The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Branded
No, not a short story (god save us from hackneyed Will Self-alikes banging out sub-standard English homework pieces) or a poem. Nope, this is a lengthy musing on the world.
And to prevent the defensive “Who are you to say?” outcries, needless to say what follows is my perception, my beliefs and my outlooks. As such, it casts no aspersions on you, dear reader, nor does it leave the door open for “You’re wrong” because to me, my views aren’t.
So, with that proviso and weary header –
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Something desperately plastic and Stepford-Wife about today’s culture. Take a look around you: a homogenised one-size-fits-all world that promises uniqueness yet strives to put you into an easy-to-sell-to persona.
It pervades the normal high-street. What used to be a thriving community, a centre of activity and social gathering place has been turned into a scene akin to “Dawn of The Dead” with windswept, empty precincts and the occasional fluttering newspaper swirling outside Poundland/Top Shop/Ratners/Mobile Phone Inc.
Except lately there has been some life re-appearing in High Streets, but it’s become something far more sinister than shuffling hordes of undead seeking brains to snack upon.
Where once were local butchers, cafes, bookstores, small record stores run by people that knew what you were talking about and other recognisable stores now squat vast, multi-national conglomerates all striving to appear incongruous and “Hey there, come on in and be happy and friendly”.
Doesn’t matter if you live in Essex, Bordeaux or Utah – these stores are all the same.
Starbucks/Gap/Tower Records/Borders/McDonalds/Blockbuster/Pizza Hut/Nike Town/Warner Bros/Wal-Mart (except they still call themselves Asda here in the UK because of the rising anti-Wal Mart feeling in the US).
Generic stores that have swallowed the world whole and offer up identikit “experiences” and call their staff “partners” in an attempt to appear friendly, local stores helping you to live you life in a stress-free way.
The past 10-15 years have seen the world become smaller and the invention of something called the Internet that has “brought us together” apparently. But with that has come the proliferation of the same old stores the world over and the eradication of any sense of local identity.
Sainsbury and Tesco here did the same, carpet-bombing areas with stores to obliterate independent operators. Harlow has 3 Tesco, a Sainsbury and an Asda. Now it’s a given that if you go do your food shopping, it will be in one of those mega-stores. You still have local corner stores, but because of the cheap prices in these giants, they are forced to charge more because of loss of business, and therefore people dislike paying more and head straight towards the majors. It’s a vicious circle.
Oh, oh – except now you can “Tesco Local”. An oxymoron if ever there was one.
A massive supermarket putting imitation versions of the exact same stores they drove out of business, except with half the choice and generic brands at knock-down prices.
These big players can afford to charge bottom rate and absorb any operating losses due to the sheer size and number. It’s the same as Microsoft losing x number of millions a week, they can afford it so who cares?
The aim isn’t to make a store profitable, it’s to completely saturate an area and remove the choice. And once choice has been killed, prices can then be raised.
Blockbuster does exactly the same, as does Starbucks.
They simply open more and more stores until the competition has been forced out, leaving you with no choice.
There used to be a local video shop in Harlow, it was fantastic and I used it for over 15 years. The staff were knowledgeable, friendly and it was an excellent place to find out about movies you’d never heard of before, just ask the guy.
And then Blockbuster opened about 30 seconds away. 3 months before it opened, they canvassed every home in Harlow and took membership, offering you free rentals if you signed up before the opening. “No thanks” was my reply.
And the local video store closed within the year. So now I can go choose from 45 copies of Terminator 3 and Legally Blonde 2, but the 2 copies of Dark Water are always out and the staff are simply there because it’s a job, not because they know/love film – unlike the old place that was forced to close.
Why?
Why did people switch from their local store to the blue & yellow plastic, slack-jawed megaplex offering of Blockbuster?
It’s the tactic of market saturation plus brand recognition.
It doesn’t matter that they now charge almost £4 to rent or that the selection is ass-awful, it’s ease and brand familiarity.
And that’s the same with Starbucks/Gap etc. It doesn’t matter that they offer wan, lifeless products (personally), but because they know the name.
Branding. Getting your company lodged in our psyche.
The ultimate goal of business/marketing/advertising. To have somebody equate your company/brand with their desire.
It’s not the product that is important, it’s the brand.
Coke is the world’s number one soft-drink.
Its logo is recognisable in every single country. They don’t even need to put the name, just the red & white swirl is enough to tell you. Yet they still spend billions in advertising every year. Why? There’s no need to when you have world market dominance. It’s not to sell more, it’s to reinforce the brand in your mind.
And it’s not about the product, it’s about “Coke”. You can buy merchandise – ranging from jackets to fridge magnets. They are selling the brand to you, not the drink.
Blockbuster do the same.
It’s not about selling movies, it’s about selling you the Blockbuster brand. How does the commercial go? “Make it a Blockbuster evening”. They’re blatantly telling you to turn your evening into a celebration of the company. You can now buy beer/soft drinks/dvd players/sound systems instore, everything you could possibly want to go with your big studio movie you can get from this one store. No need to visit anywhere else, be loyal to Blockbuster and be a happy consumer.
McDonalds is another company that doesn’t need to advertise to gain more business, yet their marketing budget is akin to the national economy of a small country.
It’s all about reinforcing the brand, making sure when you think “I want a mechanically separated, water-filled patty of barely-present meat I want a McDonalds”.
Anyone here remember their old slogan? That went beyond anything I’ve seen, it was bordering on “They Live” style of marketing. Printed on the take-away bags/drink containers etc? “Enjoy More”. Now if that doesn’t make you think “Hang on a minute, what kind of Big Brother world is this” then you’ve been owned hook line and sinker by these marketing bods. “Enjoy More” – a straight out order to you, the vacant consumer to shut up and be happy with your sub-standard food snack.
Nike.
I’m not going to go into their sweat-shop production methods here, that’s for another time. But as an example of branding, they are 100% the leaders.
They don’t even make a product anymore. They closed their factories down and use contractors in other countries. They don’t design shoes, they stopped doing that years ago. They moved away from the costly burden of actually making a product, and instead concentrated on selling Nike as a brand.
The adverts with sporting heroes talking about “the spirit of excellence” etc, the sponsorship of events. It all goes to promoting Nike the brand, not any product.
My personal favourite is Tommy Hilfigger.
Did you know he is not a designer? He’s never once been responsible for designing a single piece of clothing. He simply buys contract clothing and puts his name on.
Yet he’s one of the biggest, must-have names in the “bling-bling” world of hip-hop.
He did a very clever thing, he marketed his gear towards inner city blacks. Employed street-teamers to wear his gear and promote it at street level. The kids would get into it, nobody ever concentrated on them before as a target demographic. Consequently the hip-hop stars wore it, and then white suburban Middle America dutifully followed. In much the same way that you see these clueless, stupid white English kids in massive baggy jeans with no belt and the waist down by their thighs (just as trivia, this fashion started because of prison culture. Belts would be removed to prevent hanging yourself, so the trousers would subsequently hang loose. Style adopted in the ghetto and followed on by white middle-class teens).
Hilfigger doesn’t manufacture any products, there isn’t anything he has to make. He simply sticks his brand on somebody else’s work and you buy it.
And where branding really has worked, has seeped into the culture’s awareness (any where I vent my spleen) is the willingness of you, the individual, to be willing to use yourself as a billboard.
A walking, talking advertising space for that brand.
And you pay for the privilege.
You cannot move without seeing people wearing branded clothing. Be it a hat with the ubiquitous Nike “Swoosh” or any other number of brands.
Designer label clothes in the 80s, the height of vulgarity for anyone too young to remember yuppies, Thatcherism, filofaxes etc kept, surprisingly for the era, a modest restraint on branding.
A small Lacoste crocodile on the front was about as classy as it got (times change).
But today, clothing has become a full-on brand advertising feature. The brand name/logo has taken centre stage to the point where it can cover the front/back completely (or in the case of Hilfigger, all down the arms and legs as well).
And I don’t understand why you do this. I simply cannot comprehend why you would choose to pay for the opportunity to advertise these brands for the companies. Are you a billboard? No, but you couldn’t tell it from 90% of people walking around these identikit world-same stores, all consuming in happy ignorance.
It’s Starbucks for your morning coffee fix, shopping at Gap in your lunch hour, then to Blockbuster for “the experience”. Weekends spent shuffling around shopping centres looking for more branded goods to wear from world-wide stores that don’t even produce a product anymore.
It doesn’t make sense to me why you would do this, really it doesn’t.
And for those people that like to pretend they are cynical and “yeah man, the media is like, soooo cliché”? You can buy t-shirts with Che Guevara on the front, or the communist star, or retro Atari t-shirts.
Sure it’s ironic fashion, but it’s still a brand co-opting whatever “cool” passes these days and using it to sell to you, getting you to parade around as an advertising space.
Why would a person subsume their identity and worth as a person, and choose to be a walking talking brand extension? Are people really that empty?
Unfortunately, the more I look around, the more I tend to think “yes, they are”.
16 million people all watching Eastenders. More people voting for Pop Idol than turned out to vote.
Think about that, you took more time deciding who would have a 15 minute karaoke career than you spent deciding who would run your country for you.
That’s frightening.
It would appear that everybody wants to eat the same (bad) food, wear the same branded clothes, watch the same vacouos television programmes and listen to the same plastic pop music.
A world composed of countries where the only difference is the language spoken and the weather with everybody shopping in the same place, wearing the same clothing and thinking the same thing.
That’s not a world I like the sound of.
McDonalds used to have “ENJOY MORE” stamped all over their waste, and then their marketing people realised that people weren’t, in fact, enjoying more and hey, maybe that idea seemed a tad “Shut up, be happy, buy/eat”. So they spend millions coming up with a new catchy slogan designed to appeal to the children/teens that make up a majority of their customers: “i’m lovin’ it”.
Nice and non-instructional, written in teen friendly lower-case txt speak style to indicate that yes, McDonalds is a car-crash of fat & salt but y’know, they love you really.
i’m loving it?
No I’m not, but it would appear that I’m in the minority.
No, not a short story (god save us from hackneyed Will Self-alikes banging out sub-standard English homework pieces) or a poem. Nope, this is a lengthy musing on the world.
And to prevent the defensive “Who are you to say?” outcries, needless to say what follows is my perception, my beliefs and my outlooks. As such, it casts no aspersions on you, dear reader, nor does it leave the door open for “You’re wrong” because to me, my views aren’t.
So, with that proviso and weary header –
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Something desperately plastic and Stepford-Wife about today’s culture. Take a look around you: a homogenised one-size-fits-all world that promises uniqueness yet strives to put you into an easy-to-sell-to persona.
It pervades the normal high-street. What used to be a thriving community, a centre of activity and social gathering place has been turned into a scene akin to “Dawn of The Dead” with windswept, empty precincts and the occasional fluttering newspaper swirling outside Poundland/Top Shop/Ratners/Mobile Phone Inc.
Except lately there has been some life re-appearing in High Streets, but it’s become something far more sinister than shuffling hordes of undead seeking brains to snack upon.
Where once were local butchers, cafes, bookstores, small record stores run by people that knew what you were talking about and other recognisable stores now squat vast, multi-national conglomerates all striving to appear incongruous and “Hey there, come on in and be happy and friendly”.
Doesn’t matter if you live in Essex, Bordeaux or Utah – these stores are all the same.
Starbucks/Gap/Tower Records/Borders/McDonalds/Blockbuster/Pizza Hut/Nike Town/Warner Bros/Wal-Mart (except they still call themselves Asda here in the UK because of the rising anti-Wal Mart feeling in the US).
Generic stores that have swallowed the world whole and offer up identikit “experiences” and call their staff “partners” in an attempt to appear friendly, local stores helping you to live you life in a stress-free way.
The past 10-15 years have seen the world become smaller and the invention of something called the Internet that has “brought us together” apparently. But with that has come the proliferation of the same old stores the world over and the eradication of any sense of local identity.
Sainsbury and Tesco here did the same, carpet-bombing areas with stores to obliterate independent operators. Harlow has 3 Tesco, a Sainsbury and an Asda. Now it’s a given that if you go do your food shopping, it will be in one of those mega-stores. You still have local corner stores, but because of the cheap prices in these giants, they are forced to charge more because of loss of business, and therefore people dislike paying more and head straight towards the majors. It’s a vicious circle.
Oh, oh – except now you can “Tesco Local”. An oxymoron if ever there was one.
A massive supermarket putting imitation versions of the exact same stores they drove out of business, except with half the choice and generic brands at knock-down prices.
These big players can afford to charge bottom rate and absorb any operating losses due to the sheer size and number. It’s the same as Microsoft losing x number of millions a week, they can afford it so who cares?
The aim isn’t to make a store profitable, it’s to completely saturate an area and remove the choice. And once choice has been killed, prices can then be raised.
Blockbuster does exactly the same, as does Starbucks.
They simply open more and more stores until the competition has been forced out, leaving you with no choice.
There used to be a local video shop in Harlow, it was fantastic and I used it for over 15 years. The staff were knowledgeable, friendly and it was an excellent place to find out about movies you’d never heard of before, just ask the guy.
And then Blockbuster opened about 30 seconds away. 3 months before it opened, they canvassed every home in Harlow and took membership, offering you free rentals if you signed up before the opening. “No thanks” was my reply.
And the local video store closed within the year. So now I can go choose from 45 copies of Terminator 3 and Legally Blonde 2, but the 2 copies of Dark Water are always out and the staff are simply there because it’s a job, not because they know/love film – unlike the old place that was forced to close.
Why?
Why did people switch from their local store to the blue & yellow plastic, slack-jawed megaplex offering of Blockbuster?
It’s the tactic of market saturation plus brand recognition.
It doesn’t matter that they now charge almost £4 to rent or that the selection is ass-awful, it’s ease and brand familiarity.
And that’s the same with Starbucks/Gap etc. It doesn’t matter that they offer wan, lifeless products (personally), but because they know the name.
Branding. Getting your company lodged in our psyche.
The ultimate goal of business/marketing/advertising. To have somebody equate your company/brand with their desire.
It’s not the product that is important, it’s the brand.
Coke is the world’s number one soft-drink.
Its logo is recognisable in every single country. They don’t even need to put the name, just the red & white swirl is enough to tell you. Yet they still spend billions in advertising every year. Why? There’s no need to when you have world market dominance. It’s not to sell more, it’s to reinforce the brand in your mind.
And it’s not about the product, it’s about “Coke”. You can buy merchandise – ranging from jackets to fridge magnets. They are selling the brand to you, not the drink.
Blockbuster do the same.
It’s not about selling movies, it’s about selling you the Blockbuster brand. How does the commercial go? “Make it a Blockbuster evening”. They’re blatantly telling you to turn your evening into a celebration of the company. You can now buy beer/soft drinks/dvd players/sound systems instore, everything you could possibly want to go with your big studio movie you can get from this one store. No need to visit anywhere else, be loyal to Blockbuster and be a happy consumer.
McDonalds is another company that doesn’t need to advertise to gain more business, yet their marketing budget is akin to the national economy of a small country.
It’s all about reinforcing the brand, making sure when you think “I want a mechanically separated, water-filled patty of barely-present meat I want a McDonalds”.
Anyone here remember their old slogan? That went beyond anything I’ve seen, it was bordering on “They Live” style of marketing. Printed on the take-away bags/drink containers etc? “Enjoy More”. Now if that doesn’t make you think “Hang on a minute, what kind of Big Brother world is this” then you’ve been owned hook line and sinker by these marketing bods. “Enjoy More” – a straight out order to you, the vacant consumer to shut up and be happy with your sub-standard food snack.
Nike.
I’m not going to go into their sweat-shop production methods here, that’s for another time. But as an example of branding, they are 100% the leaders.
They don’t even make a product anymore. They closed their factories down and use contractors in other countries. They don’t design shoes, they stopped doing that years ago. They moved away from the costly burden of actually making a product, and instead concentrated on selling Nike as a brand.
The adverts with sporting heroes talking about “the spirit of excellence” etc, the sponsorship of events. It all goes to promoting Nike the brand, not any product.
My personal favourite is Tommy Hilfigger.
Did you know he is not a designer? He’s never once been responsible for designing a single piece of clothing. He simply buys contract clothing and puts his name on.
Yet he’s one of the biggest, must-have names in the “bling-bling” world of hip-hop.
He did a very clever thing, he marketed his gear towards inner city blacks. Employed street-teamers to wear his gear and promote it at street level. The kids would get into it, nobody ever concentrated on them before as a target demographic. Consequently the hip-hop stars wore it, and then white suburban Middle America dutifully followed. In much the same way that you see these clueless, stupid white English kids in massive baggy jeans with no belt and the waist down by their thighs (just as trivia, this fashion started because of prison culture. Belts would be removed to prevent hanging yourself, so the trousers would subsequently hang loose. Style adopted in the ghetto and followed on by white middle-class teens).
Hilfigger doesn’t manufacture any products, there isn’t anything he has to make. He simply sticks his brand on somebody else’s work and you buy it.
And where branding really has worked, has seeped into the culture’s awareness (any where I vent my spleen) is the willingness of you, the individual, to be willing to use yourself as a billboard.
A walking, talking advertising space for that brand.
And you pay for the privilege.
You cannot move without seeing people wearing branded clothing. Be it a hat with the ubiquitous Nike “Swoosh” or any other number of brands.
Designer label clothes in the 80s, the height of vulgarity for anyone too young to remember yuppies, Thatcherism, filofaxes etc kept, surprisingly for the era, a modest restraint on branding.
A small Lacoste crocodile on the front was about as classy as it got (times change).
But today, clothing has become a full-on brand advertising feature. The brand name/logo has taken centre stage to the point where it can cover the front/back completely (or in the case of Hilfigger, all down the arms and legs as well).
And I don’t understand why you do this. I simply cannot comprehend why you would choose to pay for the opportunity to advertise these brands for the companies. Are you a billboard? No, but you couldn’t tell it from 90% of people walking around these identikit world-same stores, all consuming in happy ignorance.
It’s Starbucks for your morning coffee fix, shopping at Gap in your lunch hour, then to Blockbuster for “the experience”. Weekends spent shuffling around shopping centres looking for more branded goods to wear from world-wide stores that don’t even produce a product anymore.
It doesn’t make sense to me why you would do this, really it doesn’t.
And for those people that like to pretend they are cynical and “yeah man, the media is like, soooo cliché”? You can buy t-shirts with Che Guevara on the front, or the communist star, or retro Atari t-shirts.
Sure it’s ironic fashion, but it’s still a brand co-opting whatever “cool” passes these days and using it to sell to you, getting you to parade around as an advertising space.
Why would a person subsume their identity and worth as a person, and choose to be a walking talking brand extension? Are people really that empty?
Unfortunately, the more I look around, the more I tend to think “yes, they are”.
16 million people all watching Eastenders. More people voting for Pop Idol than turned out to vote.
Think about that, you took more time deciding who would have a 15 minute karaoke career than you spent deciding who would run your country for you.
That’s frightening.
It would appear that everybody wants to eat the same (bad) food, wear the same branded clothes, watch the same vacouos television programmes and listen to the same plastic pop music.
A world composed of countries where the only difference is the language spoken and the weather with everybody shopping in the same place, wearing the same clothing and thinking the same thing.
That’s not a world I like the sound of.
McDonalds used to have “ENJOY MORE” stamped all over their waste, and then their marketing people realised that people weren’t, in fact, enjoying more and hey, maybe that idea seemed a tad “Shut up, be happy, buy/eat”. So they spend millions coming up with a new catchy slogan designed to appeal to the children/teens that make up a majority of their customers: “i’m lovin’ it”.
Nice and non-instructional, written in teen friendly lower-case txt speak style to indicate that yes, McDonalds is a car-crash of fat & salt but y’know, they love you really.
i’m loving it?
No I’m not, but it would appear that I’m in the minority.
Page:
Pandaemonium wrote:
> I thought the original story of Battle Royal was a novel? Am I wrong
> in thinking manga translated to English means "Irresponsible
> pictures"
Manga is the term used to denote printed anime comics, and whilst it was a novel also the author made changes to it when it became manga that then lead to the film version.
> Sure. Some has, some hasn't. "Perfect Blue" is an excellent
> film, and almost Hickcockian in its storyline.
Seen the live action version? Even weirder...
> not to mention that many real films are or were influenced by anime
> eg Akira and Matrix, and of
>
> Akira *is* anime, the original multi volume story (excellent) is
> manga.
Yep, but in various interviews the brothers responsible for Matrix refer to the anime, not the manga. The manga version is far more detailed and a longer story than the anime.
> Haven't seen Avalon, but GITS is great, and I'm looking forward to
> seeing the upcomeing sequel.
The website for GITS 2 looks good, Avalon is really good but hard to get hold of, either polish vcd with english subs or a Hong Kong Region 0 job, kinda a beldnd of live action and anime, well worth it! I got the vcd from ebay for 2.00!
> I thought the original story of Battle Royal was a novel? Am I wrong
> in thinking manga translated to English means "Irresponsible
> pictures"
Manga is the term used to denote printed anime comics, and whilst it was a novel also the author made changes to it when it became manga that then lead to the film version.
> Sure. Some has, some hasn't. "Perfect Blue" is an excellent
> film, and almost Hickcockian in its storyline.
Seen the live action version? Even weirder...
> not to mention that many real films are or were influenced by anime
> eg Akira and Matrix, and of
>
> Akira *is* anime, the original multi volume story (excellent) is
> manga.
Yep, but in various interviews the brothers responsible for Matrix refer to the anime, not the manga. The manga version is far more detailed and a longer story than the anime.
> Haven't seen Avalon, but GITS is great, and I'm looking forward to
> seeing the upcomeing sequel.
The website for GITS 2 looks good, Avalon is really good but hard to get hold of, either polish vcd with english subs or a Hong Kong Region 0 job, kinda a beldnd of live action and anime, well worth it! I got the vcd from ebay for 2.00!
I watched Fight Club for the first time in years last night, and I thought of this thread. Such a great film. I wondered why I hadn't seen it anywhere for ages, why it seemed that the film had been removed from TV - then it all made sense as the scene I'd forgotten, featuring sky scrapers being blown up by terrorist bombs, played in all its glory.
"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your f***ing khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."
"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your f***ing khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."
Yukikaze wrote:
I could make a comment about you> deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff
> and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga.
There is a difference Bell.
I shall, one time only, spell it out:
I have seen and own Akira, it's ok. I have been forced to watch anime/manga by a mate, and I don't enjoy the medium at all. I make blanket sweeping statements saying manga is full of dragon rape and cartoon horse-pixies because that's the cliche version, and I haven't seen enough to care otherwise.
However, at no point whatsoever have I ever argued the content of an anime film with you and dragged it out over 2 weeks, using websites to try and validate my opinions.
Whereas you argued the content of Bowling for Columbine, having admitted you haven't seen it. And you argued in detail with those that have, and with fans of Michael Moore.
To say, as mentioned before, "I don't like Michael Moore. It's all tofu-munching and flag burning" is one thing - and the same as me saying "Horse pixie dragon rape cartoon".
To argue specific content of a film you haven't seen is quite another.
And I haven't done that, either in anime threads nor here.
I could make a comment about you> deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff
> and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga.
There is a difference Bell.
I shall, one time only, spell it out:
I have seen and own Akira, it's ok. I have been forced to watch anime/manga by a mate, and I don't enjoy the medium at all. I make blanket sweeping statements saying manga is full of dragon rape and cartoon horse-pixies because that's the cliche version, and I haven't seen enough to care otherwise.
However, at no point whatsoever have I ever argued the content of an anime film with you and dragged it out over 2 weeks, using websites to try and validate my opinions.
Whereas you argued the content of Bowling for Columbine, having admitted you haven't seen it. And you argued in detail with those that have, and with fans of Michael Moore.
To say, as mentioned before, "I don't like Michael Moore. It's all tofu-munching and flag burning" is one thing - and the same as me saying "Horse pixie dragon rape cartoon".
To argue specific content of a film you haven't seen is quite another.
And I haven't done that, either in anime threads nor here.
My dad used to own and run a small 'doing very nicely' bakery shop until an ASDA mothership landed about 500 yards away. He carried on regardless but in the end the all-in-one super-mega hypermarket put him on the verge of brankruptcy.
As for 'cool' brand named clothes, I don't wear any. Never have. I refuse to spend anything over a tenner on an item of clothing.
As for 'cool' brand named clothes, I don't wear any. Never have. I refuse to spend anything over a tenner on an item of clothing.
Yukikaze wrote:
>
> The Battle Royale you saw was originally manga, and if you had read
> it you'd notice the absence of cartoon monsters and flying pixies. In
> fact if you read or watched manga or anime you'd notice a general
> absence of that kind of thing. I could make a comment about you
> deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff
> and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga. If you
> don't like it then fair enough, but to criticise something you
> obviously have barely experienced...
Gotta admit, you have a point. I'd differenciate the two by saying that Goaty made a throwaway comment, whilst you base whole arguments on your views of Moore.
>
> The Battle Royale you saw was originally manga, and if you had read
> it you'd notice the absence of cartoon monsters and flying pixies. In
> fact if you read or watched manga or anime you'd notice a general
> absence of that kind of thing. I could make a comment about you
> deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff
> and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga. If you
> don't like it then fair enough, but to criticise something you
> obviously have barely experienced...
Gotta admit, you have a point. I'd differenciate the two by saying that Goaty made a throwaway comment, whilst you base whole arguments on your views of Moore.
Yukikaze wrote:
A couple of points here.
> The Battle Royale you saw was originally manga, and if you had read
> it you'd notice the absence of cartoon monsters and flying pixies.
I thought the original story of Battle Royal was a novel? Am I wrong in thinking manga translated to English means "Irresponsible pictures"
> In fact if you read or watched manga or anime you'd notice a general
> absence of that kind of thing.
Sure. Some has, some hasn't. "Perfect Blue" is an excellent film, and almost Hickcockian in its storyline.
> I could make a comment about you deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff
> and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga. If you
> don't like it then fair enough, but to criticise something you
> obviously have barely experienced...
Very good point.
> not to mention that many real films are or were influenced by anime eg Akira and Matrix, and of
Akira *is* anime, the original multi volume story (excellent) is manga.
> course that works the other way around too eg Macross and Top Gun.
> But if you don't want to watch stuff like Ghost In The Shell, Avalon,
> and many others you really are missing out on some great films.
Haven't seen Avalon, but GITS is great, and I'm looking forward to seeing the upcomeing sequel.
A couple of points here.
> The Battle Royale you saw was originally manga, and if you had read
> it you'd notice the absence of cartoon monsters and flying pixies.
I thought the original story of Battle Royal was a novel? Am I wrong in thinking manga translated to English means "Irresponsible pictures"
> In fact if you read or watched manga or anime you'd notice a general
> absence of that kind of thing.
Sure. Some has, some hasn't. "Perfect Blue" is an excellent film, and almost Hickcockian in its storyline.
> I could make a comment about you deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff
> and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga. If you
> don't like it then fair enough, but to criticise something you
> obviously have barely experienced...
Very good point.
> not to mention that many real films are or were influenced by anime eg Akira and Matrix, and of
Akira *is* anime, the original multi volume story (excellent) is manga.
> course that works the other way around too eg Macross and Top Gun.
> But if you don't want to watch stuff like Ghost In The Shell, Avalon,
> and many others you really are missing out on some great films.
Haven't seen Avalon, but GITS is great, and I'm looking forward to seeing the upcomeing sequel.
Goatboy wrote:
> Agreed to an extent, and it's certainly a Western thing.
> The issue of branding and dominating the marketplace is beginning to
> become an issue in China with Murdoch straining to obtain satellite
> licences, he's agreed to drop BBC World Service at the request of the
> Chinese authorities because they view it as subversive, along with
> basically all Western news that is not under state control (one could
> argue that our news is exactly that anyway, but that's a whole other
> issue)
But, in an attempt to be fair, we'd probably view Chinese State news channels in the same way that China views the BBC. On the other hand at least everyone knows the extent to which Chinese news is controlled, whilst, at least in the case of our government, that control is far more secretive. If a D Notice (the last known term for this practice) is slapped on a certain event, report or suchlike then you won't even no about it. It won't leak from anyone who values their freedom.
> Hell, if anyone in power wanted to show
> that the West really isn't Satain incarnate we'd be flooding
> supplies, equipment, buidling materials and so forth into the
> country
> ASAP
>
> This I'm confused about, because in your point above you've basically
> criticised Western corporate practices and the shallowness of our
> cultures?
That's because I've not really got a set in stone opinion on corporations and how the operate. Whilst I have views on our culture and where it is leading us, I doubt very much anyone in need of help in Iran gives a toss about all that. I may be wrong, but if you're living in a tent, or in the open, and someone offers you a safely built structure to live in then you aren't going to be too worried about the politics of it.
> If you feel so strongly, instead of throwing in amateur
> "bait", then write one. Please stick to at least the
> relevant issues being discussed without attempting to be your usual
> persona and inserting irrelevant topics to cause a spin-off.
It was relevant, if you had seen the episode. I may well do some topics in a bit, but at the moment I don't have masses of time. fair point about the baiting though, I'll put an end to it.
> But the Battle Royale I saw and enjoyed is a film. With real people.
> Not cartoon monsters and flying pixie horses.
> Again, nobody was trying to translate your name because nobody cares
> to.
Well last time I had a username which was an anagram of Halo Fan unknown kernel made the comment that he was having difficulty translating it, after IB tried to translate Urusei Yatsura with relative success. But anyway...
The Battle Royale you saw was originally manga, and if you had read it you'd notice the absence of cartoon monsters and flying pixies. In fact if you read or watched manga or anime you'd notice a general absence of that kind of thing. I could make a comment about you deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga. If you don't like it then fair enough, but to criticise something you obviously have barely experienced... not to mention that many real films are or were influenced by anime eg Akira and Matrix, and of course that works the other way around too eg Macross and Top Gun. But if you don't want to watch stuff like Ghost In The Shell, Avalon, and many others you really are missing out on some great films.
> Agreed to an extent, and it's certainly a Western thing.
> The issue of branding and dominating the marketplace is beginning to
> become an issue in China with Murdoch straining to obtain satellite
> licences, he's agreed to drop BBC World Service at the request of the
> Chinese authorities because they view it as subversive, along with
> basically all Western news that is not under state control (one could
> argue that our news is exactly that anyway, but that's a whole other
> issue)
But, in an attempt to be fair, we'd probably view Chinese State news channels in the same way that China views the BBC. On the other hand at least everyone knows the extent to which Chinese news is controlled, whilst, at least in the case of our government, that control is far more secretive. If a D Notice (the last known term for this practice) is slapped on a certain event, report or suchlike then you won't even no about it. It won't leak from anyone who values their freedom.
> Hell, if anyone in power wanted to show
> that the West really isn't Satain incarnate we'd be flooding
> supplies, equipment, buidling materials and so forth into the
> country
> ASAP
>
> This I'm confused about, because in your point above you've basically
> criticised Western corporate practices and the shallowness of our
> cultures?
That's because I've not really got a set in stone opinion on corporations and how the operate. Whilst I have views on our culture and where it is leading us, I doubt very much anyone in need of help in Iran gives a toss about all that. I may be wrong, but if you're living in a tent, or in the open, and someone offers you a safely built structure to live in then you aren't going to be too worried about the politics of it.
> If you feel so strongly, instead of throwing in amateur
> "bait", then write one. Please stick to at least the
> relevant issues being discussed without attempting to be your usual
> persona and inserting irrelevant topics to cause a spin-off.
It was relevant, if you had seen the episode. I may well do some topics in a bit, but at the moment I don't have masses of time. fair point about the baiting though, I'll put an end to it.
> But the Battle Royale I saw and enjoyed is a film. With real people.
> Not cartoon monsters and flying pixie horses.
> Again, nobody was trying to translate your name because nobody cares
> to.
Well last time I had a username which was an anagram of Halo Fan unknown kernel made the comment that he was having difficulty translating it, after IB tried to translate Urusei Yatsura with relative success. But anyway...
The Battle Royale you saw was originally manga, and if you had read it you'd notice the absence of cartoon monsters and flying pixies. In fact if you read or watched manga or anime you'd notice a general absence of that kind of thing. I could make a comment about you deriding my criticism of Moore when I had not read any of his stuff and that you are doing the same here with anime and manga. If you don't like it then fair enough, but to criticise something you obviously have barely experienced... not to mention that many real films are or were influenced by anime eg Akira and Matrix, and of course that works the other way around too eg Macross and Top Gun. But if you don't want to watch stuff like Ghost In The Shell, Avalon, and many others you really are missing out on some great films.
As to music, I bought some Jazz from Virgin (but only because I had £10 of vouchers to get rid off) but other than that the big names are generally a rip-off.
There is one high-street store I'd buy from called Ainley's (may be purely independant although might just be a smallish chain).
Other than that I use Amazon mostly...
There is one high-street store I'd buy from called Ainley's (may be purely independant although might just be a smallish chain).
Other than that I use Amazon mostly...
Hehe.
I work at MacDonalds.
I know exactly what you mean.
The item of food is made by a set of instructions - a shot of sauce A then a shot of sauce B... etc.
No fineese.
It's not sloppy.
Everyone is very strict about hygiene and quality, but at the end of the day, it's a construction line rather than a work of art.
There's only one, very misguided, employee who actually think's they're on their way to becoming a chef! :-D
The rest know that it's just a business.
Personally, I'm not a sucker for brands but I don't avoid them like plague either.
I used to like Big Mac's, but when I got to about 15, they just weren't big enough anymore. I realised that branded fastfood outlets (like Pizza Hut) shovelled out moderate helpings and turned my attention to the local chippy and chinese for more satisfying eats.
I still like the taste of some MacDonalds foods (I get a free meal with every shift) but I'm eating out now, usually buying a baguet (sp) from the nearby newsagents.
The only place where brands really annoy me is the clothing.
So many people don't seem to care about the clothes anymore, just the brand name on them.
I remember when some people would get new trainers and be more ecstatic about the Nike dogtags that came with them.
Yeah, I sometimes shop at high profile stores like Topman, but even then I'm at the section of "last season" where everything is cheaper rather than fashionable.
I think the main reason why brands are so successful is because with the familiarity, people know exactly what they're getting.
But while people are happy I'm not too fussed.
I work at MacDonalds.
I know exactly what you mean.
The item of food is made by a set of instructions - a shot of sauce A then a shot of sauce B... etc.
No fineese.
It's not sloppy.
Everyone is very strict about hygiene and quality, but at the end of the day, it's a construction line rather than a work of art.
There's only one, very misguided, employee who actually think's they're on their way to becoming a chef! :-D
The rest know that it's just a business.
Personally, I'm not a sucker for brands but I don't avoid them like plague either.
I used to like Big Mac's, but when I got to about 15, they just weren't big enough anymore. I realised that branded fastfood outlets (like Pizza Hut) shovelled out moderate helpings and turned my attention to the local chippy and chinese for more satisfying eats.
I still like the taste of some MacDonalds foods (I get a free meal with every shift) but I'm eating out now, usually buying a baguet (sp) from the nearby newsagents.
The only place where brands really annoy me is the clothing.
So many people don't seem to care about the clothes anymore, just the brand name on them.
I remember when some people would get new trainers and be more ecstatic about the Nike dogtags that came with them.
Yeah, I sometimes shop at high profile stores like Topman, but even then I'm at the section of "last season" where everything is cheaper rather than fashionable.
I think the main reason why brands are so successful is because with the familiarity, people know exactly what they're getting.
But while people are happy I'm not too fussed.
Yes, well that's all very true but where's the hope for the future that will make me feel good?
Oh no there is none.
I know what you mean, it's all very sad and even though I do try my best not to enter into this on many occasions I have no choice. I live in a 'new town', there is no past or culture. No old areas with private shops, cafes etc. It's the 'town centre' with cliche shops, I try to buy non-brand stuff but in the end usually end up in H&M and buying my music out HMV, renting my films from Blockbuster. Ahhh such a shame, yet Fopp is good in Glasgow and the West End at my Uni is full of student independant places, see alas there is hope.
Yep well that's that isn't it.
I work for a voluntry (alright so I get paid) organisation that puts profits back into the hospitals they work in, my conscience is clean of the corporate family. I used to work for Pizza Hut and Safeway but they were crap so I left.
Oh no there is none.
I know what you mean, it's all very sad and even though I do try my best not to enter into this on many occasions I have no choice. I live in a 'new town', there is no past or culture. No old areas with private shops, cafes etc. It's the 'town centre' with cliche shops, I try to buy non-brand stuff but in the end usually end up in H&M and buying my music out HMV, renting my films from Blockbuster. Ahhh such a shame, yet Fopp is good in Glasgow and the West End at my Uni is full of student independant places, see alas there is hope.
Yep well that's that isn't it.
I work for a voluntry (alright so I get paid) organisation that puts profits back into the hospitals they work in, my conscience is clean of the corporate family. I used to work for Pizza Hut and Safeway but they were crap so I left.
Page: