Daily Archives: April 18, 2013
The older I get, the more I notice how theaters are running rampant with remakes.
With the highly anticipated new rendition of “The Great Gatsby” on the way, critics and moviegoers are realizing how remakes are becoming a staple in every theater.
Don’t get me wrong, I often enjoy remakes. However, it is disappointing that fewer and fewer movies are based off of original screenplays and innovative story telling.
Some say that nothing is truly original, that every movie is in some small way or another influenced by past movies and other forms of art, but that isn’t my main point.
I am saying that Hollywood is lacking creativity, and it’s our generation’s job to pick up the slack.
The last three or four movies I’ve seen in theaters were either based on books or previous movies. I enjoyed them all, but it seems to me that we are at a point in time when Hollywood’s creativity has hit an all time low.
I realize that recreating a movie or television show is a different form of creativity, but I’d like to see more movies or television shows that have an original plot.
The big screen isn’t the only place where this lack of creativity has taken place. Two of the biggest shows on TV right now, “Game of Thrones” and “The Walking Dead” are based on a book and graphic novel series.
Not that they aren’t fantastic pieces of television, but I’d like to see more originally produced shows like “Parks and Recreation” and “Breaking Bad” dominating the air. These original shows tend to be more thought provoking and have characters that are much more relatable to the times.
Remakes often aren’t culturally significant anymore, or at least ruin the original movie or television show.
For example, “Joey” was a spin off from “Friends” that almost made me dislike Matt LeBlanc. That is hard to do!
Or, the newest serial killer television show, “Bates Motel” is definitely lacking creativity in comparison to its competitor and the newest original show, “The Following.”
By no means am I saying remakes are terrible and that content should be based on nothing but the creator’s imagination.
However, I hope creativity will spark again soon for Hollywood in hopes that a more equal balance between original content and remakes occurs.
Alyssa Townsend/Opinion editor
Alyssa Townsend can be reached at email@example.com
Fresh off the elephant ride after the stunning proposal by a pond, everything seemed perfect in the lives of the newly engaged couple Sean Lowe and Catherine Giudici.
If participating on a dating show wasn’t enough to start their relationship off on an unrealistic foot, then the events following don’t help much either.
Let’s start off with the fact that they had to keep their relationship a secret until the finale aired. This means no proper dates at Applebee’s, or if you are super classy, Olive Garden.
No putt-putt golf, no movies, no long walks on the beach, no nothing. You can’t even send flowers because the news would spread quicker than wildfire.
Oh wait, you thought no flowers were bad, how about not seeing each other at all. Talk about a set up for disaster.
The key to a relationship is that you spend time together. No relationship that has been kept a secret has been functional. Just watch an episode of 90210, you will understand!
In addition to the fact that these two love birds could not see each other for quite some time after shooting, Sean also decided to sign up for “Dancing with the Stars.” Um, come again, Sean?
Instead of doing the “sexy fox trot” with Peta Murgatroyd, you should probably be doing it with Catherine.
I mean, come on, what are you thinking?
Despite how strong you claim your bond is with your fiancée, a normal girl is going to get jealous of you swinging your hips and having fake (but probably slightly real) chemistry with another girl, especially one who is a skilled dancer.
We have all seen the tabloids claiming that their relationship is ending before it really began.
Who knows whether US Weekly can be trusted, but let’s be honest with ourselves, the situation does not play in the favor of Catherine.
Sorry, girl, but welcome to what just might be round two of the “Bachelor.”
If I were you, I would start learning some dance moves because it probably won’t be long until you have to compete with Peta for some one-on-one time.
Watch out for the rose ceremony in the near future because you might not be getting a rose this time.
Needless to say, I am hoping for the best. We don’t need another “Bachelor” couple hitting the dust, but the way their relationship is put together, they are being set up to fail before they even get out of the blocks.
As amazing as the “Bachelor” experience may be, it’s not realistic.
Sorry ladies, back to the bar.
Kate Straube/Photo editor
Kate Straube can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Being at the forefront of the 21st century, there is a wealth of great technology at the disposal of the college.
However, Linfield chooses not to use many of them. Students are not even required to own a personal computer. There are many things that can be done to change the way the campus deals with technology, which will only improve the communication lines between students, faculty and staff.
An area that can be easily changed by embracing technology is the amount of paper that students and staff print.
Blackboard is a great way to share documents with students and also turn in assignments, but students print way too much.
As a student taking a lot of social science classes, I read hundreds of pages worth of Blackboard documents a semester. I read them on my computer or eReader, but there are a great majority of people in my classes that print everything out.
Some teachers even require that the documents be printed.
This is not only bad for the environment, but is a huge waste of money.
If students are printing this much, just imagine what administrative departments are printing. I expect it to be a lot.
The school would save a massive amount of money if there were to be a paperless campaign on campus. It is impossible for the school to completely get rid of paper, but we should stop relying on it.
Modern electronics make it so easy for the school to curb its reliance on paper.
One tool that has been adopted by some teachers is the use of Google Documents.
This free word processor allows for collaboration on assignments and projects. Google Documents can also be integrated into Blackboard. This seems like it would make life easier for students and professors.
Many schools are starting to make tablets, like the iPad, part of tuition.
If Linfield were to do this, then students would be able to use them for reading Blackboard documents without printing and still be able to make comments.
They would also be able to save money on textbooks by having the option to buy digital textbooks. Professors who use their own texts as materials can use programs like Apple’s iBooks Author to convert their books into easily shared ebooks.
It is obvious that there are many things that the school can do to create a paperless environment. Now, action must be taken for the change to actually occur and become a daily staple to the Linfield community.
There are some people on campus that are already starting to move in this direction.
Some of the current ASLC Cabinet members are starting to work on creating a paperless office.
Other departments needs to get behind this effort to save money and the environment.
Julian Adoff/Multimedia editor
Julian Adoff can be reached at email@example.com.
For all of you who frequent the frats here at Linfield, you’re probably familiar with the Tyga song “Rack City,” released in early 2011.
How would you react if you heard that Tyga was coming to Linfield to perform as the main act in this year’s Wildstock?
Probably quite differently from how Harvard students are reacting to the news of the artist’s performance in their annual Yardfest music festival April 15.
Many Harvard students are protesting the arrival of the controversial artist on their campus, whose lyrics they have called “explicitly and violently misogynistic” in an online petition urging students to eliminate Tyga from the lineup.
“Rack City” is undoubtedly sexist, uses offensive language and is named number nine on BET’s “25 Best Strip Club Anthems.”
So, what is it that is making us sing along?
Have we decided to ignore the message in order to appreciate the beats in many of the popular rap and hip-hop songs of the day?
Has popular music lost its ability to inspire political and social change?
I believe these questions are central to the debate over hip-hop and rap lyrics today, which some people applaud as fun, dance-worthy songs, while others condemn them for their treatment of women, focus on drug and alcohol abuse, and general lack of artistic purpose.
The issue with putting hip-hop into either of these categories is that it ignores the varied history of the genre, which has never been accepted by those of the “high culture” set as legitimate art.
Critics would rather over-simplify this type of music as angry, violent, anti-feminist and homophobic, ignoring the music of artists like Tupac, Run-D.M.C., Wu Tang Clan and many others.
These artists in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, known as the Golden Age of hip-hop, are remembered for their innovation and subject matter.
They stimulated change socially and politically for a generation that grew up in the wake of the Civil Rights movement.
Hip-hop proved to be an important tool in educating and acknowledging the struggle of the black population in urban areas, with songs like Tupac’s “Changes” addressing drug use, police brutality and gang violence, that seemed inescapable in some areas.
Hip-hop never had a completely unified front on how to address these issues, or even on the changing sound of the genre, typified in the Common song “I Used to Love H.E.R.” about the rift between the East and West Coast rappers of the time, but at least they were addressing these problems.
Contrast that with quotes from artists of today, like Drake, who famously said that “we live in a generation where there is nothing necessarily to fight for politically.”
I would disagree with Drake. I feel there is still a strong platform for hip-hop artists to advocate for social change, as Macklemore proved in his single “Same Love” about equal rights for gays and lesbians.
While Tyga’s raps definitely push the boundaries of what is socially acceptable, it is the lack of a strong social message that makes songs like “Rack City” appear to be pointless violence.
Popular rap of the day, if not fighting for a clear message, is nothing more than fancy rhymes over strong beats.
What Harvard students are realizing is that music is not simply entertainment, but can become a powerful force for change in a world in desperate need of direction.
Olivia Marovich/Staff writer
Olivia Marovich can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
As students begin to scope out new rooms, decide which friend they want to live with and stare hopelessly into their savings account, it is quite obvious that housing registration is beginning in only 11 days.
An email sent out about off-campus regulations from Jeff Mackay, associate dean of students and director of Residence Life, has many students hoping that their dreams of cheaper rent and more freedom will pull through.
Mackay announced in an email that off-campus housing is now only available to students who are in their fourth year, 21 years of age prior to the start of the 2013-14 academic year, living with parent(s) or guardian(s) in their primary home of residence within 20 miles of the Linfield campus, married or in a registered domestic partnership or have a qualifying dependent living in the primary home of residence.
This is a change from the old exemption rules in which off-campus housing was determined by amount of credits.
Some students have expressed their outrage at the new exemption rules being released so late in the year. With only a month before housing registration, many students have already been making their arrangements months ago.
One student already signed a lease to live off-campus because the old exemption rules worked for this particular student. Now, the student has a house and is also forced into renting an on-campus apartment.
Other sophomore students have been taking harder and heavier credit loads in order to meet the correct number of credits for off-campus housing. However, since they will only be juniors, the new exemption requirements do not apply.
These students have worked hard to get the correct number of credits or figure out extensive financial need situations in order to live off campus and save a little money.
Linfield is an expensive school, and it would be nice if students were given a break here and there.
With little warning, it is understandable why students are so upset by the new change.
To respond to student concerns, administration has agreed that old exemption rules continue to apply to some existing situations, while the new exemption rules will apply to future situations.
If a student lived off campus this year and will not meet the new criteria, they will be allowed to continue living off campus as long as they meet the old criteria again.
Administration will be following this grandfather clause for any student who was exempt last year as a result of the financial criteria.
Hopefully, next time housing exemptions and regulations are changed, students will get a more advanced warning; otherwise, student trust and morale will continue to drop, and no one will be happy with where they are living.
-The Review Editorial Board