This post was a stretch for my topic here, but I do feel that magazines qualify as entertainment. I’m a lover of magazines. I love everything about them, from opening my mailbox to find the latest issue to paging through them, looking for that interesting article. I’m aware that they are on their way out and this post is full of suggestions that will help them change for the better to maybe keep the people like me fans of the forum.
EDIT: I have restructured this post to fit in my “If I Were In Charge” series.
I have always been a lover of magazines. At one point in time, I subscribed to a dozen of them, and right now I have six subscriptions. I’m aware that the internet has decimated the magazine industry, but I also know there are other people out there who still love opening their mailboxes to find the new issue of whatever they are subscribing to.
If there’s any hope for actual hard copy magazines, changes are needed, and if I were in charge…
1. Many of us love to fold our magazines in half to read them. For the first half of the magazine, it’s easiest to fold the left side, and for the second half, it’s easiest to fold the right side. Advertisers have taken note of this and have demanded advertising on the half that doesn’t get folded, making it impossible for the reader to easily fold their magazines in half. First order of business is to change this.
2. Some advertisers have decided it is best for them to use really thick construction paper stock to print their ads. The only way around this for the reader is to tear out the whole page and throw it away. Magazines need to be an enjoyable experience for the reader and things like this and #1 make them a less enjoyable experience, so I’m doing away with this as well.
3. Some magazines have decided that shorter articles are what the reader wants, so they then decided that the way around this was to cut the articles up in a “choose your own adventure” style format: to continue reading, turn to page 87. I’m not doing away with longer articles, but I am doing away with this format.
4. I don’t know a single person who still subscribes to a magazine through those little cardboard mailers that the magazine stuffs into their issues, so why do two or three of them fall out of each issue I receive and another two or three are attached to the inside? Why is my bathroom floor littered with these things? I will make the first page of the magazine filled with information on how to subscribe: A phone number, an internet address, a mailing address.
When I initiate these first 4 changes, I will be well on my way to making a better magazine that is more fun to read. I’m not going to bring them back to where they were, I know that, but I will not continue to alienate the people who still read them, I will bring in new readers and I will help the magazine I’m in charge of survive longer.
I like WordPress more than Blogger. Because of this, I’m moving one of my Blogger blogs over here. Rather than start fresh, I’m bringing some of my favorite posts with me, but with intros.
This post is not about hatred of Twilight. If it was, I could’ve easily written about sitting through five movies, eagerly waiting for the climactic battle, only for it to be a dream sequence. No, this post is about Entertainment Weekly and how they gave credit for everything under the sun to Twilight, and how I prove them wrong. Enjoy.
No, there’s nothing inherently wrong with loving Twilight, but what Entertainment Weekly did was absolutely ridiculous to the highest degree. They gave the credit to Twilight for everything that has ever happened in the world and more!
Hollywood’s obsession with Young Adult novels? Thank you, Twilight. It had nothing to do with Harry Potter, nothing at all. Nope, it was all Twilight!
“Twilight created a tidal wave of interest in the paranormal-vampires, werewolves, zombies…”
Wow, what a sentence. So big and so flawed, it must be deconstructed piece by piece. Let’s start with “vampires.” First off, I guess we have to ignore the books here because if we don’t, then EW crediting Twilight for Vampire Diaries would be all wrong because Vampire Diaries came out in 1991. But the real argument goes to a great show called True Blood. It debuted September 7th, 2008 and was a success for HBO. The first Twilight movie didn’t come out until almost THREE months later. So, the credit for the vampire craze would belong to True Blood, not Twilight.
But don’t forget, Twilight is not just getting credit for vampires, it’s getting credit for ALL paranormal creatures here. So next up, we have zombies.The one-two punch of 28 Days Later and the remake of Dawn of the Dead in 2003 and 2004 ushered in the new age of zombies and began or reinvigorated many people’s love affair with this paranormal creature. Over the next few years, a string of cool, new zombie moves came out in the theaters, but after four years, interest was beginning to wane and the zombie craze went underground for a while, living on in straight to DVD movies. Hollywood was looking for the next paranormal creature to bring back from the dead.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer had been off the air for three years by 2006, and continued to have a dedicated and loyal following. So let’s just rip off Buffy, right? Central female lead? Check. Fall in love with a vampire? Check.
What I’m saying is that a strong and logical argument can be made that Buffy deserves the credit for Twilight, Harry Potter deserves the credit for the explosion of Young Adult novels in Hollywood, True Blood deserves the credit for the vampire craze and 28 Days Later/Dawn of the Dead deserve the credit for the new wave of paranormal creatures in the movies.
A strong and logical argument can’t be made at all that Twilight deserves the credit for any of this. Unless, of course, you’re Entertainment Weekly and you just say it is so.