By Elliot Chan
As seen in The Other Press. March 18, 2014
Author: Elliot Chan
How the Sacred Movie-watching Experience Survived the First Round of Extinction
When I graduated from film school in 2008, the landscape of the entertainment industry was changing, morphing with the technology and trying to catch up to new innovations.
Young filmmakers, like myself, anticipated the expiration of television and were just starting to accept all that YouTube had to offer. Meanwhile, grand cinematic spectacles were calling attention, i.e. Avatar in 3D. Yes, it seems as though there was going to be a whole spectrum of viewing habits.
But will movie watching experience be as sacred as church? Or was it going to be a secular pastime, one we try to catch up on like talking to an old friend at a party or a novel on our nightstand?
Inspired by the recent Oscars, I give you the five nominated movie-watching experiences as voted by me—nope, not movies, but movie watching experiences.
NETFLIX
For a while Canadians were reluctant to subscribe to Netflix, mostly out of envy—subscribers from the States were getting more than three times the content—but the on-demand-movie-and-television service suggested that if more people join Netflix, the more content it can generate, both by hammering out legalities through traditional licensing models and by producing their own shows.
House of Cards, Orange is the New Black and Arrested Development won many viewers over, and once they got hooked to the binge watching lure of Netflix—it’s not so easy to quit.
TORRENT/STREAMING
The pirated movie and television distribution market is competitive market, albeit an illegal and risky market. With memories of Megaupload still fresh in many downloaders and streamers’ mind, this well-known paradigm is still one that most are treading lightly on.
While many consider this method to be a hassle, others consider it the most reasonable. Viewers are paying by sending traffic to the hosting sites, dealing with pop-up ads and the occasional glitches in download and streams. “Just let it buffer!”
The “no honour among thieves” mentality lives on in this movie watching experience that have existed since the dawn of the digital era. As long as the leaches and seeders continue feeding off of each other, this category will not disappear anytime soon to the chagrin of the big media companies.
APPLE TV and WEB-ENABLED TELEVISION
Bridging the gap from your phone and computer to the television—this relatively new all-in-one model is bringing viewers back to the couch. At least that was the plan.
Unfortunately I don’t know many people who use Apple TV, or even consider getting it. The living room battleground is a tough one to win, even for a trusted brand like Apple. After all, just look at all the different boxes and consoles you have under the television. Needless to say, there is still a lot of convincing needed to prove that cable is obsolete and that the video game consoles won’t suffice. But I think that is just a matter of time.
REDBOX
Since the closure of many video rental stores, Redbox have been the alternative. Standing tall, proud and unobtrusively at a grocery store, the video vending machine offers hot new DVD releases the same way ol’ Blockbuster used to. Comforting to many and laughable to some, Redbox fulfills a service that is still in demand.
As a result of having a secret Santa that no longer cared for the physical medium, I received an arm full of DVDs and BluRay last Christmas. I still relish the nostalgia of DVDs. Seems like just yesterday my family was arguing whether to buy a HD DVD player or a BluRay player, I’m still not sure if we made the right decision. Unlike VHS, DVDs have a bit more to offer in terms of bonus features. And they are compatible enough to remain an impulse buy. But being compared to VHS is never a good thing.
MOBILE
We watch movies everywhere: in bed, at work, on the bus, at a coffee shop, on the john and even in the movie theatre waiting for the movie to start. Personally, I can’t watch a three-hour movie the same way I check my Tweets. But content on the go is what the public wants.
Last year’s study by Motorola Mobility’s Fourth Annual Media Engagement Barometer showed that 55% of smartphone or tablet owners have downloaded and stored movies and TV shows onto their devices. There is so much content in the world that if we were to spend every living moment watching something new, we would not do anything else. Mobile devices are fostering that challenge and allowing people to consume on the go, in addition to hoarding content.
As much as filmmakers want to get people into the theatre, they must also consider the other audiences, and choose to whether nurture the new platforms or not. We’ve come a long way in five years—who knows where we’ll be in another.
The Report Card: Education
By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Originally published in The Other Press. Mar. 11, 2014
Education is akin to medicine, nutrition, and fitness; it’s a vital part of being a person. But knowledge is not about being smarter than the person beside us, it’s about mutual support. In post-secondary, we are forced to think and learn with a competitive mindset—we’re all battling for the best life possible, after all. But for other students, it’s more than simply getting good grades, graduating with honours, and applying for work: it’s about surviving and creating normality. Blessed or cursed, the willingness to learn is what defines us in the end.
Pass: Supporting inmates
We all make mistakes—some more haunting than others—but we must be afforded the opportunity to redeem ourselves since capital punishment is not an option. If you think it’s hard to bounce back after your GPA drops, try bouncing back after receiving a criminal record. Certain doors are closed after that, so it’s even more important to support our inmates as they attempt to make the transition from criminal to lawful civilian.
The current correctional and educational services offered by the Canadian government are available in institutions of all levels (minimum to maximum security). Everything from teaching basic grade school-level knowledge that helps inmates deal with daily problems to vocational education that teaches them certain trade skills.
These initiatives help inmates put their best foot forward the day they leave their correctional facility.
We, as poor college students, may often feel the injustice of having to take student loans and work extra shifts to pay for our own education—leaving us exhausted and in debt; we also begrudge the fact that our tax dollars are paying for the education of criminals. That is a disgusting thought to many people. But that notion in itself is disgusting. Poverty and crime go hand in hand, and the solution for both is education. The same way we offer shelter and food for the poor, we must also offer education and support for the troubled.
Fail: Pressuring prodigies
Our strengths give us pride. Those are the attributes we showcase to employers, friends, and especially our parents. But focussing only on our strengths at a young age, in the way prodigies are often treated, causes the loss of a lot of substances and the sensation of growing up in a modern world.
Today, it’s less about what you know and more about who you know. I believe the prodigy model is fading. Young geniuses are often introverted and reserved, and have shown signs of autism and other social deficiencies in addition to their brilliance. Organizations today are built not with a nucleus, an overruling boss who makes all the decisions, but rather a functioning support staff that contributes to finding solution for every problem that arises. Prodigies not only need to understand complex mathematical concepts or the majesty of music, they must also learn how to interact with others. Therefore, we should avoid pressuring prodigies.
We must nurture talent, but talent does not have to be a single-lane career path. A talent can also be a hobby or an enjoyable pastime. We often preach, “Do what you are good at,” but I believe we should do more than we are good at, we must attempt what we are shitty at as well. We must teach modesty, keep prodigies grounded, and avoid positioning them on a pedestal. Teaching talented individuals to overcome adversity in the form of challenges is support in a different way, and is equally valid.
Unhaggle | How Much Should You Spend On A New Car?
Posted by Unhaggle | February 27, 2014 |
Ghost written by Elliot Chan. Originally published in Unhaggle.com
Ghost written by Elliot Chan. Originally published in Unhaggle.com
Gross Income Ratio or Debt-to-Income Ratio
We all have financial obligations: mortgages, credit card bills, rent and other loans. But if you strategize properly, you can fit a car into the ebb and flow of your monthly payments. Start by measuring your gross income ratio.
Add up your revolving monthly debts, these consistent payments are a reliable marker, showing you how much you need in order to sustain your lifestyle. After that, divide the total by your gross monthly income. The result is the percentage of your gross income ratio or your debt-to-income ratio.
For example, if your revolving monthly debt is $600 and your monthly income is $3,000, then your gross income ratio is 20% (600/3,000=0.2). An affordable car that keeps your gross income ratio healthy should prevent it from exceeding 36% after including car payments, according to Consumer Reports. Meanwhile, MSN Auto suggests that owners should not exceed 15%.
Find a happy medium for yourself – since your debt should never exceed 75%. You’ve been warned.
Calculating these figures may feel like punishment, but it’s far from difficult – there are simple online calculators to help you figure out the important numbers.
Down Payment
Ideally, 20% has always been the conventional amount for the down payment (the initial payment, whether in cash and/or trade-in). But it is always better to put down as much as you can, just to avoid the fact that it might come back and bite you later.
That being said, many new owners are choosing to pay a lower down payment. One reason is because the interest rates a getting lower, people are not pressured to pay right away. Don’t follow the trend – car depletion is as inevitable as paying for insurance, gas and sales tax. Less only means you pay more in the long run.
There are many useful tools online, such as this down payment calculator that will help you decide how much you are willing to spend right from the get go.
Monthly Payment
If paying right away is not a viable option, you may consider taking a loan or leasing the vehicle and paying for it every month. But with monthly payment comes interest and that is just something that you’ll need to add on.
So, how much can you afford if you do choose to pay in monthly instalments for your car? Well, the financial experts at Consumer Reports did the math for us (well, at least, they found the formula). Begin by calculating 36% of your gross monthly income. Then add up your monthly payments including mortgages, credit card bills, etc. Subtract your debts from your gross monthly income. The difference is how much you can comfortably spend monthly on your new vehicle.
I’ll use smaller numbers for our example, lest I confuse you more. Let’s say your monthly income is $3,000. Then $1,090 is 36% of your gross monthly income (1,090/3,000=0.36). Now, let’s say you have $500 in monthly debt (1,090-500=590). If the math is correct, then you’ll know that you shouldn’t spend over $590 a month on your car.
Other Considerations
Before you go off and purchase your vehicle, it is also important to note the extra fees that will undoubtedly cost you. Sales tax, registration fees and insurance premiums may cost you 10% more.
There are many things to consider when buying a car that might complicate the whole process and make you sick. If you want to forego all this math and simply want to recognize where you are in the car buying ladder understand the following rules:
The 50/50 Rule
If you make $40,000 a year, you can afford a $20,000 car. Half of what you make.
The 20/4/10 Rule
This rule suggests that you pay a 20% down payment, finance the vehicle for four years and never have the total expense of the car go over 10% of your gross income.
Only (child) the lonely
By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 4, 2014
I was a late-bloomer, in the social sense. As a child, most of my time was dedicated to television, artworks, or other solitary enjoyments. My parents were too busy with work to entertain me, and my cousins lived too far away for weekday visits. Yes, being an only child was a lonely endeavour. If it wasn’t for my imagination and my ability to outgrow my shyness, I would not have been able to survive my teenage years, let alone my adult years.
As I watch my parents age and my own responsibilities pile up, I wish I could turn to someone for support; a person who could relate to my family’s erratic behaviour and me; someone to talk to without having to explain a lengthy life story; someone who understands mom and dad’s expectations and their tendencies; someone to vent to without feeling the judgmental reverberations.
My parents rely on me for many things, and often times it seems unfair that all their hopes and dreams are now placed upon my shoulders. As an only child, I’m all the eggs in one basket—and they know it as well as I do. I know that having siblings comes with minor annoyances: you’ll have to wake up early to fight for the bathroom, you might not get seconds for dinner, and you might need to move out earlier because your parents can no longer support all of you financially. Those who are an only child face a psychological challenge. I call it “I never asked to be born” syndrome, where the child has to decide whether to do what their parents want them to do or to live their own life. That syndrome is evermore present in only children.
I’m well-aware that when mom and dad are gone, I might be the last branch extending out in an obtuse direction from our family tree. That’s a scary thought, one that only those without siblings can understand. All the affection, all the care, all the attention we received our whole lives will vanish. Memories of family dinners, vacations, and other snippets of normality growing up will be lost—should I allow it to be.
Now, I’m not saying that I want a brother or a sister. That is not a decision for a son to make, nor did I ever pressure my parents to conjure up a playmate for me. From my experience, it’s a flip of the coin on whether you’ll actually get along with your siblings. Regardless, I think a bond between siblings is sacred; they endure the test of time. I find myself attempting to replicate that relationship with my friends and my cousins, but since most of my friends and cousins have siblings and families of their own, the sensation is far from authentic.
A family has a gravitational force that pulls all the beings together. An only child suffers the fate of orbiting alone, like the moon around Earth. Insignificant to the universe, but vital to the planet, we can only wonder what life would be like if there was another.
The Social Media 15 Minutes Of Fame: How Our Online Behaviour Might Be Our Generation’s Legacy
Every now and then a new Internet craze will crowd our desktops. We will try to ignore it like banner ads, but still we end up being sucked in by the gravitational forces of memes and viral trends like neknomination, Harlem Shake, and flash mobs.
Although we might not (want to) participate in those sometimes disdainful, sometimes obnoxious and usually downright embarrassing acts, our culture is influenced greatly. It takes permanent snapshot of the times we are living in, and allows us to revisit it occasionally. These fads come and go like flu season, it seizes a few lives, ruin some reputations and paves way for the next phenomenon. The thing is, nobody ever starts a trend with a bad intention—sure they get out of hand—but it’s often rooted in good old fun or visions of stardom: to peer pressure or to find the 15 minutes of fame (shame).
With a public uproar against neknomination, there is no doubt that the online drinking game’s sustaining power is petering out, just like the way Harlem Shake, flash mobs, planking, and Kony 2012 eventually faded from our memory. They do a little bit of good and a little bit of damage, and remind us that nothing on the Internet should ever be taken lightly. It is a community we are all living in; the drunks, the slacktivist, the trolls, and the brilliant thought leaders, sadly there are more of the formers than there are of the latter.
So how can we, the well-minded individuals, find the higher ground, avoid embarrassment and save face (and our Facebook account)?
First off, following in other’s footsteps in never a good way to gain acceptance. You show everyone that you are a victim to peer pressure, that you are easily swayed and that you don’t have much creativity within yourself to come up with anything new. So understand your purpose for following others initiatives. Are you trying to fulfill some social obligation or are you trying to get more traction onto your site by harnessing something popular?
If the answer leads you to feel optimistic about the project, go ahead create it, but then hold it, allow the initial excitement to simmer down. Watch it critically.
Then think about your online persona; how do you socialize with your network? Do you speak your mind when you see something you disagree with or do you just let it pass? This will effect how your followers will react to your posting. You might have a target audience in mind, but your unsavory video or picture might turn the majority off. Share it privately; get feedback, not approval. It might be worth the laugh, but it might not.
Finally, consider your real-life entity, how do you as a person interact with other real life people? List the top ten people you interact with daily and consider how they would feel about your YouTube escapade. Your reputation will potentially affect them, so it’s only respectful to keep them in mind. Suddenly, what you have made might not be as golden as you initially thought.
Self-awareness will keep on solid ground, even on the Internet. Trends are established all the time, but few have sustaining power. What is more powerful than trend is a personality that is what you want to foster. Nobody cares what you do, but how you do it.
However, if you do still want your 15 minutes of fame, and you want to ride the coat tails of a neknomination, Harlem Shake or flash mob—try the counter trend method; turn the self-indulgent act into a selfless act, like what many are doing for neknomination, daring other to be charitable, by showcasing their kind deeds on the Internet.
But what’s done is done, neknomination is now in the rear view mirror, but let’s learn from this momentous moment in the history of the Internet. Say to yourself: “When the next trend comes along, I’ll use the power for good, and not to show off my ability to drink, dance or make my broskies laugh. Amen.”
The Report Card: A righteous kill
Formerly published in The Other Press. Feb. 25, 2014
By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Our deaths will define us, regardless of how we live our lives. Whether we fade to black in our sleep or go out in a blaze of glory, we want the last moment to be honourable, courageous, and respectable. Sadly, not everyone gets to choose their ideal death, and oftentimes the responsibility falls to the people who care for us—those who love us and will continue to live without us. Live or let die, the choices can lead to compromising consequences.
Pass: Baby Iver
The news of Robyn Benson’s tragedy echoed across the nation and caused many to consider the ramifications of life versus death. Benson was declared brain dead during her 22nd week of pregnancy. In order for her child to have a healthy delivery, medical staff needed to keep Benson on life support, buying more time for the unborn child. Baby Iver was born 12 weeks prematurely, but alive—sadly his mother faced the inevitable.
Such an event reminds us of the fragility of life and the power of medical technology. It not only tests our ingenuity, but also our humility. Regardless of your beliefs, pro-life or pro-choice, we can all agree that every life is precious. And when a mother is faced with such peril, it’s a blessing to even have the option of life support, a solution that enables us to save a life instead of losing both.
I could only imagine the painful experience of looking over a human incubator, a mother dead, but the baby alive. It still sounds like a science fiction story to me, but I guess that’s the time we live in now: an age where tragedies and miracles can occur side by side.
Posthumous motherhood is far from a sure thing. It’s a gamble to everyone involved, from medical staff to the family. It could lead to lifelong psychological damages. But to not take a chance would be a greater shame.
Fail: Marius the giraffe
Many animal-lovers around the world are still wondering why Copenhagen Zoo’s healthy giraffe had to die so gruesomely. On February 9, Marius the giraffe was euthanized, dissected in front of a crowd of adults and children, and fed to the zoo’s lions. In order to avoid inbreeding, Marius and his genetic make-up had to go.
Despite the fact that multiple organizations and zoos were willing to take Marius in, the management of the Danish zoo still insisted on the public autopsy. Marius’ fate was publicly frowned upon, but it wasn’t unique. Hundreds of animals around the world are euthanized annually due to reasons like health, age, or accommodating space. Sometimes killing a surplus animal is just the best solution.
But I disagree: killing an animal should be the last solution. Zoos explain that in order for the herd to flourish, individuals must be sacrificed. No, wrong! Although I am a proud supporter of zoos and think overall they do more good than harm, I disagree with this approach. Zoos should be sanctuaries for animals, especially those they are trying to foster, and not a place of scientific exclusion. I don’t mind simulated reality, creating wilderness inside a controlled zoo environment; I’m against the human interference, the playing God aspect of these zoos that take initiatives to eliminate those animals that are considered unnecessary.
Perhaps the problem is not with the animal, but with the breeding system of the zoos. Or maybe we should just design zoos like a beef slaughter house—kill two birds, am I right?
‘Don’t let it hit my beautiful face’
An interview with the world’s most shamed/famed goaltender
By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. Feb. 17, 2014
I first met Charlie Winston on a rainy day at a coffee shop in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. I approached the man and bought him a cup of decaf. We sat in the back corner—we had to, for fear he’d be recognized—and he told me about the most traumatic moment of his life.
It all began in third grade when Winston was just a fragile little prepubescent boy with an afro: “There are two things kids do when they are growing up in Canada,” he told me in a hushed voice as if he were gossiping about the homeless man at the adjacent table. “One, we don’t talk about Fight Club, unless we mention how great Edward Norton is in it. And two, we play hockey.”
Such a statement left me caressing my soul patch, a personal project that I don’t care to mention in anymore depth. As I began encouraging him to delve further into his deep dark memories, he shuddered, almost breaking down into tears, recovering enough only to excuse himself to go to the bathroom.
Winston left me at the table for 45 minutes before he returned. What he was doing is still unknown.
“Every recess, while all the girls made up rumours about me,” said Winston, “I would be alone, making rumours about them.”
“Strange,” I thought, before vocalizing that same sentiment—“Strange.”
“Yes, very strange,” he agreed before continuing. “One day, the boys saw me sitting there on a tuffet, eating my curds and whey. They shyly walked over and asked if I wanted to play hockey with them or talk about Edward Norton. I told them that I thought Norton deserved an Academy Award for his performance and they agreed.”
According to Winston, the boys were satisfied by his opinions about the acclaimed actor and left him alone; he continued eating his food and gossiping to himself. Suddenly another boy appeared out of nowhere and asked if he would like to join them in a game of hockey. Never thought of as athletic, Winston declined.
“Pleeease!” said the boy. “You’d make such a good goalie.”
Never athletic, but always easily wooed, Winston agreed.
“Before I knew it I was standing there in front of the net feeling like Little Miss Muffet,” said Winston. “I was so vulnerable, more so when they started shooting rubber discs at me. I freaked! See, I didn’t really understand the rules of hockey at that time, so I thought they were trying to kill me with a thick novelty flying disc. I had to defend myself, you see! I could not die this way! They had to die!”
One save, two goals against, three fatalities, and 17 injuries were the result of Winston’s first game in net.
“I can still remember the screams,” he told me as his voice dropped to a secretive level. “I’m not sure if it was me screaming or the children—but I heard it: ‘Don’t let it hit my beautiful face!’ It still haunts me to this day.”
At the end of our interview, I stood up and shook the man’s hand. And then it dawned on me: I was shaking Charlie Winston’s hand.
Charlie Winston, the simple man, the murderer, and the new starting goalie for the Vancouver Canucks.
Will Virtual Sports Ever Win Their Way onto the Olympic Podium?
Virtual sports, like many Olympic events, require endurance, determination, precision and hours upon hours of training. But in the athletic community, the idea of video games being placed into the same category as hockey, track and field and gymnastic is laughable. There is a notion that any sport where the participant can compete while sitting on their couch or computer chair cannot be considered a real sport.
Still, all around the world, fans and spectators gather to watch the best video game players battle it out for virtual sports supremacy. These pro-gamers can earn accolades and up to six-figures playing the games they love.
Now with big name corporations such as Microsoft and Sony integrating online streaming platforms such as Twitch, video game fanatics can subscribe to channels and watch gamers compete, the same way sport fanatics would watch hockey and soccer games. With over five million people viewing these channels a day, there is no doubt that video games have a larger demographic than many other forgotten sports currently in the Olympics (handball, anyone?).
Concentration, rapid reflexes and well-thought-out strategies are the foundation of any good athlete and so it goes with gamers. While video games might not be physically draining, it does require a lot of mental stamina, like the kind it takes to play poker or chess, which has been recognized as a mind sport.
But the unique problem that video games face is that the games are constantly changing. Video games are a product of technology and technology evolves, quickly. New innovative games are being created everyday. And since Olympics only occur once every four years it’s hard to determine which games is deemed worthy of competition.
After all what games are timeless like chess, soccer, and high jump? The answer is none; even the most popular games go out of fashion and replaced by the new generations. That is why there are 20 versions of Need for Speed, over 10 different series of Street Fighter, and every year EA Sports produces a new sport game. Video games are ephemeral, like a book or a movie, when it’s done you put it on the shelf and anticipate the next one.
On the other hand, Olympic sports are subjected to minor changes every four years. Even though the athletics are the same, the course, the judging and the rules are often adjusted for practical reasons. For example, this year in Sochi, Russia, the hockey games are played on international-ice size (61m by 30.5m), meaning it’s 4.5 metres wider than the previous Olympic in Vancouver where it was NHL size (61m by 26m). Regardless, the athletes competing are on the same surface, and the objective is still to put the puck in the net.
It’s the same with video games. Sure, maybe there won’t be a specific game chosen for the Olympics, but there could definitely be a genre of games. Racing games never change, shooting games never change, fighting games never change—when you look at the big picture, video games often follow the same structure. You have to be first or to kill as many zombies, soldiers, or aliens as possible.
In the Olympics, different racing distances are rewarded different medals. You don’t categorize the sprinters with the marathon runners. Virtual sports can also be split up into different groups, one event can test gamers’ strategic planning such as StarCraft, one can test the gamers’ handling and maneuverability skills such as Grand Turismo, and one can test gamers’ accuracy and precision such as Wolfenstein 3D (remember Wolfenstien 3D?). Different factors can determine the best players, whether it’s through real-time strategy, first-person shooter, or even a basic fighting game like Mortal Kombat.
To the jock’s chagrin, video game manufacturers are starting to integrate physical aspects to video games. Since the dawn of Dance Dance Revolution, Guitar Hero and Nintendo Wii, gamers are starting to be more engaged with video games that motivate them to get up and moving. Xbox Kinect and other motion sensing input devices are changing the way people play video games. Perhaps these games can one day alter certain people’s opinions and debunk the stereotype that only fat, lazy and pathetic people play video games.
It’s true: not everyone can hit a homerun, catch a touchdown pass and score a game-winning goal. But then again, not everyone can be an elite video game player. There is a skill set required and a learning curve to over come.
To many the idea of virtual sports being a part of the Olympic Games is insulting, but then again, technology advancement is inevitable—so you never know, we might be celebrating an Olympian in Mario Kart come 2020.
The Report Card: Sport spectators
By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. Feb. 17, 2014
When it comes to our favourite teams and athletes, no matter how poorly they do, we must stick by them, because that’s what a good fan does. But sporting events are polarizing experiences: whatever happens, 50 per cent of the spectators will inevitably be disappointed. So, what is the most enjoyable way to view a game, an event, and a championship tournament and still get your money’s worth?
Pass: The comfort of a home/bar
For the price of admission, you can throw yourself and your fellow sports fanatics one hell of a house party. Not that you need an excuse, but game nights are the perfect reason to get a good group of friends together. Win or lose, at least you got to spend some quality time with people who share a common interest with you.
I believe that each sport is an art form, but unlike a concert, a theatre performance, or a slam poetry reading, you don’t have to be there in person to enjoy it. That is why there are channels dedicated to sport highlights, yet none dedicated to live Shakespearean productions. The same way music can be a backdrop to a party, so too can a sporting event. It might even give you a reason to cheer at the end.
If finances are a problem (they’re always a problem), then home viewing may just be the obvious choice, but it doesn’t make for any less of a spectacle. Bars are also accommodating alternatives. Some even offer incentives on game night: for each goal scored, you’ll get a free drink or an opportunity to win a prize at the end of the night. If the odds are with you, your team might not be the only winners.
Fail: Live from the nosebleed section
Who wouldn’t want to be there live during a game seven or an Olympic gold medal game? The pandemonium of victory is an exhilarating feeling that cannot be recreated in any other form. There’s nothing like 30,000 people cheering for the same reason. But is the frenzy worth it? Personally, I don’t think so.
Live games have become a supply-and-demand market, and the price for key games are often raised to an unreasonable price. Just for an example, the price for the Heritage Classic, a regular season game between the Canucks and the Senators played in an outdoor rink at BC Place, start at $104.20 and goes as high as $324.70. It’s an once-in-a-lifetime experience, it’s a moment you’ll remember forever, but mostly it’s a publicity stunt—an obvious gimmick—and it’s a successful one.
Fans take pride in being diehards, and in order to be considered a diehard, one must buy season tickets and attend every game religiously, decked out in authentic apparel. A diehard must be succumbed by the capitalistic culture of the sport, right?
No! Sport is not scientology; if you have more money, that doesn’t make you holier or your team better. Sure, the only way to keep the team afloat is to attend the games, thus paying the athletes and their luxurious lifestyle, but that’s not something the fans should worry about—the fans aren’t the marketing team. The fans’ only job is to cheer wholeheartedly, and they can do that with the money in their pocket, at home, with a moderately priced beer in their hands.
Elliot Chan 