipped to pass on "the right information and values" to the children.
The reason why the parents may not be comfortable about discussing such issues about sexuality boils down to our culture, more specifically the traditional Asian culture. What distinguishes the traditional Singaporean from most westerners is the more conservative mindset passed down from generation to generation.
Also, culture dictates what the "right information and values" about sexuality are. The problem rises when cultures clash, especially in a multicultural country like Singapore. Where the older generation still stick to the traditional Asian cultural mindset, the newer generatrion are developing a culture of their own, greatly influenced by the "big media powers" of the world. Most specifically America, Japan and to a smaller extent, other Asian countries like Taiwan. This so called "modern" culture is a lot less conservative.
So where does the conflict fit in? Traditional cultural values regarding sexual relationship was very straight forward. Abstinence until marriage, hence leading sex and discussion of sex being labeled a taboo by our culture. However the culture that the young ones are exposed to are in direct contradiction of the traditional Singaporean culture. For with a more liberal mindset when it comes to discussing sex, there would naturally follow a more liberal mindset concerning the act of having sex. In the long run many would argue that social degradation of values would be the end result. The counter argument is that the whole world is adopting this new culture and it is only right to follow suit.
Values are part of culture, they are the building blocks of culture. They provide the context within which society's norms are established and justified.
What then should happen when two cultures collide? Culture is passed on from generation to generation, yet it is ever changing. Do we stick to old adage of "everyone is allowed their say" thus acknowledging the subjectivity of the very concept culture? Or do we fall back on objective truths about right and wrong?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Week 5:
After premiering on May 21 2009, the movie "Terminator: Salvation" was met with a generally positive audience response and successfully continues that long running "Terminator" franchise that started in 1984. My review on how i felt about the film, its philosophical themes or its shaky cinematography would not be the focus of this post. However, I would like to bring your attention to one of the sub plots of the movie that involves the chain of command of the Resistance army that are waging a guerrilla war against a self-aware Artificial intelligence(A.I) program bent on total destruction of humankind.
A little bit of back history of the movie for those unfamiliar with its premise.
In the early 21s century, a military A.I program called "Skynet" became self-aware and logically concluded that humans were a threat to it. It managed to cause a global nuclear war that decimated three quarters of the earth. Fast forward to the year 2018 and a fully functional human Resistance movement has been formed. Among its soldiers is one John Connor; a lowly platoon commander rapidly gaining a loyal underground following among the human population. He exhibits a uncanny knowledge of the machine's tactics and weaknesses, thanks to past experience with time-traveling cyborgs, making many of the survivors perceive him as some sort of "prophet" or "savior". He reached out to the scattered pockets of resistance via nightly radio broadcasts, in a way reducing temporal proximity and allowing him to form relationships with the various scattered groups.
Need for support and synergy was the core factor that most likely brought the Resistance movement together. It was established in the movie that there were many different pockets of guerrilla fighters at first, and that they came together to form the Resistance movement under a central command. The benefits of coming together as one cohesive unit instead of a bunch of scattered squads are the same with any group coming together in the first place. To benefit from each other(group synergy), to gain support from each other and to meet interpersonal needs like companionship in a post apocalyptic world ruled by machines. As for the five generals who make up the Resistance central command, they got together as it is easier to tackle complex decisions as a group and it was easier to coordinate their individual armies.
In the film, the decision is made by the Resistance commanders to launch a full scale attack on Skynet installations following the discovery of an electronic frequency that may shut down the machines.
However, despite knowing that there are thousands of human captives in such installation, the generals all agree to launch the attacks.
There is evidence of "Group think" at play in making that decision. For one thing, the generals believed strongly in the applied morality of their group, in that it was right to destroy the captives along with Skynet, so long as the goal of victory is met. They collectively rationalized that the ends justified the means and that the deaths of the captives was an acceptable loss.
One general was reluctant, a dissenter, at first but had to give in to the decision due to group pressure, leading to the illusion that the decision was unanimous.
Connor objected; he blatantly went against the decision of the group as the group's needs were not the same as his needs, which was to rescue the captives before the attack was launched, thus preserving human lives.
This led to a breakdown in the group communication as Connor did not conform to the ideals of the other leaders. However, due to his reaching out and establishing relationships with the majority of the world-wide human resistance, the majority of the soldiers went with Connor's decision and assisted in the rescue of the captives.
I am certain many of us face this sort of situation in life. When the group we are in makes a decision that you do not agree with but are forced to agree since you are part of that group. How far would one be willing to conform despite knowing that what one is conforming to is not entirely right? For example, the unanimous decision to try drugs among a group of friends. Would the one among them who disagrees be willing to rebel? Or will he or she give in to group pressure?
For myself, I believe strongly in a sense of right and wrong. Should the group i am affiliated with challenge my values, I would not hesitate in disassociating myself from them. Sacrificing my values is too high a price for too little a reciprocation to me. What about yourself? How far would you go to stand up for your own values in group context should those values be challenged?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Week 4: Interpersonal relationship
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/05/10/9411096-sun.html
I refer to this article that talks mostly about how online networking habits have changed our way of thinking and how it might even be making children more perceptive by strengthening mental responses. There a small section near the middle that talks about the evolution of the meanings behind relationship and interpersonal communication in this new "Internet generation".
In it, psychiatrist Dr. Himanshu Tyagi presents a view about how the Internet and websites like twitter and facebook, is making the perception of relationships and interpersonal communication something that is not as treasured as in the past. However, a rebuttal argument by one Professor Barry Wellman is that online communication is not deteriorating the idea of relationships but rather, strengthening it and complementing it.
There are many factors as to how such online sites can complement relationship building and interpersonal communication. One such factor, i feel, is the increasing ease of engagement and management of a relationship.
How does communication over the Internet complement the engagement process? There are many factors that affect one's willingness to engage in a interpersonal communication and relationship. The most common one is physical appearance. However, the Internet does away with the need for physical appearance as many users are hidden behind the glamor of an attractive avatar or a beautifully photo shopped image. Not being "hampered" by the requirement of a physical appearance, many people tend to be more open about themselves over the Internet and have no qualms about disclosing more personal stuff, due to the false sense of security one has when staring at a screen as opposed to staring at another person's face. Internet allows one to search out others with similar interests. There are chat rooms and forums for various interest groups ranging from comics to gardening.
Next, the Internet complements the management in that it closes the "proximity" between people. People are more connected nowadays and more frequently stay in touch. They are constantly updated about their friends' status and can start a conversation online at the click of a button. In a way, it might even strengthen weaker relationships
My fear however, comes at the disengagement process. Relationships over the Internet can be disengaged also at the click of a button. And due to the same factors that helped in the engagement process, disengagement gets so easy that it might "de-value" the concept of a relationship and interpersonal communication. Hence, relationships might end up becoming "disposable".
Another fear of mine is the fact that lying is made so much more easier over the Internet. A person can present a false image and personality over the Internet and there are many cases of such unscrupulous people using such Internet sites to bait youngsters.
In summary, the main fear i personally have is that through such online networking sites would tend for the users to favor a more impersonal, quantitative approach to interpersonal communication as opposed to a qualitative one. Online networking sites has their good points but they have their dangers as well. An integration of proper education of online usage with a deeply instilled value of face to face communication in our youth today would be the best way to go.
In this way people will still value a face to face interaction over an online one while utilising the benefits the Internet gives in engaging and maintaining a relationship. Also they would be well aware of the dangers such sites may present.
We are after all, active individuals with the ability to make choices and filter what is good and not good for us. We should be able to make the right choice.
All in all, it comes down to the individual and whether they are able to inter grate the benefits of the Internet without succumbing to the temptations and dangers. The underlying question is "are you wise enough?".
I refer to this article that talks mostly about how online networking habits have changed our way of thinking and how it might even be making children more perceptive by strengthening mental responses. There a small section near the middle that talks about the evolution of the meanings behind relationship and interpersonal communication in this new "Internet generation".
In it, psychiatrist Dr. Himanshu Tyagi presents a view about how the Internet and websites like twitter and facebook, is making the perception of relationships and interpersonal communication something that is not as treasured as in the past. However, a rebuttal argument by one Professor Barry Wellman is that online communication is not deteriorating the idea of relationships but rather, strengthening it and complementing it.
There are many factors as to how such online sites can complement relationship building and interpersonal communication. One such factor, i feel, is the increasing ease of engagement and management of a relationship.
How does communication over the Internet complement the engagement process? There are many factors that affect one's willingness to engage in a interpersonal communication and relationship. The most common one is physical appearance. However, the Internet does away with the need for physical appearance as many users are hidden behind the glamor of an attractive avatar or a beautifully photo shopped image. Not being "hampered" by the requirement of a physical appearance, many people tend to be more open about themselves over the Internet and have no qualms about disclosing more personal stuff, due to the false sense of security one has when staring at a screen as opposed to staring at another person's face. Internet allows one to search out others with similar interests. There are chat rooms and forums for various interest groups ranging from comics to gardening.
Next, the Internet complements the management in that it closes the "proximity" between people. People are more connected nowadays and more frequently stay in touch. They are constantly updated about their friends' status and can start a conversation online at the click of a button. In a way, it might even strengthen weaker relationships
My fear however, comes at the disengagement process. Relationships over the Internet can be disengaged also at the click of a button. And due to the same factors that helped in the engagement process, disengagement gets so easy that it might "de-value" the concept of a relationship and interpersonal communication. Hence, relationships might end up becoming "disposable".
Another fear of mine is the fact that lying is made so much more easier over the Internet. A person can present a false image and personality over the Internet and there are many cases of such unscrupulous people using such Internet sites to bait youngsters.
In summary, the main fear i personally have is that through such online networking sites would tend for the users to favor a more impersonal, quantitative approach to interpersonal communication as opposed to a qualitative one. Online networking sites has their good points but they have their dangers as well. An integration of proper education of online usage with a deeply instilled value of face to face communication in our youth today would be the best way to go.
In this way people will still value a face to face interaction over an online one while utilising the benefits the Internet gives in engaging and maintaining a relationship. Also they would be well aware of the dangers such sites may present.
We are after all, active individuals with the ability to make choices and filter what is good and not good for us. We should be able to make the right choice.
All in all, it comes down to the individual and whether they are able to inter grate the benefits of the Internet without succumbing to the temptations and dangers. The underlying question is "are you wise enough?".
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Week 3) The Latest Body Trend
I refer to the article "Lean Is In", written by June Cheong and published on May 21 2009 in the "Mind Your Body" section of the Straits Times. It speaks of the current obsession many people have nowadays with their body shape and how that obsession came about. Also, it goes on to talk about a small but rising trend of keeping a "Lean and athletic" body shape over the idealized "Muscular" shape for males and "curvaceous and thin" for females.
The question of how the body shape obs session came about can be traced to the media. All forms of media be it American, Japanese, or even local, tend to idealise a certain body shape and image as being "attractive". Most of the time, it involves females with extremely thin but curvaceous bodies.
Due to the frequency at which people are bombarded by such images of the idealised attractive person, they would then form their own "prototype" of sorts on what an attractive person ought to look like, despite statistics showing only one to two percent of a population actually achieve that image.
First impression definitely counts, and anyone would want to give a good first impression. This led to a rise in cases of eating disorders like anorexia and increased business for plastic surgeons all in a bid by the average female to achieve the idealised body shape.
However, I am glad to see that more people are realizing how unrealistic such a idealized image is. Whats more, eating disorders just to stay thin is an unhealthy practice with many undesirable consequences. The rising trend, thankfully, is not a "stick thin" image, but a athletically built frame with a decent amount of "meat" and fats on the body without being overly meaty or fatty .
I think this is not just due to the media, but rather, the non-verbal cues that a lean figure presents. A lean athletic build presents an image of health, first and foremost. Not being overly thin means shows that one is eating a proper diet and not being overly fat shows that one is not lazing around all day.
And it would not be the first time body shape trends of attractiveness were influenced by the non-verbal cues a shape represents. In the past, a round and well-fed body shape was a non-verbal cue that a fat person was a wealthy person since he could afford lavish meals. Now that society is becoming more health conscious, it is a relief of sorts to see that the unrealistically thin or muscular body shape trend is losing steam. People are becoming more rational and not being influenced solely by what they see. Though it would still be some time before the thin idealized prototype of attractiveness is purged from the minds of the people.
The question of how the body shape obs session came about can be traced to the media. All forms of media be it American, Japanese, or even local, tend to idealise a certain body shape and image as being "attractive". Most of the time, it involves females with extremely thin but curvaceous bodies.
Due to the frequency at which people are bombarded by such images of the idealised attractive person, they would then form their own "prototype" of sorts on what an attractive person ought to look like, despite statistics showing only one to two percent of a population actually achieve that image.
First impression definitely counts, and anyone would want to give a good first impression. This led to a rise in cases of eating disorders like anorexia and increased business for plastic surgeons all in a bid by the average female to achieve the idealised body shape.
However, I am glad to see that more people are realizing how unrealistic such a idealized image is. Whats more, eating disorders just to stay thin is an unhealthy practice with many undesirable consequences. The rising trend, thankfully, is not a "stick thin" image, but a athletically built frame with a decent amount of "meat" and fats on the body without being overly meaty or fatty .
I think this is not just due to the media, but rather, the non-verbal cues that a lean figure presents. A lean athletic build presents an image of health, first and foremost. Not being overly thin means shows that one is eating a proper diet and not being overly fat shows that one is not lazing around all day.
And it would not be the first time body shape trends of attractiveness were influenced by the non-verbal cues a shape represents. In the past, a round and well-fed body shape was a non-verbal cue that a fat person was a wealthy person since he could afford lavish meals. Now that society is becoming more health conscious, it is a relief of sorts to see that the unrealistically thin or muscular body shape trend is losing steam. People are becoming more rational and not being influenced solely by what they see. Though it would still be some time before the thin idealized prototype of attractiveness is purged from the minds of the people.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Week 2) Perception of a character: True to the Original?
G I Joe: Resolute is the latest animated installment in the long running G I Joe franchise. Originally conceived back in the 1980s as a TV series that is based on characters featured in the famous "G I Joe action figures" line of toys, the G I Joe animated series won over the hearts and minds of children all around the world with its wide array of memorable characters, surpassing the original toy line in global popularity and fame. One such character in particular is the series' main villain, Cobra Commander, who is set as the main antagonist in three of the four previous G I Joe animated series and three of its animated movies.
Cobra Commander re-appears as the main antagonist in G I Joe: resolute which premiered in April 20 2009. An appearance that caused an uproar among the G I Joe fan base. Here is a video with made of clips showcasing the new attitude and personality of the new Cobra Commander
The main issues raised was how different this incarnation of Cobra Commander was from previous incarnations. In the past TV series, the character of Cobra Commander was always portrayed in a rather comedic light. He had a flair for the dramatic, frequently coming up with new, and sometimes logically absurd, plans for global domination. Plans which would always be foiled either by the anti-terrorist "G I Joe" forces or by his own clumsy undoing. Cobra Commander in the past would be caught in the most silliest of situations, and frequently retreats from battle in comedic fashion.
Due to the frequency of such comedic portrayals of the Cobra Commander character, the viewers' perception of that character has been one of a "goof up", a comic relief villain. That perception was challenged with this latest incarnation. This new, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrant of a madman received mixed reaction from viewers. Many long time fans especially, disliked this portrayal as it did not stick to their pre-conceived perception on what the "Cobra Commander" character should be like.
However, if one were to research further, this incarnation of the character is the closest in keeping with the character's original intended personality.
As referenced from the character description which came with the original Cobra Commander toy(the product which Cobra Commander in the animated series is based on)
So even though this latest animated portrayal can be considered the most "true to the original", since G I Joe was based on a line of action figures, viewers' perception over the years about the character made it difficult for most of them to accept his latest, non-comedic portrayal.
So how far can one take "being true to the original", if doing so would alienate long time viewers and fans by going against their pre-conceived perceptions that are based on past experience?
I am sure anyone would have an experience of seeing a character adapted to different media from an existing one. And I am sure many of said characters may keep more toward the general perception of who the character is and not so much the spirit of the character as intended by its creator. I say, if a remake of a character is true to the original it has to be true to the intended spirit of original character and not the prevailing perceptions of said character. It is the same case for any remake of an old movie, or an adaption of a comic book story into a tv series.
What is your take on that?
What is your say?
Cobra Commander re-appears as the main antagonist in G I Joe: resolute which premiered in April 20 2009. An appearance that caused an uproar among the G I Joe fan base. Here is a video with made of clips showcasing the new attitude and personality of the new Cobra Commander
The main issues raised was how different this incarnation of Cobra Commander was from previous incarnations. In the past TV series, the character of Cobra Commander was always portrayed in a rather comedic light. He had a flair for the dramatic, frequently coming up with new, and sometimes logically absurd, plans for global domination. Plans which would always be foiled either by the anti-terrorist "G I Joe" forces or by his own clumsy undoing. Cobra Commander in the past would be caught in the most silliest of situations, and frequently retreats from battle in comedic fashion.
Due to the frequency of such comedic portrayals of the Cobra Commander character, the viewers' perception of that character has been one of a "goof up", a comic relief villain. That perception was challenged with this latest incarnation. This new, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrant of a madman received mixed reaction from viewers. Many long time fans especially, disliked this portrayal as it did not stick to their pre-conceived perception on what the "Cobra Commander" character should be like.
However, if one were to research further, this incarnation of the character is the closest in keeping with the character's original intended personality.
As referenced from the character description which came with the original Cobra Commander toy(the product which Cobra Commander in the animated series is based on)
So even though this latest animated portrayal can be considered the most "true to the original", since G I Joe was based on a line of action figures, viewers' perception over the years about the character made it difficult for most of them to accept his latest, non-comedic portrayal.
So how far can one take "being true to the original", if doing so would alienate long time viewers and fans by going against their pre-conceived perceptions that are based on past experience?
I am sure anyone would have an experience of seeing a character adapted to different media from an existing one. And I am sure many of said characters may keep more toward the general perception of who the character is and not so much the spirit of the character as intended by its creator. I say, if a remake of a character is true to the original it has to be true to the intended spirit of original character and not the prevailing perceptions of said character. It is the same case for any remake of an old movie, or an adaption of a comic book story into a tv series.
What is your take on that?
What is your say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)