Really?!?

I'm not very surprised to hear that more men than women have major parts in movies, but I am surprised that it is as dramatic as it is.  

...In the 120 films the MDSC analyzed, only 30.9 percent of speaking and named characters were women......The United States is far from a leader: Of the 11 most profitable film-producing territories, the United States ranks near the bottom in allocating speaking roles to women.The MDSC, which studies the portrayal of women and minority groups in film, also found that women were more than twice as likely as men “to be shown in sexually revealing attire.”

Unlike the plight of minorities in film--which does make some sense from a pure marketing standpoint--that women would be so dramatically underrepresented is very odd. 50% of the population is female, and so 50% of your potential ticket buyers are female, and so it seems that more female characters and leads would mean more potential revenue.

That women are more sexualized in film: also not surprising.

Why Bother With a Monitor?

Ok, sure, I know there are some people who require the much better resolution for work (graphical design, programming...), and for workplaces you can probably fill an office 17" monitors for a song, but for most [home] users, a dedicated computer monitor is a pretty dumb purchase.  For generally less money you can get a television, that can do the same things as a monitor, but also has built in speakers and doesn't require any extra hardware to play television/cable.  Since most computers/laptops now days have HDMI output, it's even a better proposition.

TV plus computer is a much better entertainment option than TV in one place, computer and monitor and speakers in another.  It's also a much better web entertainment option than web-enabled TVs or even Xbox/PSx--apparently these are better, but I can put a keyboard in my lap and a mouse on the sofa and use a computer online much easier. My only real complaint is Netflix: on the computer is seems more laggy and lower res, on the PS3 the interface is shit.

Social Meh.

I'm really not a social gaming fan. I've tried a few (not on Facebook, which I really don't much care for either) but they all struck me as crappy, and remarkably similar. The the linked article is an excellent read as to why (it's long).

Short version: the games are designed to be addictive so that they can extract money from people. They are not designed to be fun, good, or entertaining.

I've Got a Hypothesis

I think that recessions bring about better creativity and a desire for more competent "art" by the general public, where economic boom times leads to lots of crap. Mostly I associate this with music, but after reading this article I think it may apply to movies as well.

With music, my working hypothesis was that when times are good younger people (i.e. middle school, high school, and even elementary) have more disposable income and free time and are driving the entertainment industry, and that in rough times, that group's purchasing power decreases by the most and the main consumers are people in their 20s and 30s.

I think something similar may be happening with movies. People are not sending their kids to theaters every weekend, so the pop garbage that tends to dominate isn't drawing the crowds and repeat viewers that it would have five years ago. If the movie-going crowd becomes older and better educated, it could follow that their taste would be better quality films.

Of course I also think that there is a secondary aspect, call it the "misery loves company" theory. The films doing surprisingly well are not happy romps or clear-cut good vs. evil with no ambiguity thrill rides, but are movies that show flawed humans and difficulty and suffering. If the real world is depressing then escaping to some utopic world for a few hours may just make the real one seem even worse upon return. Seeing challenge and difficulty--overcome or not--in an escape can make a depressing reality somewhat less so.