Paparazzi is nothing new to us. Photographers hunting down celebrities in risque positions and awkward weddings has been common place in America for awhile now. We live in an age where people become household names for leaked porn videos of themselves. We used to see paparazzi magazines in the evening newspaper or while waiting in line at Walmart.  However, I believe that Paparazzi has taken on a new form. Buzzfeed links on weight loss, clink bait about celeb crushes, and bogus ads about UNBELIEVABLE NEW LEAKED PICTURES. Photographers who have borderline stalker tendencies have found new ways to sell to websites and reach their audience.

But why do people follow these magazines? Why do they all sell so much? Is it because they bring something out in us? Some believe we need to see other peoples lives down in the dirt so we feel better about ourselves. Some people think we actually care what goes on in the lives of our favorite movie star, as if we know them just like a best friend. Do we really care if they dress like a hipster? In the article, the writer never mentions what makes any of them hipsters. He barely mentions that they even look like hipsters.

I believe that when people see their favorite celebrities and people they admire dress a certain way, they start to think that the look is attractive. Trends and fashions catch on and sites like Style Bistro understand this. They seek to profit from our tendency of looking at celebrities clothes with desire in our eyes. We want to wear what they wear. We want to rock what attitudes they rock. We want to know what they seem to know about the world, because we want to be popular, wanted and desired like they are.

Its sick to think that we are such jealous and envious creatures, but why else would paparazzi magazines be so popular. We all have friends who follow every tweet and post of their favorite actor or singer. They idolize them, quote them and fantasize about them. Not necessarily in a sexual way, but many of us fantasize about meeting our idols because these people are so important to us, even if we aren’t important to them. So if our idols start calling themselves hipsters and dressing in a weird manner then we notice. We notice because the media forces us to notice. Paparazzi pictures are showcased all around us from our facebook feeds to television shows like TMZ dedicating their entire show to it. This is how brands are used to make icons and brands. Companies see the profits that can be made. Its actually easy to quantify how likely they are to catch on too. Just look at how many people like and share it. If a trend catches enough attention all a company needs to do is sell the product and they have their market already set out for them. People buy the clothes and styles trying to look like their idols.

I thought it was quite interesting that it was widely accepted that the way you stand could produce a chemical difference. We all have heard fake it and make it. However, it seems unlikely that mentally you could change your chemical levels in some manner, without an outside or direct internal stimuli. Despite the acclaim that Cuddy’s TED talks had received, and what seemed back peddling, she created a positive movement. A kind of mental preparation that allowed a personal to feel more confident by simply standing in a different manner. This in itself is a sort or personal therapy that can help an individual succeed in any situation. What is bothersome is though is the connection to testosterone– which males normally produce more of. Also, that this posture is defined as masculine.

This comments on society itself. That an individual must compensate for what they are lacking– that cannot be changed. This is especially disconcerting for women, it reinforces that they are genetically wired in a manner that they are more submissive and may not compare to men… or they need to present themselves as more masculine than they actually are? Then there are men who do not present themselves as masculine enough? Power posing is not simply standing up straighter, but appearing more aggressive in order to seem confident. This raises question to why being more aggressive would you make you more successful or important. It also seems to be changing for the fact that more recent generations find this behavior pompous or discomforting. Being outspoken in a negative manner or aggressive physically is slowly becoming more criticized. Differences are becoming more accepted and these differences are often over looked– if not even noticed, for it’s normal to be different.

Despite the reintroduction of the Post-Crisis on Infinite Earth Superman, there are some comic fans that are not pleased. Some people feel that bringing back this version of Superman is a step backward on DC’s part. There are people who were legitimately upset that DC killed off the New 52 Superman instead of trying to fix his character, and replaced him with a safe option to get the company back in good graces with readers.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and my opinion is that these people are wrong.

There are also people who sincerely like the DC Cinematic Universe version of Superman. They find that the moodier, more realistic take on the character works and makes Superman’s story more compelling. Meanwhile, there are people who adore Tyler Hoechlin’s portrayal of Superman. Others criticize this portrayal of Superman and the people who like him because they feel the only reason people like this Superman is because “he smiles and winks.” Rather cynical way of looking at things.

The general consensus is that the comic books and the two episodes of Supergirl featuring Superman are the best representations of the character that the fans have gotten in years. There is a great divide regarding the DC films. Many people dislike them, others find them to be serviceable, and a relatively small group find them to be brilliant. It is relatively taboo to say that you enjoy the current DC films in comic shops and comic book communities. There are always arguments with each side insulting the other. It can get rather intense.

Regardless, readers generally enjoy the new Superman comic books. He smiles, he’s chipper, and he inspires others to be more than they are. These are all things that make Superman who he is. Superman shouldn’t be written as a brooding, grim, and glum hero reluctant to help. He’s been written that way for close to a decade, and this dour version of the character very rarely gels with the audience. DC has been learning from their mistakes and have been making solid attempts to listen to fans and right the wrongs. Additionally, DC has been making Superman an important part of the DC Universe again. He shows up in other characters’ books, and characters, concepts, and events introduced in his titles are starting to affect the DCU as a whole.

As a reader of the comic books, I couldn’t be happier. Superman is back, and he’s the same guy I remember instead of the mopey, angry guy I had been reading for almost six years. Tying this post into the cultural artifact, the current comics should hopefully influence the direction of the films. While I don’t expect them to have a universe-altering event and replace the current Superman with another, brighter Superman, I do expect the writers of the films to take a brighter, more hopeful approach to the character. Superman is a character that embodies hope. The symbol on his chest is the symbol for “Hope” on Krypton. The writers of films tend to draw heavily from comics, and with the comics being more light-hearted and fun, hopefully the films will be, too.

While most of my posts are questioning the validity of holy texts and criticizing practices, I feel somewhat obligated to attempt to see it from a different lens. I’ve mentioned before that people who are inherently evil will find ways to justify them and carry them out; however the other side of the coin is also true. People who look to religion as a therapy may be making themselves and their communities better as a result. Drug and alcohol addiction are prime examples of what I’m talking about. There are plenty of born again christians who were drug addicts and would have died without “god.” I think therapy could be a suitable replacement, but giving people guidance (as hold as it hurts nobody) isn’t bad. It also can become a support group which is also great as long as no one is being harmed.