I just watched 2012, and for once, I am going to be harsh on it. Granted, I was into it primarily for the special effects, which it was full of. Very nice. I love watching cities crumble to dust amidst frantic air-dodging action. Loads of plus points for that one.
However, I expected a lot more from an end-of-world movie. I am willing to overlook glaring omissions like the inevitable nuclear winter from a global seismic catastrophe so severe that it results in extreme tectonic plate shifts and global volcanic activity. The very least I expect is either the utter destruction of the earth, for example getting earth hurled into the sun or a black hole, or at least the complete elimination of all humans. That is the end of the world as I understand it...and clearly the movie did not deliver.
Now, I know there are many ways to survive global flooding. Especially one from crazy tsunamis when the earth's crust somehow manages to rupture enough to start flooding Mt. Everest. If the director and co really wanted to be implausible, the least they could do is come up with space evacuation and perhaps space living till the volcanic activities settled down. In fact, it would've totally beaten the idea of having modern Noah's ark style ships saving a few hundred thousand of the humans. Seriously...that the best you could do? Super ships built near Tibet using untold amounts of money? Everyone could have probably gotten by on bark boats and bamboo rafts while they're at it.
Of course, once again, it seems like everyone forgot about Africa. If the whole continent managed to be pushed up as high as they said in the movie, I would think that a whole lot of humans survived there. In fact, that would make Africa the richest continent in the entire world. Strangely enough, nobody seemed to notice or bother to check. Nor the rest of the USA that probably survived, and the rest of the world for that matter.
Ok the list goes on, but I guess a rant has to stop somewhere. I'd say this movie gets a fail grade. 4/10. Most of the points came from the nifty special effects. The rest of it was end of world trash.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Video Ads
It seems that massification is the current trend of media. Early visual media involved the leisurely painted paintings, which were added to by early photographic technologies, then digital photography. In fact, every mother's child seems to have a digital camera nowadays. As Walther Benjamin said, massification can lead to an erosion of the aura of a work of art. Where a carefully crafted photograph or painting has a powerful aura, upon reproduction, such works become increasingly blase.
Now, with beautiful pictures spewed everywhere, it is really unsurprising that people begin to seek out other media or different applications of the same media. Simply put, everyone is becoming desensitized. Even stock photos are marketed on microstock for a pittance. Some are even giving their works away for free, or simply in return for crediting.
Given the evolution of digital cameras, the movie mode is now becoming increasingly prevalent. It has in effect made high quality video recordings (that is, large sensor recordings) more accessible to the masses. While purists today say that ads will always be still images, one need only recall the comparative accessibility of the early daguerrotypes to figure that it is reasonable to anticipate the superseding of still imagery ads with moving images. And I do not mean on television, but also on the billboards out there, along with the large poster ads. 10 years? 20? Its time will come, and like the way digital took film over as the primary medium, I will not be surprised if videos took over still ads over time.
Now, with beautiful pictures spewed everywhere, it is really unsurprising that people begin to seek out other media or different applications of the same media. Simply put, everyone is becoming desensitized. Even stock photos are marketed on microstock for a pittance. Some are even giving their works away for free, or simply in return for crediting.
Given the evolution of digital cameras, the movie mode is now becoming increasingly prevalent. It has in effect made high quality video recordings (that is, large sensor recordings) more accessible to the masses. While purists today say that ads will always be still images, one need only recall the comparative accessibility of the early daguerrotypes to figure that it is reasonable to anticipate the superseding of still imagery ads with moving images. And I do not mean on television, but also on the billboards out there, along with the large poster ads. 10 years? 20? Its time will come, and like the way digital took film over as the primary medium, I will not be surprised if videos took over still ads over time.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Terrorists Win
When I look back on how countries used to be before the days of the War On Terror catchphrase, I cannot help but feel that the terrorists have won. This may sound odd, since it is clear that massive military forces are being amassed in distant lands like Iraq and Afghanistan, thoroughly rooting out any "terrorists" they might find.
However, one needs to recall what some said about terrorists nearly a decade back, that they were enemies of freedom. Well, Sherlock, it would seem to me that they had won already, then. Where the risks of terrorist incidents are likely no higher than before (those guys aren't gona take breaks or swing into action just 'coz we declared a war on them), there have been significant curtailments of freedom throughout the world in the spirit of preventing future terrorist incidents. The "prevention" part is dubious, in my opinion, given the huge numbers of security cameras everywhere. It seems improbable to impossible that their footage is being actively monitored. Likewise for internet controls and other forms of surveillance.
Even if they were, while the bad eggs are being watched, common folk are being surveilled as well. Worse yet, the jumpiness induced causes regular folk to become wary of others, especially if they act strangely or even take a common photo in certain areas now deemed sensitive. Granted, there is no definitive way to prove successful prevention, but it is most certainly clear that many freedoms are being taken away in the name of security. More alarmingly, those freedoms may never be returned, since it is sensible that we remain vigilant at all times as terrorism is a problem that is here to stay. Even as guns blaze and bombs go off all over the place, I'd say that the terrorists can pet themselves on their backs for curtailing freedom the world over. You've won, guys. Be happy.
However, one needs to recall what some said about terrorists nearly a decade back, that they were enemies of freedom. Well, Sherlock, it would seem to me that they had won already, then. Where the risks of terrorist incidents are likely no higher than before (those guys aren't gona take breaks or swing into action just 'coz we declared a war on them), there have been significant curtailments of freedom throughout the world in the spirit of preventing future terrorist incidents. The "prevention" part is dubious, in my opinion, given the huge numbers of security cameras everywhere. It seems improbable to impossible that their footage is being actively monitored. Likewise for internet controls and other forms of surveillance.
Even if they were, while the bad eggs are being watched, common folk are being surveilled as well. Worse yet, the jumpiness induced causes regular folk to become wary of others, especially if they act strangely or even take a common photo in certain areas now deemed sensitive. Granted, there is no definitive way to prove successful prevention, but it is most certainly clear that many freedoms are being taken away in the name of security. More alarmingly, those freedoms may never be returned, since it is sensible that we remain vigilant at all times as terrorism is a problem that is here to stay. Even as guns blaze and bombs go off all over the place, I'd say that the terrorists can pet themselves on their backs for curtailing freedom the world over. You've won, guys. Be happy.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
On Killing
I was told about a cat that got smooshed after someone hurled it off a building. That smarts, to be sure. I hate the idea of senseless killing. Especially of a creature that very likely did no harm to the perpetrator. Such a killing reeks of vicious premeditation, for it most certainly took some time for the person to take the cat up, then toss it out.
I would love to say that it is the symptom of a sick society that breeds such people. A society where people feel the need to hurt and main other creatures, humans included. But that would likely be untrue. Where there are truly bad eggs out there, there will also be good people.
When I think back about my past, I guess I would say that I could relate to the killer back then. There is a certain excitement to the idea of killing. What would it be like? How do living things look when the life fades from their eyes? In a controlled, urban society, there are many imposed inhibitions on behavior. And there is always that lingering What If? It is, perhaps as some put it, the thrill of the hunt.
But now I guess I think differently. I have explored many strange avenues and tried out unusual things. I had my thrills wiping out entire ant colonies and popping the denizens one by one with a magnifying glass and the power of the sun. I saw roadkill and a cat that was run over and dying in front of me. I saw death, and it was beautiful. There was immense suffering, and then a moment of peace. That was enough. But ultimately, I figured that killing senselessly was just plain wrong. In killing, there is cruelty. Living creatures have a right to live. While there are times when a killing may be justified, I no longer think it right to slaughter a creature just to see what would happen.
I would love to say that it is the symptom of a sick society that breeds such people. A society where people feel the need to hurt and main other creatures, humans included. But that would likely be untrue. Where there are truly bad eggs out there, there will also be good people.
When I think back about my past, I guess I would say that I could relate to the killer back then. There is a certain excitement to the idea of killing. What would it be like? How do living things look when the life fades from their eyes? In a controlled, urban society, there are many imposed inhibitions on behavior. And there is always that lingering What If? It is, perhaps as some put it, the thrill of the hunt.
But now I guess I think differently. I have explored many strange avenues and tried out unusual things. I had my thrills wiping out entire ant colonies and popping the denizens one by one with a magnifying glass and the power of the sun. I saw roadkill and a cat that was run over and dying in front of me. I saw death, and it was beautiful. There was immense suffering, and then a moment of peace. That was enough. But ultimately, I figured that killing senselessly was just plain wrong. In killing, there is cruelty. Living creatures have a right to live. While there are times when a killing may be justified, I no longer think it right to slaughter a creature just to see what would happen.
Satan Worshippers?
Going to church is always a disturbing event for me. I see and hear things that greatly worry me. While singing hymns, I listened to the lyrics, and the connection was just downright alarming.
Now, it is commonly said that the Satan's other titles are light-bringer and morning star. Then I heard in the hymn's lyrics about praises sung to the morning star, which of course meant Jesus. Disturbing, but perhaps somewhat spurious. Perhaps it was a coincidence.
Then I recall the sacrament of the communion. Hmm...oddly enough, it involved the consumption of human flesh and blood. That was pretty alarming, because I remember Satan worshippers accused of doing the exact same things. Human sacrifice and cannibalism. Truly disturbing. But the plot thickens...
And here's the clincher: Most are familiar with the great rebellion in Christian mythology, whereby there was a rebellion by the angels and a whole bunch were thrown down. Now, when we think about worshipping a divine being-turned-human that is called the morning star and encourages people to eat human flesh and drink blood, that begins to sound suspiciously like a fallen angel.
It worries me, and really...I get pretty disturbed when I go to church at times. That is why I really would rather read my bible quietly during sermons. I feel safer that way.
Now, it is commonly said that the Satan's other titles are light-bringer and morning star. Then I heard in the hymn's lyrics about praises sung to the morning star, which of course meant Jesus. Disturbing, but perhaps somewhat spurious. Perhaps it was a coincidence.
Then I recall the sacrament of the communion. Hmm...oddly enough, it involved the consumption of human flesh and blood. That was pretty alarming, because I remember Satan worshippers accused of doing the exact same things. Human sacrifice and cannibalism. Truly disturbing. But the plot thickens...
And here's the clincher: Most are familiar with the great rebellion in Christian mythology, whereby there was a rebellion by the angels and a whole bunch were thrown down. Now, when we think about worshipping a divine being-turned-human that is called the morning star and encourages people to eat human flesh and drink blood, that begins to sound suspiciously like a fallen angel.
It worries me, and really...I get pretty disturbed when I go to church at times. That is why I really would rather read my bible quietly during sermons. I feel safer that way.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
No Country For Old Men
I love both the novel and the faithful film adaptation of No Country For Old Men. On the surface (and a number of my friends seem unable to get beyond that surface), it's a brutal film about a ruthless, heartless assassin who goes after a guy who stumbles upon a great big bag of drug money. The sheriff goes after that assassin, even as the drug dealers and assassin go after poor Llewelyn Moss. Of course, since just about everyone who's intended to watch/read this story already have, I'll just spoil the story: Llewelyn dies in the end, and the assassin gets away. There. I did it.
Now, I find the story is really quite a tragic commentary about our times. It seems easy to think of Llewelyn as the somewhat dishonest but otherwise innocent common folk, the sheriff Ed Tom as the good guy and Anton Chigurh the assassin as the baddie. However, of all the characters, I find Chigurh the most fascinating. He is not so much evil, as he is purely rule-driven. Ed Tom is the helpless old timer who reminisces of the good old days, but ultimately he's a broken man who cannot face up to the realities of a society going morally downhill. Llewelyn is just really quite a sideshow in that he just wants to get away with his money, and is ruthless in his own selfish money-loving ways.
While Ed Tom laments how things have turned ugly and simply gives up pursuing Chigurh in the end because he realizes that he's facing a force he simply could not defeat, Chigurh holds strong to his rules all the way to the end. Chigurh operates in a simple logic: He gets the job done. To get the job done, he kills anyone who gets in the way of his job. However, sometimes some people are in the way, but may or may not adversely affect the execution of the task, so Chigurh may or may not kill those people. To decide that, he does one of two things: flip a coin, or if he's sure the person will keep quiet, have the person swear to silence.
I think it is easy to assume that Chigurh is evil precisely because he's such a rule follower. Yet there seems to be little malice in what he does. He does not kill someone just because they're annoying (there's one lady in the story who was, but he did not kill her because she was not a significant impediment and because it was more trouble than she's worth). He does not kill out of hatred (Llewelyn threatens Chigurh at one point). I think he is disturbing and labeled evil simply because he has no emotional investment whatsoever in that killing. In a way, perhaps, he is something like Spock. And perhaps people have really hard times with characters like that: they are...alien.
Now, I find the story is really quite a tragic commentary about our times. It seems easy to think of Llewelyn as the somewhat dishonest but otherwise innocent common folk, the sheriff Ed Tom as the good guy and Anton Chigurh the assassin as the baddie. However, of all the characters, I find Chigurh the most fascinating. He is not so much evil, as he is purely rule-driven. Ed Tom is the helpless old timer who reminisces of the good old days, but ultimately he's a broken man who cannot face up to the realities of a society going morally downhill. Llewelyn is just really quite a sideshow in that he just wants to get away with his money, and is ruthless in his own selfish money-loving ways.
While Ed Tom laments how things have turned ugly and simply gives up pursuing Chigurh in the end because he realizes that he's facing a force he simply could not defeat, Chigurh holds strong to his rules all the way to the end. Chigurh operates in a simple logic: He gets the job done. To get the job done, he kills anyone who gets in the way of his job. However, sometimes some people are in the way, but may or may not adversely affect the execution of the task, so Chigurh may or may not kill those people. To decide that, he does one of two things: flip a coin, or if he's sure the person will keep quiet, have the person swear to silence.
I think it is easy to assume that Chigurh is evil precisely because he's such a rule follower. Yet there seems to be little malice in what he does. He does not kill someone just because they're annoying (there's one lady in the story who was, but he did not kill her because she was not a significant impediment and because it was more trouble than she's worth). He does not kill out of hatred (Llewelyn threatens Chigurh at one point). I think he is disturbing and labeled evil simply because he has no emotional investment whatsoever in that killing. In a way, perhaps, he is something like Spock. And perhaps people have really hard times with characters like that: they are...alien.
Monday, October 26, 2009
A Strong Military
The mighty military is a critical factor to deal with global warming. As we all know, global warming is a horrible, horrible problem. The global temperatures rise, making everyone feel mighty uncomfortable, and killing some people and plants and animals while it's at it. The polar ice caps will melt, causing the sea levels to rise. The rising sea levels will cause available land to shrink, and flood many food producing fields into oblivion. There will be famine, population pressures and yes...war. Not to mention irreversible climate change.
Now, let us avoid this really nasty scenario. Everyone shall now cut production, stop making new babies and really...just consume less in general. Maybe that will help with the carbon emissions, other greenhouse gases and perhaps stop global warming. Maybe. Or maybe not. But either way, nobody seems very happy about doing all that on a maybe. What they do know is that the world's heating up and they don't wana lose out to everyone else.
The good news is that the earth finds its own equilibrium at one point or another. The bad news is that humanity may be badly screwed as a result. But that's ok, because the earth will be fine. So now we know that we're on a nice merry one way trip to warfare hell, and we need to be ready. We need stronger militaries. The mightier the better. Why, some may ask? Before shooting them, inform them that that's exactly how we're gona take the land from them so they die but we survive. Might. Makes. Right. Man I love equilibrium.
Now, let us avoid this really nasty scenario. Everyone shall now cut production, stop making new babies and really...just consume less in general. Maybe that will help with the carbon emissions, other greenhouse gases and perhaps stop global warming. Maybe. Or maybe not. But either way, nobody seems very happy about doing all that on a maybe. What they do know is that the world's heating up and they don't wana lose out to everyone else.
The good news is that the earth finds its own equilibrium at one point or another. The bad news is that humanity may be badly screwed as a result. But that's ok, because the earth will be fine. So now we know that we're on a nice merry one way trip to warfare hell, and we need to be ready. We need stronger militaries. The mightier the better. Why, some may ask? Before shooting them, inform them that that's exactly how we're gona take the land from them so they die but we survive. Might. Makes. Right. Man I love equilibrium.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Those Precious Shrew Dodgers
I love watching the reactions of humans. Especially around rodents. The reaction is fascinating precisely because of the aversion showed despite the patent harmlessness of the said creature. It's small, fuzzy and...probably spreads disease. No more than any other mammal might however, so that's probably not a defining rodent trait.
Now, when I was on my way home with my mom, we noticed a dead shrew in the middle of a walkway. Someone probably stepped on it and killed it on the spot. Poor creature. Nonetheless, I figured it would be an interesting opportunity in observing human reactions, so I had mom stand around to watch the reactions of others when they saw the poor creature.
A pair of schoolgirls approached and noticed the shrew. They paused. After chittering somewhat in alarm, they mutually decided to gingerly tiptoe past on the extreme edges of the pavement so as to maintain maximum distance from the rodent.
Another girl came by, noticed the shrew, then promptly switched to a different path to go where she intended.
Yet another noticed the body, then walked past it as if nothing happened. Pure win!
Now, when I was on my way home with my mom, we noticed a dead shrew in the middle of a walkway. Someone probably stepped on it and killed it on the spot. Poor creature. Nonetheless, I figured it would be an interesting opportunity in observing human reactions, so I had mom stand around to watch the reactions of others when they saw the poor creature.
A pair of schoolgirls approached and noticed the shrew. They paused. After chittering somewhat in alarm, they mutually decided to gingerly tiptoe past on the extreme edges of the pavement so as to maintain maximum distance from the rodent.
Another girl came by, noticed the shrew, then promptly switched to a different path to go where she intended.
Yet another noticed the body, then walked past it as if nothing happened. Pure win!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
