Dinosaurs & little ponies: law of marketing & selling in action

1) In 2005 BBC released a two-part show called The Truth about Killer Dinosaurs. It was an amazing documentary, much better than the later dinosaur shows such as Jurassic Fight Club and was conveniently forgotten by the dinosaur fan crowd after its’ release for showing some unorthodox conclusions about Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor dinosaurs. Now, in 2013, BBC decided to reanimate the documentary by giving their DVD a brand new cover that has nothing to do with the actual documentary: it features T-Rex attacking a long-necked sauropod, even though this documentary had no sauropods in it.

The textual description is completely misleading as well: “New research has led to novel ways of seeing some of the most brutal killers in history. The ubiquitous Tyrannosaurus rex: was he king of the dinosaurs or a mediocre scavenger? The feared Velociraptor: six-foot tall like in the movies or small and covered in feathers?” No offence, but in paleontology an 8 year gap means that the research used in this documentary is no longer new, and the show doesn’t focus on Tyrannosaurus’ lifestyle, all that mattered was could it defeat Triceratops or get gored instead? That is just pure misdirection and completely unnecessary: The Truth about Killer Dinosaurs is a very impressive documentary that does not need misleading images and text to be sold. But that is the law of the market for you.

2) Some time ago, a brony with too much time on his hands made a five-minute presentation on YouTube about alicorns – Twilight & Cadence vs. Celestia & Luna, claiming that Celestia & Luna have had to ascend as Twilight & Cadence did or it would make no sense other than to make money for Hasbro. Well, guess what, comrade: that is the bottom line for Hasbro: MLP: FIM has to make money for them, otherwise it is cancelled (which does not discount reruns, I admit). 

Let me briefly elaborate. The wise brony pointed out that ever since LF sold her rights of the show to Hasbro her canon – Celestia & Luna were born alicorns, not made – is no different from his own. He is correct: Hasbro know can tweak the canon however it likes – LF is unlikely to take them to court, the outcome is too unpredictable, but...

But the audience of the show does not care. Do not forget – most of them are girls (presumably) around 12 years of age on average. At this point of age they do not care as to how the ponies on the show get their wings – they just want to see more of them... or less. Hasbro – who has to make money – will do its best to ensure that the audience will buy those new winged alicorns, but it is unlikely that this will require any sort of explanation as to how Twilight & Cadence are different from Celestia & Luna. All four are pony princesses, so they all are winged, simple enough and the buyers will buy them.

Or not, you never know with teen and preteen children. Cadence has already appeared less than half-a-dozen times in the entire show up to date (that is 66 episodes, so she appeared roughly in 1/11^th of the entire show alongside Shining, so not a lot) and if Twilight with wings is less popular than Twilight without them, then Twilight will lose them (in a great, dramatic episode, no doubt) and Hasbro will... if not make money, then stop losing it – no pony-brony logic here, just the law of the market.

End

S.H.I.E.L.D., Sep 24 - pilot

Sometimes the television is a parallel world to the real one. Sometimes it meshes almost perfectly with the real world, and sometimes it is seen so fragile, so detached, so out of it that it is simply sad. Case in point – the premiere of “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” made by Joss Whedon himself with Marvel’s™ support. 

What can be said about this show? “Agents” are heavily tied into the “Avengers”-universe, almost to the point of spamming and/or product promoting. Fair enough, Marvel™ is one the one paying the piper, live with it.

The characters are well designed...to a point of being a cliche. Agents Phil and Maria are agents Phil and Maria from the movie and the rest of them? Grant Ward has all the personality of a CIA agent from Deadliest Warrior (a show on Spike) and Melinda May lacks even that; agents Fitz and Simmons (FitzSimmons, ha-ha) are your typical semi-idealistic intellectuals, bringing forth high level tech and whatnot. You can almost taste the chemistry (the one that is used in volcano school projects) Connor and Abby from “Primeval” were done in the same style and much better. As for Skye... she sounds inane and is, of course, a hacking genius, perfect to fit into the agency’s new sky fortress (a trademark of Marvel’s™ comics). 

Does that make the show bad? No: first of all this is the first episode of a brand-new series, so it is far too early to make a judgement about the show’s quality. What I want to point out is how the “Agents” fall flat against the reality. The show is supposed to be grounded in reality, that is the trick: J. August Richards makes a wonderful performance of an ordinary man (an “everyman” if you will) who gains extraordinary powers for a price (there is always a price) and has to learn that having those powers does not necessarily means that there will be a difference; it’s what inside that counts. And inside, of course, is the all-American spunk and apple pie, as opposed to Russia, which is supposedly as corrupt as the security camera files that the S.H.I.E.L.D. first acquired from the destroyed lab. Oh boy. Cue real life.

While in the Marvel™-land America is wonderful, it is the superpower and the stronghold of democracy and great people of all races, in real-life the States have been diplomatically outmaneuvered by Russia into not invading Syria as they did with Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan for example; the Navy Yard had been invaded by Aaron Alexis with or without accomplices and Kenya’s mall hostages was worse. Cue imagination.

Well, not exactly. Cue a Democratic senator, who, when Putin went out to criticize the American government, wrote him a ‘scathing’ letter that basically suggested that since the States are a superpower Putin should put up and shut up. That showed him.

Or not. Putin’s government gets similar letters from Russians and other ethnic groups (often from quite important public people) on a rather relative basis and all they amounted was are didly and squat. The good senator’s letter (you can find it on PolicyMic) was met with the same fate from Putin. From karma, on the other hand... several days later Aaron Alexis took over the Navy Yard, showing to the world that America is not that formidable and the Kenya terrorist attack was worse. The good senator’s letter had many good points: Putin really is ‘living’ in a glasshouse; his government is as corrupt as in any banana republic...but Obama’s government had not done anything about it, other than the occasional criticism, indicating that they don’t have issues with it. In this case they should put up and shut up when Putin occasionally criticizes them: this just the price they pay for keeping Putin in power.

On top of this, the good senator’s approach – ‘put up or shut up, for we’re a democratic superpower’ – is also is not very democratic. One of the aspects of democracy is the freedom of speech, which means that Putin has at least some sort of a theoretical right to speak his mind, for that is how democracy works and when the good senator (who is from the Democrats as for as political parties go) tells him to shut up, this isn’t very democratic either; needless to say, when PolicyMic put this letter onto their site, the comments weren’t very encouraging for the senator, mainly it was “pot calling kettle black” and similar phrases.

But what does this mean to the “Agents”? Mainly that they are selling America’s power and might – everyday superheroes, “everyman” and “everywoman” who fly around in their amazing airplanes and flying cars righting wrongs and saving the day. Joss Whedon is an amazing and experienced director and scriptwriter (he, in part, wrote the pilot of the show) and the actors do what they must do: show how the Americans kick ass using various high-tech gadgets. The trick is to see just how much the show will jar with the real life and if “Agents” will avoid turning into a propaganda vessel. I, however, certainly know that I will continue to watch them simply to enjoy them and to follow their adventures.

Feminism and pop-music - a good idea?

Let us talk feminism. Not so long ago I have come across an article on PolicyMic that claimed that Brittany Spears, and Lady Gaga, and Katy Perry were spearheading the feminist pop music and could only say “What?”

I am not the biggest specialist in feminism, but even I know that ‘feminism’ stands for a “collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.” (Wikipedia)

Fair enough, and it is the rights and equality part that I want to draw my attention to (the emphasis in the quote is mine). When a minority/repressed group (in this case women) strives out for equality with a majority group (men here) they can achieve two different goals.

1) They can strive for equal rights with the majority, as the Wiki suggests.

2) They can strive for equal privileges with the majority instead.

The trick is distinguishing between the two, they are often intertwined and by acquiring one of them a minority can achieve both. However, more often a minority seeks to achieve only one of those goals, and usually it is the privilege.

Cue back PolicyMic. It honestly believes that Brittany, Gaga and Katy are feminists, while Miley Cyrus (we all remember her recent stunts, right?) is “an agent of Patriarchy”. (Their quote & idea.)

Okay, let us see. Miley is many things, but patriarchy is one that she is not. Wait, let me guess, in her latest...stunt she has degraded womanhood (or something along those lines) by dancing nearly naked and in a provocative way. Yes, she has crossed a line, but Gaga’s “Applause” comes close to it – and that is why Gaga spearheading the feminist pop music movement?

Brittany... half the time she appears as a pathetic fat mess, but in her songs she tends to appear as a dominatrix or a “strong girl” that puts the men in their place. Of course she also sings songs like “Toxic”, where the men are more on top...but then again, she hadn’t sung much in a while, so who knows, maybe PolicyMic just forgot.

And Katy’s “Roar”... Do not get me started on the animals. She is supposed to be some sort of a lady Tarzan, right? What does she do? Brushes alligator’s teeth and paints an elephant’s fingernails. Putting the matter of fairness to animals aside, how exactly it is feminist/girl empowering? Do tell, because for me this is a very traditional role of a girl/young woman.

Now about popular music. Without going back to Wikipedia or similar sources, it is a music approved by the masses – the proletariat, so to say – and it is simple. It is catchy but it does not tend to carry any deep meaning. Feminism does not need to be complex, but overly simplifying it is not the right way to go either. The masses, the crowd, tend to express the lowest common denominator of the society – just look at the Roman Empire and its crowd with ‘bread and circuses’. If feminism caters to this majority, it stops being a tool of minority for equality and equal rights and becomes, well, a popular fad – and fads fade with time.

Seriously. Just look at the Spice Girls. In the 1990s they were popular – as much as Brittany, or Christina Aguilera, or etc. Now, when they sang last time at the British Olympics they clearly faded - just a group of middle-aged women that could blend in a crowd without particular effort. And who is to say that feminism will not go the same way?

There is a movie, named “A Little Red Dot”, when a Pakistani girl comes to an American school (that does not have a large Pakistani population) and is teased because of the titular dot on her forehead. It is a cultural thing, a bindi, and it cannot be removed. So, her new friends at school turn this into a popular fad and the heroine is accepted but before long the dot on the foreheads of others turns into stars, triangles, circles, other geometrical shapes of various colors and the initial message, the initial value of the titular dot is lost – and before long the fad fades. The girl does become accepted by the school (aside from few hard cases) but she loses her cultural identity in the process. Does this what PolicyMic wants for feminism? Really?

Equality in equal rights means that both sides of a conflict get equal rights and responsibilities that go with them: it is harder for some, easier for others, but at least in theory both sides are equal.

Equality in equal privileges means that some people have an easier time than other people do, for privileges do not really go to everybody – that is what makes them privileges and there is no equality whatsoever.

Back to feminism. In theory, feminism in North America, Europe and the rest of the world fights for equal rights between women and men and that does not make them popular! In fact it often makes them downright unpopular in their native countries of Third world! Men, like many other majorities, do not want to give equal rights – legal, etc – to minorities, including women. And when popular female musicians/singers/entertainers, etc go on stage – this is not equal rights, it is equal privileges with their male counterparts and nothing else, no promotion of feminism, sorry. And when they go and sing or otherwise entertain rulers of various Third world countries – they do not promote feminism abroad either. Rather, they denote feminism as a fancy of various high-status women – wives, sisters, daughters, nieces, more rarely mothers of various high-ranking men who can embrace feminism as they did embrace other fancies, only to discard them when they got bored or their men told them to. Is that what awaits feminism in the States as well?

So. Here is what any feminist who reads PolicyMic articles should do. Either she should strive to distance feminism from popular music and popular anything. It will make her job that much tougher, but it will also ensure that feminism will survive and go strong, at least in First world countries and women will really have equal rights with men, for that is what feminists strive to achieve, right?

Alternatively, she should strive to close the gap between feminism and popular everything, ensuring that feminism becomes just another fad, harmless to the “patriarchy” just as rap and hip-hop are. In this scenario equal rights will be given only to some women and only grudgingly. If the feminist in question is not one of those women – tough, if she is – she is really lucky. But that is how the cookie crumbles, it seems.

And as for Hannah Rosin, whose statement that patriarchy is dead and the feminists should get over it, has launched an initial reply that it is very much alive as evidenced by Miley Cyrus? She is merely “running before the train”, so to speak and does not equate feminism’s struggle with Miley Cyrus. But that is just her opinion. 

Live with it.

End

Jaguar: the ghost of the rainforest

And so it came to be that about last week I got to see some very interesting photos on ngm.com – how a jaguar stalked and killed a caiman (South American alligator); interesting not just because of the actual events depicted in them, but because of the jaguar.

What can be told about the jaguar, where does he appear? So far I have seen it on TV only twice, and at least the first time it was controversial to say the least: it was an Animal Face-Off episode, facing off against a green anaconda; unsuccessfully too. And unlike the Lion vs. Tiger episode, which caused various arguments as to whether or not the lion really should have won against the tiger, in case of Anaconda vs. Jaguar it was largely unanimous: the jaguar was duped.

Let us dwell on this for the moment. For all of AFO’s supposed data, the final CGI face-off was straightforward: the two combatants would basically stand face to face at each other and then just charge in a direct confrontation. Other shows, like Deadliest Warrior and Death Battle do the same thing, but their combatants are humans, or at least – sentient creatures who do fight like this (though they have other styles). Animals (mammals, reptiles, fish, etc) do not do that: in the NatGeo’s photos, for example, the jaguar clearly ambushed the caiman, attacking it from the back, not face on.

And in AFO that is exactly what happened: the CGI anaconda and jaguar attacked each other face on. In such confrontations the bigger and heavier animal is often the stronger combatant, which is exactly what happened: the anaconda was able to overpower the jaguar with its mass and brute strength. In real life this situation would probably be different: there are videos on YouTube where a jaguar runs down and eats an anaconda instead...

The second time I saw a jaguar it was a nature documentary called “Jaguar: the Year of the Cat” and unlike the AFO episode it was strictly professional and real life. In this documentary, the cameras followed a life and times of a jaguar in Belize, as it (well, technically ‘it’ was a ‘he’, because there also was a female jaguar) lived free in the wild.

In the wild, the jaguar is a powerful and graceful wild cat, but when it came to hunting, its record was relatively lackluster: it was able to catch a terrapin, an armadillo and a fish – all relatively modest sized, while larger animals – peccaries, curassows – escaped. For all of its strength and power is not exactly the ultimate hunting or killing machine as it may appear at first – it has its flaws.

Well, not exactly flaws – more like strokes of good and bad luck related to its hunting strategy: ambush. This was shown particularly vividly in case of a coati that the jaguar failed to ambush and chased up into a tree – unsuccessfully. Size, strength and weapons are not everything in the animal kingdom.

And what are the jaguar’s statistics in size, strength, weight et cetera? The males can weigh up to 160 kg (that is fairly heavier than the leopard), reaching up to 1.95 m in length. The tail can add up to another 75 cm to the overall length, and the jaguar stands about 75-76 cm in height.

By contrast, the leopard does not go over 1.65 m in length (it is actually smallest of the big cats) with a tail up to 110 cm in length. It weighs no more than 90-91 kg, almost half as much as the jaguar does, and reaches up to 80 cm in height. In other words, it is a much graceful animal than the jaguar, with a much weaker bite: according to some sources, the jaguar’s bite is almost as powerful as a spotted hyena’s with its bone-shattering bite. Jaguar may not go as far, but in the documentary I have seen the jaguar bit through the terrapin’s shell without any problems – not an easy feat for anyone, even a large animal.

The leopard’s bite, of course, is quite weaker by comparison, but as the numbers show, the leopard is the more graceful and less powerful animal of the two: it got more finesse. Why? The answer lies not in anatomy, but in ecology: in New World the jaguar is the top predator of its environment; in Old World the leopard is not – it has to content with tiger and lion and possibly the brown bear, whereas the jaguar does not live where the grizzlies do and the spectacled bear of South America is not only a smaller beast, it also prefers to live in the mountains that the jaguar tends to avoid as it is too cold for the big cat.

Admittedly, there was once a big cat in New World that dominated the jaguar the way the tiger dominates over the leopard, and it was a famous one: smilodon, the famous sabre-tooth. While it was alive other big cats had to adapt to its power, and as a result both the jaguar and the puma became something of a Jack-of-all-trade, surviving in a variety of habitats both north and south of Panama, at least until humans came and seriously decimated their numbers... Now both of those big cats are considered to be Near Threatened: it is far from the worst state of affairs for an animal to be, but it is not the best either...

So there we have it, ladies and gentlemen: the jaguar. It is big, it is powerful, it is the top cat of the Americas – and that makes it different from the leopard, but more similar to the tiger, which is the top cat in Asia instead: both the tiger and the jaguar are masters of their domains, both are solitary assassins (not fighters as the lion is) and both are only big cats that enjoy a dip in the pool, at least on occasion, as opposed to the lion and the leopard that shun the water as the other cats do, big and small. Sadly, humans have seriously decreased the number of the jaguar population, so now, perhaps, it is time to go out and conserve, save our nature before it vanishes – and the jaguar with it.

What do you think?