Wall-E

Wall-E has nowhere near the depth of KungFu Panda. In fact, it seems to be a rather simple lover's show, with an intention to foster feelings of closeness and affection with its themes. Yet I admire the developers for it, because they chose to create a narrative that began with no typical dialogue. It takes quite some doing to make robots conduct a narrative entirely on emotive sounds and body language. Body language...on a robot? Wow!

The show has themes like sticking with your loved one through thick and thin, self-sacrifice and overall altruism. It also involves sticking to one's duties and the concept of rebirth. Unfortunately, such themes are really quite overdone. There is little to explicate on these, as just about everyone has been over these before.

What was impressive was the balletic symphonies of movement and sound throughout the show, creating the depth of visceral experience that is difficult to match in an animation. This is probably where it outshines KungFu Panda: The sheer elegance of the animation. Granted, these are two very differently themed shows and the differences show.

Overall, I found the narrative somewhat flat. Yet as a show it managed to hold together, and I especially liked the Nausicaa'esque end credits. I dare say the show deserves a 7/10, though I'm sure as a lover's show it deserves a clean 8.

4Bia

4Bia (pronounced phobia) is a thai horror film that comprises a bunch of short stories. Naturally, it's to be expected that the films are uniformly freaky and really quite scary. If anything, the images of the ghouls will stay with the viewer for quite some time to come. I know they stay with me. Still trying to banish these. I'll succeed...eventually.

I noted with some amusement at their skillful manipulation of the storylines such that they needed a minimal cast to pull it off. Unfortunately, it's not quite a narrative masterpiece, or even particularly innovative. The short stories make extensive use of really ghoulish makeup for the spooks, traditional in-your-face-with-loud-sound scare tactics and Stephen King'esque twisting of the real and the hallucination. That, and the bad CGI in a particular story. In fact, the narratives seemed quite disjointed due to the short story presentation, though there were efforts to tie things in by subtle details like newspaper headlines and references to the other stories. The use of deus ex for some scenes was disturbing, too. I can get it that supernatural events lead to really unusual goings on, but in a cinema narrative it really just seems that they cooked up a supernatural reason for some things to happen, without introducing the props first. That just makes things look unplanned. Sometimes, it also helps not to explicate overly much of the gory details, since at times the imagination can cook up far greater and more realistic horrors than any low budget CGI work possibly could.

To be fair to the film, I guess the rating would have to be spread over two areas. As a film, I don't think it deserves to have more than 6/10. However, I would highly rate the horror value of it, including the very progressive and inexorable build up towards the horror climax. For that, and its gruesome ghosts...I'd give it a very nice 9/10

Mini Movie Marathon

I had a most interesting impromptu mini movie marathon today. My friends asked me out to watch the thai horror flick 4Bia. Scary stuff. Then another of my friends asked me to watch a movie with him...immediately after 4Bia. So yeah, we went to watch Wall-E. Lovely contrast.

I guess it was somewhat interesting considering that I got the movie date right after the show...and at the same cineplex as the one before it. This probably also means that I'm going to be writing two reviews on the movies.

After the movies, I caught up with another friend, who brought her gal friend along. Talk about chained outings. I've never felt more productive (seriously!) since I basically managed to socialize with 3 groups of people in a single outing. Now that's a great way to compress outings so that time is not wasted in transit.

Eco Tourism

Eco Tourism is very nice when taken at face value: It showcases the delicate and beautiful face of nature, encouraging others to cherish and hopefully work towards protecting these natural places. In fact, it'd be far better were the people inclined to actually protect other places that may have endangered species that are not exactly pleasing to the eye.

While the lofty goals are admirable, I would question the benefits of eco tourism in the real world. For one, the eco tourist sites are often operated with profit in mind, with lip service and limited real protecting done at the site apart from preserving the lucrative attraction. Moreover, the high human traffic invariably brings with it pollution in the form of litter and vehicle fumes. That apart from the noise pollution and disruptive camera flashes from overzealous tourists.

More harm than good? Quite likely. Besides that, there is always the chance that tourists fail to understand what nature is truly like, being exposed exclusively to the beautiful sight of things. Fireflies twinkle, but they are still bugs...presumably the sort that little girls still fear after seeing the fairylike creatures flashing in the dark. Jungles are still rather dangerous, as are the beautiful rolling dunes of the desert. Perhaps it is also necessary to promote conservation as much for its own sake, as it is for the majesty of nature's power.

Geronimo And The Native Americans

I was reading a book on Geronimo, and could not help but be reminded of how the madness of people can easily spread to consume even the innocent. Fueled by the driving forces of expansionism and the gold rush, the Native Americans found themselves being pushed towards the brink. In effect, one had been usurped from one's rightful home, and assigned to a halfway house. All that, simply because someone powerful figured that hey...you just weren't "civilized".

I am saddened by what is by no means an isolated incident. Ever since humans invented the idea of warfare and conquest, peoples have been pushed from their own homes, only to have the invaders enjoy what was originally someone else's. Unfair? Yes. But such is the way of Darwinian civilizing. The stronger (militarily, usually) civilization often manages to drive the other out.

Perhaps there is no end to this madness, seeing as how the same greed and power madness pervades "civilization" to this day. Time and time again people have opted to claim for their own, things that never should have been theirs in a fair negotiation. At a state level, land theft is seldom resisted as firmly as that of the same at an individual level. There will always be noble spirits that will resist the tides of madness, but can they hold the tides back? Was Geronimo truly happy to have become something like a white man, if only for the good of his people?

Morality For The Masses

The great unwashed masses are fickle. That much is known of them. It is almost the one constant that binds them together. Without the aid of a constant, the masses constantly shift their focus and their values. It is the introduction of a fixed morality system that keeps them in line, since they have decided to subject themselves only to the morality that is prescribed to them.

What makes them free, then? By seeking the moral, they choose to bind themselves in an artificial prescribed morality that may not conform to any universal (if universal even exists!) morality that is extant. But if morality is not fixed, what is it that drives the masses that they can believe in something that may not even be true? This could explain the readiness to believe in deceptions: In their unwillingness to think, they prefer to live their private lies.

The Limits Of Power

Truly, with great power comes great responsibility. Apparently, that is even if one is unwilling to take that responsibility. The more powerful a person is, the greater her options in life. Things that were not options for less powerful folk now have to be considered. Will one be willing to flatten yonder mountain, or to preserve it? The very act of not flattening the mountain has effectively allowed its continued existence: Still a rather significant act!

In a way, a responsible person of power enjoys far less freedom than a comparable one with significantly less power. Every act has to be carefully considered for its repercussions in larger society, or at least the environment. It is the powerless who can choose to be less responsible: The powerful cannot help but be responsible for *something*.

It is therefore a strange thing when a powerless person yearns for a slice of great power, without being willing to accept responsibility for the exercising of the same. In trying to gain more freedom through ability, one simply loses freedom through responsibility. What a balance.

Away From Home

It is a strange feeling, that one just does not belong where one is. Some people call their places of origin home, simply on account that they came from there. Perhaps they are right, and they truly belong where they were placed. I cannot shake the feeling that I am not home, and that it is someplace else.

Sometimes I encounter various stimuli...sights, sounds, smells...something at random. It will remind me of the wilderness. Somewhere that never had humans, and where the rhythms of live were different. Yet I realize that the wilderness as it is now will not welcome me. It is different from the one I know. Alien. It bears a passing resemblance, yet is not the same.

I guess I will sit by the trees and the animals, thinking about the place that is no more. It almost seems like they understand, but perhaps that is an illusion as well. What else does it feel like, to be away from home?

The Politics Of Performance

Sometimes, I wonder at the political power behind China's Olympic ceremonies. Granted, it was utter greatness in the realm of performance, but one might wonder at the political might that was necessary to pull the whole thing off.

For one, there was great financial expense...which may or may not have been approved had it been held in a country where people were more inclined to be more individualistic. The performance spread from the representational to the real when the city dedicated to the event greatly restricted traffic within it, and even had cloud banishers to ensure that nature did not rain on the party. Finally, they completed the experience with the smiling ambassadors deployed throughout the city.

Was this likely, or even possible in a less authoritarian country? Though capable of feats of synchronicity and discipline, one must wonder at the controls necessary to keep the people under control to this extent...

Oiling The Cogs

Investment in healthcare is investing in an intangible: It maintains the units of capitalist production. Strangely, though, the authorities often opt to spend as little as possible on intangibles in favor of the tangibles such as industrial production.

This does not compute, especially in an economic sense. An economy that spends appropriately (as far as needs are met) on these intangibles would have a steadier stream of healthy workers and thus enjoy greater per capita productivity. By oiling the cogs of the machine, the cogs will simply perform better.

Some may argue that the presence of such incentives may encourage freeloading, to the extent that efficiency actually falls. While I concur, there are measures that can be taken to reduce if not eliminate freeloading. Enforcement is one way, and raising workplace morale is another. With increased morale, the motivation to skive is reduced or removed considering the fact that one can improve one's reputation at work by not doing so.

Conspiracy Of the Powerless

When one thinks of conspiracy theories, one tends to visualize the shadowy "Organization" which is all-powerful and highly secretive, quite able to pull the strings of governments from behind the scenes. These Organizations typically have tentacles everywhere, and influence everything. Even recycling isn't safe anymore: They have their grubby paws all over it.

Nobody ever seems to consider the possibility of a conspiracy by the powerless. The disenfranchised who appear so downtrodden that nobody spares them a second thought. Would these not be the perfect candidates for would-be conspirators? After all, they are hiding in plain sight, and are clearly far more numerous than those mysterious Organization guys.

In fact, the signs are all around us. The powerless permeate society, lobbying for change that favors them. In fact, they, too, could be sneakily slipping chemicals into the water supply or collecting your refuse for DNA samples. There's nothing that they cannot do...and nobody suspects them...

Feminism

One of the key feminist arguments is that much of what is pushed by the patriarchal hegemony tends to be androcentric, and has values significantly different from those that women hold dear. Values such as compassion, understanding, gentleness, cooperation, amongst other things that characterize feminine conduct and are often pushed aside in the mad rush that's become associated with capitalism.

Those values seem to be very much in line with the hegemonic concept of femininity, that is, how women ought to behave and how their personal attributes should be. However, given that patriarchy permeates the hegemonies of most extant societies, it is not unreasonable to surmise that these same values are in fact put in place by patriarchy.

In a way, the struggle against patriarchal domination merely serves to strengthen patriarchy by validating the definition of femininity. Yet it is possible to be discredited as a feminist by choosing not to subscribe to those values, since one would appear to be quite unfeminine to the observers! Of course, it is never easy to unseat a hegemony, especially one that is so pervasive in practically every society!

Who Are You?

This question is often asked of people who are perceived to have overstepped their boundaries of authority. It is interesting how there must always be a justification for who someone is before they will be listened to, regardless how well-meaning a comment may be.

When one tries to get a word in edgewise, often in the context of a meeting with strangers, it is not uncommon to be challenged with the question "Who are you to say this". Or that. It is in fact rhetoric, and requires no answer. It really is a sort of dismissal of one's value as an advisor, and often a get-the-hell-out-of-my-face signal.

Yet once someone introduces themselves as an old friend, or some similarly obscure known figure, the tone rapidly changes. The attitude abruptly shifts from one of disdain to a markedly improved condition of trust. What happened? They realized exactly who it was.

Fluff Sells

Most people do not like fluff. In fact, they absolutely can't stand it. Nobody likes things that sound good on paper, but have no real substance. That's the theory, at least. In reality, fluff is subjected to the exact same self-deluding tendencies that govern the desire to be deceived.

Strangely, when exposed to certain subject matter that's known to be fluffy, such as marketing, people readily recognize that it is not quite "respectable" (as they understand it). Put it in a more scientific context, with apparent numbers to support the statements, and the people will happily lapse into their blissful coma of acceptance.

Where lies the difference? Perhaps an excuse to be credulous, considering that "hard figures" were included in the explanation. After all, it is easy to lie with statistics, but easier to lie without...

On Tidying

This is probably not the first time I'm saying this, but I'll say it again anyway: Tidying is probably one of the most boring and tiring activities available. In fact, I'd rank it higher on the undesirable housework list than doing the laundry and washing the dishes.

For one, tidying involves physical labor. Lots of heavy lifting and then delicately placing each item so it looks neat. Then comes the mental strain of deciding whether to discard an item, and if not, then where to place it so it still looks neat but is readily accessible. The two may be mutually exclusive, which causes a yet more stress. After everything's done, you move more easily around the house, but nothing much has really changed.

Laundry is comparatively easier. Now, it may involve some heavy lifting to move wet laundry around, then hang it all out to dry...but it's quite a no-brainer to decide where to put them and how to fold them. After retrieval, at least you have clean, non-stinky clothing to wear. And that's always a bonus!

Interestingly enough, mom never gets tired...or bored when it comes to tidying. It's like her recreational activity or something. Apparently, the sheer satisfaction of having a tidy place is enough for her. Ah, well. *grabs toothbrush and merrily scrubs the toilet floor tiles instead*

Human Nature

If there is ever an excuse that I'm tired of hearing, it's the allegation that "it's human nature". Ok, so state a fact to cover up bad conduct. Someone fights? It's human nature. Someone gets angry for no good reason, then doesn't apologize? It's human nature. People go to war and kill lots of innocents? It's human nature.

That trite excuse is about as valid as the outdated she-can't-vote-because-she-is-a-woman argument. Why? 'coz she's a woman! No, really. Yes...she's a woman. That much is obvious, huh. To me, claiming that something is human nature indicates a patent laziness and utter unwillingness to change for the better. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the atrocities committed because of "human nature" go above and beyond the normal range of animal behaviours. Truly, these humans are worse than animals because they are well aware of their actions and are deliberate, yet possess the cunning and capabilities to execute them with extreme prejudice.

I am not perfect. I can get angry for no good reason and totally blow up. But after that, I don't stay angry and I try to mend things back up. More importantly, I learn from the experience and try not to blow up in future situations. I cannot say that it is easy, or that it is always successful, but one should always try.

Submitting to this wonderful shield of "human nature" allows a socially acceptable excuse for inexcusable actions, and is a "reason" not to improve oneself. It is very much like choosing to follow one's barbaric nature without any willingness to change. Sure, it is natural to be that way because one's born like that, but that is no excuse for not trying to improve one's lot in life!

Animal Willpower

Many theorize that only humans are conscious (and that animals are not) and thus are able to rise beyond their primal urges. I argue that it is not only humans that are conscious, but that animals are in fact capable of overcoming their primal urges.

The examples abound. We have dogs starving by their owners' bodies without eating them, dogs have saved lives at risk to their own, many mammals are known to show grief at the death of a fellow and conduct themselves in ways that are contrary to what one would expect of pure primal survival instinct.

What conclusions, therefore, can be made about willpower? Clearly, it is not exclusive to humans. Perhaps the time has come to learn to respect animals, instead of readily abusing them simply because they do not seem to fit the common human-centric assumptions regarding sentience.

A Tribe Of Pornographers

It is interesting to view our contemporary society through the lens of a future anthropologist. The assumption here would be that the anthropologist does not have all the facts, and, consequently, the resultant analyses may be done out of context. In fact, the conclusions could be completely incorrect.

Consider the anthropologist analyzing the archaeological sample of a porn CD, and finally devising a special reader to view its contents. From common knowledge, there is a tribe known as the "Pornographers" who are exiled from polite society. Their practices are seen as abhorrent by a significant proportion of the world. However, the reader could not view the contents of the CD, as all that came out was a strange textured surface. Clearly, this would lead to speculations as to the ritual actions of these Pornographers...

Studying things with imperfect information may result in conclusions that are actually out of context. Of course, with the case of an extinct civilization, the context may never be known as much of the data on their activities will be corrupted.

For Love Of Deception

I would go so far as to say that the public loves to be deceived. In fact, I dare say that the majority would love to be deceived, and to live in their own little fantasy worlds. As much as this sounds fanciful or even absurd, that is because one hates to know that one is being deceived. Once the deception is revealed, the suspension of disbelief is shattered, causing a really bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Take for example the Olympics opening ceremony. The backlash from revealing the misrepresentations within the event was very great, as much as the rest of the event was found to be perfectly acceptable or even wonderfully executed. While some may cite political motivations behind the revelations, it does not discount the fact that the backlash was significant, and more so than what could be likely to be organized using political funds. Clearly, the people concerned had their illusion shattered, rendering the performance false (as it was, since by definition a performance isn't "real" the way spontaneous reality is understood).

By the same vein, a gambler would gladly throw incredible amounts of money at what's known to be a losing game, ignoring the kind advice from others that the probability of losing was far greater than that of winning. Instead, they cheerfully fixate on the *chance* of winning. This is an unlikely situation should the audience actually abhor being deceived and actively seek out possible deceptions...

Bigger Leaves

For the longest time, I observed that the money plants had bigger leaves on top. The higher they went, the larger the leaves got. I accepted it as fact, but never really sought out the answer to this phenomenon. My initial assumption was that they went higher to get more sunlight so they made larger leaves. The assumption held water until I realized that not all higher spots were better exposed to the sun. There goes one hypothesis.

While I was walking along the school corridors, I looked at the huge leaves of the money plant, and asked it why its leaves were so big. Then I got a flash of insight. The answer was transpiration. Now, money plants have fleshy stems that transpiration pull due to their suppleness. The higher they got, the more power they lost. They simply needed larger leaves so the transpiration pull would be great enough to overcome gravity and the lost power. Trees didn't need such a mechanism because of their woody trunks. Hence their leaves were almost always around the same size according to the species.

Sometimes it's amazing how insight works. You just idly look at something and meditate on its purpose, then everything simply clicks in place.

The Kefitzat He-Derekh

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Assuming that both are true, then by logic both should be destroyed. There is no possible resolution. However, this is improbable considering that, scientifically speaking, no force is truly unstoppable, and no object is completely immovable. It merely takes a sufficiently large force or massive object to shatter the assumptions of either.

Every system has a weakness, and all security has loopholes. The trick will therefore to be to identify those loopholes and thus derive the ideal solution. By finding the golden solution, one will have found the kefitzat he-derekh. The solution may not be perfect in that one side is satisfied and the other is dissatisfied, as that assumes a zero sum game, which is inherently flawed. There is always a loser.

By finding the kefitzat he-derekh, a compromise is reached by which all are satisfied to the sufficient extent that none are truly dissatisfied with their lot. Sometimes, the seeking of such a path will involve a leap of faith. Sifting through all possibilities and paths is impossible even for a prescient mortal, and finding the golden path can be done at times by taking a dive into the unknown, because the future is unknowable.

Girding the nature of the future will call for preparation of the Way, such that the golden path becomes a possibility. The weaknesses of the immovable rock can be exploited, the unstoppable force can be weakened, or either can be deflected such that they do not collide. The question, therefore, would be how this may be achieved...

The Disfigured Man

Sometimes we do things that we regret. Other times, we unconsciously react in ways that make us question our own self-worth. I had one such experience, when I saw this particularly disfigured man on my way home. This was no stranger to me, for I had seen him before. What made me question my integrity was my very visceral and automatic aversion to his appearance.

Now, this was no ordinary disfigurement. Something was wrong with his face, making the flesh appear to be sagging and thus dripping from his face. Imagine that the face was made of gelatinous putty, and someone dragged the whole mass downwards. That was how it looked.

Ordinarily, I would pride myself in not being affected by or discriminate against people on the grounds of their appearances. The strong, nearly physical reaction of shock I get whenever I see his face is something that bothers me greatly. Perhaps my conviction to be non-discriminatory was not that strong after all?

Logically, this would not automatically make me a bad person. After all, it really is something that is greatly out of the norms and thus really quite shocking. Moreover, I was able to get a grip and not flee in a panic after the initial shock. Still, it reminded me of just how I've come to accept what fits within the norms of appearance, and how such a deviation from the norm can be deeply disturbing.

A Question Of Ethics

Word is out that China has been using deceptive tactics in its opening to the Olympics. First was the CGI sequence in lieu of real footage of the giant footsteps, and the other was having a pretty girl stand in for the less attractive siren, while having the better singer voice the lyrics.

What is irksome is the suggestion that the West is somehow unreasonably picking on China. As the Chinese would have said themselves, there is no smoke without fire. This "West" bogeyman can hardly pick on something that does not exist. But the issue is less on these strange East/West politics than the question of ethics.

Make no mistake, the Olympics opening ceremony has always been a political event. It is meant to showcase the country as much as it is to herald the metaphorical giants of sports. The question, therefore, is whether it is ethical to gloss over some minor inadequacies by using illusory substitutes. This is akin to a film, where nobody is offended by special effects until they realize that they are there. Should the suspension of disbelief be shattered, the audience feels cheated. By revealing the Olympic smoke and mirrors, some feel understandably offended.

Still, this is a question of what is real, and thereby what is ethical. If a the singer was the less attractive one, she would have been a slight blemish on the show. In the interests of perfectionism, that would have been unacceptable. Yet in the interests of due credit and humanism, a less than perfect human specimen could still be showcased in the performance and none would begrudge that. People know that they are witnessing a performance space, yet are still seeing it as a human space due to the human presence presumably showcasing human prowess. The confusion of the two leads to the flawed assumption of wanting "real" within an illusory performance space. Was the singing real? They could have easily made a recording in a studio setting, then have her lip synch at the performance proper. Were the fireworks real? They actually happened, even though the footage was fabricated due to safety concerns. What is real? On one paw I think the question of ethics is moot because this is a performance and not a real talent contest. On the other paw, I can understand the human concerns that due credit is not given, and that they are witnessing a wizard of Oz illusion in what they assume to be real.

The Fallacy Of Sentimentality

Sentimentality is in itself a strange phenomenon. People can easily remain strongly attached to certain items, experiences or people despite the fact that the said matter has passed on and is possibly rotting in some dark morass in Mordor.

Taken positively, sentimentality can provide an anchor for morale while it is rationally impossible to feel good about a particular event. On the flip side, there’s a strong tendency to focus on the negative for some people. Ironically, giving them a limited good experience is even worse than providing none at all, for they have a tendency to cry because it’s over.

An event is an event because it is. By virtue of that absurd truism, there should be no reason to dwell on the past. If a good event happened, be happy about it. If it was nasty, learn from it to devise steps to prevent it from recurring.

Do We Need It?

The human mind is a veritable rationalization engine: It is perfectly capable of generating rationalizations out of just about any situation. Therein lies the exploit that is prevalent in materialistic societies: Fooling the mind into providing the profitable answer to Do We Need It?

It is always easier to justify the tangible. This new lens is faster, and I can use it to shoot moving stuff better. This blouse is the right side so I can wear it. Things that have a function can easily be rationally justified. There's a need for the function, so a tool is obtained to fulfill that function.

Then comes the intangibles. This blouse is "better" than the one I have. That lens is faster, and *may* increase my capabilities. The car is prettier. In a situation where the budget is tight, there is no room for what-if's. There's no case of I may use it, or that's intangibly "better" than the other item. In fact, this would be a very good tool to save one's expenses for far more valuable things in the long run. Given the incredible ability to rationalize anything, it is a losing battle when one tries to justify the intangibles: There's always an affirmative lurking somewhere. A better question would be Would I Use It A Lot? Marginal utility. That's the ticket.

Communalism

When people think of communalism, the spectre of communism and stifled individuality come to mind. Understandably, it is a very disturbing prospect, being forced to march in step with everyone else whether you like it or not.

However, communalism as understood by most will involve social communalism, whereby people are expected to adhere to a strict set of social rules and are afforded limited freedom of self-expression. I am considering more along the lines of communalism as diverse independent groups being discrete yet able to commune with one another.

Learning is the cornerstone of human survival, and communalism in learning is what sets humans aside from the animals that do not and thus do not learn from their predecessors. Independent isolated communities may have greater individuality, but do not share their knowledge. This encourages redundancy and inefficiency, as ideas generated by one community will not be shared with or learned by any other.

Strangely, society seems less concerned about such issues. Inefficiency is encouraged by guarding ideas and restricting their free flow. Worse yet, the myriad ideas forced to be generated through such regulations are also kept to their creators. Ideas are cheap, and it's really putting them to action that is priceless. How unusual, then, that people are made to march in line yet keep their ideas to themselves: the opposite of what would create a spontaneous, creative people.

Fascist Aesthetics

Fascist aesthetics are very much alive in the proceedings of large choreographed events, such as the Olympic opening ceremony and many nationalistic parades. This is not to say that countries sporting such features are naturally fascist or actually are, but that they subscribe to a certain ideal of presentation that is similar or identical to the fascist aesthetics.

What is often seen as features of fascist aesthetics include strict discipline and restraint, synchrony, tight choreography and a show of strength. Events like military marches, the unified sequences during the opening of the Olympics like the perfectly timed drumming and the typesetting sequence and of course the tightly choreographed nation day parades, and very likely with people sitting (or standing) in a relatively orderly manner to watch the whole event. This is of course in direct contrast to spontaneity encouraged in other countries, where parades are really more like carnivals where people dance on the streets and even mingle with the performers. Happy order against happy chaos.

The fascist aesthetic is undoubtedly strongly appealing. Few things can match the spectacle of such parades, with the stunningly unified show of strength as veritable platoons of civilians do everything in flawless synchronization. In comparison, a spontaneous parade would likely look much more like a rabble having a good time. There is certainly an appeal to the fascist aesthetic, which reminds all of the worrying tendency to appreciate the ideologies that come with a preference for such an aesthetic...

The Beijing Olympics

The Olympics opened with a bang today, with possibly the greatest choreographed performance in the history of the Olympics. I especially loved the sequence of the giant footsteps, whereby fireworks were fired into the air in the likeness of a giant's footprint. This is highly symbolic of the metaphorical titans who walk amongst us in the form of the Olympians.

Perhaps the footage was a little too smooth, and the commentator remarked that the sequence was in lieu of actual filming by a low-flying aircraft in the interests of public safety. While it can be assumed that China would want to save "face" to avoid having their camera plane crash on the day of the Olympics due to the dangerous flying required, I think it is also a relatively uncharacteristic concern for the welfare of its citizens by not risking their lives with the possibility of a plane crashing into someone's house and/or the crowds on the streets.

Other highlights include the perfect unison of drumming in one sequence, and I especially liked the running through the air before lighting the Olympic torch. That was very much something adapted from Chinese swordfighting movies.

On Campaigns

Commanding a campaign in a theater of war is very much a matter of resource management. Committing too many resources too early and thus squandering them may cripple the campaign later on. Yet it does not help to squander those same resources slightly later on in the campaign, and thus achieve the same result.

Through careful management of the resources, it may become possible to gather a climatic push towards the end, if one survives that long. Therefore, it is a careful balance to ensure that just enough resources are used at critical junctures, yet maintaining a sufficient reserve to hold off any future encounters.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, so one will invariably regret certain moves in retrospect. What is important is to learn from those moves, and to move swiftly. If one must retreat, one should do so in order to conserve resources. When one is facing a winning situation, one should push for victory as strongly as reasonably allowable.

Production Against Consumption

Producers of a product can have such astonishingly different views from consumers of the same. When I was working on a title, I was indeed focused on very different things from what the testers observed. This was surprising, since I am a consumer myself and I would likely know what I would look out for.

When I watched the making of Hannibal Rising, I was listening to what the director had to say about the various scenes. While I was paying attention to the details of the story, he was talking about all the tiny details of the scenes that I never noticed. Little textures like the bicycle strapped to a beaten up tank, for example. Of course, maybe I'm not a WWII buff, so I wouldn't know what to look out for. I'm sure that would be a welcome detail for the savvy audience.

Still, considering the level of detail the producers went into when making films, it makes me wonder exactly how many films had such detail pumped into production, only to be nixed by the overall bad writing and/or acting. The expense sunk into detailed scenes that wind up being cut in post-production is incredible, too. Perhaps that is why films have such incredible budgets, yet seem to display only a fraction of that budget on the big screen. That's because all the extra stuff has been cut out!

Intuition

Some people believe that intuition is a sort of mystical instinct that tells people things they otherwise wouldn't be able to find out. My take is similar to that of the psychologists: That intuition is a product of a split-second consolidation of one's previous experiences. For the purposes of this commentary, I will assume that the intuition in question is of the mundane variety and doesn't involve things like clairvoyance or other reputedly supernatural abilities.

Now, if intuition were truly a product of one's life experiences, it seems logical that a very experienced person would therefore have superior intuition. That is, what they intuit would become increasingly accurate. Unfortunately, attributing a supernatural root to intuition implies that it is an inborn ability that isn't usually honed. Therefore, someone with natural intuitiveness may be convinced of this, and not bother with going around to gain as much experience as possible. It is a danger that such an approach would reduce intuition to guesswork, or basically stunt the growth of the same due to lack of input for processing.

Hellboy 2

It's inevitable that these comic-based movies would have their sequels. There's such a wealth of material to draw from, after all. Anyway, I really do appreciate Hellyboy 2. Indeed, it is superior to Hellboy 1.

The first thing that drew me were the action sequences. I mean, what's a comic movie without its action? We're going to need to have different expectations given the context, after all. Anyway, this is the first time I've seen a convincing elven war dancer on the big screen. Prince Nuada could well pass for how I envisioned Drizzt Do'Urden to appear on television. Such speed and elegance of the movies that do not smack too much of stage swordplay. I like it that the moves were executed without hesitation.

Story wise, it's really quite standard Hellboy fare. World threatened, save the world. For some reason, that always happens. Don't people get tired that their world is always facing imminent destruction? I liked the chemistry between Liz and Red, though. That's how things should work: With lots of friction and preferably flames reaching to the skies.

Overall, I liked Hellboy 2 a lot. Not as much as I liked Batman (I do so love evil geniuses), but the grand action scenes and magical moments really brought the movie to life. 8/10

Batman: The Dark Knight

Batman was exceedingly good...and unexpectedly long. I think Heath Ledger's death may have had a part to play in this, since parts of the movie seemed quite tacked on. Attempting to condense two movies into one could possibly look like this.

Now, that aside, I am completely blown away by the portrayal of the Joker this time round. It is thoroughly refreshing to finally see the Joker as a psychotic evil genius. Under that loony clown image is the mind of a psychotherapist gone wrong. I especially liked that the Joker was out to prove a point: That, given the right stimuli, even the best of people can be brought down.

I'm sorry, Batman, but the Joker managed to steal the show again. Ledger put up a performance of the standard I've come to expect of a Johnny Depp show, and certainly breathed life into the character. The references to the relationship between Batman and the Joker were timely, too. It is well known that the two never had the intention to kill one another. Batman because he isn't a killer at heart. Joker because he does so love to torment the Bat. It is really a sort of strange attraction.

Of course, I felt the whole Harvey Dent sequence was tacked on, considering the show should've been about the Joker. Besides, there were precious few scenes where the two interacted, and I'd have to presume they were somehow related to Ledger's untimely demise.

I cannot help but give this movie a stellar 9.5/10. The length and apparently tacked on sequences kept it from perfection, but Ledger brought out the Joker I had been hoping to see for the longest time: Something beyond a selfish, mindless psychopath. Every Batman villian has a history and set of motivations, but much of canon focuses overly much on the action.

Human Rationality

If humans were truly rational, they'd likely have killed themselves ages ago. After all, life is intrinsically meaningless. In fact, the "meaning" in life is not only constructed, but also created out of nothing but intangible emotions. Like every other animal, humans live, eat, generate dung, reproduce and ultimately die. The cycle repeats itself. Over and over again.

Why one would continue playing this game seems to have no reason. The pattern repeats itself, with scarce change from one generation to the next. Indeed, there is little change even between tens of generations. Some would claim their faith in religion. Others claim faith in humans. Yet some will say they work for physical goods.

Note well, then, that all these are temporal. Religion will pass away. Humans are impermanent. Heck, one doesn't even own the goods once one's dead. It would therefore seem like the most obvious solution. If people didn't really like living life, the logical thing to do would be to simply lie down and die. Yet the majority choose not to do so. Clearly, there's irrationality at work here.

Long Distance Relationships

People do seem less than capable of maintaining long distance relationships the way they do localized ones. This could be a function of their animal natures, considering that it takes effort to maintain those relationships and keeping them simply delivers diminished returns compared to local ones.

I would imagine that the bonds formed between people in the immediate area would be stronger not only due to availability, but the level of interaction. I don't see how that works, but long distance relationships seem to be proof of this phenomenon. After all, most LDRs are actually established with the assumption/understanding that the other person in question will ultimately come back. That means the LDR is really hanging by that thread, and isn't supported primarily by the prospect of communicating with the person. After all, that could be achieved by simply getting a computer booted up and typing some words in.

Social Aspies

The relative social insensitivity of aspies may be beneficial in an adverse social situation. An aspie can escape to her own world, but an neurotypical would find herself shut out from her primary world. This would be undesirable to the extreme.

It is fairly common that people find themselves in adverse social situations. It could be a case of bullying, misunderstandings or any other possibility arising from the irrational social nature of humans. Understandably, it cannot be healthy to cut oneself off from all social contact, or even most social contact. Yet, allowing oneself to be overly involved with others is another potential recipe for disaster.

The E-1

I finally took the plunge and bought myself the Olympus E-1 with its "kit" 14-54mm lens. In a way, I feel sorta flipped out, since I already have a dSLR and the lens itself doesn't add that much to my capabilities. However, I've been itching to have a go at the E-1 for the longest time, along with its much touted kit lens. I feel really fortunate to have obtained both items at a very very fair price. In fact, I stand to make a rather tidy profit if I chose to offload them immediately.

Of course, that is unlikely to happen, considering that I already love the feel of this other body. Plus, I'm really quite attracted to the fact that it's splashproof, so I need not worry about my sweat spontaneously killing the circuitry. For the uninitiated, I do actually sweat a lot, so that's actually a big deal. Besides, the CCD ought to churn out some truly spectacular colors.

Right now, my main concern is not about how much money I spent (though it was a hefty sum, albeit akin to an investment) but how I will fairly utilize both bodies. The obvious answer would be to lug both around everywhere I go. Not terribly practical. An alternative would be to bring one out in the day (obviously the E-1 with the 11-22mm, other lenses with tripod) and the other in the night (E-510 with 14-54, or for otherwise lighter kits).

What really pleased me was that the E1 came not only with the kit lens, but everything else in the box and a spare original battery. That's hot because the BCM-1 charger is significantly faster (and actually bigger!) than the BCM-2 that comes with the newer cameras. No box set? Chances are no charger. The spare battery is always a perk, too.

Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed sure strikes me as a game built the ground up for console play. Perhaps it's to do with the really smooth roof running and Parkour action. Perhaps it's the fact that even the cutscenes are interactive to a certain extent, and even require situational awareness to make the most of them. Overall, AC is a great big open-world game that feels a lot larger than it really is. And that's a good thing, considering that's an efficient design approach. Of course, the game is far more action-oriented than similar open-world games like GTA IV. It also has a lot less depth than GTA IV. However, as an action-based distraction, this really is something.

I do wonder at whether there's a connection between AC and Dreamfall, though. The themes are similar, about the shifting between realities to some extent. Not to mention the hazy, glitchy real-life sequences that remind me of certain scenes from Dreamfall. Of course, gameplay wise, these two are worlds apart. It's just a matter of whether the game took ideas from Dreamfall, had shared developers or if it's really just a coincidence...

Appeasing The Living

If one is willing to think about it, the reality of performing the rites for the dead are often to appease the living, not the dead. Considering the relatively low rates of unrested spirits arising from having the improper (or no) last rites, it does seem that the dead are relatively unaffected by rites for the dead.

The living, however, do seem to be far more restive when it comes to these rites. The remarkable number of unrested spirits amongst the living for having the wrong (according to their views) rites performed will be quite indicative of the terrible effect these things can have on the living.

Of course, it is known that, psychologically, these rites are really ways for the living to cope with the passing of loved ones. Presumably loved ones, since I don't think most people really care exactly how the stranger living two blocks down is about to be greased for the afterlife.

Democrats? Republicans?

I was reading an article on a psychology magazine about the shift people have towards conservatism in the face of threat. Of course, countries are seldom constantly under threat. Wherein lies the bent towards conservatism?

Naturally, there will always be a mix of conservatives and liberals. It's just the way human diversity works. Some prefer to allow more fluidity in their decision making, others prefer comfortable rules. Nothing wrong with either. The bite comes when a country is in turmoil for some reason, and the people are looking out for a strong leader. If thousands of citizens are dead, the last thing they want to hear is someone saying...well...we should take a balanced view of this, and not be hasty. Not be hasty? Blasphemy! What we need right now is a retaliatory strike against the perpetrators! The first would likely be viewed as a poor leader, or at least a coward. The second would be seen as a strong leader, however ill-advised the move may be. Indeed, it does seem that times of crisis will cause a conservative bent.

However, troubles come when artificial crisis conditions are maintained to maintain support for conservatives. I think that is highly unethical. Who would admit to doing this, anyway? More importantly, need politicians be aware that they are attempting to do this to artificially garner support, or are all things fair in love, war and politics?

Censorship

When one thinks of movie censorship, one is wont to consider stodgy old men enforcing their horribly outdated beliefs upon the unsuspecting populace. By some quirk, they found themselves in a position to impose their ideologies, often to the chagrin to movie-goers like myself. In fact, I find it quite unethical to make me pay good money for a film, only to have a part of it cut out by the censorship board. Shouldn't I be reimbursed for the parts they didn't want me to see? Yeah...when I watch a movie without paying for it, it's theft. When they cut my movie while asking me to pay full price for it...hey that's the law.

Then again, most censors can only clip off some minutes from what would have been a say 1 1/2hr show. Arguably, those could be key parts and may even be highly amusing situations. All this pales in comparison to what directors do to get the film out to the silver screen. I'll bet they had to distill many many hours of footage to get to roughly the parts that they want the audience to see. (I'd be bored if I had to go through all that, so I'm actually grateful for it) And then they clip the few remaining hours yet further to satisfy the relative short attention spans of modern viewers. What we have as a result is a really trimmed piece of work.

Yes, the directors do indeed hack off far more than a film censor ever could. Of course, the censor could simply ban a particularly disturbing film. Me...I say keep a film intact (up the rating if necessary), or ban it. Clipping is just...blah.

Deindividuation?

It's amusing how the internet can serve as an equalizing force, diluting the perceived authority of people. What I found so far is that the moves people make online are more daring than they would when in person. Like, say, interaction with an important person. People are never intrinsically important. Their importance is a construct, granted by the will of the people around them for various reasons. I think it good that there is something out there that will help reduce that perceived authority, allowing them to be viewed by their own merit rather than some aura that may not exist out of the context of their station.

I especially like it that online communications make people more self-reflective. In trying to clarify their statements online, they are less likely to blurt out things that they otherwise would in person. More importantly, a written record exists of their statements, so they are unable to wheedle their way out of what they said on site.

Of course, all this is contingent on the captive audience. Should they be unwilling or unable to pay full attention to the exchanges, it is very easy for participants to get lost in conversation. Worse yet, deindividuation may lead to less than acceptable communication patterns...

Slaves To Laws

People who can only be disciplined by enforcement are little more than slaves. Obey my laws, or be whipped! It is an aspect of a free people, that they can learn to live with one another without the whip hanging over their heads. Of course, there are always penalties for flouting those laws. However, people who are free in the sense that they are not constrained by the laws but follow them freely are acting not because they fear penalties, but truly feel that the laws are right.

Yet it is unfortunate that people seem to bind themselves with the shackles of slavery in other forms. In the process of keeping their minds from law-breaking activities, they chain themselves with other things.

National Wholeness

Countries are generally pretty big nowadays. The national borders literally extend from the sight of one horizon and beyond. What does this achieve, however? Why do nations stay together? It is certainly not for the sake of efficiency. Understandably, smaller countries are easier to manage and can have greater efficiency of land use. They have fewer problems handling the diverse minorities that may become dissatisfied. Overall, it is often in the favor of a country to stay small.

Yet it seems that the expression of dominance over others is a very important theme in defining a nation. There are many examples of minorities wanting to break free, yet are violently prevented from doing so. Clearly, the nations fear that if they allowed one minority independence, the country would break up into its constituent dissatisfied minorities. Nice to stay together, except this seems to indicate that many countries are held together artificially, often with the threat of swift violence.

Perhaps it is exploitation, that nobody wants to surrender scarce resources. The gold mine is in the southern part of my land, and no way will I let minorities cede the area. Obviously, they are going to keep the gold for themselves, then they will come and dominate me. In the constant war of dominance and greed, there can be no efficiency. Ultimately, should the entire world come under a single leadership, they would still be little different from small independent states dealing with one another. Alternatively, a global hegemon may well have access to the sole military means to punish any detractors. Perhaps that is the miniature version we see in this day, the national hegemon that refuses to give any quarter...

Identity

Egoism is a trait often frowned upon by polite society. Humans are social creatures to the extent that even their identities are often created in relation to their chosen heroes. These heroes may be musicians, national leaders, religious figures. You name it. They'd follow it. Even in the formative teenage years, there is often a drive to become a part of something. Pacts are made between individuals. The emphasis here is on the group.

I wonder, though, since this all seems rather bizarre to me. Targets are set, like say this kid wants to grow up to be as great as Spiderman. Unrealistic, perhaps, but an ambition nonetheless. I guess I am rather more egoistic. Identity for me is something I'd draw from myself, not other people. Should my ambition be to strive for greatness, it will not be to be as great as Spiderman, but greater than myself. It will be an endless quest for refinement whereby the pinnacle of achievement shall only be acknowledged when I am satisfied by it.

This may sound strange or even unacceptable by those more socially-inclined. Still, I figure it better to refine oneself as an individual before one can contribute to a group. It sure beats diddling as a faceless member of the masses, feeling the false sense of wholeness through following everything else. Worse yet, that individual may become a leech, reliant on the shine of the masses and unwilling to improve oneself to contribute to that chosen group. If that isn't egoistic selfishness, I don't know what is.

Get Smart

Get Smart is a seriously funny show. It really is. I fear I am greatly in favor of shows that display non-crude slapstick humor. Anyway, yes, I do think Get Smart was good. heh.

One would never have thought that a spy agency thwarting a nucular strike would be this much fun. Here, we have a bumbling agent being let into the position he's been yearning for...for like pretty much all his professional existence. Pairs up with this seriously hot veteran agent, and wind up being a grand dynamic duo to prevent a nucular disaster by a nasty terrorist organization.

It's nice, how they reflected the jock/geek rivalry even in the agency. It's even better how they contrasted the academic prowess of dear Smart with the practical experience of Agent 99. Naturally, I'd be rooting for the academic =p And 99's hawwtness. Unfortunately, I am hardly well positioned to evaluate this show in relation to the 1965 series.

Overall I'd say this was a barrel of laughs, and I appreciate that even the jokes laced with innuendo were far from standard potty humor. That really made my day, alongside the spoofs of James Bond'esque gadgetry. I'd say...7.5/10?

Laws And People

There are times when I wonder at the laws. In a democracy, people elect their representatives. In any society, the laws are designed by the peoples' representatives to protect the peoples' interests. Therein lies a conflict of interest. The representatives may not necessarily know what the people truly want. As for the people, what they want may not necessarily be in their best interests.

Who watches the watchman, then? What is there to keep the representatives from deliberately creating laws in their own interests rather than that of the people? Yet it is clear that, however well-written a law can be, it's enforcement is really up to the will of the people. Even in the places where there are laws against discrimination, minority races still face difficulties finding jobs.
If there is a bias against the minorities, there is precious little that legislators can do.

Sex And The City

Some say it's the classic chick flick. This is a show devoid of your average Hollywood guns and violence. Me? I would agree. Unfortunately, I did not watch the Sex and the City series just yet, so I regret that many of the references will be lost on me. What fascinated me about the show, however, was the reverse product placements. Usually, product placements are done in a favourable light. In this case, an iPhone and a particular book were discarded offhand. I especially liked that.

Apart from the amusing small things, I was somewhat disappointed to find that the story was overly dramatized. I mean, sure, Carrie and Big may have some issues. However, the way they were put on an emotional roller-coaster just seemed to stretch the limits of the suspension of disbelief. To avoid providing spoilers, all I can say is that it was nearly as unbelievable as the overblown situations in Desperate Housewives.

Also, the happy ending was really quite cliched. In fact, I wouldn't say that the story as a whole was particularly original at all. I guess the real issue is that I did not feel like I learned any life lessons from the show. In a good chick flick, I've come to expect some deeper meaning than a dramatization over the theme of love. For that...I guess the show gets 7/10.

Odin

I saw a cat today. This cat I will remember for a long time. The cat had a single eye. His right eye was missing. In its place was an empty socket that was still weeping. Clearly, the cat had been attacked or abused. On closer inspection, the lack of injuries on the rest of the cat led me to believe it was abuse...by a human. The cat gave me a forlorn look, as if asking me what I was looking at. Well, for that I named him Odin. Odin, too, had a missing right eye, which he sacrificed for the sake of knowledge. Like Odin, he did strike me as a sort of trickster, and yeah, it was that look. I'll never forget that look.

The Fallen Hood

There was the most horrendous noise last night. It started off sounding like something snapping, twice, followed by an almighty crash. Naturally, the din woke the entire household. Mom was worrying that dad fell (a tad loud, even for him), I was grumpy at being awoken and dad just had to check it out. It turns out that our cooker hood had fallen.

Now, apart from the fact that it was pretty darned fortunate that nobody was hurt in the incident apart from the safety glass wok cover, I was musing at the cause of the mishap. Dad pointed out that the whole heavy rig was supported by two nails. Now that's some significant weight being put on two thin pieces of steel. By the looks of them, I wager they rusted through, causing the material to give way. Shoddy workmanship, undoubtedly. Nearly as bad as having a security keypad secured to the wall with double sided tape.

I did pity the wok cover, though. It was an innocent caught in the incident, and was sacrificed as a result. What I really liked was the sound of the safety glass still cracking and falling bit by bit, since the trauma was so recent. Thankfully, there were no dangerous glass shards left lying around. That would be quite unacceptable in a kitchen. Anyway, shoddy workmanship? Just say no, bub.

Conservatives

Conservatives can have the darnedest policies. I was reading about an anti-HIV campaign. Don't get me wrong, 'coz I think these are worthy efforts that will save lots of lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. However, despite their knowledge of the reality of HIV infections within the drug-user and gay communities, the authorities decided to leave the gays out of it.

Now, I understand that their national policies are probably against gays and all that, but why would a government deny their own people education in such a critical area? And that's especially since it's a high risk community that may spread disease beyond itself if the problem was allowed to go unchecked? In a situation like that, I think the people would be quite pissed that they are exposed to the risk of contracting a known fatal infection due to the inaction of their conservative leaders.

Egalitarian Ideologies

Until recently, it was probably impractical for egalitarian ideologies to be effected in most societies. Take for example the issue of equality of women. In the days of feudalism, a society where a woman was treated equal to a man (and thereby being made to do things like engage in warfare) would probably result in the society being whittled down and destroyed in an environment of total war. After all, keeping the population up is the name of the game in ancient feudal warfare, and that is something egalitarian societies may not be proficient at.

Later on, the advent of more advanced societies may have had the potential for increasing egalitarianism. This was not to be, unfortunately, given the relative efficiency of division of labour. Men specializing in "men's work" (whatever that is) and vice versa would probably have resulted in a society where people knew what they were meant to do, and could do it regularly, predictably and with minimal fuss. All this came before mass media, however, and doctrine was still a good way to ensure that things worked.

Today, we have the mass media. We have women being perfectly capable of performing men's work and vice versa. Why? The advent of machines should have taken the burden of physical labour from people in industrialized societies. With machines doing the work of dozens of men, there is no excuse for physical strength determining efficacy. With most work (and warfare) being done at the touch of a button(s), there is actually an advantage women have over men: superior fine manual dexterity and greater stamina. With the advent of formula milk, men can even take over some (if not all) nursing duties. So...with all of this, is it not intellectual laziness that women not learn to be competitive, and men not learn to be nurturing?

Crying Boredom

Everyone gets bored. That's perfectly normal. Even I get bored when being made to do repetitive things that don't seem to get anywhere. However, there is a chance that some are using boredom as an expression of control over their feelings of helplessness. After all, it is so simple to say that (insert issue) bores me. Nobody would really question it.

When one looks deeper, though, it may be found that those who claim boredom are really feeling completely helpless about an issue. Some may find that no amount of mulling over an issue will change anything, therefore the issue bores them (even if it affects them directly). It is perhaps this attitude that prevents the emergence of activism where it counts the most. While it is true that, as individuals, we are unlikely to be able to single-handedly reverse an issue, there is also a chance that large numbers of individuals will effect change.

This is not to say that a citizen group would magically cause global warming to go away, for instance. They probably cannot. But if they start influencing others and raising awareness, there is still a chance that their views will have more of an impact. After all, governments are merely human groups who have somehow managed to secure the support of the populace. People should stop feeling so disempowered, especially considering they are people no different from their respective governing authorities.

Kungfu Panda

It is a rare occasion when I watch a movie from beginning to end, through the end credits and to the snippet at the end, and still feel that it was totally worth my time. This is a show chock full of meaning, if one has the patience and inclination to go understand it. I am fairly amazed that Dreamworks managed to squeeze a zero body count (apart from the dream sequence) into a humorous story that can really get one thinking.

There’s something so unique about the show that I must comment about it: The screen never blacked out during the credits. The entire credits sequence had proper artwork for background. Now that’s pretty unique, considering even other animations often simply present the audience with a blank screen covered in credits.

That aside, I’d call this a coming of age story, whereby our intrepid panda decides to better himself and truly find out what his life is about. It was a nice touch that he defeated the ultra-violent snow leopard with largely nonviolent maneuvers. There are other themes like ascension, self-reflexivity, destiny and the ability to see beyond the surface.

I also loved the epic fight sequences, along with the equally epic but hilarious food duel. The production team sure knew how to get their drama down pat, well-laced with humor. The character development was well paced, and epiphanies strategically located.

Overall, I would give this animation a rare 9/10. I could’ve pushed for a 9.5, but unfortunately, even the well-implemented life lessons were quite typical. It can turn out to be a rather trite fable, if one is really used to this kinda stuff.

Tai Lung: A Reflection

Of the characters in the show, I certainly did not relate to the protagonist. I guess I come from the opposite side of the spectrum. Indeed, I am probably more like Tai Lung. That is, my constant quest for personal power. And what I am apt to do when things don’t go my way.

The truth being that I am quite a destroyer. In fact, it’s often that I’m proud of it. I suppose that would be a cause for worry, what I do when I reach the peak of my power. Currently, if someone offered me an opportunity to wipe everything from the face of the earth, I would. I guess it’s something like building up this huge store of knowledge, then dying with it. It benefits no one.

Sometimes I do want to be more caring, but it is a difficult thing for me. While I know at an intellectual level that hatred and destructiveness is a sign of weakness, at a certain visceral level I cannot help but feel that they are marks of strength. Independence. Power. It takes great strength to be forgiving and constructive, and by that logic I am brimming over with weakness. I can easily say that I am aware of this and shall think it over, but that would be skirting the issue. What I really need is a constant reminder on a moment by moment basis…

Cloverfield

Cloverfield is an American version of Godzilla. I mean, it's the same formula. Big, badassed monster storms into the city, thrashes the place and all that. Of course, they just had to toss in the obligatory offspring of the monster, along with the suggestion that the offspring somehow infest humans.

The show's pacing seems to have left something to be desired. I felt the show was leaving too many loose ends while dragging out the intro longer than it should have been. It would be better to simply cut the intro some and tie up some of the loose ends, like why the creature was spawning, why it was indestructible and what its offspring was doing.

Overall, this show turned out to be something of a drawn out survival horror flick. Being threatened by a huge monster and its offspring is something, but having that drawn out horror seemingly without any progress tends to get old pretty quickly. I suppose it could get 6.5/10 from me. Primarily because of what happens in the end.

Pass It On

Knowledge is a very useful thing. Learn enough, and one will be able to tackle a myriad problems and be savvy about many other things. There can probably never be enough learning, just as the fount of knowledge runs eternal.

However, it must also be noted that knowledge is worthless if it is not passed on. Information is meant to be free, and knowledge should be spread around for the betterment of others. Otherwise, what is known will die with the bearer. That feels selfish somehow. All that knowledge gone to waste. Therefore, it is far better to pass that knowledge on that it may grow and improve the lives of everyone else. Or it could destroy all of humanity. Don't really care which it is =p

Shallow Relationships

As people age, it seems that the friendships they establish become increasingly shallow. And this comes at a time when they self-profess to feel that friendships are important. When I was in high school, friendships had a way of lingering. Friends from that time period seldom forgot me, and would keep in touch. As I progressed through life, I found the kids at college could possibly click when working together on school stuff. It almost seemed like we had a good thing going. And then, shortly after the project was completed, they would communicate only as a courtesy and go no further. It is a strange thing. Extrapolate that to the reports I'm getting from friends fully in the work force, and it seems quite apparent that the quality of friendships are steadily going downhill.

It seems like hypocrisy, especially since there's always talk about how friendships are more important later in life, and that colleagues should be made friends and all that. From empirical evidence, I think it looks far more like it's important to stick to the friends you already have, and try your best to build the best possible friendships with the few who are still open to the idea. It gets trickier from here, since those acting really friendly may still be inclined to desert at the slightest sign of trouble. My friend is plagued by such problematic characters. Truly, with friends like these, who needs enemies? Oh wait...they do double duty.

While this may sound all bleak and defeatist, it does seem to be quite the case. Maybe with time I'll learn otherwise and I'll be glad that things are better than they seemed. What I do know for sure is that the people are getting increasingly guarded. I do not understand why it is so hard for people to open their hearts and be truly honest as far as they can. It's a good bit of catharsis, and I do not think being willing to open up is a sign of weakness. Of course, thank goodness I still have someone out there (along with a solid circle of some ones), and perhaps that will be enough to hold the fort.

Indie Jones

Another late night show. Walked home from the cinema with my friend...again. Man this is becoming a sweet sweet habit.

It's been such a long time since I watched an Indiana Jones flick that I've largely forgotten the characters apart from Indie and his dad. Sad, huh. Anyway, watching this show really requires you to check your sense of realism at the door. There's something known as willing suspension of disbelief, but I think this Indie took things a wee bit far.

I mean...surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge? Weird magnetism? I don't know about others, but I find it's a stretch even for my rather liberal interpretation of this current reality.

Anyway, I can't say that I didn't enjoy the film. Undoubtedly, the film retains some of the old Indiana Jones flavour, with the chase sequences and close shaves. It also follows the formula, involving some weird ancient artifact (spoiler: That, unfortunately, turned out to be not quite so rare). I still think that big UFO was a library ship.

Special effects and humorous quips aside, I think Indiana Jones is following a tired formula. The ending is utterly predictable given the roles of the different characters. The villain always gets
killed. The hero is always at the brink of disaster. For some inexplicable reason the baddies always get to the location before the hero can, or they manage to secure the area so the hero can't escape. So overall I'd give this show 6.5/10. I think that's a bit high, but then again I'm highly tolerant of breaches of reality. Reality is relative, after all.

On Superstition

Superstition is actually a surprisingly rational construct. When someone was telling me about my being superstitious, I was rudely shocked. Me? Superstitious? Irrationality did not seem like something I would readily tolerate in myself. Indeed, it is the in-depth scientific analysis that separates rationality (as we understand it) from superstition.

Take for example the omens of bad fortune. Here's a hypothetical situation: I see a black cat. It is my superstitious belief that it portends ill fortune (no, I don't, in reality). Naturally, it will be my approach to attempt to prove this belief to be true. That very day, I fell and scraped my knee. Clearly, this is a form of ill fortune. I think back to the other times when bad things befell me because of the presence of black cats. A pattern was obviously forming: Black cats are bad luck.

The approach is surprisingly rational. Every time a black cat turned up, I seemed to have ill fortune. It is the same for people who believe they have special powers, or that storms portend a downfall. The correlation is unmistakable. However, it is their failure to establish causality that was problematic. Correlation without causality is insufficient to draw a reasonably rational conclusion.

For all I knew, I did have accidents on a regular basis. I only noticed those when black cats were around. That, or black cats did not increase my accidents in a statistically significant way. Without accurate record-keeping and analysis of the data, it can be quite impossible to get a fairly rational conclusion. Selective memory would cloud that area of judgment.

Love, Truly?

A friend asked me a fascinating question some days back. It is a question I am still mulling over. Is it possible to be romantically in love with more than one person? The situation is like...if you're already with someone, can you tell the other that you love him/her?

Frankly, I don't know. For one, I've never actually been in romantic love so I guess it's impossible to know for sure what I'd be like in a situation like that. Maybe I'm incapable of romantic love. I don't know. But theoretically, if one can love others (i.e. care for them) and do so for a whole bunch of people out there, why can't one be the romantic lover of more than one?

Of course, I'm not equating love to sex. That just isn't it. Then again, how does one know what love truly is? Is it exclusive so that declaring your love to someone would lessen it for everyone else? Is it such intense lust (Goddess forbid!) that you can't let that person go? I don't know. But if I were to hazard a guess, my response would be that it is possible to love more than one person, without the sexual connotations. Sure, maybe one would probably love someone more than others, but I feel it's possible to love more than one person...equally. Yeah.

Heart Of The Swarm

When I got back this night, I was greeted by a rather spectacular sight: Thousands of flying ants had decided to swarm around the lights at the apartment block opposite mine. They probably started swarming due to the heavy downpour earlier today. It was quite something. Intimidating enough that most passers by were quite reluctant to pass through.

Naturally, I saw this as a photo op too good to give up, so I grabbed my camera and stood in their midst to take some shots. Strangely, the insects were quite reluctant to get in my hair and nostrils and all that. They barely touched me. If anything, they started swarming towards the other lights, leaving me with a dwindling pool of subjects. This seemed to be quite the opposite for most other people, who were frantically swatting bugs from their bodies. I figure the bugs thought I was a horrible nutter who was inclined to eat them or something. Despite the rather intimidating appearance of the swarm, my impression was significantly different. It was almost like being in the presence of fairies, with wings fluttering to a unified cadence, illuminated by the warm lighting. I don't think I've ever been in the midst of so many beating wings.

But the insects also reminded me of the ephemerality of life. These are due to be dead by the next morning. All the evidence of their existence are their half-eaten carcasses and wings littering the floor. As my friend so succinctly put it: Having sex, then dying. In the big picture, humans are very much like that. What makes a human? Strip away philosophy and learning and achievements, and you find a swarming creature that lives only to reproduce...

Where Will I Go?

Wanderlust. It’s an interesting thing. I suppose some of us are never satisfied with the places we are born in. I sure am not. Of course, realistically, I have an advantage on home turf because of familiarity and the presence of kith and kin. Sure…things will be hard in a foreign land, but I guess that’s where the excitement really is.

I mean, everyone hears tales of this and that place. That’s what they are: Tales. Stories and anecdotes. The world is a big place. It is not “everywhere else”. A bad experience in a far off city does not automatically condemn the entire country. I suppose, if anything, it is essential to get a taste of even bad experiences. At the very least, it will help one appreciate what one has.

If it were up to me, I’d uproot and wander the world. I would change country of residence every few years to see what everywhere is like. It is sad that the state of the world makes that a wee bit harder. For example the distrust of foreigners and the difficulty of finding work, closed borders due to fear of terrorism and all that. It is becoming increasingly hard to wander freely… Not to mention the language barriers and how to keep the funds coming to support this endeavour…

The More We Get Together…

…the harder things get. There is such a thing as a saturation point in relationships. I guess the adage “absence makes the heart grow fonder” does have some weight after all. Still, it needs a qualifier: Within reasonable limits.

It’s easy to get along with friends. However, I notice that most friends don’t exactly see one another on a daily basis. When that happens, things seem to go downhill rather more often. Take the case of married couples living together as opposed to a dating couple. Or how friends getting together to start a company can wind up becoming bitter enemies.

I have seen this happening even in my own friendships, where some start off really well but taper with prolonged contact. One of my schoolmates was so eager to know everything about me in the beginning, then we slowly ran out of stuff to talk about.

I guess it really is true that people need time to grow, and to be apart. Things change, and keeping one another abreast of developments is probably a good way to “catch up”. Yet when people are apart for too long, they grow distant and “you have changed” becomes a common enough parting phrase…

A Crackpot Scheme

Last night, I was walking to the train station when I was accosted by this man. He started fast-talking right after saying hi, and that was an instant turn-off already. Besides, it was in mandarin. But then he seemed desperate enough, so I figured I'd hear him out. After informing him that I wasn't particularly inclined to converse in mandarin, he switched to English.

He told me that he was on this entrepreneurship program and was required by his teacher to raise 100 bucks. *sarcastically* Wow. Then he told me his plan: Here's a box of paper clips. I'll sell them one by one for a dollar each, until I raise a hundred bucks. He said his rationale was that he couldn't possibly sell a box of clips for a hundred, so he'd do it piecemeal. What a crackpot scheme! I liked it so much that I'd have given him more than a dollar just to hear it.

Unfortunately, I would only give a dollar due to his delivery. For one, he tried to worm more money out of me by asking for two dollars. And then his fast-talking technique which nearly made me reflexively toss him away. Plus, he took too long to get to the point. If not for all these, I'd gladly give him 2 bucks. Hah!

Warhammer: Soulstorm

Ordinarily, I would not like Warhammer. I was never fond of the figurines, the concept and the whole pen and paper gig. Of course, that also meant discounting whatever universe it was that the community churned up. And then I encountered Soulstorm.

Now, that didn't quite get me to make a full 180 on my perceptions of the Warhammer universe. However, I really did like the game and it provided an interesting introduction to the dynamics of Warhammer. Naturally, I would like no faction more than the Sisters of Battle.

As a game, I loved it for its variety and balance. Some units may be more powerful than others, but even juggernaut-like units could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of lesser units. I do not think the storytelling was quite on par with Starcraft, unfortunately. Even after climatic battles, the cutscenes seemed to lack the oomph that Starcraft captured so artfully. Then again, it's hard to fault them given the sheer amount of content they had, with tales interwoven between the factions. I like stories told from the perspective of the various combatants.

Overall, I think it's a good enough game (and a nice introduction to the Warhammer universe) but it lacked one key element: Veterancy. Granted, it may be hard to balance, but it would be nice if units could get stronger the more they fight. That'd reward players for not squandering their units...

Storytellers

I miss the storytellers of old. Back then, stories were not set in stone. They had a structure, but were able to adapt themselves as the audience required. These days, the stories are fixed in order to cater to as many people as possible. In trying to satisfy everyone, they truly satisfy virtually no one.

The bards could spin a tale as and how the audience wanted. If they wanted to hear of a noble knight saving a princess, the bard could make it so. If the audience wanted the noble knight to fall while on his quest, it would be so. There was less impatience, with people willing to sit around hearing tales over a winter's fire instead of trying to get as much drama into a short stint as they could. Perhaps that lack of overtness in the tales was also stimulating enough to the imagination that it bred storytellers of its own.

I like the idea of the dreamtime, and how stories can come from the other planes and affect the realities elsewhere. In a way, the story is always real someplace, somewhere. No matter how absurd the story turned out to be, it was true. Of course, that bit of enchantment was probably lost as well. Apart from children, few audiences are willing to accept what would be widely regarded as illogical storytelling...

On Wanderers

If the destination is more important than the journey, the wanderer has no reason to journey. A single trip to the destination will suffice, for after which there is nothing more to explore except at the place of comfort.

Just yesterday, I felt the wanderlust again. It was like the calling of the runes, the summoning of my past. I seem to have a fascination with the runes and the concept of walking between worlds. Perhaps some would figure I'm the shaman type, neither fully in this world nor every other. There is something to detaching oneself from the prison of the body and exploring everything else within reach.

Some would call it the Dreamtime. Others the dreamwalkers or astral travellers. They come by many names, but the ideas are similar. I was never fond of divination and neither do I believe in the fates. We are free to make our own fates, which makes us the wanderers. Of divination, no future can be certain and a casting can only call up a probable future which is little different from every other possible future. Yet I feel that the runes have a power, and can be a useful guide.

It is strange how I can have encountered them so long ago in the past, yet come across them yet again entirely by chance. I was at the library and saw a novel about someone using runes. In addition to awakening an ancient call within my blood, it also made me seek out places with a sense of mystery. While wandering, I chanced upon two stores that stocked the esoteric paraphernalia I knew back then. Ah, well...the gut knows, and it leads true.

Beowulf

I rented that CGI flick Beowulf. Frankly, the first thing that turned me off about it was that it was CGI. CGI blood never looks as nice as the physical theatrical variety. That aside, I think Beowulf was a rather interesting retelling of the old epic.

For one thing, I really pitied Grendel this time round. I always wondered about what it would be like to tell the tale from the perspective of Grendel and his mother. Nobody really cares about the lives of monsters, only the fact that humans were killed by them. Then again, it's always the humans killing the monsters in the end. Seems to be roughly the same thing, if you ignore the they-started-it-first argument. This time, Grendel was a rather pitiful creature, and seemed frightened rather than purely vicious.

Overall, I think the main thing that sold me on the movie would have to be the epic battle sequences. I especially liked the demon thing Beowulf did: Damaging himself so he could slay the monster. It is not a typical human approach to a problem. I can't really say that the movie is original, since the story has been retold like a zillion times. However, I do appreciate the retelling of the story. It highlights the weakness of men, and I think it was a fair interpretation of the key themes. That means it earns 7/10

An Inhumane Experiment

If I were asked to do an inhumane experiment, the first thing I would try involves investigating whether the human “need” for social contact is a product of nature or nurture. As things stand, many are convinced that the average human shows signs of distress in isolation. Indeed, this is corroborated by the effects of social isolation on the shipwrecked or even in isolation wards in prisons. However, it cannot be denied that these were distressing situations to begin with, and those humans in question were brought up to crave social contact.

Thus, a trio of experimental groups will have to be formed. There will be 1) a control group brought up from birth in a normal environment 2)another without any social contact 3) and one with nonhuman social contact. After bringing the test subjects up for 25 years (25 being the end of the major pubertal phases, and presumably cemented neural pathways at their peak), they will be put together in different combinations to see whether they would make attempts at social contact.

Naturally, it is expected that 1 will attempt social contact at all times. However, the outcomes for the other two are unknown thus far. If humans are social by nature, groups 2 and 3 will attempt to make social contact, but find themselves limited by their training. 2 would not know how to communicate, but would attempt to set up some kind of protocol for communication. 3 would probably have no trouble switching from nonhuman social contact to regular interpersonal contact.

However, if social neediness were the result of nurture, 2 would have learned to live without social contact and make no attempt whatsoever at relating to the other two groups. 3 would resume their nonhuman communication protocols and not bother with that, as well.

Confounding factors, of course, would include the fact that just about any committee would regard this experiment as inhumane, for reasons obvious to them. We also have the case of group 3 basically having social contact, albeit through nonhuman media. After all, even books are written by humans and constitute a form of social contact, just as contact with animals counts as social contact of another sort.

Hell

It does make sense after all. Hell is a place you put yourself in until you feel better. After all, we have our own demons to fight. They could be from actions, inactions or just about any other nasty/regrettable event encountered. The best thing is that we go into a place of suffering to experience them, again and again and again...until they die.

Slaying a demon is not easy. It's certainly not like what Buffy or every other "demon slayer" on Hollywood flicks. I think the funniest thing is that the demon is basically slain when you realize you don't have to fight it anymore. That the event that spawned it is no longer relevant and can be put aside. That is probably the best form of punishment, and it is entirely self-inflicted.

Everyone can get out of their personal hell. The catch is, of course, people kill their demons over and over again. After all that killing, they forget to forgive themselves, and resurrect their demons anew. The cycle ends only when people finally decide they do not want to stay. Some prefer to stay on...

Hitman: The Movie

I always watch movies based on games with extreme trepidation. It is always too easy to mess up the core story with a shoddy attempt at dramatizing it. I understand that not all games make for good movies, and Hitman is one of the many that certainly won't. Sneaking around won't cut it for the average gunfire addicts, so I expected some artistic license with the show.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that they did stick mostly to the subject matter. Number 47 is still the (mostly) heartless asexual contract killer. When I saw 47 with a woman on the promo posters, along with guns blazing in the trailer, I was beginning to worry that he had gone over to the dork side. Granted, he was way too tender for my taste and talked too much in the movie, but I suppose it was an essential part of the dramatization. After all, he did redeem himself by promptly sedating Nika as she tried to seduce him.

Of course, as a fan of the game series, I was disappointed that our dear 47 was attempting to get a Mass Murderer rating by pretty much slaughtering everyone he encountered. I am still puzzling over the assassins showdown, too. Swords instead of guns? That doesn't sound like my Toby at all! The one I know would simply shoot them all...if he even got into the situation in the first place. I'm sure there was plenty of room to insert some really sneaky killing, presumably making the process humorous or thrilling at the same time.

I think the movie deserves a 3/5. Primarily because of what they did to my Toby. I do not regret watching this on rental because I would have felt it was a waste of my movie money.

Iron Man

I think perhaps the Iron Man movie will be one of my more memorable outings. I was watching it with my friend at like 9.45pm. By the time the movie ended, it was pretty late (or early) and we were feeling peckish. The natural approach here would be to go grab a night snack, since we jolly well knew we were going to miss the bus anyway. After a nice long chat at Macs, we decided against taking a cab. So yeah...it was basically me and him walking back till the wee hours of the morning, with sporadic worried calls from both our moms. Ok maybe that was a bit irresponsible, but I think it was fun. Going out at night is way better than in the daytime, along with a bit of spice knowing that it's also easier to get ambushed then =p

Anyway, I loved the movie and it's not from the afterglow of having a nice long night walk. I think they managed to somewhat capture Tony Stark's personality, peppered with the amusing process of him working on the improved Iron Man suit. (I shall refrain from snickering at the name "Iron" Man, at this juncture).

Seeing as how this was based on the comic, I figure there's little to comment on except for the fact that I'm always at least mildly peeved when movie makers inject some contemporary political concerns into the films. Granted, it makes them feel more "authentic" but I cannot help but see that as a passing attempt at flag-waving.

Overall, I liked the movie for the characters, special effects and especially the obligatory showdown. The exploration of corruption in a business context is also interesting, albeit cliched to the extent that my friend could see what was coming the moment he saw that big boss Tony Stark had a lackey. I'd say this one deserves 3.5/5. It would have been 4, if not for that particular Afghanistan scene. Oh, and no I didn't add any points due to my night outing. =p

Bad Teacher

I found a major character flaw in myself, and it is something that must be rectified through careful balancing. It would come under the wider classification of not practising what one preaches. Me...I like it that people keep an open mind about just about anything. If something is contrary to their beliefs, the nice thing to do would be to evaluate that on its own merits and decide for themselves whether the contrary view is a worthy addition to their own belief systems.

Me...I find myself having a knee jerk reaction to such views. That is, my carefully analyzed world view is set such that anything contrary would actually force a review of large segments of it. In fact, acknowledging certain alternative views would imply that my initial logic was faulty. This need not be so, and thus it is actually a logical flaw in itself. After all, alternative views can coexist and this may even be dependent on the concept. Count this as a self-reminder not to automatically screen out alternative views, Fenris.

Being such a bad learner at times, it casts a pall on my liking to be a teacher. In a personal sense rather than academic, of course. A bad learner has a tendency to teach yet more bad learners. It is a chain that must be broken. Then again, problems exist only because they are waiting to be fixed...

Universe At Production

I guess today would have counted as fairly productive. Got back, had dinner, played some games and actually gotten down to tidying my room. It's really the tidying bit that made my day. Sometimes it's just sickening how I can let things get like post-hurricane messy and leave them that way because I just don't have the time/inclination to getting down to actually working on clearing the mess. I mean...there are so many other things to learn and stuff to do. Who has time for the mundane unnecessary things like tidying? Ok...at least till it reaches the stage where it's hard to get into your own room. That's a sign, I tell you.

Anyway, I think I'll have to tell Universe at War: I quit. For starters, it started lagging like mad on my comp for no apparent reason. That's a fine dealbreaker. Especially considering it was running just great a day back. But I just feel so sad about how such a nice game could have wound up so poorly implemented in single player. I mean, it's well balanced, has some unique takes on the RTS faction warfare and it doesn't let humans take centerstage in the narrative. Yet they saw fit to totally remove the research tree from single player and provide such a terribly cliched story.

Ok so maybe I'm a bit different from the gamers who play for the multiplayer. I'm quite the exclusively single player sort. At the very least, single player should serve as a sort of tutorial for multiplayer mode, introducing the player to the ins and outs of how the factions operate. They seem to have decided to leave that out here. Comparing the story to Starcraft, they just seemed to have a knack for hitting all the wrong spots when cooking up cutscenes. Where Tassadar's sacrifice was heart-wrenching, the Founder's sacrifice was really rather an anticlimax. Where Fenix's doom was merely suggested, Orlok's death was taken to unnecessary detail and left nothing to the imagination. I guess I'm going to need some cool down time before I decide to take this up again and actually finish it off.

V Revisited

V For Vendetta is a remarkable comic series. I think this will have to be the third time I've gone over it. Yet I seem to get something out of it every time I reread. This time, it reminded me of what I stand for, and sporadically fight for: Anarchy.

There is a difference between anarchy and plain chaos. Truly, it is between a land of do-as-you-please, against a chaotic barbaric landscape of take-as-you-please. The authorities take issue with the concept of people coexisting peacefully without a fascist leadership in place. They are right to do so. After all, who would need them, when everyone learns how to get along?

Of course, reading it also gets me really sad. My favorite hero dies, only to have another live on for him. Like V, my idea of a perfect society is almost pure wishful thinking. But like V, ideas are bulletproof.