Our project focuses on drinking safely while still having fun. Our goal is to educate the public through humorous and light-hearted public service announcements to be aired over the radio and possibly through other forms of media as well. They will be play at strategically based times when people will be consuming alcohol. We hope that through the education of our audience about certain facts regarding alcohol's effects and the social implications of drinking that our audience will be able to formulate their own decisions instead of just being told what to do (because no one actually likes or responds well to being told what to do).

CREATE!

Literature, Movies, TV, and a variety of other forms of entertainment have been around for centuries. People have been exposed to comedy, drama, action, adventure, and every other genre that exists and it is difficult to be original. It is difficult to be engaging. The fact of the matter is that it takes a different form, genre, and style to engage every person. So what engages me? Its simple. Originality. 

I am a big fan of comedy. I think it is the best way to be original while still providing a great form of entertainment. I think South Park and Seinfeld are genius and I think Dane Cook and Family Guy are ridiculous. The first two are original, creative, and have been able to be fresh for years. The latter two are repetitive, loud, and quite absurd. Being funny is easy when their is no set topic. What sets South Park and Seinfeld apart from all other shows, with the exception of The Simpsons, is that their jokes are built into the plot of the show, and they stick to the main idea while still bringing a genius form of comedy to their viewers. 

It is actually quite easy for me to point out what I like. I have been alive for almost 21 years so I have been able to put a grasp on what I like and what grinds my gears. As for what I don't like, well that takes a little more investigation into what I don't prefer to watch, read, or listen to. One concept that really bothers me is whining. I hate hate hate Radiohead, and any of those boy bands that sound like someone is stepping on the lead singers "family jewels". Their high pitch voice, whining about how they weren't the cool kid in high school, or how they can't play sports, or never got girls. I just don't care. I have heard it before and quite frankly, my life has enough of its own problems that I don't need to care about some band who is making millions of dollars but still has some problems. I may get destroyed by whoever responds to this post but I think The Matrix is stupid. Three movies, three depictions of the exact same thing; a washed up actor time traveling. The first one was good, original, creative, unintentionally funny. But the second and third. I mean even the titles are bad. Almost as bad as the creators of The Fast and The Furious Trilogy. I mean really, here are the three titles of that group; The Fast And The Furious, The Fast And The Furious Tokyo Drift, and Fast And Furious. They are better off naming it, "Here are Two Actors Who Can't Get Other Jobs." At least that would be creative and honest. But I digress. 

The truth of the matter is that I could ramble off a million different examples of what I like and what I don't like. The one consistent concept throughout everything is that what really engages me is originality. It is almost that it doesn't engage me, it impresses me. I guess they are one in the same. To engage me is to impress me. Show me something new. Show me why you are creative, different, and deserve the spotlight. The amount of writers that create terrible books, TV shows, and movies bothers me because I would say about half of them are full of crap. You can't honestly tell me the writer of Gigli is a genius. And if you believe he is, well then promise we will never talk again.

One of my best family friends, Alan Zweibel (he is googleable), is a great writer. He was an original writer for SNL, wrote for Curb Your Enthusiasm, and has a variety of books out. But about seven years ago, I remember a period when he couldn't get anything published or even made into a pilot on TV. The problem was that the Reality TV Show genre was in the midst of a boom and anyone who was the least bit creative couldn't get anything put into production. Reality TV, arguably the least creative genre their is. I mean really, how hard is it to come up with an idea of having "celebrities" dance on TV. Not to mention that the most successful reality TV shows in America were rip-offs of shows in other countries. Maybe I am biased because this is one of my great family friends, but either way, when I remember the times that he struggled to produce anything, I remember thinking about why it was like that. Now that I am older, and realize what I like, what really engages me, I realize that it is all about being original. It is all about being creative.

The Powers of Chuck Norris

I'm sure almost everyone has heard of Chuck Norris and knows all about the "Chuck Norris Facts" that have come out. If you have not heard of them, Chuck Norris Facts and things such as "When Chuck Norris was born, the only person who cried was the doctor. Never slap Chuck Norris." These lists of facts helped Chuck gain widespread fame on the Internet. What some people may not know is that these facts were inspired by Conan O'Brien, who after NBC gained the rights to Walker, Texas Ranger, began doing a segment where he would pull a lever that played a random clip from the TV show. Doing this revitalized Chuck Norris and brought him to a whole new audience.
Video Of Conan with Walker Texas Ranger lever.

I had to tell you all of that to make sure you knew the background of what I'm going to talk about.

What engages me is comedy, if something can make me laugh then I am able to pay attention very easily. I think it also makes it easier to connect to the speaker, because if you can make people laugh and still talk about serious topics, then it can make it easier to get people to pay attention to what you say. Doing things this way does run the risk of people not taking you seriously, but it will still make them stop and think about what you were talking about, which in the long run is an accomplishment.

During his campaign to try and become the Republic Party Nominee, Mike Huckabee took advantage of the new found fame Chuck Norris had gained with a younger audience by making an ad with Chuck. In this ad Mike took the risk of creating a comical political ad, which could have backfired and made people not take him seriously. Luckily for him though, it helped get his name out to the masses, and he came close to winning the Republican Party nomination.
HuckChuckFacts video.

After seeing the video on YouTube, I became very interested in Mike Huckabee, and wanted to learn more about him. From the one minute video he had me interested in his campaign. After watching the video a couple of time I decided to go to his website and see what all he stood for. This was the first time I had ever looked into a politician like this, and was also the first Presidential election i was voting in, so i figured I'd find out about the candidates. After reading his website, I discovered that I agreed on most issues with Mike, and decided that I would vote for him.

I doubt I would have looked into him or any of the other candidates if I wouldn't have seen the video on YouTube. It was something that instantly appealed to me because it made me laugh. I had never seen a political ad before that I found funny, most of them just annoy me and I can't wait for the election to be over so I won't have to see them anymore.

An important lesson that I can take from this for my oral presentation is to try and make people laugh in the beginning of our presentation. This will help to grab every ones attention and help us relax and probably make our presentation go smoother because we won't be as nervous. This works out for our group because we are taking a more comical approach to get our point across.

Book vs. Movie

Writing came first. It was how caveman would communicate with each other rather than loud sounds of "Ohh" and "Ahh" and "Mmm". Then as time advanced...really advanced, humans began to write books and journals that would tell tales of heroic men like Odysseus' journey in The Odyssey and The Illiad. This is an example of a traditional story that has been passed down through centuries through written and spoken word. One could even argue that the reason it has been passed down through so many centuries and cultures is because of its explicit details that tell the tale of a man who fights through wars and evil beings just to take back his homeland. However, when man, or woman, discovered the idea of film and pictures in motion, a new breed of story telling was born. While it is not something that has replaced written word, it is a form of entertainment that has certainly gained the attention of the world.

Movies, films, or whatever you want to call them, are just plain different then books. The biggest difference is that they don't leave anything up to the audience member, which for some is a good thing and for others is a bad thing. With any movie, their is a director who creates the story with his image in mind. He, along with a producer, assigns a cast, a setting, and everything else that goes along with the movie. With a book, the author basically sets the stage for a reader to let his mind wander. While a story is told, it is up the reader to figure out what the location looks like, the physical description of characters, and just about everything else that makes up a novel. So the real question is, what form of entertainment really gives the best depiction of an epic story and gives the reader a true experience of the events that unfold?

The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect answer to this question. I personally could think of examples to counter each side of the argument and would basically find myself in a chicken or the egg situation. While something like Lance Armstrong's biography, which has only been made into a book, is something that would clearly be better as a literary piece, a story like Miracle, the film about the 1980 US Hockey Team, is a piece of work that would be much better as a film. Everyone knows that Lance Armstrong's journey through life, both on and off the bike, has been difficult and amazing. However, I don't believe I would have a great experience watching him on a bike for an hour and in the hospital for another hour. Rather, hearing him explain his journey through written word is more compelling and gives a better depiction of his story. With that being said, a novel about the miracle team may not give a true depiction of how hard this group of men worked to achieve their goal. Rather, seeing these men give everything they have in a motion picture truly gives the viewer a real experience of what happened. In fact, I remember watching the movie with my father and him recounting the game the same way that it was portrayed in the movie. 

Language is a great tool that has been around as long as anyone can remember. There is a reason why it has survived this long and has not been replaced by another form. With that being said, it is not fair to say that language is the best way to give an account of a story. However, you could say the same about films. There is no clear cut answer in this quarrel and while for some it comes down to a matter of opinion, for me, I can't answer the question. I like both sides. Sometimes I like to read and sometimes I like to view a film. This debate will never be settled for sure. It is up to the authors and directors to keep making greats pieces of work so that this debate lives on forever.

Language comes close

Language is a very good way of being able to get across a person's ideas and beliefs to an audience, however when it comes to capturing the experience of a moment it falls short. While writing someone may be able to get across a general idea or tell a story to the reader, but the experience that the reader has can never be the same as the authors. The problem with trying to get a cross a certain experience is that unless you are actually there when it happens, it's very difficult to get others to share in that moment the same way that you did.

What language does do is give writers a way to describe and tell others about something that has happened to them. A writer is able to tell the emotions he or she felt at the time, and a personal reaction.. This is where language is not able to successfully create the same experience for another person. Someone reading what someone else went through will have a different experience because they are living it through someone else. This means that any experience you got out of reading something is based on the authors retelling of it, and not the actual event.

Everyone is different, including how they experience something. An example of two people going through the same event and having a different experience is a roller coaster ride. Some people are terrified to go on one while others love the thrill it gives them. These two people reacted differently and therefore would be influenced by their person experiences while reading about someone else's. If for example you read about someone who was terrified of a roller coaster and you loved them, you would have a hard time putting yourself in that person shoes and seeing it from their point of view.

Sometimes a person's beliefs just make it impossible to get across a certain experience. A personal experience that I have had that falls into this is when I shot my first buck which was a big 10 pointer. There are some people that are completely against hunting and killing animals, so no matter how I worded it, I would not be able to describe the experience that I had when I shot it tho this group of people. Even to people that have hunted or are fine with hunting, it would be hard for them to fully understand the experience I had when it happened. It was one of those moments that when asked about its hard to find the words to describe it. I could tell people about how excited I was when I first saw it and how suddenly I calmed down once it was in my cross hairs and how shaky I was for the couple of minutes after I shot it because of the adrenaline rushing through me. Even though I could tell people all of this, they would still not be able to get the experience I had or was trying to describe to them because they weren't there, didn't do what I did, and there aren't words t o describe this in great enough detail to allow another person to get the full effect.

With all of this evidence I do not think it is possible for language to be able to completely capture an experience. It can do a good job of telling others about an experience but it is unable to make the reader feel the same as if they had been there themselves.