Due to an influx of work I need to do for my Honours (AKA all the work I should have been doing for weeks suddenly being due soon) this blog is on hold.
I can hear your collective groans of disappointment. Odd, they sound a lot like cheering.
In supplication, here are two of my favourite sites, currently.
They fight Crime.
Texts from last night.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Is it possible to have a ragegasm?
I understand the suffix -gasm usually indicates great enjoyment, but in this case I'm using it to indicate a MASSIVELY powerful emotion.
Oh god, oh god, WHY.
That is all.
Let us fight to defend Joss Whedon. After all, it's not like he has an entire ARMY at his beck and call, or anything.
Oh god, oh god, WHY.
That is all.
Let us fight to defend Joss Whedon. After all, it's not like he has an entire ARMY at his beck and call, or anything.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Upcoming attractions part 2
Just something to start you off.
5. The G.I. Joe movie could be great, it could be average, or it could be horrible.
Here's a link to the trailer.
I want to say more, but really there's too little in the trailer to go off, other then one thing.
Adebisi is in it.
6. SHERLOCK HOLMES.
SHERLOCK BLOODY HOLMES NOW HAS A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE.
You know the ONLY reason I have any faith in this? Robert Downey Jnr. If anyone could play the drug addict, eccentric with faulty logic of fakestreet London, it's Mr Downey Jnr.
Actually, I lie. To me it looks pretty impressive. Obviously the movie trailer has focused on the more Hollywoodsy parts (bare knuckle boxing, something Holmes is already considered a master of in the canon), but I would not be surprised if it was reasonably true to the Holmesian styles.
7. Empire: Total War
I won't bother linking it, since honestly I've not really paid it much attention. I shouldn't include it on "upcoming" attractions since it's already released, but it's "upcoming" for me since I don't have it and likely won't get it.
I know, I know, the idea of me not being balls-out excited by a Total War game is sheer lunacy, but the 18th century sucked. You heard me. The only good thing to happen in the 18th century was the creation of the Swashbuckler.
I just can't bring myself to enjoy the warfare of the 18th century. I put it on this list since I'm open to being wowed by the game should I ever play it, but up until that happens I have no interest in trying it out.
8. Overlord 2.
While I never played more then the demo of Overlord 1, I heard good things about it and have been meaning to try and get my hands on it lately. I have to admit I'm quite curious as to the direction the game will evolve in with the upcoming sequel.
It's good to be bad.
You know, I'm running out of things I'm looking forward to, entertainment wise, this year. Man, is that depressing or what. I was foreseeing three parts in this series.
Oh well. Coming up tomorrow, how Hollywood changing beloved cartoons while making movies out of them isn't new. Gasp, shock horror, etc.
5. The G.I. Joe movie could be great, it could be average, or it could be horrible.
Here's a link to the trailer.
I want to say more, but really there's too little in the trailer to go off, other then one thing.
Adebisi is in it.
6. SHERLOCK HOLMES.
SHERLOCK BLOODY HOLMES NOW HAS A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE.
You know the ONLY reason I have any faith in this? Robert Downey Jnr. If anyone could play the drug addict, eccentric with faulty logic of fakestreet London, it's Mr Downey Jnr.
Actually, I lie. To me it looks pretty impressive. Obviously the movie trailer has focused on the more Hollywoodsy parts (bare knuckle boxing, something Holmes is already considered a master of in the canon), but I would not be surprised if it was reasonably true to the Holmesian styles.
7. Empire: Total War
I won't bother linking it, since honestly I've not really paid it much attention. I shouldn't include it on "upcoming" attractions since it's already released, but it's "upcoming" for me since I don't have it and likely won't get it.
I know, I know, the idea of me not being balls-out excited by a Total War game is sheer lunacy, but the 18th century sucked. You heard me. The only good thing to happen in the 18th century was the creation of the Swashbuckler.
I just can't bring myself to enjoy the warfare of the 18th century. I put it on this list since I'm open to being wowed by the game should I ever play it, but up until that happens I have no interest in trying it out.
8. Overlord 2.
While I never played more then the demo of Overlord 1, I heard good things about it and have been meaning to try and get my hands on it lately. I have to admit I'm quite curious as to the direction the game will evolve in with the upcoming sequel.
It's good to be bad.
You know, I'm running out of things I'm looking forward to, entertainment wise, this year. Man, is that depressing or what. I was foreseeing three parts in this series.
Oh well. Coming up tomorrow, how Hollywood changing beloved cartoons while making movies out of them isn't new. Gasp, shock horror, etc.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The voice of Megatron
Part two of my 'upcoming attractions' list will be next, for now I am just in awe of a certain man.
What do Megatron, the Mutants in the second Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, and literally HUNDREDS of animals in various animated and live action shows/movies have in common?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Welker
This man. Frank. Goddamn. Welker. This man is a god among the voice acting community, and you should learn to pay respect to him.
Seriously, his list of shows and movies he's voiced things for it twice the length of the rest of his wikipedia article. Read it, and marvel at the many, many roles this man has done.
What do Megatron, the Mutants in the second Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, and literally HUNDREDS of animals in various animated and live action shows/movies have in common?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Welker
This man. Frank. Goddamn. Welker. This man is a god among the voice acting community, and you should learn to pay respect to him.
Seriously, his list of shows and movies he's voiced things for it twice the length of the rest of his wikipedia article. Read it, and marvel at the many, many roles this man has done.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Upcoming attractions part 1
In my own highly arrogant style, I choose to believe everyone who matters is interested in what I am interested in. So, with that in mind, let's have a look at upcoming things that, I believe, will bring THE AWESOME to the party, or at least have the potential to do so.
1. Dragon Age. No one who has been anywhere NEAR this blog will be surprised by this.
It's a Bioware (tick) made western RPG (tick) focusing on a gritty gothic fantasy (tick) world where the player create their own character (tick) including their origin story (tick) without relying solely upon a 'good vs evil' morality system (tick). Your character is the last hope of the world in an epic struggle against horrific monsters (tick tick), attempting to unite the powers in the region against them, forging your own army to stop the potential destruction of the world as you know it (tick tick tick).
Nothing more to say, really.
2. Infamous/Prototype. I am interested in both of these games, but I have a serious dilemma. Which one do I get? They come out at roughly the same time, and both look great, how do I decide? Let's compare the two.
One is a sandbox open world game where you play a character waking up to find himself with super powers, in a city in chaos. You have to use your powers to find out what happened, all the while jumping, climbing, flying your way around the city and dealing with hordes of enemies, learning new uses for your powers.
The other is a sandbox open world game where you play a character waking up to find himself with super powers, in a city in chaos. You have to use your powers to find out what happened, all the while jumping, climbing, flying your way around the city and dealing with hordes of enemies, learning new uses for your powers.
Oh dear.
That's my problem, dear readers. While I'm sure once I get into them they will play incredibly differently, have different stories, characterisations, options and choices, they just seem too similar at first glance to decide. It really comes down to: Do I want to play a shapechanger with an Assassins Creed hood, or a Lightning thrower in a game with comic book aesthetics?
3. The second Transformers movie. I know the original wasn't anything groundbreaking, it "broke" the original series, all that sort of crap, but I friggin' ENJOYED it. It was a fun movie, I like the way Shia played his character, and I will admit if Megan Fox offered, I would say yes.
Can't embed this one, you'll have to click a link. SHOCK HORROR.
There were alot of things I would like to have seen done differently, but overall it was a decent movie. And now the most important part comes, seeing what they do with part 2. It could go one of two ways.
A) It does the same thing nearly all sequels do, misunderstand what made the first one enjoyable and screw itself over (Matrix 2 springs to mind as an example. THE MATRIX MOVIES ENDED WITH NUMBER 1).
B) It actually does what the behind the scene stuff suggests. Now that the first movie has gotten all of the introduction and backstory out of the way, they can focus the movie more on the actual Transformers themselves.
P.S. Mr Bay, should you stumble across this, please bring back Jazz somehow. I know it'll invalidate the whole "death is permanent" thing all stories should strive for to make it a genuine threat, but it's far preferable to his fate. Seriously, if you wanted Megatron to seem threatening, have him kill Ironhide, not the second smallest Autobot in the team.
4. My marriage to Aysel, the Azerbaijanian entrant to this years Eurovision. Ok, so I don't even know her yet, I can't conceive of a possible world in which I would ever meet her, and the likelihood of a girl as gorgeous as her, who's intelligent enough to know multiple languages being interested in me is very slim, but I've got things in my favour!
Such as....
Well...
Shut up, a man can dream. Sorry Zendulo, you may have been displaced as my dream-girl.
1. Dragon Age. No one who has been anywhere NEAR this blog will be surprised by this.
It's a Bioware (tick) made western RPG (tick) focusing on a gritty gothic fantasy (tick) world where the player create their own character (tick) including their origin story (tick) without relying solely upon a 'good vs evil' morality system (tick). Your character is the last hope of the world in an epic struggle against horrific monsters (tick tick), attempting to unite the powers in the region against them, forging your own army to stop the potential destruction of the world as you know it (tick tick tick).Nothing more to say, really.
2. Infamous/Prototype. I am interested in both of these games, but I have a serious dilemma. Which one do I get? They come out at roughly the same time, and both look great, how do I decide? Let's compare the two.
One is a sandbox open world game where you play a character waking up to find himself with super powers, in a city in chaos. You have to use your powers to find out what happened, all the while jumping, climbing, flying your way around the city and dealing with hordes of enemies, learning new uses for your powers.
The other is a sandbox open world game where you play a character waking up to find himself with super powers, in a city in chaos. You have to use your powers to find out what happened, all the while jumping, climbing, flying your way around the city and dealing with hordes of enemies, learning new uses for your powers.Oh dear.
That's my problem, dear readers. While I'm sure once I get into them they will play incredibly differently, have different stories, characterisations, options and choices, they just seem too similar at first glance to decide. It really comes down to: Do I want to play a shapechanger with an Assassins Creed hood, or a Lightning thrower in a game with comic book aesthetics?
3. The second Transformers movie. I know the original wasn't anything groundbreaking, it "broke" the original series, all that sort of crap, but I friggin' ENJOYED it. It was a fun movie, I like the way Shia played his character, and I will admit if Megan Fox offered, I would say yes.
Can't embed this one, you'll have to click a link. SHOCK HORROR.
There were alot of things I would like to have seen done differently, but overall it was a decent movie. And now the most important part comes, seeing what they do with part 2. It could go one of two ways.
A) It does the same thing nearly all sequels do, misunderstand what made the first one enjoyable and screw itself over (Matrix 2 springs to mind as an example. THE MATRIX MOVIES ENDED WITH NUMBER 1).
B) It actually does what the behind the scene stuff suggests. Now that the first movie has gotten all of the introduction and backstory out of the way, they can focus the movie more on the actual Transformers themselves.
P.S. Mr Bay, should you stumble across this, please bring back Jazz somehow. I know it'll invalidate the whole "death is permanent" thing all stories should strive for to make it a genuine threat, but it's far preferable to his fate. Seriously, if you wanted Megatron to seem threatening, have him kill Ironhide, not the second smallest Autobot in the team.
4. My marriage to Aysel, the Azerbaijanian entrant to this years Eurovision. Ok, so I don't even know her yet, I can't conceive of a possible world in which I would ever meet her, and the likelihood of a girl as gorgeous as her, who's intelligent enough to know multiple languages being interested in me is very slim, but I've got things in my favour!
Such as....
Well...
Shut up, a man can dream. Sorry Zendulo, you may have been displaced as my dream-girl.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Eurovision Song Contest
Before I share my night-long commentary on the final of the Eurovision song contest, there are four things I would like to get off my chest.
1. Aysel in the Azerbaijan entry was absolutely gorgeous. A quick wikipedia search revealed she's only turned 20 less then half a month ago. Damnit I feel old now.
2. The German entry was absolutely awesome.
If this entry doesn't make you at least KINDA interested in men, if only for two minutes (until Dita Von Teese shows up), there's something wrong with you.
3. Norway, for most of the voting, was double it's nearest rival. Can I just say that I didn't enjoy the Norwegian entry? No doubt it had it's fans (otherwise it wouldn't have won so convincingly), but I plain didn't enjoy it.
4. Who noticed the voting blocks? That's right, the Eurovision song contest has 'talent' as a secondary consideration at best, the primary consideration being old alliances and grudges between countries. Want to know why Norway won? They had a reasonable entry, and NO ONE DISLIKES THEM.
Now, only my running commentary
7:42
A pair of wires, a giant treadmill, and a pack of adoring women. Wow, last years Russian winner got paid well.
7:45
It seems they saved the 'good' hosts for the finals. It haven't once seen him try to feel her up
7:49
My enjoyment of Lithuania's entrant was ruined when I noticed two things. 1. He has sharp side burns. 2. The piano kept playing when he stood up. ILLUSION BROKEN
7:51
P.S. Lithuania, you gain nothing when using your Eurovision entry to inform the world that your people are flammable.
7:53
Israel, just for getting my hopes up about the possibility of cleavage, then dashing them (damned skin coloured dress sections) I award you nil points.
7:57
The French entrant is gracing us with the little known French dialect of 'phlegmy French'.
8:02
Dear Sweden: A dress should not be described as 'shaggy'. 'Shaggy' should be limited to carpets, dogs and Hanna Barbara cartton characters only
8:05
According to the 'postcards' advertising each country in the Eurovision, the entirety of Europe is populated by breakdancers, skateboarders, and women looking inordinately happy to be crossing the road.
8:08
I was going to list who was off their faces with the Portuguese entry, but it might be quicker to list the people ON their faces. "What do you want the backdrop to look like?" "Take this and draw what you see."
8:29
Call me picky, Russia, but I don't enjoy a 30 foot video screen showing a crying old woman. That may just be me, though.
8:33
And Azerbaijan wins the "most winks in a single performance" with three in three minutes. Oh, and to the dude, if you're singing with a 20 year old and playing a ukulele with an extended neck it does look like you're compensating for something.
8:37
Bosnia's entrant makes me wonder: How much thought goes into the degree of 'scruffy unshaven' look the performers cultivate? Would he have shaven just before the semi's in order to get the right look for the finals, or would he had had the idea look in the semi's, to try and get through?
8:44
Look closely, the Moldovan entrant has "don't panic" written in Moldovan on her left palm.
8:46
If anyone is missing a mop, the Moldovan entrant's backup singer seems to have found it.
8:50
Someone told me the Maltese entrant that a lot of REALLY good female singers are unattractive. She got the equation half right
8:52
The Estonian entrant just confirms it. Violins/string instruments are the new black
9:00
The German entrant has just made me gay. I have no regrets.
9:02
And now they've just brought out a burlesque performer, Miss Dita Von Teese. I'm straight again.
9:04
Turkey: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong"
9:10
Albania: A second helping of twin midget joker break dancers and a sequined gimp DOES NOT MAKE IT BETTER. Only one word can describe it: Skeeeevy.
9:12
Norway, we've seen you play your violin twice, and twice you've broken your bow. I think you may be doing something wrong.
9:17
I think the Cameraman had a seizure during the Ukranian entry. I don't blame him I nearly had one myself.
9:19
Oh, and a question to the Ukraine: What IS an "anti-crisis girl"? Is it like a "normal day girl"?
9:20
And a big hello to the Romanian entrant! As a side note,t he dancers, choreography and outfits were chosen by the male population of the world aged 18-55
9:28
There are many things that could be said about the UK entrant, so I'll limit myself to one: I think I saw nipple.
9:33
Wow Finland. I didn't realise it was possible to get away with pants and a pair of sleeves. And nothing else.
9:36
Just so you know, Spain, flesh coloured jump suits with glitter is cheating. You're getting me interested for nothing.
10:28
Oh please, don't let the German entrant lose to the UK entrant. For the love of all things nerdy, don't let the Germans be beaten by Malta!
10:59
Oh thank god, Germany beat Malta! I am content with the Eurovision, justice is served.
11:00
Though the Norwegian entry was about as fun as stringing my pubes appropriately and playing them like a violin, and really didn't deserve to win... It's the Eurovision, no one who deserves to win ever wins it.
1. Aysel in the Azerbaijan entry was absolutely gorgeous. A quick wikipedia search revealed she's only turned 20 less then half a month ago. Damnit I feel old now.
2. The German entry was absolutely awesome.
If this entry doesn't make you at least KINDA interested in men, if only for two minutes (until Dita Von Teese shows up), there's something wrong with you.
3. Norway, for most of the voting, was double it's nearest rival. Can I just say that I didn't enjoy the Norwegian entry? No doubt it had it's fans (otherwise it wouldn't have won so convincingly), but I plain didn't enjoy it.
4. Who noticed the voting blocks? That's right, the Eurovision song contest has 'talent' as a secondary consideration at best, the primary consideration being old alliances and grudges between countries. Want to know why Norway won? They had a reasonable entry, and NO ONE DISLIKES THEM.
Now, only my running commentary
7:42
A pair of wires, a giant treadmill, and a pack of adoring women. Wow, last years Russian winner got paid well.
7:45
It seems they saved the 'good' hosts for the finals. It haven't once seen him try to feel her up
7:49
My enjoyment of Lithuania's entrant was ruined when I noticed two things. 1. He has sharp side burns. 2. The piano kept playing when he stood up. ILLUSION BROKEN
7:51
P.S. Lithuania, you gain nothing when using your Eurovision entry to inform the world that your people are flammable.
7:53
Israel, just for getting my hopes up about the possibility of cleavage, then dashing them (damned skin coloured dress sections) I award you nil points.
7:57
The French entrant is gracing us with the little known French dialect of 'phlegmy French'.
8:02
Dear Sweden: A dress should not be described as 'shaggy'. 'Shaggy' should be limited to carpets, dogs and Hanna Barbara cartton characters only
8:05
According to the 'postcards' advertising each country in the Eurovision, the entirety of Europe is populated by breakdancers, skateboarders, and women looking inordinately happy to be crossing the road.
8:08
I was going to list who was off their faces with the Portuguese entry, but it might be quicker to list the people ON their faces. "What do you want the backdrop to look like?" "Take this and draw what you see."
8:29
Call me picky, Russia, but I don't enjoy a 30 foot video screen showing a crying old woman. That may just be me, though.
8:33
And Azerbaijan wins the "most winks in a single performance" with three in three minutes. Oh, and to the dude, if you're singing with a 20 year old and playing a ukulele with an extended neck it does look like you're compensating for something.
8:37
Bosnia's entrant makes me wonder: How much thought goes into the degree of 'scruffy unshaven' look the performers cultivate? Would he have shaven just before the semi's in order to get the right look for the finals, or would he had had the idea look in the semi's, to try and get through?
8:44
Look closely, the Moldovan entrant has "don't panic" written in Moldovan on her left palm.
8:46
If anyone is missing a mop, the Moldovan entrant's backup singer seems to have found it.
8:50
Someone told me the Maltese entrant that a lot of REALLY good female singers are unattractive. She got the equation half right
8:52
The Estonian entrant just confirms it. Violins/string instruments are the new black
9:00
The German entrant has just made me gay. I have no regrets.
9:02
And now they've just brought out a burlesque performer, Miss Dita Von Teese. I'm straight again.
9:04
Turkey: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong"
9:10
Albania: A second helping of twin midget joker break dancers and a sequined gimp DOES NOT MAKE IT BETTER. Only one word can describe it: Skeeeevy.
9:12
Norway, we've seen you play your violin twice, and twice you've broken your bow. I think you may be doing something wrong.
9:17
I think the Cameraman had a seizure during the Ukranian entry. I don't blame him I nearly had one myself.
9:19
Oh, and a question to the Ukraine: What IS an "anti-crisis girl"? Is it like a "normal day girl"?
9:20
And a big hello to the Romanian entrant! As a side note,t he dancers, choreography and outfits were chosen by the male population of the world aged 18-55
9:28
There are many things that could be said about the UK entrant, so I'll limit myself to one: I think I saw nipple.
9:33
Wow Finland. I didn't realise it was possible to get away with pants and a pair of sleeves. And nothing else.
9:36
Just so you know, Spain, flesh coloured jump suits with glitter is cheating. You're getting me interested for nothing.
10:28
Oh please, don't let the German entrant lose to the UK entrant. For the love of all things nerdy, don't let the Germans be beaten by Malta!
10:59
Oh thank god, Germany beat Malta! I am content with the Eurovision, justice is served.
11:00
Though the Norwegian entry was about as fun as stringing my pubes appropriately and playing them like a violin, and really didn't deserve to win... It's the Eurovision, no one who deserves to win ever wins it.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Eurovision Song Contest semi-finals
As my first post in the 200s, I decided to go non-geeky and share something with you. During the Semi-finals of the Eurovision Song Contest I kept a running commentary on facebook, and I would like to share it with you now.
Friday Night
8:17
The Armenian entrant's strategy seems to be "get six women on a bed and set it on fire, that'll win it for us."
8:22
Wow. Just saw one eurovision entrant that looked like one of the women was beaten with an ugly stick, then the second woman was beaten with the first woman.
8:25
Bulgaria's male singer has a higher voice than his female backing singers
8:27
"We've got some horrible dancers! This is bad, how can we improve them?" "Put them on stilts!"
8:30
One of Turkey's female backing singers/dancers obviously called in sick, and they had to replace her with the male dance choreographer in a bad silk shirt.
8:32
Iceland had Neil Patrick Harris' evil twin (in a bad suit) as one of the backing singers
8:33
Macedonia thought Bill and Ted was a serious documentary, and as such based their entrant upon them.
8:37
Romania can't decide if they're ballet or Burlesque
8:42
Just saw the entrant from Finland. It looks like Eminem aged twenty years and forgot how to wear a hat
8:51
Attention Portugal. No one should be that happy to play the Ukulele
Saturday Night
7:50
The Latvian entrant dances like he's worried about snipers taking potshots at him. But I suppose he's a Latvian in Russia.
7:51
Either that or he needs to poo. Or he needs to poo AND is afraid of Snipers
7:54
Serbian entrant. Blond afro, yellow jacket, piano accordion, curly shoes. I want to take the piss out of this entrant, but it already takes so much piss out of itself it should die of dehydration
8:04
The Norwegian entrant had a creepy smile. I think he was a pod person
8:13
The male half of the slovakian entrant looks like he was shagging the work experience girl twenty seconds before going on stage
8:16
It took me twenty seconds to realise Denmark was singing in English
8:25
Slovenia forgot she was meant to come out from behind the parchment and be on stage. "I don't want to go out on stage!" "Oh don't be such a baby"
8:26
Hungary. Oh Hungary, you're not fooling anyone by having three women on stage with you. P.S. Dramatic clothing change is pointless if it's done twenty seconds into the performance
8:31
Azerbaijan: Wow. That backup dancer is... quite manish. Very manish, in fact. I would say more, but she looked like she could beat the crap out of me.
8:34
Greek Entrant: "Quick! Turn up the backing singers and synthesizers! We can still hear the main singer!"
8:41
Moldovan entrant: I wasn't on your side until I saw that your backup singer was holding a stick, then you got me.
8:45
Albadian Entrant: Nikki Webster dancing with a FABULOUS gimp, and the "why so serious" backup dancers
8:53
Half naked Centurion dancers, a giant cog containing a revolving wheel containing a ladder being pole danced around by a half naked woman. It can only be the Ukrainian entrant!
9:00
I am so sorry to all your Dutch people out there. You're being represented by a whale with two turntables and a microphone
9:25
And to make the night more depressing, I just wikipedia'd one particularly striking entrant ((one half of the Azerbaijan duet) and found out she's younger then I am. Bugger.
The Eurovision finals coming up tomorrow night. Stay tuned.
Friday Night
8:17
The Armenian entrant's strategy seems to be "get six women on a bed and set it on fire, that'll win it for us."
8:22
Wow. Just saw one eurovision entrant that looked like one of the women was beaten with an ugly stick, then the second woman was beaten with the first woman.
8:25
Bulgaria's male singer has a higher voice than his female backing singers
8:27
"We've got some horrible dancers! This is bad, how can we improve them?" "Put them on stilts!"
8:30
One of Turkey's female backing singers/dancers obviously called in sick, and they had to replace her with the male dance choreographer in a bad silk shirt.
8:32
Iceland had Neil Patrick Harris' evil twin (in a bad suit) as one of the backing singers
8:33
Macedonia thought Bill and Ted was a serious documentary, and as such based their entrant upon them.
8:37
Romania can't decide if they're ballet or Burlesque
8:42
Just saw the entrant from Finland. It looks like Eminem aged twenty years and forgot how to wear a hat
8:51
Attention Portugal. No one should be that happy to play the Ukulele
Saturday Night
7:50
The Latvian entrant dances like he's worried about snipers taking potshots at him. But I suppose he's a Latvian in Russia.
7:51
Either that or he needs to poo. Or he needs to poo AND is afraid of Snipers
7:54
Serbian entrant. Blond afro, yellow jacket, piano accordion, curly shoes. I want to take the piss out of this entrant, but it already takes so much piss out of itself it should die of dehydration
8:04
The Norwegian entrant had a creepy smile. I think he was a pod person
8:13
The male half of the slovakian entrant looks like he was shagging the work experience girl twenty seconds before going on stage
8:16
It took me twenty seconds to realise Denmark was singing in English
8:25
Slovenia forgot she was meant to come out from behind the parchment and be on stage. "I don't want to go out on stage!" "Oh don't be such a baby"
8:26
Hungary. Oh Hungary, you're not fooling anyone by having three women on stage with you. P.S. Dramatic clothing change is pointless if it's done twenty seconds into the performance
8:31
Azerbaijan: Wow. That backup dancer is... quite manish. Very manish, in fact. I would say more, but she looked like she could beat the crap out of me.
8:34
Greek Entrant: "Quick! Turn up the backing singers and synthesizers! We can still hear the main singer!"
8:41
Moldovan entrant: I wasn't on your side until I saw that your backup singer was holding a stick, then you got me.
8:45
Albadian Entrant: Nikki Webster dancing with a FABULOUS gimp, and the "why so serious" backup dancers
8:53
Half naked Centurion dancers, a giant cog containing a revolving wheel containing a ladder being pole danced around by a half naked woman. It can only be the Ukrainian entrant!
9:00
I am so sorry to all your Dutch people out there. You're being represented by a whale with two turntables and a microphone
9:25
And to make the night more depressing, I just wikipedia'd one particularly striking entrant ((one half of the Azerbaijan duet) and found out she's younger then I am. Bugger.
The Eurovision finals coming up tomorrow night. Stay tuned.
Friday, May 15, 2009
200th post
Well, let's have a retrospective look at the last 199 posts on this blog, with some of my personal highlights pointed out.
I began the blog with high hopes and little conception of what I would actually focus on. 'Topics of nerdity' was my entire brief to myself. Really, I was writing more to myself then anything (I still am, since my readership on a normal day is somewhere between none and "I came here under the belief there is porn?") This can be seen in posts such as the ill-fated 'character' posts. At the time I was writing a half dozen different things (as opposed to now, when I'm only writing two), and as such making up characters for fun. Looking back, if I could I would do something different there, but I'll leave them there now for archive purposes.
For a long time I was undertaking two regular side-streets to my posts. The "100 things about me" and "Non Sequitor Story" things were an amusing idea, just not really applicable to the nerd theme. While I'm proud of the ones I made up, they didn't really fit into the blog.
Really, I think the first post where I took a tone I would adopt later, was this one.
Computer games need good writers
It's about then I started actually discussing things of interest to fellow geeks. A critique of the story involved in a computer game. From there I went past a few retrospectively embarrassing posts, but over time it slowly tilted towards something I feel fits in better with the nerdgasm theme.
Aside: Hmm, I just realised something, for a blog titled 'nerdgasm', I spend alot more time ripping on nerdy things I dislike then building up nerdy things I like. Meh, geeks are meant to be full of INDIGNANT RAAAGE.
I have to say, the start of my blog actually being what it is today came with this post.
The fifth Random Bag post.
The 102nd post is about the time this blog started actually fitting into the theme I prescribed for it. It started actually describing geeky stuff, occasionally branching out into geeky (failed) attempts at humour.
A few of my personal highlights, posts I really enjoy in retrospect:
Game Designers need marketing training: A look at how the games-industry habit of getting the designers to showcase their games can sometimes backfire. I was happy with this one, since it was a genuine criticism of the presentation of a nerdy passtime.
My first foray into criticising Blizzard: I have fond memories of this for obvious reasons.
My lack of caring about Aeris' death: The post that had me labeled as heartless by a few people I know, but it's the truth. Aeris as a character just annoyed me. Aeris, and Final Fantasy seven in general, just irritated me, and this post gives you a reason as to why.
My first criticism of Obsidian, via their game Knights of the Old Republic 2: As readers know, Obsidian is my Moriaty. Except they don't even know I exist, so maybe they're my Dagon. I dunno, whatever works. This was the start of my public hate-hate relationship with them.
I just like the metaphor I used for the current gaming era, here.
A couple of rare examples of a positive attitude in my posts
Anything else of interest is near enough the front page it should be easily found.
Well, I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did: E.G. Spent twenty minutes pondering which links are worthwhile, then finished it prematurely so you could get back to playing Playstation.
Here's to another 100 at least.
I began the blog with high hopes and little conception of what I would actually focus on. 'Topics of nerdity' was my entire brief to myself. Really, I was writing more to myself then anything (I still am, since my readership on a normal day is somewhere between none and "I came here under the belief there is porn?") This can be seen in posts such as the ill-fated 'character' posts. At the time I was writing a half dozen different things (as opposed to now, when I'm only writing two), and as such making up characters for fun. Looking back, if I could I would do something different there, but I'll leave them there now for archive purposes.
For a long time I was undertaking two regular side-streets to my posts. The "100 things about me" and "Non Sequitor Story" things were an amusing idea, just not really applicable to the nerd theme. While I'm proud of the ones I made up, they didn't really fit into the blog.
Really, I think the first post where I took a tone I would adopt later, was this one.
Computer games need good writers
It's about then I started actually discussing things of interest to fellow geeks. A critique of the story involved in a computer game. From there I went past a few retrospectively embarrassing posts, but over time it slowly tilted towards something I feel fits in better with the nerdgasm theme.
Aside: Hmm, I just realised something, for a blog titled 'nerdgasm', I spend alot more time ripping on nerdy things I dislike then building up nerdy things I like. Meh, geeks are meant to be full of INDIGNANT RAAAGE.
I have to say, the start of my blog actually being what it is today came with this post.
The fifth Random Bag post.
The 102nd post is about the time this blog started actually fitting into the theme I prescribed for it. It started actually describing geeky stuff, occasionally branching out into geeky (failed) attempts at humour.
A few of my personal highlights, posts I really enjoy in retrospect:
Game Designers need marketing training: A look at how the games-industry habit of getting the designers to showcase their games can sometimes backfire. I was happy with this one, since it was a genuine criticism of the presentation of a nerdy passtime.
My first foray into criticising Blizzard: I have fond memories of this for obvious reasons.
My lack of caring about Aeris' death: The post that had me labeled as heartless by a few people I know, but it's the truth. Aeris as a character just annoyed me. Aeris, and Final Fantasy seven in general, just irritated me, and this post gives you a reason as to why.
My first criticism of Obsidian, via their game Knights of the Old Republic 2: As readers know, Obsidian is my Moriaty. Except they don't even know I exist, so maybe they're my Dagon. I dunno, whatever works. This was the start of my public hate-hate relationship with them.
I just like the metaphor I used for the current gaming era, here.
A couple of rare examples of a positive attitude in my posts
Anything else of interest is near enough the front page it should be easily found.
Well, I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did: E.G. Spent twenty minutes pondering which links are worthwhile, then finished it prematurely so you could get back to playing Playstation.
Here's to another 100 at least.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
New Dragon Age footage
Short post today.
OH GOD!
I nergasmed. Was it good for you too?
Dragon Age is the game I am currently pinning my hopes upon. Why? Because it is Bioware. Bioware are yet to let me down yet. Were Bioware a person, I would love her/him/it, I would marry her/him/it (if necessary eloping to a location in which our love is recognised legally), and I would lend her/him/it a fiver any time it needed it.
Others can keep their Bungie/Halo, their Blizzard/-Craft, and their Rockstar/GTA. For me, it is Bioware/RPG.
P.S. Ladies and gentlemen, this is my 199th post, which means my 200th will be next. I have no idea what to do for this momentous occasion.
OH GOD!
I nergasmed. Was it good for you too?
Dragon Age is the game I am currently pinning my hopes upon. Why? Because it is Bioware. Bioware are yet to let me down yet. Were Bioware a person, I would love her/him/it, I would marry her/him/it (if necessary eloping to a location in which our love is recognised legally), and I would lend her/him/it a fiver any time it needed it.
Others can keep their Bungie/Halo, their Blizzard/-Craft, and their Rockstar/GTA. For me, it is Bioware/RPG.
P.S. Ladies and gentlemen, this is my 199th post, which means my 200th will be next. I have no idea what to do for this momentous occasion.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Starcraft backstory
So, I don't enjoy Starcraft. I pretty much actively dislike the game, the universe it's made in, and Blizzard itself is on my "Oh that looks like an interesting concep- ohhh, THEY'RE making it. Nevermind then" list.
Then I was sent a link to 4 youtube videos showing the Starcraft single-player campaign experience. At first, I admit, I was intrigued. It seemed to be presenting the between-mission stuff of the campaign as almost an RPG experience. I then realised it was just a complicated way of giving you choices in the missions and buying stuff in between missions. I still give them credit for doing something other then stock standard boring "click mission, press start, RUSH" stuff, but it's less then I was hoping for on first viewing.
I must admit I applaud the fact that they're putting the story forward as an important part of the single player campaign, it seems to be a staple of Blizzard's games (outside of Wow, of course) that the single player campaign is never seen as 'just filler' despite the fact that Multiplayer is where the -craft games genuinely shine. The -craft games (Starcraft and Warcraft III) are well acknowledged as excellent multiplayer games
Yes, I dislike Blizzard, but not so much that I can see that what they do, they do VERY well. The -craft games of various types are celebrated as tightly balanced RTS' of great variety. When you have two forces of completely different styles that can battle and be considered on equal terms, you have done something right. When you can do that same thing with three or four different forces, you have done something amazingly.
I can see they do it well, I just really don't enjoy the games, and prefer my RTS' to be more about grand sweeping armies then crap 'representative' rushing games with the only consideration given towards 'epic' being an occasional claim to such in the marketing blurb.
Plus, while I appreciate the effort put towards having a good story, I am yet to feel attached to any character ever presented in a Blizzard game. While that could possibly be due to limitations of technology in previous examples, I personally just find Blizzard's characters and story to be on the wrong side of 'annoying'. Their War- characters are a horrible mix of 'dramatic and gritty' and 'high fantasy', and their Star- characters just seemed quite bare. They were a pair of stereotypes mashed together and put in a space setting.
The single thing that bothered me most about the Starcraft story as you played through the single player game? The way the campaigns were structured one-after-the-other. It worked in the sense that it allowed for the grand story to continue in one long arc, but it left out so much. If I wanted to know what happened to the humans after their campaign? Tough, I had to wait until they popped up in the Protoss campaign. Normally this was a niggling factor, but there was one point it really bugged me. The Zerg campaign. Somehow the good guys found a way to kill the super evil immortal alien insect brains. This was completely glossed over how they managed to do this. Thank you Blizzard, I was almost interested.
Wow, this has gone from a tangent. I originally just intended to talk about the Starcraft II video (which I shall not link).
Anyway. Long story short: Story important in video games, even RTS' where it is difficult to do. Kudo's to blizzard to trying an innovative method to get the story across better in the single player campaign even though, by all rights, they could get away with just releasing a multi-player only (with vague skirmish game support) if they wanted.
Then I was sent a link to 4 youtube videos showing the Starcraft single-player campaign experience. At first, I admit, I was intrigued. It seemed to be presenting the between-mission stuff of the campaign as almost an RPG experience. I then realised it was just a complicated way of giving you choices in the missions and buying stuff in between missions. I still give them credit for doing something other then stock standard boring "click mission, press start, RUSH" stuff, but it's less then I was hoping for on first viewing.
I must admit I applaud the fact that they're putting the story forward as an important part of the single player campaign, it seems to be a staple of Blizzard's games (outside of Wow, of course) that the single player campaign is never seen as 'just filler' despite the fact that Multiplayer is where the -craft games genuinely shine. The -craft games (Starcraft and Warcraft III) are well acknowledged as excellent multiplayer games
Yes, I dislike Blizzard, but not so much that I can see that what they do, they do VERY well. The -craft games of various types are celebrated as tightly balanced RTS' of great variety. When you have two forces of completely different styles that can battle and be considered on equal terms, you have done something right. When you can do that same thing with three or four different forces, you have done something amazingly.
I can see they do it well, I just really don't enjoy the games, and prefer my RTS' to be more about grand sweeping armies then crap 'representative' rushing games with the only consideration given towards 'epic' being an occasional claim to such in the marketing blurb.
Plus, while I appreciate the effort put towards having a good story, I am yet to feel attached to any character ever presented in a Blizzard game. While that could possibly be due to limitations of technology in previous examples, I personally just find Blizzard's characters and story to be on the wrong side of 'annoying'. Their War- characters are a horrible mix of 'dramatic and gritty' and 'high fantasy', and their Star- characters just seemed quite bare. They were a pair of stereotypes mashed together and put in a space setting.
The single thing that bothered me most about the Starcraft story as you played through the single player game? The way the campaigns were structured one-after-the-other. It worked in the sense that it allowed for the grand story to continue in one long arc, but it left out so much. If I wanted to know what happened to the humans after their campaign? Tough, I had to wait until they popped up in the Protoss campaign. Normally this was a niggling factor, but there was one point it really bugged me. The Zerg campaign. Somehow the good guys found a way to kill the super evil immortal alien insect brains. This was completely glossed over how they managed to do this. Thank you Blizzard, I was almost interested.
Wow, this has gone from a tangent. I originally just intended to talk about the Starcraft II video (which I shall not link).
Anyway. Long story short: Story important in video games, even RTS' where it is difficult to do. Kudo's to blizzard to trying an innovative method to get the story across better in the single player campaign even though, by all rights, they could get away with just releasing a multi-player only (with vague skirmish game support) if they wanted.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Duke Nukem
Scheduled outage: It's been 5 days since my last post. Sorry about that. Just a short post today.
Duke Nukem Forever is no more.
All I can say is 'finally'. I'm not an FPS person, FPS' and me have had an awkward relationship ever since Doom stuffed me in a locker in the prime of my youth, leaving me there for days until I learnt the no-clip cheat and could get my own back by teleporting around his levels and beating up whoever I wanted with god-mode and full ammo.
In general, there is no joke I can make about the fate of Duke Nukem that hasn't been made a thousand times before. This isn't to seem surprising, since the game has been coming out for TWELVE YEARS. Over half my adult life has been spent developing this friggin' game. If they released it and it didn't cure erectile deficiencies in the entire audience and/or AIDs, then they have wasted twelve years of their life.
Twelve Years. That's twice the length of World War 2.
Everything that can be said about the Duke, has been said. There's just one thing I want to know. Where did they get the money? Surely the only way to be paid to make games is to make games. Their investors must have been exceedingly patient to allow them to sit on their asses making balloon animals while they were supposed to be making the game.
Did they really have a job where they just wasted 12 years and got paid for it? If so, bravo. I am mucho impressed, and wish to apply for this job.
Duke Nukem Forever is no more.
All I can say is 'finally'. I'm not an FPS person, FPS' and me have had an awkward relationship ever since Doom stuffed me in a locker in the prime of my youth, leaving me there for days until I learnt the no-clip cheat and could get my own back by teleporting around his levels and beating up whoever I wanted with god-mode and full ammo.
In general, there is no joke I can make about the fate of Duke Nukem that hasn't been made a thousand times before. This isn't to seem surprising, since the game has been coming out for TWELVE YEARS. Over half my adult life has been spent developing this friggin' game. If they released it and it didn't cure erectile deficiencies in the entire audience and/or AIDs, then they have wasted twelve years of their life.
Twelve Years. That's twice the length of World War 2.
Everything that can be said about the Duke, has been said. There's just one thing I want to know. Where did they get the money? Surely the only way to be paid to make games is to make games. Their investors must have been exceedingly patient to allow them to sit on their asses making balloon animals while they were supposed to be making the game.
Did they really have a job where they just wasted 12 years and got paid for it? If so, bravo. I am mucho impressed, and wish to apply for this job.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Obsidian hates me
I was planning on posting tomorrow, I probably still will, but I just need to get this off my chest now.
Obsidian, the gaming studio, hates me. "Why?" you ask with the ignorance of only someone not exposed to my rage at this matter can have, "why do you think they hate you?"
These people somehow manage to take the things I enjoy, the games I really enjoy and appreciate in the genre I love...
They take these established, successful and enjoyable intellectual properties, enjoyable intellectual properties I have played through multiple times and lost many'a hour on them. And shit on them.
Exhibit A: Neverwinter Nights. Neverwinter Nights was a rather mediocre story (the expansion packs greatly improved upon that) based on the dungeons and dragons ruleset. I became greatly enamored in the ruleset, it was my first exposure to persistant world gaming and roleplaying. I lost many years of my life playing on that thing. It had a powerful, simple to use toolset for creation of your own maps and easy to understand character construction that allows for highly interesting characters of great variety. Even beyond the rather simplistic storylines, the players came up with some incredible scripted modules (groupings of maps that told a story). It was a great game.
Obsidian take over development of Neverwinter Nights 2, and put out a bug riddled game (if I have to cheat just to get a scripted sequence to teleport me like it's supposed to, YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG) with characters I genuinely wanted to throw in a river attached to a bag of kittens attached to ROCKS. And then to turn an insult into a pair of broken kneecaps they... GNARNEHGESUEHW.
I have raged enough about Neverwinter Nights 2 on this blog. You can find it yourself. Gnarhed.
Exhibit 2: Knights of the Old Republic. Yes, some of the characters were annoying, but it was a grand, epic tale of betrayal and conflict in a subtle twist on the familiar Star Wars universe. It was a clever game, it was a well designed game, it was a game I genuinely got into.
Enter Obsidian once more to take all that and smash it against a rock. Then poo on it. With Knights of the Old Republic 2. I have, as well, raged about that in various points on this blog and thus won't repeat myself.
Basically so far out of my two encounters with Obsidian entertainment, they have horribly mangled two games I genuinely enjoy. If they made bad games, I could forgive and avoid them. Lots of companies make bad games, and seem to do as well with them as Obsidian does with it's bad games. But no, they take existing, successful, enjoyable Intellectual Properties, and mangle them beyond repair. They forever taint my memories of the previous, enjoyable games. Instead of "Man, Knights of the Old Republic was a swell game", now my memories are forever "man, KOtoR was a swell game. It's a pity the sequel was so shit."
So what have they done now? What have they done that has earned so much of my ire?
They are making the new Fallout title. Fallout 4.
Goddamnit Obsidian. Goddamnit. There's only so far you can push a man.
Obsidian, the gaming studio, hates me. "Why?" you ask with the ignorance of only someone not exposed to my rage at this matter can have, "why do you think they hate you?"
These people somehow manage to take the things I enjoy, the games I really enjoy and appreciate in the genre I love...
They take these established, successful and enjoyable intellectual properties, enjoyable intellectual properties I have played through multiple times and lost many'a hour on them. And shit on them.
Exhibit A: Neverwinter Nights. Neverwinter Nights was a rather mediocre story (the expansion packs greatly improved upon that) based on the dungeons and dragons ruleset. I became greatly enamored in the ruleset, it was my first exposure to persistant world gaming and roleplaying. I lost many years of my life playing on that thing. It had a powerful, simple to use toolset for creation of your own maps and easy to understand character construction that allows for highly interesting characters of great variety. Even beyond the rather simplistic storylines, the players came up with some incredible scripted modules (groupings of maps that told a story). It was a great game.
Obsidian take over development of Neverwinter Nights 2, and put out a bug riddled game (if I have to cheat just to get a scripted sequence to teleport me like it's supposed to, YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG) with characters I genuinely wanted to throw in a river attached to a bag of kittens attached to ROCKS. And then to turn an insult into a pair of broken kneecaps they... GNARNEHGESUEHW.
I have raged enough about Neverwinter Nights 2 on this blog. You can find it yourself. Gnarhed.
Exhibit 2: Knights of the Old Republic. Yes, some of the characters were annoying, but it was a grand, epic tale of betrayal and conflict in a subtle twist on the familiar Star Wars universe. It was a clever game, it was a well designed game, it was a game I genuinely got into.
Enter Obsidian once more to take all that and smash it against a rock. Then poo on it. With Knights of the Old Republic 2. I have, as well, raged about that in various points on this blog and thus won't repeat myself.
Basically so far out of my two encounters with Obsidian entertainment, they have horribly mangled two games I genuinely enjoy. If they made bad games, I could forgive and avoid them. Lots of companies make bad games, and seem to do as well with them as Obsidian does with it's bad games. But no, they take existing, successful, enjoyable Intellectual Properties, and mangle them beyond repair. They forever taint my memories of the previous, enjoyable games. Instead of "Man, Knights of the Old Republic was a swell game", now my memories are forever "man, KOtoR was a swell game. It's a pity the sequel was so shit."
So what have they done now? What have they done that has earned so much of my ire?
They are making the new Fallout title. Fallout 4.
Goddamnit Obsidian. Goddamnit. There's only so far you can push a man.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The little random bag that could
The Sociology of 4chan series WILL continue. I shall not be silenced. Rules 1 and 2 are mere guidelines!
But at the moment I've got two random things I want to discuss.
1. I was directed by my brother to the website for Games Paradise in Sydney. A decent shop that's got some less common roleplaying and gaming things (at least in Sydney). Out of idle curiosity I looked at the cost of a Games Workshop Warhammer 40,000 squad box. About $35, expensive, as all Games Workshop stuff is. Out of further idle curiosity I checked out the cost of the same box on the Games Workshop site. $40.
For those of you not mathematically or business-ally inclined, let's work this out. Games Workshop stores in Australia import these things and then deliver them to both stores run by others and their own stores.
In their own stores, the price is marked up from the production costs (in order to make a profit) to $40.
Presumably when the wholesale sell the products to other stores they mark the price up enough to make a profit there, and presumably the store they sell it too marks the price up enough for them to make a reasonable profit as well. Yet this double-mark-up price comes out to be LESS then the official Games Workshop site. Goddammit, GW. Goddammit.
2. Repo: The Genetic Opera. It's a cult movie that has some of signs that it'll be a cult classic, to me. I first took notice when I saw it was a musical about a dystopic future where there are corporate sponsored assassins as a fact of life.
Long story short, the idea is that R:TGO is based in a future where organ failure is a fact of life. To counter this a company grew genetically cloned organs and sold them. Most people could not afford this, but the company (GeneCo) offered a payment plan. The real catch? As long as you meet the (apparently expensive) payments, you're safe. If you miss one? They repossess the organ. Yeah, they cut you open while you're alive and take it out. These are the Repo men. Plus because of the commonplace nature of surgery now, it's become incredibly common and fashionable to have recreational surgery.
Dark, dystopic, musical? Sounds fun so far. So what went wrong?
Well parts of it I genuinely enjoyed. Blind Mag was an interesting character with an incredible singing voice, definately worth a listen to her scenes. The father character (played by Anthony Stewart Head, Giles from Buffy) was quite deep, showing the psychological breakdown of someone who knows they're doing is evil, and originally had good intentions. I ended up rooting for him, even in the scenes when he seemed to break down, becoming a gleeful sadistic maniac, reveling in his duties as a GeneCo Repo-man (SPOILERS), and he has a pretty impressive singing voice.
Other parts of it were just a let-down. The three children of the big-bad-evil-guy had no characters, just gimmicks, and considering how much attention they get I was sitting there waiting for them to bring on INTERESTING characters. An angry-angry business man, a slutty-slutty surgery addicted Paris Hilton, and a face-stealing effeminate party-boy. There, I just saved you a bunch of time.
The main character (Shylow, the daughter of the Repo Man mentioned above) is... a waste of screen time. I understand she's meant to appeal to the emo crowd, she's a sky humble girl oppressed by her horrible situation in life, hence why she's so unassuming and hesitant in most of her singing. That doesn't excuse the fact that I had NO desire to see her come out in front of the movie. She could have been hit by a car twenty minutes before the climax of the film and it genuinely would not have bothered me. Her weak singing genuinely detracted from alot of the songs, and the "I'm a rebellious 17 year old who hates being told what to do by 'the man'!" is just... well it's fucking irritating. Yeah, I get that we're supposed to feel sorry for her since she's ill and can't go out because of her illness. The whole 'princess locked in the tower' thing (not subtle, filmmakers, not subtle), I get that. It doesn't stop me disliking every scene the character's in.
Another part that annoyed me was the character of the Graverobber. In this future world there's an incredibly powerful painkiller/stimulant that allows people to undertake all this surgery. The drawback? It's incredibly addictive. An illegal varient of it can be harvested from dead bodies, so that's the introduction to the Graverobber character. He breaks into graveyards and harvests this drug, then sells it. He functions as the narrator a couple of times, and is described by the wiki-page as "Darkly Charismatic", with an obvious anti-authoritarian streak. He's not.
He comes off as pointless and a deus-ex machina at least once. The vast majority of his songs were weak and sounded like boring narration that was being sung, rather then an actual attempt at lyrics. It took me a while to work out precisely what it was about the character that bugged me, before I put my finger on it. He was a pointless 'Author favourite'. He's played by one of the creators, indicating that writer loved the character, and just happens to show up all over the place, get away with everything he's doing, and be supposedly charismatic. I'm sorry, but even speaking as a person not adverse to recreational drug use, I find it hard to enjoy the presence of someone who makes a living selling HIGHLY addictive (described as such in the movie) chemicals to prostitutes.
Possibly the worst part of the movie? There are a whole bunch of moments that I hope against hope were done in a parodying sense, I really really hope they were meant to be a parody. But when I watch it I just get the sense it was being done because the film makers genuinely thought it was a good idea. Combining rock and opera sounds great, but when you have half naked women cavorting on stage while a conductor sings loudly about getting people to testify at how awesome GeneCo is, I just get the feeling the film-makers were going for a 'modern rocky horror show' feel, rather then attempting to parody attempts to modernise old-school culture and deify economic processes. The latter would be far more effective then the former.
Long story short: If you have the chance to see Repo for free and you've got a boring night in planned, take it up. Don't pay for it until you've seen it at least once to work out if you like it.
But at the moment I've got two random things I want to discuss.
1. I was directed by my brother to the website for Games Paradise in Sydney. A decent shop that's got some less common roleplaying and gaming things (at least in Sydney). Out of idle curiosity I looked at the cost of a Games Workshop Warhammer 40,000 squad box. About $35, expensive, as all Games Workshop stuff is. Out of further idle curiosity I checked out the cost of the same box on the Games Workshop site. $40.
For those of you not mathematically or business-ally inclined, let's work this out. Games Workshop stores in Australia import these things and then deliver them to both stores run by others and their own stores.
In their own stores, the price is marked up from the production costs (in order to make a profit) to $40.
Presumably when the wholesale sell the products to other stores they mark the price up enough to make a profit there, and presumably the store they sell it too marks the price up enough for them to make a reasonable profit as well. Yet this double-mark-up price comes out to be LESS then the official Games Workshop site. Goddammit, GW. Goddammit.
2. Repo: The Genetic Opera. It's a cult movie that has some of signs that it'll be a cult classic, to me. I first took notice when I saw it was a musical about a dystopic future where there are corporate sponsored assassins as a fact of life.
Long story short, the idea is that R:TGO is based in a future where organ failure is a fact of life. To counter this a company grew genetically cloned organs and sold them. Most people could not afford this, but the company (GeneCo) offered a payment plan. The real catch? As long as you meet the (apparently expensive) payments, you're safe. If you miss one? They repossess the organ. Yeah, they cut you open while you're alive and take it out. These are the Repo men. Plus because of the commonplace nature of surgery now, it's become incredibly common and fashionable to have recreational surgery.
Dark, dystopic, musical? Sounds fun so far. So what went wrong?
Well parts of it I genuinely enjoyed. Blind Mag was an interesting character with an incredible singing voice, definately worth a listen to her scenes. The father character (played by Anthony Stewart Head, Giles from Buffy) was quite deep, showing the psychological breakdown of someone who knows they're doing is evil, and originally had good intentions. I ended up rooting for him, even in the scenes when he seemed to break down, becoming a gleeful sadistic maniac, reveling in his duties as a GeneCo Repo-man (SPOILERS), and he has a pretty impressive singing voice.
Other parts of it were just a let-down. The three children of the big-bad-evil-guy had no characters, just gimmicks, and considering how much attention they get I was sitting there waiting for them to bring on INTERESTING characters. An angry-angry business man, a slutty-slutty surgery addicted Paris Hilton, and a face-stealing effeminate party-boy. There, I just saved you a bunch of time.
The main character (Shylow, the daughter of the Repo Man mentioned above) is... a waste of screen time. I understand she's meant to appeal to the emo crowd, she's a sky humble girl oppressed by her horrible situation in life, hence why she's so unassuming and hesitant in most of her singing. That doesn't excuse the fact that I had NO desire to see her come out in front of the movie. She could have been hit by a car twenty minutes before the climax of the film and it genuinely would not have bothered me. Her weak singing genuinely detracted from alot of the songs, and the "I'm a rebellious 17 year old who hates being told what to do by 'the man'!" is just... well it's fucking irritating. Yeah, I get that we're supposed to feel sorry for her since she's ill and can't go out because of her illness. The whole 'princess locked in the tower' thing (not subtle, filmmakers, not subtle), I get that. It doesn't stop me disliking every scene the character's in.
Another part that annoyed me was the character of the Graverobber. In this future world there's an incredibly powerful painkiller/stimulant that allows people to undertake all this surgery. The drawback? It's incredibly addictive. An illegal varient of it can be harvested from dead bodies, so that's the introduction to the Graverobber character. He breaks into graveyards and harvests this drug, then sells it. He functions as the narrator a couple of times, and is described by the wiki-page as "Darkly Charismatic", with an obvious anti-authoritarian streak. He's not.
He comes off as pointless and a deus-ex machina at least once. The vast majority of his songs were weak and sounded like boring narration that was being sung, rather then an actual attempt at lyrics. It took me a while to work out precisely what it was about the character that bugged me, before I put my finger on it. He was a pointless 'Author favourite'. He's played by one of the creators, indicating that writer loved the character, and just happens to show up all over the place, get away with everything he's doing, and be supposedly charismatic. I'm sorry, but even speaking as a person not adverse to recreational drug use, I find it hard to enjoy the presence of someone who makes a living selling HIGHLY addictive (described as such in the movie) chemicals to prostitutes.
Possibly the worst part of the movie? There are a whole bunch of moments that I hope against hope were done in a parodying sense, I really really hope they were meant to be a parody. But when I watch it I just get the sense it was being done because the film makers genuinely thought it was a good idea. Combining rock and opera sounds great, but when you have half naked women cavorting on stage while a conductor sings loudly about getting people to testify at how awesome GeneCo is, I just get the feeling the film-makers were going for a 'modern rocky horror show' feel, rather then attempting to parody attempts to modernise old-school culture and deify economic processes. The latter would be far more effective then the former.
Long story short: If you have the chance to see Repo for free and you've got a boring night in planned, take it up. Don't pay for it until you've seen it at least once to work out if you like it.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Sociology of 4chan Part 2
I've been really dragged into this, I have to admit finding 4chan and it's anonymity fascinating.
Who IS Anonymous?
That is, without a doubt, one of the stupidest questions ever asked. Yet it's one that people constantly try to answer. A general statement of how uninformed someone is can be found in their answer.
Why are Skeptobot and Fox news so uninformed on this issue? Because it's not something they can really fathom.
Anonymous is not an organised group or a simple 'collection of geeks'. Trying to attribute anything to them, age, race, gender, socio-economic background, is ridiculous because by their very definition THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. In fact, trying to lump them under one singular group and call them a 'their' is a simple fallacy.
The closest definition I can think of at the moment is that they are a collective of individuals. They're united by two facts.
1. They feel no great need for identification
2. They share a similar sense of humour.
Notice that those facts were incredibly flexible.
So how can I define a group if their only identifying factors are flexible and their membership is fluid and unprovable.
It's simple. I can't. That's what makes the Anonymous factor so amazing. They are a collective of individuals. The two primary words are 'collective' and 'individuals'.
Collective: The boards give them a uniting purpose and ability to facilitate the actions that get them noticed. It's a factor of self-identity different to the self. By going to the boards one isn't "John Smith, Tech Support", you're anonymous. You become a part of the collective by either tacitly or actively endorsing it's actions (arguing against it's actions is effectively futile, since there is no one debater you can pin down and 'defeat'), with the only option of protest being to quit. This isn't to say that you are subsumed within Anonymous, it just means that any actions you undertake in their name are actions credited to the collective, you can receive no praise or blame.
Individuals: There is no organisational facility attached to 4chan, no leaders to dole out orders or any form of hierarchy. There is NO way to compel 4chan into action other then appealing to its individuals. Creating a good enough idea and posting it on the boards will inspire individuals to act upon it, there is no way to force them to do so. When Anonymous went to 'war' against Scientology, news organisations tried to report it as an organised uprising, but it isn't. Someone on 4chan said "Let's do this", and a collective of INDIVIDUALS agreed with the idea as it stood. There were no orders, people just thought "this is a good idea" and did it. Any action undertaken by 'Anonymous' is NOT the effort of Anonymous, it is the effort of an individual within the collective who appreciates the idea being put forward.
Where Fox News fails in their understanding of this concept is that they assume organisation where there is meritocratic anarchy. There IS no controlling force of Anonymous, and attributing actions to them is impossible, since they are always the actions of individuals under the guise of an identity-less figure.
That is not to say that Anonymous does nothing. It is still a collective, but it is a unique collective in that there is no guaranteed way to be a member other then to receive approval by the individuals that make up the membership. In that fashion 4chan (and other bastions of 'anonymous') are incredible, since they are probably the only group to exist that is only responsible for an action if they admit responsibility. If the collective as a whole decries an action it is not theirs. It may be inspired by Anonymous with an individual seeking acceptance by undertaking the action believing it will be accepted, but if they do not accept an action, it cannot be truly accredited to them. There is no governing body approving actions before they happen, and no way to know what a member of the collective will do before it is done (unless they publically state they are going to do it, a rarity for certain), so attributing actions to them is an incredibly difficult endeavour.
Where Skeptobot's understanding is flawed is in an entirely different direction. The identification of who Anonymous is under age and personality based guidelines. Actually, thinking about it, Skepto-bot may be closer then I initially thought. He may not be stating outright "this is who these people are", rather "this is the image they place to the world". They DO seem like, if you met them in the street, none of them would have ovaries (although a few might have bosom) and most would have what they affectionately term a neckbeard (if you see one of these things in the street, flee).
So, in answer to the question at the top of this post: Who IS Anonymous?
They have no nation, no gender, both genders, no age, no socio-economic background, and no distinguishing features. You CANNOT tell who Anonymous is, because Anonymous is Anyone. Not everyone, not no one, Anyone.
You could go far enough to say that the very question 'Who is Anonymous' is a contradiction.
I so need to write a thesis about this shit.
Who IS Anonymous?
That is, without a doubt, one of the stupidest questions ever asked. Yet it's one that people constantly try to answer. A general statement of how uninformed someone is can be found in their answer.
- Fox News: Hackers on Steroids (a youtube video of the infamous report).Verdict: Incredibly uninformed.
- Skeptobot blog: "A fan base of hormone riddled self aware geeky teenagers and should-know-better twenty somethings" (the blog in question).Verdict: Trying his little heart out, but still uninformed.
- 4chan: I was about to ask, but I then risked receiving the steely gaze of anonymous. Verdict: I imagine they're the closest to informed, but even they don't friggin' know.
Why are Skeptobot and Fox news so uninformed on this issue? Because it's not something they can really fathom.
Anonymous is not an organised group or a simple 'collection of geeks'. Trying to attribute anything to them, age, race, gender, socio-economic background, is ridiculous because by their very definition THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. In fact, trying to lump them under one singular group and call them a 'their' is a simple fallacy.
The closest definition I can think of at the moment is that they are a collective of individuals. They're united by two facts.
1. They feel no great need for identification
2. They share a similar sense of humour.
Notice that those facts were incredibly flexible.
- Some do want to be identified and can be identified (among some particular groups like /TG/, individuals are identified by their produced works, such as drawings or stories), while most are content to have recognition come from enjoyment of what they produce, rather then aimed at them personally.
- Often individuals within the group argue over if a single product of the boards can be listed as funny, showing a difference in sense of humour, but if both individuals continue to remain on the board (something impossible to determine) then surely they find the overall humour derived from the board appeasing.
So how can I define a group if their only identifying factors are flexible and their membership is fluid and unprovable.
It's simple. I can't. That's what makes the Anonymous factor so amazing. They are a collective of individuals. The two primary words are 'collective' and 'individuals'.
Collective: The boards give them a uniting purpose and ability to facilitate the actions that get them noticed. It's a factor of self-identity different to the self. By going to the boards one isn't "John Smith, Tech Support", you're anonymous. You become a part of the collective by either tacitly or actively endorsing it's actions (arguing against it's actions is effectively futile, since there is no one debater you can pin down and 'defeat'), with the only option of protest being to quit. This isn't to say that you are subsumed within Anonymous, it just means that any actions you undertake in their name are actions credited to the collective, you can receive no praise or blame.
Individuals: There is no organisational facility attached to 4chan, no leaders to dole out orders or any form of hierarchy. There is NO way to compel 4chan into action other then appealing to its individuals. Creating a good enough idea and posting it on the boards will inspire individuals to act upon it, there is no way to force them to do so. When Anonymous went to 'war' against Scientology, news organisations tried to report it as an organised uprising, but it isn't. Someone on 4chan said "Let's do this", and a collective of INDIVIDUALS agreed with the idea as it stood. There were no orders, people just thought "this is a good idea" and did it. Any action undertaken by 'Anonymous' is NOT the effort of Anonymous, it is the effort of an individual within the collective who appreciates the idea being put forward.
Where Fox News fails in their understanding of this concept is that they assume organisation where there is meritocratic anarchy. There IS no controlling force of Anonymous, and attributing actions to them is impossible, since they are always the actions of individuals under the guise of an identity-less figure.
That is not to say that Anonymous does nothing. It is still a collective, but it is a unique collective in that there is no guaranteed way to be a member other then to receive approval by the individuals that make up the membership. In that fashion 4chan (and other bastions of 'anonymous') are incredible, since they are probably the only group to exist that is only responsible for an action if they admit responsibility. If the collective as a whole decries an action it is not theirs. It may be inspired by Anonymous with an individual seeking acceptance by undertaking the action believing it will be accepted, but if they do not accept an action, it cannot be truly accredited to them. There is no governing body approving actions before they happen, and no way to know what a member of the collective will do before it is done (unless they publically state they are going to do it, a rarity for certain), so attributing actions to them is an incredibly difficult endeavour.
Where Skeptobot's understanding is flawed is in an entirely different direction. The identification of who Anonymous is under age and personality based guidelines. Actually, thinking about it, Skepto-bot may be closer then I initially thought. He may not be stating outright "this is who these people are", rather "this is the image they place to the world". They DO seem like, if you met them in the street, none of them would have ovaries (although a few might have bosom) and most would have what they affectionately term a neckbeard (if you see one of these things in the street, flee).
So, in answer to the question at the top of this post: Who IS Anonymous?
They have no nation, no gender, both genders, no age, no socio-economic background, and no distinguishing features. You CANNOT tell who Anonymous is, because Anonymous is Anyone. Not everyone, not no one, Anyone.
You could go far enough to say that the very question 'Who is Anonymous' is a contradiction.
I so need to write a thesis about this shit.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Sociology of 4chan
http://twitter.com/basementdad
What is this?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/basementdad.html
4chan decided they want in on the "race to 1,000,000 followers on Twitter", and through some clever scripting they were getting hundreds of (fake account) followers a minute.
If I get into Masters in Sociology, I'm studying 4chan. Seriously, this shit is incredible. It's absolutely fascinating how a system dedicated to the idea of 'anonymous' works. I'm seriously at a loss for words (mostly because I'm hungover) at how amazing I find all this.
It's made even more amazing when you read this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/4chan-time-moot.html
4chan are like the beta-testers of real life. They just poke shit until it breaks, so people can work out how to fix it.
Edit: Additional: A few people are getting to this post through googling Sociology of 4chan. If you are, this post may interest you more.
What is this?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/basementdad.html
4chan decided they want in on the "race to 1,000,000 followers on Twitter", and through some clever scripting they were getting hundreds of (fake account) followers a minute.
If I get into Masters in Sociology, I'm studying 4chan. Seriously, this shit is incredible. It's absolutely fascinating how a system dedicated to the idea of 'anonymous' works. I'm seriously at a loss for words (mostly because I'm hungover) at how amazing I find all this.
It's made even more amazing when you read this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/4chan-time-moot.html
4chan are like the beta-testers of real life. They just poke shit until it breaks, so people can work out how to fix it.
Edit: Additional: A few people are getting to this post through googling Sociology of 4chan. If you are, this post may interest you more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)