Am I the only one that doesn't really like it? I see all these websites talking about how amazing it is, but it's just, eh. Everything pre-chatroulette was alright and realistic but then a third of the movie is wasted time jumping around dick shots until he magically hits upon a girl who has a quick speech talking about how fake Facebook is.
The bond between those two parts doesn't really work for me. And it seems like he just ran out of ideas for concluding the Facebook paranoia/break up scene so he cheated with the speech.
It's like a bunch of people see this movie is completely on a screen and it's this hard hitting revelation that relationships are now on screen and so this movie perfectly encapsulates a young person's relationship.
I had the opposite reaction to your perceived flaws. I found them extremely true to the rapid and abrupt nature of teenage computer use, as showcased in the first 30 seconds of the movie. That really is how chatroulette works -- you jump around dick shots for a while until you hit a decent human being.
The speech didn't seem like filler to me. Perhaps you haven't wasted enough time on ChatRoulette and the like ;)
They're sharing frustrations, emotions, connecting. Just because someone is trying to share a feeling doesn't make what they're saying instantly vapid. I thought it was great.
Given that it's a movie about teenagers...yeah I'd hope the dialogue would be the same vapid conversations that all humans have from teenage to mid-adulthood.
The truly shocking thing to me is no-one in this thread has yet commented about it. This is frustrating for two reasons:
1) It is so normalized that no-one felt the need to even comment about it -- as if it's not bizarre
2) 'Studying' is presumed as a boring, bad thing. Is this what college students are like? Studying a lot is bad? Asians studying a lot is 'the worst thing'?
I emphasize it not apparently being a problem is a big problem -- this is how racism is perpetuated.
>Is this what college students are like? Studying a lot is bad? Asians studying a lot is 'the worst thing'?
Yes, most college students want to study only the week before midterms and finals, so they can maximize their free time with friends. And I have seen Asian friends complain about other Asians for "living in the library" and "being too Asian".
(I was in an Asian fraternity at a 25% Asian campus...)
Yes, everyone's racist today, and the new equality is being an equal-opportunity racist. It's a brave, new world.
The racist lines came from a non-protagonist, and the response from the protagonist was basically dismissive.
Consider also that he's going on to bigger and better things while she's apparently going to be stuck there (presumably she would have followed if she could). So her disdain for studiousness wasn't portrayed as particularly virtuous.
I found the line about "stinking up the place with her pork dumplings" a little over-the-top and unrealistic. I don't think I knew anyone in school who would have said something like that, though I'm sure people talk like that somewhere.
The stereotype about studying more than average is something I've heard plenty of people say about Asian students. Being a stereotype, it obviously cannot be 100% true, but there are decent reasons it might be partially true. For example, international students may have more at stake in getting an American education. And of course cultural differences in parenting that are a cliche to mention at this point.
I disagree with the other commenter that the protagonist (if you can really call the unsympathetic main character that) dismissed the racist remark. He seemed to agree, though the character was sort of sycophantic -- I can easily imagine him agreeing with everything she said just to please her.
Finally, yes, negative attitudes toward studying are extremely common in college. There's plenty of variation between schools and within schools (as suggested by the character's remark), but the idea that teenagers are lazy about schoolwork is ubiquitous in pop culture. I'm surprised that you're surprised.
What I thought was cool about it was that it was just a real life shot of what an average college aged person might do online these days. Now get off my lawn.
I think this format has a lot of potential, but it's also really hard to do well.
To me, this film felt much more like a stylistic proof-of-concept than something that's been realized. Having Noah change the status in Amy's account served the plot but not the story--it was a quick shortcut that got the film to the length that those who created it wanted, but it struck me as unrealistic.
This had a higher level of production behind it than The Scene, but The Scene--at least what I watched of it--did much more exploration. Granted, they're about different things, but this seemed much more glib. I think it was really more about how to execute the idea than about the content, where I feel The Scene explored the content better. I don't think either of them got it right, but I really appreciate the attempts. I'd love to see more exploration of this sort of thing.
Is this how people actually use their computers? I only watched the first couple of minutes, but it seems kind of odd. I did grow up with internet (25 now) but I don't use Facebook, so maybe I'm out of touch... but seriously do people just open tabs or flash games and porn while talking to someone via video chat? What's the point of video chatting then?
I will say though, the way he didn't really pay attention to her in Skype is similar to what I experience in person... with regards to people texting. I make a conscious effort myself to not text while with another person, and if I do text, I make sure to pause if they talk to me.
I think the'generational gap' here is fascinating. I'm 18 years old and I browse the net like this, as do most of my male friends from conversations we've had. The only difference for me is that I don't have porn up while talking to friends.
As a 22 years old, my online life is a lot slower paced than in the movie. I also don't play video games(that often), I chat on IRC a lot, and don't use IM speak.
I don't think I ever watched porn while chatting to someone, but occasionally I have been reading Hacker News while talking on the phone. Maybe that counts, too.
I will say though, the way he didn't really pay attention to her in Skype is similar to what I experience in person... with regards to people texting.
I automatically lose any respect for anyone if they do this a few times in a conversation without warning. Infuriating and disrespectful. When you start texting during our conversation I lose the will to continue speaking.
If it isn't rude, why are so many people offended by it?
People invented the "everyone's phone goes in a stack in the middle of the table, and if you touch it you pick up the check" custom because they find it so rude that people check their phones during dinner conversation.
When you're with someone, pay attention to them. Sure, if there's a long break in the conversation and neither of you has anything to say, maybe you can check your phone. But don't start checking it during an ongoing conversation; that's rude. That's a way of telling the person you're talking to that they're less important than the random minutia of facebook, texts asking if you're up for COD, the latest score in the football game, etc.
There are obvious exceptions. If mom's in the hospital due to a heart attack, or your best friend is stranded in the flood zone and you don't know if he's made it onto a helicopter yet, it's OK to signal to the people you're having a casual conversation with "hey, this is important enough that I'm willing to cut you off mid-sentence to keep up on it."
>If it isn't rude, why are so many people offended by it?
Because they're old and trying to apply old customs to new situations, instead of adopting new customs. No, not every single bit of dinner conversation will be riveting, and it's natural for our attentions to wander. So we alt-tab from the conversation into other sites, sometimes bringing something new into the conversation. This act is also a highly effective yet passive body-language signalling technique -- it allows us to more definitively signal our disinterest in the topic-at-hand without interrupting the speaker or others listening, and if everyone is on their phones it tells the speaker to change topic or let someone else speak.
I had a whole bunch of stuff that I typed but then I realized it all comes down to this: You're demanding that everyone be entertaining but forgetting that listening is a form of entertainment too.
So, please don't do what you're advocating, humans have not fundamentally changed; you're going to hurt people.
...
Also, dismissing things because they're old is going to ill-serve you, especially as a technologist.
I don't see the harm in reading a newspaper or staring out the window during table conversation, and I don't see the distinction between those and fb or a phone game or image site. If it hurts people, then those people need to toughen up.
Dismissing things because they're no longer relevant has served me quite well as a technologist.
> "they're old and trying to apply old customs to new situations"
I doubt it was seniors who came up with the phone-stack, and it's definitely not seniors who have spread the idea on social media. I see it spread by 20-somethings and even teens who are sick of people being rude by ignoring them.
It might be different if it was used to signal disinterest, when someone is just droning on and on. But people dive into facebook/texts/whatever on their phones even when they're interested in the conversation, and even when the person speaking has barely started. It's like a compulsion. A rude compulsion.
You're assuming I check my phone. I don't. Unless I get a call, which is when I say "excuse me I'll be quick, sorry", answer it, tell them to call back, carry on with conversation.
Well I really didn't expect to end up watching this all the way through. Worth every second. Be aware this is NSFW but I'm not sure if the film would have lost anything if the NSFW clips had been left out.
Really unfortunate about the NSFW part! This could have been a great tool to show kids about the darker sides of social media and the skewed perceptions you can have with digital communication... and stuff like that. But I don't really want my kids to see a bunch of dicks. The Chatroulette part could have been just as powerful without actually showing dangling cocks and jerking off.
Hey, you know, I'm not a parent so feel free to disregard my advice.
But think of when the first time you saw any kind of pornographic or erotic material was. Did your parents know? Were the next n years of your life composed of, in part, hiding that fact from your parents? I found a porn mag in the park once when I was maybe 9 and the next several years of my life were filled with confusion and stifled curiosity.
Being that I'm Indian my parents did not want to even think that I would ever want to know anything about women until age 30, when they would marry me to one of their friends' daughters just after we both finished our residencies. They thought that through denial and obstinance they could force the world to be a nice, pleasant reality. The only thing they communicated to me is that they were unable to help me with any of my "real" problems so I would have to seek answers elsewhere.
So to me, not having a frank discussion about what exactly the Internet has in store for naively inquisitive minds, including a journey through the perverted forest of cocks that is chatroulette, seems like a decision that serves you more than it serves your kids. I would implore you to investigate whether its your own discomfort that you're trying to avoid, rather than upsetting children who will invariably see penises before you want them to.
To me it seems likely that something will happen that will disturb them and leave an impression -- this could be an accidental glance at something they weren't meant to see, a discarded piece of porn, driving past an adult bookstore when the door is open, or it could be something more intentional and malicious.
Wouldn't it be great if they were prepared for those moments, instead of being caught clueless and unaware?
Don't add anything useful like, say, why you think it's terrible. Just go ahead and post a passive-aggressive, oblique insult at my life experience and what I've learned from it.
Bonus points for framing it in a way that asserts your right to exercise an option I clearly articulated and invited you to in my first sentence.
I don't know why OP is concerned about keeping his kids away from chat roulette. Seems to me that HN is the home of the dicks.
You are right. It's normal to want to shield kids from sexual imagery because we are fearful for their supposedly pure minds. However, from my own experience (and of friends) , we all saw sexual stuff growing up. Porn, erotica, suggestive imagery in movies (that wanted to avoid showing sex, but it's not like we kids were fooled) and outright sex in the few R-rated stuff we saw anyway.
I don't believe any of those affected me in a negative way. It would be weirder to be shielded from all that, and then suddenly be exposed to what the real world is like when you leave for college.
My parents caused way more harm to me by trying to shield me than any sexual scene could have caused. I've spent years just trying to convince myself that I'm allowed to express that I'm attracted to women.
You're kidding right? How are pictures of cocks more dangerous than insincerity, lies, trophy girlfriends, mistrust, and narcissism? There is a reason the movie contrasted these elements. Something about American morality.
Too many replies all bashing me for the same opinion to reply to them each so I'll just reply to myself and address them.
I don't think making a PG edit of this video would be any different than the radio edits they make to songs or tv edits they make to movies so the FCC doesn't kill them. Anyone who enjoys the edited version but would still like to check out the original is free to. I would never tell an adult what they can and cannot listen to or watch. Have at it. But I do like to keep a certain level of appropriateness for my kids. If you want to show this to your kids.. have at it. You're free to do as you feel is best for your kids.
There will come a day when the sex talk happens. It will probably come sooner than I would like but I'm not blind to the reality that kids find out about stuff from friends before their parents. But I don't think the sex talk needs to be wrapped into a more general talk about the dangers of the internet and digital communication. There are more things to worry about on the web than cocks. I'd like to address those things with my kids without cocks. There will be plenty of time for us to talk about and look at cocks when it is important to the subject at hand. IMO, it is not that important for this topic.
The creep factor of Chatroulette could still be portrayed without actually showing the cocks. The creator chose to show them. Fine. That was his/her choice to make. That just limits the audience a bit.
I don't think of it so much as "sheltering" but more like waiting for the appropriate time and way to talk about certain subjects.
As mad as everyone got at me for having an opinion (one that I am certain is not unique)... I can only imagine how angry you'd get if I treated your opinions the same way. I feel like some of you want to come to my house and force me to show the video to my kids.
The video has nothing to do with the "dangers of the internet", whatever that means. Moreover, I don't think anyone cares whether you shelter your kids and/or teens from sex (err, sorry, I meant "wait for the appropriate time and way to talk about sex").
I think people perceive that as being a facet of modern suburban parenting with a historically lopsided set of priorities. You may disagree with them, and that's fine, but to accuse them of wanting to come to your home and force you to show the video is a truly bizarre overreaction.
But I don't really want my kids to see a bunch of dicks.
Your kids will see dicks, period. They can either see them with you and you can talk to them about that, explain possible dangers, emotionally support them and create the atmosphere of trust and openness to make sure that your kids come to you when there is something confusing or even dangerous... or you can leave your kids to see them on their own while you live in some kind of illusion that you have protected them from the things you did not want them to see. That is the only real choice you have.
I think perhaps you can look at it another way. Maybe it is meant to show you, the parent, what happens if you don't teach your kids another perspective early on. They might fall into this trap of not getting out and interacting with people in real life and, instead, engage with everyone they know through a computer screen.
Honestly, if small kids see this, they won't understand. It is up to you to show them another way.
That same lesson does not need to involve porn. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking that. But I don't think so. I don't need to show them pictures of bloody bodies smeared on the street to teach them to look both ways before crossing the street.
This is not about showing them. It is about showing you. The reality is that is what the net is like and yes, getting hit on the street is gruesome. There is blood when that occurs. Welcome to life.
I think you missed something in my first comment. I think it was a great message. I liked it. But I already understand all that. The unfortunate part is that it can't be used to show the same great message to kids... the ones that are less likely to already know that. It would be great if someone could edit the content a tiny bit for a non-explicit version. You know... like they do to songs so they can play them on the radio.
I'm also not a parent, same disclaimer as jessedhillon.
I'd posit that that the harder you try to shelter a child from something, the more shocking it is when they inevitably get exposed to it. You hope that maturity will help with the exposure, but that may not always be the case.
For anyone who enjoyed this and might like to look at similarly themed pieces (impact of social media / internet communication on relationships) - the following might be of interest:
FYI, MTV has spun off a weekly reality show based on Catfish. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it may be their highest rated show currently airing. It is now about midway into a second season.
I like Catfish. There are lots of sketchy/unrealistic things about it, but I think it's fantastic that they've finally made a show covering something that's been happening since the dawn of the internet. Also Nev and Max are massively charismatic and likeable.
The early part of the video gives some insight into why his girlfriend broke up with him: she's trying to have a conversation with him on Skype, but he's barely paying attention to her while playing with that game. It's almost like he lost interest in what she had to say a long time ago, and she finally got tired of it.
Things I liked: Excessive porn may decrease a man's desire to engage women, exposure to sexual situations may be occurring at younger ages, the attention span of younger generations may be decreasing. (I use the term "may" because I don't actually know the extent to which these things could be harmful.)
Things I didn't like: Noah was a scummy person for whom I had no sympathy (not paying attention to his gf, lying, breaking into her account, having no sense of subterfuge at that, using chatroulette), the girl's obnoxious and clichéd speech at the end, and the numerous exaggerated aspects. And I would argue a lot of this video is exaggerated, like the ridiculous music- "cuddle jams" played immediately when Noah starts feeling down.
This is a pretty negative portrayal (obviously) of the dark side of social media. I think that it should be taken that people should be careful about getting too sucked in rather than thinking that social media is "evil". A lot of good and amazing things have come from Facebook (maybe chat-roulette not so much). For example, the Soccer Goalie story is pretty moving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpOvYWd4KW4). Granted this came directly from Facebook, there are other similar stories out there if you look.
I don't understand how this shows the dark side of social networks. It does show the ugly underbelly of human interaction, but that side is no uglier for the technology used. The guy was lonely, his gf was worried about something else, so he became insecure & impetuous and decided to move on, as young people are wont to do. Only today it's happening through websites and webcams instead of phone, telegraph, snail mail, or message-in-bottle.
I'm curious whether anyone on here ever actually seen anything like the Soccer Goalie story in your own usage of social media. I would say this video is one of the most truthful statements about what social media is actually like; the soccer goalie story is an absurd outlier about possible upsides of social media and an unusually negative portrayal would be more along the lines of cyberbullying and harassment.
made me want to rewatch Antonio Campos's Afterschool, the first feature-length film I came across that tackled the youtube generation. That film is slow-paced to the point of irony given its subject (this video is Crank by comparison), but its basically similar to what you would imagine if this kid was a couple years younger and at boarding school, and if the camera followed him beyond the screen.
That was surprisingly good, 'weak' start but tied it well in the end. If you are reading the comments to check if it's worth the time, it slides well through the time it takes. And it will speak to you, because it does what a good short should do. It makes you think.
I enjoyed it, I think if this film was out when I was a teen several years back it would have been enlightening to parents about typical teenage computer use and how much it differs from their own.
I've seen people bookmark Facebook and Youtube as well, even though they can get to them through their browser's version of Speed Dial or by simply typing the first letter of the link in the address bar and pressing return.
I understand the mouse is being used as a standin protagonist, but why bother bookmarking something and then not using the bookmark if you're using the mouse anyway
The bond between those two parts doesn't really work for me. And it seems like he just ran out of ideas for concluding the Facebook paranoia/break up scene so he cheated with the speech.
It's like a bunch of people see this movie is completely on a screen and it's this hard hitting revelation that relationships are now on screen and so this movie perfectly encapsulates a young person's relationship.