Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Topic Proposal #4

 

Type of Media: Powerpoint including videos

Rise and fall of Michael Vick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdE4FIYSmk8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNMM8_mfOg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZYk91q0Tyk

http://thestartingfive.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/michael-vick-r_0.jpg

http://womensportsoops.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/michael-vick.jpg

http://lastrow.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/michael-vick.jpg

http://footballnationblogs.com/files/2009/02/michaelvick13a.jpg

 Start with Michael Vick’s “good side”

Then move to “bad side” i.e smoking weed and dog fighting

http://www.nfl.com/players/michaelvick/profile?id=VIC31146

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=2549

Our powerpoint will start with a short history of Michael Vick’s early career including stats from his nfl seasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick

lead up to his dog fighting and marijuana charges with minor incidents

http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/michael_vick_that_wasnt

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Commerical Redux

Dear Sir or Madam:

            I received your e-mail that our new “Toasty Torpedo” add is not working to the effect that we imagined. I am here to tell you just what we were thinking and humbly suggest an alternative or two.

            Firstly, I would like to tell you what our reasoning behind the success of this commercial was: our studies showed that, in this day in age, sex is a very large part of younger people’s lives. With that being said, our goal was to attain a “new level” of sexual innuendo, thereby forcing younger audiences to remember just what ethos that commercial created in them. As the commercial was attempting to be funny, we figured, through intensive research, the fact that the oven had a male voice and the chef was a male would have no effect than if a woman’s voice was used. We feel that, if a woman’s voice was used, it may have crossed the line. The emotion that this commercial evokes in someone is that of utter shock. We WANT the double-take as it is the most effective form of remembering, as our studies have shown. Although we feel that readers should not get a “sexual” emotion when thinking about Quizno’s “Toasty Torpedo” we feel that the strong innuendo coupled with the fresh ingredients and perfect sandwiches as shown in the commercial would do more than their fair share of appealing to an audience of young adults.

            The logos is clear. It is logical to assume, and very true according to many respected studies, that sex is a large part of college and high school students lives. It is logical to assume that a “sexual” commercial would draw them to the new “Toasty Torpedo” like bears to honey. Also it is logical to assume that the average college/high school student is not likely to have ample funds. With that being said, the thought that a 4 dollar foot-long sub would do wonders to feed a hungry student and subsequently not dent their wallet substantially.

            Before I go into possible changes to the commercial I would like to point out that the add has gotten over 250,000 views along with comments that exactly fit our goal here. For example, “well, they leaned from Abercombie & Fitch: homo-eroticism sells well to young straight males,” was one of the comments and some even know where we got the oven scene from: “this is a homoerotic SPOOF of the Hal and David dialog from 2001 Space Odyssey! Did you catch the whole Red light and all?”

            Now, as I know you are concerned that this commercial is not working to its full potential I have come up with a few ideas that might make it work. Firstly, I believe we should switch the commercial from HGTV, E!, WE, and Food Network Channels to MTV, VH1, ESPN, and SpikeTV. I believe this change alone will cause a drastic increase in sales. If that does not work however: I am fully prepared to rewrite the entire commercial to fit other things that students would enjoy. For example, a group of students at a party could get hungry and go to Quizno’s for a “Toasty Torpedo” or a group of college males could be playing video games and suddenly become famished and look to a “Toasty Torpedo” for satisfaction. I could also go to our original plan and make a commercial full of fresh vegetables and breads of assorted varieties to show the quality of our sandwiches. And if all else fails, we can kick the homoerotic speak and just have a talking oven advertise for us. I would ask for 3 months of air-time on my suggested television channels to see if this indeed does the trick.

            I hope these suggestions will show my level of dedication to this commercial and the well-being of any Quizno’s establishment. Thank you for considering my position.

Sincerely, Ben

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Commercials

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LQpRQh2KSQ

1) Although I am a big fan of Quizno’s this commercial assures me that I will never get the so called “Toasty Torpedo.” I don’t think this commercial persuades me to do anything other than wonder what was going on in Quiznos execuitve’s heads. This commercial definitely makes you turn and pay attention, but I got a “what the hell” look on my face when I first saw it.
2) I can’t really see any implicit arguments here. Maybe it’s understood that ovens really wouldn’t be telling you to “stick something in them.” Or that this commercial is just a way to get people’s attentions? I don’t really see any substance in this commercial.
3) I don’t know if I’m doing the right kind of product here, but this seems to be the inexpensive version if it is only 4 dollars. I can’t think of another place to get a cheaper foot long sub. However, if there were an inexpensive alternative I don’t think the consumer would get anything more out of a tasty torpedo than a sub from Publix, in fact, if I could get the same sub, I’d much rather get it from Publix. Basically the argument is that this “Tasty Torpedo” would be better than an alternative and satisfy both you and your hunger more. None of my observations contradict what I expected. This commercial is messed up.
4)The audience is definitely a younger generation. This obviously wasn’t in a magazine, but I would expect to see it on channels like Comedy Central, MTV, VH1, and ESPN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mNjTO0agJ0&feature=related

1)This add is hilarious. Although it is Budweiser, this commercial makes me believe that the beer is really good because all of these people cuss so much. This also makes me think that the Budweiser commercial thinkers are really funny.
2) I guess an implicit argument would be that cussing in public is ok, even though the social norm against cussing is negative.
3)When I think Budweiser I THINK good beer, I don’t necessarily agree with it. I think good beer because there are so many commercials advertising Budweiser. So consumers might believe that they are getting a better beer if they buy Budweiser over say Natural Light or some other crappy beer. Spend a few more dollars and they can feel that they are drinking the beer they “deserve” so it’s worth it to them.
4) Obviously the intended audience is one that does not frown upon cussing and also drinks alcohol. Some channels this might be seen on are definitely ESPN, Outdoor Network, CMT, Comedy Central.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Topic Proposal 3

First of all, I will be creating an article for The Onion.
It will be on the "fact" that same-sex marraige will undermine the very foundation and tradition of marraige. However, the "expert" on this matter will be "Billy Ray Guthrie" from Piggot, West Virginia. He will discuss real marriage traditions: Beer, Bluegrass, rows of trailors, bonfires, moonshine, "Granny," and traditional southern delicacies including fried chicken, collard greens, etc. Although I haven't figured out exactly how I am going to fit serious research into the paper, as most of it is believed by a majority of people, I feel that I have a good grip on the material and already have sources.
Intro
Introduce Bill Ray
Paragraph on how "normal" people feel about the tradition of marriage
Paragraph on how Billy Ray and his people feel about marriage
Possible mixing of the two
Conclusion.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Essay 2 proposal

Issue: Is it “right” for homosexual couples to get married?

Terms: When I say “right” I mean constitutionally. And when I say married I mean full rights that men and women who get married get. Legal recognition.

Sources:
1) “Same-Sex Marriage should be allowed” Heather Ann Gannon. Opposing Viewpoints: Family. Ed. Karen Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008.
The author provides arguments for the traditional feeling against same-sex marriage including religious, procreation, and historical arguments.
2) “Same-Sex Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage”. Robert P. George and David L. Tubbs. Sex. Ed. Mary E. Williams. Opposing Viewpoints®. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.
These authors argue that same-sex marriage will destabilize the whole institution of marriage by promoting sexual promiscuity. And that sexual promiscuity will lead to the collapse of all that is marriage.
3) Religious Leaders Should Support Same-Sex Marriage. Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing.
Opposing Viewpoints: Religion in America. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006.
The author here describes marriage as something sacred. Not merely for procreation or sex. It is about sharing life’s joys and sorrows with someone you love.
4) Gay marriage: A way out Oliver Thomas USA Today; 08/04/2008
This article talks about finding a middle ground. It discusses the ramifications between marriage and civil unions. It seems to be pro civil unions, but provides good facts about certain sides.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Reading Response 3

Reading Response 3:
Ridicule

I really found the ridicule section of Laughing Matters interesting. I think the main reason is that that is almost the only humor my friends and I use. Yes, there are quick witticisms here and there, but for the most part it is blatant assholishness. So, for one the concept of ridicule hits close to home. And second, there are many examples in the text about how ridicule alone can strip the government of its power. Me being a political science student, this interests me.
Government examples: Fidel Castro Cuba, Hugo Chavez Venezuela, Vladimir Putin Russia. What I notice about most of these countries is that they want to have a lot of power, and influence. With humor circling through their country, they feel insecure about people might take it. Also most of these governments were obtained through coup de tats so they might imagine that the same would happen to them, and that the ridicule of humor would prompt it.
Although this may not have much to do with ridicule, the mere chance or opportunity for people to get a joke in edgewise where humor is censored is jumped at by many. Example: Iran. I really like the statement “Every joke is a tiny revolution.” GO. I also found that the Nazis squelched ridicule, but their allies, the Italians and Benito Mousolini did not. So it can be used as an offensive weapon.
Can also be used as a defensive weapon. Used a lot in pop culture in America. Donald Duck’s fuerher’s face. Team America world police. Monty python and the holy grail. All classic movies that inbed ridicule into their scripts. Seems as though a lot are used with war, but some instances have been used to forward elections. Can even turn the tide of battle, as it did with the US colonists against the british.
-More extreme the leader, more susceptible to ridicule.
-Americans don’t dare fuck with Korea, Yet Pakistan does.
-It sticks
- target can’t refute it
-boosts morale
-gets better with each retelling
-spreads on it own.
-more examples, just too long to type them all out.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Reading Response 2

Reading Response 2:

The beginning of chapter three of Comedy Writing Secrets really intrigued me. It boiled down the 6 essential ingredients that make humor, well, humor. I know there are 6, and the explanations are lengthy, but I’ll sum then up as quickly as possible. They are, in order by book, not by importance necessarily, target, hostility, realism, exaggeration, emotion, and surprise. What this chapter draws on are the ways in which these six things make people funny. These ideas really interest me because I consider myself fairly funny, but have never really thought about what I put into my endless one-liners. These topics boil it down for me.
I’ll start off with target. In my opinion, Helitzner has gotten everything in this section correct. His targets of self, sex, celebrities, places, products, and ideas hit the nail on the head. When I think of humor I think of the cruel, quick jabs that my friends and I throw back and forth to each other constantly. You know, if one’s voice cracks, that’s the next ten to twelve jokes. Or if our friend who is extremely self-conscious buys a “girly” hair product, his day is potentially ruined by our incessant jokes. I would never think of making fun of a person with a disability, or person who got in a car accident, although I’m sure I’ve let one of those slip before.
In his next segment, Helitzner speaks of hostility. Although I agree with him on all of his targets of hostility, some of which include family affairs, and authority, I believe there are other things that evoke hostility. For example, bad drivers and stupid are two that top my list. I do however find hostility a large part of humor because if you are dissatisfied with something, then you think about what exactly pisses you off about it. You pick and choose certain things to actually make fun of. Because, as Helitzner says, the more narrow your subject, the better chance you have to surprise your audience.
I do not think I grasped the concept of realism very well. I got through the section without realizing it was over. What I picked up from it was that humor should be as realistic as possible. The example that helped me understand this section was Robert Wohl’s one-liner, “If the world if normal, then how come hot dogs come in packages of ten, and hot dog buns come in packages of eight.” I think this is a good topic to discuss because it really is important. I’m pretty sure that space aliens are not as funny as some of the “normal” stuff in our everyday life.
Exaggeration is a large part of humor, but I think most people know that. It might be good to discuss in class, but it seems that exaggeration is pretty self-explanatory as to why it makes normal occurrences funny.
The fifth element is emotion. Emotion, although all of the aspects are important, seems to be the most important. I mean really, if you think about it, if a comedian did not have emotion, he wouldn’t be very funny. I really like how the book went into detail of how to build and create emotion to be funny. This could be a really good talking point in class.
And finally comes surprise. What is comedy without surprise? Not much. The book doesn’t go into too much detail here because surprise is, well, surprise. However, I did like the phrase “Comedy is mentally pulling the rug out from under each person in your audience.”
The reason I like this part is because, not only does it give specific detail, but Helitzner makes the THREES formula interesting. The other thing I like about this is that all six of these aspects tie in with the MAP formula as well. So undoubtedly, there are many relevant and important talking points here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYCoZhIUtu4&feature=channel

I chose this Dane Cook bit, not because I think it’s his funniest, because he does have some funny material, but because I could find a way to equate all of his actions to the THREES formula.