Hunger Games film review
March 27th, 2012 § 3 Comments
No doubt, those who have read the books are going to get much more out of the Hunger Games films, but having watched the first installment last night, I think the franchise will do quite well among the non-readers of all ages and social groups.
Unlike Harry Potter, which targeted children early on, and Twilight, which is almost entirely geared toward young women, The Hunger Games has something for everyone. I’ve read criticisms that its themes have been seen before over and over, but I say there is a good reason for that—we like them. The Hunger Games blends them all quite well—think Gladiator meets Lord of the Flies with a bow-clenching teen heroine.
While the film is great in its own right, I was particularly impressed with how well the writers and director were able to adapt the story to the big screen. The film not only brings to life all of the major events and characters, it also manages to capture many subtleties and details that fans of the book will be delighted to see. And they do so without compromising the movie experience. Of course, there is no way to translate a first-person novel into a sensible two-hour flick, but they nailed the biggest challenges.
I have only a few critiques, particularly regarding the beginning. It opens with a few lines about the history of Panem, which I think cheapened the intro and wasn’t even necessary since it is restated several times afterward. And while it may just be the designer in me, I thought the font choices for the intro and the district identifiers were awful.
Secondly, while the relationship between Katniss and Prim is developed nicely, her mother and Gale seem like peripheral characters that Katniss forgets about the moment she boards the train. The sequence of events in District 12 feels quick and mechanical, lacking the substance that should make me care about the people back home. Is it evident to anyone who didn’t read the book what the three-fingers sign is all about? I will cut the director some slack though, since pacing the District scenes would have pushed the movie toward the 3 hour mark.
Lastly, the score could have been much better. There were good moments, but for such an intense and epic story, the music should have carried a more robust, dramatic tone—like the trailer.
In all, they did a stellar job. My assumption is that Lionsgate had no idea quite what a gold mine they were standing on until the last few months, so the budget was more modest than it deserves. After a record breaking opening weekend, expect the next installment to rock a lot harder.
On The Hunger Games Trilogy
March 22nd, 2012 § 3 Comments
The first film in the Hunger Games trilogy is hitting theaters at midnight and is already looking like a huge success. If you haven’t read at least the first book I would recommend doing so this weekend.
In honor of the event, ValuesAndCapitalism.com is publishing a series of posts regarding the trilogy’s ending. Yours truly was asked to make a contribution, which you can read here, but you’ll want to read V&C program director Eric Teetsel’s explanation of the blog series first. Note: given that these talk about the last book, here’s a major spoiler alert.
For those of you who have only read the first book (or if you’re reading this after seeing the movie), check out my January post in which I discuss some of the lessons of the Hunger Games.
[Click here for a complete round up of Values & Capitalism's recent and future HG related posts]
Book overview: Good to Great
May 18th, 2011 § 2 Comments
I just wrapped up a quick post-graduation reading of Jim Collins’ Good to Great, on what is required for a company or organization to gain enduring success. The book was a gift from my boss, who has himself run large successful corporations, and spent several years as a consultant to troubled businesses. Watching him work is a learning experience by itself, and I’ve asked him to share with me some of the timeless principles he’s learned through the years.
Understanding how great organizations work is important if 1) your career involves anyone beyond yourself, 2) if you have any desire to advance at your job, and 3) if you want to see your company/organization succeed. And at the most fundamental level, success is less dependent on methods and process, and more on relationships and purpose, which is why it is also very important for everyday life.
In very simplified terms, Good to Great covers four main ideas. First, any successful organization begins with great leadership, and not necessarily the exciting motivational speaker kind, but the humble and approachable kind. A person with the patience to understand, the integrity to confront reality, and the will to do what must be done in the service to the organization (even if it means less personal payoff) is far preferable to the dynamic executive who lives to bask in the glory of his own accomplishments.
After the person at the top, the most important step before figuring out what to do is figuring out who will do it. If you have “the wrong people on the bus,” as Collins puts it, it doesn’t matter what you attempt to do—it’s going to fail. But with the right people in the right seats, everything else will fall into place. And who are the right people? Creative, thoughtful and teachable individuals who love what the organization stands for and has talents that fit the job. He recommends that companies not hire too hastily, as the wrong person will cause much more damage than just waiting it out, especially in top positions.
Third, Collins writes about what he calls the “Hedgehog Concept,” which identifies the purpose of an organization and clarifies its strategy. You’ll have to read the book for an explanation on the name, but basically, the Hedgehog Concept helps distinguish between what you should or shouldn’t be spending resources on, and you discover it by drawing a venn diagram with three circles, where one is what you’re passionate about, another is what you are better at than anyone else, and the last is what drives your economic engine. Where the three circles intersect, you’re invincible. On an individual level, you can even use this “formula” to figure out what career path to take.
Lastly, the book emphasizes the importance of positive perseverance, though that’s not what it was called (I just loaned the book to someone else, so I can’t check). It’s easy for setbacks and slowdowns to hurt morale, and for low morale to destroy growth. Every surfacing of fear and disappointment is like a small hole in the boat. But this isn’t about blind optimism—in fact, that can be very destructive, as it can lead to more severe disappointment. Rather, positive perseverance is about knowing which direction to go and pushing forward with patience and consistency.
When my wife and I began preparing for the Houston half-marathon in 2010, we couldn’t imagine running over thirteen miles. We’d run three the first month, five the next month, and so on, until we reached thirteen. And we learned that the only way we could make it was to run slow and steady. You might feel like you’re not getting anywhere, and it will take longer, but once you cross the finish line nothing else matters but that moment. Now, I’m not an optimist. But at a certain point, when you know that the only thing standing between you and your goal is your own willingness to work for it, then developing the right attitude and staying positive can make all the difference.
All of these findings were a result of a rigorous research project into thousands of American corporations. Skipping over lots if information provided by the book, it turns out the “secret” to success is rather simple: know who you are, what you are and why you are; hire the best people for the right positions; keep lines of honest communication open from top to bottom; push forward in one direction, even when things are tough; and constantly place service to others and the well-being of the organization as your primary goals. In short, reading Good to Great reminded me of the power of focused selflessness.
The “Dollar Movie” Comeback
June 17th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
As any other kid from a lower-class family did in the early 90′s, I frequented the bowling alleys, skating rinks, and yes… the Dollar Movies. Those were the days when Nintendo was in its infancy and Al Gore had yet to invent the internets. If you were bored you either went outside to goof around with neighborhood friends or you convinced your parents to drop you off somewhere with a few bucks.
If you’ve kept your eyes open you may have noticed some bowling alleys trying to reinvent themselves as a cool hang out, with neon balls and alcoholic drinks. Skating rinks were back on the public mind after Drew Barrymore’s recent flick, Whip It, though I’m not sure people are ready for a full comeback. What is ready, however, is the Dollar Movie, though it will be under a different name. Economists and entrepreneurs look at markets for opportunities, and this one’s so obvious it’s practically begging.
Dollar movies were popular back when a regular movie ticket ran for around $5. We’re looking at an 80% price difference. The discount theaters had to keep their costs down in order to operate, which was partially done through the lower cost they paid to studios by waiting a little longer to release. They also had to reduce operating costs, but they still managed to stay moderately clean and well staffed. As the cost of making the movies we like shot upward, and new theaters began sporting “stadium seating” average ticket prices went through the roof, and most of the dollar theaters went under or dramatically reduced their quality standards. I personally know of only one left in my city. It’s sound system is crap and its floors sit under a layer of petrified lysol and popcorn grease. Actually, it’s not even a dollar movie—tickets are $1.50—except for special days when they want to boost sales.
Standard-variety theaters have doubled their revenues since the dollar days. Indeed, just this year the average ticket price in the U.S. hit $10. During the first week about 90% of that goes to the movie studio (Pixar, Miramax, etc.) and the theater itself gets more of the cut the longer a movie sits on the reel. You might expect that after a few weeks the ticket price would go down, but no,… the movie goes straight from $10 to $1—the price tag offered at the increasingly popular Redbox kiosks. It’s no wonder fewer people are hitting the theaters. That’s a serious market gap.
It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to assume that a good deal of these people who are opting for the home video would really rather see it in the theater, but aren’t willing to shell out the $10. This is particularly true for twenty-somethings who A) have plenty of time to spend going out to the movies with friends, and B) do not have large screens and 5.1 surround sound in their apartments. I, for one, go to movies far less frequently than I’d like, and I never get around to renting most of them. This brings me to my point.
If I were a bettin’ man, which I am only occasionally, I would tell you that within the next few years discount theaters are going to start popping up across the country. Now that the stadium-styled theaters are aging and the cost of building them has long been recovered, there is opportunity for theaters to specialize in month-old films at half the price and immediately get an edge on their competitors.
For $5 per movie, a theater would pull customers from both the home-video industry and regular theaters. In fact, I would not be surprised if, in order to compete, regular theaters started lowering their price, or giving better deals on popcorn, or something. The simple fact is this: it’s getting really expensive to go out for dinner and a movie. It’s true for college kids, and it’s true for young couples, but it’s really true for the family of four who just wants to do something fun together.
I think there’s a real demand for affordable silver-screen entertainment, and the bubble is about to burst. Mark my words.
Book Review: The End of Secularism
December 8th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
I was recently approached to review a book for one of my professors at HBU, Dr. Hunter Baker. I was flattered by the opportunity to put my name among others who have reviewed the book, such as Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute, and David Dockery, President of Union University – though in no way does this place me among their esteemed ranks. The book is titled, The End of Secularism. Read below for my review, or go to Amazon.com and see what others are saying. Either way, I highly recommend it.
Wesley Gant’s review of The End of Secularism, by Hunter Baker (224 p.)
For the pragmatic atheists and religious zealots alike, The End of Secularism will test beliefs and sharpen understanding. In his recent contribution, Hunter Baker, J.D., Ph.D., takes on an ambitious challenge to correct the false ideas that have been injected into modern thought surrounding the role of religious influence in the public square and the supposed objectivity of the secular position. Through a detailed examination of history and the bringing together of notable thinkers spanning the centuries, Baker lays out an impenetrable case against an increasingly tolerated but insufficiently vetted point of view that favors the secularization of society as a means of peace and progress. With every step, readers are drawn to the central premise – that secularism, despite its persistent application as a supposed neutral arbiter of conflicting public interests, is in fact an aggressive interest all its own, and furthermore, that failure to recognize this truth poses a great threat to the free expression of valid public concerns and ideas through the marginalization and privatization of religious conviction.
A good portion of The End of Secularism is devoted to defining the terms and clarifying the contexts surrounding his thesis. Responding to fundamental questions pertaining to the nature and purpose of government and the proper role of church authority, Baker navigates two thousand years of church and state relationships, examining the mechanisms and motivating forces behind the tensions of convoluted powers. Widely understood as a period of unrest and religious warring, this era has become an easy target for advocates of privatized faith, but pivotal details are often omitted for the sake of a strategic narrative. Baker reveals that the source of strife was not the presence of religious interests, but a failure to construct the proper systems for multiple interests to enter into peaceful discourse and reconciliation. He argues that a just system of public debate should consider far less whether a faction is of a religious or secular nature, and more on the weight and value of its input, ensuring that all concerns are considered valid. “Bracketing off religion does not solve the problem of toleration,” Baker argues, “It just disadvantages one set of orthodoxies from interacting with the many secular orthodoxies roaming free in a liberal society.” He points out that through the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, our young nation sought not to remove religion from the table, but to ensure it full and unhindered participation, and protect the rights of men whose values and civic engagement were shaped by internal convictions.
This is not, however, to be taken as a free license to theocratic government. In fact, Baker asserts, “Whether coercion is religious, philosophical or even based on a radically different reading of the available facts, the harm is the harm is the harm.” The tyrant is not religion or lack thereof; it is the coercive nature of the marriage of interest and power. It is essential in a free society, and inherent in our claim to equality, that all voices are heard, and that the power to silence is given to no one.
Baker confronts the peacemaking claim of secularism, destroying myths that have been crafted by its advocates. He deconstructs the false story of the war between religion and science, and shows how peace on the basis of empirical reasoning alone is an unreachable and illogical notion that has failed at every test. Peaceful solutions are possible when peaceful solutions are the aim of all parties – and in no way does the absence of religion provide a better support for such an objective.
I found particularly interesting Baker’s assessment of the anti-Christian nature of the French Revolution and the subsequent secularization of Europe. He posits that unlike the American colonies, which saw a significantly more independent church, the European model overlapped religious and secular authority to such a degree that a weary populace of eighteenth-century revolutionaries disposed of church leaders and institutions with the same swiftness and fury as state leaders. Europe has since been reluctant to embrace a Christianity that is viewed by many as a partner in tyranny.
Baker also addresses the constitutionality of the separation argument. A school of thought that has pervaded the courts for decades insists that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment purges from all governmental functions any reference to, or involvement with religious speech or symbols, claiming that this constitutes an “endorsement” of a religion. It seems that very few people have asked the question of whether it was endorsement or coercion that our Founders were attempting to prevent in the first place, for it is clear that the text refers to a legislative act of Congress. Baker puts forth this important distinction with clarity and authority.
I tended to agree with the entirety of Dr. Baker’s thesis. It is difficult to refute such well-presented points. I’ll be the first to admit that I am no theologian, and I am unfamiliar with a number of the scholarly texts that are brought into the discussion, but the author makes no attempts to hide his research. Full blocks of referenced text are supplied with unreserved abundance, allowing the reader a greater sense of understanding about the works that contributed to this polemic. In the process of observing Dr. Baker’s personal insights, I became more familiar with influential contributors of years past, from Aquinas to Luther; from Weber to Rousseau.
To the interested reader, I would suggest a highlighter, a pen and a great deal of unhindered isolation. The End of Secularism, with its depth and breadth of subject matter and detail, is a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion of religion and politics that demands its place on the shelf of leading academics and aspiring preachers and politicos worldwide. For anyone who has ever asked whether it is appropriate to invoke religious convictions into business decisions or the formulating of a political stance, this book should serve as a conclusive answer. I look forward to future work from Dr. Baker, whom I believe is among a new generation of Christian intellectuals that will help rebuild the causeway between unwavering faith and uncompromised reason.
$30 tickets cost $47 – Thanks to TICKETMASTER
May 3rd, 2007 § Leave a Comment
It’s been a while since I bought anything online from Ticketmaster, mostly because I stopped going to big concerts. I prefer the smaller venues with indie bands, where you can actually see what’s happening on stage. However, on this occasion a very favorite band of mine, Mute Math, is coming to Houston and since the show will probably sell out I have to pre-buy them online. As is typical, Ticketmaster has a contract to be the sole distributor of ticket pre-sales.
Upon entering the site and finding the particular event I saw that The “General Admission” ticket price was set at $15 a piece. Of course, I was fine with that. I selected that I wanted (2) tickets and proceeded to checkout. I assumed there would be some type of service fee attached – afterall, Ticketmaster has to get paid – but I was surprised to find that the “convenience charge” was more than one third of the ticket price at $5.50 a piece! I immediately begin to wonder who decided that this was so convenient? And what exactly am I paying for? I could understand a couple of bucks, but this was just rediculous. So at that point I decided to find another way and not give them the benefit of the stupid “convenience charge”.
There are several other places through which Ticketmaster operates, and I intended on visiting one of them. I was just a couple of hours from doing so when my brother called to let me know he’d already gotten his ticket, and the charge is still applied even if you buy in person. At this point I begin to weigh the costs. I want to support the band, and my girlfriend wants to go just as bad as I do, but what voice do I have if I just give in to their game? I decided it just wasn’t worth suffering for and went back to Ticketmaster.com to pay for our tickets and the extra $11.00 in “convenience charges”.
I got back to the place I had last jumped off at and went ahead with my order. I was already irritated and tired of how they are using their monopoly over ticket sales to screw people over, so it’s not that surprising how I reacted to the next page. Apparently, in order for them to process you order they want to add a “processing charge” of $5.30. Now, being someone who works for a web design/development company I know what is involved with this so called process. When you click the submission button the website transfers money from your account, then adds your name to a list on the server. You print our your own ticket at your expense, and the venue prints out the list at theirs. It’s likely that Ticketmaster is charged a small fee for accessing my bank account, but it’s nowhere near $5.30!
After the added taxes of 92 cents (that’s for the convenience charge of course) the total, for what should’ve originally cost $30, is now up to $47.22 – it’s gone up $17! That’s more than the cost of a third ticket!!! Or in other words, 37% of my total cost is on fees and surcharges.
Now, this is nothing new. They’ve been ripping people off like this for years. Back in the 90′s, Pearl Jam – one of the biggest rock artists of the decade – tried to take Ticketmaster to court over a law suit claiming that they were using their monopoly to drive ticket prices sky high, and the only choice was to pay up or don’t see the concert. In the end, Pearl Jam lost the suit and Ticketmaster has retained their lordship over the industry. But the 90′s didn’t have the web-base that we have today. Thanks to “Web 2.0″ formatted sites, average internet users are getting the power back in their hands and making a difference. Ticketmaster has seen a major drop in concert ticket sales in the last couple of years, and the odds are beginning to stack against them.
In 2005, Major League Baseball acquired Tickets.com, a major step toward breaking up the hold that Ticketmaster has had over the sporting industry. However, most people tend to use Ticketmaster anyway becuase it’s what they’re used to.
I’ve sent Ticketmaster an email (http://www.ticketmaster.com/h/customer_serve.html) telling them that I will no longer be using their services, and I think everyone should do the same, but words are nothing without action. I ask everyone who reads this to make a conscious effort to purchase tickets through other sources when possible, and in some cases avoid going to concerts and venues that sell exlusively through Ticketmaster. Make sure you let the venues and promoters know that you are dissatisfied with the way Ticketmaster handles their customers and you refuse to support it. You have to let your voice be heard.
We ALL need to let our voices be heard.
