Feeding Frenzy 2010
Mar 14, 2010 About Feeding Frenzy 2 according to wikipedia: Feeding Frenzy 2: Shipwreck Showdown is an arcade-style video game involving the marine food chain. It is also the sequel to the 2004 title, Feeding Frenzy. Gameplay As in Feeding Frenzy, players have to control several fast growing marine predators who are out to uncover a mystery which is lurking in the ocean. Near real-time event streams are becoming a key feature of many popular web applications. Many web sites allow users to create a personalized feed by selecting one or more event streams they wish to follow.Examples include Twitter and Facebook, which a user to follow other users' activity, and iGoogle and My Yahoo, which allow users to follow selected RSS streams.
“It’s very likely the tomato paste has AIDS in it.”
Red Letter Media, the production company behind all of the classic internet movie reviews of the “Star Wars” prequels that even garnered Simon Pegg’s unabashed endorsement releases their first feature film entitled “Feeding Frenzy” a trashy horror film very much in line with the company’s humor and even features their company mascot Mr. Plinkett as an ominous villain as a nod to fans who followed their brilliant video reviews so adamantly every year.
For those still not aware of their online celebrity status, Plinkett is merely a bizarre menace in the shadows, but Red Letter Media knows their audience very well. Serving as a throwback to the rubber monster movies of the eighties like “Critters” and whatever else that branched off of it, “Feeding Frenzy” is very much a full on display of the comedic talents of the Red Letter Media team as they manage to stage a variety of hysterical and awkward comedy scenes leading in to the inevitable discovery of gut munching balls that look very much like shaven Krites.
Ron Lipski is the inept Jesse Camp, a put upon hardware store worker for “Plinkett’s Real Value” Hardware who is constantly picked on by his boss Plinkett who makes him his work slave and threatens to reveal his big secret to everyone if he doesn’t comply with his demands. Jesse happens to harbor a crush on local girl Christine, an equally inept college girl who is in a relationship with a man who has a talent for making some of the most idiotic but hilarious analogies imaginable. Most of the first half of the movie is typical Red Letter Media with Rich Evans stealing the show as Plinkett the perverted stroke victim who can barely work his chair and gets his jollies off of killing hookers.
Not prone to just deliver a straight forward monster movie, directors Bauman and Stoklasa allow the cast to improvise whenever necessary giving way to some ridiculous but gut busting scenes including Jesse’s botched serenade to Christine, a mix up involving the word caulk, co-worker Carl’s refusal to take anything going on in this horror seriously, and the random pillow fight between three buxom roommates that carries on for a good three minutes uninterrupted. In the meantime, writer Stoklasa knows how to throw some great one-liners and sneaky movie references at the audience prompting some raucous laughter, and keeps his premise firmly entrenched in comedy with the gut munching balls wreaking havoc in saps who let them in to their house.
The monsters are quire well done with some solid gore effects giving way to some gruesome carnage that their endless appetites make way for, and the cast pulls off some top notch performances, particularly Gillian Bellinger as the shrill love interest Christine, and Stoklasa as the apathetic Carl who even in the midst of limbs and blood shed can’t seem to muster up enough emotion to stop the monsters. Red Letter Media has a talent for just some of the most random humor imaginable, and sight gags pop out of nowhere allowing the audience to grasp them instead of treating them as simps and holding out hands through the jokes. The origin of the monsters is about as convoluted as you can expect with a climax that just sideswipes the audience with its erratic chase sequences and an ambiguous source of our mega monster, but “Feeding Frenzy” is not about being normal and routine. It’s an off the wall original horror comedy, and one that really will appeal to fans of schlock masterpieces in the mood for toothy balls, and dead hookers.
The DVD features 16:9 Anamorphic widescreen as well as some rather great extras for fans of the film including a hilarious commentary including both directors who explain the origin of “Feeding Frenzy,” and make it clear to the viewer who Mr. Plinkett is, how he was born, and how this is not an attempt to cash in on the success of their Phantom Menace movie reviews. Most importantly the tone with the directors is frank as they make it clear they don’t take this movie or the premise entirely seriously, so they hold no delusions about its quality nor do they try to pass it off as high class cinema. But they provide some interesting anecdotes about the filmmaking process and their grasping with their fame with the Star Wars reviews, and their struggles to make the best film they possibly can.
We also get a twenty one minute Behind the Scenes featurette exploring the mini-budget shoot behind the film where directors Stoklasa and Bauman recall working on the film and how a simple exploitation movie turned in to a passion project. We get three Deleted Scenes that were initially shortened or cut from the final product, and a ten minute hilarious outtakes reel. We also get four trailers for Red Letter Media Productions and a fascinating look at the creation of the “Feeding Frenzy” cover art. Cook yourself up some pizza rolls, kick back with some friends and gaze in awe at “Feeding Frenzy” an original and daring horror comedy with great performances, a sharp script, and a sheer sense of tongue in cheek humor that fans of Red Letter’s outputs will especially love.
The Idea in Brief
Green competition is shifting from a race to launch ecofriendly products to a battle over what actually constitutes a green product. Unless you’re engaged in the debate and in shaping the rules, you risk being assessed against sustainability standards you can’t meet.
Successful companies leverage opportunities to become an influential or dominant force in the green-standards battle. That requires understanding the standards that exist in your industry and also your own green capabilities.
Once you have that understanding, you can determine which of four strategies is best for your company: (1) adopt the existing standards; (2) co-opt and modify them to suit your capabilities and processes; (3) define standards for your industry; or (4) break away from existing ones and craft your own.
Chmod +x install.shsudo. Feeding frenzy ubuntu. The former can be installed using the following command.
Right now somebody, somewhere, is defining what sustainability means for your industry, business, and products. Almost everywhere you look—textiles, communications, agriculture, autos, high tech—green competition is shifting from a race to launch ecofriendly products to a battle over what constitutes a green product in the first place. The definition can vary from one industry, business, or product class to the next. But whatever your business, if you’re not engaged in the debate and in shaping the rules, you risk being assessed against sustainability standards you can’t meet. Worse, you may be left behind by a shrewd competitor that has strategically positioned itself as a certified paragon of the new green ideal.
Producing sustainability standards is a multiplayer melee we call the green frenzy, because it is like a feeding frenzy in the wild—a tooth-and-claw competition among a growing pack of stakeholders including environmental activists, think tanks, bloggers, industry associations, consultants, and your rivals, all clamoring to establish and impose their own green standards.
Like a feeding frenzy in the wild, the green frenzy is a tooth-and-claw competition among a growing pack of stakeholders.
In the coffee industry, for example, more than a dozen standards currently compete, affecting everything from pesticide use to workers’ housing to bird friendliness. (Just one of these, the Rainforest Alliance sustainable agriculture certification for coffee production, has some 100 criteria.) Each of the various standards has a constituency working to define the benchmarks for “sustainable coffee.” Some are backed by nonprofits such as the Audubon Society and TransFair, others by companies such as Starbucks and Nestlé.
How should companies confront the green frenzy? As part of our research on green-product strategy (see “Growing Green,” HBR June 2010), we’ve developed a framework based on in-depth case studies and interviews with leaders in sustainability stakeholder groups. As we explain below, how you engage depends on your company’s capabilities, the competitive landscape, and, most important, the degree of sustainability standardization in your industry. Feeding frenzy all fish tank.
In our experience, executives are of two minds regarding sustainability standards. Some view them as distractions from the important work of running a business and avoid the discussion altogether. But that won’t make the standards go away, and simply claiming you’re green when you’re not destroys credibility. Other executives want to engage in the standard-setting process but are uncertain where or how to begin.
Our recommendation: Leverage opportunities to position your company as an influential—or, better, dominant—force in the green-standards battle. Before choosing a strategy to accomplish that, you’ll have to make assessments in two areas, one external and one internal. The former involves reviewing existing sustainability standards in your industry, the issues surrounding them, the forums in which they’re discussed, and the roles of key stakeholders—including competitors—in driving the debate. Your aim is to determine how much standardization exists in your industry and what opportunities you have to engage in or even reshape the sustainability discussion.
For the internal assessment, evaluate your organization’s green capabilities, including technical competencies; its ability to generate superior green innovations in products and operations; its credibility as a green company; and current or potential partnerships. The central question you need to answer is “Do we have the right resources and competencies to set the sustainability pace for our industry?”
Four Strategies to Choose From
Once you understand both the situation in your industry and your company’s capabilities, you can determine which strategy is best: (1) adopt the existing standards; (2) co-opt and modify them to suit your capabilities and processes; (3) define standards for your industry; or (4) break away from existing ones and craft your own. (See the exhibit “Assess Your Possibilities.”)
Adopt.
If your industry has well-established standards and your sustainability capabilities are minimal, you should probably employ this strategy. Consider the situation in the building sector, where the opportunity to set standards has largely passed because the market and stakeholders—including builders, nonprofits, and governments—generally agree that LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification constitutes the definitive standard. That has important implications for architects, designers, construction companies, suppliers of office-interior products, and a host of others. Because the LEED rating system offers four levels of certification—certified, silver, gold, and platinum—that depend in part on greener building materials and furnishings, suppliers are scrambling to maximize their products’ LEED scores.
Likewise, suppliers to Wal-Mart, Tesco, McDonald’s, and even the U.S. government are pressed to adapt their operations and offerings to meet the standards set by their major customers. In July 2009 Wal-Mart announced plans to develop a worldwide “sustainable product index” for everything it sources from its more than 100,000 suppliers. The index measures product-related energy use and waste and evaluates impact on natural resources and communities. Many companies will have no choice but to adjust their supply chains and operations if they want their goods to remain on Wal-Mart’s shelves.
Companies that adopt industry standards should not underestimate the strategic value and marketplace advantage this option can give them. Adhering to Wal-Mart’s sustainable fisheries standards made The Fishin’ Company a trusted partner in its customers’ sustainability efforts. It became Wal-Mart’s largest sustainable seafood supplier, winning unprecedented purchase orders and long-term contracts. And adopting industry standards need not make you a bystander in the debate. On the contrary, adoption legitimizes your participation as your industry’s sustainability standards evolve.
Co-opt.
Green standards may be far along in the building sector, but the frenzy is just starting in most industries. The noncorporate stakeholders that are engaged in standard setting all want to see their own standards widely adopted—which means they need to find corporate partners to champion the standards and commercialize them. That fact gives companies an important but limited window in which to co-opt the standards of a credible sponsor—to negotiate modifications that will accommodate both commercial realities and social and environmental considerations.
The banana producer Chiquita forged such a partnership with the Rainforest Alliance, an NGO that had long criticized Chiquita and its competitors, including Dole and Del Monte, for the environmental and social problems associated with banana production. In the early 1990s RA developed sustainability standards for rain forest banana farms and shopped them to the major banana companies. Only Chiquita agreed to pilot the standards, and thus began a long collaboration to bring its farms into accord with them. RA representatives worked with Chiquita to find innovative ways of achieving the standards’ goals while meeting the company’s commercial needs. The process of boosting its green credentials helped Chiquita in other ways as well. By incorporating operating discipline and other business criteria, Chiquita’s implementation of the standards increased farm productivity by 27% and reduced costs by 12%. The company also improved employee satisfaction—and in 2004 it received the OAS Corporate Citizen of the Americas Award.
Starbucks has pursued several green-standards strategies, including co-option. Looking to green its retail stores, the company recognized that although LEED standards dominated the green frenzy for new buildings, they were less well developed for existing structures and failed to account for the unique challenges of greening them. So Starbucks partnered with LEED to develop and implement a certification protocol for green retrofitting. The adaptations brought Starbucks recognition for its greening efforts while advancing LEED standards in a new market segment.
Define.
Feeding Frenzy 2010 Movie
Some companies find that their industry has either no established standards or no consensus across competing standards. If it has the necessary capabilities and clout, a company may set out to create industry standards. Success requires specialized knowledge, competency in dealing with sustainability issues, credibility among savvy stakeholders, effective communication, and willing partners. Indeed, partnership with an NGO, a university, or some other reputable authority is often fundamental to an effective strategy.
There are compelling reasons to try setting your own standards. For example, certification protocols are often written by activists who have particular concerns. In the coffee industry, Fair Trade certification focuses on establishing a minimum price for growers, whereas the Audubon Society aims to protect migratory-bird sanctuaries. From a business perspective, of course, sustainability lies in finding a strategic balance among social, environmental, and commercial goals. Activists may assert that commercial success is part of the equation, but for them it usually takes a back seat. And many activists have little understanding of particular companies’ business issues and capabilities.
Starbucks initially chose to establish its own standards for sustainable coffee. The company felt that coffee quality, which is essential to the brand, was poorly addressed by the existing standards. So in 2004 it created the Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, which support both coffee quality and equitable sourcing goals. To enhance C.A.F.E.’s credibility, Starbucks enlisted Scientific Certification Systems, a respected third-party standards consultancy, as its global partner.
At about the same time, Nestlé partnered with the Rainforest Alliance to launch the AAA Sustainable Quality Program for its high-end Nespresso brand coffees. Like Starbucks, Nestlé wanted both high-quality coffee and greater sustainability. Both companies are working with external stakeholder groups to build critical mass around their own standards. Nestlé’s Coffee Forum, for example, has expanded to include the International Finance Corporation, INCAE Business School in Costa Rica, several sustainability consultancies, and more than half a dozen coffee suppliers.
Cutting through a clutter of proliferating standards requires investing in partnerships, developing trust, exerting political influence, and managing conflict, among other leadership challenges. But Starbucks and Nestlé are seeking to establish the benchmarks against which their brands—and potentially their competitors’ as well—will be judged.
To date, sustainability has not been a relevant differentiator in the pay-TV industry, but DISH Network is attempting to change that. As the number three brand in the category, facing brutal competition from market leaders Comcast and DIRECTV, the company hopes to generate competitive advantage by defining the green standards for its sector. To this end, it is seeking ways to leverage the environmental friendliness of its satellite network relative to cable and telecom infrastructures and is looking into alliances with and endorsements from credible sustainability partners.
Break away.
What can a company do if it’s confronted with established standards that don’t play to its strengths, are inconsistent with its strategy, or actively undermine its competitiveness? We know of only a few organizations that have gone on the offense when faced by such a challenge, but we suspect that more will do so as bystander companies are increasingly blindsided by new standards. Apple, for example, confronted this problem in its typically iconoclastic way.
Although it had positioned itself as the revolutionary leader in its industry, in 2006 Apple found itself glaringly out of step with the sustainability movement. In August of that year Greenpeace released its sustainability rankings of computer manufacturers, and Apple was conspicuously near the bottom of the list. At first the company dismissed the rankings, saying, “We disagree with Greenpeace’s rating and the criteria they chose.” Analysts initially viewed that reaction as simple defensiveness. But a deeper strategic move was under way. Apple subsequently turned the tables on Greenpeace by calling its criteria not green enough and pledging to set a new and higher standard for green computing. In short, it outgreened the greens.
Apple turned the tables on Greenpeace by calling its criteria not green enough.
Apple contends that Greenpeace and, more important, its own high-tech competitors are ignoring the most blatant environmental impact of computers: the energy they consume and the carbon emissions they generate. In classic style, CEO Steve Jobs said the rankings were “like asking a cigarette company how green their office is.” By expanding the definition of sustainability to include product use, Apple aims to break away from the existing standards and highlight a dimension—power conservation—on which it can excel. The initial results of its efforts can be seen in the performance of the iPad, which is so energy efficient that one T. Rowe Price analyst compared its battery life to “black magic.”
A gambit like Apple’s will work only if the proposed new standards are measurable, relevant to customers, and demonstrably superior to the existing criteria. And the old standards will probably not disappear; companies trying to break away will have to address them as well as their own. Despite its criticism of Greenpeace’s rankings, Apple has climbed from the bottom of the list to the middle, which shows that it has responded to the issues Greenpeace raised. But Apple clearly intends to shift the debate about sustainability criteria to its advantage. Whether it will succeed in the long run remains to be seen.
The race to shape sustainability standards will transform the competitive landscape and the social and environmental practices of companies in every industry. The risk that your business will be left behind or marginalized in the growing green marketplace should serve as a wake-up call. Tackling the standards challenge head on provides an opportunity to differentiate your offerings, bolster your reputation as a responsible enterprise, and influence sustainability standards well into the future. Is your organization poised to seize that opportunity?