Our Commodification
cor...@frogger.telerama.com
>I was struck by this item in Wockner's Quote/Unquote #153:
>
>>"[N]ot one of the 26 new [TV] series scheduled by Fox, NBC, CBS
>> and ABC has even one black lead or major supporting player.
>> ... But when you count both new and returning series, there
>> will be 17 gay leads or major cast members on those four major
>> networks. In fact, there are more gay characters featured in
>> the new fall season than all other minorities combined."
>>
>>--Brian Lambert, media critic for the St. Paul [Minnesota]
>> Pioneer Press, Aug. 8.
17? How are these counted? Are they once again counting the
"presumed" gay characters that never show sexuality, or whose
sexuality is only alluded to? I've read that the producers of Will
and Grace may actually allow Will to date and, oh my, maybe even kiss
a man! While the closet door may be ajar, I don't think it is totally
open and airy just quite yet.
>I take it as axiomatic that sponsors, caring less for the
>dollars of other minorities than for ours, are making an
>expanding effort to tap the LGB market.
I think sponsors are as skiddish as ever, but just as married
heterosexual couples are now permitted to sleep in one bed instead of
the "Rob and Laura twin bed bedroom", the american public has been
desensitized to having gay people parade in front of them (just so
long as they don't do anything sexual).
>There's some question in my mind concerning whether this is in
>our best long-term interests.
It depends on how the character is portrayed. If the sitcom calls for
a bitch, and they fill the part with a "catty gay man", is that in our
community's long-term interest?
FJ!!
Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>I take it as axiomatic that sponsors, caring less for the
>dollars of other minorities than for ours, are making an
>expanding effort to tap the LGB market.
I wouldn't do that.
>There's some question in my mind concerning whether this is in
>our best long-term interests.
There's a question in my mind who those 17 are and how many are actual
reflections of real people with same-sex attractions, modified for their
thematic environments.
FJ!!
"Yes I'm bitter." - Straight-acting gay reincarnated as effeminate straight man
FJ!!
Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>FJ!!:
>>Jess:
>>>I take it as axiomatic that sponsors, caring less for the
>>>dollars of other minorities than for ours, are making an
>>>expanding effort to tap the LGB market.
>I think commercial television (the four networks cited,
>especially) is about delivering viewers to sponsors and only
>about that.
Sure. I'm just not sure this is about delivering LGB viewers as much as
finding new gimmicks to keep delivering the straight viewers.
FJ!!
It's all about you.
Mike Lane
Anderson) wrote:
>
>
>I was struck by this item in Wockner's Quote/Unquote #153:
>
>>"[N]ot one of the 26 new [TV] series scheduled by Fox, NBC, CBS
>> and ABC has even one black lead or major supporting player.
>> ... But when you count both new and returning series, there
>> will be 17 gay leads or major cast members on those four major
>> networks. In fact, there are more gay characters featured in
>> the new fall season than all other minorities combined."
>>
>>--Brian Lambert, media critic for the St. Paul [Minnesota]
>> Pioneer Press, Aug. 8.
>
>I take it as axiomatic that sponsors, caring less for the
>dollars of other minorities than for ours, are making an
>expanding effort to tap the LGB market.
>
>There's some question in my mind concerning whether this is in
>our best long-term interests.
Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
--
ML
fight bigotry and affectation now
------
"You and your fucking puffy cheeks. Shut up already you moron."
--Will "on the" Brink
Beth Linker
: On 8 Sep 1999 12:15:44 GMT, ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu (Jess
: Anderson) wrote:
:>There's some question in my mind concerning whether this is in
:>our best long-term interests.
: Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
According to a spokesperson from Nielsen Media Research, bisexual
characters are counted as 0.5 gay characters each.
-Beth
--
Beth Linker
be...@homosexualmenace.com | bsli...@unix.amherst.edu
"then again, sleeping with madonna *is* on
the squicky-immoral side..." - bitty
kevxu
>
>I was struck by this item in Wockner's Quote/Unquote #153:
>
>>"[N]ot one of the 26 new [TV] series scheduled by Fox, NBC, CBS
>> and ABC has even one black lead or major supporting player.
>> ... But when you count both new and returning series, there
>> will be 17 gay leads or major cast members on those four major
>> networks. In fact, there are more gay characters featured in
>> the new fall season than all other minorities combined."
>>--Brian Lambert, media critic for the St. Paul [Minnesota]
>> Pioneer Press, Aug. 8.
>
>I take it as axiomatic that sponsors, caring less for the
>dollars of other minorities than for ours, are making an
>expanding effort to tap the LGB market.
>
>our best long-term interests.
Ditto.
Ever since the WSJ identified us quite a few years ago
as an upscale market, and that image was accepted so
readily by everyone from advertisers to our political and
religious opponents I have been very uneasy.
So many straight people seem to perceive us all as
an economic elite, an affluent cul-de-sac of the
American consumership. I think it's as constricted
as the PC-type diversity view of us that so many
of our self-appointed leaders promote. Although is
it possible the two balance each other....spose not.
Wasn't there a study done by the Univ. of Maryland
which contradicted the WSJ's depiction of gay
people as so successful and affluent? I seem to
remember a study that showed that most gay
college graduates earned less than their straight
counterparts, whether they were white and male
or not.
Jack
Lee Rudolph
><bsli...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <37d6800f...@news.newsguy.com> Mike Lane wrote:
>>
>>: Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
>>
>>According to a spokesperson from Nielsen Media Research, bisexual
>>characters are counted as 0.5 gay characters each.
>
>It really ought to be 3/5.
Including or excluding Indians not taxed?
Lee Rudolph
Alex Elliott
Mike Lane <ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net> wrote:
>
>Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
They would be if there were any, but there aren't. One article I
read made the point that of the 17 "queer" characters, none are
bisexual and only one (the guy on "Spin City") is non-white.
Alex.
Paul Wallich
<bsli...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>In article <37d6800f...@news.newsguy.com> Mike Lane wrote:
>: On 8 Sep 1999 12:15:44 GMT, ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu (Jess
>: Anderson) wrote:
>
>:>There's some question in my mind concerning whether this is in
>:>our best long-term interests.
>
>: Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
>
>According to a spokesperson from Nielsen Media Research, bisexual
>characters are counted as 0.5 gay characters each.
It really ought to be 3/5.
Although it probably depends a lot on whether these are the kinds
of bisexual who are only bisexual with members of the opposite
sex...
paul
Alex Elliott
Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>FJ!!:
>>Jess:
>
>>>dollars of other minorities than for ours, are making an
>>>expanding effort to tap the LGB market.
>
>
>especially) is about delivering viewers to sponsors and only
>aspect of modern life. Hence my observation.
You'll note that the original quote ignores the fifth (though
admittedly the smallest) network: the WB. This network is
chock-full of shows (particularly sitcoms) with black casts,
which I think has had the effect of ghettoizing these shows.
The "big four" might be less willing to take a chance with
a "black show" or even a black main character because it's
already assumed that the audience is going to be watching
the WB. (Conversely, the WB has fewer gay characters than
any of the "big four".)
I think that this is, in part, a reflection of the fact that
LGB people can be made "ethnically invisible". Gay humor (at
least a little bit of it) is hip right now, and you can throw
in a gay neighbor or sibling to cash in on that hipness, but
still have that character be reassuringly middle-class and
white (not to mention sexless). As I mentioned elsewhere in
this thread, all but one of these gay characters is white and
look pretty much *exactly* like all the straight characters
except that they occasionally say something campy.
Alex.
rich...@library.tmc.edu
>p...@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>
>><bsli...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <37d6800f...@news.newsguy.com> Mike Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>: Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
>>>
>>>According to a spokesperson from Nielsen Media Research, bisexual
>>>characters are counted as 0.5 gay characters each.
>>
>>It really ought to be 3/5.
>
>Including or excluding Indians not taxed?
>
>Lee Rudolph
Inasmuch as none of the "gay" characters on "network" television is
having sex how can anyone tell?
Quite aside from which:
Network television is irrelevant.
rpj
Paul Wallich
(Alex Elliott) wrote:
>In article <37d6800f...@news.newsguy.com>,
>Mike Lane <ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net> wrote:
>>
>>Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
>
>They would be if there were any, but there aren't. One article I
>read made the point that of the 17 "queer" characters, none are
>bisexual and only one (the guy on "Spin City") is non-white.
What about Dysfunctional Family of Five, or are you only bisexual
if you continually alternate between male and female partners?
paul
Paul Wallich
Rudolph) wrote:
>p...@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>
>><bsli...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <37d6800f...@news.newsguy.com> Mike Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>: Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
>>>
>>>According to a spokesperson from Nielsen Media Research, bisexual
>>>characters are counted as 0.5 gay characters each.
>>
>>It really ought to be 3/5.
>
>Including or excluding Indians not taxed?
"Mom, Dad, I've got something to say to you. You may have been
suspecting this for a while. I'm... I'm -- Native American!"
Mike Lane
wrote:
>In article <37d6800f...@news.newsguy.com>,
>Mike Lane <ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net> wrote:
>>
>>Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
>
>They would be if there were any, but there aren't. One article I
>read made the point that of the 17 "queer" characters, none are
>bisexual and only one (the guy on "Spin City") is non-white.
>
>Alex.
Too bad. America should not have the notion of a ...black and white/
either or/ this or that... sexuality reinforced any more than it
already is IMO.
Bethany
> Not bloody likely. Not all of her friends are bisexual characters.
okay, so about 3/4 as many friends.
Bethany "Bitty" Ramirez http://www.amherst.edu/~bkramire/
bi...@homosexualmenace.com
"Fuck a muppet for Jesus!" - Arthur
Beth Linker
: In article <37d6...@amhnt2.amherst.edu>,
: Cruller Nose <bkra...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
:> Youknow, if you persist on counting bisexuals in this fasion,
:>you're going to find yourself with half as many friends as you used to
:>have.
But the remaining friends will be able to recognize when I'm trolling and
when I'm serious, right?
: Not bloody likely. Not all of her friends are bisexual characters.
Of course not. That would totally kill my chances of getting a prime-time
TV show on a major network.
: FJ!!
: "You too can have a lesbian following!" -- Lucy 'Xena' Lawless, oct 16 1998
You keep saying this, but I still don't have a lesbian following. When are
you bringing them over?
FJ!!
Bethany <bkra...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>FJ!! shared thoughts on:
> okay, so about 3/4 as many friends.
Oooh, friends-compressing. Less quantity, better quality.
FJ!!
>You keep saying this,
When did I become Lucy Lawless?
>but I still don't have a lesbian following. When are
>you bringing them over?
As soon as you get a pair of pumps and turn into the mondo lipstick-lesbian
I promised them.
FJ!!
"I was bummed all day. That was before I heard about the million." - Bob Donahue
Beth Linker
: In article <37d6...@amhnt2.amherst.edu>,
: Bethany <bkra...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
:>FJ!! shared thoughts on:
:>> Not bloody likely. Not all of her friends are bisexual characters.
:> okay, so about 3/4 as many friends.
: Oooh, friends-compressing. Less quantity, better quality.
Hardly. After all, some of my best friends are bisexual :)
Matthew Melmon
(Jess Anderson) wrote:
[more gay characters in next fall lineup than all other minorities
combined]
>There's some question in my mind concerning whether this is in
>our best long-term interests.
Aside from the fact that one television season is not particularly
long term, what is the downside?
*X*
Matthew Melmon
<ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ever since the WSJ identified us quite a few years ago
>as an upscale market, and that image was accepted so
>readily by everyone from advertisers to our political and
>religious opponents I have been very uneasy.
Being openly homosexual quite a few years ago was a matter
of some social and economic risk, and as a consequence,
it is reasonable to say that the self-selected members of
that group were (largely) confident in the security of
their position in society. For some, this confidence may
have been the result of economic success. For others,
the fact that they were self-confident may have led to
economic success. But either way, it is not all that
surprising that the earliest identifiable homosexual
consumer group was comparatively affluent (and educated -
geeks, doctors, <boo>lawyers<hiss>, etc.).
*X*
Ellen Evans
>It's possible the sponsors have other motives than profit in
>mind, perhaps political ones, but any political motive would
>likely be subordinate to profit.
Yeahbut profit doesn't necessarily have to do with attracting LGB dollars.
Frankly, given the *mass* media's need of *mass* numbers, I don't thing
LGB dollars are that big a deal. The networks are creatures of fashion.
Shows like Will and Grace have showed that it is possible to have gay main
characters (FSVO gay) and have broadly popular shows. It's hip and it's
happening and it's "different" and it's "edgy" and since they have nothing
else to base their million dollar bets on, why not go with it. And the
hottest thing next year will be something else.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Beth Linker
: Being openly homosexual quite a few years ago was a matter
: of some social and economic risk, and as a consequence,
: it is reasonable to say that the self-selected members of
: that group were (largely) confident in the security of
: their position in society.
It would be reasonable if it were true. What about Stonewall? Or are you
counting people whose positions couldn't get much worse as "confident in
the security of their position in society"?
-Beth
--
Beth Linker
be...@homosexualmenace.com | bsli...@unix.amherst.edu
Bethany
> Hardly. After all, some of my best friends are bisexual :)
Yes, but they only count as half-friends, decreasing the number of
your friends.
averti
>
> In article <7r6hj5$9t4$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> Matthew Melmon wrote:
>
> : Being openly homosexual quite a few years ago was a matter
> : of some social and economic risk, and as a consequence,
> : it is reasonable to say that the self-selected members of
> : that group were (largely) confident in the security of
> : their position in society.
>
> It would be reasonable if it were true. What about Stonewall? Or are you
> counting people whose positions couldn't get much worse as "confident in
> the security of their position in society"?
Ectually (speaking as a tribal elder who was ''there'') up
until the late 60's being homosexual--or rather doing anything
manifest about it--was still illegal in most places in the
US. The VERY small ''homophile'' movement consisted of a few
hundred intellectuals, artistic types, and border-radicals
who tentatively convened quiet little seminars and conventions
in small venues--and then sat around arguing points of
principle in a very familiar lesbigaytg fashion 8).
If I recall, the actual catalyst for Stonewall and the
directly following acts was that the Mob owned and operated
EVERY fag and dyke bar in Manhattan (all dozen or so) and
tended to treat the clientele as lesser beings there to be
preyed upon with overpriced drinks and various extortions.
The cops were a secondary annoyance as most of them were on
the pad, and used to confine their operations to rounding up
a bunch of transvestite street hookers for a night in the
slams.
And THIS was in New York, mind you.
I grew up in the south where it was common unspoken knowledge
that some people were gay, bi, or otherwise sexually
unorthodox, but it _remained_ unspoken. Coming out as we
understand it today would have been tantamount to taking
a stroll in hell wearing a gasoline suit.
OTOH it may be useful in the formation of character for
all young people to live in a perpetual state of potential
criminality and thought crime 8).
>
> -Beth
>
> --
> Beth Linker
> be...@homosexualmenace.com | bsli...@unix.amherst.edu
> "then again, sleeping with madonna *is* on
> the squicky-immoral side..." - bitty
a.
Ken Rudolph
> (Conversely, the WB has fewer gay characters than
> any of the "big four".)
From where did you derive this likely inaccurate factoid? I (to my
everlasting shame) regularly watch 2 shows on the WB, "Dawson's
Creek" and "Felicity". Both have gay characters who, while not stars
of the shows, are still major running characters (Kerr Smith's Jack,
avatar of the show's out-gay creator Kevin Williamson; and Ian Gomez'
Javier, who is returning by popular demand this coming season after
having been written out of the show last spring to play in another
character in a failed series.)
--Ken Rudolph
David Speakman
Matthew Melmon wrote:
Exactly. I'd be pleased as punch if the whole friggin country became completely
bored by the topic of sexual orientation ...
Then I wouldn't have to worry about being fag bashed anymore.
(and I live and work in the SF bay area)
--
---
David Speakman
http://david.speakman.com
Matthew Melmon
(Jess Anderson) wrote:
>My concerns relate to wondering what parts of the real us are
>getting submerged, rendered less likely to be visible, by the
>selective visibility of television characters whose *primary*
>social function is to sell products and whose secondary,
>political, function is to create a false sense of acceptance
>or toleration to mask the real inequalities that abound, the
>more so in those of our subcommunities that are more removed
>from majoritarian social values.
Oh. Good. God.
Television's *primary* social function is to appease the
escapist fantasy of the masses, which is neither here nor
there. If homosexuals are *not* plastered all over television,
then to the "majoritarian" society _they do not exist_. It's
really very simple. If homosexuals are not on television, then
their public mindshare derives from the bitchy hissing that goes
on during political campaigns (from both sides). Want same
sex marriage? Then you've got to have "married" same sex
couples on television. "Inequalities" do not go away if the
people being treated inequitably are largely invisible. Like
*duh*. Who are the most visible people in America? Television
personalities. Like double duh.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
dande...@aol.com (dennis anderson) wrote:
>Um, yes. Making everyone bored seems like a reasonable long term goal to me.
>But you're speaking of having sexual orientation assimilated into the culture.
>Then what would happen to identity politics and the culture of victimization
>surrounding the politics? Would everyone just up and forget about gay pride
>marches and sorta go home and stuff?
They'd go to Ibiza.
*X*
dennis anderson
>Matthew Melmon wrote:
>>ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu
>> (Jess Anderson) wrote:
>> [more gay characters in next fall lineup than all other minorities
>> combined]
>> >There's some question in my mind concerning whether this is in
>> >our best long-term interests.
>> Aside from the fact that one television season is not particularly
>> long term, what is the downside?
>
>Exactly. I'd be pleased as punch if the whole friggin country
>became completely bored by the topic of sexual orientation ...
Um, yes. Making everyone bored seems like a reasonable long term goal to me.
Alex Elliott
Ken Rudolph <ke...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Alex Elliott wrote:
>
>> (Conversely, the WB has fewer gay characters than
>> any of the "big four".)
>
>From where did you derive this likely inaccurate factoid? I (to my
>everlasting shame) regularly watch 2 shows on the WB, "Dawson's
>Creek" and "Felicity". Both have gay characters who, while not stars
>of the shows, are still major running characters
Oops, my bad - I got my minor networks confused. It's UPN that has
no gay characters and it's UPN that has a lock on the African-American
programming.
According to GLAAD, the totals are
NBC: 8
ABC: 6
FOX: 5
CBS: 3
WB: 3
Showtime: 2
HBO: 1
UPN: 0
Gay Men: 22
Lesbians: 5
Transgender: 1
Bisexuals: 0
Of the three WB characters you mentioned, GLAAD only considered one
of them to be major enough to be listed even as "supporting" (or perhaps
he's the only one returning this season), but WB is adding a new animated
series which will include a sixty-something gay couple who have been
together for forty-odd years.
All of the characters are enumerated at
http://www.glaad.org/glaad/scoreboard/index.html
David Migicovsky
<7r6733$qhm$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
> >>
> >>: Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
> >>
> >>characters are counted as 0.5 gay characters each.
> >
> >It really ought to be 3/5.
>
> Including or excluding Indians not taxed?
>
I know you meant this facetiously, but has there ever actually been a gay
Native American character on American TV? There was on the Canadian series
"Liberty Street," played by a gay, Native Canadian actor, Billy Merasty. I
didn't follow the series, but like so many gay, Native Canadian bike
couriers, he ended up dating a conservative white banker.
David Migicovsky
<37d6aa3e...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>...
> >
> >><bsli...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <37d6800f...@news.newsguy.com> Mike Lane wrote:
> >>>
> >>>: Are bisexual characters counted as gay?
> >>>
> >>>According to a spokesperson from Nielsen Media Research, bisexual
> >>>characters are counted as 0.5 gay characters each.
> >>
> >>It really ought to be 3/5.
> >
> >Including or excluding Indians not taxed?
> >
>
> Inasmuch as none of the "gay" characters on "network" television is
> having sex how can anyone tell?
>
They're not having it onscreen, but there was an episode of Spin City this
year where the gay character (actor's name Michael Boatman?) was dating
Michael J. Fox's old boyhood friend, a naval officer who Fox didn't know
was gay. Fox got jealous and had his friend's leave cancelled by pulling
some strings.
After gay character told Fox what a shit he was, he got his friend back on
leave and arranged a surprise. He gave Boatman the day off, had his friend
(played by Lou Diamond Phillips) come in to the office, sweep Boatman up in
his arms and carry him off, while Fox played a tape of "Love Lift Us Up
Where We Belong" and everyone in the office lined the hallway and
applauded as he carried him out.
Managed to be both funny and romantic as hell. And kudos to Phillips, who
in taking the role was somewhat more of an "officer and a gentleman" than a
certain other actor whose ex became a very public lesbian..
I am not defending the networks by any stretch of the imagination, but
sometimes they're OK.
David Migicovsky
<19990908214332...@ng-co1.aol.com>...
>
> Um, yes. Making everyone bored seems like a reasonable long term goal to
me.
> But you're speaking of having sexual orientation assimilated into the
culture.
> Then what would happen to identity politics and the culture of
victimization
> surrounding the politics? Would everyone just up and forget about gay
pride
> marches and sorta go home and stuff?
>
Don't see why. While the focus while change, mainstream acceptance leads to
Pride Day being bigger, not smaller, although apolitical. Here in Toronto,
Gay Pride has become a mainstream event, much like Caribana. Both attract
many people from outside their ostensibly targeted audience/participants.
It was also broadcast internationally on MuchMusic as "Much Comes Out" --
gay pride being marketed to straight teenagers as a big, fun party for
everyone -- and also a terrific way to reach gay kids in small towns. Can
you imagine the impact it would have had on us as kids (I am assuming that
most people reading this are not isolated small town/rural teens) to see
hundreds of thousands of gay people being *authentically* gay on television
-- and hundreds of thousands of straight people, parents, kids,
politicians, grandparents, etc. standing and watching them with approval --
or joining in.
I see, at least in major cities, Pride Day becoming similar to St.
Patrick's Day. A big, fun celebration where everyone is Irish (gay) for a
day.
As a straight guy from Buffalo said on the local coverage, "It doesn't
matter if you're straight or gay, come on down and be gay. Yay!"
Michael Thomas
> It was also broadcast internationally on MuchMusic as "Much Comes Out" --
> gay pride being marketed to straight teenagers as a big, fun party for
> everyone -- and also a terrific way to reach gay kids in small towns. Can
> you imagine the impact it would have had on us as kids (I am assuming that
> most people reading this are not isolated small town/rural teens) to see
> hundreds of thousands of gay people being *authentically* gay on television
> -- and hundreds of thousands of straight people, parents, kids,
> politicians, grandparents, etc. standing and watching them with approval --
> or joining in.
It's ever so wonderful to be the Great
Gentrifier. Gay Neighborhoods, gay fashion, gay
style, gay sex, gay pride. Best of all is that
when str8y's entitlement comes a calling, we
have the gay sensibility to know that str8y
gets what he wants.
"You all want to be gay today? Yessum, yessum, yessum!"
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
"I dunno, that's an awful lot of money."
Beavis
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented "Matthew Melmon" <mel...@mindspring.com>
broadcast on soc.motss:
|In article <7r66gh$qm9$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> , "kevxu"
|<ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|
|>Ever since the WSJ identified us quite a few years ago
|>as an upscale market, and that image was accepted so
|>readily by everyone from advertisers to our political and
|>religious opponents I have been very uneasy.
|
|Being openly homosexual quite a few years ago was a matter
|of some social and economic risk, and as a consequence,
|it is reasonable to say that the self-selected members of
|that group were (largely) confident in the security of
|their position in society. For some, this confidence may
|have been the result of economic success. For others,
|the fact that they were self-confident may have led to
|economic success. But either way, it is not all that
|surprising that the earliest identifiable homosexual
|consumer group was comparatively affluent (and educated -
|geeks, doctors, <boo>lawyers<hiss>, etc.).
This is half the story. The other group who could afford
to be out were those who had nothing to lose. Thus,
pairings like the bootblack and the poet were not especially
unlikely, nor necessarily economically motivated. That the
out gay people were generally petty bourgeoise or lumpen
was a mainstay of Marxist homophobia for a long time.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
* "Every time I've built character, I've regretted it."
Michael Thomas
> In article <oAzB3.3126$PF3.1...@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net> FJ!! wrote:
> : In article <37d6...@amhnt2.amherst.edu>,
> : Bethany <bkra...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
> :>FJ!! shared thoughts on:
> :>> Not bloody likely. Not all of her friends are bisexual characters.
>
> :> okay, so about 3/4 as many friends.
>
> : Oooh, friends-compressing. Less quantity, better quality.
>
But they're not half the men they used to be?
Alex Elliott
<rich...@library.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>Quite aside from which:
>
>Network television is irrelevant.
To you, perhaps. Not so to millions of people who form your
immediate environment.
Alex.
Tim Wilson
> Does it matter whether Pride events are organised by LGBT*-folks? I'm
> beginning to notice some places where straight people understand our
> (ahem) culture enough to be able to reproduce it in some form. You
> don't need to be gay to run a big event, collect a few drag queens and
> Dykes on Bikes and get the kids to wave rainbow flags. Innovation and
> moving-with-the-times needs something more.
>
> Robert, noting that St Patrick's Day isn't quite the same in Ireland
> as in North America
When I was in elementary school in a small town in rural middle
Tennessee, we celebrated St. Patrick's Day every year. Wear green,
put up decorations with shamrocks and leprechauns, etc. (I think I
was in the 8th or 9th (US) grade when I learned that one could even
wear orange to be antagonistic, or to express a different heritage.)
I read a column once -- I don't recall where it was: The Advocate?
The Memphis Flyer? -- suggesting that at some future time, Gay Days
will be times when *everyone* gets to be gay, just like Everyone Is
Irish on St. Patrick's Day. I know there are elements of co-option in
that, but it still seems like a nice thought.
--
Tim Wilson http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/ mailto:tawi...@memphis.edu
Motss.Con.99 (1-3 October): http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/motss.con/home.html
FJ!!
David Migicovsky <s...@sig.com> wrote:
>Don't see why. While the focus while change, mainstream acceptance leads to
>Pride Day being bigger, not smaller,
Didn't work that way for The Netherlands.
FJ!!
"[Space] aliens blend in. It's the ones you expect least." - "roger"
FJ!!
Do you have any idea how passe Ibiza is? Good gawd, it was becoming tired
even before I left Europe. I have a feeling that it's right now filled
with barfy US boys who used to come to Amsterdam until years ago,
walking around stenching, drunk, and wide-eyed going "Dude! Dude! Dude!
You can drink here without an ID! Dude!"
I'm waiting for you to now discover Goa as the hotspot to be. Then London.
FJ!!
"Should we be saving our dryer lint for you?" -- Robert Coren
cor...@frogger.telerama.com
"In this provocative report, M.V. Lee Badgett updates and extends her
ground breaking work, outlining how the myth of high-income and wealth
has persisted largely through the paucity of comprehensive,
demographic studies of GLB people nationally. She closely examines
several sources of information about the incomes of gay men, lesbians,
and bisexuals, pointing out the serious flaws in some studies and
analyzing other more scientifically credible data sources.
Among the report's findings is the actual diversity of economic life
among this population and the reality that lesbian and gay men earn no
more than heterosexual people; indeed in some cases gay men appear to
earn less than comparable heterosexual men."
HTH
cor...@frogger.telerama.com
>They're not having it onscreen,
Sex and the City, September 19, 1999, HBO
OK, it is two gay guys who are bored with sex so they pick up a woman
(Samantha, the slut), but they are all in bed together and get to kiss
her breast, so that's something.
http://www.advocate.com had a story on it -- don't know if it is still there.
rich...@library.tmc.edu
Elliott) wrote:
Turn up your hyperbole filters, Alex.
To me, definitely, and to millions of people in my immediate
environment who have likewise migrated to cable and/or the internet
and who might catch an episode of a network primetime series a couple
of times a season.
Network television doesn't remotely have the same degree of influence
it had 15 years ago, much less 30 years ago. Which doesn't make it
irrelevant, just less relevant than it was.
rpj
Mike Lane
<mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Television's *primary* social function is to appease the
>escapist fantasy of the masses, which is neither here nor
>there. If homosexuals are *not* plastered all over television,
>then to the "majoritarian" society _they do not exist_. It's
>really very simple. If homosexuals are not on television, then
>their public mindshare derives from the bitchy hissing that goes
>on during political campaigns (from both sides). Want same
>sex marriage? Then you've got to have "married" same sex
>couples on television. "Inequalities" do not go away if the
>people being treated inequitably are largely invisible. Like
>*duh*. Who are the most visible people in America? Television
>personalities. Like double duh.
>
>*X*
I think you give too much importance to a medium that is declining in
importance to the X and Y generations to which your beloved DUST
cohort belong.
Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this neeto new
fangled thing called the Internet....
--
ML
fight bigotry and affectation now
------
"You and your fucking puffy cheeks. Shut up already you moron."
--Will "on the" Brink
Bethany
> But they're not half the men they used to be?
Beth's knows JW Bobbitt? Wow, is he coming to the party, too?
-bitty, always seeking new means of entertainment
cor...@frogger.telerama.com
>
>I think you give too much importance to a medium that is declining in
>importance to the X and Y generations to which your beloved DUST
>cohort belong.
>
>Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this neeto new
>fangled thing called the Internet....
WebTV -- yick.
Beth Linker
: Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this neeto new
: fangled thing called the Internet....
I'll buy that when Americans start watching the Super Bowl on the
Internet.
Bethany
> Internet.
beer commercials would lose something on-line.
Charlie Fulton
:
: I know you meant this facetiously, but has there ever actually been a gay
: Native American character on American TV?
Tonto.
--
Charlie Fulton---foultone@mtcc.com---http://www.mtcc.com/~foultone/
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun."
Montgomery Burns
Charlie Fulton
:
: Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this neeto new
: fangled thing called the Internet....
Splat is well aware of the Internet. As I understand it, he's currently
girding himself up to be a Malcolm McLaren meets Fagin Internet thing.
Charlie Fulton
: In article <37d7c5d3...@news.newsguy.com> Mike Lane wrote:
:
: : Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this neeto new
: : fangled thing called the Internet....
: Internet.
Five years, tops.
Mike Lane
Anderson) wrote:
>
>Scott Safier:
>>Mike Lane:
>>>Matthew Melmon:
>
>>>>Television's *primary* social function is to appease the ...
>
>>>I think you give too much importance to a medium that is
>>>declining in importance ...
>
>I think that's a somewhat premature forecast. It's changing,
>but it's not likely to decline in any lasting sense. There will
>always be markets, even for mindless, er, entertainment
>fantasy, perhaps especially for that.
>
>>>Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this
>>>neeto new fangled thing called the Internet...
>
>The longer-term impact of which is still quite unclear, apart
>from the fact its *having* an impact.
It has had a big impact on my life and I did not even grow up with it.
I was not online till I was about 18-19. Nowadays there are 5 year
olds who know more about the net than their parents.
The impact the net will have on those lives is going to be profound,
IMO. Of course trying to determine what that impact is and how it
manifests itself is going to be rather challenging.
Matthew Melmon
>This is half the story. The other group who could afford
>to be out were those who had nothing to lose. Thus,
>pairings like the bootblack and the poet were not especially
>unlikely, nor necessarily economically motivated. That the
>out gay people were generally petty bourgeoise or lumpen
>was a mainstay of Marxist homophobia for a long time.
Another poster pointed that out, and I agree more or less.
I'm not so sure the people with "nothing to lose" economically
necessarily had "nothing to lose" socially - poor, inner-city
minority populations might not lose the jobs they don't have,
but talk about hostile social environments... But I'm certainly
willing to agree that having "nothing to lose" would also make
it "easier" to be openly gay.
Even so, that doesn't change the fact that it isn't too surprising
that the Wall Street Journal editors would perceive homosexuals
as affluent. The buying habits of the lowest economic rungs
don't show up on the consumer radar screen very brightly - food,
shelter, and clothing occupying a good chunk of that consumption
dollar. Consequently, from the WSJ perspective on "luxury"
consumption (and the non-essentials are really where marketing
dollars are focused), there's the middle and upper economic
class. So, even if "out" homosexuals appeared (several years
ago) at both ends of the economic spectrum, what people tracking
consumer behavior (and the more dollars spent, the more
interesting the consumer to such people) see of the homosexual
population is affluence. They don't see the "lower" class gay
consumption because there aren't many dollars being spent, and
a good portion of them are spent on commodities that don't
excite advertisers. They don't see the "middle" class gay
consumption because they don't see the "middle" class gays.
They see the "upper" class consumption because they can see
the gays and they can see the dollars flying around.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
(Mike Lane) wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 19:58:55 -0700, "Matthew Melmon"
><mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I think you give too much importance to a medium that is declining in
>importance to the X and Y generations to which your beloved DUST
>cohort belong.
>
>Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this neeto new
>fangled thing called the Internet....
Uh-huh. The people who produce for television are the same people who
will produce for the Internet. If homosexuals are on television, they
will be on the Internet (mind you, interactive video distribution over
the Net is more than a few years away). If the content producers aren't
making television shows about homosexuals, then just who do you think
is going to be making Internet television shows about homosexuals?
AOL? Yahoo? Yeah, right.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
>Mike Lane (ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net) wrote:
>:
>: Is the television obsolete? Of course not but there is this neeto new
>: fangled thing called the Internet....
>
>Splat is well aware of the Internet. As I understand it, he's currently
>girding himself up to be a Malcolm McLaren meets Fagin Internet thing.
The engineers are working...
<CRACK!> BACK TO WORK! <CRACK!>
...and I have gotten buy-in on the fact that there is a market opportunity
in this particularly area *precisely* *because* anyone stupid enough to
go into it will get their ass sued off by the RIAA.
*X*
(no pain, no gain, baby!)
Matthew Melmon
(Jess Anderson) wrote:
>
>Matthew Melmon:
>
>>Television's *primary* social function is to appease the
>>escapist fantasy of the masses, which is neither here nor
>>there.
>
>Here *and* there: who pays for "appeasing the escapist fantasy
>of the masses"? Why do they pay for it?
Broadcast television is advertising subsidized. The amount of
money an advertiser will pay depends upon the market share of
the program in which they are buying space - i.e., the program's
ability to appease the largest slice of the masses pie. You have
put the cart before the horse (shocking).
*X*
averti
>
> In article <Lj313AwZ...@io.com> , eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>
> >This is half the story. The other group who could afford
> >to be out were those who had nothing to lose. Thus,
> >pairings like the bootblack and the poet were not especially
> >unlikely, nor necessarily economically motivated. That the
> >out gay people were generally petty bourgeoise or lumpen
> >was a mainstay of Marxist homophobia for a long time.
>
> Another poster pointed that out, and I agree more or less.
> I'm not so sure the people with "nothing to lose" economically
> necessarily had "nothing to lose" socially - poor, inner-city
> minority populations might not lose the jobs they don't have,
> but talk about hostile social environments... But I'm certainly
> willing to agree that having "nothing to lose" would also make
> it "easier" to be openly gay.
Certainly seemed the case in the Stonewall days, when being
a black or Puerto Rican transvestite prostitute junkie
(not that that makes you a BAD person!) was arguably near
the bottom rung of the social ladder. Every ladder. What
advertising budgets DO aim at fringe people, night people,
people who live from day to day and score to score?
>
> Even so, that doesn't change the fact that it isn't too surprising
> that the Wall Street Journal editors would perceive homosexuals
> as affluent. The buying habits of the lowest economic rungs
> don't show up on the consumer radar screen very brightly - food,
> shelter, and clothing occupying a good chunk of that consumption
> dollar. Consequently, from the WSJ perspective on "luxury"
> consumption (and the non-essentials are really where marketing
> dollars are focused), there's the middle and upper economic
> class. So, even if "out" homosexuals appeared (several years
> ago) at both ends of the economic spectrum, what people tracking
> consumer behavior (and the more dollars spent, the more
> interesting the consumer to such people) see of the homosexual
> population is affluence. They don't see the "lower" class gay
> consumption because there aren't many dollars being spent, and
> a good portion of them are spent on commodities that don't
> excite advertisers. They don't see the "middle" class gay
> consumption because they don't see the "middle" class gays.
> They see the "upper" class consumption because they can see
> the gays and they can see the dollars flying around.
>
Makes sense. Geeze, now I can go home and look at my digital
cameras and wine cellar and say ''Hey! Inasmuch as you guys
are not children or some similar money sink, I guess this
makes me ''upper class!'' Whee!
> *X*
a,
Ellen Evans
Mike Lane <ml...@earthling.net> wrote:
[]
>Your thinking is very 80s. The net has been an equalizer in the sense
>that with SKILL you can put up a web site that will blow away all the
>resources and power of IBM or Pepsico and you can do it from your
>basement.
Fewer people than you believe have such SKILLS.
>I think internet video has a shot of reproducing the same
>type of phenomenon where producers with a 5000$ budget come out of
>nowhere to beat the deep pocket production houses.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Nope.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Matthew Melmon
Lane) wrote:
>Your thinking is very 80s. The net has been an equalizer in the sense
>that with SKILL you can put up a web site that will blow away all the
>resources and power of IBM or Pepsico and you can do it from your
>basement. I think internet video has a shot of reproducing the same
>type of phenomenon where producers with a 5000$ budget come out of
>nowhere to beat the deep pocket production houses.
That is absolutely preposterous - unless you are not saying that someone
is going to actually deliver streaming video for $5k, but will only
produce the videos for someone else to distribute. In which case,
it is merely preposterous. I'm sure that $5k would make a very nice
home movie. A network television show that runs week after week
after week? Absurd. The costs in producing a sitcom are not sunk
into the special effects gimmicks that jack up the price of feature
films. You've got to *pay* your actors, your scriptwriters, your
cameramen - all the low-tech functions that aren't going to go away
because someone is filming in their garage. Or what, Joe Shmuck
is going to film the next E.R. with a Sony camcorder and some
60 watt bulbs using neighborhood kids working for free?
Now, to deliver that home movie to the Vast Consuming Public, unless
Mr. Shmuck can convince AOL, TiVo or whoever to carry his product,
if he wants to reach a million households, he's going to be buying a
Sun Starfire 1000 or SGI Origin 2000 (64 cpu+) and stuffing it into his
kid's room (I believe the Sun requires a raised floor, tho), filling the
hallway bathroom with Cisco routers, connecting about 2,500
extra phone cables to his house, and making a sizeable investment in
some Oracle media database software.
$5k is off by a factor of, oh 5k.
*X*
Ken Rudolph
>
> In article <37d85958...@news.erols.com> , ml...@earthling.net (Mike
> Lane) wrote:
>
> >Your thinking is very 80s. The net has been an equalizer in the sense
> >that with SKILL you can put up a web site that will blow away all the
> >resources and power of IBM or Pepsico and you can do it from your
> >basement. I think internet video has a shot of reproducing the same
> >type of phenomenon where producers with a 5000$ budget come out of
> >nowhere to beat the deep pocket production houses.
>
> That is absolutely preposterous - unless you are not saying that someone
> is going to actually deliver streaming video for $5k, but will only
> produce the videos for someone else to distribute. In which case,
> it is merely preposterous. I'm sure that $5k would make a very nice
> home movie. A network television show that runs week after week
> after week? Absurd. The costs in producing a sitcom are not sunk
> into the special effects gimmicks that jack up the price of feature
> films. You've got to *pay* your actors, your scriptwriters, your
> cameramen - all the low-tech functions that aren't going to go away
> because someone is filming in their garage. Or what, Joe Shmuck
> is going to film the next E.R. with a Sony camcorder and some
> 60 watt bulbs using neighborhood kids working for free?
[internet distribution cost factors snipped]
> $5k is off by a factor of, oh 5k.
At the risk of getting *BONKED* for disputing the word of Mme La
Reine, I'd tell a story here. The American Cinematheque has a
program called "The Alternate Screen" where they show el cheapo
independent films every other Thursday night.
A few months ago they showed a "film" called "Shucking the Curve" by
indie filmmaker Todd Verow. It was shot on digital video with pro
actors and crew working for deferred salaries on weekends and during
spare time; edited on a PC (maybe a Mac, I'm not sure), finished and
released to the theater on some form of digital video disk.
We're not talking old fashioned video blown up on a big TV set here.
This really looked professional, with a great director of photography
who knew how to handle video lighting (in this case mostly available
light or simple one-light setups on stolen locations; but extremely
well done), and state-of-the art digital projection (hi-def, no scan
lines, the wave of the future in terms of movie projection) projected
onto a big movie screen. Also, the production values were very
high: professional quality script, direction, acting, photography,
editing.
During the Q&A, when the audience was told that the film was a video,
several people proclaimed their surprise. I could tell it wasn't
film; but I was amazed by the quality of the image. The
director/producer was asked how much it cost to make...and instead of
hedging the way that indie filmmakers usually do, he proudly told us
that the cost to finish, with all salaries deferred, was $2,000 (not
including the amortizable assets, such as the camera, the computer &
software). Honest. And this was for a *professional* looking
theatrical release.
Production costs are going down dramatically. A lot of crud is going
to be produced for very little money. But some high quality stuff is
also going to get made, following Sturgeon's law. And if theatrical
features can be made for such pittances, then I'm sure high quality,
low cost internet visual productions will be able to be exhibited
also. We live in interesting times.
--Ken Rudolph
Mike Lane
<mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Uh-huh. The people who produce for television are the same people who
>will produce for the Internet. If homosexuals are on television, they
>will be on the Internet (mind you, interactive video distribution over
>the Net is more than a few years away). If the content producers aren't
>making television shows about homosexuals, then just who do you think
>is going to be making Internet television shows about homosexuals?
>AOL? Yahoo? Yeah, right.
>
>*X*
Your thinking is very 80s. The net has been an equalizer in the sense
that with SKILL you can put up a web site that will blow away all the
resources and power of IBM or Pepsico and you can do it from your
basement. I think internet video has a shot of reproducing the same
type of phenomenon where producers with a 5000$ budget come out of
nowhere to beat the deep pocket production houses.
--
ML
David W. Fenton
<7r9mqd$c2t$1...@panix3.panix.com>:
>In article <37d85958...@news.erols.com>,
>Mike Lane <ml...@earthling.net> wrote:
>[]
>>Your thinking is very 80s. The net has been an equalizer in the
>>sense that with SKILL you can put up a web site that will blow
>>away all the resources and power of IBM or Pepsico and you can do
>>it from your basement.
>
>Fewer people than you believe have such SKILLS.
Mike's comment is so 1995.
Putting up a major Internet site costs millions today, and takes
100s of thousands per year/month in overhead to run (communications
costs, capital expenditures). The "site design" is usually the
smallest portion of most Web business plans. The largest part is
usually marketing.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
FJ!!
Mike Lane <ml...@earthling.net> wrote:
>Your thinking is very 80s. The net has been an equalizer in the sense
>that with SKILL you can put up a web site that will blow away all the
>resources and power of IBM or Pepsico and you can do it from your
>basement.
And nobody will ever see it.
And if somebody publicises it anyway, you will be /. to death because you
don't have IBM's server farm.
FJ!!
"Not every psychopathic killer acts like my mother." -- Tom Farrell
Mike Lane
wrote:
>We live in interesting times.
>
>--Ken Rudolph
There will always be people like Melmon and the Gnat who cling to the
old methods of doing things and rebel at the notion that things may
have indeed changed. The net, and as you point out the digital
revolution in general, has introduced a paradigm change that is not at
all fully realized yet. I believe it has empowered the mind. Where
huge budgets were needed now simply an idea and the technical knowhow
to make it work can be all you need. Do I think that huge budgets are
obsolete? Of course not but the field is leveling in several
interesting respects.
Mike Lane
>In article <37d85958...@news.erols.com>,
>Mike Lane <ml...@earthling.net> wrote:
>[]
>>Your thinking is very 80s. The net has been an equalizer in the sense
>>that with SKILL you can put up a web site that will blow away all the
>>resources and power of IBM or Pepsico and you can do it from your
>>basement.
>
>Fewer people than you believe have such SKILLS.
>
I never mentioned how many people I believe have such skill.
>>I think internet video has a shot of reproducing the same
>>type of phenomenon where producers with a 5000$ budget come out of
>>nowhere to beat the deep pocket production houses.
>
>Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Nope.
Paradigm shifts rarely are.
Clayton Colwell
: Production costs are going down dramatically. A lot of crud is going
: to be produced for very little money. But some high quality stuff is
: also going to get made, following Sturgeon's law.
Just to be contrary: when Sturgeon said that "90% of <everything>
is crud", he hasn't said anything about the other 10%. :-)
: And if theatrical
: features can be made for such pittances, then I'm sure high quality,
: low cost internet visual productions will be able to be exhibited
: also. We live in interesting times.
Agreed. I guess the question is the magnitude -- will we be
seeing a plethora or a pittance?
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthTroll) ***** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
Clayton Colwell
: Robert Cumming (robe...@bahnhof.se) wrote:
: > I thought Tony was meaning '(male) over-35s' or somesuch subclass.
: I'm reclaiming 'troll'.
: It doesn't mean males-over-35 anymore. It means
: anyone who bothers anyone else with how over
: Pride they are. Spiritual trolls, if you will.
Hmph.
XAOS
news:37d919b5...@news.newsguy.com...
> On 9 Sep 1999 21:27:41 -0400, je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
> >Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Nope.
>
> Paradigm shifts rarely are.
May I just point out how much I detest the stunningly overused phrase
"p*r*d*gm sh*ft"?
- Steve
Mike Lane
wrote:
I rarely ever use it. I think it is appropriate in this case. You
may, however, consider your objection duly noted.
Mike Lane
>And if somebody publicises it anyway, you will be /. to death because you
>don't have IBM's server farm.
What does this mean?
FJ!!
Mike Lane <ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:54:16 GMT, f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) wrote:
>>And if somebody publicises it anyway, you will be /. to death because you
>>don't have IBM's server farm.
>
>What does this mean?
'The /. Effect' is a name for the phenomenon of server-outage due to
user-overload. This name originates from the site www.slashdot.org ('News
for Nerds. Stuff That Matters') as every time that a cool site has
its URL posted on this page, so many readers of this popular site check
it out that only the touch servers survive at all, and only the
toughest manage to server anything back, usually only to a tiny minority
of the requests.
In other words, once you have your cool levelling web site out there,
should it suddenly get some publicity, you're most likely dead, with
nary a chance for repeat visits by these swells of people who couldn't
see your site in the first place.
(They have a continuing thread on hardware casing modifications. I have
not submitted the PHKL because I very much like my provider.)
FJ!!
"My therapist is on vacation, I have lost all sense of time." - W. Crawford
Ellen Evans
Mike Lane <ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net> wrote:
>I never mentioned how many people I believe have such skill.
If only a few people have a SKILL, the phrase "equalizer" rings a tad
hollow.
[]
>Paradigm shifts rarely are.
Paradigm shifts: one of those things it's so easy to *say*.
Ellen Evans
Ken Rudolph <ke...@thegrid.net> wrote:
[]
>At the risk of getting *BONKED* for disputing the word of Mme La
>Reine, I'd tell a story here. The American Cinematheque has a
>program called "The Alternate Screen" where they show el cheapo
>independent films every other Thursday night.
>A few months ago they showed a "film" called "Shucking the Curve" by
>indie filmmaker Todd Verow. It was shot on digital video with pro
>actors and crew working for deferred salaries on weekends and during
>spare time; edited on a PC (maybe a Mac, I'm not sure), finished and
>released to the theater on some form of digital video disk.
Deferred salaries are swell when something is all new and shiny. But all
those folks are deferring *now* so they can get a job on something that
isn't new and shiny - and pays cash on the barrelhead - later.
>We're not talking old fashioned video blown up on a big TV set here.
>This really looked professional, with a great director of photography
>who knew how to handle video lighting (in this case mostly available
>light or simple one-light setups on stolen locations; but extremely
>well done), and state-of-the art digital projection (hi-def, no scan
>lines,
Scanning is still going on - it's just not as ickily visible as it is in
projected NTSC.
>the wave of the future in terms of movie projection) projected
>onto a big movie screen. Also, the production values were very
>high: professional quality script, direction, acting, photography,
>editing.
Alas, the existence of DV technology doesn't guarentee high production
values - you gots to have the people who have the skill and talent, and
that's never going to be an off the shelf item.
>During the Q&A, when the audience was told that the film was a video,
>several people proclaimed their surprise. I could tell it wasn't
>film; but I was amazed by the quality of the image. The
>director/producer was asked how much it cost to make...and instead of
>hedging the way that indie filmmakers usually do, he proudly told us
>that the cost to finish, with all salaries deferred, was $2,000 (not
>including the amortizable assets, such as the camera, the computer &
>software).
Because he isn't factoring in the great majority of the costs involved in
producing his motion picture - people and equipment.
[]
>Production costs are going down dramatically. A lot of crud is going
>to be produced for very little money. But some high quality stuff is
>also going to get made, following Sturgeon's law. And if theatrical
>features can be made for such pittances, then I'm sure high quality,
>low cost internet visual productions will be able to be exhibited
>also.
And now you've added another layer - "broadband" distribution. As
Splat pointed out, the costs involved in media distribution - particularly
streaming technologies of the sort we are discussing - are *far* from
cheap.
>We live in interesting times.
I absolutely agree. The technology has wonderful possibilities. But the
idea that the fact that there has been some redistribution of cost at the
level of technology means that there will now be a golden age of product
is just silly.
Éamonn McManus
> Robert, noting that St Patrick's Day isn't quite the same in Ireland
> as in North America
Ladies and Gentlemen, Robert has just committed a litotes.
,
Eamonn http://eamonn.mcmanus.net/
'"Daum" marries her pedantic automaton "George" in May 1920, John Heartfield
is very glad of it.' -- Picture by Grosz, http://kah-bonn.de/1/20/08.htm
Matthew Melmon
>[internet distribution cost factors snipped]
>
>> $5k is off by a factor of, oh 5k.
>
>At the risk of getting *BONKED* for disputing the word of Mme La
>Reine, I'd tell a story here.
Um, you snipped the "Internet distribution cost factors" from
an argument that teevee broadcasting over the Internet was going
to cost a wee tad more than $5k, and substituted it with an
observation that a film that hasn't been nationally distributed
and that nobody but you (basically) has heard of can be made for 5k.
That's cheating. So I'll cheat back by simply observing that
such films are not going to replace broadcast television.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
(Mike Lane) wrote:
>There will always be people like Melmon and the Gnat who cling to the
>old methods of doing things and rebel at the notion that things may
>have indeed changed. The net, and as you point out the digital
>revolution in general, has introduced a paradigm change that is not at
>all fully realized yet. I believe it has empowered the mind. Where
>huge budgets were needed now simply an idea and the technical knowhow
>to make it work can be all you need. Do I think that huge budgets are
>obsolete? Of course not but the field is leveling in several
>interesting respects.
This is delicious. Your vision seems to be: "Well, gosh golly gee darn,
if those boys had put 'Blair Witch' up on their GeoCities homepage, they'd
be millionaires without having had to sell their souls to a national film
distribtion company." Then again, that pre-supposes you know what the
role of a national film distribution company is - I know Ken does, which
make his observations fully deserving of a *BONK*. Moreover, for your
technical edification, the *Net* is not what enabled the cheap-ass film
production that Ken was talking about (and you appear to have missed the
"salaries deferred" bit - another annoying feature of Ken's post - *BONK*
- given that the salaries were precisely the costs my backward mind brought
up earlier). That cheap production was made possible by the computer
workstations (I suspect it was edited on an SGI Onyx, and not a "PC",
but whatever) and the software running on them (and deferred salaries,
*BONK*... God that is annoying! *BONK*). Workstations and software
are industries in their own right.
The *Internet's* primary role in the entertainment industry is as a
distribution mechanism ("Internet distribution costs snipped"... BAH!).
Given that I can actually describe what the basic requirements of
supporting Internet television are - though such descriptions are
apparently prone to being snipped - and you do not seem to know what
even the role of a film distributor (circa the turn of the last
century) is, as fair warning, the ridicule factor is going to go
up considerably in the near future.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
(Mike Lane) wrote:
>Paradigm shifts rarely are.
There is a paradigm shift involved in the Internet distribution of
entertainment. That shift is *not* the clever idea of distributing
over the network. The paradigm shift is that suddenly, broadcasting
becomes a one-to-one distribution, instead of a one-to-many. The
consequence of that is that consumers will be able to pick and
choose what they will see, and by *X*tension, what they won't.
The consequence of that is that material which sucks will die a
quicker death than it does today.
It is as likely that the consequence of *that* will be rising
production costs as producers strive to meet consumer demands.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
(FJ!!) wrote:
>>What does this mean?
>
>'The /. Effect' is a name for the phenomenon of server-outage due to
>user-overload. This name originates from the site www.slashdot.org ('News
>for Nerds. Stuff That Matters') as every time that a cool site has
>its URL posted on this page, so many readers of this popular site check
>it out that only the touch servers survive at all, and only the
>toughest manage to server anything back, usually only to a tiny minority
>of the requests.
>
>In other words, once you have your cool levelling web site out there,
>should it suddenly get some publicity, you're most likely dead, with
>nary a chance for repeat visits by these swells of people who couldn't
>see your site in the first place.
And these are the problems that stupendously *X*pensive servers/routers/
switches/leased OC12 ports/whatnot - I should pick on Ken again here -
address. These costs (and the salaries for professionals working week
after week on a television series - I should pick on Ken again) remove
Internet television production from the desktop. Nevermind the costs of
revenue *collection*, a whole 'nuther ball-o-wax.
*X*
(and then there are the legal bills... mu ahh ahhh ahhhh... oh, yes,
baby, have the lawyers got their copyright talons sunk into the Internet)
Mike Lane
<mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <37d91833...@news.newsguy.com> , ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net
>(Mike Lane) wrote:
>
>>There will always be people like Melmon and the Gnat who cling to the
>>old methods of doing things and rebel at the notion that things may
>>have indeed changed. The net, and as you point out the digital
>>revolution in general, has introduced a paradigm change that is not at
>>all fully realized yet. I believe it has empowered the mind. Where
>>huge budgets were needed now simply an idea and the technical knowhow
>>to make it work can be all you need. Do I think that huge budgets are
>>obsolete? Of course not but the field is leveling in several
>>interesting respects.
>
>This is delicious.
Where have I heard that before???
>Your vision seems to be: "Well, gosh golly gee darn,
>if those boys had put 'Blair Witch' up on their GeoCities homepage, they'd
>be millionaires without having had to sell their souls to a national film
>distribtion company."
Huh? Who was talking about theater distribution?
>Then again, that pre-supposes you know what the
>role of a national film distribution company is - I know Ken does, which
>make his observations fully deserving of a *BONK*.
That bonk would not by any chance have a pinkish hue did it?
>Moreover, for your
>technical edification, the *Net* is not what enabled the cheap-ass film
>production that Ken was talking about (and you appear to have missed the
>"salaries deferred" bit - another annoying feature of Ken's post - *BONK*
>- given that the salaries were precisely the costs my backward mind brought
>up earlier).
Deferred salaries was just a method that I ignored. I'm not going to
try and guess the how, why, what, where, and when. Rather I am saying
you have a viewpoint that tends to look backward, note how it has
always been done, look forwards, and proclaims that is how it always
will be done.
>That cheap production was made possible by the computer
>workstations (I suspect it was edited on an SGI Onyx, and not a "PC",
>but whatever) and the software running on them (and deferred salaries,
>*BONK*... God that is annoying! *BONK*). Workstations and software
>are industries in their own right.
>
Er, yes. Advancements in technology, making production and
distribution cheaper. Are you agreeing with me now? Make up your
mind for goodness sake or I may slap you with a "him? he is an old
man!" whammy.
>The *Internet's* primary role in the entertainment industry is as a
>distribution mechanism ("Internet distribution costs snipped"... BAH!).
I can't think of much I have been entertained by on the web that was
not at least partially interactive. Even if that interaction is just
an email address. Once something is interactive is it really fair to
call it primarily a "distribution mechanism"?
>Given that I can actually describe what the basic requirements of
>supporting Internet television are - though such descriptions are
>apparently prone to being snipped - and you do not seem to know what
>even the role of a film distributor (circa the turn of the last
>century) is, as fair warning, the ridicule factor is going to go
>up considerably in the near future.
Well you really missed a key point here Splatboy. We were not talking
about film distribution in the traditional sense (theaters, etc). But
since you are so anxious to display your knowledge of the film
distribution industry please feel free. If your pedantic urges hold
up you can then launch into the basic requirements of supporting
Internet television. And by the time you are done I suspect a lot of
what you wrote will already be on the way to being obsolete.
Mike Lane
>In article <37d93b83...@news.newsguy.com>,
>Mike Lane <ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:54:16 GMT, f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) wrote:
>>>And if somebody publicises it anyway, you will be /. to death because you
>>>don't have IBM's server farm.
>>
>>What does this mean?
>
>'The /. Effect' is a name for the phenomenon of server-outage due to
>user-overload. This name originates from the site www.slashdot.org ('News
>for Nerds. Stuff That Matters') as every time that a cool site has
>its URL posted on this page, so many readers of this popular site check
>it out that only the touch servers survive at all, and only the
>toughest manage to server anything back, usually only to a tiny minority
>of the requests.
>
>In other words, once you have your cool levelling web site out there,
>should it suddenly get some publicity, you're most likely dead, with
>nary a chance for repeat visits by these swells of people who couldn't
>see your site in the first place.
Oh. Well this is no doubt true, but lets remember that bandwidth is
not static. Might /. be less of a problem in 5 years?
BTW, I tried several of the links on that page and had no trouble
getting through.
Ellen Evans
Matthew Melmon <mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[]
>The consequence of that is that material which sucks will die a
>quicker death than it does today.
Fifty-seven channels and nothing on.
Ellen Evans
Matthew Melmon <mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>That cheap production was made possible by the computer
>workstations (I suspect it was edited on an SGI Onyx, and not a "PC",
>but whatever)
I doubt seriously that an Onyx was involved. There are a number of
software packages (Win or Mac) out there that can handle simple editing of
DV material. Which doesn't mean that Johnny can do it in his bedroom -
disk space requirements alone can be pretty imposing. But even top dollar
Hollywood movies are mostly cut on Macs - *extremely* expensive Avid Macs,
but Macs nonethless.
Tim Wilson
> Paradigm shifts rarely are.
Heh heh. Heh heh heh.
--
Tim Wilson http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/ mailto:tawi...@memphis.edu
Motss.Con.99 (1-3 October): http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/motss.con/home.html
Matthew Melmon
(Mike Lane) wrote:
>>Your vision seems to be: "Well, gosh golly gee darn,
>>if those boys had put 'Blair Witch' up on their GeoCities homepage, they'd
>>be millionaires without having had to sell their souls to a national film
>>distribtion company."
>
>Huh? Who was talking about theater distribution?
The *role* of a film distributor is to get the film to the public, doll.
In all of your forward thinking, you appear to have lost site of the
golden beebee. It doesn't matter how clever your film is if nobody
sees it. Even in your Internet distribution model (you don't have
an Internet distribution model - you don't know what the *hell* you're
talking about, but let's pretend you do have such a model), something
has got to play the *role* of national film distributor. Something
has got to tell consumers the movies are out there, and something has
got to replicate the digital content out to those consumers. If Blair
Witch had stopped with some film students putting the thing on their web
page, and nobody ran a national advertising campaign, then it wouldn't
even die the death that FJ!! is talking about, because _nobody would know
it was there_. If somebody did run a national advertising campaign, but
the thing remained was being served on an Aptiva over a $50/month DSL
line, then a couple of people would get the movie, and a couple of
million people would not. I am using Blair Witch as an *X*ample because
it happens to be a relatively low cost film that was a smashing
commercial success.
>Deferred salaries was just a method that I ignored. I'm not going to
>try and guess the how, why, what, where, and when.
I love it. What *X*actly *are* you going to try and guess?
> Rather I am saying
>you have a viewpoint that tends to look backward, note how it has
>always been done, look forwards, and proclaims that is how it always
>will be done.
Sure, babe.
>Er, yes. Advancements in technology, making production and
>distribution cheaper. Are you agreeing with me now? Make up your
>mind for goodness sake or I may slap you with a "him? he is an old
>man!" whammy.
I just enumerated the costs of Internet distribution of broadcast
television as *starting* at $25 million, you twit! That's part of
the how, why, what, where, and when that you aren't trying to guess!
Get it? Your vision of network television replaced by a desktop
user cranking out flicks for $5k *will* *not* *work*. No guesswork.
It *won't* *work*. Very simple, see?
>Well you really missed a key point here Splatboy. We were not talking
>about film distribution in the traditional sense (theaters, etc).
You don't know *what* we're talking about! Do you know how the Internet
works? No. Do you know how film distribution works? No. Do you
know what a national promotional campaign costs? No. Do you know
how an Internet broadcaster would even get paid for the content they
were "broadcasting?" No.
And yet you "know" what we are talking about? Hah.
*X*
Michael Thomas
> (mind you, interactive video distribution over
> the Net is more than a few years away).
::Snorte::
Back to the books, clerke.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
"I dunno, that's an awful lot of money."
Beavis
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
>"Matthew Melmon" <mel...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> (mind you, interactive video distribution over
>> the Net is more than a few years away).
>
> ::Snorte::
>
> Back to the books, clerke.
The current model for video distribution is store and forward.
Or do you consider that "interactive?" No skin off my patootie.
I can live with "real-time interactive video distribution over
the Net is more than a few years away." For people like *you*,
with your rented direct connections, maybe it's no big whoop -
but for those of us who cannot get DSL because of the condition
of our phone wires, it's 56k to stay, baby!
*X*
Michael Thomas
> "Matthew Melmon" <mel...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > (mind you, interactive video distribution over
> > the Net is more than a few years away).
>
> ::Snorte::
>
> Back to the books, clerke.
Pardonez moiz: Kernele Klerke
FJ!!
Mike Lane <ml...@NOSPAMearthling.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 18:00:08 GMT, f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) wrote:
>Oh. Well this is no doubt true, but lets remember that bandwidth is
>not static. Might /. be less of a problem in 5 years?
Bandwidth isn't static, but the width of the pipes isn't the only
problem. There's also the width of the pipes to your door, the size of
the information that your glorious levelling site wants to serve, the
fragility of the current consumer web-servers. and the massive amounts
of new users joining every day. Maybe you can get a better pipe, but in
the time it took you to get it, another 1000 people got online for the
first time, and if you're serious about attracting them...
>BTW, I tried several of the links on that page and had no trouble
>getting through.
Good for you.
FJ!!
"My aunt will happily chrome your dog." - sentence of july 29, 1996
Ned Deily
>Paradigm shifts: one of those things it's so easy to *say*.
Hey, Jeeves, can you lend me a paradigms?
--
Ned Deily,
n...@visi.com -- []
Ned Deily
>MichaelT:
>>>(mind you, interactive video distribution over
>>>the Net is more than a few years away).
>> ::Snorte::
>>Back to the books, clerke.
>Or do you consider that "interactive?" No skin off my patootie.
>I can live with "real-time interactive video distribution over
>the Net is more than a few years away." For people like *you*,
>with your rented direct connections, maybe it's no big whoop -
>but for those of us who cannot get DSL because of the condition
>of our phone wires, it's 56k to stay, baby!
DSL? How boringly slow. Of course, with my laptop still in the repair shop
[the last of today's phone calls: "We've installed the new logic board and
we're just about to power it on. [pause] Oh, it smells like something's
burning."], I'm in the somewhat ironic position of having this really fast
building T1 connection trying to drive my fallback system - a MacIIx with
a 50MHz 68030 upgrade. Netscape rendering is a *bit* slow but otherwise it's
amazing that a mostly 10-year-old system is still usable for most things I
need. With any luck, though, tomorrow will bring reinforcements, I'll be
able to retrieve stuff that's been inaccesible for the last month [Hi, Mike!],
and the MacIIx can go back to sleep.
Arnold Zwicky
ned deily <n...@visi.com> asks ellen evans:
>EE:
>>Paradigm shifts: one of those things it's so easy to *say*.
>Hey, Jeeves, can you lend me a paradigms?
why not ask for a Paraquatters?
as for paradigms, do you want the manual or the automatic shift?
rice holy shift batman highland
Mike Lane
<mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Er, yes. Advancements in technology, making production and
>>distribution cheaper. Are you agreeing with me now? Make up your
>>mind for goodness sake or I may slap you with a "him? he is an old
>>man!" whammy.
>
>I just enumerated the costs of Internet distribution of broadcast
>television as *starting* at $25 million, you twit! That's part of
>the how, why, what, where, and when that you aren't trying to guess!
>Get it? Your vision of network television replaced by a desktop
>user cranking out flicks for $5k *will* *not* *work*. No guesswork.
>It *won't* *work*. Very simple, see?
Did you work for IBM back when they thought PCs were a side business
and the future was mainframes?
--
ML
Ned Deily
>in article <xZmC3.1055$S5.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
>ned deily <n...@visi.com> asks ellen evans:
>>EE:
>>>Paradigm shifts: one of those things it's so easy to *say*.
>>Hey, Jeeves, can you lend me a paradigms?
>why not ask for a Paraquatters?
Makes cents.
>as for paradigms, do you want the manual or the automatic shift?
I prefer to go through life clutching a few of my favorite things.
>rice holy shift batman highland
--St E.D, who would need a big shift to get in gear "D" for "Drag"
Matthew Melmon
Lane) wrote:
>Did you work for IBM back when they thought PCs were a side business
>and the future was mainframes?
If I thought you'd get it, I'd ask you to describe the difference between
a "dumb terminal" and a "network computer," but no matter. To cut to the
chase, "The Future" is huge servers hooked to itsy-bitsy specialized
"appliances" (ohhh-ahhh). One of those appliances is a "set top box" (are
you taking notes?). A "set top box" sits on top of your television set
(get it?). The current model for video distribution has the video producer
replicating (er, dragging his video from a folder on his desktop to another
folder on somebody else's desktop) his content out to an affiliated
video distributor, who, er copies, it onto a whole bunch of servers. The
client, through his "set top box" connects to one of those servers, during
the darkness of night, and downloads (er, copies) what he's going to watch
the next day onto the "set top box's" local hard disk. Kind of like a VCR.
They call it "time shifting."
This model will not support live broadcasts. Can you see why? Broadcast
television supports live broadcasts, so the above isn't really "interactive
broadcast television" (Michael may chime in here at any time). To support
live broadcasts, the client has to connect directly to the media producer.
Now, the "set top box" is even simpler: no local hard disk. At the
producer
end, however, The Masses are coming directly to you. Your server gets
bigger, you pray that your Tub Monster Inc. router really can support
multicasting, and your costs go up.
Perhaps this might get even more interesting if you were to share with
us how you plan to deliver interactive television from your desktop
computer - the one that <cough> <sputter> "replaced" <bwahaha> the
mainframe?
*X*
Mike Lane
<mel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <37da870f...@news.erols.com> , ml...@earthling.net (Mike
>Lane) wrote:
>
>>Did you work for IBM back when they thought PCs were a side business
>>and the future was mainframes?
>
>If I thought you'd get it, I'd ask you to describe the difference between
>a "dumb terminal" and a "network computer," but no matter. To cut to the
>chase, "The Future" is huge servers hooked to itsy-bitsy specialized
>"appliances" (ohhh-ahhh). One of those appliances is a "set top box" (are
>you taking notes?). A "set top box" sits on top of your television set
>(get it?). The current model for video distribution has the video producer
>replicating (er, dragging his video from a folder on his desktop to another
>folder on somebody else's desktop) his content out to an affiliated
>video distributor, who, er copies, it onto a whole bunch of servers. The
>client, through his "set top box" connects to one of those servers, during
>the darkness of night, and downloads (er, copies) what he's going to watch
>the next day onto the "set top box's" local hard disk. Kind of like a VCR.
>
Hey Jack Spratt, if you are so good at predicting the future shouldn't
you be a multi-billionaire by now? Something just does not add up. I
think your arrogance has outrun your common sense (by a large
margin). You ought to stick to posting about twinks and the men who
love them.
--
ML
Brian Kane
>if you are so good at predicting the future shouldn't
>you be a multi-billionaire by now? Something just does not add up. I
>think your arrogance has outrun your common sense (by a large
>margin). You ought to stick to posting about twinks and the men who
>love them.
Just whom do you think Splat spent the Melmon fortune on?
Quite.
Ellen Evans
Ned Deily <n...@visi.com> wrote:
>EE:
>>Paradigm shifts: one of those things it's so easy to *say*.
>
>Hey, Jeeves, can you lend me a paradigms?
I've got a good deal on a paradox. Will that do?
Matthew Melmon
Lane) wrote:
>Hey Jack Spratt, if you are so good at predicting the future shouldn't
>you be a multi-billionaire by now?
I think so, too.
*X*
(well, *billionaire* is stretching things more than a bit, I suppose...
I'd settle for - althogether now, Ned! - hundreds of millions of dollars)