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.