Pulled Quotes

Even though I don’t like Hannah Montana (Miley Cyrus), an article in the Daytona Beach News-Journal about her new movie caught my eye.

The movie, “Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert” is a three-dimensional film (it’s supposed to make you feel like you’re REALLY at a concert) that hada $29 million debut — the biggest debut for a Superbowl weekend. From reading the article, I gathered that this movie  supposed to cater to the poor little children who couldn’t make it to the actual Miley Cyrus show. Boo hoo. In the article, Mark Zoradi, president of Disney’s motion-picture group, even says that “parents who weren’t able to get concert tickets, now they were able to take their kids and satisfy that demand, and kids were in a way able to be up close and personal, with the best seats in the house.”

When the article mentioned that a U2 Concert movie was coming out in limited release, I started to wonder: Are these musicians and movie makers onto something? Has the concert flick caught on as a new genre? This is a good story! I mean, yes, concerts are amazing, but they can be very expensive, especially if you want decent seats. Going to a movie to see a “concert” is definitely reasonable. (The article does mention, however, that prices for the Hannah Montana movie were around $15 per ticket).  Plus, you can go when it is convenient for you, see it multiple times, and not have to drive several hours to get to the concert venue. The article even stated that the sharp 3-D technology could lead to movie theatres showing live sporting events

Unfortunately, David Germain did not answer my questions. I want to know:
1. Is the movie-concert combo catching on as a new genre?
2. If so, other than U2 and Miley Cyrus, what musical acts have signed up to participate in this?
3. Will the increase of movie-concerts decrease the number of people who go to actual concerts?
4. Will the increase of movie-concerts decrease the number of live shows that the performers put on?

And article from the DeLand Beacon about the street corner preachers was overall an interesting topic, but there were some things about it that I felt could have been done better.  First off, it does not seem to be very well organized, and skips around, especially in the beginning of the article. 

Another thing is how the author refers to these preachers as “Jesus people,” which does not seem appropriateto me even though they are believers of Jesus Christ.  Especially since it is used in discussing a “scuffle” between these preachers and those they were preaching to.

 This topic also seems to be a very touchy one because of the nature of the whole situation, and must therefore be approached with caution by the reporter.  I think that such a situation requires responses from all parties involved, but it seems like the reporter focused primarily on the preachers and not so much on the passerbys, the owners of the Brickhouse.  This seems a little unfair to me because the Brickhouse owners obviously have a concern otherwise the police would not be called over, and the article would not be written, but there is not much in the way of quotes from these owners.  And there are hardly any quotes from passerbys, which seems to be much more important to this article than the brief summary at the end of how people respond to these preachers.

This story also left me wondering, if these preachers are just exercising their right of free speech, what are the laws that surround this right?  I remember in a class of mine discussing how certain acts of free speech in public require a permission of some kind from the city.  Does this apply to such a situation?  They are infront of a major business, so if they are affecting this business, should they be forced to move?  The brief tid-bit from the officers at the beginning helped some with these answers, but I am still left wondering.  Unless that was the reporter’s plan of attack in which case they did a good job.