Futurus

More Armchair analysis from a particulary lazy publication. Its entirely fine to state an opinion on which console "TIME" happen to like best.
But to throw out predictions this early in the so called "WAR" is ridiculous.
The only thing that can be safely said about this article is that TIME doesn't WANT Sony to win (which I admit might not be a bad thing).
But in life what you WANT and what you GET are two different things. (Ask Microsoft in Japan if your confused in any way)

Okay regular readers of joystiq repeat these word's and then RINSE and repeat them again:

"My opinion doesn't matter"

Gaming has shifted strongly into the mainstream. The margins required to be successful in the videogame business requires broader appeal, beyond that of the hardcore or dedicated gamer. Certainly beyond that regular readers of gaming blogs.

If you care about gaming. Which to a great deal of you means endlessly debating who'll wear the Nextgen crown, whilst avidly following the so called console war. Then you're probably a hardcore gamer.

You are of course the bread and butter of the industry but not the key to its success, no sadly that baton has been passed on. You'll buy a system on faith or allegiance. Some of you will buy them all (I"m guilty there). But what you think is becoming less important.

The great debate over which console will win is ultimately interesting to us but not shaped by us. We are the spark but not the fire. The "real" war begins when the the mainstream puts down their PS2's and DS lites and looks to their next machine. (They DS user's will buy another Nintendo machine I'm sure)

But hey go ahead and compare XBOX 360 / PS3 / Wii multiplatform game as evidence that Sony will trump Microsoft etc. You do that but repeat after me.


"My opinion doesn't matter"

Comcast HD baby!

I am black indie filmmaker originally from the UK working feverously on establishing myself in the US.

My perspective has always been to tell the stories that compel me most and further more to tell those stories by a means that I feel to be the most interesting, with little regard for whether it will sell. Quite often, this strategy results in non-traditional approaches to films featuring African American characters, but nevertheless in what I hope might be regarded as an authentic approach.

My vision of authentic film in relation to a particular culture, in this instance America's varied black community, is one that should be constantly evolving allowing us to see with a greater clarity the tapestry of a Black America through it's various distinct phases.

Films such as Boyz in the Hood and Menace II Society needed to spring out from and speak to the Black Community and a mainstream America. They held a certain degree of authenticity with regard to the black experience. But today we need stories that show us something else. Any culture that exists in America is deeply layered with facets not immediately evident and merely waiting to be exposed skillfully by talented filmmakers.

Just as Gay cinema probably doesn't need another traditional approach to a film about a young man coming out. Black film probably doesn't need another streotypically told film about gang warfare.

I see authentic film from a cultural perspective as that which attempts to move our understanding of a culture forward even if only a little. It loses authenticity when it leans on those things that have been overexposed to the point of exploitation.

There is in fact no debate. LOST is a pretty horrendous example of network television. Yes it is popular and wildly successful. But then so to is McDonald's. But hey that's my opinion and I do tend to listen to that.

OZ on the other hand was sometimes a little uneven but a great show nonetheless. Perrineau as Augustus Hill was one of the shows strongest elements and should have been a firm springboard for better things.

Anyway Harold has been a firm favourite for a while now, good to see him rising every so slightly. Sometimes an actor has to wade across the mud (LOST) to get to other side.