Friday, July 29, 2005

Epic 2014

Hi guys,

I think this link provides a great insight into what the future could look like with the continued rise of, Google and the like. Its an 8 minute clip but well worth watching.

In the year 2014 the New York Times as gone offline. The Fourth Estate's fortunate have waned. What happend to the news? And what is Epic?

Find out here!

Keep it foolish!


At 1:07 PM, Blogger 米栗 - Michael Miller said...

I'm just Mr. Comment lately, but there's some many things to be pithy about.

This, along with Broken Saints, are examples of the kind of flash content I hate. They provide none of the advantages (interactivity, scaling, selective pacing) that are nice about modern media and contain all bad features of amateur created content (blindness to irony, bad repetitive music, poor editing).

I'm curious to hear what people who like either this or Broken Saints have to say about it. Honestly, I can't see the appeal.

At 1:58 PM, Blogger Luke said...

Hmm, I can see what you're saying, Michael, but I don't agree that those formal aspects you mention (interactivity etc.) are always necessary for 'good' digital content. Sure, when I was watching this, the phone rang and I couldn't pause it, which was irritating. But beyond that, I wasn't craving more point and click interactivity as I was watching it. It seemed to have some intrinsic value without that. Here's one of my favourite pieces of Flash content (made a few years ago now) that consciously sticks two fingers up at the whole idea of interactivity: Heavy Industries

As for Broken Saints, I first came across this a couple of years ago. I thought it was visually and technically impressive, and also interesting for a number of reasons such as the hybrid of (static) comic book and (motion-based) anime conventions. Do I actually like this kind of content, though? Not remotely my cup of tea! In other words, I think we have to distinguish between content and formal characteristics and between what's culturally interesting or novel and what appeals to us personally.

At 3:48 PM, Blogger Childfree! It could have been so simple! said...

One of those 'brutally frank' post Michael ;-)

But seriously, I hardly watch flash animation or videos online. I, as you stated in your reply, don't believe that everyone is set out to be a filmmaker or media producer just because they own the latest piece of software. There is a good reason why most film studios do not give the director the right of final cut.

The reason why I posted this link was that it gave a lighthearted view into what the future might bring thus reaching an audience which cannot bother to read text without pictures or animation. Us intellectual lot of course, who think that books are not moribund, do not get the same amount of pleasure of of this.

P.S. Nice taste in music Michael!

At 7:14 PM, Blogger 米栗 - Michael Miller said...

One of the struggles of media studies, at least for me sometimes, is being able to critically analyze things that annoy or disappoint me.

That said I would contend that this particular flash animation is a fails to evoke a tone that is at all "futuristic" or even fits in properly with it's medium of choice. The same story could be communicated with much more impact with a single image (in fact I've seen the photoshopped costumer ID before on Fark where it struck me in itself as a great piece of satire). I guess my evaluation of this particular piece of flash (to separate it away from Broken Saints) is that it's a one minute idea stretched out into 8 minutes with very little added in respects of tone. I realize that's not very academic though.

So, in the attempt to use this blog as a way of thinking out loud, how can I analyze this academically and, when I do, do I come away with a different perspective than when I just look at it as a dissatisfied media consumer. What we have here is a series of logos, occasional screen captures and a photo or two. The music is ethereal. The images are grainy and monochrome, which strikes me as an odd choice considering the supposed high-tech future that it's attempting to represent. In this future are there no color images? Has "refluffing the quantum foam" caused these images to come to us grainy? If everything moves so fast in the future how come this video is so slow and the tone so flat?

Or maybe it's just the way the guy pronounces "Guugle" that pisses me off.

At 7:43 PM, Blogger 米栗 - Michael Miller said...

Woah. Heavy Industries. Just, woah. Man.

At 2:53 PM, Blogger Spivey said...

I gotta say, i furthered this idea in a post in the main blog about it. I rather like the idea. Yes, it has its moments that are unclean, uncut, but your in the industry with a couple of us here so you see the things that bother you more readily. I showed that clip to my mom who is completly inept when it comes to computers (I love her anyway!) and she just loved it. Yes, you can do it with less, but you could also do it with more. They could have made it a 12 minute clip with even more melodic droning music and longer pauses, and burning images into your head and so on, but they didnt. I rather liked the pacing becuse if supplies you with that ample time to go, what the hell am i watching, who thought of this, and what is it really trying to say to me? I agree pausing would have been nice, but to see thier concepts on the future of google and microsoft was just great, being a self proclaimed geek, i really liked hearing every little bit of what they have come up with. Oh and for the grainy black thing, my thoughts onto that one would have to be they are following that avant style with the sort of, media pirate, leaking the truth. Often displayed as ripped, unfinished, grainy, uneven, bad color balences if even having color at all. I belive to more follow the Orwell 1984 idea which if youve seen at all, is very rough, rugged and void of color. Maybe i was just reading to much into it though and the guy was being an artsy bastard (thats ok in my book too)


Post a Comment

<< Home