This election cycle so far has been a wild roller-coaster that I've wanted to get off of about 6 months ago. Each day one (or both) of the presidential candidates says something outrageous, then it's blown up on most major news networks for about 24 hours, then swept under the rug to make room for tomorrow's scandal. I know, this is how it's been for years in our society, but it feels a little different this election, doesn't it? Many people, including myself, believe it is thanks to the internet's archives of poor decisions made by both candidates over the past few decades, and every day more and more stuff is archived, which can either benefit both candidates, or severely hurt them. Usually, thanks to selective bias, it's the latter. I've only been following this election since last November, but I have kept up with it almost everyday since. After my chosen nominee was pushed out over the summer in favor of someone I trust less than a gas-station egg salad sandwich, following this election became less about caring about the future of this country, and more about entertainment. However, putting my utter discontent of both presidential nominees aside, I do respect both nominee's effective use of fear-mongering, blaming others, and telling voters just what they want to hear to gain their support. It's not a system that appeals to me, but it seems to work for the uninformed common masses of this country. In this blog I will discuss my understanding of the semiotics of the current election cycle, and how the presidential nominees got to the positions they are at now.
Donald Trump, potential billionaire, has a long history of being a TV personality, real estate entrepreneur, businessperson, steak salesman (my favorite), and many other professions before becoming a nominee for one of the most powerful people of the world. One outside of the loop may ask: how did this guy become a presidential nominee? Simple! He speaks at a 6th grade level, something almost all eligible voters can relate to, and he speaks his mind. He attacks anyone who makes fun of him, no matter how small the comment, and his followers seem to love it. "A man unafraid to speak the truth" one may say, appealing to many, but mostly those with not-so-politically-correct-views. Hostility, aggression, "weaponized stupid" is what seems to keep Trump's support alive nationwide. He's psuedo-popular among many ineligible voters (most under 18, or outside of the country) for being a vessel for memes across the internet, calling him the "God Emperor", a title given to a fictional faction leader of the table-top game Warhammer: 40k, but hey, there's no such thing as bad press! His constant presence on Twitter also keeps him relevant, which brings me to a major point:Trump's understanding of the internet. Trump seems to adore being in the limelight. He understands that the internet is the place to go to gain support, despite the negative content it generates against him daily. He has a far better handle on this type of communication than his opponent, Hillary Clinton, who appears to ignore or misuse the internet's great potential, but more on that later. What's pretty impressive about this candidate is how he's managed to gain so much support while only spending half of Clinton's Campaign Funding, a decent portion of it self-funded.
As far as I can tell, these seem to be the major factors that appeal to Trump supporters, and I didn't even delve that far into his policies, which don't seem to be that big issue of an issue for both candidates this election cycle.
Clinton needs millennials, badly. She's got a lot of support from name-recognition, SuperPACS, and being the first potential female president, but that's not enough. She managed to write a majority of them off during the Sanders Movement, believing they wouldn't impact the election much. However, the opposite is the case, and it's led to Trump catching up to her pretty quickly. Millennial's aren't the Clinton Campaigns only problem, there's Benghazi, refusal to release transcripts to paid wall street speeches, the whole email and FBI thing, the Wikileaks thing that made Debbie Wasserman Schultz step down as DNC chair only to be appointed an honorary chairwoman for Clinton's campaign a few hours later, the recent IT guy incident, and many more that seem to be ignored by major media networks, mostly CNN for some reason. (Hint: CNN's parent company is Time Warner) If we pretended that none of that ever happened, what we are left with is an unlikable person who just can't seem to hold on to people's trust. Her platform seems to be "I'm Not Trump" rather than actually talking about her policies. She may be a decent choice for baby boomers due to the remembrance of the nostalgic era of her husband's presidential terms, but to Millennials who are constantly update by the internet (including myself), she's not very favorable. Her recent health issues and compulsive lying are what's currently bringing her down in the polls, but hey, at least her Millennial pandering is getting better.
In conclusion, the internet is key to understanding the semiotics of this election. Not biased websites connected to television news networks like Fox and CNN for republicans and democrats respectively, nor liberal sites like Democracy Now, but a conglomeration of fact-checking sites like Politifact. Sites that due extensive research rather than playing on one's emotions for ratings. From what I understand, our culture is really into bias confirmation due to the multiple sources of news that specifically pander to those with certain views rather than giving a non-bias article for all. The fault can be traced to the politicians that can't seem to keep money out of politics, fueling the divide between parties, and also giving us possibly the two worst candidates in American history. 2016 will most definitely go down as one of the worst political years in recent times.
Last week I decided to change direction on my capstone and beginning working on an animated short using the open source animation software: Source Filmmaker. This software is used by the video game company The Vavle Corporation to create animated shorts for their video games using their game engine as a base. I've been fascinated with 3D animation as long as I could remember, and I thought that creating a project within the software for my capstone would be a great first step to finding a career in animation. However, I know that before starting any of the actual animating, the writing of the short must first be completed to get a good idea as to where the direction of the animation is heading.
Screenshot of Source Filmmaker
My Capstone adviser recommended to me to books to read before I even think about opening up the software to begin working. The first being Ideas for the Animated Short: Finding and Building Stories, which focuses really well on the writing for 2-5 minute shorts, as well as acting and dialogue. The second book is Gardner's Guide to Animation Scriptwriting: The Writer's Road Map, which delves into script-writing with illustrated text and detailed instructions. I have ordered both books last week and eagerly await for their arrival to begin studying. Along side the books, I have found multiple scholarly articles on animation that provide valuable information on animation, albeit some of it a bit dated. I've already began thinking about what kind of story I want to tell with my animation, and I feel like with enough dedication (and tutorials) I can pull off a decent end product by the end of next semester. To demonstrate what people can do with Source Filmmaker, I have provided a video from Youtube below of one of my favorite animations created by an ordinary guy for fun using the software.
For my first project I know that I won't be able to create something this amazing, but it's the kind of video that I like to strive for one day. For my next entry in this blog, I will discuss putting what I learn from the books I ordered to practice on a script for my animation.
I began the base of my capstone project with an idea about something I despise about the video game industry, and I hope I can shape the idea into a project that will inform others about the dangers of pre-ordering games, and purchasing downloadable content. For those unfamiliar with the term pre-ordering, it is to order an item before it is commercially available, meaning to purchase before it is reviewed by others or available to rent. Some may justify this kind of purchase to make sure that they get a copy the day the game is released, but experiencing the game itself may turn out to be unworthy of the money spent to acquire said game. Allow me explain.
An ad to entice people to buy the new Call of Duty. Take a look at the price on the top right. Crazy.
Above is an ad for pre-ordering a new Call of Duty video game set to release this fall. This ad was launched months ago, slowly gaining pre-orders before the game's release with a *slightly* discounted bundle price that comes with extra in-game content. According to the scholarly article by Xuying Zhao and Kathryn E. Stecke called Pre-orders for New To-be-released Products ConsideringConsumer Loss Aversion, this strategy is called Moderate Advance Selling (MAS) and the article goes into deep details on how businesses use it to maximize profits on their product that I'm deducing and applying to the gaming industry. By the way (fun fact), the additional content (DLC) that people pay in advance for usually HASN'T BEEN CREATED YET. That content (which for Call of Duty would be new multiplayer maps), will be worked on and released over the course of the next two years, at least. This is a standard business practice in the gaming industry, and it only has gotten worse as the years go by.
Let me share a personal story about a pre-ordering mistake I made that sparked my dislike of the practice back in 2011. Above is a picture of the game Brink, which was released in 2011. The game looked incredibly interesting to me back in the day, so I saved up money from my part-time job at a fast-food joint to pre-order it (my first pre-order ever). I pre-ordered, I received the game, and to my surprise, I did not enjoy the game. Apparently I wasn't the only one, because others online, including reviewers, were not impressed by the game either, despite the hype. That day I made a promise to myself to not purchase a game before release until I hear a general consensus that it is worth checking out, or if it's heavily discounted. This same event has happened to other people for multiple games the past couple years, and as I said before, I wish to create an informative project that breaks down how the gaming industry's consumers are suffering from this business choice.
