Sunday night, I had the amazing opportunity to work at the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards. From the outfits on the red carpet to the performances during the telecast, everything was fantastic. There are so many things I could write about, like seeing Lady Gaga’s spectacular outfit in person, and even questioning whether every Grammy winner was truly happy with the category they won in. However, there is just one topic that I’m going to bring attention to: the Michael Jackson’s tribute performance.
Yes, I thought that the “Earth Song” and its performers were great. The 3-D effect was very cool as well. However... Michael Jackson’s “Earth Song” is a pro-environment, save the rain forests-themed tune. But aren’t 3-D glasses made of paper, from trees? Exactly how many trees were cut down to provide viewers with 3-D glasses in order to watch a performance that lasted a few minutes? Just wondering… What do you think?
Just wanted to make people aware...blogs are more like opinions rather than factual news stories, but I often read complaints about the blogs on cnn.com not being news. Blogs on any other site are opinionated and usually more fun to read than a new story, why shouldn't cnn.com's blog be any different? and @hksaram, I like the way you think! You get it, thank you.
Re Jenny: you are right....I apologise for considering someone on the CNN blog a journalist...
Its better to watch a few minutes of the song than watching a complete movie like avatar........duh!!!!
At least in those few minutes of the song we got to understand about the care for environment...but what about avatar ? it taught us how are future looks r gonna be?
Well said Jenny! I believe it was a great observation conducted by Carolyn. I also wondered about the irony of using that particular song about saving the environment and making it viewable in 3D with 3D glasses creating unnecessary waste. Would MJ really have gone for that? Although it was a great performance, I really think the organizers should have thought of the details of this performance more in depth and maybe have chosen a different song. So thank you Carolyn for stating what I and probably many others were wondering and questioning.
Wow, you people are mean to Miss Sung. She is making an excellent point about not using gasoline to rush out to the nearest Target to pick up some chopped-down trees just to be able to watch a Michael Jackson concert. As for insinuating she's not a journalist, Miss Sung is BLOGGING people, not reporting facts and figures. If you want to know if glasses were made from recycled paper or not, read the NEWS section of this website and stay out of the BLOG. Miss Sung made an insightful discovery, and all you people who don't care about the environment can just not leave mean comments about those of us who do care about the trees and the planet's well-being. Such negativity only makes for a worse world.
Wow, silly observation...I used the plastic pair that my husband used to watch "Avatar."
I'm not being negative. Just stating the truth. The 3D affect was a hook to try to get more people to watch. It should have worked. It didn't. It just made the performance look blurry (if you didn't have 3d glasses), and colorless (if you did).
I'm just tired of shoddy production work on these awards shows is all.
Nothing against the performers. In fact, just the opposite. I wish the production staff was as capable at their jobs as the people onstage is all.
Your comment about the 3-D glasses is just plain stupid. Why such negativity? Give me a break, why don't you do something useful with your life to help others instead of finding fault with something so irrelevant. Really just stupid!
We had the 3d glasses, and the effect didn't work in our house. The performances, were terrific, but as with much of the Grammy production, the execution was decidedly 2d. Flat.
This was too bad, because MJ's tribute was one of the few performances that seemed to be directed (and performed well) well. Pink's performance, on the other hand was handled poorly. As she was twirling around in the air, she suddenly dropped out of frame, and was then lifted back into it, wet. She sang beautifully, but her moment was ruined by shoddy camera work.
I know these award shows are complicated to pull off, but if we're celebrating the "best" in Arts, shouldn't we hire the best talent to pull it off?
Just my opinion.
Good point, but with all the upcoming 3-D technologies, examples more 3-D movies, 3-D TVs, etc.; the glasses can be recycled.
If they were made out of recycled paper...as you are the "journalist" that is something only you can tell us.....I truly think that before posting you should supply us with the facts.
I agree with you Carolyn. Michael never would've liked the idea of having to kill trees in order to watch his song/performance. The problem is that the Grammy Awards are, as any other entertainment event, highly commercialized and people tend to forget, in this case, the true aim that Michael had when he wrote that song. Even the words "What about animals, their kingdom to dust" sound very strange being sung by people who wear dead animals.
I hope there were recycling bins available to recycle those paper 3-D glasses!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 7,783 other followers