Fame is a fickle beast. Unfortunately, in the world today it is also a beast of burden and finding one to carry you around for a few hours is as easy as it has ever been. Even as we pine and fawn over the “famous for being famous” crowd in Hollywood, thousands more find temporary stardom on the Internet through less traditional means. So, what defines fame in a world where ping pong balls or clever Photoshop skills can garner someone international acclaim?

The Tinsel Town Classic

Fame and stardom may be evolving, but the same silver screen formula has created numerous stars and starlets that still capture the imaginations of millions. Movies are undeniably the largest star vehicle in the world and with a few quick films, a man or woman in Hollywood can become a household name nearly anywhere.

However, thanks to the Internet, tabloids, and the instantaneous transmission of information around the world, it’s not as feasible for these living statues of gold and bronze to survive the scandals that tend to follow them around like flies on…well you get the idea. Being famous is a dangerous proposition these days as even the tiniest sip of stardom can result in full on intoxication.

Stars like Tom Cruise have made names for themselves by speaking out on various topics repeatedly. By constantly announcing themselves to the public, sometimes in eccentrically misguided ways, they lose pieces of their credibility, causing their careers to actually suffer. It has nothing to do with religious or philosophical beliefs. It has to do with the general opinion of the public and how much a celebrity differs from that perspective. At a certain point, the burning curiosity of the masses becomes confusion and eventually disgust.

Famous for the Sake of Fame

Yes, there are the Paris Hiltons, Nicole Richies, and Kevin Federlines of the world as well. These individuals have made a name for themselves by simply being themselves. Latching on to the Hollywood lifestyle and holding on for dear life, this type of celebrity transcends recognition for accomplishments because they have not accomplished anything. Paris Hilton is rich and parties with other famous people. Kevin Federline married Britney Spears, a woman who used to be the biggest pop star on the planet.

The cult of celebrity is intriguing because it feeds on itself. Even as millions of readers and fans sit idly and wonder what exactly these men and women did to become so famous, they ravenously devour the information fed to them on a daily basis by sites like TMZ, supermarket tabloids, or idle workplace gossip.

Even individuals who no longer earn their stardom, such as Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears can find their way into this category through a litany of captivating, if largely dim acts. Being in the public spotlight has an effect on people that is impossible to understand. For that reason, celebrities have been known to act strange, falling victim to their own stardom and the surreal realization that everything they do is being watched.

Fame for fame’s sake is an odd accomplishment and only made possible by the oversaturation of news and entertainment media. Thousands of shows, websites, and paparazzi make the industry boom and carefully worded copy and special reports ensure that the viewers and readers of the world become attached to these odd individuals who have somehow become both pariahs and saints in our consumer culture.

The Homegrown Celebrity

The old modicum that everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame has never been quite as true as it is today. The internet has created a culture in which anyone can become famous for anything, largely because of the user-defined credos of sites like YouTube and Blogger. If anyone with internet access and a cheap video camera can become a superstar, there are likely to be millions of superstars.

Oddball humor such as Ask a Ninja or the video blogging of LonelyGirl15 are prime examples of how a single individual with a webcam can become an international superstar overnight. The free flow of information makes it possible. Of course, what this means is that even the famous can become more famous by using this philosophy. Bands like Ok Go made a name for themselves with homegrown music videos of choreographed dance routines and treadmills. Even advertising campaigns are taking the viral route these days, using unnamed movie trailers and cleverly crafted videos.

The internet provides the largest demographic in the world and only a small percentage of that demographic needs to be curious about a video or blog to make it successful. For that reason, clever ideas and word of mouth are all that a person needs anymore to become famous.

Everyone Else

That makes the rest of us consumers. The world is full of consumers and viewers, those individuals who watch as Tom Cruise says odd things or Paris Hilton goes to jail. Everyone else sees us watching and the content just continues to grow. Fame may be a fickle beast, but it is also a commodity and it is more freely available than ever before.

This is a reprint of a column I write for Buzzle.com

It’s no surprise that I haven’t written anything in a few weeks. I’ve been ridiculously busy and when I’m not working, who wants to spend even more time in front of the computer when they’re not working. Regardless, I’ve been getting a little ornery of late with my work and feel like I’m starting to lose interest and a small bit of respect for how great I have it, working from home everyday on my own terms, so I’m going to find the time to update my blog every now and then with my complaints and success stories (take a guess which one is more likely), plus it’s a great chance to take a break from work and feel like I’m successfully procrastinating.

As a side note, I noticed that my post about Stephen King and the abhorrent waste of text that was Cell was referenced on Publisher’s Weekly about three weeks ago. I had been wondering how I racked up more than 350 visits in the last three weeks when I have updated the blog twice in the last 12 weeks. The article is an interesting look at a new novel series by Sarah Langan and how much Stephen King let his fans down recently. I just though it was interesting (and flattering) for Marc Schultz - the blog’s author - to cite me when my blog has been largely stagnant for so long. My chance to return the favor - same gesture, without all that pesky traffic.

I’ve been in the midst of the Summer Movie scene for the past three weeks or so now. Since the Spiderman 3 reality finally hit and we bought our tickets on Fandango and set aside a three hour chunk of a certain Friday night, it was underway. Let’s just say I’m not impressed thus far. Unlike last year’s disappointment with the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel, everyone agrees with me this run through as well, so there’s no argument with the clan over what exactly is wrong with a film.

No, this year’s films are just plain bad thus far. Ironically, the only two good films I’ve seen this spring so far are from the UK (well, it’s not so ironic if you consider the quality of Hollywood fare these days). I’m not going to babble on at length on why Spiderman failed so miserably though or why Shrek 3 turned out to be everything that the first two Shrek films set out to satirize.

I’m actually stuck up on one of the good films I saw. In between Spiderman and Shrek there was yet another sequel that very few people watched hailing from the UK (one of those good films I mentioned). The second film in the once single shot series of 28 Days Later films was actually a fairly well made horror film, if a bit unbalanced.

I don’t go to watch a lot of horror films. The joke is old by now. Once you’ve seen one horror film skewering popular conventions of realistic violence, you’ve seen them all and there’s no purpose to wasting yet another $9 on more of them. However, 28 Days Later was the best modern horror film I’ve seen and so the sequel and its premise looked enticing to me.

It didn’t disappoint either. Though the second half of the film devolved into a bit of Hollywood thriller-esque, run and gun adrenaline junkie-ism, the film as a whole was quite entertaining and the intensity was welcome. What makes the 28 Days films good is that they don’t presuppose some ridiculous premise that is impossible to suspend disbelief over. Instead of zombies attacking, a genre I actually rather enjoy because of the thousands of different scenarios you can explore with it, undead creatures hell bent on eating your brain, the films assume there is a man made disease that reverts human cognition to animalistic rage turning human beings into blood thirsty cannibals.

The result is truly horrifying in the way only a film that you think “might” be feasible can be. Few horror movies are able to tap human fear in such a manner and I enjoy them for that very ability. However, the one thing horror films all do that I’ve long since grown tired of and honestly don’t believe is necessary anymore is the thirty second sequel pandering ending they’ll often ruin a film with.

You’ve seen it a hundred times and it’s the only reason they could make 10 Friday the 13^th films. Every time you think Jason is finally, frozen, dismembered, sent to hell, and dead – oh dear god let him be gone – dead, he raises a hand or the rubble rolls around. It’s as simple as that. There’s no need for explanation or context, just a quick shot of a hint of his virility and the film series continues.

What this does of course is kill any credibility the film has. Granted, most people don’t put much stock in the film itself. It’s mindless entertainment with a gratuitous plot and premise that doesn’t need to make sense for people to enjoy. But, when I see a film like 28 Weeks Later that actually tries and does a decent job of transcending typical slasher film antics, I expect the ending to be inclusive, or at least open ended to a degree of purpose.

The first film did just that. After a thoroughly terrifying premise in which the filmmaker actually managed to craft a ghost town out of London and send his protagonists across a wasteland of Rage-infected humanity to a military base and eventually a possible rescue by the river, the film merely ends. There are no infected running rampant through the trees or a helicopter smoking as it flies away. The film just ended. The glimmer of hope that a film like this can offer at the end is all that is left and it worked magnificently.

28 Weeks Later had that ending and then ruined it in the span of 30 seconds of unneeded footage. It took only one scene to ruin everything the film did and I’m absolutely disgusted that they gave in so easily. I don’t care if they make a new film in two years (which they will now) or that the entire world is likely infected. It’s the writers’ prerogative. However, the purpose of the film was a sort of inevitability corner-stoned by hope and human love. People are surely willing to believe that there is some sort of hope at the end of the tunnel. And in this film there quite literally was not hope beyond the tunnel.

No self-respecting novelist would end their book with the deaths of millions merely so they could have another book in which they talked about those deaths. I don’t want to attack this film too thoroughly. It had one of the best introductions and emotional attachments of any film I’ve seen this year (by far beyond the sequels Hollywood has thrown at me thus far) and it’s the only film other than Hot Fuzz and Pan’s Labyrinth that I’ve seen this year and been happy with. That’s a whole lot of American films failing me.

I just want to make sure to voice my opinion on the matter of commercializing the ending of a well made film for the sake of making more money later. It’s irresponsible and disrespectful to the movie goers. If I watch a thoroughly engrossing film, I want to be rocked back to reality by the light of the sun when I exit the theater, not the petty sequel peddling of a film executive before the credits even roll.

This applies to every film that’s been released this year, though it is more or less expected from the Hollywood slop. Despite the fact that Spiderman and Shrek gave me much more to be disappointed by, 28 Weeks Later was actually a good film until those final seconds. It’s a man made disease all its own, the spread of commercial minded art. Let us find a cure together.

So, the Seattle International Film Festival schedule was released today and though I don’t yet have the much needed Stranger insert schedule, I did mosey my way over to the website with my girlfriend and start perusing the vast sum of new and amazing filmms that I will be spending my days with in the coming weeks. There were a lot of the same old stuff; America releasing bad movies and shorts, France throwing a whole lot of romantic what not out (including an intriguing Lady Chatterly adaptation that I might be interested in) and only 8 total films between China and Hong Kong. I haven’t finalized my “must see” list yet, but will probably have one by next week when I have my print edition sitting in front of me. All you Seattlites, I’ll see you there.

It’s been a few months since my last playlist was posted, but there are a few good new albums out right now that deserve some attention (and a few mainstream albums I’ll admit to listening to):

Peter, Bjorn, and John - Writer’s Block

Arctic Monkeys - Favorite Worst Nightmare

Of Montreal - Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer

I’ll pass off some reviews in the future for these great new albums. They’re more or less on repeat right now on the old iPod along with the guilty pleasure that is Linkin Park and their iffy new album.

I saw this on Digg earlier this evening and thought it was fun. Check it out:

We at DoubleViking consider Han Solo to be the apex of all that is manly. He’s our number one role model, he’s a badass in his own right, and his sarcastic, roguish presence helped make the original trilogy vastly superior to the crappy prequels. He’s so cool, in fact, that we have to suggest you model your life around him – or, at the very least, use some of his quotes in everyday conversation. So, without further ado, here are the fifteen best Han Solo quotes (and when to say them), ranked in order of importance.

Read the list over at Double Viking and try to whip up those quotes in casual conversation. It’s be fun…and confusing for your friends.

In news that probably has millions of World of Warcraft fans snorting in happiness that there is yet one more pretty little piece of plastic with their graphics on it, Blizzard and Visa have announced a World of Warcraft Visa card. The new Visa card is emblazoned with images from everyone’s favorite online rpg, and is probably my favorite online gaming tie-in since Everquest offered a way to order pizza online from within the game. Here’s to useless wastes of plastic and meaningless credit card debt. Woot.

Jon Stewart is some kind of incredible genius; I saw this posted at Transbuddha, a cool little clip of him on Bill Moyer’s show on PBS. Check it out at the PBS website here.

After the last couple of weeks of genius episodes and a recent devotion to the series that I can’t quite figure out why I didn’t have in the past (seriously, when Creed ate that potato…genius). So, I was intrigued by this post I saw over at Fimoculous mentioning how half the actors on the show are actually creative and executive influences on the show:

Completely unprovable but perhaps interesting observation about The Office: the creators are also actors. That is, the actor who plays Toby (Paul Lieberstein) is actually the co-executive producer, Brian (B.J. Novak) has produced many episodes, and Mindy (Mindy Kaling) is chief writer. (I thought of this while reading a story in which Jeff Zucker suggests that The Office might turn into an hour-long comedy. Wacky.)

I love this show. An hour would be amazing.

Pop culture has been around for a few decades. It couldn’t truly exist until the technology was developed that would make possible the dissemination of so many different forms of media in such a short period of time to so many people. Radio and film kicked the whole thing off and now here we are, a hundred years later watching as the industry grows ever larger and beyond the scope of sympathetic definition.

It’s a beast, a monstrous, mechanical beast. But, like any beast that humanity doesn’t understand, it will likely soon be taken down. This isn’t so much idle prognostication though. It’s already happening. Pop culture is evolving quickly and it’s because, once again, of technology.

Over the years, things change in the world. Pop culture adapts to the mindset of the culture it targets and while it may seem like the industries are setting the agenda, more often than not, major companies scramble to and fro trying to put together the next big craze based on what the people want.

What happens, is one company will take a calculated risk, releasing something that no one thought would be successful; something like comic books in the 30s or video games in the 90s. Today, it’s hard to think of comic books as ever having not been a major force in pop media. But, in the 1930s, when the kids behind Superman were first publishing their bravado and explosions of pop story telling, a lot of people were skeptical. It didn’t matter though. The kids loved comic books and soon the industry was booming and dozens of books were released every week.

You can look at reality television in today’s market. The first network reality TV show was Survivor. With monumental ratings, every other station followed suit. It’s how the industry works. One company takes a gamble and the rest wait to see what happens. When that gamble pays off, they all jump in head first. If it fails, they point and laugh as though they wouldn’t have followed suit.

Which makes today’s developments in pop culture all the more intriguing. Not only is it much more rare for the industry to properly read the consumers these days, anomalies of popularity arise all the time. And it’s because companies can no longer market their goods to the entire population and hope for good numbers. Today’s pop culture is no longer truly “pop culture” in the sense that everything is broken down.

Beyond the presence of a dozen different demographics that no one truly understands, there is the internet, and this is the crux of my point. The internet has redefined how pop culture exists and what is defined as truly popular and important in today’s media. There are no companies online telling people what to like and what not to like. Instead, it is the people online, sorting through millions of videos, songs, books, and movie trailers to decide what they want to watch or listen to.

Websites like Youtube have become so prevalent in the spread of the next big thing and the 15 seconds of fame (or less these days) that certain video creators have actually found honest celebrity offline as well. The internet is no longer a giant encyclopedia to which school age children turn for homework advice and middle age men turn to for pornography. It’s the world’s largest forum for the free spread of ideas and new media and that power has started to make the internet a bigger force than television or radio. Already, you see more “next big thing” bands come from the bowls of Myspace and Facebook buzz instead of MTV. MTV rarely bothers to play music anymore, let alone participate in the dialogue over what is good and what is bad.

So, the people are in control of their media then, yes? If only that were the case, the power these companies wield over us could finally start to diminish. Rather, the companies are finding themselves forced to rethink their entire approach to marketing. Because of the sheer volume of new ideas presented on Youtube and the like, the ones that sink in have to be truly original and exciting. No one wants to see the same old schlock online that they see on TV. They don’t have to. There are thousands of genius videos that go beyond the schlock.

So, it is that everyone from car companies to political figures are taking their messages to the internet and trying new and exciting things to stimulate the quarter second attention spans of so many of today’s youth. The end result is a society that relies on brilliant new ideas that can be produced en masse, hundreds at a time, to keep everyone happy. The move to force creativity and intelligent thought out of today’s artists and media executives is amazing, but the problem with that creativity is that it quickly turns to gimmickry. Everything is now a gimmick instead of a progression, and gimmicks are easily mimed, which only leads us down the same path we’ve been down a thousand times before; that of waiting to see what the next big thing will be.