I've recently been studying iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) - cells reprogrammed from a mature state to mimic human embryonic stem cells. Theoretically this means any cell in the body can be modified to differentiate into any other - a technique that can be used to grow specific cells, tissues or even whole organs. Their therapeutic potential is near endless.
Specifically, iPS cells are touted as the ethically sound alternative to using human embryos for experimentation and treatment. Most moral objections with stem cell experimentation revolve around the idea of using foetal tissue. Countless arguments exist, but I will simplify these (forgive me) under "rights to life". The embryo destroyed could be the next President or Einstein - what right do we have to prevent this?
iPS cells are not obtained from fertilised eggs but they are capable of producing cells from every germ layer of the relevant organism. In theory, this also means that if uninterrupted they will grow into a clone of the original cell donor [For the more science inclined reader: these cells may not be totipotent and without a placenta or host these embryos cannot be viable, but this is mostly true of embryonic stem cells too].
What is the difference between the human embryo and the man-made one? The only difference is origin, not potential. Are naturally created embryos in any way superior to their artificial counter-parts? Do they deserve different treatment?
I find myself thinking if something looks, swims and quacks like a duck then isn't it a duck? Surely this organism, regardless of source, has the same right to life as any other fertilised egg? Personally, my belief is that embryos have no rights at all, but the double standard seems unreasonable.
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Monday, 5 July 2010
Thoughts on Consciousness
I've killed several insects recently. For some reason this has left me with a strange, but small, sense of guilt. It's probably very revealing about the inner workings of my psyche that this event and emotion have made me all philosophical.
First I placed myself in the 'shoes' of this mosquito, happily flying around, looking forward to its next meal - probably a nice quart of my fresh blood. Of course, this 'empathy' was deeply flawed. The mosquito cannot be 'happy' for it lacks the central nervous system needed to feel this emotion. Nor can it 'look forward' to anything.
If I remember correctly, woodlice move their legs dependent not on 'thought' or 'feeling' but simply because light speeds up the chemical reaction in their legs, making them move more quickly, therefore making them move away from light. A simple mechanism that I imagine makes them hidden from predators and move closer to a food source.
It might be fair to say that this woodlouse is not more complicated than a simple machine. In fact, we, as humans, have built far more complicated machines than this woodlouse. The mechanism I described wouldn't be out of place in a child's toy.
As always, technological advances force us to redefine our understanding of the world around us. We have created synthetic machines that are, in many respects, more advanced than basic lifeforms. Does that not mean that one day we will be able to create machines more advanced than us? What then is the makeup of the greatest mystery of human existence - what is consciousness?
I would not say the woodlouse is a conscious being and I would not say a child's toy is either. Knowing this, I would have no qualms about 'killing' either of these things arbitrarily. I would equally feel no guilt for destroying the most advanced computer in the world (other than for the cost of damages, of course). I would not feel like a life has been taken.
I would feel this guilt if, for instance, I killed a fellow mammal. A friend showed me this rather brutal video (which is possibly the most NSFW thing I've seen since 2girls1cup). It does feel bad seeing animals in distress.
This is of course due to the very noticeable and very 'human' expression of distress. However, if there were a completely new (possibly alien) species than we knew had equal 'consciousness' to a cow (or any mammal) but did not show their distress (perhaps they do not even feel any) I would still feel more guilty than I would do destroying a computer.
Why is this? Why do organisms have more value than synthetic beings, even though their ability to 'think' is very similar? In fact you could argue that everyday computers are far better at 'thinking' than we are. I'm fairly sure there are super computers that exist that have more overall processing power than the human brain (which by the way is remarkable for its size - evolution FTW). By comparison these machines are worthless in and of themselves. Their 'life', their 'thought' has no value.
After killing the aforementioned mosquito, I sat on the toilet and thought hard about what does have value and why, eventually reaching the following conclusion. The difference between the bug, the computer, the mammal and us humans, is the complexity and diversity of our sensations, thought and responses.
In a sense, the computer and the insect are the same. They have no desires, no wishes. They are both machines based on very simple architectures. The computer has vast processing power, capable of sums no human can do, but it cannot choose to do anything. It simply responds to a stimulus and acts directly upon it. The relationship between stimulus and response is hard or softwired.
Humans and animals are slightly more complicated. Whilst, to a degree, we are also hard and softwired, we appear not to be. Much of this is due to the complexity of our 'hardware'. We actually have many distinct outcomes that, due to the limitation of our brains, we cannot quantify (however, perhaps there is a species somewhere in the universe that will look upon us in the same way we look at insects?).
Anyway, the point is that our complexity comes from our ability to receive data from wide ranges of 'sources' that are often in conflict. The insect does not think in the same way we do because it never has to choose between biting someone/thing or running away. This decision is made entirely based on direct stimuli.
Humans have to receive 'inputs' (I use this term for lack of a better word) in the form of desires, personality, emotions, sensations and thoughts. Decisions are made based on these (and probably many other) things. Even a cow has to choose whether to keep finding food, or lay down because it's tired or moody. These might not be choices in the same way that humans have to choose, but they're certainly far closer than a computer ever gets.
If computers eventually develop the same level of complexity in their thinking and develop their own needs, aspirations and sensations then I believe I would feel guilty for ending a computer's 'life'.
Hey, it might all be bollocks. I'm currently very tired (writing this at 2am) and I suspect this whole post is very poorly written. I'm also very aware of how debatable each aspect of the argument is, particularly because, to my knowledge, the language needed for much of this discussion doesn't currently exist in the mainstream (and more importantly, in my vocabulary). I'll probably read this back tomorrow and think it's all ridiculous. Either way, I can say I had a eureka moment on the toilet, so the whole experience was worthwhile.
ADDENDUM:
Here's a simplified, tabulated version of what I was trying to say before. Hope it makes some sense
Update: July 29th 2010
I reread this and here is my self-commentary:
Is this an attempt to rationalise the irrational? The guilt is an emotion triggered (supposedly) by my connection to other sentient beings. Why do I even give this life value above others? Most likely because I, as many humans do, define myself mostly by my sentience. "I think, therefore I am". My concept of identity and individuality is centered around consciousness. I have placed value in these things, therefore I project these values onto other sentient beings. I connect with them. I feel for them in a way I cannot for non-sentient beings that don't value these things.
It is somewhat simplistic to say that all action is selfishly motivated - mostly because it implies negativity - but it does serve as a reminder that the only way we can ultimately judge the consequences of our actions is by the emotion it makes us feel. I myself am guilty of forgetting this. To try to quantify the value of life by its resemblance to the 'human experience' is deeply flawed. In this attempt I was fairly oblivious to the ridiculousness of the endeavour.
That's not to say, however, that the system does not have its merits. In fact I still believe much of what I wrote. Much of the understanding will most likely be robust enough to serve its purpose as my personal guideline. Nevertheless I am aware that in all likelihood, millennia from now, this view will be looked back upon as inhumane.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is that morality in this form is an attempt to process and make sense of [thought] something that we cannot easily process [emotion]. In this case, I was not trying to find 'truth' exactly , but rather to process my guilt for killing the insect. Without the emotion, I would not feel the need to compare the value of life and my only way of judging whether I have been 'correct' in my comparison is the alleviation from that guilt.
In the end, morality is still irrational and no amount of thinking can change that. Of course, it is deeply important from a personal perspective as well as a sociological one. It's just something I feel it's important to be aware of...
First I placed myself in the 'shoes' of this mosquito, happily flying around, looking forward to its next meal - probably a nice quart of my fresh blood. Of course, this 'empathy' was deeply flawed. The mosquito cannot be 'happy' for it lacks the central nervous system needed to feel this emotion. Nor can it 'look forward' to anything.
If I remember correctly, woodlice move their legs dependent not on 'thought' or 'feeling' but simply because light speeds up the chemical reaction in their legs, making them move more quickly, therefore making them move away from light. A simple mechanism that I imagine makes them hidden from predators and move closer to a food source.
It might be fair to say that this woodlouse is not more complicated than a simple machine. In fact, we, as humans, have built far more complicated machines than this woodlouse. The mechanism I described wouldn't be out of place in a child's toy.
As always, technological advances force us to redefine our understanding of the world around us. We have created synthetic machines that are, in many respects, more advanced than basic lifeforms. Does that not mean that one day we will be able to create machines more advanced than us? What then is the makeup of the greatest mystery of human existence - what is consciousness?
I would not say the woodlouse is a conscious being and I would not say a child's toy is either. Knowing this, I would have no qualms about 'killing' either of these things arbitrarily. I would equally feel no guilt for destroying the most advanced computer in the world (other than for the cost of damages, of course). I would not feel like a life has been taken.
I would feel this guilt if, for instance, I killed a fellow mammal. A friend showed me this rather brutal video (which is possibly the most NSFW thing I've seen since 2girls1cup). It does feel bad seeing animals in distress.
This is of course due to the very noticeable and very 'human' expression of distress. However, if there were a completely new (possibly alien) species than we knew had equal 'consciousness' to a cow (or any mammal) but did not show their distress (perhaps they do not even feel any) I would still feel more guilty than I would do destroying a computer.
Why is this? Why do organisms have more value than synthetic beings, even though their ability to 'think' is very similar? In fact you could argue that everyday computers are far better at 'thinking' than we are. I'm fairly sure there are super computers that exist that have more overall processing power than the human brain (which by the way is remarkable for its size - evolution FTW). By comparison these machines are worthless in and of themselves. Their 'life', their 'thought' has no value.
After killing the aforementioned mosquito, I sat on the toilet and thought hard about what does have value and why, eventually reaching the following conclusion. The difference between the bug, the computer, the mammal and us humans, is the complexity and diversity of our sensations, thought and responses.
In a sense, the computer and the insect are the same. They have no desires, no wishes. They are both machines based on very simple architectures. The computer has vast processing power, capable of sums no human can do, but it cannot choose to do anything. It simply responds to a stimulus and acts directly upon it. The relationship between stimulus and response is hard or softwired.
Humans and animals are slightly more complicated. Whilst, to a degree, we are also hard and softwired, we appear not to be. Much of this is due to the complexity of our 'hardware'. We actually have many distinct outcomes that, due to the limitation of our brains, we cannot quantify (however, perhaps there is a species somewhere in the universe that will look upon us in the same way we look at insects?).
Anyway, the point is that our complexity comes from our ability to receive data from wide ranges of 'sources' that are often in conflict. The insect does not think in the same way we do because it never has to choose between biting someone/thing or running away. This decision is made entirely based on direct stimuli.
Humans have to receive 'inputs' (I use this term for lack of a better word) in the form of desires, personality, emotions, sensations and thoughts. Decisions are made based on these (and probably many other) things. Even a cow has to choose whether to keep finding food, or lay down because it's tired or moody. These might not be choices in the same way that humans have to choose, but they're certainly far closer than a computer ever gets.
If computers eventually develop the same level of complexity in their thinking and develop their own needs, aspirations and sensations then I believe I would feel guilty for ending a computer's 'life'.
Hey, it might all be bollocks. I'm currently very tired (writing this at 2am) and I suspect this whole post is very poorly written. I'm also very aware of how debatable each aspect of the argument is, particularly because, to my knowledge, the language needed for much of this discussion doesn't currently exist in the mainstream (and more importantly, in my vocabulary). I'll probably read this back tomorrow and think it's all ridiculous. Either way, I can say I had a eureka moment on the toilet, so the whole experience was worthwhile.
ADDENDUM:
Here's a simplified, tabulated version of what I was trying to say before. Hope it makes some sense
Update: July 29th 2010
I reread this and here is my self-commentary:
Is this an attempt to rationalise the irrational? The guilt is an emotion triggered (supposedly) by my connection to other sentient beings. Why do I even give this life value above others? Most likely because I, as many humans do, define myself mostly by my sentience. "I think, therefore I am". My concept of identity and individuality is centered around consciousness. I have placed value in these things, therefore I project these values onto other sentient beings. I connect with them. I feel for them in a way I cannot for non-sentient beings that don't value these things.
It is somewhat simplistic to say that all action is selfishly motivated - mostly because it implies negativity - but it does serve as a reminder that the only way we can ultimately judge the consequences of our actions is by the emotion it makes us feel. I myself am guilty of forgetting this. To try to quantify the value of life by its resemblance to the 'human experience' is deeply flawed. In this attempt I was fairly oblivious to the ridiculousness of the endeavour.
That's not to say, however, that the system does not have its merits. In fact I still believe much of what I wrote. Much of the understanding will most likely be robust enough to serve its purpose as my personal guideline. Nevertheless I am aware that in all likelihood, millennia from now, this view will be looked back upon as inhumane.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is that morality in this form is an attempt to process and make sense of [thought] something that we cannot easily process [emotion]. In this case, I was not trying to find 'truth' exactly , but rather to process my guilt for killing the insect. Without the emotion, I would not feel the need to compare the value of life and my only way of judging whether I have been 'correct' in my comparison is the alleviation from that guilt.
In the end, morality is still irrational and no amount of thinking can change that. Of course, it is deeply important from a personal perspective as well as a sociological one. It's just something I feel it's important to be aware of...
Friday, 18 June 2010
Prime Minister's Questions (16.06.10)
Well it seems I gave Cameron too much credit last time. I praised his ability to recognise successes from both parties. Methinks I spoke too soon.
This week he was brutal, responding to all of Harman's questions by attacking the former government. As I said in my last post, I hate this. Particularly when it's used as an evasive strategy to avoid questions on difficult subjects. The blame game is old politics, not 'new'.
There was some fierce debate on the unemployment figures (that was cleared up here). During this argument the Prime Minister was noticeably arrogant and bitter. Much more like the privileged public schoolboy act I abhor. I'm a keen believer in personality being a key factor in good leadership - Cameron hardly showed his best side.
It was sad to see Clegg nodding along. Much of what he symbolised was a different, more moderate, balanced approach to politics. During the election campaign, he mostly seemed to shy away from the political point-scoring. He was hardly squeaky-clean, but he did seem the best of the party leaders. It's strange to see him now supporting Cameron's shameless Labour-bashing. Admittedly I don't think I've ever seen a man look so uncomfortable doing it, but he is doing it.
As far as I'm concerned, Simon Hughes is the de facto leader of the Liberal Democrats and Clegg is just stuck as a pretty useless member of the cabinet. His role should be bringing Lib Dem policy to the forefront of the argument. Instead, he seems suffocated in a government he can never fully support. I can imagine him becoming increasingly frustrated with his position. Particularly as Cameron will spread his wings further and their differences will become far more apparent.
This week he was brutal, responding to all of Harman's questions by attacking the former government. As I said in my last post, I hate this. Particularly when it's used as an evasive strategy to avoid questions on difficult subjects. The blame game is old politics, not 'new'.
There was some fierce debate on the unemployment figures (that was cleared up here). During this argument the Prime Minister was noticeably arrogant and bitter. Much more like the privileged public schoolboy act I abhor. I'm a keen believer in personality being a key factor in good leadership - Cameron hardly showed his best side.
It was sad to see Clegg nodding along. Much of what he symbolised was a different, more moderate, balanced approach to politics. During the election campaign, he mostly seemed to shy away from the political point-scoring. He was hardly squeaky-clean, but he did seem the best of the party leaders. It's strange to see him now supporting Cameron's shameless Labour-bashing. Admittedly I don't think I've ever seen a man look so uncomfortable doing it, but he is doing it.
As far as I'm concerned, Simon Hughes is the de facto leader of the Liberal Democrats and Clegg is just stuck as a pretty useless member of the cabinet. His role should be bringing Lib Dem policy to the forefront of the argument. Instead, he seems suffocated in a government he can never fully support. I can imagine him becoming increasingly frustrated with his position. Particularly as Cameron will spread his wings further and their differences will become far more apparent.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Prime Minister's Questions: Cameron's Second. My First.
This was my first time seeing Cameron on PMQs. I've never been a huge fan, because I find myself frustrated seeing the argument never go anywhere. However, this time I was glued to the screen. There was real debate here.
First off, Cameron deserves credit for his performance. He was confident and convincing. His PR skills are certainly far better than Brown's ever were. This will be very important throughout his term as leader. With harsh cuts on the way he will need to utilise this skill to keep the British public on his side.
Whilst I certainly don't instinctively agree with the policy decisions of the Tory government, they are (at least mostly) in power. It's reassuring to see a leader that listens and responds even to his opposition.
Cameron certainly argued his case well, and at times I found myself agreeing with him. I'm not sure about CCTV or Iraq/Afghanistan, but he did make a clear case about gun laws and redrawing constituency boundaries.
Many commentators claim that Harman failed to land any real blows against Cameron's electoral policy, but I feel she made an incredibly good point about electoral registration. I doubt this will change the coalition's policy, but it does stick in my mind.
Conversely I can see Cameron's point about Labour not sorting this out in their time in Government. I don't think that's a good enough argument to ignore it now, but it's still a good point.
I still can't side with his views on the failures of the previous government, but it's nice to know that it's unlikely we have another Thatcher on our hands. Whatever my beliefs are, much of the country are quite angered by the last 13 years of Labour government. The situation could be much worse.
I have to admit that I'm still on the side of the coalition. I want this to work out because I think it's in the country's long term interest for governments to be open and break the long-standing tradition of partisan, two-party politics. I can't say the same for all of Tory policy, but I recognise that Cameron is a far more open and progressive Tory leader than any before him. In many ways I prefer his personality to Gordon Brown's, who I found could be unnecessarily stubborn on important changes in policy.
First off, Cameron deserves credit for his performance. He was confident and convincing. His PR skills are certainly far better than Brown's ever were. This will be very important throughout his term as leader. With harsh cuts on the way he will need to utilise this skill to keep the British public on his side.
Whilst I certainly don't instinctively agree with the policy decisions of the Tory government, they are (at least mostly) in power. It's reassuring to see a leader that listens and responds even to his opposition.
Cameron certainly argued his case well, and at times I found myself agreeing with him. I'm not sure about CCTV or Iraq/Afghanistan, but he did make a clear case about gun laws and redrawing constituency boundaries.
Many commentators claim that Harman failed to land any real blows against Cameron's electoral policy, but I feel she made an incredibly good point about electoral registration. I doubt this will change the coalition's policy, but it does stick in my mind.
Conversely I can see Cameron's point about Labour not sorting this out in their time in Government. I don't think that's a good enough argument to ignore it now, but it's still a good point.
I still can't side with his views on the failures of the previous government, but it's nice to know that it's unlikely we have another Thatcher on our hands. Whatever my beliefs are, much of the country are quite angered by the last 13 years of Labour government. The situation could be much worse.
I have to admit that I'm still on the side of the coalition. I want this to work out because I think it's in the country's long term interest for governments to be open and break the long-standing tradition of partisan, two-party politics. I can't say the same for all of Tory policy, but I recognise that Cameron is a far more open and progressive Tory leader than any before him. In many ways I prefer his personality to Gordon Brown's, who I found could be unnecessarily stubborn on important changes in policy.
V Pliot
I'm a sucker for sci-fi. When I heard about V I couldn't help but be at least a little interested. I don't know much about the original 1983 series, but I thought I might as well watch an episode of the reboot.
To get straight to the point, the pilot was really good. However, I'll admit now that it did have a rather big 'wow factor' that I'm not sure they'll be able to maintain for the rest of the series. The special effects were some of the best I've ever seen for a TV show. There's little chance the budget will allow for that kind of spectacle every week.
The characters introduced were interesting and mostly 'real' (ok, so they're sometimes cheesy, but they mostly get away with it). There's some (albeit limited) chemistry between the actors that's unspectacular, but watchable. Also, two words - Alan Tudyk.
As with much of good sci-fi, the genius truly lies in the subtext. There was a fair amount of exposition to help demonstrate what the show will attempt to explore. There was clear mention of indoctrination (and parallels drawn with religious extremism), parental responsibility (and teenage rebellion - itself paralleled with political rebellion) and political corruption. These themes will almost certainly play a big role in the show overall. So far they've been compelling and I hope the writers can keep it up.
Whilst I can't say I truly believe that the series will continue to be as good as this episode, I think the creators deserve credit for making an excellent pilot. The plot and characters are laid out clearly and the direction was used very effectively to help tell the story. The image on screen is often contrasted with the dialogue to highlight differences in characters' viewpoints and, conversely, to draw parallels between other characters. The dialogue itself is quite clever and often carries dual meanings. I get the feeling this has all been very well thought out.
In addition, the episode was well-paced and there were interesting, believable plot points that moved the story along. I didn't notice any examples of lazy writing or deus ex machina. This is often a dead giveaway of a poor sci-fi show. If the same attention to detail is given to the whole season then this show could really work. I hope it does.
To get straight to the point, the pilot was really good. However, I'll admit now that it did have a rather big 'wow factor' that I'm not sure they'll be able to maintain for the rest of the series. The special effects were some of the best I've ever seen for a TV show. There's little chance the budget will allow for that kind of spectacle every week.
The characters introduced were interesting and mostly 'real' (ok, so they're sometimes cheesy, but they mostly get away with it). There's some (albeit limited) chemistry between the actors that's unspectacular, but watchable. Also, two words - Alan Tudyk.
As with much of good sci-fi, the genius truly lies in the subtext. There was a fair amount of exposition to help demonstrate what the show will attempt to explore. There was clear mention of indoctrination (and parallels drawn with religious extremism), parental responsibility (and teenage rebellion - itself paralleled with political rebellion) and political corruption. These themes will almost certainly play a big role in the show overall. So far they've been compelling and I hope the writers can keep it up.
Whilst I can't say I truly believe that the series will continue to be as good as this episode, I think the creators deserve credit for making an excellent pilot. The plot and characters are laid out clearly and the direction was used very effectively to help tell the story. The image on screen is often contrasted with the dialogue to highlight differences in characters' viewpoints and, conversely, to draw parallels between other characters. The dialogue itself is quite clever and often carries dual meanings. I get the feeling this has all been very well thought out.
In addition, the episode was well-paced and there were interesting, believable plot points that moved the story along. I didn't notice any examples of lazy writing or deus ex machina. This is often a dead giveaway of a poor sci-fi show. If the same attention to detail is given to the whole season then this show could really work. I hope it does.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
The Boondocks
The Boondocks follows two black kids from inner-city Chicago who've been sent to live with their rich uncle in the suburbs. The story itself is not hugely important, but it provides the set up for what this show does best - social satire and biting political commentary.
The whole show acts as window through which the writer expresses his viewpoint as a true disillusioned 'African American'. So rarely does it seem that any black TV writer gets the opportunity to express their views this way without having to conform to the rules of mainstream American society. Thankfully, Aaron McGruder (creator) uses this opportunity to its fullest. The show is controversial, in-your-face and often downright offensive. Never before have I heard the 'N-bomb' dropped so many times in a show.
This may seem like a terrible thing, but it's only offensive to the people that, quite frankly, deserve to be offended. The 'N-bomb' is only overused because it is overused in real life. Much like other great satire, it uses these shock tactics to help highlight the ridiculous elements that exist in African American culture and (more broadly) American politics.
The Boondocks is thoughtful, obscene and incredibly funny. Everything it should be.
The whole show acts as window through which the writer expresses his viewpoint as a true disillusioned 'African American'. So rarely does it seem that any black TV writer gets the opportunity to express their views this way without having to conform to the rules of mainstream American society. Thankfully, Aaron McGruder (creator) uses this opportunity to its fullest. The show is controversial, in-your-face and often downright offensive. Never before have I heard the 'N-bomb' dropped so many times in a show.
This may seem like a terrible thing, but it's only offensive to the people that, quite frankly, deserve to be offended. The 'N-bomb' is only overused because it is overused in real life. Much like other great satire, it uses these shock tactics to help highlight the ridiculous elements that exist in African American culture and (more broadly) American politics.
The Boondocks is thoughtful, obscene and incredibly funny. Everything it should be.
Open Source: The Way of the Future?
For those who aren't 1337 h4xx0r5, the GNU Public license is the most widely used freeware license. It's one of many licenses that allows the creation of Open Source projects. I'm sure many reading this have never even heard of open source, so I'll elaborate. 'Open source' means that the source code of any software is available on a project hosting site to be edited by a host of community programmers. Unlike most commercial software development, this software is created for free by a group of enthusiasts that hop in and out of development whenever they choose. No individual/group owns the intellectual property.
The GNU public license is the legal framework for this kind of development. It allows programmers to submit code to the project without fear that code will be stolen or copied by other individuals and used for profit. There are actually many ways of profiting, but there are significant restrictions on anything that might in any way compromise the overall project.
It seems that open source is becoming more and more common in our generation. Part of this is because we now have the technology that allows us to do this incredibly easily. High-speed broadband, large amounts of web-space for hosting, advances in general program development, etc. all allow 'sharing' to happen much more easily than ever before. In my view, open source will become even more popular in the future as more people realise its advantages.
My first experience with open source projects came from homebrew on the Wii. Homebrew programming has been around for a long while. Video game consoles are essentially custom-built gaming PCs and many gamers felt that they should be able to run their own programs on these systems just like they do on their computers. They've paid for the hardware and are using entirely original code to bend the system to their will.
Their are currently large communities of amateur Wii programmers developing their own code to run on the Wii. Applications range from simple programs to back up their save games to fully fledged media players capable of turning your Wii into a media centre PC.
ALL of these projects are open source and all completely free. If a project is popular then more users will be attracted to it, more programmers will submit code and more users will report bugs. This means that updates can regularly be added to the program, fixing bugs present in previous versions and also adding new features. I've seen several projects, starting from humble roots, eventually develop into incredibly deep and robust applications. In fact, now I use the homebrew applications more than the original Nintendo apps! They work better, have greater functionality and greater use. Many Wii users don't even realise these exist and purchase expensive hardware that don't do the job nearly as well.
There has been some debate as to the legality of these homebrew projects. Mainly by the big hardware manufacturers that dislike their systems being used for purposes other than they were initially intended. Nintendo has tried many times to take legal action against the creators of such software. In my view, homebrew is only as illegal as adding spoilers and rims to a car or upgrading a part in a computer. No copyrighted intellectual property is used and all the code is entirely original. If a user chooses to change their system, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should have no control over it.
This legal issue thankfully doesn't affect PC users. Open source projects have thrived for many years on this platform. Many users are unlikely to have even noticed that they are using these types of programs because they haven't researched their development. Even web novices use programs like Firefox or VLC player. I heard quite recently that for the first time ever, Firefox has become more frequently used than Internet Explorer.
For anyone that has ever used these browsers I'm sure they'll notice that Firefox is faster, more intuitive and just all around better, even though Microsoft employs a huge team of developers to work on their browser (who, by the way, are employed using the money you spent buying their Windows operating system). They still can't best a project that is available entirely for free.
With talk of Windows, it's worth mentioning that there are entirely free operating systems available too. For those that don't realise, every time a computer is purchased with Windows or Mac OS X pre-installed, a surcharge is added to cover the cost of operating system development. I recently built my own computer and since I already own a Windows 7 license key, I saved myself the £100+ surcharge that would be added if a bought a computer with an OS. Many don't realise they're paying this fee and assume that computers actually just cost that much. They don't. Parts are surprisingly cheap, it's software that is unnecessarily expensive.
Now I like Windows 7. In fact I love Windows 7. It's fast, simple and functional. It helps that I got the license on a student offer that only cost me £30. That's a bargain in my eyes. However, this very same license normally costs 4 times as much and there are actually better alternatives available for free.
Ubuntu is part of the Linux family of operating systems. It's available at no cost and for a long while it has been better than Windows and OS X. I used Windows XP for almost a decade because Vista was just an abomination. All these years, I used (and paid for) an OS that was inferior just because I had no idea that there was any alternative.
Ubuntu recently released version 10.04 and after a quick play around with it I know it's actually better than the Windows product I currently own. The only reasons it's not my main OS is that I've already paid for Windows 7. From now on, I'll almost certainly choose a Linux build over paying for an upgrade. I'd also probably advise anyone else to do the same. It takes a little getting used to, but it's designed with novice users in mind, so expect simplicity and streamlined functionality. All drivers are pre-installed, connecting to the internet is automated, programs and features can be un/installed with a click and, hell, it even integrates your social network sites directly into the OS.
Most people never learn this, of course, because Microsoft has deals with manufacturers to ensure that Windows is distributed on 90% of PCs before they even reach the consumer. A recent European Commission ruling judged that Microsoft was creating a monopoly of internet browsers by integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 7. By the same logic, I believe that Microsoft's control over manufacturers stifles competition in the OS market. Could we perhaps see an eventual ruling that prevents this happening? I can't imagine it will happen any time soon.
It does raise an important point though. Technology is developing at such a fast rate that it's difficult for legislation to catch up. In my experience, those currently in power greatly misunderstand technology and so conduct that is otherwise illegal in other forms of business are rarely noticed.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new phone. I have to admit that I'm rather excited about getting an Android phone. Android is an open source OS for mobile devices (i.e. mobile phones). With the increasing success of smart phones, it is becoming more clear that consumers are looking for devices with functionality similar to a PC. After all, like video games consoles, mobile phones are just specialised computers.
Applications (or 'apps') have become incredibly popular as flexible functionality becomes more important. Before, every single phone of the same model had the same features. We can now add apps that work within the phone's OS to add functionality that previously didn't exist. Apple has had incredible success with its iPhone but, in my view, it is still limited by the OS of the device itself. If a bug exists, the original OS developer is still needed to fix that bug. Android doesn't have this problem. In fact, because the source code is available online, anyone with sufficient skill can (in theory) legally create their own version of the OS and tweak it to their liking.
However, things aren't so hunky dory. Currently, your mobile service providers have the final say on what Android version can be installed on any smartphone. This is not the case for sim-free, factory unlocked versions, but it is true for any other phone. If your phone came with a sim card and has an Operator logo on the box, then you're out of luck. You'll have to wait for that version of the OS to be approved by your network. This can take months, even years. It's a pretty ridiculous system that allows the Service Providers to push their users into upgrading their phones more regularly by allowing bugs to persist. It's the equivalent of your computer manufacturer restricting your upgrade to the latest version of Windows, only to then turn around to you and say that they can sell you a new computer that does have the new software that you were entitled to get for free in the first place. There are no laws against this, so the system is easily exploited by those with know-how.
I've talked a lot about open source yielding better results - better software for the consumer - and that's all very well, but how do these people make any money? Community led projects are not owned by any individual and cannot be sold. What would happen if all software became open-source? Many of these 'enthusiasts' are actually programmers working for big software companies, who use their spare time to help support a project they really like.
At the moment, this is the big problem I see with Open Source. It's still reliant on large corporations to support the skilled individuals who then contribute to these projects. I can complain all I want about Microsoft and mobile phone service providers exploiting the system for profit, but if the law did change, wouldn't these companies make less money? Wouldn't there be less jobs for programmers working for Microsoft, Apple or Orange? Consequently, wouldn't there be less skilled people to actually work on these projects?
It's a valid argument. The restrictions on this technology allows more profit to be made, which is then reinvested into the software industry. If all software was open source, there would need to be a way for people to make money off it, without compromising or restricting the project. There needs to be a reason for people to be sufficiently interested in programming to make it their career, without worrying about financial difficulties.
Now I've quite clearly delved into the realm of economics. There's no way for this model to work without skilled programmers in large numbers. By its very nature, open source maximises the number and variety of individuals working on any project and therefore means that end products tend to be better than proprietary software. This success is dependant on the number and skill of the programmers involved. Affecting these two factors positively is important for the prosperity of this model.
Therefore job attractiveness is important. Money and job satisfaction are probably the two most important factors in making this job appealing. I can imagine that much of the reason open source is already so successful is that it's far more satisfying working in a community, producing a product that people love (even more than the ones that they have to pay for). However It's less straight-forward to make money from freeware.
As with any popular, in-demand product there is always a way. XBMC is a good example. XBMC (XBox Media Center) is an open source media player originally developed as homebrew for the XBox but then brought over to multiple platforms including Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. The program is similar to Windows Media Center (WMC) and allows users to browse through their media collections using a TV. Once again the free version is almost unequivocally better than the Windows version. Boxee is a program that was developed from the XBMC source code and took the program in a slightly different direction. The developers have used the basic elements of XBMC, but added proprietary (closed source) elements that are all their own original intellectual property.
Boxee itself is free, but the developers managed to negotiate a deal with hardware developer, D-Link (most well-known for their network adapters and routers). D-Link have designed a hardware kit (named the Boxee Box) that bears the Boxee logo and acts as a specialised platform for this software. Boxee are paid by D-Link for the closed source elements that they own, D-Link get money from selling their hardware and the consumer gets a great, cost-effective product. Boxee's revenue is still heavily dependent on XBMC so they have vested interest in contributing heavily to the original project. They also have to release Boxee for free on all other platforms because the license prevents them making profit from the XBMC elements. Everybody wins.
Whilst things may not work out so well in every case, it does show that hardware development is a great source of revenue for open source developers. HTC have been able to do exactly the same thing by slightly modifying the Android OS and selling hardware with their version shipped on it. No other hardware manufacturer can use that exact software because HTC own the bits they've modified, but the whole Android project benefits from HTC's success and development. So long as HTC is able to continually create great software and hardware, they will always be able to make a profit. Is this not a true example of a meritocracy? Isn't this why we value the idea of a free market in the first place?
Of course, hardware is not the only route for revenue. There are many other projects that get money from advertising, donations and many other methods. If you're still not convinced that it's possible then here's an entire article on how profit can be made.
On top of that, due to the nature of a community led project, non-programmer users of the program are invited to participate in discussion and development. I myself have submitted bug reports and enhancement ideas for programs I like and want to support. Project hosting sites like Google Code make this simple and straight forward. There's a very democratic approach to the whole process. Each individual has a say in what the final product will be and can give their expertise (however limited) to the project. Great with ideas? Suggest a new feature. Great with computers? Write a few lines of code. Great with design? Help develop a new user interface.
The whole system rewards input, even in small amounts. Large companies producing commercial software would have to out-source for all these little things and the whole process ends up being incredibly cost-inefficient. The older model encourages developers to do the bare minimum to cut costs and just get a product out so it can sell. Quality control isn't such an integral part of the model as it is with Open Source. Here only the best ideas are retained and anything disliked will be changed in future releases.
I did want to end on a bit of a big bang, so I saved the best 'til last. Whilst it may not be software, it's still the biggest community-led project in the world. It's also the most widely used and widely revered. Yup, that's right, Wikipedia. If you haven't used this site then, chances are, you're completely brain-dead. This project has revolutionised the way we access information on the internet. It is the single greatest collection of information available in human history. If that doesn't convince you that Open Source is an integral part of our future, then I don't know what will.
For those who are interested, here are a few examples of excellent open-source projects that served as the inspiration for much of this article:
Firefox,
Google Chrome (Chromium project),
VLC Media Player,
Media Player Classic,
Linux,
Android OS (mobile),
Chrome OS,
Quake (Quakes I, II and III arena),
Doom,
Wolfenstein 3D,
GIMP [lol] (save yourself £500 and download this freeware Photoshop-equivalent),
XBMC (A vastly improved alternative to Windows Media Center)
Wiibrew (wiki for all legal Wii homebrew applications)
The GNU public license is the legal framework for this kind of development. It allows programmers to submit code to the project without fear that code will be stolen or copied by other individuals and used for profit. There are actually many ways of profiting, but there are significant restrictions on anything that might in any way compromise the overall project.
It seems that open source is becoming more and more common in our generation. Part of this is because we now have the technology that allows us to do this incredibly easily. High-speed broadband, large amounts of web-space for hosting, advances in general program development, etc. all allow 'sharing' to happen much more easily than ever before. In my view, open source will become even more popular in the future as more people realise its advantages.
My first experience with open source projects came from homebrew on the Wii. Homebrew programming has been around for a long while. Video game consoles are essentially custom-built gaming PCs and many gamers felt that they should be able to run their own programs on these systems just like they do on their computers. They've paid for the hardware and are using entirely original code to bend the system to their will.
Their are currently large communities of amateur Wii programmers developing their own code to run on the Wii. Applications range from simple programs to back up their save games to fully fledged media players capable of turning your Wii into a media centre PC.
ALL of these projects are open source and all completely free. If a project is popular then more users will be attracted to it, more programmers will submit code and more users will report bugs. This means that updates can regularly be added to the program, fixing bugs present in previous versions and also adding new features. I've seen several projects, starting from humble roots, eventually develop into incredibly deep and robust applications. In fact, now I use the homebrew applications more than the original Nintendo apps! They work better, have greater functionality and greater use. Many Wii users don't even realise these exist and purchase expensive hardware that don't do the job nearly as well.
There has been some debate as to the legality of these homebrew projects. Mainly by the big hardware manufacturers that dislike their systems being used for purposes other than they were initially intended. Nintendo has tried many times to take legal action against the creators of such software. In my view, homebrew is only as illegal as adding spoilers and rims to a car or upgrading a part in a computer. No copyrighted intellectual property is used and all the code is entirely original. If a user chooses to change their system, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should have no control over it.
This legal issue thankfully doesn't affect PC users. Open source projects have thrived for many years on this platform. Many users are unlikely to have even noticed that they are using these types of programs because they haven't researched their development. Even web novices use programs like Firefox or VLC player. I heard quite recently that for the first time ever, Firefox has become more frequently used than Internet Explorer.
For anyone that has ever used these browsers I'm sure they'll notice that Firefox is faster, more intuitive and just all around better, even though Microsoft employs a huge team of developers to work on their browser (who, by the way, are employed using the money you spent buying their Windows operating system). They still can't best a project that is available entirely for free.
With talk of Windows, it's worth mentioning that there are entirely free operating systems available too. For those that don't realise, every time a computer is purchased with Windows or Mac OS X pre-installed, a surcharge is added to cover the cost of operating system development. I recently built my own computer and since I already own a Windows 7 license key, I saved myself the £100+ surcharge that would be added if a bought a computer with an OS. Many don't realise they're paying this fee and assume that computers actually just cost that much. They don't. Parts are surprisingly cheap, it's software that is unnecessarily expensive.
Now I like Windows 7. In fact I love Windows 7. It's fast, simple and functional. It helps that I got the license on a student offer that only cost me £30. That's a bargain in my eyes. However, this very same license normally costs 4 times as much and there are actually better alternatives available for free.
Ubuntu is part of the Linux family of operating systems. It's available at no cost and for a long while it has been better than Windows and OS X. I used Windows XP for almost a decade because Vista was just an abomination. All these years, I used (and paid for) an OS that was inferior just because I had no idea that there was any alternative.
Ubuntu recently released version 10.04 and after a quick play around with it I know it's actually better than the Windows product I currently own. The only reasons it's not my main OS is that I've already paid for Windows 7. From now on, I'll almost certainly choose a Linux build over paying for an upgrade. I'd also probably advise anyone else to do the same. It takes a little getting used to, but it's designed with novice users in mind, so expect simplicity and streamlined functionality. All drivers are pre-installed, connecting to the internet is automated, programs and features can be un/installed with a click and, hell, it even integrates your social network sites directly into the OS.
Most people never learn this, of course, because Microsoft has deals with manufacturers to ensure that Windows is distributed on 90% of PCs before they even reach the consumer. A recent European Commission ruling judged that Microsoft was creating a monopoly of internet browsers by integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 7. By the same logic, I believe that Microsoft's control over manufacturers stifles competition in the OS market. Could we perhaps see an eventual ruling that prevents this happening? I can't imagine it will happen any time soon.
It does raise an important point though. Technology is developing at such a fast rate that it's difficult for legislation to catch up. In my experience, those currently in power greatly misunderstand technology and so conduct that is otherwise illegal in other forms of business are rarely noticed.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new phone. I have to admit that I'm rather excited about getting an Android phone. Android is an open source OS for mobile devices (i.e. mobile phones). With the increasing success of smart phones, it is becoming more clear that consumers are looking for devices with functionality similar to a PC. After all, like video games consoles, mobile phones are just specialised computers.
Applications (or 'apps') have become incredibly popular as flexible functionality becomes more important. Before, every single phone of the same model had the same features. We can now add apps that work within the phone's OS to add functionality that previously didn't exist. Apple has had incredible success with its iPhone but, in my view, it is still limited by the OS of the device itself. If a bug exists, the original OS developer is still needed to fix that bug. Android doesn't have this problem. In fact, because the source code is available online, anyone with sufficient skill can (in theory) legally create their own version of the OS and tweak it to their liking.
However, things aren't so hunky dory. Currently, your mobile service providers have the final say on what Android version can be installed on any smartphone. This is not the case for sim-free, factory unlocked versions, but it is true for any other phone. If your phone came with a sim card and has an Operator logo on the box, then you're out of luck. You'll have to wait for that version of the OS to be approved by your network. This can take months, even years. It's a pretty ridiculous system that allows the Service Providers to push their users into upgrading their phones more regularly by allowing bugs to persist. It's the equivalent of your computer manufacturer restricting your upgrade to the latest version of Windows, only to then turn around to you and say that they can sell you a new computer that does have the new software that you were entitled to get for free in the first place. There are no laws against this, so the system is easily exploited by those with know-how.
I've talked a lot about open source yielding better results - better software for the consumer - and that's all very well, but how do these people make any money? Community led projects are not owned by any individual and cannot be sold. What would happen if all software became open-source? Many of these 'enthusiasts' are actually programmers working for big software companies, who use their spare time to help support a project they really like.
At the moment, this is the big problem I see with Open Source. It's still reliant on large corporations to support the skilled individuals who then contribute to these projects. I can complain all I want about Microsoft and mobile phone service providers exploiting the system for profit, but if the law did change, wouldn't these companies make less money? Wouldn't there be less jobs for programmers working for Microsoft, Apple or Orange? Consequently, wouldn't there be less skilled people to actually work on these projects?
It's a valid argument. The restrictions on this technology allows more profit to be made, which is then reinvested into the software industry. If all software was open source, there would need to be a way for people to make money off it, without compromising or restricting the project. There needs to be a reason for people to be sufficiently interested in programming to make it their career, without worrying about financial difficulties.
Now I've quite clearly delved into the realm of economics. There's no way for this model to work without skilled programmers in large numbers. By its very nature, open source maximises the number and variety of individuals working on any project and therefore means that end products tend to be better than proprietary software. This success is dependant on the number and skill of the programmers involved. Affecting these two factors positively is important for the prosperity of this model.
Therefore job attractiveness is important. Money and job satisfaction are probably the two most important factors in making this job appealing. I can imagine that much of the reason open source is already so successful is that it's far more satisfying working in a community, producing a product that people love (even more than the ones that they have to pay for). However It's less straight-forward to make money from freeware.
As with any popular, in-demand product there is always a way. XBMC is a good example. XBMC (XBox Media Center) is an open source media player originally developed as homebrew for the XBox but then brought over to multiple platforms including Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. The program is similar to Windows Media Center (WMC) and allows users to browse through their media collections using a TV. Once again the free version is almost unequivocally better than the Windows version. Boxee is a program that was developed from the XBMC source code and took the program in a slightly different direction. The developers have used the basic elements of XBMC, but added proprietary (closed source) elements that are all their own original intellectual property.
Boxee itself is free, but the developers managed to negotiate a deal with hardware developer, D-Link (most well-known for their network adapters and routers). D-Link have designed a hardware kit (named the Boxee Box) that bears the Boxee logo and acts as a specialised platform for this software. Boxee are paid by D-Link for the closed source elements that they own, D-Link get money from selling their hardware and the consumer gets a great, cost-effective product. Boxee's revenue is still heavily dependent on XBMC so they have vested interest in contributing heavily to the original project. They also have to release Boxee for free on all other platforms because the license prevents them making profit from the XBMC elements. Everybody wins.
Whilst things may not work out so well in every case, it does show that hardware development is a great source of revenue for open source developers. HTC have been able to do exactly the same thing by slightly modifying the Android OS and selling hardware with their version shipped on it. No other hardware manufacturer can use that exact software because HTC own the bits they've modified, but the whole Android project benefits from HTC's success and development. So long as HTC is able to continually create great software and hardware, they will always be able to make a profit. Is this not a true example of a meritocracy? Isn't this why we value the idea of a free market in the first place?
Of course, hardware is not the only route for revenue. There are many other projects that get money from advertising, donations and many other methods. If you're still not convinced that it's possible then here's an entire article on how profit can be made.
On top of that, due to the nature of a community led project, non-programmer users of the program are invited to participate in discussion and development. I myself have submitted bug reports and enhancement ideas for programs I like and want to support. Project hosting sites like Google Code make this simple and straight forward. There's a very democratic approach to the whole process. Each individual has a say in what the final product will be and can give their expertise (however limited) to the project. Great with ideas? Suggest a new feature. Great with computers? Write a few lines of code. Great with design? Help develop a new user interface.
The whole system rewards input, even in small amounts. Large companies producing commercial software would have to out-source for all these little things and the whole process ends up being incredibly cost-inefficient. The older model encourages developers to do the bare minimum to cut costs and just get a product out so it can sell. Quality control isn't such an integral part of the model as it is with Open Source. Here only the best ideas are retained and anything disliked will be changed in future releases.
I did want to end on a bit of a big bang, so I saved the best 'til last. Whilst it may not be software, it's still the biggest community-led project in the world. It's also the most widely used and widely revered. Yup, that's right, Wikipedia. If you haven't used this site then, chances are, you're completely brain-dead. This project has revolutionised the way we access information on the internet. It is the single greatest collection of information available in human history. If that doesn't convince you that Open Source is an integral part of our future, then I don't know what will.
For those who are interested, here are a few examples of excellent open-source projects that served as the inspiration for much of this article:
Firefox,
Google Chrome (Chromium project),
VLC Media Player,
Media Player Classic,
Linux,
Android OS (mobile),
Chrome OS,
Quake (Quakes I, II and III arena),
Doom,
Wolfenstein 3D,
GIMP [lol] (save yourself £500 and download this freeware Photoshop-equivalent),
XBMC (A vastly improved alternative to Windows Media Center)
Wiibrew (wiki for all legal Wii homebrew applications)
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
The Matrix: A Retrospective
It's no exaggeration to say that this film helps define our generation. When it came out it was revolutionary. I rewatched it and I still think it's revolutionary.
The philosophical element is possibly the reason The Matrix stands out so clearly from others around it. This film changed the way people think about the world. We take it for granted how easily this film is used to help people think about existential concepts. The phrase, "y'know, like in The Matrix?" is commonplace. Ordinary.
However, it's also easy to read this and think that's the only reason this film is so great. After rewatching it, I've found greater appreciation for its story-telling and, more importantly, its style.
The Matrix is incredibly referential. Some influences are far more obvious than others. Most notably Cyber-punk and Kung-fu films. It's interesting that the Wachowski brothers have chosen such vastly different styles to form the overall aesthetic.
These elements seem to be fairly self-contained within individual locations. This is especially clear in the training scene where Morpheus fights Neo. The dark, grey, harsh asthetic of the 'real world' is juxtaposed against the fluid, airy wire-fights of the 'training world'. Ancient Chinese Zen clashes with futuristic Western dystopia - Crouching Tiger versus Alien.
'The Matrix', the training programs and the 'real world' all feel completely different. Each is clearly distinguished by its cinematography, character movement and music. The green filters used during scenes in 'The Matrix' world are iconic, becoming almost synonymous with this film.
There are other notable cinematic references. Much of the gun-oriented sequences are reminiscient of old-fashioned Spaghetti Westerns, most obviously in the final show-down with Agent Smith. There's a lot of mirrored imagery here that is very Sergio Leone.
There are a LOT of religious references too, mainly Christian, although some Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy too. To name a few: Zion, Judas Iscariot (Cypher), The Nebuchadnezzar, (Holy) Trinity, Neo rising from the dead and 'Spoon Boy'. Much of this seems incidental, but it's clear that the brothers have an interest in (and significant knowledge of) Christianity.
The most overt literary influence is Alice in Wonderland, which plays such a large part in the story. Neo follows the white rabbit, Morpheus asks him if he want to find out "how far the rabbit-hole goes" and Neo takes a pill in order to alter reality.
There's a lot of influence from classical literature too. The use of oracles and prophecies borrows from everything from Macbeth to Oedipus. There's also philosophy mixed in too. These elements are used as devices to explore the nature of destiny and free will. Neo is clearly a strong voice for Libertarianism, whilst Morpheus and The Oracle offer a more Compatibilist viewpoint.
However, simply listing everything that The Matrix has stolen from does not give the film-making duo the credit they deserve. Much of the content is entirely original. Who can forget the feeling when they first saw bullet-time, or the lobby-scene or even the crazy one-armed fight with Agent Smith at the film's climax? This was ground-breaking stuff!
All of these styles are layered over each other to form a hybrid that works exceptionally well. The Wachowski Brothers took influence from many other works and fused it with their own innovation and creativity to create one of the greatest and most influential films of our generation.
The philosophical element is possibly the reason The Matrix stands out so clearly from others around it. This film changed the way people think about the world. We take it for granted how easily this film is used to help people think about existential concepts. The phrase, "y'know, like in The Matrix?" is commonplace. Ordinary.
However, it's also easy to read this and think that's the only reason this film is so great. After rewatching it, I've found greater appreciation for its story-telling and, more importantly, its style.
The Matrix is incredibly referential. Some influences are far more obvious than others. Most notably Cyber-punk and Kung-fu films. It's interesting that the Wachowski brothers have chosen such vastly different styles to form the overall aesthetic.
These elements seem to be fairly self-contained within individual locations. This is especially clear in the training scene where Morpheus fights Neo. The dark, grey, harsh asthetic of the 'real world' is juxtaposed against the fluid, airy wire-fights of the 'training world'. Ancient Chinese Zen clashes with futuristic Western dystopia - Crouching Tiger versus Alien.
'The Matrix', the training programs and the 'real world' all feel completely different. Each is clearly distinguished by its cinematography, character movement and music. The green filters used during scenes in 'The Matrix' world are iconic, becoming almost synonymous with this film.
There are other notable cinematic references. Much of the gun-oriented sequences are reminiscient of old-fashioned Spaghetti Westerns, most obviously in the final show-down with Agent Smith. There's a lot of mirrored imagery here that is very Sergio Leone.
There are a LOT of religious references too, mainly Christian, although some Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy too. To name a few: Zion, Judas Iscariot (Cypher), The Nebuchadnezzar, (Holy) Trinity, Neo rising from the dead and 'Spoon Boy'. Much of this seems incidental, but it's clear that the brothers have an interest in (and significant knowledge of) Christianity.
The most overt literary influence is Alice in Wonderland, which plays such a large part in the story. Neo follows the white rabbit, Morpheus asks him if he want to find out "how far the rabbit-hole goes" and Neo takes a pill in order to alter reality.
There's a lot of influence from classical literature too. The use of oracles and prophecies borrows from everything from Macbeth to Oedipus. There's also philosophy mixed in too. These elements are used as devices to explore the nature of destiny and free will. Neo is clearly a strong voice for Libertarianism, whilst Morpheus and The Oracle offer a more Compatibilist viewpoint.
However, simply listing everything that The Matrix has stolen from does not give the film-making duo the credit they deserve. Much of the content is entirely original. Who can forget the feeling when they first saw bullet-time, or the lobby-scene or even the crazy one-armed fight with Agent Smith at the film's climax? This was ground-breaking stuff!
All of these styles are layered over each other to form a hybrid that works exceptionally well. The Wachowski Brothers took influence from many other works and fused it with their own innovation and creativity to create one of the greatest and most influential films of our generation.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Supernatural
I have a rule when it comes to TV programming. If something is available on ITV2, then it's just not worth watching. Every rule needs its exceptions though and for this one it's Supernatural.
The show initially appeared to fit neatly in the CW's lineup of glossy aspirational teen dramas (of which it is safe to say I am no fan). I long avoided the show on this basis. However, at some point or another I was browsing on TV.com and saw that Supernatural was the top rated show. I generally don't put too much faith in these online ratings, but I was surprised to see so many people enjoy a show I hadn't even given a second glance to.
I was intrigued and had nothing better to do, so I gave it a shot. I was impressed. The pilot was dark, mysterious and exciting. After a few follow-up episodes I thought the series would fizzle out, but it kept going strong. In fact, it seemed to just get better and better.
The format is unusual for an American series. First off, it's anthological, with very little connecting each episode. The cast consists of only two recurring characters. Two. This is no ensemble.
The brothers, Sam and Dean, are 'Hunters' travelling from back-water town to back-water town to rescue the townsfolk from various paranormal evils. They're 'heroes', but their work is often difficult and imperfect. They don't save everyone, they don't always do the right thing and they often end up questioning what they do.
It's a compelling fantasy drama, with interesting, multi-dimensional, human protagonists who travel around 'kicking ass'. They visit untraditional locales and tell the untold story of small-town America.
Somehow this programme has convinced me that rural America is kinda cool. I have fantasies of driving in their Chevy Impala, listening to rock n roll whilst on my way to some dive bar in Hicksville, USA. How do they make this cool?
The programme increases in complexity from season to season, getting better and better. Much of this is due to great guest stars and consistently innovative writing.
However, I've just begun watching the fifth (and final) season and am questioning my allegiance. Without giving away any spoilers, the premise for this season seems like it could be the most interesting by far. As of yet, however the episodes have been fairly unremarkable. I very much hope the show can find it's feet again because it could be the best season yet.
The show initially appeared to fit neatly in the CW's lineup of glossy aspirational teen dramas (of which it is safe to say I am no fan). I long avoided the show on this basis. However, at some point or another I was browsing on TV.com and saw that Supernatural was the top rated show. I generally don't put too much faith in these online ratings, but I was surprised to see so many people enjoy a show I hadn't even given a second glance to.
I was intrigued and had nothing better to do, so I gave it a shot. I was impressed. The pilot was dark, mysterious and exciting. After a few follow-up episodes I thought the series would fizzle out, but it kept going strong. In fact, it seemed to just get better and better.
The format is unusual for an American series. First off, it's anthological, with very little connecting each episode. The cast consists of only two recurring characters. Two. This is no ensemble.
The brothers, Sam and Dean, are 'Hunters' travelling from back-water town to back-water town to rescue the townsfolk from various paranormal evils. They're 'heroes', but their work is often difficult and imperfect. They don't save everyone, they don't always do the right thing and they often end up questioning what they do.
It's a compelling fantasy drama, with interesting, multi-dimensional, human protagonists who travel around 'kicking ass'. They visit untraditional locales and tell the untold story of small-town America.
Somehow this programme has convinced me that rural America is kinda cool. I have fantasies of driving in their Chevy Impala, listening to rock n roll whilst on my way to some dive bar in Hicksville, USA. How do they make this cool?
The programme increases in complexity from season to season, getting better and better. Much of this is due to great guest stars and consistently innovative writing.
However, I've just begun watching the fifth (and final) season and am questioning my allegiance. Without giving away any spoilers, the premise for this season seems like it could be the most interesting by far. As of yet, however the episodes have been fairly unremarkable. I very much hope the show can find it's feet again because it could be the best season yet.
Paranormal Activity
This film is scary. Shit scary. I like to think of myself as a fairly hardened horror fan, but I still nearly crapped my pants watching it. Throughout the film is a constant atmosphere of complete tension.
If you haven't heard anything about Paranormal Activity before, it's a horror film shot using the cinéma vérité style à la Blair Witch and Cloverfield. Rather than acting as a window through which the viewer observes, the camera is a device within the story itself. This technique has appeared more and more frequently in the horror genre and personally, I welcome it. It creates a far more immersive experience and allows the viewer to truly connect with the characters. This makes for far scarier films than the slashers currently saturating the market.
Much unlike slasher films, Paranormal Activity contains very little violence. The tension instead comes from the fear of violence. Much of the film is taken up by expositional dialogue, revealing much about the couple's relationship and history. They are not one-dimensional archetypes, but real people. Their reactions to the increasingly frightening events are similarly real and believable.
I found myself empathising with them entirely. I really cared. With most horror films, I can distance myself from the action and tell myself it's just a film. That was impossible here. I was scared out of my mind, but also compelled to keep watching. That is the mark of a great horror film.
If you haven't heard anything about Paranormal Activity before, it's a horror film shot using the cinéma vérité style à la Blair Witch and Cloverfield. Rather than acting as a window through which the viewer observes, the camera is a device within the story itself. This technique has appeared more and more frequently in the horror genre and personally, I welcome it. It creates a far more immersive experience and allows the viewer to truly connect with the characters. This makes for far scarier films than the slashers currently saturating the market.
Much unlike slasher films, Paranormal Activity contains very little violence. The tension instead comes from the fear of violence. Much of the film is taken up by expositional dialogue, revealing much about the couple's relationship and history. They are not one-dimensional archetypes, but real people. Their reactions to the increasingly frightening events are similarly real and believable.
I found myself empathising with them entirely. I really cared. With most horror films, I can distance myself from the action and tell myself it's just a film. That was impossible here. I was scared out of my mind, but also compelled to keep watching. That is the mark of a great horror film.
Saturday, 22 May 2010
African Oliphaunt
I've never been great with presents. If it's someone I know well, I'm ok, but even then I never know how far to go. I like to make the recipient happy, but not uncomfortable. Alright, maybe I just think too much about this stuff and over-analyse. But anyway, this time I thought I might do something a little special.
Having spent quite a lot of time over the past few months basically learning how to draw and create art, I now have a creative tool that I can put to good use. My sister's birthday was coming up and I thought it might be nice to paint (can I still call it that if I'm using a computer?) something and use it as a birthday card.
She likes elephants. They're her favourite animal. I can kind of draw animals so I thought that's a good start.
Here's the first sketch.
I then added the outline and coloured the eyes.
I started with shadowing and then realised I had gone way too dark, too early. I did some colour editing on that layer to enhance the midtones, so in later images those shadows aren't so obvious. I also added that grey wash.
Used a fairly low opacity brush for the shadows and played around with the layer opacity to get it the right colour. I also added a foreground layer for the grass. The grass brush on CS4 is awesome. I've tried creating custom brushes and it's hard to get the settings just right. It's nice to have something so useful that just works right off the bat.
I used a really large brush to do the blue sky and used the grass brush again to create more...grass. I also had to add a white underlay to the elephant because the blue background kept showing through. I did this manually but I'm sure there must be an easier way. If anyone reading has any photoshop experience and knows a better way, I'd appreciate the info.
[click the image for full res]
I was also going to include this message as the inlay, but I didn't get around to it. I'm a bit of a sucker for that messy-but-somehow-neat script.
Sarah, if you're reading, Happy Birthday. Hope you liked the card.
Having spent quite a lot of time over the past few months basically learning how to draw and create art, I now have a creative tool that I can put to good use. My sister's birthday was coming up and I thought it might be nice to paint (can I still call it that if I'm using a computer?) something and use it as a birthday card.
She likes elephants. They're her favourite animal. I can kind of draw animals so I thought that's a good start.
Here's the first sketch.
I then added the outline and coloured the eyes.
I started with shadowing and then realised I had gone way too dark, too early. I did some colour editing on that layer to enhance the midtones, so in later images those shadows aren't so obvious. I also added that grey wash.
Used a fairly low opacity brush for the shadows and played around with the layer opacity to get it the right colour. I also added a foreground layer for the grass. The grass brush on CS4 is awesome. I've tried creating custom brushes and it's hard to get the settings just right. It's nice to have something so useful that just works right off the bat.
I used a really large brush to do the blue sky and used the grass brush again to create more...grass. I also had to add a white underlay to the elephant because the blue background kept showing through. I did this manually but I'm sure there must be an easier way. If anyone reading has any photoshop experience and knows a better way, I'd appreciate the info.
[click the image for full res]
I was also going to include this message as the inlay, but I didn't get around to it. I'm a bit of a sucker for that messy-but-somehow-neat script.
Sarah, if you're reading, Happy Birthday. Hope you liked the card.
We Didn't Start the Flame War
I was really bored and ended up browsing through the youtube top-rated list. I haven't done this for quite some time. I was expecting to find funny cat videos, but instead I came across this lovely chap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74
[apologies, FB users, if the HTML code below doesn't function - it should work on my blogspot]
It was possibly quite naive of me, but I was a bit shocked after watching that. Not so much because of what was said, but more because of the response he received. Overwhelming support. The comments section below was littered with users applauding him and (as I said earlier) it was one of the top rated videos of the month.
I don't normally comment on videos myself - mainly because I'm watching videos of funny cats, so there's very little for me to say other than, "Oh that cat did something in a way that was incredibly funny and yet simultaneously cute. This truly is a wonderful time to be alive."
However, religion is a subject I feel quite passionate about and I thought now was the time to get in on the action and see what people say. After having spent some time at the arsehole of the internet I was well aware of flame wars. I was not keen on getting involved in one, but it has been interesting discussing this topic with strangers.
I've posted the comments I've made for two different videos and then posted the replies. The discussion is still ongoing so I might update this post when I receive something new.
==========================================
What I know about Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74
I: This is one of the top rated videos on youtube this month. Find the statement about needing a peaceful society a bit hypocritical considering how his video is quite openly Islamophobic.
His argument fails in the same place as many others. An inability to distinguish between politics, religion and culture. This kind of backlash does no-one any favours. It only alienates peaceful Muslims living happily in this society
Caracalla23: @I But does Islam distinguish between religion, culture and politics.
I: @Caracalla23 Well that's just falling into the same trap. Do you mean British/American Muslims, Middle-Eastern Muslims, Islamic scholars or political figures in Islamic countries?
The answers would be different for each group. Moreover it would be different for each individual. No religion is one entity.
Caracalla23: @I So theres absolutely no conformity amongst Muslims? Every Muslim is an Island entire of himself? But surely there must be a large number of core beliefs amongst the 100s millions of Sunnis. (and those beliefs from an outsiders perspective are becoming increasingly narrow and conservative) If theres not then why call it Islam? Then why call it a religion?
I: @Caracalla23 Tbh, I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. I wasn't saying that there are no similarities, I just think that it's not fair to group Muslims all together. Some Muslims do have very conservative views, others are more open and progressive. Attacking 'Islam' is far too unspecific and general.
==========================================
God Bless Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mWiqkGy-Y
I: I find this man a terrible representative for atheism. The arguments he makes are packed full of rhetoric and emotion, but little substance. Religions are not 'evil'. That concept is an incredible oversimplification and implies that every follower of that religion is also 'evil'.
Attacking people's beliefs will in no way align them to your cause. These videos consist of needless provocation. Bashing religion gets you nowhere....
InfidelArmee: @I,"Religions are not 'evil' ". True. Religions are a lot of Dumbshit. By Dumbshits. For Dumbshits. Islam is NOT a Religion. Islam is a Totalitarian, Supremacist Ideology. Islam is Nazism. IslamoNazism.
I: @InfidelArmee Wikipedia search: Godwin's Law
InfidelArmee: @I I did. Your Point, Nazi?
robertangel30: @I Bashing religion gets you everywhere. Religious minded adults are lost for the most part, they must have an intellectual epiphany. The young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced by Pat.
I believe there is a youtube video that says "the internet is the place religions come to die." Very True indeed.
I: @robertangel30 I don't think there is much positive influence here. I can't see how atheism is any better than religion if people still use the same strong-armed tactics to 'recruit' more to their cause.
The simple fact is that what he says is all lies and hyperbole. I can't see how any of this is different from preaching. It's just as one-sided and narrow-minded.
richybinns @I Recruit? I knew I didn't believe in fairies long before I knew the word "ATHEIST"
How can being told to think for yourself be considered strong-arm? being told to believe or die better describes that tactic.
I: @richybinns I was referring to the post before me by robertangel30: "young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced"
You're right. Strong-arm probably wasn't the best term, but he does use a lot of rhetoric and much of what he says is unfounded. There are huge leaps of judgement made in writing off everything religion does as 'evil', cleverly ignoring any good it might do. It's a polemic argument and not a particularly strong one.
eddietaylor: @I There is nothing narrow minded about atheism.
All atheists have had to examine all the evidence ( I use that term loosely) and think it through independantly, and despite everything that we are taught or told from being small children, have arrived at the conclusion that god is bollocks. That is very different from being told that everything you see was made by an invisible man, and soaking it up like a sponge without any resistance. Now that IS narrow minded.
I: @eddietaylor I think you've missed my point a little. I don't think that atheism is in any way narrow-minded, but atheists can be. Using the word 'evil' to describe millions of people is just illogical to me. Not all people believe the same things or act the same way, regardless of religious/spiritual belief.
I'm an atheist myself, but I do find it frustrating when other atheists display such intolerance for religion.
eddietaylor: @I Point taken, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
This intolerance from atheists is simply minute in comparison with the intolerance of muslims and christians TO atheists, and even that pales into insignificance when compared to their intolerance of each other. You and I are entitled to be frustrated, because reason is being clouded by ancient superstition. Also, freedom of speech creates animosity by default. People should come down from their own assholes and deal with that.
I: @eddietaylor Well you're probably right about that. I could see how blind faith leads to greater intolerance.
I suppose what I feel uncomfortable with is that Pat (man in video) had several videos that were in the top-rated this month. It's worrying to me that a viewpoint such as his is seen by many as a very good thing. It's also worrying that many religious people will see this and think this is what all atheist think, therefore increasing the intolerance of atheism you mentioned.
robertangel30: @I When you say that what Pat says "is all lies". You no longer have any any credibility. Please point out one factual lie. And please remember that exageration is not a lie.
I: @robertangel30 Well yes you're entirely right. I was exaggerating myself there. He uses very heavy rhetoric to twist arguments in his favour and rarely makes adequate (and often crucial) distinctions. He uses many examples (such as the Pope protecting sex-offenders) to justify why ALL of religion is bad. Plenty of bad things have been done by religious people and plenty done by non-religious people. This is just an extreme generalisation. It's hard to listen to such an unbalanced viewpoint.
robertangel30: @I Very nice. Reasonalbe retort. We come from very different premises. Pat and I know the all religions are false. You believe in yours. Thus you can never understand his points. You have what I like to prefer as a mind bump. You can never and will never get past it. Our premises guide us.
I: @robertangel30 I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm also an atheist. I think that's why I find it so hard to hear. It might be quite arrogant but I think I get his point, but I don't like how extreme it is. I don't think atheism is the answer to the world's problems. I don't believe that religion is the cause for all these bad things and I don't think things would be all that different if religion just went away.
==========================================
Looking back this seems like a very accurate representation of the world of online discussion. There's some agreement, LOTS of disagreement and some blatant trolling too.
[apologies, FB users, if the HTML code below doesn't function - it should work on my blogspot]
It was possibly quite naive of me, but I was a bit shocked after watching that. Not so much because of what was said, but more because of the response he received. Overwhelming support. The comments section below was littered with users applauding him and (as I said earlier) it was one of the top rated videos of the month.
I don't normally comment on videos myself - mainly because I'm watching videos of funny cats, so there's very little for me to say other than, "Oh that cat did something in a way that was incredibly funny and yet simultaneously cute. This truly is a wonderful time to be alive."
However, religion is a subject I feel quite passionate about and I thought now was the time to get in on the action and see what people say. After having spent some time at the arsehole of the internet I was well aware of flame wars. I was not keen on getting involved in one, but it has been interesting discussing this topic with strangers.
I've posted the comments I've made for two different videos and then posted the replies. The discussion is still ongoing so I might update this post when I receive something new.
==========================================
What I know about Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74
I: This is one of the top rated videos on youtube this month. Find the statement about needing a peaceful society a bit hypocritical considering how his video is quite openly Islamophobic.
His argument fails in the same place as many others. An inability to distinguish between politics, religion and culture. This kind of backlash does no-one any favours. It only alienates peaceful Muslims living happily in this society
Caracalla23: @I But does Islam distinguish between religion, culture and politics.
I: @Caracalla23 Well that's just falling into the same trap. Do you mean British/American Muslims, Middle-Eastern Muslims, Islamic scholars or political figures in Islamic countries?
The answers would be different for each group. Moreover it would be different for each individual. No religion is one entity.
Caracalla23: @I So theres absolutely no conformity amongst Muslims? Every Muslim is an Island entire of himself? But surely there must be a large number of core beliefs amongst the 100s millions of Sunnis. (and those beliefs from an outsiders perspective are becoming increasingly narrow and conservative) If theres not then why call it Islam? Then why call it a religion?
I: @Caracalla23 Tbh, I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. I wasn't saying that there are no similarities, I just think that it's not fair to group Muslims all together. Some Muslims do have very conservative views, others are more open and progressive. Attacking 'Islam' is far too unspecific and general.
==========================================
God Bless Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mWiqkGy-Y
I: I find this man a terrible representative for atheism. The arguments he makes are packed full of rhetoric and emotion, but little substance. Religions are not 'evil'. That concept is an incredible oversimplification and implies that every follower of that religion is also 'evil'.
Attacking people's beliefs will in no way align them to your cause. These videos consist of needless provocation. Bashing religion gets you nowhere....
InfidelArmee: @I,"Religions are not 'evil' ". True. Religions are a lot of Dumbshit. By Dumbshits. For Dumbshits. Islam is NOT a Religion. Islam is a Totalitarian, Supremacist Ideology. Islam is Nazism. IslamoNazism.
I: @InfidelArmee Wikipedia search: Godwin's Law
InfidelArmee: @I I did. Your Point, Nazi?
robertangel30: @I Bashing religion gets you everywhere. Religious minded adults are lost for the most part, they must have an intellectual epiphany. The young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced by Pat.
I believe there is a youtube video that says "the internet is the place religions come to die." Very True indeed.
I: @robertangel30 I don't think there is much positive influence here. I can't see how atheism is any better than religion if people still use the same strong-armed tactics to 'recruit' more to their cause.
The simple fact is that what he says is all lies and hyperbole. I can't see how any of this is different from preaching. It's just as one-sided and narrow-minded.
richybinns @I Recruit? I knew I didn't believe in fairies long before I knew the word "ATHEIST"
How can being told to think for yourself be considered strong-arm? being told to believe or die better describes that tactic.
I: @richybinns I was referring to the post before me by robertangel30: "young minds who are undecided or weak in their faith are the ones who will be positively influenced"
You're right. Strong-arm probably wasn't the best term, but he does use a lot of rhetoric and much of what he says is unfounded. There are huge leaps of judgement made in writing off everything religion does as 'evil', cleverly ignoring any good it might do. It's a polemic argument and not a particularly strong one.
eddietaylor: @I There is nothing narrow minded about atheism.
All atheists have had to examine all the evidence ( I use that term loosely) and think it through independantly, and despite everything that we are taught or told from being small children, have arrived at the conclusion that god is bollocks. That is very different from being told that everything you see was made by an invisible man, and soaking it up like a sponge without any resistance. Now that IS narrow minded.
I: @eddietaylor I think you've missed my point a little. I don't think that atheism is in any way narrow-minded, but atheists can be. Using the word 'evil' to describe millions of people is just illogical to me. Not all people believe the same things or act the same way, regardless of religious/spiritual belief.
I'm an atheist myself, but I do find it frustrating when other atheists display such intolerance for religion.
eddietaylor: @I Point taken, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
This intolerance from atheists is simply minute in comparison with the intolerance of muslims and christians TO atheists, and even that pales into insignificance when compared to their intolerance of each other. You and I are entitled to be frustrated, because reason is being clouded by ancient superstition. Also, freedom of speech creates animosity by default. People should come down from their own assholes and deal with that.
I: @eddietaylor Well you're probably right about that. I could see how blind faith leads to greater intolerance.
I suppose what I feel uncomfortable with is that Pat (man in video) had several videos that were in the top-rated this month. It's worrying to me that a viewpoint such as his is seen by many as a very good thing. It's also worrying that many religious people will see this and think this is what all atheist think, therefore increasing the intolerance of atheism you mentioned.
robertangel30: @I When you say that what Pat says "is all lies". You no longer have any any credibility. Please point out one factual lie. And please remember that exageration is not a lie.
I: @robertangel30 Well yes you're entirely right. I was exaggerating myself there. He uses very heavy rhetoric to twist arguments in his favour and rarely makes adequate (and often crucial) distinctions. He uses many examples (such as the Pope protecting sex-offenders) to justify why ALL of religion is bad. Plenty of bad things have been done by religious people and plenty done by non-religious people. This is just an extreme generalisation. It's hard to listen to such an unbalanced viewpoint.
robertangel30: @I Very nice. Reasonalbe retort. We come from very different premises. Pat and I know the all religions are false. You believe in yours. Thus you can never understand his points. You have what I like to prefer as a mind bump. You can never and will never get past it. Our premises guide us.
I: @robertangel30 I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm also an atheist. I think that's why I find it so hard to hear. It might be quite arrogant but I think I get his point, but I don't like how extreme it is. I don't think atheism is the answer to the world's problems. I don't believe that religion is the cause for all these bad things and I don't think things would be all that different if religion just went away.
==========================================
Looking back this seems like a very accurate representation of the world of online discussion. There's some agreement, LOTS of disagreement and some blatant trolling too.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Do How Photoshop I?
I had some more free time recently so I thought I would try practice shooping because I suck at photoshop. I think I'm ok at drawing using a tablet so I've managed to create decent images, but then I've ruined them every time I tried to add colour. Digital painting, it seems, requires skills I do not possess.
Trying not to let this crush me too much, I went back to basics and just watched scores of youtube tutorials. After an embarassingly long period of time, I managed to create my first passable painting.
Yup that's right, folks - a ball. Couldn't really get much simpler than that. However, it did teach me a lot about how the program actually works and the importance of layering. I also learnt the importance of keyboard short-cuts. These drastically speed up your work.
I learnt a lot, but it's frustrating not being able to create what you envisage. On this next painting I tried to be far more ambitious with the complexity and range of techniques I used.
First, a basic sketch. I decided on Samurai Jack. He's a simple, bold character and the artwork in that program was just so stunning. He felt like an appropriate choice.
Next using paths I created an outline. I've never used this tool before so it was a little hard to get used to, but it's just perfect for creating smooth lines.
Used the gradient tool here to create these...gradients. A very simple effect but adds depth and some shadowing to the image.
Finally I created a background using brushwork and colour overlays. This was probably the most complex part of the image. Many layers of varying opacities and effects are used to make the fiery red tones. [click on the image to view full res]
Pretty happy with the end result anyway. It's nothing incredible but it looks decent and, more importantly, I've learnt a lot on the way.
Final point. If you haven't watched Samurai Jack, just do. Incredible animation and style. It's one of the best (if not the best) Western animations about.
Trying not to let this crush me too much, I went back to basics and just watched scores of youtube tutorials. After an embarassingly long period of time, I managed to create my first passable painting.
Yup that's right, folks - a ball. Couldn't really get much simpler than that. However, it did teach me a lot about how the program actually works and the importance of layering. I also learnt the importance of keyboard short-cuts. These drastically speed up your work.
I learnt a lot, but it's frustrating not being able to create what you envisage. On this next painting I tried to be far more ambitious with the complexity and range of techniques I used.
First, a basic sketch. I decided on Samurai Jack. He's a simple, bold character and the artwork in that program was just so stunning. He felt like an appropriate choice.
Next using paths I created an outline. I've never used this tool before so it was a little hard to get used to, but it's just perfect for creating smooth lines.
Used the gradient tool here to create these...gradients. A very simple effect but adds depth and some shadowing to the image.
Finally I created a background using brushwork and colour overlays. This was probably the most complex part of the image. Many layers of varying opacities and effects are used to make the fiery red tones. [click on the image to view full res]
Pretty happy with the end result anyway. It's nothing incredible but it looks decent and, more importantly, I've learnt a lot on the way.
Final point. If you haven't watched Samurai Jack, just do. Incredible animation and style. It's one of the best (if not the best) Western animations about.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Bradshaw vs. Havers
Taking any excuse to talk about the lighter side of politics, has anyone noticed that Ben Bradshaw has this whole sexy Nigel Havers thing going on....?
Bradshaw
Havers
I realise more and more that there are a lot of shouldnt-but-woulds in the world of British politics. My short-list would probably include Clegg, David Milliband and Yvette Cooper (has this whole MILF thing going on). Well they do say politics is show business for ugly people.....
If you have any other suggestions, comment below.
Bradshaw
Havers
I realise more and more that there are a lot of shouldnt-but-woulds in the world of British politics. My short-list would probably include Clegg, David Milliband and Yvette Cooper (has this whole MILF thing going on). Well they do say politics is show business for ugly people.....
If you have any other suggestions, comment below.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Firefly: Second Opinion
Ok, so it's not exactly a second opinion, seeing as it's pretty much the same opinion I had before but now I've just watched more. If you didn't read my original post, I can pretty much sum it up by saying that Firefly is the greatest sci-fi show ever made...In fact, why don't we go all the way? It's also the best adventure show ever made and beats the crap out of most dramas and comedies too. It's awesome, genre-spanning stuff.
I'm halfway through the series now - after spending the past two days locked to my TV - and have just finished watching Jaynestown. This episode really struck me for two reasons: firstly, it's an exceptional episode and secondly, Joss didn't write it.
I'm a huge fan of Whedon's shows and I've always liked that he uses the same core writing staff. There is something that does niggle at me though. Almost all the best Angel, Buffy and Dollhouse episodes are written and/or directed by Whedon himself. Seriously, he's just always amazing. His episodes are the smartest, funniest and most moving.
It seems like a weird criticism to say that Whedon is just TOO good, but he really does outshine his writing staff by a significant amount. I've always felt that others should get a shot. I was pretty stoked when I found out this episode was written by Ben Edlund, mastermind of the brilliant Angel episode, Smile Time. To keep it brief, Jaynestown is also incredible. So kudos, Mr Edlund!
Jayne, a character that mainly serves as the comic relief, has a real meaty story here to help flesh out and develop his character. I love how Whedon's shows don't ever forget the little guy - or in Jayne's case, the very BIG little guy! The episode is funny, moving and deep. Edlund manages to work in an incredibly interesting sub-plot for River and Book covering humanity's need for faith and spirituality whilst simultaneously using Jayne's main plot to challenge our nature of relying on those greater than us (i.e. God) to make our future better. This isn't just an episode. This is an essay, presenting both arguments and supporting them. IN-CRED-IBLE stuff.
In the other episodes I watched there has been much done to build on the solid foundation of the premiere. Best of all is Mal and Inara's relationship which, as I alluded to before, could very well be Joss's best on-screen romance, providing ample (and well-exploited) opportunity for both comedy and drama. I can't imagine myself ever getting tired of their fiery passion and constant conflict.
Credit is due to the writing staff who consistently manage to make Inara's role link in seamlessly with the work of Mal's crew, without ever appearing contrived or peculiar. Even though she works alone they manage to incorporate her into every episode. Whether she's on an 'ambassadorial' mission or with the rest of the crew, it always feels like she belongs on Serenity. Nothing breaks that reality and reminds you that you're watching a TV show. It all just feels right.
I love how the documentary-style shaky cam is used for all the shots on the ship to help maintain this realism. For all you Battlestar fans, this was done over 2 years before BSG was made. In fact, by comparison, Battlestar just seems so over-the-top. Every event is so GODSDAMN life-threatening that the camera has to move around at 100mph just to keep up with all the GODSDAMN FRAKKING important stuff. It's hard to watch that series without getting carsick.
However, Firefly has a gentle, natural shake and they use just the right amount of lens flare. They juxtapose the function and fluidity of running a crew of space pirates with the stillness and eerie beauty of space. It looks stunning and sets a great tone for the show - perfect for the whole Space-Cowboy theme.
Brilliant writing. Brilliant direction. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd be tempted to say that this show is perfect.
I'm halfway through the series now - after spending the past two days locked to my TV - and have just finished watching Jaynestown. This episode really struck me for two reasons: firstly, it's an exceptional episode and secondly, Joss didn't write it.
I'm a huge fan of Whedon's shows and I've always liked that he uses the same core writing staff. There is something that does niggle at me though. Almost all the best Angel, Buffy and Dollhouse episodes are written and/or directed by Whedon himself. Seriously, he's just always amazing. His episodes are the smartest, funniest and most moving.
It seems like a weird criticism to say that Whedon is just TOO good, but he really does outshine his writing staff by a significant amount. I've always felt that others should get a shot. I was pretty stoked when I found out this episode was written by Ben Edlund, mastermind of the brilliant Angel episode, Smile Time. To keep it brief, Jaynestown is also incredible. So kudos, Mr Edlund!
Jayne, a character that mainly serves as the comic relief, has a real meaty story here to help flesh out and develop his character. I love how Whedon's shows don't ever forget the little guy - or in Jayne's case, the very BIG little guy! The episode is funny, moving and deep. Edlund manages to work in an incredibly interesting sub-plot for River and Book covering humanity's need for faith and spirituality whilst simultaneously using Jayne's main plot to challenge our nature of relying on those greater than us (i.e. God) to make our future better. This isn't just an episode. This is an essay, presenting both arguments and supporting them. IN-CRED-IBLE stuff.
In the other episodes I watched there has been much done to build on the solid foundation of the premiere. Best of all is Mal and Inara's relationship which, as I alluded to before, could very well be Joss's best on-screen romance, providing ample (and well-exploited) opportunity for both comedy and drama. I can't imagine myself ever getting tired of their fiery passion and constant conflict.
Credit is due to the writing staff who consistently manage to make Inara's role link in seamlessly with the work of Mal's crew, without ever appearing contrived or peculiar. Even though she works alone they manage to incorporate her into every episode. Whether she's on an 'ambassadorial' mission or with the rest of the crew, it always feels like she belongs on Serenity. Nothing breaks that reality and reminds you that you're watching a TV show. It all just feels right.
I love how the documentary-style shaky cam is used for all the shots on the ship to help maintain this realism. For all you Battlestar fans, this was done over 2 years before BSG was made. In fact, by comparison, Battlestar just seems so over-the-top. Every event is so GODSDAMN life-threatening that the camera has to move around at 100mph just to keep up with all the GODSDAMN FRAKKING important stuff. It's hard to watch that series without getting carsick.
However, Firefly has a gentle, natural shake and they use just the right amount of lens flare. They juxtapose the function and fluidity of running a crew of space pirates with the stillness and eerie beauty of space. It looks stunning and sets a great tone for the show - perfect for the whole Space-Cowboy theme.
Brilliant writing. Brilliant direction. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd be tempted to say that this show is perfect.
Election 2010: Proportional Representation
From BBC News:
Blunkett's statement does illustrate the mentality of politicians. For them, this is a job and the connection between what they do and the democratic rights of the electorate must be intangable. It's no wonder that the public feel more disempowered than ever in a genertaion when we know far more about politics and politicians.
Even senior politicians don't seem to understand the frustration people feel when their vote is meaningless under an unfair system. The democratic ideal of each person having an equal voice is the most important thing to uphold. Surely the politicians should be forced into learning how to get along, instead of stripping the public of their democratic rights!
Just to nag at the Tories for a minute - they preach of a society in which each individual is responsible for the success of the whole and yet openly support a voting system that strips those same individuals of their ability to make choices on the most significant issues. It also conveniently allows them to keep a grip on their power. They constantly complain about the Nanny State and the over-reaching arms of Government and yet tell the voters they can't vote for who they want because a Tory majority is the only way to keep the country stable. It's just patronising and hypocritical.
ADDENDUM:
A little bit of number crunching and some generalisations here, but I'm fairly certain that much of this is somewhat reliable. Looking purely at vote-share the Conservatives got 36.1%, Lab 29% and Lib Dem 23%. Combining the centre-left votes comes to 52% and whilst I'm not sure that all Lib Dem voters would want a Labour government I'm sure that most wouldn't mind one. I'm also sure that most of them are strongly anti-Tory. 52% (and more if you include the fringe parties) of the country are supportive of anything but a Tory government and yet they'll almost certainly be in power. I'm beginning to think that a Big Brother-style elimination vote would end up with more satisfied voters than our current system. It would eliminate the fringe and there would be no vote wasting. That's possibly the most depressing thought I've had in a long while....our voting system is inferior to reality TV.
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett says he's "bewildered" by Nick Clegg's fascination with bringing in proportional representation which, he says, would result in the current horse-trading being repeated after every election. He tells Sunday Live he believes the Conservatives and Lib Dems will "cobble together" an agreement but that stable government is "much, much more important than some squabble over the voting system."
Blunkett's statement does illustrate the mentality of politicians. For them, this is a job and the connection between what they do and the democratic rights of the electorate must be intangable. It's no wonder that the public feel more disempowered than ever in a genertaion when we know far more about politics and politicians.
Even senior politicians don't seem to understand the frustration people feel when their vote is meaningless under an unfair system. The democratic ideal of each person having an equal voice is the most important thing to uphold. Surely the politicians should be forced into learning how to get along, instead of stripping the public of their democratic rights!
Just to nag at the Tories for a minute - they preach of a society in which each individual is responsible for the success of the whole and yet openly support a voting system that strips those same individuals of their ability to make choices on the most significant issues. It also conveniently allows them to keep a grip on their power. They constantly complain about the Nanny State and the over-reaching arms of Government and yet tell the voters they can't vote for who they want because a Tory majority is the only way to keep the country stable. It's just patronising and hypocritical.
ADDENDUM:
A little bit of number crunching and some generalisations here, but I'm fairly certain that much of this is somewhat reliable. Looking purely at vote-share the Conservatives got 36.1%, Lab 29% and Lib Dem 23%. Combining the centre-left votes comes to 52% and whilst I'm not sure that all Lib Dem voters would want a Labour government I'm sure that most wouldn't mind one. I'm also sure that most of them are strongly anti-Tory. 52% (and more if you include the fringe parties) of the country are supportive of anything but a Tory government and yet they'll almost certainly be in power. I'm beginning to think that a Big Brother-style elimination vote would end up with more satisfied voters than our current system. It would eliminate the fringe and there would be no vote wasting. That's possibly the most depressing thought I've had in a long while....our voting system is inferior to reality TV.
Saturday, 8 May 2010
Firefly
Ok, so I'm a bit of a Joss Whedon fanboy and any opinion I have has to be taken with a pinch of salt. In my experience it's hard for a die hard fan to express any opinion (about the thing they're a die hard fan of) that can be even remotely comprehended by anyone who isn't themselves a die hard fan. I generally try to avoid the kind of overt bias typical of fanboy writing because it's pointless for most people to read. Nevertheless I can't ignore that after rewatching the first episode of Firefly there is a part of my brain that's just screaming "OMFGWTF!THISISTHEGREATESTSCI-FIPROGRAMEVER!!!". I just needed to get that out of the way.
Admittedly I loved it the first time around, but having gone through a phase of rewatching many of Whedon's shows, I've come to find greater respect for the artistry behind much of his work. If there's one important common element in all of these shows, it's that if you look hard enough, you see the hidden depth of thought beneath the surface. They're very deceptive actually because even the 'surface' is deeper than most shows. It's easy to be fooled into thinking that all the writers' time was spent writing the incredibly witty dialogue, charming characters and on creating interesting set pieces, but they go far beyond that. Firefly is no exception and after (re)watching only one episode I've discovered a greater love for it than ever before.
Well let's start off with the simple stuff. Firefly is witty, exciting and entertaining. The series' film-length premiere was jam-packed full of brilliant one-liners, expansive environments and frequent nail-biting tension. It's easy to think this is just a classic adventure sci-fi akin to something like Star Wars (I would actually go so far as saying it actually does this better). In 83 minutes the pacing never once lets up. We're introduced to a cast of over 10 major characters and 4 completely distinct sets of antagonists (Badger, Patience, The Alliance and the Reavers). In one episode! One episode!! Not once during this time did I feel that any plot-point was contrived or truncated. It all just works.
Now, chances are, that I've already lost you and you've written me off as just another sci-fi geek whose sole idea of excitement is the release of a new issue of his favourite comic book. Well, sadly you'd probably be right there, but I'm going to have to continue anyway. If anything just so that my brain doesn't explode from having to contain all this information.
All this stuff is great. In case you haven't got it already, it's really great. Imagine my glee when, upon rewatching, I realised there was actually more to this than I initially thought. Several core themes hit me much harder this time. Greatest of all is the 'religious' triangle that connects Mal, Book and Inara - Christianity, Far Eastern spirituality and Mal's loss of Christian faith, all clash here. Particularly in Book's initial meeting with Inara and then later as Book breaks down in front of her, both scenes involving Mal's aggressive attacks on the two strong religious figures.
Mal and Inara's relationship is a constant source of really interesting interpersonal dynamics. Their fierce arguments and clear yearning for each other provide endless opportunity not only to serve as the series' core romantic interest (I say 'core' because there are no fewer than 3 interesting romances on board Serenity) but also as important device for exploring these characters. I really didn't believe Whedon could improve on the Buffy-Angel exchange, but I think he's onto a winner here.
There are seeds sown all over the place for seemingly endless exploration. Zoe and Wash's love triangle with Mal, the mysterious and malevolant Alliance, Reavers, Wild West style pioneer culture, Zoe and Mal's involvement in the War, Jayne's potential for betrayal, Simon and Kaylee's romance, River's experience in 'the programme', Book's mysterious past. Seriously, I'm not even covering everything. Once again, I stress that this is ONE episode! Alright, so it's the length of two episodes back-to-back, but still, I can't think of a better series opener. I just can't wait to watch the next one.
Admittedly I loved it the first time around, but having gone through a phase of rewatching many of Whedon's shows, I've come to find greater respect for the artistry behind much of his work. If there's one important common element in all of these shows, it's that if you look hard enough, you see the hidden depth of thought beneath the surface. They're very deceptive actually because even the 'surface' is deeper than most shows. It's easy to be fooled into thinking that all the writers' time was spent writing the incredibly witty dialogue, charming characters and on creating interesting set pieces, but they go far beyond that. Firefly is no exception and after (re)watching only one episode I've discovered a greater love for it than ever before.
Well let's start off with the simple stuff. Firefly is witty, exciting and entertaining. The series' film-length premiere was jam-packed full of brilliant one-liners, expansive environments and frequent nail-biting tension. It's easy to think this is just a classic adventure sci-fi akin to something like Star Wars (I would actually go so far as saying it actually does this better). In 83 minutes the pacing never once lets up. We're introduced to a cast of over 10 major characters and 4 completely distinct sets of antagonists (Badger, Patience, The Alliance and the Reavers). In one episode! One episode!! Not once during this time did I feel that any plot-point was contrived or truncated. It all just works.
Now, chances are, that I've already lost you and you've written me off as just another sci-fi geek whose sole idea of excitement is the release of a new issue of his favourite comic book. Well, sadly you'd probably be right there, but I'm going to have to continue anyway. If anything just so that my brain doesn't explode from having to contain all this information.
All this stuff is great. In case you haven't got it already, it's really great. Imagine my glee when, upon rewatching, I realised there was actually more to this than I initially thought. Several core themes hit me much harder this time. Greatest of all is the 'religious' triangle that connects Mal, Book and Inara - Christianity, Far Eastern spirituality and Mal's loss of Christian faith, all clash here. Particularly in Book's initial meeting with Inara and then later as Book breaks down in front of her, both scenes involving Mal's aggressive attacks on the two strong religious figures.
Mal and Inara's relationship is a constant source of really interesting interpersonal dynamics. Their fierce arguments and clear yearning for each other provide endless opportunity not only to serve as the series' core romantic interest (I say 'core' because there are no fewer than 3 interesting romances on board Serenity) but also as important device for exploring these characters. I really didn't believe Whedon could improve on the Buffy-Angel exchange, but I think he's onto a winner here.
There are seeds sown all over the place for seemingly endless exploration. Zoe and Wash's love triangle with Mal, the mysterious and malevolant Alliance, Reavers, Wild West style pioneer culture, Zoe and Mal's involvement in the War, Jayne's potential for betrayal, Simon and Kaylee's romance, River's experience in 'the programme', Book's mysterious past. Seriously, I'm not even covering everything. Once again, I stress that this is ONE episode! Alright, so it's the length of two episodes back-to-back, but still, I can't think of a better series opener. I just can't wait to watch the next one.
The Man in the High Castle
I've not read much Philip K Dick, but he comes highly recommended from several friends of mine. I've read parts of Ubik, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and A Scanner Darkly but never found them engaging enough to finish. Having now completed The Man in the High Castle, I realise that many of my original criticisms were probably well-founded - confusing plots, odd characters and unnatural and erratic pacing. However, I've also realised that none of this matters. I've really come to appreciate Dick's genius.
The story is set in an alternate reality in which the Nazis won WWII. They control Europe, Africa, South America and the East Coast of the (now former) United States. The story takes place on the West Coast of the USA, now the Japanese occupied PSA (Pacific States of America). Reading all this in the blurb, I expected a highly political plot, centering mainly on events that help flesh out the alternate history Dick has created.
To a certain extent this is correct, but it's such a small part of the overall piece. Dick goes to incredible lengths to create this detailed and thoughtful alternate world and then writes an entire chapter about a character (Mr Childan) struggling with the dilemna of giving a gift to a customer's wife for feeling it would be improper. Another chapter ponders the nature of historicity and authenticity of antiques.
This is not at all a flaw. If anything it's an example of his greatness. Not only does Dick create a vivid alternate world - displaying incredible insight into Japanese culture, Nazi psychology and an uncanny ability to emotionally channel the characters he writes for - but he manages to incorporate in-depth philiosophical and existential discussion.
The novel is unlike any other I've read before. It constantly challenges the expectations of the reader, jumping around unpredictably and always providing food for thought. It's unconventional, interesting and always brilliantly written. This should definitely be on more reading lists. It truly is under-appreciated genius.
The story is set in an alternate reality in which the Nazis won WWII. They control Europe, Africa, South America and the East Coast of the (now former) United States. The story takes place on the West Coast of the USA, now the Japanese occupied PSA (Pacific States of America). Reading all this in the blurb, I expected a highly political plot, centering mainly on events that help flesh out the alternate history Dick has created.
To a certain extent this is correct, but it's such a small part of the overall piece. Dick goes to incredible lengths to create this detailed and thoughtful alternate world and then writes an entire chapter about a character (Mr Childan) struggling with the dilemna of giving a gift to a customer's wife for feeling it would be improper. Another chapter ponders the nature of historicity and authenticity of antiques.
This is not at all a flaw. If anything it's an example of his greatness. Not only does Dick create a vivid alternate world - displaying incredible insight into Japanese culture, Nazi psychology and an uncanny ability to emotionally channel the characters he writes for - but he manages to incorporate in-depth philiosophical and existential discussion.
The novel is unlike any other I've read before. It constantly challenges the expectations of the reader, jumping around unpredictably and always providing food for thought. It's unconventional, interesting and always brilliantly written. This should definitely be on more reading lists. It truly is under-appreciated genius.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
You Have Been Watching
Took a trip down to BBC Television Studios yesterday to catch the filming of Charlie Brooker's You Have Been Watching. I happen to think, much like many in my age-group, that Brooker is somewhat of a demi-god, so I couldn't pass up the opportunity to see the filming of his series live.
I've seen quite a few TV filmings in my time and I was still pretty taken aback by how long it was. The recording lasted around 3h30 for a show that's half an hour in length. Fun as it was, I'll admit that I was pretty anxious to leave by the end of it.
Brooker was brilliant. Charismatic, witty and yet somehow just a bit shy. From the moment he walked on the audience were putty in his hands, laughing at everything he said, mainly because it was all hilarious. Great script and some hilarious ad-libbing. He was by far the most entertaining of the bunch.
The show itself suffers from some fairly big flaws. It's actually a reasonable comedy panel show but it's just terrible as a TV review show. In that 'panel' format, it's very hard to say anything honest about a programme because everything you say has to be 'funny'. The show quickly descended into being simply about who can insult the most creatively and ridicule anyone that did like it.
This gets a bit annoying after a while. I had to sit through more than 3 hours of people never really saying anything. David Baddiel seemed particularly prone to this. He had a notebook of one-liners prepared that he left slightly off-stage, seemingly just so that he could get some extra time on camera.
I've always respected Brooker's honesty. One of his greatest qualities, in fact. Whether good or bad, he expresses his opinions passionately and unreservedly, whilst still managing to connect with the reader/viewer. I've watched several TV series only because he has talked about them with such vigour and excitement. This show just lacks that entirely and it's a little dull to watch. I'm sure that, once edited, it'll be a fun show eventually added to Dave's programming schedule but don't expect too much from it.
The season premieres this Thursday 15th April at 10pm, Channel 4. I'll obviously be watching to try and catch myself in the audience because I'm that goddamn cool.
P.S. I managed to get these pretty bitchin' pictures of my sister and I with the Tardis. Fuck yeah!
I've seen quite a few TV filmings in my time and I was still pretty taken aback by how long it was. The recording lasted around 3h30 for a show that's half an hour in length. Fun as it was, I'll admit that I was pretty anxious to leave by the end of it.
Brooker was brilliant. Charismatic, witty and yet somehow just a bit shy. From the moment he walked on the audience were putty in his hands, laughing at everything he said, mainly because it was all hilarious. Great script and some hilarious ad-libbing. He was by far the most entertaining of the bunch.
The show itself suffers from some fairly big flaws. It's actually a reasonable comedy panel show but it's just terrible as a TV review show. In that 'panel' format, it's very hard to say anything honest about a programme because everything you say has to be 'funny'. The show quickly descended into being simply about who can insult the most creatively and ridicule anyone that did like it.
This gets a bit annoying after a while. I had to sit through more than 3 hours of people never really saying anything. David Baddiel seemed particularly prone to this. He had a notebook of one-liners prepared that he left slightly off-stage, seemingly just so that he could get some extra time on camera.
I've always respected Brooker's honesty. One of his greatest qualities, in fact. Whether good or bad, he expresses his opinions passionately and unreservedly, whilst still managing to connect with the reader/viewer. I've watched several TV series only because he has talked about them with such vigour and excitement. This show just lacks that entirely and it's a little dull to watch. I'm sure that, once edited, it'll be a fun show eventually added to Dave's programming schedule but don't expect too much from it.
The season premieres this Thursday 15th April at 10pm, Channel 4. I'll obviously be watching to try and catch myself in the audience because I'm that goddamn cool.
P.S. I managed to get these pretty bitchin' pictures of my sister and I with the Tardis. Fuck yeah!
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
An Education
I have been intending to see this for quite some time. I know I shouldn't be put off by the opinion of others around me, but I was told this film wasn't as good as it appeared and so never got around to seeing it in the cinema. My sister suggested watching it tonight and I was interested.
I didn't know much about it (and the little I did had been long forgotten in the months since the film's original release) so I was a little surprised to see Nick Hornby's name flash on screen during the opening credits. Apparently he adapted the screenplay from the memoirs of a British journalist. I'll admit now that I'm not a huge fan of Hornby. His works are very likeable, but never spectacular. That's exactly what I felt about this film.
The story is simple and almost classical. A cautionary tale for young girls that fall in love with older men. The tale is one oft told and the characters are all archetypal. The strict father, the sympathetic mother, the charming gentleman come to take the virgin daughter away. This isn't exactly a criticism. I think this is one of the best executed versions of that story I've seen. However, it does mean that the film is somewhat limited in what it can achieve.
I loved Carey Mulligan. I happened to watch the Doctor Who episode, Blink right before watching An Education and was already in love with her. She's very charming and instantly believable as an intelligent but impressionable young girl. So much so, that there were some genuinely uncomfortable moments in which David's (Peter Sarsgaard) perverseness is illustrated. It really did feel paedophilic when David lusted towards her.
This was one of the better aspects of the film. They didn't shy away from making David seem creepy. Her wide-eyed childishness juxtaposed against his sinisterness was very effective.
Now onto the bad. The characters are completely one-dimensional. Using caricatures does allow for the film's large cast to be introduced well in the short runtime (90 mins) and some humour too, but it's also the film's greatest limitation. I just feel it's too easy to make an audience feel comfortable and tell them a story they've heard a thousand times before. I like to be made uncomfortable (presupposing it actually serves a purpose) and this film just doesn't do that enough.
A few thing just niggled at me when the end-credits rolled. My main issue was that the world Jenny (Mulligan) initially saw wasn't proved to be false. She believed the world was full of dull people getting along doing things they hate for no reason at all. When the film ended this was still proven true, although somehow she was now completely able to join in with it. It was a surprisingly depressing 'happy' ending. Is that the true message of the film? Life is mostly dull and no-one likes their jobs but it's best to just shut up and get on with it?
Reading this, it must seem like I really didn't enjoy the experience, but I assure the reader that the abundance of negativity is mostly due to the cathartic effect it can have. The film has some great direction, brilliant costume design and generally looks incredible. The story is predictable but enjoyable, much like some of Hornby's other works. If you liked About A Boy, you'll find this to be a much better offering.
I didn't know much about it (and the little I did had been long forgotten in the months since the film's original release) so I was a little surprised to see Nick Hornby's name flash on screen during the opening credits. Apparently he adapted the screenplay from the memoirs of a British journalist. I'll admit now that I'm not a huge fan of Hornby. His works are very likeable, but never spectacular. That's exactly what I felt about this film.
The story is simple and almost classical. A cautionary tale for young girls that fall in love with older men. The tale is one oft told and the characters are all archetypal. The strict father, the sympathetic mother, the charming gentleman come to take the virgin daughter away. This isn't exactly a criticism. I think this is one of the best executed versions of that story I've seen. However, it does mean that the film is somewhat limited in what it can achieve.
I loved Carey Mulligan. I happened to watch the Doctor Who episode, Blink right before watching An Education and was already in love with her. She's very charming and instantly believable as an intelligent but impressionable young girl. So much so, that there were some genuinely uncomfortable moments in which David's (Peter Sarsgaard) perverseness is illustrated. It really did feel paedophilic when David lusted towards her.
This was one of the better aspects of the film. They didn't shy away from making David seem creepy. Her wide-eyed childishness juxtaposed against his sinisterness was very effective.
Now onto the bad. The characters are completely one-dimensional. Using caricatures does allow for the film's large cast to be introduced well in the short runtime (90 mins) and some humour too, but it's also the film's greatest limitation. I just feel it's too easy to make an audience feel comfortable and tell them a story they've heard a thousand times before. I like to be made uncomfortable (presupposing it actually serves a purpose) and this film just doesn't do that enough.
A few thing just niggled at me when the end-credits rolled. My main issue was that the world Jenny (Mulligan) initially saw wasn't proved to be false. She believed the world was full of dull people getting along doing things they hate for no reason at all. When the film ended this was still proven true, although somehow she was now completely able to join in with it. It was a surprisingly depressing 'happy' ending. Is that the true message of the film? Life is mostly dull and no-one likes their jobs but it's best to just shut up and get on with it?
Reading this, it must seem like I really didn't enjoy the experience, but I assure the reader that the abundance of negativity is mostly due to the cathartic effect it can have. The film has some great direction, brilliant costume design and generally looks incredible. The story is predictable but enjoyable, much like some of Hornby's other works. If you liked About A Boy, you'll find this to be a much better offering.
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Greatest Hip-Hip Video Ever?
This is certainly on my short-list. Tinie Tempah is currently topping the singles chart here in the UK with 'Pass Out'. In my humble opinion, this track and this video blow that single out of the water.
This summary from my good friend over at Dollhouse Hothouse summarises this perfectly,
"The whole video was hilariously and endearingly shit, i.e. in every respect better than the previous one"
Tempah himself is a ball of charisma. Entertaining and charming with his schoolboy cheek and enthusiasm. This video, made from a very modest budget, is something I can watch time and again and still enjoy. If only more hip-hop videos were like this.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Self Portrait
I've been getting quite into Paint Pad. I didn't realise how much I missed drawing. I really wanted to create more like the Beast. These are far more complicated and take a lot more time. I had a real disaster today copying this Iron Man photo. I had spent three hours on it when my phone decided to restart itself. Seriously, I was pissed. Like, FML, emo, wrist-slitting pissed. The save function is pretty annoying on this app so I hadn't been doing it as I went along. It was my favourite piece yet and I was so close to finishing when it crapped out on me. Let that be a lesson to you kids at home: "Always save your work".
Anyway, in the twisted logic that comes from that kind of frustration, I decided that I didn't want to let technology beat me. I needed to finish drawing something. Eventually I settled on doing a self-portait. This is my first ever attempt and admittedly I think it shows. Anyway, judge for yourselves.
Sauce image
My version
Seeing as I saved regularly this time, I was able to build up a slideshow of my progress, which you can view here. It's annoying when you're working, but this is a pretty cool bonus.
Anyway, in the twisted logic that comes from that kind of frustration, I decided that I didn't want to let technology beat me. I needed to finish drawing something. Eventually I settled on doing a self-portait. This is my first ever attempt and admittedly I think it shows. Anyway, judge for yourselves.
Sauce image
My version
Seeing as I saved regularly this time, I was able to build up a slideshow of my progress, which you can view here. It's annoying when you're working, but this is a pretty cool bonus.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Akira
I first watched this film several years ago. I think I was around sixteen and had only just started to hear about anime. I didn't know much about it, but the name Akira popped up a lot and so I thought I'd give it a go. It really creeped me out. And rightly so, it's not a film for the feint of heart. Since then, I've had strange feelings towards it - part fear and part dislike. The experience I had watching the film only left me with a bad taste in the mouth and I couldn't say it was a film I liked or enjoyed.
I'm a fair bit older now and I wondered what I might think, now that I have age and wisdom on my side. After having rewatched it, I don't think my discomfort was at all unwarranted. I can completely see how I felt so disgusted and terrified. In fact, I think that's how you're supposed to feel. If you don't, you might want to seek help. Nevertheless, I think now I can say that I really loved it.
The plot is pretty simple, but not obvious. It's quite easy to get lost as very little is explained about who people are and what the world is like. This can be quite confusing if you're watching this for the first time. This is the case with many anime I've watched and the only remedies I know are to just watch it twice or read the wikipedia page. This actually works in it's favour as it allows more time to focus on the story. I hate films that patronise you by explaining every single in and out of the plot as if you can't just figure it out for yourself. Here, the integrity of the fictional world comes first. If the characters know what's going on and you don't, tough. You'll just have to use that grey stuff and work it out.
The world itself is just incredible. There really is some great artwork on display here. Neo-Tokyo has this dark, dystopian vibe that for some reason doesn't seem to exist in films anymore. I guess that was the 80s vision of the future - all black, neon and people dressed like futuristic punks. You just don't see the style that films like Alien, The Terminator and Blade Runner used any more. We just get this (Wait, surely I'm not that old that I'm already harking on about the good ol' days. I wasn't even born when any of those films came out).
This film really did take this concept far further than any of those examples. This was one of the (if not most) darkest settings I've seen on screen. Gang culture, political instability and frequent acts of violence. Take every possible social problem you can think of, mix it all together and you've got Akira's Neo-Tokyo.
The most obvious theme is that of 'power'. Tetsuo and Kaneda's relationship is imbalanced, leading to Tetsuo's inferiority complex. As he discovers his new abilities, Tetsuo seeks to reverse this dynamic, leading him to cause incredible damage to the world around him. This power was only granted to him by those who wished to exploit him and his power. The scientist seeks knowledge, the Colonel seeks military strength and the politicians seek money and well, more political power. The whole film involves all these elements colliding together, all struggling to gain this power as the world falls apart around them. It's Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burned.
There's a lot of obvious reference to the creation of the A-bomb and the danger that power has. The film was written during the Cold War and there's definitely a lot of that fear of a dark future worked into it. The opening sequence shows the destruction of Tokyo during World War III, a reference to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pretty bleak stuff.
It's handled really quite well too, in a melodramatic sort of way. Nezu is laughable at times, because he's just so over-the-top, but the message gets through.
On that note actually, I far recommend the Japanese to the English dub. In fact, as a general rule with anime, Japanese > English. The exceptions that prove the rule are the really big budget films like Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. Studio Ghibli films are mostly high standard. Most others just suck. I don't know where they get these people, but the English voice actors sound like they've never acted before in their lives. Every character is just overplayed. I cringe at the thought of Nezu in that version.
Whichever version you watch, you're in for an interesting ride. Amazing atmosphere and powerful story-telling. You will feel uncomfortable, you will be shocked and that's the point. If you like this, check out the manga too. From the little I've read it's even better.
I'm a fair bit older now and I wondered what I might think, now that I have age and wisdom on my side. After having rewatched it, I don't think my discomfort was at all unwarranted. I can completely see how I felt so disgusted and terrified. In fact, I think that's how you're supposed to feel. If you don't, you might want to seek help. Nevertheless, I think now I can say that I really loved it.
The plot is pretty simple, but not obvious. It's quite easy to get lost as very little is explained about who people are and what the world is like. This can be quite confusing if you're watching this for the first time. This is the case with many anime I've watched and the only remedies I know are to just watch it twice or read the wikipedia page. This actually works in it's favour as it allows more time to focus on the story. I hate films that patronise you by explaining every single in and out of the plot as if you can't just figure it out for yourself. Here, the integrity of the fictional world comes first. If the characters know what's going on and you don't, tough. You'll just have to use that grey stuff and work it out.
The world itself is just incredible. There really is some great artwork on display here. Neo-Tokyo has this dark, dystopian vibe that for some reason doesn't seem to exist in films anymore. I guess that was the 80s vision of the future - all black, neon and people dressed like futuristic punks. You just don't see the style that films like Alien, The Terminator and Blade Runner used any more. We just get this (Wait, surely I'm not that old that I'm already harking on about the good ol' days. I wasn't even born when any of those films came out).
This film really did take this concept far further than any of those examples. This was one of the (if not most) darkest settings I've seen on screen. Gang culture, political instability and frequent acts of violence. Take every possible social problem you can think of, mix it all together and you've got Akira's Neo-Tokyo.
The most obvious theme is that of 'power'. Tetsuo and Kaneda's relationship is imbalanced, leading to Tetsuo's inferiority complex. As he discovers his new abilities, Tetsuo seeks to reverse this dynamic, leading him to cause incredible damage to the world around him. This power was only granted to him by those who wished to exploit him and his power. The scientist seeks knowledge, the Colonel seeks military strength and the politicians seek money and well, more political power. The whole film involves all these elements colliding together, all struggling to gain this power as the world falls apart around them. It's Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burned.
There's a lot of obvious reference to the creation of the A-bomb and the danger that power has. The film was written during the Cold War and there's definitely a lot of that fear of a dark future worked into it. The opening sequence shows the destruction of Tokyo during World War III, a reference to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pretty bleak stuff.
It's handled really quite well too, in a melodramatic sort of way. Nezu is laughable at times, because he's just so over-the-top, but the message gets through.
On that note actually, I far recommend the Japanese to the English dub. In fact, as a general rule with anime, Japanese > English. The exceptions that prove the rule are the really big budget films like Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. Studio Ghibli films are mostly high standard. Most others just suck. I don't know where they get these people, but the English voice actors sound like they've never acted before in their lives. Every character is just overplayed. I cringe at the thought of Nezu in that version.
Whichever version you watch, you're in for an interesting ride. Amazing atmosphere and powerful story-telling. You will feel uncomfortable, you will be shocked and that's the point. If you like this, check out the manga too. From the little I've read it's even better.
Paint Pad for Nokia 5800
Whilst working in an office over the summer, I discovered the beauty of MS Paint as a way to pass away those long, dull hours doing administrative work. It's a lot more suspect than Solitaire and can be really embarrassing if your boss discovers you drawing pictures of pandas. Nonetheless, it's a brilliant way to just waste some time.
I discovered yesterday that there's a Paint application available for my Nokia 5800. I've been playing around with it, pretty much non-stop since then. It's quite difficult to do good, full-size images because the screen is only 3.2" but using a stylus is a million times better than a mouse.
I've been reading Astonishing X-Men recently and so they were the first things I thought to draw. Here are some quick sketches what I done.
Here's Wolverine.
This is a really shitty Colossus. I spent about 15 minutes just trying to draw his head and it still looks terrible. His positioning is really boring too, but I was drawing him from memory so I didn't want to do anything too difficult.
I did this initial sketch of Cyclops, but I wasn't too sure about the colouring. I've always liked the more traditional costume rather than the way he looked in the animated series.
Colouring is a bit fictional here. I don't think he has yellow goggles, but I thought it looked pretty cool. I added the right hand too, just to make it a really traditional Cyclops pose.
This is probably my favourite. I copied this from google images. I just love John Cassady's Beast. You can view the source image here.
And finally....a panda. Never let your boss catch you doing this.
I discovered yesterday that there's a Paint application available for my Nokia 5800. I've been playing around with it, pretty much non-stop since then. It's quite difficult to do good, full-size images because the screen is only 3.2" but using a stylus is a million times better than a mouse.
I've been reading Astonishing X-Men recently and so they were the first things I thought to draw. Here are some quick sketches what I done.
Here's Wolverine.
This is a really shitty Colossus. I spent about 15 minutes just trying to draw his head and it still looks terrible. His positioning is really boring too, but I was drawing him from memory so I didn't want to do anything too difficult.
I did this initial sketch of Cyclops, but I wasn't too sure about the colouring. I've always liked the more traditional costume rather than the way he looked in the animated series.
Colouring is a bit fictional here. I don't think he has yellow goggles, but I thought it looked pretty cool. I added the right hand too, just to make it a really traditional Cyclops pose.
This is probably my favourite. I copied this from google images. I just love John Cassady's Beast. You can view the source image here.
And finally....a panda. Never let your boss catch you doing this.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Metroid Prime: Trilogy
So I've decided I'm going to try and play computer games again. Metroid Prime: Trilogy has been something I've been meaning to play for a long time, but just haven't gotten around to. The idea is the stuff gamers dream about - three triple-A titles available in one collection. Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are ported from the GameCube version with enhanced graphics and the ability to use the wii pointer controls. Pretty Badass.
The spirit of the original SNES classic Metroids is maintained incredibly well. Retro Studios have done a brilliant job of recreating the same flavour that made the originals so exciting. The focus is on exploration and simple puzzle-solving. The action, whilst engaging, tends to be concentrated to epic boss-fights. This isn't a 'run and gun' action game, enjoyment comes from wandering through ancient worlds, built by long lost civilisations. A great amount of effort has gone into making it feel like you're the first sentient being to have walked through here in millennia. Areas that once flooded with life are now habited by strange, dangerous creatures. Imagine Indiana Jones but with aliens instead of snakes.
The artwork is stunning. There are influences taken from all over the ancient world. I've noticed Mesoamerican, Roman and Egyptian architecture and sculpture. It all just looks great. It's a real shame I didn't pick this title up sooner.
The spirit of the original SNES classic Metroids is maintained incredibly well. Retro Studios have done a brilliant job of recreating the same flavour that made the originals so exciting. The focus is on exploration and simple puzzle-solving. The action, whilst engaging, tends to be concentrated to epic boss-fights. This isn't a 'run and gun' action game, enjoyment comes from wandering through ancient worlds, built by long lost civilisations. A great amount of effort has gone into making it feel like you're the first sentient being to have walked through here in millennia. Areas that once flooded with life are now habited by strange, dangerous creatures. Imagine Indiana Jones but with aliens instead of snakes.
The artwork is stunning. There are influences taken from all over the ancient world. I've noticed Mesoamerican, Roman and Egyptian architecture and sculpture. It all just looks great. It's a real shame I didn't pick this title up sooner.
Friday, 19 March 2010
Silent Running
So I'm feeling adventurous. I remember watching Mark Kermode's film blog and him mentioning Doug Trumbull's Silent Running and how amazing it is. The name didn't exactly ring any bells, but apparently he did the special effects for 2001. At the very least, I expect some interesting visuals.
The film is slow. Really slow. There's also something about early 70s cinema that my brain interprets as 'time to fall asleep' (I've nodded off during A Clockwork Orange. Twice). It's the minimalistic visuals, the music and the melodramatic acting style. They just do something to me. This film was no different and it really was quite the uphill battle.
The story is pretty simple sci-fi stuff. Far in the future people have destroyed all of nature and humans are able to survive on synthetic products alone. The last remaining flora have been sent into space by the 'corporations' and are maintained in biospheres on huge space-stations (that look exactly like those from the Doctor Who episode, The Waters of Mars). Freeman Lowell has spent the last 8 years of his life alone, tending to these 'space-forests' that no-one seems to care very much about any more. It consumes him. He gives up everything to maintain the last trace of non-human life.
Initially it's all a pretty hippy, 'save the forests' message. Lowell waxes lyrical to his crew-mates about how great 'real' fruit is and how terrible the synthetic crap they eat is, but they're never even remotely interested. The strength of his beliefs only serves to alienate him from them. The truth is that Lowell is a bit insane. He seems a little off his rocker at the start, but when the order is finally given to jettison the biospheres and return home, he decides to take severe action. Mutiny. He kills his three crew-mates and takes over the ship.
Lowell's motives are really hard to understand (hence me just calling him insane earlier). He saves the trees and even kills for them, but there isn't much he can do with them. No-one is interested in living things any more so he can't bring them back to Earth. All he can do is remain with them for as long as they survive. There is no purpose to his murderous acts. I suppose what this leads me to conclude is that the environmental message isn't what the film is about. The film is about the isolation of space and the real reason for the murders is just plain old cabin fever.
This was a disappointing really, mainly because I feel like I've seen this done far better before. Richard Matheson's novel, I Am Legend just explored the nature of isolation so well that I can't help but be disappointed. Silent Running just doesn't measure up.
The film has some brilliant visuals that alone are worth the watch, but it's pretty poor sci-fi. It has a boring central character and an inconsistent, confused message. Ignore this and watch Moon instead.
The film is slow. Really slow. There's also something about early 70s cinema that my brain interprets as 'time to fall asleep' (I've nodded off during A Clockwork Orange. Twice). It's the minimalistic visuals, the music and the melodramatic acting style. They just do something to me. This film was no different and it really was quite the uphill battle.
The story is pretty simple sci-fi stuff. Far in the future people have destroyed all of nature and humans are able to survive on synthetic products alone. The last remaining flora have been sent into space by the 'corporations' and are maintained in biospheres on huge space-stations (that look exactly like those from the Doctor Who episode, The Waters of Mars). Freeman Lowell has spent the last 8 years of his life alone, tending to these 'space-forests' that no-one seems to care very much about any more. It consumes him. He gives up everything to maintain the last trace of non-human life.
Initially it's all a pretty hippy, 'save the forests' message. Lowell waxes lyrical to his crew-mates about how great 'real' fruit is and how terrible the synthetic crap they eat is, but they're never even remotely interested. The strength of his beliefs only serves to alienate him from them. The truth is that Lowell is a bit insane. He seems a little off his rocker at the start, but when the order is finally given to jettison the biospheres and return home, he decides to take severe action. Mutiny. He kills his three crew-mates and takes over the ship.
Lowell's motives are really hard to understand (hence me just calling him insane earlier). He saves the trees and even kills for them, but there isn't much he can do with them. No-one is interested in living things any more so he can't bring them back to Earth. All he can do is remain with them for as long as they survive. There is no purpose to his murderous acts. I suppose what this leads me to conclude is that the environmental message isn't what the film is about. The film is about the isolation of space and the real reason for the murders is just plain old cabin fever.
This was a disappointing really, mainly because I feel like I've seen this done far better before. Richard Matheson's novel, I Am Legend just explored the nature of isolation so well that I can't help but be disappointed. Silent Running just doesn't measure up.
The film has some brilliant visuals that alone are worth the watch, but it's pretty poor sci-fi. It has a boring central character and an inconsistent, confused message. Ignore this and watch Moon instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)