Bought a few new winter coats just in time for the cold - but I still need some gloves and a nice winter hat!
At the end of this month (in 23 days, to be exact!) I will be going home to Oregon for a week! It's to combine a huge Thanksgiving-Christmas-New-Year's-Grandpa's-and-Mom's-Birthday-Bash, as I will be unable to go home on any of these actual dates.
These past few days I've been feeling particularly home sick (and sick sick), so I'm looking forward to this visit more than ever. Shane visiting me this past weekend has made me miss all my friends from university (and California in general) - my "home part 2". This is especially so with this nasty fall weather that's here to stay all week (extremely rainy and cold - a mere 27°F on Friday?!) versus balmy 70°F and sunny that's always in So Cal. And of course, my friends and family back in my "home home" of Oregon are always missed. I am looking forward to seeing Annaliese, Todd, my grandparents, and my mom again!
It's weird because in college I definitely didn't feel that homesick. I had plenty of new things to do and keep me busy - at most I remember feeling a bit wistful for the starry night sky my freshman year of college. However, other than that I honestly wasn't homesick all that much. So it's a novel experience to feel homesick on the other side of the country - one that I'm not extremely happy about, but an experience that I think will be valuable all the same. That isn't to say I haven't felt homesick before, but it's been almost seven years since I last have (when I was fifteen and in the Middle East).
Other than that, I've been determined to get myself in the "festive mood" this month rather than next, as my Christmas will be at the beginning of December! So in honour of that, I listened to the Nutcracker tonight along with watching all the festive-themed GMM episodes.
The latest news aside from this is that I have been obsessed with a new soup I found at Dean & Deluca (by far my weak point for monetary "splurges" for eating out) and I am about to begin a new novel - The Brothers Karamazov, in honour of the fact I didn't end up reading it during what would've been my senior spring semester of Torrey. So I'm looking forward to an excellent read in time for the holiday season!
Today Good Mythical Morning released its new format, and like most things on the Internet, its fanbase was anything but silent about the changes. This always seemed rather paradoxical to me, that such a supposedly-progressive medium like the Internet would be so negative about any type of change. However, in the spirit of the roar-angry-fanbase, I figured I could throw my hat into the ring and review the changes as well and address some of the most negative comments.
1) Lighting Change
Most of the comments seem to note how the crew needs to "fix their lighting". However, I think that the audience doesn't realise how GMM's previous lighting was a standard "YouTube" set up and this new arrangement is more professional. In a few wide-shots of the set, you could see a few Chinas suspended over the desk along with a bounce in front of Rhett and Link to create soft, if not flat, lighting with a slightly cooler colour temperature. And since their set was much smaller, this lighting made sense. With a new, larger set the same set-up wouldn't work because there is more space they need to illuminate.
The most obvious addition this old lighting arrangement wouldn't have been able to accommodate is their larger desk. Although the camera distorted the image, any wide shot of the old GMM desk that Rhett and Link sit at shows how small it really is - along with any time they tried to fit guests between themselves around the desk. Any more people than Rhett and Link (even just one person), and the frame instantly became crowded, or parts of people would be blocked by those in the foreground. Therefore, their lighting is actually fine (it illuminates everything and still maintains the "soft lighting" people favour for television talk shows and YouTube videos).
What I think most people are commenting on is actually the change in cameras and colouring. The video seems less saturated and the whites seem slightly off. If anything this seems to be because they upgraded their cameras to professional grade equipment. This is obvious from the fact that you can now watch the episodes in 4k (2160p) resolution (2x the amount of the standard "HD" on YouTube of 1080p) along with the fact that the image seems more like the RAW footage of uncoloured images of cameras from RED and ARRI than because of a mere "lighting problem". Therefore, my best guess would be that they didn't properly white balance their camera before filming, and tried to correct the image in post-production. However, I think that they might have over-corrected and accidentally gave the entire image that slightly yellow look. This is all a simple enough fix, and not enough to warrant the large amount of complaints the Mythical Beasts lodged against the GMM crew.
Side Note: You can also tell its the colouring because Link's eyes are a bit too blue in the episode
2) Editing Change
This complaint seemed more legitimate to me. The pacing of the episode as a whole, but also as individual components, seemed to be off. The first episode, because it was the closest one to the old GMM format, particularly felt too fast-paced in its 10-minute length. This is due, I believe, to what many also observed - the quick cuts between multiple angles of Rhett and Link. There were too many OTS and close-ups of Rhett and Link interspersed with their traditional two-shots and close-ups of the various food items, etc. Like many of the Mythical Beasts, I believe a lot of their comedy comes from seeing the two react to each other, and by having too many one-shots a lot of the punchlines lost their effectiveness since you had to wait for a cut to see the reaction of the other. In essence, it felt like a new editor who was excited to have more options to edit to and from, but was unable to keep the original pacing of the tried comedic format.
Again, I think this is just a kink that they will work out over time. The break-neck pace was a little disorienting and the cuts every few seconds were distracting, but I still like the overall concept for what Rhett and Link were trying to do. The concept of doing "bite-sized" sketches and episodes harkens back to their roots as "commercial kings", music video directors, sketch comedians, and general projects before their GMM talk-show. Additionally, trying to keep the video lengths shorter is smart because potential new Mythical Beasts who are "just checking out" their content won't want to stick around for 20+ minutes. However, "5 minutes or less" is similar to the Vlogbrother philosophy of keeping their (normal) videos "4 minutes or less" due to the attention span of Internet content consumers.
In short, my main solution would be to fix the editing by allowing time for the audience to breath in between jokes, like how the original episodes left the viewer time to process what Rhett or Link would say, and to cut less between the "fancy new" camera angle options.
3) Professional Change
This one was one I thought was just silly. People seemed to dislike the fact that GMM felt too scripted or professional - that it felt like a television talk show rather than "original YouTube content". This is just ridiculous. It definitely does feel more scripted, but if you think that their previous content wasn't scripted, you obviously don't understand how YouTube shows are made. This isn't meant to be a "diss" so much as a statement of fact.
All professional YouTubers have a team of people that make their videos happen - a writing team, stylists, editors, etc. all come together to make it happen and GMM is no different. In expanding their show's format with their increased viewership and budget is just part of the natural progression of successful film-making. Granted, this new format seems like it doesn't leave as much room for improvisation as their previous videos, but that's also not the end of the world.
If you're looking for the "old GMM" (in which it is actually a just a talk show in which Rhett and Link talk about a topic for the entire episode rather than play games, etc.) it actually still exists in their podcast "Ear Biscuits" in which Rhett and Link essentially talk about anything and everything - unscripted and unedited - for an hour or more.
Again, this new GMM isn't a "new, sleek, shiny, professional" version of Rhett and Link - rather, it's the natural outcome of two professional "Internetainers" who have been in the industry for over a decade (practically ancient masters in YouTube terms). Rhett and Link have done everything from making feature films, commercials, promotional videos, television shows, YouTube videos, podcasts, stage shows, writing blogs and books, and everything in between. GMM is their "breakthrough" success which took them years to get to before the first episode ever aired, and years since before it was a "viral breakthrough". And as such, I think that Rhett and Link should be allowed to continue to challenge what the format should be and how they want to create it - perhaps this "new" GMM was what they always wanted the show to be if they had more money. Or perhaps it's just a new avenue to keep their own interests fresh and alive in their own project. Whatever it is, this complaint seems to be the least grounded in any sort of substance.
So my final verdict?
I, like many Mythical Beasts, was at first jarred and disappointed by the new change in format. It felt more "quality than quantity" and not as "funny" as previous episodes. However, after taking the time to consider the new format, and rewatching it after taking the time to process, it really isn't life-changingly horrible. It's not irredeemable or horrendous. As previously stated, it seems to be a format change that they will eventually work out to be just as funny and polished as their other episodes.
Sure, it's not the "same GMM" as before, but as an artist myself I want my future-audience to grow and change with me as much as I want to grow and change as an artist. As such, I think that I owe it to Rhett and Link, as a fellow film-maker, to "stick with them" through these changes to see where they take the show. If I just "abandoned ship" as soon as there was a change, it would be a disservice to the hard work they and the crew put into the new GMM and to myself as an audience memeber.
I loved their new book (see my previous review) and I've loved the changes they've made to the show over the years (as a relatively new Mythical Beast), and I anticipate that I'll love these guys in their future projects (whether GMM or otherwise) because they've got what it takes to have longevity in an industry that loves to latch on to "15-seconds of fame teeny-bopper" nonsense rather than sustainable careers of professional adults (even if they throw up on camera for a living).
Woke up to people cheering for the contestants in the New York City Marathon this morning. Words can't describe how surreal it felt to hear the City come together to support and encourage people of all different ethnicities, genders, religions, and backgrounds run a race together. Truly inspiring, and I'm so happy to have it happening on my literal doorstep.
Today I got to visit with Shane and had a wonderful time before he left. However, I feel absolutely awful, as I am sick again. So instead of writing a nice post about his visit, I will unfortunately have to wait until tomorrow after passing out with some medicine.
Tonight I worked at my very first "Buy Out" event. This means that a company "bought out" our entire restaurant for a special event this evening. Although at first I was confused why I was scheduled - since everyone had assigned seating and it was only one organization, my job was basically redundant. Quickly I found out what my role was - the lowly coat check.
So although boring (and mainly forgotten for most of the evening) it was an interesting position to be in, since I was able to observe my surroundings uninterrupted (and more importantly my manager didn't care if I was on my phone). As I watched, I realised I had taken on the equivalent of a PA on a set. The production, however, included both "the dinner and the show", as it were, as the whole point of the evening was to entertain the client which bought us out with a fancy mix-and-mingle meal along with an actual show as the most fancy "celebrity chef" Jean-Georges came to do a food demo for them.
It was fascinating to watch out team work with both the client and the third party team which was hired to coordinate the event. Every side seemed to play a role in "making magic" as it were, only instead of the movies (or Disney), it was to pull off a seamless event. It was intriguing to consider that the production was completely based on and for the audience as well as the client. A surreal mix of film and stage production (but with a tastier middle bit).
Suffice it to say, these were people that we as a restaurant wanted to woo for both their role as a returning individual customer and as a business customer. Therefore, there was a lot of toadying involved. We were never allowed to say "No" (although that is nothing new in the restaurant industry), and we were essentially the silent magicians who were supposed to anticipate every request both voiced and unvoiced (indeed, they had two server assistants all night whose only assignment was to make sure no one's water glass was ever empty).
It was rather amusing to see on one side of the glass, a group of people being entertained by a cooking demonstration or gathered eating around a table, while on the other side a team of (mainly) women frantically working together to coordinate the flow and pieces of the entire event (a role I know only too well first hand).
But since I had a lot of free time (personally) during the whole thing, as a result, it's unsurprising that I turned introspective (with a touch of melancholy) during my time alone in the closet (literally).
I was torn in my opinion about the whole production in general. On one hand, I very much felt "The Help" perspective. These were all the senior and mid-level executives of the client's company as well as outside people from other corporations they hoped to "wine and dine", as it were. One of their outfits probably cost as much as my entire wardrobe, and what I would make in an hour they would make in a fraction of a second. I instantly felt judged at my lack of wealth, suspicious that they would treat me rudely, and saddened that material wealth may be the only thing the people in the room may ever think about. Their lives were as foreign to me as those in Venezuela, and I was saddened at the thought that their event was a vapid spectacle meant to feed egos and wallets rather than increase meaningful connection.
However, at the same time I considered how everyone assembled was a person. They each had individual hopes and dreams, families and friends, and probably went through a variety of hardships and celebrations, just like me. I hoped, when I favoured this more optimistic interpretation, that they would remember that all the "invisible" help was also like them.
I similarly felt the same divide in attitude and opinion towards both the third party organization and my own management. On one hand, I was treated more abruptly (sometimes rudely) than I ever had before. I was in the way, not there enough, I was literally forgotten behind a closed coat check window (because otherwise I would've been in the background for pictures). However, on the other hand I had been them before (an a 1st AD) many times. And I remembered how I was also abrupt with my PAs under the stress. It's the nature of the business - you're not needed until you're needed, and then you were needed yesterday. So after considering this analogy I realised that I could do with being more understanding of their neglect of courtesy and habit towards me.
Particularly after one of my managers graciously gave me a serving of the actual meal the guests were eating tonight - a yellowfin tuna in a ginger sauce. My first time ever having tuna, the sauce was really good, along with the avacados hidden underneath and the beets as garnishes. I was touched that she even remembered me in the midst of her role as (essentially) the 1st AD tonight.
I also made sure to stay out of the way of the head honcho, so to speak, since I was super terrified that Jean-Georges would have me fired because I wasn't doing anything or because I wasn't up to his standards of front of house service. But luckily I was just mere footnote in his day because all he asked me about was where his cell phone was (assuming it was in the coat closet).
So all in all it was an interesting evening full of highs and lows on the "philosophical inquiry" scale, but practically speaking it was pretty successful since I got paid to stand in a closet for 5 hours, observe a fancy event up close and personal, and made an extra $20 in tips. The only thing that would've been better is if I could've had Bowie as the background music (which obviously would quickly take centre stage of the event).
In honour of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, my friend Michiru invited me to a lecture by Dr. Peter Kreeft at NYU about the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide!
It was great to get the marriage between faith and intellectualism once more (something I had begun to take for granted during my later years at Biola), and I greatly enjoyed his talk, which referenced some "oldie-but-goodies" from my Torrey days (looking at you St. Aquinas, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, St. Augustine, and Chesterton).
For the most part, his optimism about unity between Roman Catholics and Protestants wasn't particularly shocking to me. His reasoning was something I had discussed at Biola before, and many of his conclusions were founded on readings I was privileged to have already read and considered in Torrey. However, 10 memorable quotes and ideas from him were as follows:
1) "Christianity is a work of art, and you have to see it as a whole"
2) [Referencing a quote from St. Augustine] "In essentials, unity; inessentials, diversity; in all things, charity" - and that inessentials are usually those things that are "changeable/of humans"
3) Considering the idea that one of the main tenants of Protestantism, "Scripture/The Bible Alone" is actually self-refuting because it does not say in Scripture, "Scripture/The Bible Alone" (his admittedly cheeky answer to the question about resolving that particular conflict)
4) That the Protestant tradition can benefit the Roman Catholic tradition with how Christocentric it is; That the Roman Catholic tradition can benefit the Protestant tradition with it's emphasis of Jesus' connection to the Church (which is sacred because it is His body)
5) God's brilliant sermon to the mystic St. Catherine can be summed up in 4 words, (or 3 words and 1 contraction), or 2 sentences: "I'm God. You're not."
6) That the Church is an organism, not an organization. It is fluid and living - more than any earthly, static corporation
7) Conservative protestants emphasize Christ's divinity, while liberal protestants emphasize His humanity. The Truth, of course, is that it is not either/or, but a both/and
8) Considering the idea that the reason God created matter is to manifest spirit, and that the question "What does a human soul look like?" is answered with the response, "A human body"
9) Challenging the idea that helpful dialogue between people occurs when we doubt what we believe. Instead, it is only when people have firm convictions that they are able to think hard and reasonably (as in "to reason") with each other. Doubt and "wishy-washiness" doesn't get anywhere
10) God goes into you by Faith, and out of you by Love
His book recommendations (long-form):
The Essential Roman Catholic Book: Summa Theologica (Thomas Aquinas)
The Essential Protestant Book: The Complete Works of Søren Kierkegaard ( Søren Kierkegaard)
