Hating Movies for being movies

http://thedissolve.com/news/251-dude-these-movies-would-be-amazing-if-you-didnt-ha/

An article by Matt Singer I stumbled across garnered a large amount of responses from the internet, it revolved around how the general movie goers now days want a shorter more concise version of films, stripping it of all other elements besides the plot. I’m on the fence for this as I do believe some films do feel a tad too long, but most of the times I feel this way after a long drawn out day never on a first watch so I might or might not be guilty of this modern day movie goer stereotype. Films sometimes need that extra mileage in order to create the depth and interest which spark the post movie conversations; it gives that oh what was that about? Why do you think that was put in? I agree with his belief that a movie experience if only complete with the aftermath, the debates and theory crafting which follows any interesting film. I can’t recall any films which I believe would be bad without the extra minutes, but the examples in the comments and in the article seem to speak to me. I do think Benjamin Button was a bit too long, but I don’t feel as though it should’ve been cut or anything, those few extra scenes may mean more to someone else. Even for other films today, people want the director’s cut which is normally a longer version of the film. More often than not it is a better version of the film which we wished we had seen.

Content Creator + Media Producer

A interesting point that Adrian brought up was the idea of being a content creator vs being a media producer. I thought that this negative light that came with being a content creator was kind of unwarranted. In some cases being a content creator is more suited towards some people, from what I understand it is creating content based upon the vision of others. In a way, the content creator can still impart part of his creative style upon the content. Some people are just more suited towards envisioning others projects than creating their own media, a particular example in my opinion is Zack Snyder. He does particularly well when his source material is already provided and builds upon an already established world or content. Let’s look upon his work, his most successful and critically acclaimed work have been all adaptations; Man of Steel (Arguable whether good or not, I thought it was decent), 300 and Watchmen. Where as his attempt at producing and creating whole new worlds have been abysmal such as Sucker Punch, I don’t even know what he was thinking with this film…. People like Snyder seem to function well as a content creator where he already has the ground work and characters and just builds upon that idea.  I am not saying being a media producer is bad in anyway, it is true that generally when you start in the industry you will be a content creator as the higher ups will do the producing.

Now you see me !Spoilers!

I recently went to watch the new film Now you See Me which i have been waiting to see for ages. From the moment i saw its all star cast with Morgan Freeman (seriously who doesn’t want to see Morgan Freeman as a villain), Mark Ruffalo and Woody Harrelson and its interesting plot line, the trailer instantly grabbed my attention.

The film was great in its visual effects and ambitious plot. However, like any movie with too many main characters many of the characters were unfleshed out and seemed to be there just for star factor and a means to an end. Jesse Eisenberg, Woody, Isla and Dave seemed to be a the main characters, but were left mysterious and kinda just tools to drive the true sub plot of romance between Mark Ruffalo and Shoshana from Inglorious Basterds (Yeah i forgot her name). The romantic love plot seemed to be forced into the whole film about magic, Why did they fall in love? and worst of all the film left you feeling empty and needed closure.

The Eye, oooooh the mysterious Eye. Not really no, this idea was shown to us for a mere 10minutes maximum maybe even less throughout the whole film. It like the love plot seemed to be the main attraction and probably would’ve made a better main plot, but fell short when there was no explanation on why its there, what it is and why is it important.

Overall i have only settled and discussed the negatives, but don’t let that dull or negate your wanting to go watch it. I assure you the visuals will stun you and the action and events will have you entertained.

Tutorial Week 3

With the stagnant progression of the lecture, we once again we asked to critique the lecture. The results were the same as previous weeks as the class felt tat at the moment they are lackign in progression. However Elliot reassured us that weeks 4 lecture and the return of Brian we will bees shown a more progressive and informative Class. The class discussion was based on the reading on design fiction. This topic as I mentioned in my previous post is quite interesting, members of the tutorial also felt similar to what I David as they related this option of design fiction to realistic applications of futuristic designs ine movies into our everyday life. Nothing much to say. Looking forward to week 4.

How do we kill something that cannot be killed? Spoilers to Come

This film in my opinion was probably the second best in the X-men series if after X-men 2. It fleshed out (again, but lets pretend the other wolverine movie didn’t happen) Marvel’s titular character “The Wolverine”. It made the ever more immortal character vulnerable, this is the problem that  arises every time a superhero movie is released which revolves around a lack of better words “op” “imba” characters. Superman, The Hulk and Wolverine all have these factors which just make them unkillable. Superman is just impervious to any form of damage, Hulk… I don’t even know when hulk has even taken damage of any kind and Wolverine slowly through the years his regeneration has gone from healing minor wounds to regenerating himself back from a nuclear blast.

This pitfall often leads to either predictable and cliche weakness’ or either attempts at making them seem vulnerable through emotions. Lets take Man of Steel (spoilers to come if you havn’t seen) What was his weakness in that film? His love for human race after destroying half of Metropolis. Superman was always the god figure and epitome of a superhero in comics and in the film. Incredible Hulk’s downfall is himself. The unwillingness to become the monster, a Dr Jekyll and Hyde dilemma.

In the Wolverine they just strip all of his powers. His villain is stronger than he is in every way, the henchman (for once) actually deal damage and miraculously all have amazing aim. Maybe the Yakuza have better arms training than the thousands of CIA operatives in this universe. We can relate to him more as we see him faint, dream, etc… Noone likes seeing a one sided fight or argument its bland  and its overdone. I think the main downfall of this film was the secondary villain who was just there just to be evil. She had no motivation, no agenda. They presented her as a secondary 3rd party force, but ended up just working for Yashida. Overall the film was enjoyable, better than what i expected which wasn’t much after the last 2.

 

 

Readings: Design Fiction, the tools in designing and fictional world

This reading really interested me as a whole as it related to designing the set or the world of a fictional world in which to suspend disbelief. We see this every time we go to the movies or go to watch anything not set in our current time. Even though the article mainly refers to the creation of a sci fi or futuristic design, i believe this still affects the past. We read about the mechanical inventions and the use of ancient equipment all through history classes, but we still do not fully understand how they are used in a realistic setting. Through design fiction, the creation of these worlds and atmospheres lure us in and immerses us in alternate worlds much like reading a book. When we read a book we design our own fiction, the characters clothing, their weaponry, their food, what they smell like? The list goes on and on.

I recently watched The Furious Gods, a documentary about the creation of Prometheus. This reading really backed up and solidified Ridley Scott’s stand point and creative thinking. Every single illustration concept art was highly criticised. If their was a tentacle there or a pillar, he would ask why? What is it there for? Does the design make sense in a realistic environment or is it just unnecessary artistic cover ups?

These design philosophies allow these fictional worlds to become believable. Artists draw inspiration from real life working models, why change what is not broken? However, as the second reading states “Fiction is the testing ground for reality”. In a way i found this to be a very key concept, yet it kind of pulls away from the “Normalise to persuade”. We normalise to make it seem realistic, but what is fiction then being unrealistic? I understand their viewpoint of just because its not real doesn’t mean it has to be illogical.

All in all this reading was highly engaging, both of them actually. Maybe I’m not getting the hidden message of these readings, but they are sure intriguing.

Tutorial

For this post I will try to post from my phone. Difficult really… Week 2 tutorial was a discussion on improvements for the lectures and how we can apply our understanding of networked media to our own actions and life. That statement was very general, but for networked media its applications are prevalent for today’s generation. The amount of hours spent on social media, the amount of old tech replaced for new.
The blog; what is it? The overall agenda of tute 2. It is,for me, a platform for public opinion and scrutiny in turn allowing self improvement and reflection. Why is it better than general note taking and teaching? The relaxed nature of spouting our own understanding rather than repeating verbatim over and over until its drilled into our brains allows students to go at their own pace. The deadlines and such are still there, but the daunting notion of an impending exam or test is not there.

Elliot’s attempt at forcing discussion was good, everyone was forced to answer and discuss their ideas. This made the shy people come out of their comfort zones, and one of those shy people is me. I do not mind being asked questions as i’m generally not shy when replying, but rather i do not participate in actively engaging myself as i become less confident asking questions. I guess the notion of asking questions becomes a wall to some in the lectures, as the feeling of being inadequate or incompetent  often deters people to engage. Maybe this is something to look into for future classes and lectures. A way to present a question in a form of not a question. Maybe that’s just me, a stupid idea to be honest.

 

Unlecture

The unlecture of week 2, innovative, novel and a gateway for interactivity. I like the Q and A panel style of learning even though i do not participate in the  questions, having the questions being from the audience and students makes it so the information that is revealed. I felt like the questions presented were pretty much what i would ask if i were to be put on the spot for a mandatory questioning. However, i felt the lecture went by slowly and at times felt a bit awkward as the back and forth banter really stagnated at some points. The emphasis on differentiating these lectures from a normal one  is really high, but i didn’t feel the immediate substantial differentiation. With that said i feel that the lectures are heading towards a positive position.

The topic of free speech was quite notable. I remember from legal studies back in year 11 (i have no idea how i remembered this information as a i performed terribly in this subject) that Australia doesn’t have freedom of speech like America, but rather we are protected from the separate arms of government ensuring we as a nation have a right to say what we want. This seemed relevant as the voting is coming up which reminds me i have to go enrol on aec. Thank you networked media 😀 saving me from a 200 dollar fine. I never felt that my free speech has been ever prevented within Australia even with the lack of freedom of speech, there are moments where we are restricted from speaking like back to a teacher, parents etc… However those moments aren’t prevention of free speech, but rather your choice to not speak to be polite in a way is free speech in itself.

I feel these unlectures are presented as a new futuristic technology, Unlectures… The lectures of tomorrow, now. Queue the relaxing utopian music dadada

Mobas and the Death of Friendships and being Civil

With the International 3 on the horizon, a mere 2 days away, I would like to discuss the way in which team games completely destroy the essence of a “team”

What is a team and what do we do? Together we have to work together towards a common goal. Normally without the notion of flaming or increasing tension or aggression between teammates. Even though each game is with a random amount of team mates, there is no reason for your manners to die.

The general stereotypes presented about gamers to the general community, a small, snot nose kid, under 12 most likely, being the bane of your existence in a game were they hide behind the mask of a character in which they control. This notion is vastly wrong, it is not these 12 year old kids swearing and insulting you, rather it is the frustration of the 100s and 1000s of teens and adults berating you for their inability to perform well in a game where they value their skills so highly.

This delusion is no other than the Dunning-Kruger effect. This effect is summed up perfectly by wikipedia;  is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer illusory superiority. Knowing that the general population of the 5 million individual users make up the lower part of the skill tree, it is clear that not all of the 85% of these users are saints or angels. I’m not defending the other 15% of users having the right to  be ill mannered, but rather, why not work together as a team in which the 15% helps the 85% become better. Many occasion where people have gave advice to others, have been met with unwarranted aggression in thinking the friendly advice is a low blow at the person’s ego and skill.

Improvement comes from accepting your own mistakes and filling in the area in which you lack.

Rant over. A real twisted meadow of random thoughts. If the sentence and paragraphs don’t make sense, more likly than not it doesn’t.

What is Networked Media?

The title is the question which still revolves in my mind. Even the intro reading to what is reading was the most abstract thing i have ever heard, kidding, but it was a mumble jumbo of a mess. Networked media, from what i understood, it was going to be about networking sites like facebook, twittter etc… but from the first tutorial, we are essentially networking within our community of peers in order to have a network of associates for our future. I do not see how these blogs correlate with this subject, in a sense this subject seems to be an extension or rehash of writing media text, but on a more online environment. I have no complaints in relation to keeping a blog or journal, i found that keeping one was quite relaxing, almost as a stress relief just spouting out whatever came to my mind surrounding this subject. The subject seems very theoretical and Elliot said himself that it is, seems to be a very conceptual subject almost like a sort of IT Philosphy fusion course. Nothing really to say about Week 1 tutorial, basic fundamentals and introduction. Maybe next week’s tutorial will provide for grounds of discussion for the blog.