Is Ugly contagious?

When you watch the show, you can’t help but to tear up or cry a little bit. Is it because that you felt bad for Betty, or the fact that you can relate to it completely; either you were the ugly one of the whole class or that you picked on the ugly ones?
Ugly Betty launched in the fall of 2006 and ran for four seasons. Wish I could say: It ran for four season STRONG; but I can’t. Apparently, the show struggled with the ratings in season three, and ABC made the executive decision to cancel the show after the fourth season.
The pilot for the show started out with Betty struggling hard to find a job, finally ending up with the job as assistant for the new editor in chief for Mode Magazine. Betty received that job because of Bradford Meade, owner for Meade Publication, who wanted his son to have an assistant that he will not be tempted to sleep with. When Betty found that out, it devastated her, and if that wasn’t bad enough, Daniel (Betty’s boss) tried to sabotage her so she would quit her job. It was her look, her quirkiness, and “unique” style of clothes choice that made America fall in love with America, who was playing the role of Betty Suarez.
But after four seasons, they made “Ugly” Betty into “Pretty” Betty. Maybe more; she became gorgeous and beautiful. Why did they choose the end of season four to do that? Wasn’t the whole point of Betty being ugly was so that it shows “ugly” can be beautiful inside and out? I guess people evolve and eventually they get better at what they do… right?
Then there was Justin. Justin was one of the supporting characters for the show. He started out with the show being really flamboyant. However, at the end of season four, he comes out of the closet. It’s a tough world out there, but why did it take four seasons for them to get Justin to come out? Not to say it’s a bad thing because The Suarez family all support him to the max… to the point where he had a coming out party when he wasn’t even out yet. One reason the writers might have done that is to show that people takes time coming out of the closet. In some cases, they were really trying to channel the fact that Justin himself doesn’t know that he is gay but he can dress really well.
The typical Latino family consists of a really hard working family that really values the sense of family, trying to hold the family together. That was one of the essential thing that the father, Ignacio Suarez, did in the show. Ignacio really was the glue to the family and held onto to the Hispanic culture that they have.
Meade Publication basically tied the whole show together, the high fashion magazines company. The plot around Mode Magazine is so complicated that one must watch all four season to get the story line. Some of the major characters in that show involve Wilhelmina Slater, Marc St. James, Amanda Tanen and many more. All of them at one point or anther had made fun of Betty for her looks and the way she dresses.
With the story line spinning like crazy, how can ABC be so inconsiderate of people like me that love the show to cancel the show? Is it even remotely the viewers’ fault that the ratings dropped like that? I find it despicable that the station is blaming the viewers for not watching the show. During season four, the station tried to improve the ratings by moving the show to different time slots. First moving it to Friday night at ten, then moving to Wednesday night at ten. More than 5.8 million viewers watched the series finale, which in my mind is a lot of people. It is very saddening that they cancelled the show, but as America Ferera had said, people today don’t only watch shows on TV; they can catch it on Hulu, TiVo, and so many other media resources.
But many questions are not answered: Did they cancel the show because Betty has turned beautiful and there were no more story lines to write? Or was it the fact that Justin is about to come out and they thought no one would watch the show because there is a gay character on Prime Time TV? And what about the wardrobe? Did it cost too much for them to continue the show because not enough people were watching?
The show meant so much to people across the nation. For the Ugly Betty cast, the show was more than just another show; it was empowerment. The main character for the show is a Latino, and not even just a Hispanic person, but also a Latina female. For many of the people, they will have some sort of ugliness that they feel inside at one point or another that they can relate. It is also one of the very few drama shows that have fashion as one of the main themes. Ugly Betty will be missed and lets hope for a movie... soon.

Pee. El.

True Blood Trumps Twilight

Vampires are the new fad. Twilight has taken over the tween scene on the big screen, while True Blood is heating up HBO on Sunday nights. But which one is better?

That debate is up to the fans.

It is arguable that they are very different because of their target audiences. Twilight targets tween girls who want to read about a romance sans any real intimacy. True Blood targets a mature audience who can stay up past 9:00 on a school night.

For those of you cave dwellers who don’t know, Twilight is a story about Bella Swan (Kirsten Stewart), an everyday “plain Jane” who falls for angsty vampire, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattison.) True Blood is also about love between vampire and human. Strong southern lady, Sookie Stackhouse (Anna Paquin) falls for the vampire Civil War vet Bill Compton (Stephen Moyer) in the fictional Louisiana town of Bon Temps.

The Twilight films’ follow the general plot line of Bella and Edward falling in love, Bella and Edward staring into each other’s eyes, Bella and Edward running into some sort of trouble, and Edward saving Bella. It never becomes more complex than one conflict, nor does it move past the story of Bella and Edward.

True Blood episodes begin with some sort of conflict and sometimes end with the resolve of that one conflict but always end with new ones and some sort of cliff hanger. It’s all about conflict. Not only those of Bill and Sookie but also those of their friends. The characters of Sam Merlotte (Sam Trammell), Tara Thornton (Rutina Wesley), Lafayette Reynolds (Nelsan Ellis), and Sookie’s brother Jason (Ryan Kwantan), among others, all share interlacing conflicts. (See Alan Ball discuss the end of Season 3)

Basically, if True Blood’s plot is the Hudson River, Twilight’s is some creek running through the backyard.

The female protagonists, Bella and Sookie, are relatively similar. Which character, however, is the better one?

Bella, a character who shows no growth throughout the Twilight Saga, is not the ideal female role model for tween girls. She is the ultimate empty character for any thirteen-year-old girl reading the books to insert her own personality into. She depends on her relationship with Edward to make her special, and defines herself by it. It is never actually explained why Edward has an interest in Bella. What makes her more special that other girls? Why can’t he read her thoughts when he can read others? As far as clear-headed readers know, Bella is nothing special and is no different from other girls.

On the other hand, Sookie is a character that has always been a strong woman. When Bill comes along, sure she is instantly infatuated by him, but she makes a point in saying she doesn’t depend on him. Unlike in Twilight when Edward saves Bella, it is Sookie who first saves Bill. If it weren’t for the show tendency to be risqué, Sookie would be a good role model for teenage girls when it comes to being an independent woman. Not only that, but it is revealed why Bill, and all other vampires, seem interested in Sookie.

In terms of the Vampire in both shows, the True Blood vampires are definitely more threatening than those sparkling creatures that call themselves vampires in Twilight. Here are the reasons why:
Vampires in Twilight sparkle in the sun. Vampires in True Blood burn up and die in the sun.
Vampires in Twilight are hidden from society. Vampires in True Blood have come out of the coffin.
The Cullens don’t kill humans. Bill kills a number of humans by the end of the first season. Not to mention killing a few vampires too.

Just with these three points, its agreeable that True Blood vampires are way more B.A. than those of Twilight.

As a fan of True Blood, I am totally biased and clearly feel that True Blood is the superior of these two Vampire phenomena and those are my reasons why. Whether or not you feel the same is up to you.

Tori J.

The Lord of The Rings - Sophia M.

Since 1937, over 150,000,000 copies of The Lord of the Rings trilogy have been sold. As of 2006, The Return of the King ranked second on Box Office Mojo’s list of worldwide gross receipts with a gross product of 1,118.9 million, Titanic coming in first with 1,244 million and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone coming in third with 976.5 million. The Lord of the Rings online was the top selling PC game in North America and Europe in 2007. The saga is clearly a pop culture phenomenon, yet nowadays one is much more likely to see a group of teenagers gossiping about the latest Harry Potter movie or swooning over Edward Cullen than conversing about the adventure of Frodo and Sam in their quest to Mount Doom. The Lord of the Rings has become iconic of the more nerdy side of pop culture, as a dialogue from Friends perfectly describes: Ross and Chandler ask “Didn’t you read Lord of the Rings in high school?” to which Joey replies “No, I had sex in high school.”
Having two older brothers, I was exposed to The Lord of the Rings at the age of seven when it came out in 2001. I was and still am more fascinated by the fantasy world of Middle Earth than Twilight, High School Musical, The Jonas Brothers, or even Harry Potter, of which I am a huge fan. However, after my brother’s eleventh birthday, where after begging him for weeks to let me go with his friends to see The Return of the King he finally gave in and let me sit in the very back row by myself, I’ve felt that saying I’d rather be Arwen than Bella Swan is not something many people would agree with me on. Although the trilogy was a huge hit in the 50’s and 60’s, it seems as if today’s youth does not have the same appreciation for The Lord of the Rings. So what makes fads such as Twilight and Harry Potter so much more appealing?
Having always been a fan of The Lord of the Rings movies, over the summer I decided it was time to read the books. After receiving the trilogy as a birthday present, I was really excited to start reading them. However, after the first fifty pages, I realized that this excitement hadn’t really been fulfilled. I couldn’t believe that I, a devoted Lord of the Rings fan, didn’t love the books as much as I though I would. I tried to think of reasons why this would happen, and I realized that I had been expecting something. I had been expecting them to be like the movies. In order to be relatable to the general public, the movies are significantly more cliché than the books. I was anticipating the suspense, drama, and epic feeling that the movies embody. It wasn’t until I became conscious and got past this that I realized what I just read was an amazing piece of writing.
Boiled down, a huge part of pop culture is about making money. If something is popular, it needs to not only be a phenomenon but also a commodity. This sheds some light on The Lord of the Rings’ status in pop culture today. As Micheal A. Hall articulates in The Influence of J.R.R Tolkien on Pop Culture, while commenting on Tolkien’s struggle to get the trilogy published, “When considering the influence of Tolkien’s work on western culture, one cannot overlook the conflict between high art and the desire of marketers to make it a commodity for selling. Tolkien was making a work of art while the publishers undoubtedly were primarily interested in having a sellable commodity. This conflict between the “high art” nature of the histories of Middle Earth and the desire to make it a popular culture item that can be marketed and sold would continue up to the present day.”
In order to make money off of a pop culture phenomenon, the creators of the phenomenon have to make it relatable. When looked at closely, most pop culture books and movies contain relatively empty characters so that people can put themselves in the character’s place. Although I would argue that Tolkien’s characters are not empty, The Lord of the Rings books used to have a relatable quality that people seem to no loner identify with. One explanation is that what is “relatable” has changed. Although Tolkien is adamant about his books not being allegories, there have been many connections made between The Lord of the Rings and the real world, mostly in the 50’s and 60’s. The Influence of J.R.R Tolkien explores some of these connections and reasons why the trilogy was so relatable in the 50’s and 60’s. One very plausible explanation is the birth of counter culture during the time period. The elder generation considered the trilogy crap, which meant everyone in the young generation wanted to read it. Another explanation was that the time period was “a time of utter boredom and grey”, and The Lord of the Rings provided a completely new and alien world. Another theory of the time was that the books were a fantastical account of WWII, a relevant subject of the time.
The Lord of the Rings is not as relevant today as it used to be is because our generation does not value these concepts the way they were valued in the 60's. Teenagers as a collective don’t care about the connections between pop-culture phenomena and world politics, or the simplistic struggle between good and evil. In comparison to the younger generation of the 60’s, we don’t even really care about rebelling against the institution. Whereas people in the 50's and 60's were seeking escapist novels to get away from their own world, teenagers would rather read books such as Harry Potter and Twilight that are set in a world very similar to our own with one huge twist. It is a rare type of 21st century teenager that appreciates the detailed world that Tolkien has created in The Lord of the Rings. We, as a collective, relate to empty characters and plots because we can imagine ourselves in those positions. We would rather read books about a world similar to our own than experience something entirely strange. We care about beating the bad guys and getting the guy/girl in the end. However, I as an individual, find The Lord of The Rings appealing for the same reasons as people did when it was written. I’m more interested in good versus evil and the subtleties of the human condition than pining over the fact that I will never be with Edward Cullen because he is a fictional character.

Suri Cruise, posted by Caelyn

Suri Cruise, a daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, was born in April 18, 2006, at Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, California. She is often called as 'Tom Kitten' by public and media, and this four year old girl is a top star. Type Suri Cruise on the google search bar. You will get not only myriad photos of and articles on her, but also related search words. 'Suri Cruise high heels', 'Suri Cruise ipad,' 'Suri Cruise outfits', 'Suri Cruise news', and 'Suri Cruise out of control'; these are all what people googled to learn more about her. Suri even has her own fan blog. The blog is full of her photos and comments on her fashion sense. In fact, what happens is: paparazzi wait in front whenever Suri leaves her house, and the world learns the brand and the cost of her clothes before the following morning. She is not a star. She is a world star. If you do not know her or never heard of her till this moment, you are definitely out of trend. People argue about her shoes preference on high heels as a baby, ownership of an ipad, and the degree of her 'spoiled-ness'. Who could have possibly imagined a four year old girl who never made one's debut yet will be this famous? She is not an actor, nor a singer, but a daughter of A-list movie stars.

By now, we all know how dangerous it is to be so famous in a young age. Many young stars including Macaulay Culkin and Lindsay Lohan have shown the side effects of prematurely achieved fame. Both of them were the center of attention of their times as an adorable child actor and actress, respectively. However, they went astray as they go through puberty. I'm not saying Suri will end up being one of the unfortunate case or anything. I'm just questioning the subject of this move. Macaulay and Lindsay at least had their will on walking a path of an actor and actress. Also, they have their signature movies, Home alone and The Parent Trap, respectively. On the other hand, what did Suri do? Suri herself did nothing as a 'star,' but still she is frequently on the front page of entertainment magazines. What are we doing to this innocent girl and her fragile life? Just because this girl is a daughter of the movie stars we usually gossiped about, does that mean we can do the same to the baby? It is wrong for someone's life to be shaped by the public. She needs to have her own choice on her life to be lived by her. So, lets stop googling about which top designer's clothes Suri wears, or if she owns the newest ipad or not. Please leave the parenting to her parents. I believe two parents are enough for her to be parented by.

Gaga Fever - Mary R.

Whether we will openly admit it or not, there is a time when all us of just can’t stop “rah rah ah ah ah-ing” to ourselves. If we’re not belting out Bad Romance, maybe we’re serenading Alejandro, or “just dancing”. Lada Gaga, love her or hate her, has the ability to take songs with catchy, annoying beats and catchphrases and imprint in our minds. I wouldn’t call myself a Gaga fan necessarily, but sometimes when open up I open up my iTunes, I find myself searching vigorously for Telephone. There isn’t much I can relate to with Lady Gaga; her lyrics don’t speak to me, her odd outfits aren’t cool and different to me, they’re weird, and I was horrified by her 2009 VMA performance. After Gaga’s controversial performance, John Kubicek, a writer for BuddyTV, took it to the Internet to write his review of the night. He said he believes Lady Gaga “delivered what [he] maintain[s] is the single greatest VMA performance of the last five years”. I’m not sure what attracted him to her staged death that came at the end of her song, made complete with fake blood spilled everywhere. I know she is taking a risk, breaking away from the norm, and making a performance that sets her apart and will be talked about, but I found this a little too over the top. I know that I may sound a little annoying as I was 15 years old when I watched this, and I am on the younger side as VMA critics go, but luckily, I stumbled across the Diary of a Hollywood Street King, Jacky Jasper, who shares a similar opinion to mine regarding Gaga’s performance. In his post he calls the “so-called artist’s” performance horrifying. He is “appalled” that Gaga would mock the handicapped, and he doesn’t agree with anything that blogger Perez Hilton is saying about supporting Gaga, and he believes that Gaga, with the help of popular blogger supporters like Perez are “furthering the destruction of real art”.
In continuing her destruction of real art, Lady Gaga kept the jaws dropping when she arrived at this year’s VMAs in an outfit made entirely of meat. Along with being disgusting, this can also be offensive to many people. She has taken her wacky style to another level, and is no longer wearing clothes that are not just socially weird and unacceptable, but are actually offending some people. While I am aware that the animal rights activists can be a little crazy and wait for opportunities to ounce on people, I think on this one Lady Gaga took it a little too far.
Although Gaga has stirred up many controversies, I don’t let it get in the way of my liking of her songs, and try to look past the crazy lifestyle that she leads to create an image of herself. After all, would people actually liker her songs if they weren’t accompanied by her absurd ways of life and shocking performances?

Blinded by Headlines: What Lays Underneath by Blair

As a typical 21^st century teenager, I rely on the Internet as a primary source for information on news regarding the outside world. Not only are we dependent on technology, but we also rely on celebrity magazines in order to stay current on all the hot celebrity gossip and national news. According to many, they rely on these magazines in order to stay “in the know.” Can these magazines be considered a staple of American culture? I may not an expert on all these magazines, but I consider People Magazine to be by far the most popular. As a subscriber to this magazine, I have learned how to read and examine its data and in my personal opinion, I believe it is the most reliable.

While investigating this topic, the constant thought that ran through my mind was “how exactly IS a news source deemed reliable?” Although I could not find an answer to that question, I decided to try and figure out the answer on my own. Many times when I peruse the magazine shelves at the grocery store, my attention is immediately caught by the numerous headlines such as “Angelina Can’t Take Brad Anymore,” “Obama Reaches a Breaking Point,” and, “He Cheated on Me.” In fact, it is hard for me to trust these magazines simply because the headlines are so extreme. This makes me wonder where exactly do magazines get their data. I know the majority of People’s data is from interviews, but what about other magazines such as Star and OK?

I chose to examine other teenager’s perspectives on celebrity magazines by creating a survey. Out of 100 responses from high school girls from my school, 52% said they most enjoyed reading People, 10% preferred US Weekly, and 1% favored either Star, InTouch, or OK! Then there were 35% of girls who did not read any of these magazines. Then, when asked which magazine was the most reliable, 54% said People, 4% said US Weekly, 2% said InTouch, none said Star or OK!, and 40% did not know. Like me, most students preferred reading People Magazine and believed that it was the most reliable. Why is this? My theory is that it is because People’s headlines are not overly dramatic. They do not merely focus on celebrity gossip but instead choose to provide information on current events as well as celebrity’s personal lives consisting of more than just who their next lover is. While it may feel as if reading a magazine is like taking a birds eye view into a reality TV show, it is important to watch what you read. Do you really want to spend your $4.99 on magazine that has the most extravagant headline or the one with the most reliable information? Think about that.

"I like girls who wear Abercrombie and fitch..." or do I?

I see those girls walking around the mall carrying their latest buy from Abercrombie and I wonder how they can let the store take control of them, and why would they all want to wear the same thing? I find myself judging them thinking who would want to look like those smutty girls on the walls of Abercrombie. But the truth is I was the exact same way at their age. When I was in 5th and 6th grade I was one of the many girls who thought you were only cool if you had the word Abercrombie or a moose somewhere on your clothing. I would beg my mom to take me shopping there, spend endless time on the website and even Abercrombie hand-me-downs from my sister were a treat. I am now one of those girls that wouldn’t be caught dead wearing Abercrombie because I think the morals of the store and the way they present their styles are appalling. Looking back on my Abercrombie days I remember thinking how good I looked with the word Abercrombie plastered across my chest with a little tank top and tight flare jeans. Clearly my idea of Abercrombie has changed drastically

Abercrombie is a company in our society that is greatly debated. For girls and boys ages 10-14 this is an attraction. The idea of looking older then you actually are is something that kids strive to do. The clothing at Abercrombie was originally targeted to teenagers 18-22 years old. The models in the store are around that age as well. But it ended up making younger kids think that if they buy these clothes not matter the cost they will look older then they are. Abercrombie is an extremely well known company the clothes are seen in tv shows and referenced in songs. Reading blogs from other people they say that they love walking into an Abercrombie, they love the loud music and the perfume that is always in the air. They love all the cute stylish clothes and the model picture on the walls. The parents that are paying for this expensive style look at it and a different way. What my parents always thought was the clothes are cheaply made and the kids will grow out of their new 50-dollar sweatshirt with in a matter of months.

The advertisement is one of the things that make Abercrombie so unappealing to parents and to me and a lot of my friends. The way Abercrombie is portrayed is all about sex appeal. They put their models in as little clothes as possible and post it all over their website and in their stores. The models don’t only make kids want to look older but the way the girls and guys are shown together makes people kids think that if they wear these clothes they too will get a “hot” girlfriend or boyfriend. This gives false assumptions about what these clothes will do for a person. The way girls are targeted is especially inappropriate. The fact that the clothes that are produced are so reveling and tight is another way that Abercrombie is trying to make girls think they should look a certain way. They want skinny girls to be able to fit and to a triple zero and anyone else to think they should. The sense of what girls should look like is so skewed. Shouldn’t girls be able to look they way they do naturally? To me Abercrombie is a horrible company but to other kids its all the rage.

Lucy