Putting Those 3-D Skills To Good Use

3-D is awesome in action films (thank you Avatar and future film releases) and it is clear that 3-D has caught up to the 21st Century and is effectively used to add to the cinematic experience rather than detract, which it has done in the past, with those silly red/blue glasses and unrealistic and unnecessary graphic protrusions.

So what's next for 3-D? Action films will continue to use it, and perhaps the entirety of films will be made using it, however, I have found the next logical step for 3-D - one that will really leave a mark on the viewers. It is the horror genre.

Horror has been neglected throughout cinematic history, and especially of late. Aside from some notable attempts, most "horror" films have been boring slashers, gory remakes, or underacted and overproduced big budget ghost stories. The notable attempts are The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, two faux-documentary, low-budget, and critically-acclaimed films that have the same positives and negatives. Their positives are these: they concern ghosts, are actually scary, and are well acted. Their negatives are these: there is too much tension and suspense and not enough gratification, or resolution, and its scares are mostly too subtle/predictable.

Hollywood needs to understand, that through the critical and box-office success of these two tiny horror films, that to scare the viewers and make money, they need to return to be more simplistic. No, that does not mean go to guys running around in masks killing people. Involve ghosts and the paranormal. They scare more than slashers because the paranormal is unpredictable, can appear anywhere, cannot be 'killed', and leave a lasting impression on the viewer. Ghost stories scare because of the plausibility of their implausibility. Run-of-the-mill gore flicks may sell well on Halloween, but for temporal value, they suck.

Here's my suggestion: make more ghost films. Show shadows and crawlers. Play some classic horror video games, like Silent Hill, and see how unpredictability works in their favor. Show a ghost with red or yellow eyes. Freak the viewer out. You don't need to go for cheap scares, at least not all the time. Subtle (or at least consistent) unnerving imagery is enough. Leave questions at the end, in the style of Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity. The soundtrack should be of footsteps and uneven breathing, either by the characters or the ghosts themselves. Music often tells the viewer to pay attention or anticipate an event, and though sometimes it is executed well, people today are familiar with the "OMG TENSION IN THE MUSIC -- lol there wasn't anything there haa *turn* OMG A GHOST!" or the "OMG TENSION IN THE MUSIC -- AHHH A GHOST!" ploy. Eliminate music, throw the viewer off balance. For God's sake, play Fatal Frame 2: Crimson Butterfly.

And how this ties into my first topic is this: include 3-D, applied as cohesively as it is in a film like Avatar, and you are sure to scare the living hell out of your audience. To have a character like the chick from The Ring crawling out of the TV (i.e., movie theater screen) into the room (towards the audience) in 3-D would make for an unforgettable experience.

Revamp the horror genre with the paranormal and some 3-D. Win.

On the film "Avatar"

It was awesome. Beautiful. Incredible. Made me wish I was somewhere else, but that's really nothing different. Oh, and...

I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS I HATE HUMANS!!!

If I didn't think my life was worth something, I would kill myself for the good of the Earth.

Being an American and Ethnic Writing

There are a lot of things I can't stand about America. I am proud of its diversity and how far the nation has come in equality in such a short time, but I am also disappointed with how redundant its social taboos are. I am noting the distinctive American trend of adding prefixes to the term American, as in Asian-American, African-American, etc. No other nations do this, and in many cases, the people who these terms seemingly apply to are no more connected to their heritage than I to my Italian and Polish heritage.

I feel that suffixes act as a divisor in the nation. Instead of every citizen being American, they are put into groups of different types of American. I think that the cultural distinctions of people should be noted in their individualities and not by autogrouping them. Also, just because someone is black it does not mean they are African or African American. They could be Haitian. They could have been born and raised in England.

I am writing this in reply to my school's newspaper, who ran a student quote that said, "One black or brown face in a sea of white faces isn't diversity. It's a joke."

Oh, really? It's a joke? How so? Since when did diversity mean collecting people who look different? Diversity, at least at its root, should mean getting people together who think different or who come from different cultural backgrounds that can add insight and knowledge to the collective. Just because someone is Asian does not mean that they grew up any differently, in fundamental terms here, than a white person. Now I understand that everyone grows up in different environments with different experiences and different outlooks on life, and it is that that should be considered in diversity, not the incorrect assumption of someone's novel outlook because of their racial background.

If UMD is concerned with racial diversity, then yes, it is a joke to see only one black or brown face in a sea of white (um, doesn't that statement also imply that Asians and Native Americans aren't a neglected racial minority?!).

But from what I understand about Mote and his diversity mission, he wants the intellectual type - and that's the kind that doesn't just come from racial minorities. Read applicants' essays, review their transcripts, measure their academic and intrinsic worth (gauged through the essay) and how they relate to the ideal of the university. They are Americans (okay, aside from foreign applicants ;) ) and should be considered equally. Screw the affix, and take the PERSON into consideration, and if you're just looking for racial numbers (despite how unfair the practice is) then say so upfront!

The end... kinda!

On the Logic of Love (or lack thereof)

How do some people manage to get together? Even when the relationship seems to defy logic?

First, I will counter any of these claims with the response my friend gave me. They said it was the beautiful thing about love, that it can occur between two people who seem like they wouldn't mix together. I can understand how "opposites" attract, but it's usually because they have many similarities and a few differences that are either very obvious (like style or music taste) or made more obvious through their expressions, like how often they discuss the differences (like political views or life goals etc).

For reference, I will use the names Tara and Jim as my example couple.

Let's say Tara is an introvert who wants to be an artist and Jim is a jock who has NFL dreams. Jim thinks Tara is really cute and mysterious, so he goes and talks to her. On the surface, they don't seem like a likely couple. But after they talk, they find they have similar music tastes, and Tara thinks Jim's sense of humor is on par with Dane Cook, who is her favorite comedian. They like hanging out because their differences, like how Tara loves roller coasters and Jim is scared of heights, combine so that they learn more about each other and themselves. Jim ends up liking roller coasters, and Tara is now interested in football and how the game is played. This is what I call a symbiotic relationship, one in which both parties are happy though they are different and similar to certain degrees. This relationship could last a long period of time, because their characters

Let's meet Kim and Jake. They seem like they'd make a good couple; Kim is stylish and girly, Jake is a band kid. Their social spheres seem to will their union, and they seem happy together. But this relationship can go one of two ways - a long relationship where neither benefits, except maybe physically, but not emotionally or psychologically because their similarities are not strong enough and their differences are too fundamental, or they will break up because one of the two has realized they aren't getting much out of it.

Fundamental differences are more character flaws than a lack of similarities. If Jake is a judgmental asshole, though Kim finds him really attractive his condescending attitude towards her interest in mainstream pop bands will piss her off and she'll bring up how he's always bringing her down. If Kim doesn't understand Jake's love for snowboarding, she may go to his contests and cheer him on the sidelines, but not name any snowboarders besides Jake and Shaun White. Jake hates how Kim likes to party on the weekends, and though she's not hooking up or anything, he doesn't understand why she feels the need to drink and dress like a slut out in public all the time. But Kim deals, and Jake looks it over, glad she's not cheating, but worried about that Facebook photo he saw where she was sitting on her "friend's" lap, looking incredibly drunk and basically half naked. In a way, they don't understand each other; Jake won't socialize with Kim's friends, and Kim tires of Jake's snowboarding jabber. This is a recipe for disaster, though they will simply "get along" and be happy that at least they have each other, until one meets another person who meets the symbiotic complement as referenced with Tara and Jim, or they just feel that they can't handle each other anymore. These realizations could take years, which is probably the part that defies logic, at least in my opinion.

How can people be happy settling for less? How can someone be happy wasting time, energy, and emotion on a relationship they aren't able to really be the best they can be in? Do they see their relationships lasting? If they don't, why do they stay in it? I couldn't do that. That's why I've been so reluctant to date - I don't want to pick just anyone, and I want to be sure I'm not wasting my time.

Sometimes, I just want to wake people up.

WWII Movies, Cute Overload, and an Update

In Us Govt *cough* I mean Contemporary History, we watched the beginning scene of Saving Private Ryan (SPR) and then we watched the bombing scene of Pearl Harbor (PH/Pearl). Intrigued by the graphic nature of SPR and the hotness of Josh Harnett (PH), I borrowed both. The following are my analyses.

SPR [4/4]: Pretty much one of the best movies I have ever seen. The first scene is so gloriously intense, sad, and honest.... I'm pretty sure I watched that scene alone about five times. The rest of the movie is perfectly acted, and I was unsure of who was to die next. I didn't want the one sniper to die... but really, I have never been so instilled with such a true insight of war. Friends died, battle was everywhere... it just amazed me, humbled me. Veterans, wow... Despite watching the film however, I am not a pacifist; I believe war is necessary at times, just as it was necessary in WWII.

PH [1/4]: Omfg, the cheesiest film I have ever seen. It oozed Hollywood gradioseness, almost made me sick to my stomach. I have many complaints about this film, and to understand I hope that you have seen the film. The first complaint is the overly dramatic acting. The scene of a document falling slowly to the ground was utilized twice; a folly by the director both due to the repeat and due to the lack of necessity. Every scene with Roosevelt was the biggest load of BS I ever witnessed, especially his incredibly dramatic standing up to prove a point about being able to do anything or something to the army generals. When they mentioned that the atomic bombs should be used as revenge for Pearl Harbor, well that's a load of BS as well; Pearl Harbor was miniscule in comparison even by estimates of the time; the A-bomb wasn't full developed at the time; and the A-bomb wasn't even considered until like three years later. Please.

Next complaints: Baldwin and That Chick. That Chick, Kate Beckinsdale or whatever, is totally static. Despite being attractive, I see no reason why these two very attractive men were so head over heels for her - she was quite flat and boring. Did no one else see how fucked up that love triangle was??! First she was all for Affleck. Then he goes, dies, she gets with Hartnett. Affleck returns from the dead, she flirts with him, she then tells him that she prefers Hartnett, Hartnett dies, then Kate and Affleck get together with Hartnett's kid. WTF!? Men do not simply take other men's children under their wing, especially one that's the product of a love affair that occured with your BEST FRIEND and your GIRLFRIEND. And really, Kate's just a tool.
Baldwin... wow... that whole scene with fighting across Japan or whatever and his chanting of "We won't win this battle.... but it will be an example of hope for everyone" or some BS about how everyone was gonna die but it'd be worth it --- completely ridiculous. Baldwin looked like a psychopath with the intense fervor that he exclaimed their doom.

Not only all that, but the film was a torturous three hours long and it was stuffed with boring aerial battles and horribly overwrought drama. I was praying for the end, and when it got there, I wanted to smack both Affleck and Kate. What retards. Well, Affleck was the only retard. The BEST acting, the truest emotion, all came from the scene when Hartnett died. And guess what? You had to watch about 2 hours and 50 minutes in to see it.


I recently got a new iPod. A gorgeous little 16gb orange Nano. Only thing is, it won't charge on my iPod dock, so now I have to charge it on the computer. Ghey. Being poor really sucks; I need a new dock, I'd like a NDSLite (with my Japanese word coach!), a wiimote charger, some games for the wii, some ps2 games, new ice skates, and some new fricking clothes for realz! Why oh why am I so dreadfully broke?

Jesus, I'm tired. I spent most of my night on bash.org [check it!!], cuteoverload, and thesuperficial. Awesome...

A Laugh So Epic It Imploded On Itself

My headline may be stolen from a line from Ctrl+Alt+Del (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/sillies.php?d=20090124) but this following blurb has nothing to do with laughing so epic that it imploded.

Happy Single Awareness Day aka Valentine's Day. My agenda: nothing til I get off of work and go to a sleepover with Rachel and Amanda. Hard-kizore.

I'm not going to be a blonde anymore. I know, apocalypse. I can't delay the inevitable anymore. My roots are dark so to avoid looking like a greasy haired blonde I'm going to make it all look greasy. Just kidding. It will be brown.

In other news, I need a new iPod. I'm too cheap to spent the money I intentionally made TO BUY a new one, but the point is I need more music and a bigger ipod to store it all.

Donate?


Currently Listening to: NOTHING. No new music, man. None. Ridiculous. I've been drowning myself in Attack Attack and that damn Twilight Soundtrack.

On Laziness and Comedy Central

I think it might be from the senioritis, but I seriously do not study whatsoever anymore. French... wow I haven't studied that in about a year. It's mostly because my teacher is really lax and I prefer to do nothing when I have free time, so naturally I don't do my homework. I really only try in Calculus but I don't study enough for that either. My grades are still good and stuff, but I really don't apply myself like I should. Last night I attempted to do my homework, my French, but mny head hurt so damn bad I just gave up.

So when I'm bored I: a. Go ice skating or b. watch Comedy Central. God, Comedy Central is amazing. This month is stand-up month and it's like watching heaven incarnate. What is horrible though is when I put it on and it's just a really long string of stand-up, so I end up watching it from 10 pm to 2 am. Not good for the waking up early, which I usually have to do. *sigh*

This morning I tried to just get up and put some music on, you know, use my home alone privilege (sp?) to its maximum potential. But no, I follied and the inner sad person said 'COMEDY COMEDY COMEDY!! and forced me to flick over to a great stand-up right after I watched Spongebob. YES I WATCH SPONGEBOB. That invertebrate is the shit.

And now I'm eating the most amazing chocolate ever: Hershey's Cookies 'n Creme =D

BTW, my school lost the basketball game last night with some abysmal score like 48-20. Glad I didn't waste my time.

Fanboys - FINALLY

In case no one already knew, I am a huge Star Wars fan. I have seen previews for Fanboys from two years ago and I recently found out it is due for release in February.

UBER EXCITEMENT!!!!

Can't wait to see it. Now I need to find some fellow SW nerds to join me.

Come with?

Doomsday Disaster

Okay, so according to some Mayan calendar, the world is supposed to end December 21st, 2012. I've read articles from Mayan professionals who think that the world will end (or something catastrophic will happen) and other articles that say it will not end. However, not one article that I've read, or show that I've watched, has considered the fact that despite what really happens on that day, people around the world will be flipping their lids.

Has anyone considered the insanity that is likely to ensue on the days approaching December 21st? Regardless of any information that says that a catastrophe will not occur, there will be many, many people who believe that it will. And there will surely be a handful that believes the world will truly end.

Now just think. If a group of some millions of people thinks that the world is going to end, what will they do? Well, they will do just about everything they wouldn't ordinarily be able to do due to the fact that they won't have to deal with the consequences in some way (at least in this life). So if the world is ending, why not just do whatever you want?

So imagine this on December 20th, 2012: murders, riots, robberies, excessive drug and alcohol use, widespread (mostly unprotected) promiscuity, and just about anything else you can think of. And that's just on the local level.

I'm sure there will be some positive aspects of the day before the end, like people finally reconciling with enemies and some family togetherness, but I can already see the enormous amount of problems awaiting society that day.

And when the 21st finally comes, if we are not all destroyed according to the legend, what will we have to say for ourselves? There will be a big mess to clean up, I assume.

So beware on the days closing in on the 21st of December, 2012. Instead of partying, I suggest locking yourselves indoors and staying away from all enemies and resident psychos. They might just feel the urge to kill you.

ADDED JANUARY 30TH: I was just thinking, there will be babies as a result of the whole December 21st partying. Lots of them. Maybe society will come up with a special name for them... whatever, most will end up aborted, fatherless, or just in adoption homes. Just a thought.