Soccer is by far the most popular sport in the world. But why is this? There are so many other sports out there, some of which are admittedly more popular than others, but soccer seems have found itself near the top for many, many years. There are bound to be many possible theories as to why this is, but I'll take a stab and provide my own.

Soccer has a wonderful balance between simplicity and depth that you rarely find in sports. It has a simple premise of kicking a ball into a goal, but there are all kinds of strategies players can use to achieve this goal, but the setup is simple.

This is, in essence, what any game should be; simple enough to be accessible to a wide audience, yet complex enough to allow for depth and creativity.

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are both among the best and most popular parody news TV shows out there. Being a spinoff of the former, the latter has gone out of its way to distinguish itself from its predecessor in many ways, and it has succeeded tremendously. The Colbert Report's shtick is that unlike The Daily Show, which basically amounts to Jon Stewart and friends taking digs at politics and news media, the Report actually appears to take place in a semi-fictional universe. Colbert himself, after all, is a very different person in "real life" from the persona he has established on the show.

Colbert finds great success with this approach. Unlike most other forms of parody news, including The Daily Show, the Report has established a world of its own that's every bit as entertaining as the obligatory news media potshots expected of the genre. It's a kind of warped reality where Colbert's character is ostensibly God, bears are Satan, and other things are made up on-the-fly. Some of the show's humor actually stems from the confusion over where "reality" ends and where the show's universe begins.

Overall, The Colbert Report is both enjoyable as a parody news program and as a fictional comedy series in its own right.

"We're all taught never to judge a book by its cover. Most of us ignore this advice." says this entry on the TV Tropes wiki, which describes the "Contemptible Cover", or the extensive use of book covers as marketing gimmicks. One bit on the page that really got my attention was the supposed addition of Harry Potter copies with more "adult" covers so that adult fans wouldn't have to feel embarrassed about reading a "kiddy book". This entry got me thinking: Can the cover of the book actually change one's perception of the actual content of the book? Covers can indeed make a first impression. When I heard from this entry that someone had bound and published several articles of Wikipedia on hard copy, I didn't believe it until I saw the cover of the book, which, as I mentioned in my dissertation on this book, had a professional look and feel that clashed with the informal atmosphere the "real" Wikipedia is (in)famous for.

But when it comes to whether a cover can change one's outlook on a book, I say, in most cases, no. There's a very good reason why we're told never to judge a book by its cover, and it's because it's the text inside that is really telling the story, not the cover. Having said that, however, a book with an attractive cover never hurts.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Doorstopper

This entry from the TV Tropes wiki describes doorstoppers, books so heavy and thick that they could be used as, well, doorstoppers. The page points out that this is often used as a derogatory term for a novel with lots of padding and/or poor pacing.

I found this entry interesting because it discusses one of the concepts we've talked about a lot in lecture: time. How do you describe the time of something? When creating something, how can you use time to your advantage, and, along those same lines, how can time work against you? In this particular instance, "time" describes the amount of time it takes to read a book. "Doorstoppers" are described as such because they obviously take longer to read than shorter books.

Ultimately, I say that when it comes to utilizing time when creating something, it's never about how long someone is going to read/watch/look at something. Rather, it's about how long that creation is going to remain in the audience's memory. To me, that's the real "time" of a design.

These are two promotional images for the popular TV series Batman: The Animated Series. There are differences in these two images, mainly in the animation style. The former's features detailed coloring and backgrounds, while the latter is noticeably more simple and streamlined. The second image promotes a retool the show went through following its second season. This move caused some fan controversy, with quite a few hardcore B:TAS fans criticizing the "new look" series. I, on the other hand, find myself in the minority and prefer the animation in the revamp.

One thing that always bothered me about the style of the original series was that it simply tried too hard. The animators tried to achieve a cinematic feel to the presentation, and some attempts at doing so succeeded more than others. While there was some great cinematography in many episodes, the action suffered pretty heavily, as they were often too over-the-top for such realistic character designs. Dialogue-driven scenes suffered on occasion as well, as characters would often make unnecessarily complex gestures that would distract from the actual dialogue and plot. The main reason why things didn't always work out is because some things in live action simply don't work in animation. In the retool series, the animators seemed to have learned this lesson, as they stripped the animation down to its most basic elements. Characters and backgrounds alike were simplified to look more abstract and cartoonish. As silly as such a retool may sound, it actually works. The action scenes were much more fluid and engaging, and the dialogue-heavy scenes came across as more poignant, as emphasis was placed on dialogue and characters' subtle facial expressions, not on over-the-top gestures that made them look like cartoon characters.

Although most Batman: TAS fans would disagree, I believe that the revamp series was an improvement in animation quality, as the simple, streamlined designs allowed for more fluidity and an overall more atmospheric feel.

http://weeklydrop.com/2009/06/wikipedia-book/

This article discusses a decidedly out-of-the-ordinary event; Wikipedia has been published in book form. Described by the article as, "a must-have for students without the Internet". Registering at 5,000 entries and 2,500 entries, the book is already outdated, with the actual online Wikipedia now having a thousand times more articles. Personally, I'm more curious as to why it wasn't published in multiple volumes like any other encyclopedia (as one reader comment insightfully points out).

The thing that really got my attention was the appearance of the book. I was strangely both impressed and amused by the design of the book, with a certain professionalism that's at odds with Wikipedia's rampant (and somewhat undeserved, I would argue) reputation as an unreliable source of information owing to the fact that anyone can edit it. Could it be that this publication might help Wikipedia be seen as a credible source of information? Only time will tell, but meanwhile, I think we all take a look at the size of this book and give thanks to the Internet for its ability to store large amounts of information in infinitely more efficient ways.

This is a promotional image for Justice League, an animated TV series set in the long-running DC Animated Universe (often abbreviated DCAU).

The conception of the DCAU is often attributed to Bruce Timm, Alan Burnett, and Paul Dini, among others. Timm is generally credited with conceiving the animation style of the franchise, which is known for its minimalist, angular style. Another interesting thing I found out about Timm is that he is completely self-taught and had no formal training in drawing or animation.

The good news is that if I didn't know that last bit, I never would have guessed it because the visuals on hand are excellent. Timm expresses his love for art deco with simple yet pleasing animation complemented by complex writing. Backgrounds are rendered nicely, and characters maintain a somewhat cartoony warmth to them while still being taken seriously.

If the art style of the DCAU has any particular failings, it's that some episodes have better coloring than others. Sometimes, the colors can come across as pale, and nothing really "pops", making the otherwise excellent animation appear bland and unsatisfying. Thankfully, these instances are few and far between. For the most part, the colors complement the animation well.

Overall, the DCAU has some very pleasing animation to offer. It presents detailed backgrounds, simple yet endearing character designs, and solid (if occasionally mediocre) coloring.