I've been thinking about movies and TV shows, and sometimes I think the writers really do not think through the mechanics behind the distinctive features that characters have. Take for example Tron, where the "disc" is one's most important possession, but it's effectively used as a melee/thrown weapon and really is voluntarily cast away from the user pretty often. And well...it's a virtual universe, right? Where are my machineguns or other equivalent ranged weaponry? It does seem like that would make combat a whole lot easier.
Then there's the matter of the Vampire Diaries, where the daywalker vampires (seemingly the entire bunch of them, really) have to wear some sort of trinket to allow them to walk in the sun. Well...yeah you guys are vampires, right, with super healing powers and such? Why don't you just surgically implant them, so the trinket doesn't just get lost or something. It'd be a good precaution, against having it fall off in the middle of a football game and then suddenly someone becomes a pile of dust. Or ashes. Or whatever. 'sides...these creatures are also all super strength and super speed. You'd think they'd be quite resistant to the average human trying to stake them, or even from ranged weaponry like guns. Why...if a vampire could move that fast, surely they could pluck bullets out of the air...
Well, these are really just two examples of the bunch of stuff out there that just doesn't really make sense. While I am perfectly capable of suspending my disbelief to some extent just to enjoy a narrative, I really do think writers need to think the distinguishing characteristics through a little more carefully so that such blatant contradictions do not trip up an otherwise unique character profile.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Law And Order
Presumption of innocence, taken to an extreme, can be every bit as bad as presumption of guilt. I was talking to a friend about how the law works where he is, and I was told that the police basically brought the presumption of innocence to the extreme. For them, a crime only occurrs if it succeeds. As such, someone who attempts to hold up the gas station but fails to do so is deemed innocent of the crime, and will have no penalties resulting from the attempt.
I think it's pretty obvious how such a system is totally broken. If someone tries to break into your home, but fails because you beat the crap out of them, you may well be in for an assault charge even as the would-be burglar walks free. That seems to be major suckage to me. Of course, the converse is just as bad, when one can be charged for a crime purely on circumstantial evidence that leaves quite some doubt.
It seems that while presumption of innocence is something that will keep innocents from being wrongfully convicted, it may also result in innocents being made victims of crimes from being too easy on the would-be criminals. Ultimately, there has to be a balance between the two. Unfortunately, as it tends to be with human systems, it is rather difficult to find that delicate balance point
I think it's pretty obvious how such a system is totally broken. If someone tries to break into your home, but fails because you beat the crap out of them, you may well be in for an assault charge even as the would-be burglar walks free. That seems to be major suckage to me. Of course, the converse is just as bad, when one can be charged for a crime purely on circumstantial evidence that leaves quite some doubt.
It seems that while presumption of innocence is something that will keep innocents from being wrongfully convicted, it may also result in innocents being made victims of crimes from being too easy on the would-be criminals. Ultimately, there has to be a balance between the two. Unfortunately, as it tends to be with human systems, it is rather difficult to find that delicate balance point
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows...part one
Way to go, producer dudes! If a cash cow franchise is coming to an end, make the ending extra long. Like two episodes long. Gota love capitalism.
Gripe aside, I do think the movie was reasonably well done this time round. I was quite disappointed with the previous one, and really I'm not a Harry Potter fan though a friend or three would tend to want to watch it with me anyway so I just tag along. That said, I do so like it when stories take dark twists and become permeated with a general sense of desperation. It mirrors life of so well, and I dare say I can relate.
Mmm there's not a lot I can say that won't be a spoiler, and well most people probably already know the story so it hardly will be anyway. My conclusion is that the movie's worth maybe a 7/10. Pretty good, but then I've got my biases.
Gripe aside, I do think the movie was reasonably well done this time round. I was quite disappointed with the previous one, and really I'm not a Harry Potter fan though a friend or three would tend to want to watch it with me anyway so I just tag along. That said, I do so like it when stories take dark twists and become permeated with a general sense of desperation. It mirrors life of so well, and I dare say I can relate.
Mmm there's not a lot I can say that won't be a spoiler, and well most people probably already know the story so it hardly will be anyway. My conclusion is that the movie's worth maybe a 7/10. Pretty good, but then I've got my biases.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Personal Power
To me, a feeling of empowerment is extremely important. Integrity is equally important. As such, when I encounter people who operate contrary to my philosophy of life, I get pretty peeved at them. This is not a rational evaluation of them as people, but rather as a measure of their own life's philosophies.
One example is personal relationships. Take friendships, for example. To me, a friend is a person who is friendly to me, and whom I can trust to guard my back to some extent. As such, there are few people I would actually call friend, and a whole lot of friendly people who are just friendly in relational terms. I wouldn't trust friendly people with my back. Now, I've learned that some people view friendships in terms of debts of gratitude, which disgusts me to no end. One does not take on a friend primarily or perhaps to a large extent due to the fact that friendships allow one to ask favors of another. That would be improper, in my opinion. To me, a friendship is primarily about trust, in that if the shit hits the fan, at the very least you can be sure the friend isn't going to backstab you. For those who know me, they'll certainly notice that I rarely if ever ask them for favors, because to do such a thing is an imposition upon the friendship and it sullies the relationship.
Integrity aside, personal empowerment is something that I feel is essential to everyone. Of course, I do not expect people to agree with me, but that is my opinion regardless. I was quite displeased when some people told me about something they did not like, but that they were unwilling to speak up (or complain) about it because they feared possible repercussions. In my opinion, a valid complaint is valid regardless. It should be presented to the relevant authority in a polite, logical manner. Any reasonable authority should be expected to receive this criticism in good spirit, and act accordingly. To fear to speak out is to accept personal disempowerment. That is unacceptable. I do not claim that discretion is unimportant, and indeed sometimes there are better times to speak out. However, there is no excuse for keeping mum out of a what-if fear. Worse yet, if someone uninvolved in the problem is told that others are afraid of speaking out because of their fears, the person is forced into an unhealthy situation: She can become involved by becoming the voice (and therefore a patsy) of the oppressed, or she can become a hypocrite by leaving them to pluck up their courage to speak up for themselves. True, it may not be actual hypocrisy by not speaking up for others if the only thing keeping them quiet is their own fears and not some actual risk of personal harm, but it certainly does not leave the affected one with a good feeling about herself anyway.
The other thing related to disempowerment is self-deprecation. This is even worse, because one is now voluntarily underpricing oneself. Again, there may be tactical choices made to hide one's prowess in special situations (like to avoid a fight, for example), but overall I believe one needs to be truthful about one's abilities. When someone is clearly self deprecating, my respect for them takes an instant nose dive. On the flip side, I can tolerate boasting but overboard boasting also ticks me off.
On a related note, deprecating others is something that will guarantee a perception nose dive. For example, showing a lack of confidence in another's abilities is plain offensive. If someone claims that they can do something that's plausibly within their abilities, saying something to the contary like "We'll see if you can REALLY do that" or its variants is just nasty and mean. Even if it's in jest, there's a pretty good chance that I'd be offended. It's bad enough to be out in a world where everyone's challenging one another to prove themselves with stupid acts. It's even worse when someone's challenging someone else to do something that they can plausibly do and will probably do anyway. To issue such a challenge robs the challenged of honor: There is no glory in achieving the goal because doing so can effectively be considered doing someone else's bidding. There is shame in failing to achieve the goal, because the challenger is proven right.
Overall, my rant boils down to the core idea that one should first live for oneself, and not for others. Only through being comfortable with oneself, can one truly come to terms with the concept of helping others. There is no life in living for the sake of approval by others, or from believing oneself in some way inherently inferior to others. We are all Great Ones, if we would only be willing to embrace our potentials.
One example is personal relationships. Take friendships, for example. To me, a friend is a person who is friendly to me, and whom I can trust to guard my back to some extent. As such, there are few people I would actually call friend, and a whole lot of friendly people who are just friendly in relational terms. I wouldn't trust friendly people with my back. Now, I've learned that some people view friendships in terms of debts of gratitude, which disgusts me to no end. One does not take on a friend primarily or perhaps to a large extent due to the fact that friendships allow one to ask favors of another. That would be improper, in my opinion. To me, a friendship is primarily about trust, in that if the shit hits the fan, at the very least you can be sure the friend isn't going to backstab you. For those who know me, they'll certainly notice that I rarely if ever ask them for favors, because to do such a thing is an imposition upon the friendship and it sullies the relationship.
Integrity aside, personal empowerment is something that I feel is essential to everyone. Of course, I do not expect people to agree with me, but that is my opinion regardless. I was quite displeased when some people told me about something they did not like, but that they were unwilling to speak up (or complain) about it because they feared possible repercussions. In my opinion, a valid complaint is valid regardless. It should be presented to the relevant authority in a polite, logical manner. Any reasonable authority should be expected to receive this criticism in good spirit, and act accordingly. To fear to speak out is to accept personal disempowerment. That is unacceptable. I do not claim that discretion is unimportant, and indeed sometimes there are better times to speak out. However, there is no excuse for keeping mum out of a what-if fear. Worse yet, if someone uninvolved in the problem is told that others are afraid of speaking out because of their fears, the person is forced into an unhealthy situation: She can become involved by becoming the voice (and therefore a patsy) of the oppressed, or she can become a hypocrite by leaving them to pluck up their courage to speak up for themselves. True, it may not be actual hypocrisy by not speaking up for others if the only thing keeping them quiet is their own fears and not some actual risk of personal harm, but it certainly does not leave the affected one with a good feeling about herself anyway.
The other thing related to disempowerment is self-deprecation. This is even worse, because one is now voluntarily underpricing oneself. Again, there may be tactical choices made to hide one's prowess in special situations (like to avoid a fight, for example), but overall I believe one needs to be truthful about one's abilities. When someone is clearly self deprecating, my respect for them takes an instant nose dive. On the flip side, I can tolerate boasting but overboard boasting also ticks me off.
On a related note, deprecating others is something that will guarantee a perception nose dive. For example, showing a lack of confidence in another's abilities is plain offensive. If someone claims that they can do something that's plausibly within their abilities, saying something to the contary like "We'll see if you can REALLY do that" or its variants is just nasty and mean. Even if it's in jest, there's a pretty good chance that I'd be offended. It's bad enough to be out in a world where everyone's challenging one another to prove themselves with stupid acts. It's even worse when someone's challenging someone else to do something that they can plausibly do and will probably do anyway. To issue such a challenge robs the challenged of honor: There is no glory in achieving the goal because doing so can effectively be considered doing someone else's bidding. There is shame in failing to achieve the goal, because the challenger is proven right.
Overall, my rant boils down to the core idea that one should first live for oneself, and not for others. Only through being comfortable with oneself, can one truly come to terms with the concept of helping others. There is no life in living for the sake of approval by others, or from believing oneself in some way inherently inferior to others. We are all Great Ones, if we would only be willing to embrace our potentials.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Let Me In
Well I'm just back from watching Let Me In with a coupla friends. Long time friends whom I've not met for over half a decade now. It's amazing that they still remember me. Anyway, 'nuff on me and more on the movie. I dare say that I really did appreciate it, and it's a rather decent remake.
Now, the narrative is largely the same as Let The Right One In, and it does stay reasonably faithful to the book's narrative even though a few key areas were significantly changed. In fact, I am struck by how the director managed to reproduce choice phrases from the translated book practically verbatim. I dare say that the camera work was stellar, and while the film was made with almost exclusively close shots, the intimacy of the scenes were striking to the extent that one did not miss the establishing shots. I would call it a masterpiece in terms of camera work.
As is expected, the remake is significantly bloodier than the original, and a whole lot less subtle. In fact, the very act of making the blood and some key action bits obvious has resulted in fairly comical moments. I would not help but see Eli/Abby as Gollum in certain scenes. Some drawn out struggles wound up laughable instead of brutal. That aside, I certainly felt for the acting, and it really was close enough to the original to be worth seeing as a comparison. I also do wish the directors would refrain from turning every damn story into a romance.
I find that the original suffers for the lack of awesome camera technique, and this remake suffers from a lack of subtlety. If the two could've been put together, with the camera from this and the subtlety and narrative from the oldie, I'd have the perfect rendition of the rather fine book. I'd still give this movie an 8/10, however.
Now, the narrative is largely the same as Let The Right One In, and it does stay reasonably faithful to the book's narrative even though a few key areas were significantly changed. In fact, I am struck by how the director managed to reproduce choice phrases from the translated book practically verbatim. I dare say that the camera work was stellar, and while the film was made with almost exclusively close shots, the intimacy of the scenes were striking to the extent that one did not miss the establishing shots. I would call it a masterpiece in terms of camera work.
As is expected, the remake is significantly bloodier than the original, and a whole lot less subtle. In fact, the very act of making the blood and some key action bits obvious has resulted in fairly comical moments. I would not help but see Eli/Abby as Gollum in certain scenes. Some drawn out struggles wound up laughable instead of brutal. That aside, I certainly felt for the acting, and it really was close enough to the original to be worth seeing as a comparison. I also do wish the directors would refrain from turning every damn story into a romance.
I find that the original suffers for the lack of awesome camera technique, and this remake suffers from a lack of subtlety. If the two could've been put together, with the camera from this and the subtlety and narrative from the oldie, I'd have the perfect rendition of the rather fine book. I'd still give this movie an 8/10, however.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Defining Dinner
Sometimes I wonder if I just had dinner, or if it was lunch. Seeing as how I wake somewhat late on weekends, I would define it as lunch, by my standard. Who cares about what society says about when dinner really is. If it's the second meal of the day, I'd call it lunch. By my definition, there are generally 3 proper meals in a day, even if the meals are voluntarily skipped (in which case it's simply a skipped proper meal). Therefore, the first meal is breakfast (regardless when you wake), the second is lunch, and the third is dinner.
Then, out of curiosity, I tried to find out just when the three meals were, in other cultures and other eras. I was fairly surprised to find that the meal timings were hardly as ordered as they are today, and in fact three was really quite an arbitrary number anyway. It just so happens that the current culture simply favors having three meals at these rather specific times. I expect that the timings would shift yet again in the next 50 to 100 years or so. Perhaps the trend would be towards 5 mini meals instead. Or 7. Who knows. Maybe they like prime numbers. Anyway, that said, I now find nothing wrong with defining my mealtimes as I like to. After all, if humanity in general can't really make up their minds over just when a proper meal is taken, I see no reason why I can't concoct my own definitions. And I'm standing by my definitions till I change my mind. So there.
Then, out of curiosity, I tried to find out just when the three meals were, in other cultures and other eras. I was fairly surprised to find that the meal timings were hardly as ordered as they are today, and in fact three was really quite an arbitrary number anyway. It just so happens that the current culture simply favors having three meals at these rather specific times. I expect that the timings would shift yet again in the next 50 to 100 years or so. Perhaps the trend would be towards 5 mini meals instead. Or 7. Who knows. Maybe they like prime numbers. Anyway, that said, I now find nothing wrong with defining my mealtimes as I like to. After all, if humanity in general can't really make up their minds over just when a proper meal is taken, I see no reason why I can't concoct my own definitions. And I'm standing by my definitions till I change my mind. So there.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Reunions
Yesterday, I met a friend I did not personally meet for just about 6 years. I guess my friends and I have a rather unusual perspective of time, seeing as how we can jump right back into a rather familiar conversation as if we last met the day before. Perhaps it has something to do with how little we change over the years. I know for one that I am still readily recognizable by people from my earlier years. I guess overall we don't really change as much as we think we do.
Anyway it's been really great to finally meet up again, at a comics convention no less. In fact I did bump into a number of people who knew me, and it's really so nice to see the fellas I'm reasonably close with. I think the key differentiator between those I regard as acquaintances and those I regard as friends is not just the trial by fire thing (which would define my inner circle), but that they have not forgotten the important bits of our time together even despite having not met for like ages.
In fact, I did not exactly recognize my friend when she first glomped me. It's something I do feel somewhat bad about, but then again I'm bad with faces and it doesn't help if people change even slightly. Hell I often can't recognize the same face if a picture with a different expression was presented to me. That aside, I had little trouble getting into the swing of things, and I guess that's a mutual memory and that's what counts. Much as I don't necessarily value relationships with humans, I do say that some are worth keeping. Some.
Anyway it's been really great to finally meet up again, at a comics convention no less. In fact I did bump into a number of people who knew me, and it's really so nice to see the fellas I'm reasonably close with. I think the key differentiator between those I regard as acquaintances and those I regard as friends is not just the trial by fire thing (which would define my inner circle), but that they have not forgotten the important bits of our time together even despite having not met for like ages.
In fact, I did not exactly recognize my friend when she first glomped me. It's something I do feel somewhat bad about, but then again I'm bad with faces and it doesn't help if people change even slightly. Hell I often can't recognize the same face if a picture with a different expression was presented to me. That aside, I had little trouble getting into the swing of things, and I guess that's a mutual memory and that's what counts. Much as I don't necessarily value relationships with humans, I do say that some are worth keeping. Some.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Avoiding Silver
There's a reason I avoid silver: I get weird reactions with the metal. Or something alloyed into it. Whatever. Which is, of course, why I'd favor alloys like stainless steel and lead-free pewter. And then I realized that lead-free pewter could have silver in it as well. Lovely.
Well the background of the situation is that I got this really nifty ankh I've been meaning to use for a charm on my bracelet. It was sold as "silver pewter", which silly old me figured was...well...silver-colored pewter, since most pewter's silvery anyway. Guess I was wrong. I wore my ankh a couple days, and noticed a strange black residue that showed up on the back of my hand where the pewter was. At first I thought it was leavings from the blackening treatment on the stainless steel, but then I realized that the coloring was not under the steel at all.
Then I recalled that I tended to get weird reactions from silver, and the metal would leave black residues on my skin as well. It clicked, and so I had a check online about pewter...and behold. It seems that some pewter does indeed come with silver mixed in. Lovely. Well, I've had similar situations before, and the solution's always the same: Give that sucker a coat of nail polish. QED. Still, it is an item with the exact right shape, size and appearance, so I guess I won't be hunting for a replacement.
Well the background of the situation is that I got this really nifty ankh I've been meaning to use for a charm on my bracelet. It was sold as "silver pewter", which silly old me figured was...well...silver-colored pewter, since most pewter's silvery anyway. Guess I was wrong. I wore my ankh a couple days, and noticed a strange black residue that showed up on the back of my hand where the pewter was. At first I thought it was leavings from the blackening treatment on the stainless steel, but then I realized that the coloring was not under the steel at all.
Then I recalled that I tended to get weird reactions from silver, and the metal would leave black residues on my skin as well. It clicked, and so I had a check online about pewter...and behold. It seems that some pewter does indeed come with silver mixed in. Lovely. Well, I've had similar situations before, and the solution's always the same: Give that sucker a coat of nail polish. QED. Still, it is an item with the exact right shape, size and appearance, so I guess I won't be hunting for a replacement.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Let The Right One In
I just finished watching the 2008 version of this story, and I must admit that I am quite enchanted by it. I've seen my fair share of fangporn, and frankly it does get old after awhile. This one, though, it manages to convey the savagery of a vampire's feeding without making fangs and blood the star of the show. More importantly, it deals with a rather touchy issue of a quasi-platonic romance/friendship between a pair of young boys (albeit one being quite a bit older than your average human).
The narrative is quite faithful to the original book, choosing to showcase key moments from the novel and toning down its sexual aspects. The depiction of bullying is as poignant as the novel's, and truly one can sense the menace of the bullies here. On a side note on the casting, I find it amusing that Eli was actually played by a real female.
On the whole, I'd say the movie's totally worth watching if you can find a DVD of it somewhere. It's a refreshing take on the vampire genre, and rather touching in parts. I'd call it a clean 9/10.
The narrative is quite faithful to the original book, choosing to showcase key moments from the novel and toning down its sexual aspects. The depiction of bullying is as poignant as the novel's, and truly one can sense the menace of the bullies here. On a side note on the casting, I find it amusing that Eli was actually played by a real female.
On the whole, I'd say the movie's totally worth watching if you can find a DVD of it somewhere. It's a refreshing take on the vampire genre, and rather touching in parts. I'd call it a clean 9/10.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
On Immortality
One of my friends was talking at dinner about how he desired immortality. I found it rather amusing, and tried to get him to define exactly the sort of immortality he desired. It proved to be quite a challenging enterprise.
We started off with the typical understanding of physical immortality, that the immortal is incapable of dying. It was all well and good, except that the immortal may not be invincible. What may potentially result is perhaps the chance to become an eternally living pile of ash after incineration, because one is just incapable of dying. Hmm...not so desirable. Perhaps we should throw in preternatural regeneration, vampire style.
The next thing one would wonder at, is whether one could potentially regenerate oneself from a single shed skin cell. In effect, one could perhaps eventually grow an infinite number of clones of oneself, making individuality a rather hairy prospect. Very well, then. A single coherent individual must be maintained even though one is perfectly capable of miraculously regenerating oneself.
Yet, even with a perfectly functional regenerative system, there's no guarantee that one will mentally remain identical to how one was before becoming immortal. For example, the popular idea of becoming a vampire tends to take away one's humanity, so that one's out. So another condition would be that one must maintain one's psychological faculties and essential personality. By implication, one should remain in control of the immortalized body.
After considering the basic personality, another problem came up, since the personal experience of living eternally is quite different from a mortal existence. At some point, one's mental state will begin to diverge from that of an average mortal, because time becomes considered in terms of eternity and boredom with life in general may sink in eventually. In short, one can become a rather depressed immortal that is incapable of killing himself (by virtue of his immortality). It really is quite an undesirable state to be in.
In short, a desirable true immortality turned out to be a rather hairy thing to define, full of if's and but's. It also seems that, without an exit option, one may wind up stuck in a rather unpleasant situation. Ultimately, while one may wish to stay forever healthy, death remains a desirable option at some point...just in case.
We started off with the typical understanding of physical immortality, that the immortal is incapable of dying. It was all well and good, except that the immortal may not be invincible. What may potentially result is perhaps the chance to become an eternally living pile of ash after incineration, because one is just incapable of dying. Hmm...not so desirable. Perhaps we should throw in preternatural regeneration, vampire style.
The next thing one would wonder at, is whether one could potentially regenerate oneself from a single shed skin cell. In effect, one could perhaps eventually grow an infinite number of clones of oneself, making individuality a rather hairy prospect. Very well, then. A single coherent individual must be maintained even though one is perfectly capable of miraculously regenerating oneself.
Yet, even with a perfectly functional regenerative system, there's no guarantee that one will mentally remain identical to how one was before becoming immortal. For example, the popular idea of becoming a vampire tends to take away one's humanity, so that one's out. So another condition would be that one must maintain one's psychological faculties and essential personality. By implication, one should remain in control of the immortalized body.
After considering the basic personality, another problem came up, since the personal experience of living eternally is quite different from a mortal existence. At some point, one's mental state will begin to diverge from that of an average mortal, because time becomes considered in terms of eternity and boredom with life in general may sink in eventually. In short, one can become a rather depressed immortal that is incapable of killing himself (by virtue of his immortality). It really is quite an undesirable state to be in.
In short, a desirable true immortality turned out to be a rather hairy thing to define, full of if's and but's. It also seems that, without an exit option, one may wind up stuck in a rather unpleasant situation. Ultimately, while one may wish to stay forever healthy, death remains a desirable option at some point...just in case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)