Plugged In

10 Posts tagged with the media tag

Live Oscar Blog

Posted by Paul_Asay Mar 7, 2010

It's time to begin Plugged In's official live blog of the Oscars. Our red-carpet invites must have gotten lost in the mail this year, so we'll be watching it on television, just like you are, and writing about whatever seems news- or noteworthy to us. Please feel free to add your comments as we go along, and we'll try to address them on the fly. All times are U.S. Mountain Standard. Refresh your browser window to see our latest comments.

awardsshow.jpg

 

6:19 p.m.

 

Paul Asay (Plugged In Associate Editor): So I've torn open the bag of Doritos you brought, Steve, cracked my first Mountain Dew and am all ready for the Oscars--and Plugged In's first foray into the world of on-the-fly blogging. And what a night it will be, don't you think?

 

Steven Isaac (Plugged In Editor): Hmmm. I see here that by averaging the durations of the last 25 Oscar telecasts, subtracting 3 hours and then dividing by 2, we'll be done here in exactly 7.42 hours. Are we going to take nap breaks or just keep chugging soda all night?

 

Paul: Soda, Steve, soda.

 

Steven: Fine. But I'm not doing the Dew with you. I'm an old-school, straight-up Coca-Cola man myself.

 

Paul: OK, since nobody's paying us anything for all these product placements, why don't we get started with the most important question of the night: What'll take home Best Picture?

 

Steven: Blue is the new gold this year. No question in my mind that it'll be Avatar all the way. The whole point of this year's Oscar changes (10 nominees for Best Picture among them) is to make regular folks start thinking the Oscars are relevant to them again. And a whole lotta regular folks have seen Avatar. And most of them have loved it. Plus, the Academy voters do not want to antagonize the Na'vi. They've seen what happened to those surly earthlings.

 

Paul: True. Thing is, though, I don't think it's that great of a movie. I mean, wasn't it just sort of Dances With Wolves under a different moon? I'm thinking The Hurt Locker's going to take it. Gritty, taut, compelling ...

 

Steven: And quite a bit more foul than Avatar, if I remember your review correctly. (Not that that ever stopped Oscar from loving a film before.)

 

Paul: No it didn't.

 

Steven: Looks like they're done with their red-carpet dress-examinations and interviews. The theme music's coming up. We're under way, everybody.

 

6:33 p.m.

 

Paul: Wow. Those are quite the outfits. Getting off to an interesting start, I'd say, with Neil Patrick Harris.

 

Steven: And why wouldn't he get things rolling with a dope reference?

 

Paul: Oh, and they just talked about Woody Harrelson being high. Hmmm.

 

Steven: Off-color jokes and recognitions for big stars are always the order of the day each year as the Oscars get started. So much so that Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin's gag about a threesome probably went virtually unnoticed in most homes watching right now. But on a positive note, they made fun of the fact that movies are so often made based on video games!

 

6:48 p.m.

 

Paul: Oh, that Christoph Waltz leaves with the first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actor). No surprise there, but I hear he was incredible. You saw the film, Steve?

 

Steven: Incredible performance in the middle of an incredible film ... in quite a few ways, artistically but also as it comes to some pretty extreme violence, too.

 

Paul: I was kinda rooting for Christopher Plummer ... overdue from The Sound of Music. But I think Quentin Tarantino should get some sort of an award just for his chin. It's pretty impressive.

 

6:58 p.m.

 

Paul: Best Animated Film. Up wins. That makes me happy. I'm feeling so ... up! As if my house was being pulled into the sky by balloons! In a great year for animated films, this was still the best of the bunch. 'Course, Fantastic Mr. Fox was pretty impressive, too.

 

7:10 p.m.

 

Steven: We talked a bit earlier about some of the negative content included in this year's Oscar open, and didn't really have any time to talk "shop." So I want to register the fact now that that was one of the lamest opens I've seen in years and years. Martin and Baldwin can be really funny when they want to be and when they have good writers (the subject that's just coming up right now on the screen). But this just didn't cut it.

 

Paul: But on the up side, these awards are cruising right along. We might be outta here in 15 minutes or so, don't you think? And I think Tina Fey's hair looks nifty.

 

Steven: The Hurt Locker wins its first of the evening for Original Screenplay.

 

Paul: Hurt Locker, 1, Avatar, 0.

 

Steven: And about Tina's hair. It looks very, very much like my wife's hair looked in 2001. So I'm not so sure it's as cutting edge as Tina might think it is.

 

Paul: I'm just jealous when I see anyone who still has hair.

 

7:19 p.m.

 

Paul: The John Hughes salute is pretty nostalgic. I think I saw every single one of his films when I was a kid. That was before I became a Plugged In movie critic and therefore far more discerning, of course.

 

Steven: The burner from The Breakfast Club was everything I never was in high school. I was shy, nice and cared about everybody. That guy did none of those things ... on the surface. But on the inside he was more like me than I knew back then. Must be a lesson in that somewhere--and I hope its not that I was a closet burner.

 

7:28 p.m.

 

Paul: Just noticed the ratings box on the screen. It's TV-14 with a string of letters after it. Kind of interesting that, for an awards show that's technically for the "whole family," the rating is fairly exclusionary. Would they be covering just in case something unforseen happens? Or does it address some of the plunging necklines? Hmmm.

 

Steven: Or did they know going in that they were going to push a few boundaries?

 

Steven: Best Animated Short goes to a film that looks like it tweaks commercialism in society. Isn't it about time for an ABC commercial break?

 

7:39 p.m.

 

Paul: Love Ben Stiller as one of the Na'vi. Shouldn't he be taller, though?

 

Steven: This is the funniest thing all night. Clean, clever, self-aware. Can't say as I'm a huge Ben Stiller fan when it comes to his movies, but this is great.

 

7:52 p.m.

 

Steven: Geoffrey Fletcher won for Adapted Screenplay for Precious. My immediate response to his halting acceptance speech: You're not drawing a blank, like you think you are. You're the realest guy that's been on stage yet.

 

7:59 p.m.

 

Paul: The big categories haven't seen a surprise yet. Mo'Nique has nabbed Best Supporting Actress for her role in Precious. And, I must say, it's richly deserved. She played an absolute monster, but she still managed to give the character just a bit of heartbreaking humanity. It was a brutal role in a worthwhile but brutal film.

 

8:20 p.m.

 

Paul: Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner are up, talking about how horror "doesn't get the respect it deserves." A good montage, but I got to say, the scariest thing I've seen tonight was George Clooney's glare.

 

Steven: Why is it that we like to be scared by movies? We can disagree with the usefulness or morality of horror films all we want (and we do!) but it's indisputable that people adore jump scenes and creepy blades for fingers on mad men (from Freddy to Edward Scissorhands). Sin nature? Or just thrill-ride silliness? It's something Christians have been grappling with for as long as movies have been trying to scare us--and long before that.

 

Paul: Yeah, pretty interesting. It's something we do a fair amount of talking about at Plugged In. Man, after seeing the complete montage, I think I know what that TV-14 rating was for ... nothing like seeing aliens jump out of people's rib cages and centipedes crawling into people's mouths to make an Oscar ceremony complete.

 

Steven: And now they're on to the next thing: an award for sound effects. There's something that makes a huge difference in horror movies. Because if you've ever watched a scary movie with the sound off, you know that it's usually more funny than scary. We all really respond to sound.

 

8:27 p.m.

 

Paul: Another award for The Hurt Locker. Wow. I think that makes it Hurt Locker 3, Avatar 1. Steve, are you still sure Avatar's going to win Best Picture?

 

Steven: Well, sure, why shouldn't I be? Didn't the Na'vi get to vote for their own film? And an alien vote counts twice. They're just letting all the little guys win a few before gobbling up the big one.

 

8:35 p.m.

 

Paul: Jeto wonders whether we think the Paranormal Activity spoof clip was funny. It was! But not as funny as Ben Stiller's Na'vi impersonation.

 

Steven: Cinematography award goes to Avatar. So, Paul, that's one more for the blue team.

 

8:39 p.m.

 

Paul: James Taylor's playing for the annual "In Memoriam" segment. This is one of my favorite parts of the ceremony, as morbid as that probably sounds. Natasha Richardson, Karl Malden ... I feel the sudden need to get a tissue.

 

Steven: Um, I didn't know "In My Life" was supposed to be a sad, funeral-type song. My wife and I had this sung at our wedding!

 

8:50 p.m.

 

Steven: My daughter's in ballet. She'd love the dance montage if I dared let her watch a TV-14 evening of Hollywood hype! (She's 9.) Maybe it'll be on YouTube tomorrow.

 

Paul: Tomorrow? It's probably posted right now!

 

Steven: This is much better than the Vegas-style stuff at the beginning of the show. Nicely choreographed. Very expressive in a cool, old-school way.

 

Paul: I never knew you were such a dance nerd, Steve.

 

Steven: A dancing daughter has a way of changing a man.

 

8:55 p.m.

 

Paul: Avatar's pulled even with The Hurt Locker with its win in Best Visual Effects. Maybe you were right after all, Steve.

 

Steven: A half-billion-dollar production budget should buy you at least a Best Visual Effects award.

 

9:04 p.m.

 

Paul: Well, it looks like lots of you are pretty pleased with Up's win for Best Original Score. I completely agree. I just hear the first notes of that song and I just start thinking of Paradise Falls, talking dogs and balloons. And I can't help but smile.

 

Steven: The Cove has won Best Documentary Feature.

 

Paul: What a coincidence! Steve and I are wearing Snuggies here at Plugged In headquarters, too!

 

9:12 p.m.

 

Paul: You know, I don't think I've heard an acceptance speech yet that made me roll my eyes. Is this unusual, or am I just getting more tolerant in my old age?

 

Steven: The night is young yet--at least by Oscar standards.

 

9:24 p.m.

 

Paul: If I was giving out an Oscar for the comment I most wish I had thought of first, it would go to TealN for: "I would like to thank the Academy for not considering Na'vi to be a foreign language." Bahahaha!!! :-)"

 

9:34 p.m.

 

Paul: It's time for the big awards now, and the first--Best Actor--goes to (gasp) Jeff Bridges. Again, no big surprise, but a nice tribute to a long-respected actor. And it's great to see him honor his parents in such a significant way.

 

Steven: That was a whole lotta schmoozing going on before they finally got around to making the announcement, though. Words like "dreamy," "magnificent," "master," "tremendous" and "glorious" were thrown around with so much sincerity I ended up not being quite sure that they were.

 

9:52 p.m.

 

Steven: The Best Actress award has been couched for some time now as a head-to-head battle between Sandra Bullock (in The Blind Side) and Meryl Streep (in Julie & Julia). Looks like the pundits were right on the money. And the winner is: Sandra Bullock. No hail Mary pass on this one. Paul, you reviewed that film ...

 

Paul: And she was pretty awesome in it. Me, I was rooting for Meryl. But, of course, she'll have another chance next year (and the year after that). It's great to see The Blind Side get some love, though. And, oddly enough, Bullock won a Razzie award--the award that's given out to the worst actress of the year--last night. First time ever that somebody's won best and worst for the same role. [Note: bjeedav's comment is correct. It actually wasn't the same role, just the same actress.]

 

Steven: She said some really nice things about her mom, and moms in general.

 

9:59 p.m.

 

Paul: Kathryn Bigelow wins Best Director for The Hurt Locker. James Cameron, Avatar's director and Bigelow's ex-husband, was one of the first people to stand up for her ovation. A nice moment. Does this mean The Hurt Locker will get Best Picture too? Or will the votes swing Avatar's way? No! I guess it's The Hurt Locker. Sorry, Steve. You lose. I win.

 

Steven: That had to be the shortest lead-in to an Oscar Best Pic win in history. ABC must have threatened them within an inch of their lives to make sure the telecast ended on time. Or maybe it was because they didn't want the Na'vi to have time to stage a revolt since they weren't going to win! Well, so much for the populist angle that's been such a big part of this year's build-up. If the Academy had wanted to seal that deal, Avatar would have needed to win. But war movies are big deals at the Oscars.

 

10:10 p.m.

 

Steven: That short lead-in made the Best Picture choice seem somehow less important than the Best Actor/Best Actress nods, but it seems to me that it'll still push The Hurt Locker, which is already on video, up in the public mind over the next couple of weeks. So I'll make a shameless plug here for everybody to check out our review of that film that's available here on this site. Paul, any final thoughts?

 

Paul: Thoughts? I'm too full of chocolate chip cookies (thanks to Steve's wife!) to think very coherently at this point. I can't believe we're already done. I was expecting to be typing until at least Tuesday. And to think, I was so looking forward to another 27 hours of your company, Steve. Alas. Good night everybody.

3,823 Views 30 Comments Permalink Live Oscar BlogTwitter Facebook Tags: media, television, movie, influence, film, movies, avatar, oscars, academy_awards
brain.JPGRemember when Hollywood could tell us a great story? When more movies were heavier on plot than explosives, car chases, zombies, and scantily clad women? When storylines could dawdle a bit but still swept us up in their slow, meaningful pace?

 

Me too. But that's changed a bit lately, and MindSign Neuromarketing might just change it more. Soon, movies could have no pesky plots whatsoever!

 

This San Diego-based company is developing "neurocinema," an offshoot of something called neuromarketing. Essentially, neuromarketing uses functional MRI images to check out what's going on in shoppers' brains, gauging their raw neural reactions to various products and ideas. The more brain activity, the better people's response.

 

Yes, folks, with this technology, filmmakers will be able to determine exactly what excites and ignites moviegoers' brains the most and give it to them, probably not unlike a drug dealer feeds a junkie. Soon films could be just a series of adrenal-rush "hits" and funny scenes with monkeys, since research shows primates "light up" viewers' brains.

 

In a way, Avatar is a precursor to neurocinema, isn't it? Now, don't get me wrong, I came out impressed by the CGI. But the story? Meh. It had been done a hundred times before, and with less politics. The difference was the 3-D and beautiful graphics—which our brains apparently went wild for, to the tune of $633 million, give or take.

 

Are we truly so caught up in highs? If this is the future of movies, why not just take a syringe of heroine and shoot it directly into our brains?

 

Personally, I will miss character development and lulls.

841 Views 6 Comments Permalink Neurocinema: Finding the Brain's Sweet SpotTwitter Facebook Tags: trends, media, movie, marketing, brain
football stadium.JPGIt's amazing what dust an eensy-weensy Super Bowl ad can stir up.

 

As some of you may have heard, Focus on the Family (Plugged In's parent organization) will be airing a commercial during the Big Game this weekend. The ad—featuring former Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow and his mom—has become a pretty big deal around here—so much so that execs have taken to wearing shoulder pads and doing chest bumps in the hall. Morning devotionals are sounding more and more like play calls ("Isaiah 26:12 … hike!"). And I'm expecting Dippin' Dots vendors to show up sometime today.

 

But if the Super Bowl ad has triggered a certain eccentricity on the Focus campus, it's made some folks positively apoplectic outside it.

 

I've not seen the ad. My boss has not seen the ad. My boss's boss has not seen the ad. Very few of us inside the building have seen it, much less outside our pleasant, cubicle-lined confines. Nevertheless, several groups have asked CBS to yank the thing.

 

"By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," read, in part, a letter to the network signed by a number of women's groups.

 

Sports columnist Gregg Doyel, who writes for cbssports.com, took a different tack: "If you're a sports fan, and I am, that's the holiest day of the year. It's not a day to discuss abortion."

 

The ironies, of course, abound. I mean, we're talking about a sporting event that features advertisements devoted to beer, scantily clad women and folks getting thwacked in the crotch.

 

"Objectionable, after all, is in the eye of the beholder," wrote James Poniewozik, television columnist for Time magazine. "It seems ridiculous to start saying that espousing religion … is objectionable in an ad environment of alcohol-pushing animals, slapstick violence and Danica Patrick's cleavage."

 

For a while, news-related searches for Focus' ad dominated Google. And maybe that's not too surprising since our media culture loves a good row. But my guess is that when folks actually see the ad their reaction will be along the lines of, "Wow. And groups were up in arms over this? An ad celebrating families?"

 

When I was a religion reporter at a Colorado newspaper, I covered Focus on the Family quite a bit. And I learned pretty quickly that some people love the organization and some people—well, don't.

 

Now, frankly, I can understand why some folks might disagree with elements of what Focus does: We don't shy away from wading through controversial waters when conviction calls and Scripture specifies. That's part of what the leaders here feel called to do. But back in the day, one of my sources told me something that feels pretty appropriate right about now:

 

"Focus is about as controversial as flossing your teeth."

 

And really, when it comes right down to it, that's how Focus perceives itself: a dispensary of oral hygiene tools—which might hurt a little at the time, but are designed to help and heal, not harm.

2,397 Views 0 Comments Permalink Just Wait 'Til They See the Ad!Twitter Facebook Tags: abortion, media, culture, focus_on_the_family, influence, football, super_bowl, tim_tebow, pro_life, pro_choice

The 90-Hour Media Week

Posted by Adam_Holz Jan 26, 2010
teenstv.JPGIf you surf any given news site on any given day, you're likely to find some university or scientist that's published the latest research on this, that or the other.

 

Not all of them are pertinent to what we do here at Plugged In, and not all of them are good. But The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's recent study on how much youth use media was one of the most significant I've seen in a long time.

 

The exhaustive study, titled "Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds," is the second such study that Kaiser has commissioned. Back in 2005, Kaiser's researchers found that the average person in this age range consumed 6 hours and 21 minutes of media a day. And when they added in multitasking—watching TV while surfing the Net, for example—that figure rose to 8 hours and 33 minutes. That's a lot of time.

 

So where are things five years later? The introduction to Kaiser's findings puts it this way: "[In 2005], it seemed that young people's lives were filled to the bursting point with media. Today, however, those levels of use have been shattered."

 

Specifically, the average 8- to 18-year-old now spends 7 hours and 38 minutes a day engaged in media (defined as TV, music, computer/Internet usage, video games, books/magazines/newspapers and movies). Add in multitasking, and the figure rises to a whopping 10 hours and 45 minutes.

 

How much time per week is that, you ask? Try about 77 hours and 15 minutes. Remarkably, that number does not include talking on cell phones or texting. But Kaiser tabulated those numbers, too, so add another 33 minutes for daily cell phone conversations and another 1 hour and 35 minutes for texting. Where does that put our cumulative media-use total? Would you believe about 90 hours a week?!

 

Any way you slice it, kids' exposure to media today is incredibly high, and it's only getting higher as mobile and wireless technology increasingly make it possible to watch or listen to anything, anywhere. And though Kaiser's study focuses on youth, other research suggests that media-usage trends among adults are on the uptick as well.

 

So how much time would you say you spend engaged with these media? How about your kids (if you have them)? On the flip side, what strategies do you employ to discipline your own usage or limit your family's exposure? We'd love to hear from you.

834 Views 7 Comments Permalink The 90-Hour Media Week Twitter Facebook Tags: teens, music, children, media, television, video_games, media_usage, kaiser_family_foundation, cell_phones

Story Time ... Online

Posted by Adam_Holz Nov 18, 2009
storytelling.JPGBefore my 3-year-old son, Henry, clambers into bed most nights, we almost always read a story (or two, or maybe three, depending on how determined he is to stay up). If I had a quarter for every time he’s asked me to reread his favorite book about tractors and diggers, well, I could probably retire comfortably.

 

But what if I’m not home at bedtime … and Henry still wants to hear a story from Daddy?

 

A new website, A Story Before Bed, offers a solution. The concept is simple: Parents (or other caregivers) with webcam-equipped computers can select from one of 50 or so books on the site and read it (the book appears onscreen). That reading is recorded to an account on the site, to be played back at any time. During that playback, children see the pages of the book being turned (onscreen) with a window showing the video of Dad or Mom (or perhaps Grandpa or Grandma) reading the story to them. Cost per book: $6.99.

 

We sometimes talk about how modern media and entertainment technology have eroded interest in simple pleasures, like reading a book. This concept, I think, creatively harnesses technology to make the tradition of story time before bed possible, even when Dad or Mom can’t be there.

 

While it might not be quite the same as the "real thing," astorybeforebed.comenables parents who travel, distant grandparents and military personnel stationed overseas a way to connect with their kids or grandkids that they might not have had otherwise.

570 Views 0 Comments Permalink Story Time ... OnlineTwitter Facebook Tags: parenting, communication, media, reading, computer

When Weather Attacks

Posted by Adam_Holz Oct 27, 2009
weather.JPGOnce upon a time, if you were a cable or satellite subscriber, you could rely on staid, utilitarian information outlets such as The Weather Channel to give you the raw data you needed right at that moment. You know, information to help you answer basic questions like, Is it going to snow today? Or, what’s the relative humidity at the moment? (OK, OK, so I never actually needed to know that one.)

 

Those days are over.

 

For a while now, The Weather Channel has been trying to compete with other entertainment-oriented cable offerings. It already has a reality TV show (Storm Stories—featuring real people in real storms with real camcorders). But apparently that wasn’t enough. The Weather Channel has announced that, for the first time in its 27-year-year history, viewers will be able to watch movies as well.

 

First up? The Perfect Storm.

 

Now, I know that The Weather Channel broadcasting movies hardly qualifies as something to get bent out of shape about. No need for a boycott here.

 

But …

 

I think it’s yet another telling example of a clear trend when it comes to our media-drenched way of life: Information alone, as important as it may be, just isn’t enough anymore. If there’s not some entertainment in the mix to spice things up—you know, in case what’s happening with the barometric pressure in Minot, N.D., isn’t compelling enough—the assumption is that viewers will go elsewhere.

 

Even on The Weather Channel.

487 Views 0 Comments Permalink When Weather AttacksTwitter Facebook Tags: entertainment, trends, media, television, the_weather_channel, infotainment

balloons.JPGLast week, 6-year-old Falcon Heene and his weird-science family made headlines when the boy was thought to have been caught up inside a helium balloon. For more than two hours the silver saucer-shaped craft drifted from Ft. Collins, Colo., to the field where it landed just north of Denver. Scores of rescue personnel and police were on hand to help the boy when it hit the ground.

 

But Falcon wasn't there.

 

If you're like me, your eyes were riveted to a screen somewhere. You wondered things like, Did he fall out? Is he unconscious? Catatonic?  If he's not in the balloon, was he kidnapped?? I hope he's not … dead …

 

Later that day, surprise! Falcon emerged unscathed from the rafters of the family's garage. By then, though, the Heene clan was a media magnet. Big time. Their neighborhood was a zoo. A friend of mine lives across the street from the family and says getting out of her driveway was nigh impossible—every network in the country, if not world, was covering the story.

 

Now the authorities say it really was all an elaborate hoax. Richard Heene—of reality show Wife Swap fame—and his merry band of pseudo-scientists allegedly lied bald-faced to national reporters and the world.

 

Still, I'm wondering if this alleged hoax will have its intended benefits, after all. Because of the frenzy, the family is more infamous than ever—which, unfortunately, usually means stardom nowadays. If law enforcement doesn't imprison the parents, I predict that a money-grubbing producer or two will hit them up with the reality show they've always craved. Because, after all, infamy pays off in this country. Just look at Anna Nicole Smith, Monica Lewinsky, "Octomom" Nadya Suleman, and Jon and Kate Gosselin, for starters.

 

Why? Why are we so fascinated by bad behavior? And what is "news" like this actually doing to our culture? Are we growing more cynical or gullible as a result of it? And is our fascination with celebrity gradually softening society's rules, making lying, histrionics and general misbehavior more acceptable in Americans' eyes? Since our society apparently rewards screwball behavior with "fame," then what's stopping another family from exploiting children in another desperate attempt for celebrity?

727 Views 0 Comments Permalink The Balloon Boy Has Landed (in Court)Twitter Facebook Tags: family, media, television, celebrity

iPhone.jpgSome friends and I had dinner last night. During our conversation, we got onto the topic of technology and how it's so addictive—how "CrackBerry" might be a better name for BlackBerry. One friend said, "I can't sit still anymore. If I have down time, I have to be doing something, and I usually check e-mail. And if I'm in a boring meeting, I have to check e-mail again just so I can get through the boredom." Another friend said, "I can ignore phone calls, but if I hear an e-mail ping, I have to read it. Immediately. It's a compulsion."

 

Have we become Pavlov's dogs?

 

What we didn't discuss last night was how this behavior affects relationships. But I've been thinking about it ever since and I've looked around  for examples.

 

Nowadays, most professors don't speak to their students so much as the back of their laptops (and half the time the students are surfing the Web for unrelated information). At many meetings I attend, I see people using their BlackBerry or iPhone, paying attention to the speaker with one eye and their gadget with the other. Kids tied up in a video game or instant messaging grunt at the parent who comes home from work. And when people come over to visit, sometimes they only sporadically chat while checking out people's Facebook updates than actually talking with the people they came to see.

 

It seems like a lot of the time we're too distracted to focus on actual people and events in our lives. It's getting to the point where I'm going to start saying something to tech addicts: "Pry your thumbs away from the device. Unplug the Bluetooth. Put them down and back away. Then make eye contact with someone, listen and smile. You're not missing anything if you focus on one thing at a time!"

 

What do you think? Is CrackBerry a fitting nickname for your phone? Have you seen this behavior, too, or am I just old and misunderstanding something? And if you're with me, what do you think it's doing to (or for) relationships?

809 Views 4 Comments Permalink Put Down the CrackBerry and Talk!Twitter Facebook Tags: relationships, family, communication, media, friends, influence, technology

The Power of Music

Posted by Adam_Holz Oct 5, 2009

pearljam2.JPGSo I just got done listening to the new Pearl Jam album, Backspacer.

 

I confess, as a child of the '80s, I was never much of a PJ fan. Grunge put an end to the musical era that I grew up in, and it's only now, a long time after the fact, that I can give a band like Pearl Jam its due.

 

But that's really not what I want to talk about. Let me try to get back on track here. Eddie Vedder and Co. (among others) ushered in a music era in the early '90s punctuated by angst and inner turmoil. Now, almost 18 years after they first hit the scene, Eddie and his grunge-y Pearl Jam cohorts have mellowed into a surprisingly positive outlook on the good things that life has to offer.

 

Hey, this album's not perfect, as you'll see in our review. It's got some issues. But three times while listening to Backspacer, I felt my skin begin to go all goosepimply and my eyes well up with tears. Why? Because some of the lyrics on PJ's new album express so precisely things I've thought and felt. One of those songs, "Just Breathe," was a tribute to a faithful wife who has sacrificed much ("Nothing you would take," Vedder says of her, "Everything you gave"). That song prompted me to pick up the phone and call my wife, just to tell her how much I love her.

 

Such is the power of music, to simultaneously tap into and provide an outlet for feelings deep inside that we may not even be conscious of until a song, a lyric, gives them voice and sets them wandering about our souls in surprisingly powerful ways--sometimes even from bands or singers we didn't even particularly like before.

 

That's one of the reasons why I love music ... and why I love thinking about the words and images and messages that today's popular musicians are asking us, those who listen, to interact with. They matter because they have the power to unlock stuff inside that we didn't even know was there.

778 Views 2 Comments Permalink The Power of MusicTwitter Facebook Tags: marriage, music, communication, media, influence, emotion, pearl, jam, grunge, album

3, 2, 1, Launch!

Posted by Steven_Isaac Oct 1, 2009

In the dark ages of 1990 when Focus on the Family launched what would soon become Plugged In, Edison’s light bulb was the light bulb, maps were made of paper, MySpace was what you violated in a crowded elevator, and even websites were, for most of us, those hard-to-reach, spider-infested corners of your basement.

 

Just a few things have changed since then!

 

The website you’re looking at right now marks our latest evolutionary—no, make that revolutionary—stride to keep you on top of that rapidly changing media world.

 

It's been almost a year since we first sat down and started seriously talking about reworking, redesigning, revamping, relaunching, reloading and adding a whole bunch of new stuff to Plugged In Online. Exhausting at times, the process has been consistently exhilarating for a whole host of reasons. But first and foremost was the idea that we could greatly improve the way we offer you advice and insight on entertainment.

 

Here's some of that advice and insight, packaged in a brand new way:

 

Plugged In Blog
A little less formal. A whole lot more interactive. (And you're reading it right now!) All of the Plugged In writers will be posting thoughts to our new blog. But the whole point is for you to join the dialogue. The more voices, the better.
 
The Official Plugged In Podcast
Hosted by Plugged In senior editor Bob Smithouser, our new audio podcast features spirited roundtable discussions among Plugged In writers—about the entertainment they're covering each week.

 

Family Room
Need to sit down for a spell and think things out? Need some specific help navigating entertainment for yourself or for your family? That’s why we’ve developed the Family Room, a place where you can explore timeless topics and access a growing archive of articles from the printed pages of Plugged In magazine (may it rest in peace!).

 

Focus on the Films
Every week Bob Waliszewski, Plugged In’s director, sits down to talk about what the latest box office hits are and how your family should react to them. Look for these short video episodes on our movie page.

 

Audio and Video Icons
You’ll notice that some of our movie and video reviews now have "Watch" and "Listen" icons next to them. Sometimes hearing about a film and actually seeing clips from it can help us get a better grip on what it’s all about. So keep an eye out for these links.

 

FIND Reviews
In most major areas of the new site we’ve placed a "Find" box in the top-right corner directly under the search box. It’s your compass as you look for whatever it is you’re looking for! Link here to try one of them out.

 

Top 10 Lists
We had a few of these on our old site, and they were so popular we’ve decided to put a whole bunch of them on our new site. Check out what other Plugged In readers are reading, along with movie box office lists, and video rental and sales lists.


So make yourself at home. Raid the fridge. And never fear, all of your favorite stuff is still here! Our movie, video, music, TV and games pages are all exactly where they should be—but with better layouts and cooler photos.

 

I think I can safely say that change is a good thing. It keeps us all young, energetic and relevant. But a few things, you can be sure, will never change: Our commitment to shining a light on the world of popular entertainment. Our commitment to telling the truth about what we encounter. Our commitment to giving you the best in Christian media discernment—information to safeguard your families and, maybe, offer a little inspiration along the way.

 

We’re pretty excited about this site. We hope you like what you see

897 Views 4 Comments Permalink 3, 2, 1, Launch!Twitter Facebook Tags: music, media, discernment, tv, movie, games, plugged_in, movie_nights, family_room, up_front