To be honest, I find it easier to believe in a super-powered individual with character flaws and a grumpy sort of "I dont give a fukk" attitude than I do most of the characters in "Heroes" - 'Save the cheerleader, save the world' is monumentally stupid if you sit and analyze it.... :lol: :lol: The whole concept of Superman's great weakness being a bit of the planet that he was BORN ON doesn't hold up to much scrutiny either......

 

I watch "Heroes" avidly - but some of it is really hit and miss - and in the sophsesh mostly miss - tho last nights ep was more on the right track to former glories....

 

yeah 'Save the cheerleader, save the world' is a damb catchphrase to hook the series on and did get v annoying but it worked didnt it

 

...however was reading this in the independent the other day and i guess some of the points applies like totally to SF enterties as well

 

Think you love shopping? It's the marketing scam of the century

US author Benjamin Barber explains how buying things ceased to be a chore and became a fun day out

Interview by Sophie Morris - © The Independent

Thursday, 19 June 2008

 

Barber says obsessive 'hyper' consumption is leading democratic societies towards an early grave © Carlos Jasso

 

The folly of rampant consumerism as resources grow scarcer is lost on no one, least of all the marketing community. Still, desperate to maximise profits, manufacturers and marketing men are targeting very young children, buying their loyalty almost from birth, and infantilising adults, to deter them from making considered decisions about what they buy. This way, adults and children will be attracted to the same product, and buy it for most of their lives, trapped in a Peter Pan cycle of consumption, constructed by branding supremos.

 

Consumption is not only out of control at the shops. Barber uses television watching as an example: there is nothing wrong with reaching for the remote after a long day at work, he says. But 60 hours – the time each week an average American spends watching television – is way too much. "It's a little like pornography," says Barber.

 

Watching TV is just part of the problem. What we are choosing to watch has changed considerably over the years and now resembles a homogenous lowbrow pulp designed to appeal to children and adults alike. Barber's book is subtitled "How markets corrupt children, infantilise adults and swallow citizens whole". Commentators have been documenting the rise of the scooter-pushing, iPod-toting kidult for a number of years now, but in Barber's opinion, the "40 is the new 20" spirit does not mean that people are retaining their youthfulness and energy for longer, but that they are not growing up at all. Why not? Because marketers desperate for instant profits are cutting corners by lumping child and adult tastes and products together, instead of building a sustainable market. This then reduces diversity and threatens to eliminate choice altogether.

 

The success of films such as Shrek and Spider-Man, aimed at all ages, illustrate this. "If you want to see the future of Britain, don't look at what 40-years-olds are buying, look at what 15-year-olds are buying and watching and what their music tastes are," predicts Barber. For anyone who has sat next to a gang of schoolgirls playing Pussycat Dolls loudly on mobile phones, the idea that their musical tastes will never mature and that the shade of their nail varnish will never be toned down is sobering. But why can't adults enjoy the nuances of an episode of The Simpsons, say, or a Harry Potter film? Does growing up mean becoming boring?

 

"I'm not saying that when we grow up we lose all pleasures," insists Barber. "But growing up means becoming more complex and that you require greater stimulation. If you can be pleased and satisfied with comic books, it means you've kept yourself as a kid. I'm not saying there's something wrong with people who have fun, but I have fun in a different way from how I did when I was 12."

 

'Consumed' by Benjamin R Barber, Norton, £9.99. To order for the special price of £9.49, including post and packing, call 0870 079 8897 or visit www.independentbooksdirect.co.uk

 

 

as for Supermans well thats from the late 1930s - and maybe that was the best release from the pressures around that time (tho i hope Cab Calloway - Minnie The Moocher is a contender - brilliant record!!!) - and i suppose if it was being created today it would be much more complex as its like 75 years later and i guess creative things like that will have progressed from that simplicity and if it was created today from scratch there will be loads of more problems than only fealing a bit ill at the site of a bit of green rock :lol:

 

I think Hancock (Will Smith) is a character who is an alcoholic so he doesn't Give a Fukk :lol: And its obvious Hancock is gonna turn into a "good Superhero" and Will Smith never wants to play a bad guy apparently :unsure:

Will Smith never wants to play a bad guy apparently :unsure:

 

Bit of a shame.... I reckon he'd be a good villain in a lot of ways....

 

This looks well good defo wanna go see it!

This is Brilliant. I LOVED it. It was REALLY funny aswell. It was a nice change from the usual Superhero stuff you usually see ^_^ and it had quite a good twist in there too :o

I thought the first half was good, not brilliant, and then it just slid down hill with a ridiculous twist which wasn't explained well at all, I didn't have a clue what was going on and when it finished I was like :/ It was like 2 different films that were mixed together badly, and the first half didn't link right with the second, like the character of Hancock just completly changed for no reason at all

I thought it was awful tbh. It was watchable yeah and funny in parts but the plot twist was just ridiculous and didn't make sense and the ending scene was just so cliche and predictable.

I really liked it :) The thing with the chick being "super" was kind of...well, more confusing than anything else...but overall it was a really good movie :D It was really sad near the end.

EDIT: Oops. It duplicated.

Edited July 7, 200817 yr by soXcynical

I really liked it. :lol: Was quite funny in some places too. Especially the McDonalds comment haha. :lol:

 

But yeahh like most people, I think the twist could have been explained a lot better. I could see the twist coming about 10 minutes before it was revealed though. :lol: But again, when it was first revealed I was like "wtf?", but as the film went on I gradually picked up what was going on, and it was a reasonably short film, so for an extra 10 minutes worth of film they could have easily explained it better!

 

Overally I really liked it though... it just maybe could have done with having a bit of a better writing team.

It's awesome really. The funniest episode was when (Will) was breaking things with the help of (Charlize)'s head :lol:

Saw this last night and it was quite good overall. The ending was really well written. The whole twist was really unneccessary though I feel, there were plenty of avenues to explore with what was happening but the twist just seemed very forced and only happening to the throw the viewer off the scent somewhat. Shock value and that. I thought it was pretty easy to actually follow though, just a little unneccessary.

 

Alas Will Smith was funny as always (the McDonalds comment as mentioned earlier) and it was a decent film just left me feeling a little baffled at times as to why these things were happening..

I saw this today.

 

How awful. Bad plot, very few jokes and just an overall bad film. :( Like Cass said the twist was unneccessary and completely went away from the plot. Also, the twist was quite hard to follow (like some people have said) aswell.

Edited July 13, 200817 yr by Jonny

It was enjoyable enough I thought, but TOO SHORT, I know I usually complain about some films being too long, but the opposite is the problem here..... There just wasn't really a proper explanation given of the relationship between the two characters to be honest, 15-20 minutes more I think to flesh things out better would've been a good idea.. I'm rather hoping that an extended DVD cut comes out, hopefully lasting 2 hours and with better explanations for things... First half of the film was great though, shame the second half just seems to go a bit awry....

 

Interesting take on the super-hero genre, good acting from Will Smith and Charlize Theron, but not enough plot meat... And I thought that ending with Hancock on the skyscraper with the eagle was a bit cheesy.... :lol:

I was a bit dissapointed really. I thought the first half was poor. The twist was good, but at the same time it was poorly executed, so it could've been better. Then it just seemed to go a bit downhill. There just didn't seem to be a middle, but at the same time i thought the film was too long, though with more "plot meat" as Grimley Fiendish puts it, it would've been a better lenght.

 

I can tell i'm not very good at making my points, i'd make an awful film critic :P