Honor Thy Playmate

[Alfred Urrutia]

--- Dan Stiffler <calendar-girls@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/03 3:32 AM, "Donna Tavoso" <dtavoso@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > I'm going to apologize in advance for the tone of this note, because I
> > am just getting a little annoyed by the constant bashing of Playboy
> > today compared to the glory days of things gone by when everything was
> > done right.  It wasn't always right then and it won't always be right
> > now.  But the fact of the matter is that everyone has to wake up and
> > join us in the year 2003
> 
> This "wake up" argument is as tired as the "glory days" argument.  They are
> both generational arguments, and they have both been going on for hundreds
> of years.  I am neither Chicken Little (cf. Brad's "Sky is Falling" post on
> the PML) nor am I Rip Van Winkle.
> 

It's a tough line to walk.  When something is created and nobody cares about it
it is free to change and evolve.  But when it's something that everybody likes
then there's the expectation that it must constantly get better while at the
same time not changing.  I am as guilty about feeling this way about the things
I like as anybody.  But it's hard to separate what defines this Great Thing and
what was just coincidence or the effect of its surroundings.

I, for example, do not consider any modern Pontiac cars Pontiacs.  Because they
use Chevy motors.  To me the true Pontiac cars (GTOs, Firebirds, Wildcats) came
to be as a combination of their unique styling and their powerplants (421s,
389s, 455s) and to remove either half (some can argue that both halves are
gone) is to ruin the whole thing or make it into something else.

Something like Playboy is harder to nail down.  You want it to be like it was
but for it to be like it was then America must also be like it was.  Because
Playboy was, mostly, a reaction to the times, to its surroundings.  The sexual
revolution, the music, the fashions, the very idea of a Gentleman.  All of that
stuff has, unfortunately for Playboy, changed.  Music, for the most part, sucks
now.  There was no MTV back then.  Sex has certainly changed.  What was
considered risque or rebellious by Playboy back then is yawn material now. 
South Park had an episode about their 4th grade stars viewing an anal porno. 
That is not "Leave it to Beaver" by any means.  Neither is the realization that
the girl next door is, enough times to argue as true, a stripper.  With
implants.

If *everything* reverts, Playboy *and* society, then it fits.  But if Playboy
alone reverts then it becomes viewed as stale, quaint, behind the times,
whatever.  Playboy can attempt to make retro thinking cool.  I mean, if people
are buying '70s disco garb and the like it's possible to make the old cool
again.

The other thing that is a problem is The Good Old Days.  Whatever came before
you is always seen as the legend or the thing that the Now is compared to. 
Like when you go to high school as a freshman and hear about all the crazy
things this or that person did 2 years ago.  What is around you at the moment
seems ordinary.  And, truthfully, some things back then were just plain better
because they were done out of love or desire, not money.  Like Hot Wheels,
LEGOs, jazz, major league sports, etc.  Sure, they made money but it wasn't
about greed so much.  Now everyone's jaded, everything is me me me.  And it
sort of has to be.  Look at modern TV.  A show can be cancelled after 2
episodes if it doesn't unrealistically outdo all the other shows or get an
immediate rabid following.  No one is willing to wait or develop or hone.  It's
success now or get rid of it.  Playboy suffers from this as much as anything. 
Playboy has stockholders.  How many of them even read the damn magazine?  How
many are only concerned with profits?

Money's the Cool Thing right now.  Bling bling, Bentleys, Cristal, all that
"look at me" crap.  MTV Cribs is all about how many cars a rapper has that he
never drives.  Athletes don't care about championships, they care that they're
the highest paid guy at their position.  If movies can outrun their own shitty
word of mouth long enough to have a great opening weekend then they're
successes.  Who cares if the movie itself sucks?  Decades ago a movie could be
in the theaters for months.  Not now.  Big band music used to be the Pop Music
of the time.  And people loved it not just because they could dance to it but
because they cared about "how the music was played".  They cared about the
actual musicianship.  Now all people care about is that their pop stars are the
hottest and the craziest.  The fact that those posers can't play an instrument
or write their own material is meaningless to modern fans.  No appreciation.

We have appreciation for something done right.  For an honest effort even if it
stumbles or falls.  Most people do not.  Most people have no sense of history
or appreciation of skill.  And those bastards are the ones that keep Playboy
profitable.  So guess who drives Playboy's choice of articles, pictorial
subjects and such?  I hate the retards of the world but unfortunately they far
outnumber the rest of us.






Alfred.

=====
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"When you're surrounded by midgets with hammers, you know
 you're going to get a pounding."
 - Triple-H, on how horror movies can help you to evaluate
   real life dangers.
Alfred Urrutia                     rampagingsloth@yahoo.com