Okay, so big issue I realised with pokemon generation two. Love the games, mind you, but i'm looking up the changes in the region between games, which is just three years, and there's a lot. Understandably, cause they're fitting two regions into one game, which is a luxury to player nostalgia in itself, but you can't fit it all into a GBC cartridge.
The first generation was good, and had a lot of places for the intrepid explorer to explore, as most explorers do. There was a cruise ship, a graveyard tower, a burned down lab, a cave with powerful creatures every turn, a forest, a museum, a safari park, a zoo, eight gyms, a mountain with fossils in, a whole bunch of secret mafia hideouts, a cycling road and a cave with digletts.
That's a lot of stuff.
For generation two, they made sure to not waste a ruddy thing. Everything in Jhoto had a point, and there wasn't much of a point to Kanto beyond the gym rebattles, the small team rocket story and the lead up to battle Red.
So they trimmed the fat. They worked out loads of reasons why they cut out most of kanto, keeping it as minimal as they could.
The S.S.Anne made sense to be gone, since it's a once off cruise ship. They have another more frequent ferry, so all's well that ends well.
Then there's silph co, which has tightened security and has a broken lift, so nobody can get in, no matter what. Seriously, you can have a pass from the queen, you're not getting into the upper level of Silph. This might lower the tourism, but oh well.
Moving south, we have another tourism hit. The whole zoo and safari zone has just got up and gone. Yup. For some reason, the warden went on a trip, and took EVERY ANIMAL HE HAD UNDER HIS CARE WITH HIM. Not just leave it with his helper, no! Lets just evacuate the place.
They rectified it in generation four, putting in the pal park and moving the safari zone to the west of jhoto. Where nobody can get to it. And the zoo isn't even set up. Face it, the warden messed up a bit.
Then even further south, the island town of Cinnibar has exploded. Yeah, the only thing is a presumably new pokemon centre and the main guy who now lives in a tiny cave on an island to use as a gym for challengers. He lives in a cave. And i don't recall any other people in all of Kanto or Jhoto referring to escaping Cinnibar. As they likely would. Only one guy got away.
Generation four made this less horrific to think of and had a whole bunch of gym trainers escape too, but still, ouch.
The viridian forest was lessened to a small maze. It was cut down. For convenience sake. Shame, really. Shows how little the world cares.
The museum, a place of enlightenment the world needs, is under maintenance. Yep, they shut that too. Tourism can't really handle it right now, huh?
Mount moon has crumbled under rock slides. I reckon it's because of humans disturbing the place trying to find fossils for show, but they say they stopped mining ages ago and couldn't be the cause. Some pokemon escaped and continue their natural ways, but people just use this to make money.
Speaking of just making money pokemon tower. A pokemon resting place, yeah, basically a graveyard, now serves the purpose of making radio shows. You just know the DJ is haunted by undetectable Ghastleys and one peeved Marrowak. Imagine how that happened:
"Hey, wanna honour the dead?"
"No, I wanna hear the Archers. Just put them in that old guy's small house. He won't mind!"
The power plant is up and running, which is great. It does lead to crime and vandalism like that in the tunnels under Saffron, however, due to people from other countries trying to serve dead organisations. Only a slight draw-back, but it does make a difference when the whole of the region becomes reliant on the power plant for ALL their power.
There's a cave to the north of cerulean which is dangerous. Very powerful pokemon dwell there. This is bad for most, but good for the local common job of pokemon training, since they can catch and battle some really tough enemies. But, sadly the place got blocked off before generation two.
There's also some minor changes in leadership of local gyms, but nothing bad.
Seriously, tell me Kanto has had a good three years. Tell me.
Tuesday 27 December 2011
Monday 31 October 2011
Boo
Are you scared?
Eh, doesn't matter. Halloween is upon us, and I have so little to talk about, I figure it's worth my time to just talk about the blindingly obvious subject of All Hallow's Eve. Halloween to those not in the know.
So, randomly, someone decided to dress up scary on October 31st. Then this spread, with people basically threatening others to give them an offering to not play a trick on them. People then decided that they should dress up, but skip the house to house scrounging for sugary substances and just party. Honestly, the history of this day is unknown to me, so I'm going to spend about 5 lines reading wikipedia.
There.
Ok, apparently, it's just a festival of the dead that got mixed with a festival of gathering, and then a sweet merchant decided to make some traditions. It may have been a day originally to help the souls of lost ones pass on, but then someone threw in a werewolf and everything got a bit messed up.
Change of pace. I'll tell the random blog reader of a scary new creature I want to become the new vampire, except not over-saturated. It's called Lacerta Aranea.
Powerful and carnivorous, and yet so gentle. When it first came around, weeks after the meteor stuck the earth, it started to scavenge. It feasted on the meat, and then laid it's eggs. The eggs are opportunistic, instinctively knowing when to awaken. But sometimes, they make mistakes.
The Lacerta Aranea, or Lacanea, will occasionally be born at the completely wrong time. But they can't just starve themselves, can they? That wouldn't be an effective creature. They have their own methods of catching their food, but they are just so gentle. They are the definition of "You have to be cruel to be kind". They lay traps in obscure places in the world where an occasional human would travel and lose themselves, such as crevices and ridges. If one accidentally fell, you would land in their web and you would be their food.
But they won't kill you. And they won't eat you alive.
You will die from the poison in his web. Then they will eat you.
It may save your life from your own foolish accident, and you may live longer than you would otherwise. Escape won't save you. Everyone who touches his web is his food, and there is no antidote aside from being him. Once you die, he will hunt his food. He is drawn to it. He can smell his poison from across even the stars.
He is not a monster. He is not stupid. He is not unreasonable. He is just starving, and is designed to crave whoever has touched his poison. Don't try to save the corpse, cause nothing can stop him. Just... don't touch the web.
It's a work in progress, but I think the concept is solid.
Eh, doesn't matter. Halloween is upon us, and I have so little to talk about, I figure it's worth my time to just talk about the blindingly obvious subject of All Hallow's Eve. Halloween to those not in the know.
So, randomly, someone decided to dress up scary on October 31st. Then this spread, with people basically threatening others to give them an offering to not play a trick on them. People then decided that they should dress up, but skip the house to house scrounging for sugary substances and just party. Honestly, the history of this day is unknown to me, so I'm going to spend about 5 lines reading wikipedia.
There.
Ok, apparently, it's just a festival of the dead that got mixed with a festival of gathering, and then a sweet merchant decided to make some traditions. It may have been a day originally to help the souls of lost ones pass on, but then someone threw in a werewolf and everything got a bit messed up.
Change of pace. I'll tell the random blog reader of a scary new creature I want to become the new vampire, except not over-saturated. It's called Lacerta Aranea.
Powerful and carnivorous, and yet so gentle. When it first came around, weeks after the meteor stuck the earth, it started to scavenge. It feasted on the meat, and then laid it's eggs. The eggs are opportunistic, instinctively knowing when to awaken. But sometimes, they make mistakes.
The Lacerta Aranea, or Lacanea, will occasionally be born at the completely wrong time. But they can't just starve themselves, can they? That wouldn't be an effective creature. They have their own methods of catching their food, but they are just so gentle. They are the definition of "You have to be cruel to be kind". They lay traps in obscure places in the world where an occasional human would travel and lose themselves, such as crevices and ridges. If one accidentally fell, you would land in their web and you would be their food.
But they won't kill you. And they won't eat you alive.
You will die from the poison in his web. Then they will eat you.
It may save your life from your own foolish accident, and you may live longer than you would otherwise. Escape won't save you. Everyone who touches his web is his food, and there is no antidote aside from being him. Once you die, he will hunt his food. He is drawn to it. He can smell his poison from across even the stars.
He is not a monster. He is not stupid. He is not unreasonable. He is just starving, and is designed to crave whoever has touched his poison. Don't try to save the corpse, cause nothing can stop him. Just... don't touch the web.
It's a work in progress, but I think the concept is solid.
Wednesday 26 October 2011
Cosplay part 2
In my last post (I made it a few seconds ago, but having two posts makes it look like I'm doing more for the blog. I'm not, it's the same content, but I'm sort of carrying the whole ruddy team. I checked, and it's six months since turnip or angel updated.
Cosplay trickery!!!
So, a costume is something that isn't you and isn't ordinary. Often a part of popular culture, but there's a lot of popular culture so you can slip behind the lines.
First of all, you can take the HIPSTER route.
Popular culture is so enormous that nobody can know it all. Just dress as anything snappy and seemingly fictitious. Rip a t-shirt and draw on blood-splatters. Carry a fake sword and fake specs while hiding your face in the shade of a low hanging hat. No top, but a pair of gloves. Everyone will assume you to be cosplaying something obscure and just assume they don't get the reference. If someone decides they just must know and asks you, just say some generic title (I'll come up with a blog for tat later, but stuff like 'Darker Chair') and claim it to be new and upstarting.
Alternatively, there's the EXCUSE route.
From the man who brought you such funny but utterly bullsh*t excuses like "My homework from last week is apparently a cannibal", we bring you "I'm wearing a Ninja costume. I'm not dressed as a ninja, my costume's just really stealthy." Nobody will care, and they may think less of you, but your friends will stop pestering you. Well done "Undercover ____"
Here's one I'd wanna do. It's the CREATOR's way out.
If I become famous enough, but not known for my face, I can make a simple to make and relatively awesome character outfit. Then simply dress as that. Or, conversely, dress as something cool and slightly abnormal, and then write it into the show and re-wear your outfit. It's basically cheating in real life, but you can always say he's an actual character.
Cosplay trickery!!!
So, a costume is something that isn't you and isn't ordinary. Often a part of popular culture, but there's a lot of popular culture so you can slip behind the lines.
First of all, you can take the HIPSTER route.
Popular culture is so enormous that nobody can know it all. Just dress as anything snappy and seemingly fictitious. Rip a t-shirt and draw on blood-splatters. Carry a fake sword and fake specs while hiding your face in the shade of a low hanging hat. No top, but a pair of gloves. Everyone will assume you to be cosplaying something obscure and just assume they don't get the reference. If someone decides they just must know and asks you, just say some generic title (I'll come up with a blog for tat later, but stuff like 'Darker Chair') and claim it to be new and upstarting.
Alternatively, there's the EXCUSE route.
From the man who brought you such funny but utterly bullsh*t excuses like "My homework from last week is apparently a cannibal", we bring you "I'm wearing a Ninja costume. I'm not dressed as a ninja, my costume's just really stealthy." Nobody will care, and they may think less of you, but your friends will stop pestering you. Well done "Undercover ____"
Here's one I'd wanna do. It's the CREATOR's way out.
If I become famous enough, but not known for my face, I can make a simple to make and relatively awesome character outfit. Then simply dress as that. Or, conversely, dress as something cool and slightly abnormal, and then write it into the show and re-wear your outfit. It's basically cheating in real life, but you can always say he's an actual character.
Cosplay
Yes. You read that right. Of course, since you are either Angel or someone that accidentally landed on this blog through the most messed up google search ever, you aren't that surprised.
It's basically the action of dressing up as a thing. What kind of thing isn't in question, but as long as it's a thing, you're cosplaying. Halloween is basically a popular day of cosplay. I mean, you see pirates, Stormtroopers, the doctor, something steampunk for some reason, a Pokemon or Pokemon anime character, Chell, Miku Hatsune, Mario, an alien and a box (if it's not a companion cube or solid snake, I'm confused too. And then you actually enter the convention.
Why do they do this? You mean, aside from the fact that it's fun to act bizarre and that your conversations with people suddenly diverge from basic weather and damn buses being late to something related to your character (except from all those times when people just don't talk to you at all) and the fact everyone starts to think you awesome? I dunno, some fetish, maybe...
I've cosplayed once (I was a Sableye and nobody knew or cared) and it was fun. Plus I now have a purple hoodie with a green circle in the middle which adds character. I took off the lopsided ears to make it suitable for standard society. People still ask about the circle, but I just handwave it.
The whole experience rocks! I was executed by order of the Empire! I have the picture to prove it! I once saw Matt Smith's Doctor in a swordfight! Emmett Brown took my photo in front of the Tardis! You haven't lived until you've walked past a massive off-worlder from the planet Lala Croissant and said a nonchalant "sup"!
Admittedly, gathering a costume is tricky. I can think of some ways in which you can trick people into believing you're actually in costume, but it's easier to just say "CBA with a costume."
It's basically the action of dressing up as a thing. What kind of thing isn't in question, but as long as it's a thing, you're cosplaying. Halloween is basically a popular day of cosplay. I mean, you see pirates, Stormtroopers, the doctor, something steampunk for some reason, a Pokemon or Pokemon anime character, Chell, Miku Hatsune, Mario, an alien and a box (if it's not a companion cube or solid snake, I'm confused too. And then you actually enter the convention.
Why do they do this? You mean, aside from the fact that it's fun to act bizarre and that your conversations with people suddenly diverge from basic weather and damn buses being late to something related to your character (except from all those times when people just don't talk to you at all) and the fact everyone starts to think you awesome? I dunno, some fetish, maybe...
I've cosplayed once (I was a Sableye and nobody knew or cared) and it was fun. Plus I now have a purple hoodie with a green circle in the middle which adds character. I took off the lopsided ears to make it suitable for standard society. People still ask about the circle, but I just handwave it.
The whole experience rocks! I was executed by order of the Empire! I have the picture to prove it! I once saw Matt Smith's Doctor in a swordfight! Emmett Brown took my photo in front of the Tardis! You haven't lived until you've walked past a massive off-worlder from the planet Lala Croissant and said a nonchalant "sup"!
Admittedly, gathering a costume is tricky. I can think of some ways in which you can trick people into believing you're actually in costume, but it's easier to just say "CBA with a costume."
Sunday 9 October 2011
Sci Fi Romance
It's pretty gross, if you think about it.
Ok, let me explain the basics. The main romantic basis is that us and the off-worlders are high intelligence beings, similar and different at the same time, and there's just a link between the two romantically linked characters. Different DNA, which makes them unknown and peculiar.
You know what else has different DNA from humans? Sheep. Yeah. They're basically clever sheep. They look similar, but the basic instinct is the same as a human/sheep relationship. And that's just weird.
Then there's just the basic fact of styles of reproduction. What if he wants to reproduce with a human female, courts her, brings her to his room, then stands around waiting for you to lay eggs which he would then fertilise? Yeah. He's not actually a mammal, but a reptile that looks similar to humans. Ruins it a bit, huh?
And even if the reproductive systems were similar, why would he wanna do a sheep? He's not that weird.
How can you actually link a species who is rare in both mating for pleasure and having the largest mammaries in comparison to their body to ANY other species? Even if we did meet a race of similar skin texture, height, girth, mass, mating methods and intelligence, how can you be sure they're interested? Oh, and what if what we consider males are considered their females?
Additionally, black widow spiders. I don't even need to explain the complications there.
You can romanticise the cosmic differences, but you can't romance the cosmic difference, which rather defeats the purpose. Any story which states there's a couple between humans and another species either doesn't understand sex drive, or is based on weirdos.
Ok, let me explain the basics. The main romantic basis is that us and the off-worlders are high intelligence beings, similar and different at the same time, and there's just a link between the two romantically linked characters. Different DNA, which makes them unknown and peculiar.
You know what else has different DNA from humans? Sheep. Yeah. They're basically clever sheep. They look similar, but the basic instinct is the same as a human/sheep relationship. And that's just weird.
Then there's just the basic fact of styles of reproduction. What if he wants to reproduce with a human female, courts her, brings her to his room, then stands around waiting for you to lay eggs which he would then fertilise? Yeah. He's not actually a mammal, but a reptile that looks similar to humans. Ruins it a bit, huh?
And even if the reproductive systems were similar, why would he wanna do a sheep? He's not that weird.
How can you actually link a species who is rare in both mating for pleasure and having the largest mammaries in comparison to their body to ANY other species? Even if we did meet a race of similar skin texture, height, girth, mass, mating methods and intelligence, how can you be sure they're interested? Oh, and what if what we consider males are considered their females?
Additionally, black widow spiders. I don't even need to explain the complications there.
You can romanticise the cosmic differences, but you can't romance the cosmic difference, which rather defeats the purpose. Any story which states there's a couple between humans and another species either doesn't understand sex drive, or is based on weirdos.
Saturday 24 September 2011
Not gay
Seriously. I am admittedly camp, but I'm not gay.
Sure, I like musicals, but only if they're actually good. Some musicals are absolutely epic, and nothing about it can make you any less of a man. Wicked, for example, turns what is truly the most difficult musical to defend from the cries of being called homosexual into something completely badass. The Tinman is one of the most gay things in the show, and he's turned into a Munchkin who had to be turned to tin in order to save him from a curse of a heartbroken witch.
I skip and act very melodramatic, but that's just cause I'm bizarre. Wouldn't quite say confident, but I'm definitely uninhibited by social stigma. To a certain degree. I am still law abiding.
I'm kind. This is one trait that I find very upsetting to be set to the homosexuals. Kind hetero guys do exist, but we're just shy. Stop typecasting us.
And don't consider the unmanly to be gay. MEN aren't manly. If you see a manly man, ask yourself why he chose to make himself appear so manly. If they were actually like men, they'd be sitting watching TV and playing videogames.
I draw. Artsy guys are considered to be homosexual, but not only is that false (Van Gogh as my example), I am not arty. I just draw. No talent. There's a slight appeal to my style, but no actual skill.
I often glomp my best guy friend. It's called a Bromance. We care and get along amazingly, but that's it. There are songs about this stuff.
The humorous thing is said friend could possibly be gay, but acts incredibly straight. Not as in MANLEH, but you wouldn't be able to tell his orientation. Heck, he can't tell his orientation. Combined, we can destroy your gaydar.
Sure, I like musicals, but only if they're actually good. Some musicals are absolutely epic, and nothing about it can make you any less of a man. Wicked, for example, turns what is truly the most difficult musical to defend from the cries of being called homosexual into something completely badass. The Tinman is one of the most gay things in the show, and he's turned into a Munchkin who had to be turned to tin in order to save him from a curse of a heartbroken witch.
I skip and act very melodramatic, but that's just cause I'm bizarre. Wouldn't quite say confident, but I'm definitely uninhibited by social stigma. To a certain degree. I am still law abiding.
I'm kind. This is one trait that I find very upsetting to be set to the homosexuals. Kind hetero guys do exist, but we're just shy. Stop typecasting us.
And don't consider the unmanly to be gay. MEN aren't manly. If you see a manly man, ask yourself why he chose to make himself appear so manly. If they were actually like men, they'd be sitting watching TV and playing videogames.
I draw. Artsy guys are considered to be homosexual, but not only is that false (Van Gogh as my example), I am not arty. I just draw. No talent. There's a slight appeal to my style, but no actual skill.
I often glomp my best guy friend. It's called a Bromance. We care and get along amazingly, but that's it. There are songs about this stuff.
The humorous thing is said friend could possibly be gay, but acts incredibly straight. Not as in MANLEH, but you wouldn't be able to tell his orientation. Heck, he can't tell his orientation. Combined, we can destroy your gaydar.
Wednesday 31 August 2011
Myself
Hey. I decided to basically sum myself up for the 3 people who read by blog but don't know me. I'm probably exaggerating: The 2 people who don't know me.
I'll start with the physical aspects. My eyes? Brown/hazel. My skin? Mild tan. My hair? Brown, but very dark. Regardless of what Angel says, and I know she's arguing with me already, it's not black. Also, my smile's not that good: If I bear teeth, it looks cheesy, but otherwise I don't look happy.
Often I wear a t-shirt and jeans. I also always wear boxers, lest I be nude. My t-shirts vary in colour, but frequently have a witty caption or something. I also have many a hoodie, and wear them when I can. They vary from a plain brown one to a light blue one with Yoda on it to a purple zip-up one with a green circle in the middle.
In terms of personality, I'm rather cheery and idiotic. Seriously, I think my entire personality can be attributed to trying to make people happy. I make a lot of bad jokes, and open myself up for a lot of slapstick. Totally not a masochist, though.
Despite the blog, I don't talk very long-winded. Admittedly, when I start talking adamantly about something, I can go on and on, but the occasion is more often reduced now to "I wrote a blog about this". Also, people interrupt.
I am very lame. Not just self-deprecating, I am actually deluding myself if I don't call myself that. I tell many a bad joke, I'm into some very geeky stuff (Doctor Who, Firefly, Zelda, etc.), I suck at sport, I'm melodramatic...
Oh, and I'm a rather nice guy. Kind of goes into the above statement that I base my personality on other people's happiness, but it's to the point where my smile increases with other people's and I always try to console any of my friends when they're sad.
If I were to summarise, I would say I'm moderate. I'm not that attractive (cue disagreement...), but I do have a good sense of humour, and many a folk enjoy my company. I'm that level of good you find on dating sites where they don't want to oversell themselves but want to make themselves as appealing as possible. But I disagree with having a bubbly personality. I am not bad for teeth.
I'll start with the physical aspects. My eyes? Brown/hazel. My skin? Mild tan. My hair? Brown, but very dark. Regardless of what Angel says, and I know she's arguing with me already, it's not black. Also, my smile's not that good: If I bear teeth, it looks cheesy, but otherwise I don't look happy.
Often I wear a t-shirt and jeans. I also always wear boxers, lest I be nude. My t-shirts vary in colour, but frequently have a witty caption or something. I also have many a hoodie, and wear them when I can. They vary from a plain brown one to a light blue one with Yoda on it to a purple zip-up one with a green circle in the middle.
In terms of personality, I'm rather cheery and idiotic. Seriously, I think my entire personality can be attributed to trying to make people happy. I make a lot of bad jokes, and open myself up for a lot of slapstick. Totally not a masochist, though.
Despite the blog, I don't talk very long-winded. Admittedly, when I start talking adamantly about something, I can go on and on, but the occasion is more often reduced now to "I wrote a blog about this". Also, people interrupt.
I am very lame. Not just self-deprecating, I am actually deluding myself if I don't call myself that. I tell many a bad joke, I'm into some very geeky stuff (Doctor Who, Firefly, Zelda, etc.), I suck at sport, I'm melodramatic...
Oh, and I'm a rather nice guy. Kind of goes into the above statement that I base my personality on other people's happiness, but it's to the point where my smile increases with other people's and I always try to console any of my friends when they're sad.
If I were to summarise, I would say I'm moderate. I'm not that attractive (cue disagreement...), but I do have a good sense of humour, and many a folk enjoy my company. I'm that level of good you find on dating sites where they don't want to oversell themselves but want to make themselves as appealing as possible. But I disagree with having a bubbly personality. I am not bad for teeth.
Monday 29 August 2011
Speculative fiction
Love sure is complex, isn't it? I could just fill the whole blog with my thoughts on the matter. However, I've made two blog posts about romance this month, and a whole month of romance blogs isn't good for my idea of this blog being diverse, so I'll talk about Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi: The genre that encapsulates other worlds with robots and the future. You often find some lackey at a big corporation discovering a dark secret about the big boss guy, and gathers a small rag tag team to go on big- wait. Sci-fi's more of a setting than a genre. Just allows you to explain some of the plot-points using superior technology.
Well... That went silly. Might as well discuss fantasy.
Fantasy, a frequent quasi-medieval genre that brings powerful wizards and swords and elves and the like. You've often got a peasant discovering a king is using dark magics, and so he gathers a small and plucky ragtag team to go on a big... Huh... So, replace the technology with magic and nothing's different...
Well, I didn't call it Sci-fi or fantasy, did I? It's all speculative fiction. I got the term from tvtropes, and like it. The only difference is that one explains all the important stuff with future technology or other worlds, while the other explains things with magic or... other worlds...
Ok... This is a complex posting. Basically, the setting often has technology/magic created by a scientist/sorcerer, with the situation being watched on a monitor/in a pensive by a corrupt bureaucrat/off-worlder/king/dark lord from a spacecraft/office/castle. If it's a war based film, expect a super soldier/warrior. If it's a noble quest, expect a lowly worker/peasant.
It doesn't matter what the plot is, cause one is interchangeable for the other. All that changes is how you explain things. You just have one army of orcs and one army of very possibly identical aliens with an identical way of thinking. You have one teleport spell and one teleporter. You've got one archer and one sniper. Not much else changes, really.
I thought this would be longer. Well, shows what I get for thinking, I guess.
Sci-fi: The genre that encapsulates other worlds with robots and the future. You often find some lackey at a big corporation discovering a dark secret about the big boss guy, and gathers a small rag tag team to go on big- wait. Sci-fi's more of a setting than a genre. Just allows you to explain some of the plot-points using superior technology.
Well... That went silly. Might as well discuss fantasy.
Fantasy, a frequent quasi-medieval genre that brings powerful wizards and swords and elves and the like. You've often got a peasant discovering a king is using dark magics, and so he gathers a small and plucky ragtag team to go on a big... Huh... So, replace the technology with magic and nothing's different...
Well, I didn't call it Sci-fi or fantasy, did I? It's all speculative fiction. I got the term from tvtropes, and like it. The only difference is that one explains all the important stuff with future technology or other worlds, while the other explains things with magic or... other worlds...
Ok... This is a complex posting. Basically, the setting often has technology/magic created by a scientist/sorcerer, with the situation being watched on a monitor/in a pensive by a corrupt bureaucrat/off-worlder/king/dark lord from a spacecraft/office/castle. If it's a war based film, expect a super soldier/warrior. If it's a noble quest, expect a lowly worker/peasant.
It doesn't matter what the plot is, cause one is interchangeable for the other. All that changes is how you explain things. You just have one army of orcs and one army of very possibly identical aliens with an identical way of thinking. You have one teleport spell and one teleporter. You've got one archer and one sniper. Not much else changes, really.
I thought this would be longer. Well, shows what I get for thinking, I guess.
Wednesday 10 August 2011
Attraction
I've decided to make a comment on what I find attractive, as I have no life. Seriously, it's this or Pilotwings. And in case any of my readers didn't know (which you probably do, since you are my very close friends and my sister), me and Angel are single.
...Ladies?
So, a lot of girls are often bulimic or anorexic because they find themselves too obese. You are not obese. You are very skinny. Very skinny. While many girls aim for a flat stomach, a concave stomach is just weird. Nobody wants that. Eat something, will ya? Deity...
Oh, and let me sort out your wardrobe indecision: it doesn't matter what clothes you wear, as a great amount of guys will imagine you without them. Something casual, but not a jogging suit. On that note, if you own a jogging suit,sell burn it.
While many girls will try to add a little bit of glamour to their skin, you shouldn't rely on it. Easy on with the make-up. People aim for sun-kissed, not sun-frenched. I know we say we love your lips, eyes, and cheeks, and that we wish we could take them wherever we go, but if we succeed due to an accidental smudging during a sweet moment, then a lot of the romance will disapperate.
Your hair? There have been many a day where I do not notice that the entire mass has changed from medium brunette to incredibly rainbow, and I'm just wondering why you remind me of Rainbow Dash. It can be assumed it's little skin off my back that you're trying out a straightened look.
Then there's your nails. I've never understood the appeal of having them long. I like hugs. I like my kidneys. Don't make me choose between having one or the other.
Men don't like Bieber, so don't confess your undying love for him. In fact, try to restrict who you say you're head over heels for to the person who you are actually trying to court. If you say you love ice cream to your boyfriend, then consider yourself lucky that Ben and Jerry aren't being violently attacked moments after.
Also, the saying you can't have your cake and eat it too is a load of crock. Having cake but the inability to eat it is a cruel and unusual punishment which Chell was never granted. Do not try to make him choose between his enjoyments and you, because that doesn't make you seem very appealing. Join in, or go away.
Also, if you got the Chell joke: Hi. How you doin'?
Yep. Big one. Personality. Having a nice body can make many a man turn their head with interest. A sly reference t the Hyrulean royal family can make me do somersaults and slay Hungarian Horntails for a glomp. True story.
Please remember, everyone has different interests. Some people find girls more attractive for staring in low budget films. I know that me and Sir Mixalot have a very different opinion on a female rump. So this is not a universal guide, just a slightly relevant guide to me.
...Ladies?
So, a lot of girls are often bulimic or anorexic because they find themselves too obese. You are not obese. You are very skinny. Very skinny. While many girls aim for a flat stomach, a concave stomach is just weird. Nobody wants that. Eat something, will ya? Deity...
Oh, and let me sort out your wardrobe indecision: it doesn't matter what clothes you wear, as a great amount of guys will imagine you without them. Something casual, but not a jogging suit. On that note, if you own a jogging suit,
While many girls will try to add a little bit of glamour to their skin, you shouldn't rely on it. Easy on with the make-up. People aim for sun-kissed, not sun-frenched. I know we say we love your lips, eyes, and cheeks, and that we wish we could take them wherever we go, but if we succeed due to an accidental smudging during a sweet moment, then a lot of the romance will disapperate.
Your hair? There have been many a day where I do not notice that the entire mass has changed from medium brunette to incredibly rainbow, and I'm just wondering why you remind me of Rainbow Dash. It can be assumed it's little skin off my back that you're trying out a straightened look.
Then there's your nails. I've never understood the appeal of having them long. I like hugs. I like my kidneys. Don't make me choose between having one or the other.
Men don't like Bieber, so don't confess your undying love for him. In fact, try to restrict who you say you're head over heels for to the person who you are actually trying to court. If you say you love ice cream to your boyfriend, then consider yourself lucky that Ben and Jerry aren't being violently attacked moments after.
Also, the saying you can't have your cake and eat it too is a load of crock. Having cake but the inability to eat it is a cruel and unusual punishment which Chell was never granted. Do not try to make him choose between his enjoyments and you, because that doesn't make you seem very appealing. Join in, or go away.
Also, if you got the Chell joke: Hi. How you doin'?
Yep. Big one. Personality. Having a nice body can make many a man turn their head with interest. A sly reference t the Hyrulean royal family can make me do somersaults and slay Hungarian Horntails for a glomp. True story.
Please remember, everyone has different interests. Some people find girls more attractive for staring in low budget films. I know that me and Sir Mixalot have a very different opinion on a female rump. So this is not a universal guide, just a slightly relevant guide to me.
RomComs
Ah... The romantic comedy... It's like a romantic tragedy, except things end well and nobody dies.
Now, don't let the name fool you: this is incredibly rarely funny, and it will not be original. I have found a pattern, as most of you have too. So sit back and prepare to nod in agreement, feeling validated that someone else thinks the same as you.
The setting
This is the main thing that varies, but not by much. They are almost always in a city or urban area of some sort. They are almost always set at the exact date the film is being shot. They are almost always real places. Otherwise, they'd have to spend some money on locations.
The hero
This is the generic person who is meant to be the way in for the viewer, so they can pretend that they're the one who... let's say Mila Kunis is infatuated with, but you're not really Jason Segal. Unless you are, in which case, this is totally frekking awesome!
They're either a nice guy who remains unlucky in love or a total jerk who becomes nice over the course of the film, depending on what basic story is being used. There's probably one thing about them that is mildly humorous in concept, which will shape the entire film, unless he's a jerk, in which case his thing is being a jerk. Let me tell you, a funny concept does not provide a mountain of hilarity.
The girl
This can vary in gender, depending on the gender of the hero. They will always be described as something along the lines of "the hottest thing ever" which everyone must insta-swoon over. You know, people really hype up celebrity attractiveness too much. Angelina Jolie? Eh. Doesn't do it for me. I digress.
So, this girl will find the nice guy, on account of every other guy in the cast either being a total must not swear, must not swear... or a member of a beta couple, absolutely amazing. If the guy is a jerk, she will hate him aloud, but for some reason find his being within several people most of the time charming.
The friends
They're the most humorous thing here, but remain on the "slight titter" end of the scale. They will commonly comment on the primary relationship, even giving the small speech at the end about why they should be a couple. The main friend will be in a beta couple, without doubt.
The argument
"You slept with my sister while stabbing my mother? We're through!!!" "You and I clearly have nothing in common, which I should have noticed earlier! I'm leaving!" "We haven't had a fight, nor have we had any reason to fight, due to the fact that neither one of us is creating any problems for the other through personality or circumstance. Clearly it wasn't meant to work out!"
No matter the relationship, there will be a tiny feud which ends everything immediately. Every. Time. Without. Fail. Pistachio.
The epiphany
"You were meant to be together!" "You're right! I don't know why I let her leave!"
"Yeah, she was always correcting me about stuff." "She made you feel dumb? We do have things in common!"
"What'cha thinking about?" "I just realised. I always hated my mother!"
Suddenly, they realise they shouldn't have broken up, or forgotten that they really should have. I forget which, but they run up to each other, and take each other back instantly, without considering how bad they were together and that since they broke up there's an issue with the couple. Then they make kissy faces, and the camera pans away.
Basically, the only reason the genre is so populated is because regular romances aren't as popular and people don't like sad endings. If you want to write a RomCom, then just take the script of one existing rom com, alter the characters and settings so they fit your mad libs, refilm it and hey presto.
I'm looking forward to the RomCom where they don't get back together because they realised that they weren't supposed to be a couple, or they just move the frig on.
Now, don't let the name fool you: this is incredibly rarely funny, and it will not be original. I have found a pattern, as most of you have too. So sit back and prepare to nod in agreement, feeling validated that someone else thinks the same as you.
The setting
This is the main thing that varies, but not by much. They are almost always in a city or urban area of some sort. They are almost always set at the exact date the film is being shot. They are almost always real places. Otherwise, they'd have to spend some money on locations.
The hero
This is the generic person who is meant to be the way in for the viewer, so they can pretend that they're the one who... let's say Mila Kunis is infatuated with, but you're not really Jason Segal. Unless you are, in which case, this is totally frekking awesome!
They're either a nice guy who remains unlucky in love or a total jerk who becomes nice over the course of the film, depending on what basic story is being used. There's probably one thing about them that is mildly humorous in concept, which will shape the entire film, unless he's a jerk, in which case his thing is being a jerk. Let me tell you, a funny concept does not provide a mountain of hilarity.
The girl
This can vary in gender, depending on the gender of the hero. They will always be described as something along the lines of "the hottest thing ever" which everyone must insta-swoon over. You know, people really hype up celebrity attractiveness too much. Angelina Jolie? Eh. Doesn't do it for me. I digress.
So, this girl will find the nice guy, on account of every other guy in the cast either being a total must not swear, must not swear... or a member of a beta couple, absolutely amazing. If the guy is a jerk, she will hate him aloud, but for some reason find his being within several people most of the time charming.
The friends
They're the most humorous thing here, but remain on the "slight titter" end of the scale. They will commonly comment on the primary relationship, even giving the small speech at the end about why they should be a couple. The main friend will be in a beta couple, without doubt.
The argument
"You slept with my sister while stabbing my mother? We're through!!!" "You and I clearly have nothing in common, which I should have noticed earlier! I'm leaving!" "We haven't had a fight, nor have we had any reason to fight, due to the fact that neither one of us is creating any problems for the other through personality or circumstance. Clearly it wasn't meant to work out!"
No matter the relationship, there will be a tiny feud which ends everything immediately. Every. Time. Without. Fail. Pistachio.
The epiphany
"You were meant to be together!" "You're right! I don't know why I let her leave!"
"Yeah, she was always correcting me about stuff." "She made you feel dumb? We do have things in common!"
"What'cha thinking about?" "I just realised. I always hated my mother!"
Suddenly, they realise they shouldn't have broken up, or forgotten that they really should have. I forget which, but they run up to each other, and take each other back instantly, without considering how bad they were together and that since they broke up there's an issue with the couple. Then they make kissy faces, and the camera pans away.
Basically, the only reason the genre is so populated is because regular romances aren't as popular and people don't like sad endings. If you want to write a RomCom, then just take the script of one existing rom com, alter the characters and settings so they fit your mad libs, refilm it and hey presto.
I'm looking forward to the RomCom where they don't get back together because they realised that they weren't supposed to be a couple, or they just move the frig on.
Saturday 16 July 2011
Doctor Who (And it's legacy)
Ok, I've just seen the latest Torchwood episode, and if I didn't comment on it, I'd have the most inconsistent blog ever. So, here goes.
Doctor who
An amazing show. There's a new story nearly every week it's on air, but a consistent plot running throughout. Whether the main character (The doctor) is solving a murder mystery with Agatha Christie, or his spaceship has been put inside a woman and the actual box is run by a sentient rock, there's a simple character running across all dimensions and having zany adventures.
...Writing that, I realize it sounds ruddy daft. OK. An immortal being known, as the Doctor, from a powerful race of Time Lords, steals a sentient box from his people before the show begins (even the classic form). The box, known as the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimensions In Space) allows for travel to anywhere and anywhen. The power within it can shut off the sun, win wars in less time than it takes for Rebecca Black to annoy you, and ended and rebooted the entire universe.
Why did the Doctor do it? To sight-see.
He picks up companions, he sends pirates out to space, he replaces every cell he has when he's about to die. Depending on where the box wants to land, he could be in a silly adventure where he has to live with a guy who likes a girl or a scary adventure in a temple of living statues that can do terrible things when you can't see them. Whatever he's doing, it's a great watch for the entire family.
Love it.
Sarah Jane Adventures
Then there's the Sarah Jane Adventures. A former traveling companion of the Doctor's decides to settle down in an off-focus London road with a Zylok supercomputer. She can't exactly leave her old life behind, so all of the alien activity within a short driving distance gets investigated by her, her adopted perfect human son, and a specific selection of his friends.
The series went really well, as it wasn't over-cheesing itself or putting a silly clown nose on everything with teeth, despite being aimed more for kids. It acts like any serious sci-fi would, being as clever as it's parent show with it's reveal and just thinking "the universe really is a wonderful thing".
Rest in Peace, Elisabeth Sladen.
Torchwood
A former dead former companion and former time-agent known as Captain Jack Harkness decides to try and track down the Doctor by sitting in a rift in Cardiff. This takes a while, and he decides to pass the time by gathering a team and dealing with the less than pleasant creatures roaming the streets. This is... less child friendly.
With the third season, they stopped going for weekly adventures and decided to have a long adventure where something horrific befalls humanity and we have to deal with it. It does not just say "the universe is full of big meanies" but follows up with "we are too". It's the pessimist version.
I have to say, I made the entire blog just to criticize Torchwood. It's just... not a good show. Some shows can make themselves darker than the original, but Torchwood just went a bit too dark. And don't get me started on 'Children of Earth'.
The season 'Children of Earth' is based on a species that use children as drugs, and command humanity to give them however many kids they want. Humanity would more likely just say "you want a bunch of our kids? F off mate! I will shoot you!" instead of "oh, a deadly alien race that won't even show themselves. Let's cow-toe to their every beck and call."
And the solution was thrown together in the last 5 minutes and clearly only thought up as the most horrifying solution, aside from the most practical. I believe there's a term for an ending like the one they used: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPull
Pretty sure the idea of doctor who is that the universe is amazing, and you should totally check out all it's glorious bits. Torchwood says that is is horrifying, and any contact we have with them will result in complete devastation.
The you learn of the gorn that results from immortal characters. Christ...
So, Doctor Who is amazing, Sarah Jane Adventures is a very worthy follow-on, Torchwood pains me with how it has to be canon.
I'll speak in a nicer tone of voice next time.
Doctor who
An amazing show. There's a new story nearly every week it's on air, but a consistent plot running throughout. Whether the main character (The doctor) is solving a murder mystery with Agatha Christie, or his spaceship has been put inside a woman and the actual box is run by a sentient rock, there's a simple character running across all dimensions and having zany adventures.
...Writing that, I realize it sounds ruddy daft. OK. An immortal being known, as the Doctor, from a powerful race of Time Lords, steals a sentient box from his people before the show begins (even the classic form). The box, known as the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimensions In Space) allows for travel to anywhere and anywhen. The power within it can shut off the sun, win wars in less time than it takes for Rebecca Black to annoy you, and ended and rebooted the entire universe.
Why did the Doctor do it? To sight-see.
He picks up companions, he sends pirates out to space, he replaces every cell he has when he's about to die. Depending on where the box wants to land, he could be in a silly adventure where he has to live with a guy who likes a girl or a scary adventure in a temple of living statues that can do terrible things when you can't see them. Whatever he's doing, it's a great watch for the entire family.
Love it.
Sarah Jane Adventures
Then there's the Sarah Jane Adventures. A former traveling companion of the Doctor's decides to settle down in an off-focus London road with a Zylok supercomputer. She can't exactly leave her old life behind, so all of the alien activity within a short driving distance gets investigated by her, her adopted perfect human son, and a specific selection of his friends.
The series went really well, as it wasn't over-cheesing itself or putting a silly clown nose on everything with teeth, despite being aimed more for kids. It acts like any serious sci-fi would, being as clever as it's parent show with it's reveal and just thinking "the universe really is a wonderful thing".
Rest in Peace, Elisabeth Sladen.
Torchwood
A former dead former companion and former time-agent known as Captain Jack Harkness decides to try and track down the Doctor by sitting in a rift in Cardiff. This takes a while, and he decides to pass the time by gathering a team and dealing with the less than pleasant creatures roaming the streets. This is... less child friendly.
With the third season, they stopped going for weekly adventures and decided to have a long adventure where something horrific befalls humanity and we have to deal with it. It does not just say "the universe is full of big meanies" but follows up with "we are too". It's the pessimist version.
I have to say, I made the entire blog just to criticize Torchwood. It's just... not a good show. Some shows can make themselves darker than the original, but Torchwood just went a bit too dark. And don't get me started on 'Children of Earth'.
The season 'Children of Earth' is based on a species that use children as drugs, and command humanity to give them however many kids they want. Humanity would more likely just say "you want a bunch of our kids? F off mate! I will shoot you!" instead of "oh, a deadly alien race that won't even show themselves. Let's cow-toe to their every beck and call."
And the solution was thrown together in the last 5 minutes and clearly only thought up as the most horrifying solution, aside from the most practical. I believe there's a term for an ending like the one they used: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPull
Pretty sure the idea of doctor who is that the universe is amazing, and you should totally check out all it's glorious bits. Torchwood says that is is horrifying, and any contact we have with them will result in complete devastation.
The you learn of the gorn that results from immortal characters. Christ...
So, Doctor Who is amazing, Sarah Jane Adventures is a very worthy follow-on, Torchwood pains me with how it has to be canon.
I'll speak in a nicer tone of voice next time.
Wednesday 13 July 2011
Action Heroes
Not talking about super heroes this time. Honestly, I'd talk about the powers as a topic more realistically, but that's neither here nor there. This is about action films and, guess what, my pet peeves in the genre that I actually quite enjoy if they can balance the drama with the loveability of the characters.
Most action films will contain three characters: the hero, the sidekick, and the girl. This is the team, and the genders of each member can change but a few basic facts will always happen.
The sidekick may already know the hero, or may just be interested in why that weird guy on the bus is holding that pretty stick with a demon coming out of the- oh shiv. He will follow along with the hero in whatever quest they're going on, but his helpfulness will be easily matched by a laptop with wheels in a hamster ball.
If anything, he'll make it more difficult by paying the attention most normal people would to a temple of the other-world candles, putting the hero into a death trap. No motorcycle chases for you, you're only allowed to ride in the van making unhelpful satire. All you're allowed to do is make sure there's a guy following the hero in all his dangerous situations so the audience knows which guy is impressive. Spoiler alert: it's not you.
The girl is something added to have an instant romance subplot. Maybe she's the interesting girl in the test-tube who the main character met and fell in love with for a reason other than how she wasn't grown with a t-shirt. Maybe she's the girl who got in the taxi with the bomb the hero was disarming that never thought "maybe I'll ask him to pull over for a second". Maybe she's the hero's former summer fling.
All we know is that she will give playful snarks to the hero, because that is literally all that is needed for a movie relationship. She will be less helpful than the sidekick, in that she will be kidnapped every twelve seconds by, get this, an elbow hold.
Also, she will get a happily ever after with the hero right up to the point that a sequel is announced when she is completely forgotten by the series. It's upsetting that so many relationships are killed by action film sequels.
Then there's the hero.
He's a nob.
Oh, you want me to elaborate? Alright. He is a ruggedly handsome bad boy who, for some often weakly explained motive, wants to find the MacGuffin before the generic bad guys (either a vaguely mentioned Soviet Union or the Nazis) get it and use it to brush their evil teeth or whatever the MacGuffin does. By merit of being the hero, he get's all the glory and the girl swoons for him.
And he's just that certain level of badass where he can do superb stunts that you and I would struggle to do as well as he did, but just bad enough to fail right up until the last second where he attained a victory that a trained marine would have managed. In Galaxy Quest, the self-destruct timer doesn't actually stop until it reaches 1 second, even if you hit the button to deactivate it.
I'm bored of this, aren't you?
I want to see a hero win a fight efficiently enough to not fall off a cliff afterwards. I want to see the girl turn down the hero because, oh yeah, you threw her out of a plane. I want someone to notice the hero just punched someone to get a free drink. I want the girl to realize the sidekick is a way better catch than the hero. I want the sidekick to be as good as the audience he represents, and not doom all of humanity, but realize pushing the do not push button is a bad idea. I want a more real action hero. Not a Hollywood "you like this guy" protagonist.
Most action films will contain three characters: the hero, the sidekick, and the girl. This is the team, and the genders of each member can change but a few basic facts will always happen.
The sidekick may already know the hero, or may just be interested in why that weird guy on the bus is holding that pretty stick with a demon coming out of the- oh shiv. He will follow along with the hero in whatever quest they're going on, but his helpfulness will be easily matched by a laptop with wheels in a hamster ball.
If anything, he'll make it more difficult by paying the attention most normal people would to a temple of the other-world candles, putting the hero into a death trap. No motorcycle chases for you, you're only allowed to ride in the van making unhelpful satire. All you're allowed to do is make sure there's a guy following the hero in all his dangerous situations so the audience knows which guy is impressive. Spoiler alert: it's not you.
The girl is something added to have an instant romance subplot. Maybe she's the interesting girl in the test-tube who the main character met and fell in love with for a reason other than how she wasn't grown with a t-shirt. Maybe she's the girl who got in the taxi with the bomb the hero was disarming that never thought "maybe I'll ask him to pull over for a second". Maybe she's the hero's former summer fling.
All we know is that she will give playful snarks to the hero, because that is literally all that is needed for a movie relationship. She will be less helpful than the sidekick, in that she will be kidnapped every twelve seconds by, get this, an elbow hold.
Also, she will get a happily ever after with the hero right up to the point that a sequel is announced when she is completely forgotten by the series. It's upsetting that so many relationships are killed by action film sequels.
Then there's the hero.
He's a nob.
Oh, you want me to elaborate? Alright. He is a ruggedly handsome bad boy who, for some often weakly explained motive, wants to find the MacGuffin before the generic bad guys (either a vaguely mentioned Soviet Union or the Nazis) get it and use it to brush their evil teeth or whatever the MacGuffin does. By merit of being the hero, he get's all the glory and the girl swoons for him.
And he's just that certain level of badass where he can do superb stunts that you and I would struggle to do as well as he did, but just bad enough to fail right up until the last second where he attained a victory that a trained marine would have managed. In Galaxy Quest, the self-destruct timer doesn't actually stop until it reaches 1 second, even if you hit the button to deactivate it.
I'm bored of this, aren't you?
I want to see a hero win a fight efficiently enough to not fall off a cliff afterwards. I want to see the girl turn down the hero because, oh yeah, you threw her out of a plane. I want someone to notice the hero just punched someone to get a free drink. I want the girl to realize the sidekick is a way better catch than the hero. I want the sidekick to be as good as the audience he represents, and not doom all of humanity, but realize pushing the do not push button is a bad idea. I want a more real action hero. Not a Hollywood "you like this guy" protagonist.
Thursday 7 July 2011
Off-worlders
They are not called aliens. I want to say that right off.
Aliens literally means outsider, and could therefore include the french, so you'd need something specific for people from another world. Plus, we've been raised calling every non-earth resident to be an alien, and that would be rude to say on another world. I prefer to think of it as Off-worlders and natives, the first being anyone from a world besides the one you're on and the other being, well, native.
Another thing about the term alien is we often call it an alien world. I'm sorry, but what alienates that world? Ours is pretty solitary, and there's little that separates Altorn from Mars. Alien world is the biggest misnomer I've ever heard.
So, getting more to the nitpicking. Alien stereotypes.
A good reason I like the film 'Paul' is that it addresses almost every stereotype. If something addresses why it uses standard designs, I tend to enjoy it more.
Both Paul and Doctor who state why we have that design. Paul says we got the design off of him to get us used to his species in case of contact. Doctor who has the silence exist in a latent memory, seeping into artworks over time.
Tiny little word of victory is that Paul responds to "Are you an alien?" with "To you, yes." In your face?
Another thing. UFO. Unidentified Flying Object. Why not call it what it is: a spacecraft? There. Identified. Now stop using that acronym. It bugs me.
Oh, and if an Off-worlder does land, why would it assume we're the dominant species? The planet is mainly water, so they'd probably guess a fish is more adapted than us. It's a bit weird that I'm using South Park as an example, but they had a species who spoke in cow, so assumed cows to be the most intelligent species.
I guess it's because humans have developed to think we're the start-all and end-all of the universe. We think we're such paragons of good that any alien species is an open target if we dislike them or they try to do to us what we do to cows (who might be the most intelligent creatures).
I'm bored of talking about this now, so I'll stop.
Aliens literally means outsider, and could therefore include the french, so you'd need something specific for people from another world. Plus, we've been raised calling every non-earth resident to be an alien, and that would be rude to say on another world. I prefer to think of it as Off-worlders and natives, the first being anyone from a world besides the one you're on and the other being, well, native.
Another thing about the term alien is we often call it an alien world. I'm sorry, but what alienates that world? Ours is pretty solitary, and there's little that separates Altorn from Mars. Alien world is the biggest misnomer I've ever heard.
So, getting more to the nitpicking. Alien stereotypes.
A good reason I like the film 'Paul' is that it addresses almost every stereotype. If something addresses why it uses standard designs, I tend to enjoy it more.
Both Paul and Doctor who state why we have that design. Paul says we got the design off of him to get us used to his species in case of contact. Doctor who has the silence exist in a latent memory, seeping into artworks over time.
Tiny little word of victory is that Paul responds to "Are you an alien?" with "To you, yes." In your face?
Another thing. UFO. Unidentified Flying Object. Why not call it what it is: a spacecraft? There. Identified. Now stop using that acronym. It bugs me.
Oh, and if an Off-worlder does land, why would it assume we're the dominant species? The planet is mainly water, so they'd probably guess a fish is more adapted than us. It's a bit weird that I'm using South Park as an example, but they had a species who spoke in cow, so assumed cows to be the most intelligent species.
I guess it's because humans have developed to think we're the start-all and end-all of the universe. We think we're such paragons of good that any alien species is an open target if we dislike them or they try to do to us what we do to cows (who might be the most intelligent creatures).
I'm bored of talking about this now, so I'll stop.
Wednesday 29 June 2011
Superpowers
I'm not going to make this blog about how I should have superpowers or which I desire (though, if there's any barrels of nuclear radiation out there looking to create a technopath, I'm your guy). No, this one is more about me being pedantic.
A lot of superheroes can't physically have only one superpower. They just can't. Look at OnfireMan (it's easier to explain with brand new characters). To be on fire for long amounts of time, he would need to produce a massive amount of energy. Energy production is a second power.
Even further, OnfireMan can manipulate his inferno into a weapon. Flame manipulation is a third. He would require this power to not die from it.
All powers require additional powers in order to co-exist with the owner. Human limitations fall short at most useful abilities, so a super-healing power without a massive pain threshold and a body-shape memory would be pointless in any and all superhero situations.
Some writers do find clever ways of dealing with only one ability. Take Mr. Burly (again, made up on the spot). He only has super-strength, not super-durability or super-centring, so he would be open to being easily wounded and knocked about due to his ow acts. However, with heavy armor to both protect and weigh down, he can take hits without flying off or dying off.
I personally prefer movies with superheroes where they comment on the additional requirements the powers would need or the flaws that need to be avoided. Big bang theory discussed superman's impossibility assuming the concept of superman was possible, focusing on Superman's catching of Lois Lane effectively slicing her to bits.
I also like in one film where the hero malfunctions at high altitudes, so alters the suit accordingly to win against others with a similar issue.
What I like to see, in a thrilling action perspective, is an underpowered superhero with a relatively simple power using it strategically enough to become a worthy opponent. This would be a better thing to watch as he's not so overpowered that it's one sided, but he could still win because he's using his power wiser.
Example: Who would win between Iruleeverythingman and Papercutman? Therefore, it would be a great ride to see papercutman use his power so cleverly that he manages to win, admittedly taking a number of knocks. Also, Iruleeverythingman is a bit of a Marty Stu.
And my final bit of proof that there's nearly always more than one superpower, look up 'Most common superpower' on Tvtropes. Case and point.
A lot of superheroes can't physically have only one superpower. They just can't. Look at OnfireMan (it's easier to explain with brand new characters). To be on fire for long amounts of time, he would need to produce a massive amount of energy. Energy production is a second power.
Even further, OnfireMan can manipulate his inferno into a weapon. Flame manipulation is a third. He would require this power to not die from it.
All powers require additional powers in order to co-exist with the owner. Human limitations fall short at most useful abilities, so a super-healing power without a massive pain threshold and a body-shape memory would be pointless in any and all superhero situations.
Some writers do find clever ways of dealing with only one ability. Take Mr. Burly (again, made up on the spot). He only has super-strength, not super-durability or super-centring, so he would be open to being easily wounded and knocked about due to his ow acts. However, with heavy armor to both protect and weigh down, he can take hits without flying off or dying off.
I personally prefer movies with superheroes where they comment on the additional requirements the powers would need or the flaws that need to be avoided. Big bang theory discussed superman's impossibility assuming the concept of superman was possible, focusing on Superman's catching of Lois Lane effectively slicing her to bits.
I also like in one film where the hero malfunctions at high altitudes, so alters the suit accordingly to win against others with a similar issue.
What I like to see, in a thrilling action perspective, is an underpowered superhero with a relatively simple power using it strategically enough to become a worthy opponent. This would be a better thing to watch as he's not so overpowered that it's one sided, but he could still win because he's using his power wiser.
Example: Who would win between Iruleeverythingman and Papercutman? Therefore, it would be a great ride to see papercutman use his power so cleverly that he manages to win, admittedly taking a number of knocks. Also, Iruleeverythingman is a bit of a Marty Stu.
And my final bit of proof that there's nearly always more than one superpower, look up 'Most common superpower' on Tvtropes. Case and point.
Thursday 23 June 2011
Insults
I live in England, and therefore am more than accustomed to a few bouts of banter in the form of "your mum" or "you're gay!" As with Nerdfightaria (DFTBA), this annoys me for one reason far superior to being a form of verbal abuse aimed towards myself: they're rubbish.
Seriously, they're terrible insults. These coal-fired nuclear-plants are so narrow minded that homosexuality is the worst thing to be. Shakespeare can one up them. Sorry, did I say one? I meant to say OVER NINE-THOUSAAAAAAND up them.
Take this modern insult: Your momma is so fat that she sat on a rainbow and skittles popped out!
Now compare: No longer hip from hip than from hip to hip: she is spherical, like a globe; I could find countries on her.
Now: She's so ugly, she looked out a window and got arrested for mooning.
Compare it to: She's the kitchen wench, and all grease; and I do not know what use to put her to, but to make a lamp of her, and run from her by her own light. ... if she lives 'til doomsday, she'll burn a week longer than the whole world.
Finally: Ireland's crap.
And then: (Where on her is Ireland?) In the buttocks: I found it by the bogs.
That's the expertise of Shakespeare's insults. It's far more well spoken and thought through. He only once made a 'yo mama' joke, and it was fairly definitely the original.
I love these masterpieces of wit, and will therefore refrain, as much as possible, from swearing. I say 'eff' more than the word associated with that phrase. I do say bitch, but that doesn't count. It's not that bad. If being called a girl is an insult, as is being called a dog, than a mix of the two is an insult too. It's our fault we consider a standard insult a swear word.
Bastard also fits this, as it means being born out of wedlock. That is a sort of social faux pas, and so wouldn't be a nice thing to be called. Heck, it can't really be an insult if a number of people I know actually are admitted bastards.
Arse is not a swear, as far as I'm concerned. If my kid says 'Arse', I'd be fine with that. If he said 'ass', I'd be annoyed. 'Arse' is British. 'Ass' is American. I must draw the line somewhere.
I also say bollock. Not bollocks. Bollocks refers to a pair of testes. Saying bollock is always going to be bad, as disliking bollocks will be nullified by the presence of one, but enjoyment of either seeing or owning bollocks will be nullified by the absence of the other.
Also, slight multilinguality helps. Swearing in a different language is pretty much a sure fire way to know that nobody will know what you're saying, or showing you're slightly more intelligent if they understand.
If all else fails, be immature. As much as everyone doesn't care to admit it, there's still the leftover programming that finds complete and utter aggravation behind the insult 'poo-head'. And you won't be disliked for it as nobody will seriously have a go at being called a poo-head, lest they reveal themselves as immature for getting angry over it.
Although, a certain webcomic has taught me that spouting nonsense is a good way of getting revenge. Profanity will irritate someone for a little bit, but insanity will confuse them for a while. The more abnormal, the better.
Seriously, they're terrible insults. These coal-fired nuclear-plants are so narrow minded that homosexuality is the worst thing to be. Shakespeare can one up them. Sorry, did I say one? I meant to say OVER NINE-THOUSAAAAAAND up them.
Take this modern insult: Your momma is so fat that she sat on a rainbow and skittles popped out!
Now compare: No longer hip from hip than from hip to hip: she is spherical, like a globe; I could find countries on her.
Now: She's so ugly, she looked out a window and got arrested for mooning.
Compare it to: She's the kitchen wench, and all grease; and I do not know what use to put her to, but to make a lamp of her, and run from her by her own light. ... if she lives 'til doomsday, she'll burn a week longer than the whole world.
Finally: Ireland's crap.
And then: (Where on her is Ireland?) In the buttocks: I found it by the bogs.
That's the expertise of Shakespeare's insults. It's far more well spoken and thought through. He only once made a 'yo mama' joke, and it was fairly definitely the original.
I love these masterpieces of wit, and will therefore refrain, as much as possible, from swearing. I say 'eff' more than the word associated with that phrase. I do say bitch, but that doesn't count. It's not that bad. If being called a girl is an insult, as is being called a dog, than a mix of the two is an insult too. It's our fault we consider a standard insult a swear word.
Bastard also fits this, as it means being born out of wedlock. That is a sort of social faux pas, and so wouldn't be a nice thing to be called. Heck, it can't really be an insult if a number of people I know actually are admitted bastards.
Arse is not a swear, as far as I'm concerned. If my kid says 'Arse', I'd be fine with that. If he said 'ass', I'd be annoyed. 'Arse' is British. 'Ass' is American. I must draw the line somewhere.
I also say bollock. Not bollocks. Bollocks refers to a pair of testes. Saying bollock is always going to be bad, as disliking bollocks will be nullified by the presence of one, but enjoyment of either seeing or owning bollocks will be nullified by the absence of the other.
Also, slight multilinguality helps. Swearing in a different language is pretty much a sure fire way to know that nobody will know what you're saying, or showing you're slightly more intelligent if they understand.
If all else fails, be immature. As much as everyone doesn't care to admit it, there's still the leftover programming that finds complete and utter aggravation behind the insult 'poo-head'. And you won't be disliked for it as nobody will seriously have a go at being called a poo-head, lest they reveal themselves as immature for getting angry over it.
Although, a certain webcomic has taught me that spouting nonsense is a good way of getting revenge. Profanity will irritate someone for a little bit, but insanity will confuse them for a while. The more abnormal, the better.
Thursday 9 June 2011
An undeniable thought
Once in a while, something will occur to me. I don't know what sets it off, cause it varies each time. But surely enough, I will eventually return to the thought which I cannot argue with, nor do I want to honestly.
I'd make a damn good Doctor. Not as in actor, but as in a timelord.
Let's look at the requirements for a timelord:
Please note that I may very possibly outshine you in every respect that doesn't show the need of time travel. Though I'm sure one trip would solve that.
I'm not making a convincing job application, am I? Oh well. What's your ideal career?
I'd make a damn good Doctor. Not as in actor, but as in a timelord.
Let's look at the requirements for a timelord:
- Must be intelligent. Well, I can guess the big reveal of a number of doctor who episodes. Not to mention I apparently had the highest score for the logic test in my school years back.
- Must be protective of the timeline. I am definitely that. I understand the 4th dimension pretty well and some of my favourite films are about the time stream continuum being damaged and fixed. Heck, look at my very first blog.
- Must be very resourceful. I'm pretty resourceful, if I do say so myself. I'm currently using a fanny-pack which I must not wear under any circumstances as a penholder.
- Must enjoy technology. This is only half of my feelings for technology: OHMYGODTECHNOLOGYISSOAWESOME!! IWANNABEABLETOMAKEITDOCOOLSTUFFLIKETHAT!! MUSTHAVEITBYANYMEANSNECESSARY!!
- Must be eccentric. *ahem* Would you please glance your eyes upwards?
- Must have weird things in their posession. I have a pair of glasses that show little stars (actually hexagons, grumble grumble) in the light. They work best off of small lights, but it does give everything an awesome glow!
- Must have two hearts. Well, I'm halfway there!
- Must have some very timey-wimey relationships. I could very possibly have a daughter who was born in the future living in the present for some reason.
- Few people on earth must know they exist. Not by my intention at all, but this blog is a very obscure feature of the internet.
Please note that I may very possibly outshine you in every respect that doesn't show the need of time travel. Though I'm sure one trip would solve that.
I'm not making a convincing job application, am I? Oh well. What's your ideal career?
Organizing
What's the betting that Angel's gonna read the title and laugh? Tell ya what, if you laugh, you must greet me next with a glomp. Ok? Ok.
So, organization. My room is, like most teenagers, the lair for the evil kings of mess: clothes that are clean enough, old things that you will get to throwing away later, rubbish that would be gone sooner if you had a bin, weird arrangements, elves who've taken up squatters rights, stuff not put away due to the laws of physics, etc.
Do I like this? Not really. Well, a bit, but not as much as this. I can do with the clothes here, but I'd enjoy removal of the rest.
Overall goal for the week: move up the futon I write this blog from. Sounds easy, but it isn't.
I've cleared a bit of the floor, and sorted out all my schoolbooks (some where on that bit of floor). As a result of my desire to not be wasteful, I currently have a large amount of scrap lined paper in a box I don't know where to put. This is made worse by the fact that... well... If I've written something, expect it to be written in pixels.
I'll find some use for it eventually. Maybe I'll make some of it into a journal? Who knows?
Oh, and i have a new system for ordering my Video Games. Well, the first one is console, obviously. A 3DS game next to big, burly Xbox 360 games would look very wrong. And it would be very spatially inefficient.
From there, each game is put into chronological order. Not in the world of flesh, but in those worlds.
For example: A game is set in the year 5. It's sequel comes after it on the shelf, and it's prequel would go before it. A game set in the year 59788 would come after the sequel, unless the sequel came in the year 59789 for some reason.
Sounds complex? I'm a massive geek, I will think this is set in the future, so I just look over here... If I care about the film/game, I'll know when it was set. I'm just glad I got the Back to the Future DVDs in a box set, cause if I had to place them...
So, organization. My room is, like most teenagers, the lair for the evil kings of mess: clothes that are clean enough, old things that you will get to throwing away later, rubbish that would be gone sooner if you had a bin, weird arrangements, elves who've taken up squatters rights, stuff not put away due to the laws of physics, etc.
Do I like this? Not really. Well, a bit, but not as much as this. I can do with the clothes here, but I'd enjoy removal of the rest.
Overall goal for the week: move up the futon I write this blog from. Sounds easy, but it isn't.
I've cleared a bit of the floor, and sorted out all my schoolbooks (some where on that bit of floor). As a result of my desire to not be wasteful, I currently have a large amount of scrap lined paper in a box I don't know where to put. This is made worse by the fact that... well... If I've written something, expect it to be written in pixels.
I'll find some use for it eventually. Maybe I'll make some of it into a journal? Who knows?
Oh, and i have a new system for ordering my Video Games. Well, the first one is console, obviously. A 3DS game next to big, burly Xbox 360 games would look very wrong. And it would be very spatially inefficient.
From there, each game is put into chronological order. Not in the world of flesh, but in those worlds.
For example: A game is set in the year 5. It's sequel comes after it on the shelf, and it's prequel would go before it. A game set in the year 59788 would come after the sequel, unless the sequel came in the year 59789 for some reason.
Sounds complex? I'm a massive geek, I will think this is set in the future, so I just look over here... If I care about the film/game, I'll know when it was set. I'm just glad I got the Back to the Future DVDs in a box set, cause if I had to place them...
Wednesday 1 June 2011
Annual
Well, something has forced itself into my eyesight: birthdays. Due to the complete lack of content I've had recently, I've decided to just talk incessently about this. Also, have you noticed that talking like Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw from Zero Punctuation makes you far more judgmental?
So, the concept of a birthday is that after a circle around the sun since the day you came out of another creature and were considered 'born', you deserve a whole day. How many of these days you have determines your age, and you will be categorized ruthlessly depending on this.
This does, at time, feel fairly redundant. You get just as much special treatment for being born a near exact amount of 365 days as anyone else. Frankly, if chavs get a day of celebration, then I, on account of not being a chav, should be able to walk into the local chip shop every Friday and declare myself king.
Also, there's gifts. Nobody complains to getting gifts but why would they? They're getting free stuff for being alive. Having to purchase gifts for others can get tedious and confusing. "I know he wants this MacGuffin, but what if someone else gets him one? He wouldn't want two! I'll just get him a Herpyderp." Then, someone ends up getting twenty Herpyderps and no MacGuffin!
Bonus points go to whoever can work out where I got those references.
I actually have a friend who- I apparently have named on here but hell if i can be bothered to go through my archive, so I'll reuse the Nameless title.
My friend Nameless actually hates the process so much that he prefers his mates to not get him stuff so he doesn't have the obligation to go through it either. While his facebook comments are easily refutable, and my third blog was based off his comment, I do like the logic to his strategy.
Also, people feel that it's good do feel older, which sounds ridiculous to me. I'm not going to feel any older the second between the dates then I will in the second before the transition. The second I age, I will be a second older. I will be a year older than I was a year ago, but enough time has passed that it's not a big deal to me.
So many people could state the 'there's no real age you become mature' argument, but refusing content due to unoriginality hasn't worked out fantastically. My family really represents this. My dad plays Cityville, my Mum is so geeky it's genetic, my sister considers 10 years older than her to be old, my brother is less mature then me, and I'm the youngest by far!
I do like the simple method to categorize people. You can act mature in some methods and not others, so using tea and scone etiquette to verify age for a movie wouldn't be a good form of category. With age ratings, you can at least use probability to see how mature they could turn out.
The third point that it should feel good is that you're older. Older. Closer to death. Now, I may be an optimist to the extent that I could write a story about a man with 6 months to live and give it a happy ending, but there's little I can to with 'closer to death'.
Then there's the festivity you must throw yearly to celebrate the flimsy reasons for joy. I really don't like planning. So why on earth, in a day dedicated to me, do I have to entertain people? I like the idea of surprise parties, cause a nice, fun celebration that I don't have to go through paperwork for sounds absolutely glee-worthy.
Facebook doesn't make me feel better about this unnamed day, as it simply tells people that there's a day celebrating me going on, and everyone who's shaken my hand has to put a bland comment stating they wish my day is a joyous one. No variation in size, shape or colour. It really irritates me.
Every time it reminds me, I either ignore it or post something completely different, like 'Happy slow decaying!' or 'Don't you owe me that dvd?' Call me hipster if you want, at least I have the intelligence to say something more substantial and personal than two words.
Notice I haven't commented on the cake? I don't really have a bad thing to say about it, as long as it's a good mix of tasty, geeky and a monument to me.
On an unrelated note, it's my birthday tomorrow. Still no idea why this blog seemed relevant.
So, the concept of a birthday is that after a circle around the sun since the day you came out of another creature and were considered 'born', you deserve a whole day. How many of these days you have determines your age, and you will be categorized ruthlessly depending on this.
This does, at time, feel fairly redundant. You get just as much special treatment for being born a near exact amount of 365 days as anyone else. Frankly, if chavs get a day of celebration, then I, on account of not being a chav, should be able to walk into the local chip shop every Friday and declare myself king.
Also, there's gifts. Nobody complains to getting gifts but why would they? They're getting free stuff for being alive. Having to purchase gifts for others can get tedious and confusing. "I know he wants this MacGuffin, but what if someone else gets him one? He wouldn't want two! I'll just get him a Herpyderp." Then, someone ends up getting twenty Herpyderps and no MacGuffin!
Bonus points go to whoever can work out where I got those references.
I actually have a friend who- I apparently have named on here but hell if i can be bothered to go through my archive, so I'll reuse the Nameless title.
My friend Nameless actually hates the process so much that he prefers his mates to not get him stuff so he doesn't have the obligation to go through it either. While his facebook comments are easily refutable, and my third blog was based off his comment, I do like the logic to his strategy.
Also, people feel that it's good do feel older, which sounds ridiculous to me. I'm not going to feel any older the second between the dates then I will in the second before the transition. The second I age, I will be a second older. I will be a year older than I was a year ago, but enough time has passed that it's not a big deal to me.
So many people could state the 'there's no real age you become mature' argument, but refusing content due to unoriginality hasn't worked out fantastically. My family really represents this. My dad plays Cityville, my Mum is so geeky it's genetic, my sister considers 10 years older than her to be old, my brother is less mature then me, and I'm the youngest by far!
I do like the simple method to categorize people. You can act mature in some methods and not others, so using tea and scone etiquette to verify age for a movie wouldn't be a good form of category. With age ratings, you can at least use probability to see how mature they could turn out.
The third point that it should feel good is that you're older. Older. Closer to death. Now, I may be an optimist to the extent that I could write a story about a man with 6 months to live and give it a happy ending, but there's little I can to with 'closer to death'.
Then there's the festivity you must throw yearly to celebrate the flimsy reasons for joy. I really don't like planning. So why on earth, in a day dedicated to me, do I have to entertain people? I like the idea of surprise parties, cause a nice, fun celebration that I don't have to go through paperwork for sounds absolutely glee-worthy.
Facebook doesn't make me feel better about this unnamed day, as it simply tells people that there's a day celebrating me going on, and everyone who's shaken my hand has to put a bland comment stating they wish my day is a joyous one. No variation in size, shape or colour. It really irritates me.
Every time it reminds me, I either ignore it or post something completely different, like 'Happy slow decaying!' or 'Don't you owe me that dvd?' Call me hipster if you want, at least I have the intelligence to say something more substantial and personal than two words.
Notice I haven't commented on the cake? I don't really have a bad thing to say about it, as long as it's a good mix of tasty, geeky and a monument to me.
On an unrelated note, it's my birthday tomorrow. Still no idea why this blog seemed relevant.
Thursday 26 May 2011
Ideas
Here's a short back-story. Well, less story, more background info.
Here's some back-info: I like stories. Really impressive ones. The medium doesn't matter, though I can normally just not be bothered with books as they take effort and i am really freaking lazy.
Heck, everyone likes stories. You've probably been playing with lego and created a character in that tiny little model. That's why we like plays and movies and games. Because we like stories.
My dream job is to be a games designer, cause games are awesome but also because it's such a massive engine of story! You can create any characters in any world, and the players can create THEIR own stories as well! I've just got so many stories, I crave a way to show these.
What I'm currently doing? Scripts.
Which is great. Lots. I've got a colab going with my mate who I may have mentioned a name for, but have forgotten. Meh, he's now 'Nameless'. Basically, it recounts the time Kalvin met a girl online and things went... bad. I say '... bad', she dumped him when she say an image of him. It's kind of funny, if inaccurate.
There's also a sci-fi action comedy I've got in mind about an assassin company who basically have to deal with really, really bad rivals. Just to give you an idea of how bad they are, the good guys kill people for commission. The bad guys blow up trains to hit one target.
There's a series of the pantomime stories (Cinderella, Aladdin) being turned into a modern setting (most of the time) with a massively comic element. Can't think of many stories to do, but I definitely enjoy writing them.
I've also got a concept going of a schoolyard sketch-show, with loads of short skits set in school scenarios. This one's fairly new, but I had so many jokes about examination I couldn't NOT do it.
Then come in the ideas I have that wouldn't work in script form. I've got a massive sci-fi universe of 8 stories, three of which would make pretty good games. I've thought up a trilogy based around really deadly spells going psychopathic. The list goes on. One of these hasn't been put ON the list.
I'm boring you, aren't I? Sorry...
Well, here's a joke to make it up to you: A man is walking along and he sees a frog on the ground. The from says "Hello kind sir. Kiss me, and I'll turn into a beautiful princess!"
He just picks up the frog and continues to walk along. The frog says "When I'm a princess, I'll tell everyone of your amazing skills"
He thinks nothing of this. "I'll be your girlfriend for a month, fawning over you."
He doesn't care. "I'll do anything you want for a year!"
Meh. "What is wrong with you? I've promised to do anything for you, and you still won't kiss me?"
"I'm an engineering student. I've got no time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog is awesome!"
You've heard that before haven't you? Darn...
Oh well. I don't have much to say, really. Now I'm questioning why I, with my social life as active as it is, decided to blog about it.
Meh... What'cha gonna do?
Here's some back-info: I like stories. Really impressive ones. The medium doesn't matter, though I can normally just not be bothered with books as they take effort and i am really freaking lazy.
Heck, everyone likes stories. You've probably been playing with lego and created a character in that tiny little model. That's why we like plays and movies and games. Because we like stories.
My dream job is to be a games designer, cause games are awesome but also because it's such a massive engine of story! You can create any characters in any world, and the players can create THEIR own stories as well! I've just got so many stories, I crave a way to show these.
What I'm currently doing? Scripts.
Which is great. Lots. I've got a colab going with my mate who I may have mentioned a name for, but have forgotten. Meh, he's now 'Nameless'. Basically, it recounts the time Kalvin met a girl online and things went... bad. I say '... bad', she dumped him when she say an image of him. It's kind of funny, if inaccurate.
There's also a sci-fi action comedy I've got in mind about an assassin company who basically have to deal with really, really bad rivals. Just to give you an idea of how bad they are, the good guys kill people for commission. The bad guys blow up trains to hit one target.
There's a series of the pantomime stories (Cinderella, Aladdin) being turned into a modern setting (most of the time) with a massively comic element. Can't think of many stories to do, but I definitely enjoy writing them.
I've also got a concept going of a schoolyard sketch-show, with loads of short skits set in school scenarios. This one's fairly new, but I had so many jokes about examination I couldn't NOT do it.
Then come in the ideas I have that wouldn't work in script form. I've got a massive sci-fi universe of 8 stories, three of which would make pretty good games. I've thought up a trilogy based around really deadly spells going psychopathic. The list goes on. One of these hasn't been put ON the list.
I'm boring you, aren't I? Sorry...
Well, here's a joke to make it up to you: A man is walking along and he sees a frog on the ground. The from says "Hello kind sir. Kiss me, and I'll turn into a beautiful princess!"
He just picks up the frog and continues to walk along. The frog says "When I'm a princess, I'll tell everyone of your amazing skills"
He thinks nothing of this. "I'll be your girlfriend for a month, fawning over you."
He doesn't care. "I'll do anything you want for a year!"
Meh. "What is wrong with you? I've promised to do anything for you, and you still won't kiss me?"
"I'm an engineering student. I've got no time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog is awesome!"
You've heard that before haven't you? Darn...
Oh well. I don't have much to say, really. Now I'm questioning why I, with my social life as active as it is, decided to blog about it.
Meh... What'cha gonna do?
Cutting it short
I am in the midst of my science exams and... I don't feel like summing up a curriculum in a blog, as I cannot be bothered. I could sum up the best bits, but I seriously don't want to. Then comes the maths, and just... wow...
So... I shan't be making exam blogs anymore. There's just nothing to write about anymore. Luckily, nobody shall be upset, as nobody reads the blog.
Now, to use up the rest of your time, I shall perform a juggling act!
C'mon, work with me here! This isn't a Vlog, just a standard blog. You'll have to use imagination!
Wow... this post turned out to be depressingly bad. The next one will be better due to impossibility of the other outcomes.
So... I shan't be making exam blogs anymore. There's just nothing to write about anymore. Luckily, nobody shall be upset, as nobody reads the blog.
Now, to use up the rest of your time, I shall perform a juggling act!
C'mon, work with me here! This isn't a Vlog, just a standard blog. You'll have to use imagination!
Wow... this post turned out to be depressingly bad. The next one will be better due to impossibility of the other outcomes.
Tuesday 17 May 2011
English Exams (part 2)
A while ago, I posted a blog about my english exam paper 1. Well, a paper one means there's a paper 2, so I shall discuss that now.
Now, this paper, like the first, is split into two. To fully understand alot of the similarities, I'll just tell you to read part 1.
Paper 2 section A is reading culture poetry. The poems are in a book made just for the exams, containing two clusters of poetry for the paper 2 and a whole amount for the literature poems. As you can guess, these poems areoutstanding intriguing thoroughly checked for school suitibility before ever released cheap to obtain.
Sadly, readinng these poems is not the entire test; we also have to decide why the poems are effective with their language and structure and presentation. Stiiill not sure how presentation doesn't actually include structure. Even less sure how good their devices are, considering one is written to clearly depict a heavy scottish accent that I'd actually allow an american to ask subtitles for and another just switches to a foreign language in the middle, only showing you how to pronounce it and not what it actually says.
The linguistic techniques they apparently use are things such as metaphors and personification. The more rediculous include variations of repetition. Apparently things repeated three times is worthy of it's own rule. Acutally, that is true. I use it often. Nevermind, rule of three makes sense.
Repeating letters is also common. Assonance is when the sound in a word is repeated, though you're thoroughly tough to know without it spoken, which is heresy in exams. Then comes a specific form called sibilance, which is when the sound repeated is an S sound, which is seriously stupid, you should know. S sounds shouldn't show up so often, and it's just a wonder that T sounds aren't the repeated think that talking about obtains marks for. Though, thinking about it, turbulence is taken, thus invalidating it.
I wish I could say more about it, I really do... Probably why I'm better at writing sections than reading sections.
Then comes my overall best section, Paper 2 section B, writing to describe, inform or explain. These don't take any usual formats, being leaflets or articles, or even being a plain and simple piece of fiction. I like to describe, as I always get marked well for it.
I never bother with the last two, so I shall not explain them. Instead, I shalt inform you of how to describe. In short, be dramatic. This works best, as it grips far easier than other genres. You could do humorous, but you'd have to make sure you include techniques in it.
Erm... thinking of how to describe -would you believe- describing... Hey, you know books? Good books, the kind you're not told to study in school. Yeah, those! Think of the most descriptive passage. The passage that takes up most probably several pages, but would never be shown in the film due to the fact it's talking about a still image, and films are moving pictures. The things that are best shown as an event-free camera panning across and up, and maybe an owl flies past.
...Shut up! Let's see you think of a decent example not written by J.K Rowling.
...SHUT UP!!
Henyway, write that. Well, sort of. Write in that sort of style, but about whatever you're told to write about. If need be, write as if you've forgotten the name of what you're talking about, and it's on the tip of your tongue. But don't use second person. And no clicking in an exam. I've learned that it's just as bad as talking.
So, if you make sure to write this description like that, with a good number of metaphors and repetition, you'll be fine.
Don't Panic
Now, this paper, like the first, is split into two. To fully understand alot of the similarities, I'll just tell you to read part 1.
Paper 2 section A is reading culture poetry. The poems are in a book made just for the exams, containing two clusters of poetry for the paper 2 and a whole amount for the literature poems. As you can guess, these poems are
Sadly, readinng these poems is not the entire test; we also have to decide why the poems are effective with their language and structure and presentation. Stiiill not sure how presentation doesn't actually include structure. Even less sure how good their devices are, considering one is written to clearly depict a heavy scottish accent that I'd actually allow an american to ask subtitles for and another just switches to a foreign language in the middle, only showing you how to pronounce it and not what it actually says.
The linguistic techniques they apparently use are things such as metaphors and personification. The more rediculous include variations of repetition. Apparently things repeated three times is worthy of it's own rule. Acutally, that is true. I use it often. Nevermind, rule of three makes sense.
Repeating letters is also common. Assonance is when the sound in a word is repeated, though you're thoroughly tough to know without it spoken, which is heresy in exams. Then comes a specific form called sibilance, which is when the sound repeated is an S sound, which is seriously stupid, you should know. S sounds shouldn't show up so often, and it's just a wonder that T sounds aren't the repeated think that talking about obtains marks for. Though, thinking about it, turbulence is taken, thus invalidating it.
I wish I could say more about it, I really do... Probably why I'm better at writing sections than reading sections.
Then comes my overall best section, Paper 2 section B, writing to describe, inform or explain. These don't take any usual formats, being leaflets or articles, or even being a plain and simple piece of fiction. I like to describe, as I always get marked well for it.
I never bother with the last two, so I shall not explain them. Instead, I shalt inform you of how to describe. In short, be dramatic. This works best, as it grips far easier than other genres. You could do humorous, but you'd have to make sure you include techniques in it.
Erm... thinking of how to describe -would you believe- describing... Hey, you know books? Good books, the kind you're not told to study in school. Yeah, those! Think of the most descriptive passage. The passage that takes up most probably several pages, but would never be shown in the film due to the fact it's talking about a still image, and films are moving pictures. The things that are best shown as an event-free camera panning across and up, and maybe an owl flies past.
...Shut up! Let's see you think of a decent example not written by J.K Rowling.
...SHUT UP!!
Henyway, write that. Well, sort of. Write in that sort of style, but about whatever you're told to write about. If need be, write as if you've forgotten the name of what you're talking about, and it's on the tip of your tongue. But don't use second person. And no clicking in an exam. I've learned that it's just as bad as talking.
So, if you make sure to write this description like that, with a good number of metaphors and repetition, you'll be fine.
Don't Panic
Monday 16 May 2011
Religious studies exams
1) How do examiners look at question one on RS exams?
2) Give two examples of question two requirements.
3) What do you need to know for question three?
4) What is the blogger's viewpoint on question four? Give examples.
5) "Why do we have to bother with RS? These questions are too much effort!" Discuss this statement and give a personal viewpoint. You must refer to Susaga in your answer.
1) They check it's correct, and move on.
2) It must be correct, and there must be two things.
3) Question three is worth three marks, so you have to work on it a little more than the previous two. However, three marks is not a lot, so you shouldn't focus on it. Basically, ramble a little, but stay relevent and keep the floodgates back a bit.
4) The blogger's viewpoint on question four is generally mundane. The OMGWGD division (oh my god we're gonna die) is generally panicked over the question, due to previous struggles with it. This fraction considers that, being worth six marks, this is an extremely difficult question.
However, the BIO division (bring it on) considers it a fairly simple task should you know how to do it. The method is simple: you have to refer to multiple varying views in the religion you're studying, and merely point out that they're different views. Don't psychoanalyze religion, as you won't get any marks. All you need is two paragraphs, at an appropriate length of the paragraph in question three.
5) The statement claiming RS exams being pointless is one that baffles many people, beyond simply Susaga. The views are fairly consistent when it comes to this question, beyond the simple struggle to actually structure well enough to secure twelve marks.
RS is a topic that helps our understanding of the cultures in the world, and an absence of such can make us really closed minded. Most people really dislike people being closed minded, but show themselves as hypocrites. They need RS to expand their point of view, or at least to help with their use of devils ante to back up whatever arguments they use against people.
The question structure, however, is less appreciated, being fairly complex and needing quick and varied levels of response. The use of multiple viewpoints does, however, fulfill the complete understanding needed in the subject.
I, personally, do not like RS, but understand the need for the exams. While they are my most difficult exams to do, I should hope that I can do them well with a good understanding of what is needed. I understand the basic format of the questions, and can spoof answers to a moderate degree of accuracy (aside from the spoofing) so I should do well. However, I am slightly panicked that my ending saying has now, self hurtingly, become advice for myself.
Don't panic.
2) Give two examples of question two requirements.
3) What do you need to know for question three?
4) What is the blogger's viewpoint on question four? Give examples.
5) "Why do we have to bother with RS? These questions are too much effort!" Discuss this statement and give a personal viewpoint. You must refer to Susaga in your answer.
1) They check it's correct, and move on.
2) It must be correct, and there must be two things.
3) Question three is worth three marks, so you have to work on it a little more than the previous two. However, three marks is not a lot, so you shouldn't focus on it. Basically, ramble a little, but stay relevent and keep the floodgates back a bit.
4) The blogger's viewpoint on question four is generally mundane. The OMGWGD division (oh my god we're gonna die) is generally panicked over the question, due to previous struggles with it. This fraction considers that, being worth six marks, this is an extremely difficult question.
However, the BIO division (bring it on) considers it a fairly simple task should you know how to do it. The method is simple: you have to refer to multiple varying views in the religion you're studying, and merely point out that they're different views. Don't psychoanalyze religion, as you won't get any marks. All you need is two paragraphs, at an appropriate length of the paragraph in question three.
5) The statement claiming RS exams being pointless is one that baffles many people, beyond simply Susaga. The views are fairly consistent when it comes to this question, beyond the simple struggle to actually structure well enough to secure twelve marks.
RS is a topic that helps our understanding of the cultures in the world, and an absence of such can make us really closed minded. Most people really dislike people being closed minded, but show themselves as hypocrites. They need RS to expand their point of view, or at least to help with their use of devils ante to back up whatever arguments they use against people.
The question structure, however, is less appreciated, being fairly complex and needing quick and varied levels of response. The use of multiple viewpoints does, however, fulfill the complete understanding needed in the subject.
I, personally, do not like RS, but understand the need for the exams. While they are my most difficult exams to do, I should hope that I can do them well with a good understanding of what is needed. I understand the basic format of the questions, and can spoof answers to a moderate degree of accuracy (aside from the spoofing) so I should do well. However, I am slightly panicked that my ending saying has now, self hurtingly, become advice for myself.
Don't panic.
English Exams (Part 1)
Muuuuuuuuuuuuh... Exams always make me moan, and I never revise for them. Well, I did a few times, but I still just got a B in biology and the other time I was just hoping that staring at the book long enough would help. Now, I worked out a new method of cramming this info in my head.
Can you guess? ...No, I'm not making a flash game about trigonometry. I don't know how yet. Try again.
...I already said I just stare at the book and hope. Ok, I'll tell you. I'll blog about it!
For English, they split it into two halves (Lang and Lit) and split the first half into two papers with two sections each. I shall mock these section by section until I accidentally remember the stuff.
Paper 1 Section A is analysing non-fiction texts, or, in an ironic english, looking at crappy articles and booklets and whatnot and seeing all the dramatic effects they put in without realising. Seriously, a good number of these are articles and if I wasn't told what their point was by the paper, I would never guess.
At one point in time, I was answering questions about an article against young teen votes and, due to uncounered agruments for young votes and philosophies that there's no age of maturity, I assumed he was pro-voting at 16.
They have their opinions disguised as facts, as the actual facts are against their point, and they have to find respected scientists or psychologists in fields so far from the actual subject debated you can tell they just went through a million people who know what they're talking about until he got to one who agreed with them. Then you must refer the captions of a picture to the style it's in and discuss what message this gives (apparently you get marked down for saying 'it was picked because it's pretty') and look at all the language techniques used. Frankly people reading newspapers don't care much for similes.
I find this section is my weakest. Wonder why...
Paper 1 section B I do far better in. This is the non-fiction writing section where you have 45 minutes to either pursuade some guy (normally a head teacher), argue some point (usually in a teen magazine, and my usual choice) or advise something.
It's fun being argumentative, as my previous blogs could tell you. In fact, I reckon it's a limited time until the exam gives you the option to write the text for a blog. That'd definitely be a future blog.
The things you write about are normally linked to section A, thus giving you a chance to correct the argumentative viewpoint from the first section. I expect to get a higher grade than the article I argue against ever would. Eg: If the argument was about violence, you'd be given the chance to argue for or against a ban violence in films. (Psst, I'll blog about that once I'm done with this. You probably read that first, though.)
I nearly always pick the against option, as the point you get to argue for or against is usually just codswallop.
If the exam was a whole lot less important, you could expect alot of surreal essays. In a revision lesson today, there was a question to advise local newcomers. This seems simple, until you remember that the examiner will never be bothered to check this is true, being too busy looking for your techniques. So the extract "Why are the tanks armed? For your protection, of course!" would earn you some marks for rhetorical questions and exclamation marks.
Apparently, in one section, someone wrote "English is s-" and then something I won't say as the entire thing and still got two marks. You do not have to be serious in this. You can lie. There'll be a lot of teachers assuming that 83% of films have used the word 'stab', but aside from that, who cares?
I'm going to be doing this in many bits from here until I'm done because, not sure if you knew this, but there's a lot of exams and I can write alot about them. This is only one paper. I might write about RS soon, or I'll write about the other english paper. But you can expect that I'll definitely write alot.
Final words that I shall repeat at the end of every exam blog: Don't Panic.
Can you guess? ...No, I'm not making a flash game about trigonometry. I don't know how yet. Try again.
...I already said I just stare at the book and hope. Ok, I'll tell you. I'll blog about it!
For English, they split it into two halves (Lang and Lit) and split the first half into two papers with two sections each. I shall mock these section by section until I accidentally remember the stuff.
Paper 1 Section A is analysing non-fiction texts, or, in an ironic english, looking at crappy articles and booklets and whatnot and seeing all the dramatic effects they put in without realising. Seriously, a good number of these are articles and if I wasn't told what their point was by the paper, I would never guess.
At one point in time, I was answering questions about an article against young teen votes and, due to uncounered agruments for young votes and philosophies that there's no age of maturity, I assumed he was pro-voting at 16.
They have their opinions disguised as facts, as the actual facts are against their point, and they have to find respected scientists or psychologists in fields so far from the actual subject debated you can tell they just went through a million people who know what they're talking about until he got to one who agreed with them. Then you must refer the captions of a picture to the style it's in and discuss what message this gives (apparently you get marked down for saying 'it was picked because it's pretty') and look at all the language techniques used. Frankly people reading newspapers don't care much for similes.
I find this section is my weakest. Wonder why...
Paper 1 section B I do far better in. This is the non-fiction writing section where you have 45 minutes to either pursuade some guy (normally a head teacher), argue some point (usually in a teen magazine, and my usual choice) or advise something.
It's fun being argumentative, as my previous blogs could tell you. In fact, I reckon it's a limited time until the exam gives you the option to write the text for a blog. That'd definitely be a future blog.
The things you write about are normally linked to section A, thus giving you a chance to correct the argumentative viewpoint from the first section. I expect to get a higher grade than the article I argue against ever would. Eg: If the argument was about violence, you'd be given the chance to argue for or against a ban violence in films. (Psst, I'll blog about that once I'm done with this. You probably read that first, though.)
I nearly always pick the against option, as the point you get to argue for or against is usually just codswallop.
If the exam was a whole lot less important, you could expect alot of surreal essays. In a revision lesson today, there was a question to advise local newcomers. This seems simple, until you remember that the examiner will never be bothered to check this is true, being too busy looking for your techniques. So the extract "Why are the tanks armed? For your protection, of course!" would earn you some marks for rhetorical questions and exclamation marks.
Apparently, in one section, someone wrote "English is s-" and then something I won't say as the entire thing and still got two marks. You do not have to be serious in this. You can lie. There'll be a lot of teachers assuming that 83% of films have used the word 'stab', but aside from that, who cares?
I'm going to be doing this in many bits from here until I'm done because, not sure if you knew this, but there's a lot of exams and I can write alot about them. This is only one paper. I might write about RS soon, or I'll write about the other english paper. But you can expect that I'll definitely write alot.
Final words that I shall repeat at the end of every exam blog: Don't Panic.
Tuesday 3 May 2011
Alternative Voting
Well, I'm bored waiting for the latest How I Met Your Mother to load on megavideo, so I figured I'd share my views on AV, regardless of how I'm currently unable to vote on it (age). Yeah. This one's political.
So, the system Britain currently has going is just a standard 'you vote on who you want to win' and the first to obtain a particular number gets to rule the country. Sounds simple enough. Nothing wrong with that. Wait... How many parties?
Through many many varied methods of how the country should be run, although they're now just very slight changes, people often wind up with the odd member of a really obscure party voted in as an MP. This leaves a good amount of gaps unfilled to reach majority.
Let me explain. Say there's 299 placed avaliable. To gain majority, you'd need 150. With only two parties, you can have 150:149 and the left party wins. However, adding in a third party people vote for can end at the slight 149:149:1 vote. Nobody has majority, so the voting tanked.To rectify this, one of the parties could teem up with the third one, giving the needed 150. This is coalition.
However, we seem to have noticed that it's not really that fair. Instead of nobody leading us that we voted for, we have two people leading us we didn't. This generally ticks off half the population.
The alternative voting idea is that you order the parties in preference and the first party to reach 50% wins. For example: if a vote is 40% 35% 25%, they would take the least voted for pile and look at each votes second choice. This is then redistributed, so the leading ones get, I dunno, 45% 55%, and then the right hand party wins.
To me, this makes more sense then the 40 teaming up with 25, and ticking off 55 percent of people, doubly so for 20 percent whose votes have been considered dumb. Basically, if you don't get the most liked, you get the least hated.
If this wouldn't sway me, the idiocy of the No to AV reasoning really sways me to Yes. They say "It's far too complicated for the public", and yet I summed it up in a single paragraph. They say "It will let in smaller parties such as the BNP", but I fail to see how votes throughout saying ' I don't want him' will result in him getting in. They say "it will make coalitions more common", to which I just ask "how?" It appears someone doesn't understand it, and he's running the No campaign.
Well, How I Met Your Mother finished loading, so I'll leave it at that. Remember this decided how I vote, so do me a favor. Toodles! ...Never saying that again.
So, the system Britain currently has going is just a standard 'you vote on who you want to win' and the first to obtain a particular number gets to rule the country. Sounds simple enough. Nothing wrong with that. Wait... How many parties?
Through many many varied methods of how the country should be run, although they're now just very slight changes, people often wind up with the odd member of a really obscure party voted in as an MP. This leaves a good amount of gaps unfilled to reach majority.
Let me explain. Say there's 299 placed avaliable. To gain majority, you'd need 150. With only two parties, you can have 150:149 and the left party wins. However, adding in a third party people vote for can end at the slight 149:149:1 vote. Nobody has majority, so the voting tanked.To rectify this, one of the parties could teem up with the third one, giving the needed 150. This is coalition.
However, we seem to have noticed that it's not really that fair. Instead of nobody leading us that we voted for, we have two people leading us we didn't. This generally ticks off half the population.
The alternative voting idea is that you order the parties in preference and the first party to reach 50% wins. For example: if a vote is 40% 35% 25%, they would take the least voted for pile and look at each votes second choice. This is then redistributed, so the leading ones get, I dunno, 45% 55%, and then the right hand party wins.
To me, this makes more sense then the 40 teaming up with 25, and ticking off 55 percent of people, doubly so for 20 percent whose votes have been considered dumb. Basically, if you don't get the most liked, you get the least hated.
If this wouldn't sway me, the idiocy of the No to AV reasoning really sways me to Yes. They say "It's far too complicated for the public", and yet I summed it up in a single paragraph. They say "It will let in smaller parties such as the BNP", but I fail to see how votes throughout saying ' I don't want him' will result in him getting in. They say "it will make coalitions more common", to which I just ask "how?" It appears someone doesn't understand it, and he's running the No campaign.
Well, How I Met Your Mother finished loading, so I'll leave it at that. Remember this decided how I vote, so do me a favor. Toodles! ...Never saying that again.
Sunday 10 April 2011
Adrenaline
Why do I update this so much? I swear, my friends have given up mostly. Eh, I enjoy blogging.
So, recently, me and Angel went to a local park to swing on swings and sit in a tree. We could hear the sound of the fun fair situated just a short walk away from us, and got to talking about it. She wanted to go, and I said we'll go after we eat some food. It's Angel; I'm hardly going to not go.
So after some chicken and potato, we set off to the fun fair. We start the way anyone would, walk up and down to find the best places. I don't go to fun fairs often, as I am, to understate, fairly sparingly adrenaline driven. I go on rollercoasters less, but generally any ride that lifts me off of a stable floor terrifies me. I'm even acrophobic (scared of heights).
Angel is... not. She said to me to definitely go on the rides, and she'll be next to me the whole time incase I get too scared. I even lost to her at Pokemon, an event we had made a bet on. I was, in 3 different ways, inable to escape the upcoming rides.
The first one was really not scary to me, as it was just a lot of spinning. 4 seats on 3 arms, with the arms being rotated, rotating in the direction counter to the direction they were spun. Essentially, we were thrown across a badly made triangle at reallt fast speeds. Angel alerted me on the high speeds we'd be going in and warned me against puting my arm around her incase it got squashed. She later flew into me. My arm would be fine.
It wasn't scary to be waiting for. It wasn't scary to be on! Well, aside from the human thought that we souldn't be able to move so quick then stop, dodging the walls and other seats. Once I got used to the speed, I reverted to my silly nature. I boogied to music, I made jokes about adrenaline packed bouncy castles... I actually asked a random person at the side of the ride for food!
Regardless, I got off the ride feeling dizzy.
Then came the most scary ride. We were spun and tilted, so at one point we were side on from the ground at a scary height. I was seated on a yellow seat, with Angel on my right. We could see an orange seat right in front of us, which she used to make me feel better. I like orange.
It was... ok. I was petrified whenthe height came into effect, but I used motivation of nerdfightaria and Ze Frank to have my eyes open for at least 2 rotations. Angel was proud.
Then, there was what can only be described as extreme teacups. Alongside falling into fast rotations, people that worked for the ride spun us around as we moved. I made a flirtatious comment to one of the joknigly early on. He laughed, at least. Angel and I were soon separated by centrifugal force, and I was given 4 forms of the floor. It was really freking fast. Sir Isaac Newton spent ages slapping me, and I warily pushed my central region away from the safety bar.
I actually wailed like a banshee. The ride that scared me most didn't make me scream like the extreme teacups did. While taking her home, I was still recalibrating my face.
Then came the carousel. I jokingly said it would be the most adrenaline packed one yet, and so we silly got on it. I want my pound back.
Dodgems. Not much to say. I put my seatbelt on wrong to start, and drove it like Wash from Firefly. At one point, I even thought of how to do a Crazy Ivan.
So all in all, Angel got me back to the funfair to have a damn good time. I love her to bits for scaring me to death. Not every day you can say that!!!
So, recently, me and Angel went to a local park to swing on swings and sit in a tree. We could hear the sound of the fun fair situated just a short walk away from us, and got to talking about it. She wanted to go, and I said we'll go after we eat some food. It's Angel; I'm hardly going to not go.
So after some chicken and potato, we set off to the fun fair. We start the way anyone would, walk up and down to find the best places. I don't go to fun fairs often, as I am, to understate, fairly sparingly adrenaline driven. I go on rollercoasters less, but generally any ride that lifts me off of a stable floor terrifies me. I'm even acrophobic (scared of heights).
Angel is... not. She said to me to definitely go on the rides, and she'll be next to me the whole time incase I get too scared. I even lost to her at Pokemon, an event we had made a bet on. I was, in 3 different ways, inable to escape the upcoming rides.
The first one was really not scary to me, as it was just a lot of spinning. 4 seats on 3 arms, with the arms being rotated, rotating in the direction counter to the direction they were spun. Essentially, we were thrown across a badly made triangle at reallt fast speeds. Angel alerted me on the high speeds we'd be going in and warned me against puting my arm around her incase it got squashed. She later flew into me. My arm would be fine.
It wasn't scary to be waiting for. It wasn't scary to be on! Well, aside from the human thought that we souldn't be able to move so quick then stop, dodging the walls and other seats. Once I got used to the speed, I reverted to my silly nature. I boogied to music, I made jokes about adrenaline packed bouncy castles... I actually asked a random person at the side of the ride for food!
Regardless, I got off the ride feeling dizzy.
Then came the most scary ride. We were spun and tilted, so at one point we were side on from the ground at a scary height. I was seated on a yellow seat, with Angel on my right. We could see an orange seat right in front of us, which she used to make me feel better. I like orange.
It was... ok. I was petrified whenthe height came into effect, but I used motivation of nerdfightaria and Ze Frank to have my eyes open for at least 2 rotations. Angel was proud.
Then, there was what can only be described as extreme teacups. Alongside falling into fast rotations, people that worked for the ride spun us around as we moved. I made a flirtatious comment to one of the joknigly early on. He laughed, at least. Angel and I were soon separated by centrifugal force, and I was given 4 forms of the floor. It was really freking fast. Sir Isaac Newton spent ages slapping me, and I warily pushed my central region away from the safety bar.
I actually wailed like a banshee. The ride that scared me most didn't make me scream like the extreme teacups did. While taking her home, I was still recalibrating my face.
Then came the carousel. I jokingly said it would be the most adrenaline packed one yet, and so we silly got on it. I want my pound back.
Dodgems. Not much to say. I put my seatbelt on wrong to start, and drove it like Wash from Firefly. At one point, I even thought of how to do a Crazy Ivan.
So all in all, Angel got me back to the funfair to have a damn good time. I love her to bits for scaring me to death. Not every day you can say that!!!
Monday 28 March 2011
What annoys me
As I wrote the title, I realized how my blogs are a really dull analyzing of everything or a negative outlook, which is really not who I am. I'm a generally ignorant optimist who secludes himself to a virtual world.
But, I now feel the need to list the six most irritating thing in my life. If you do one of these things and I yell at you, you're probably luckier than the person who does this while I suppress my rage.
So, starting at number six is the ignorant! Like, blindingly ignorant, to the point that they lap the idea of a lovable ditz and become the arrogant know-it-all who only knows false things.
This can range from chavs in school who are under the impression that they are so 'well-'ard' that they need to prove their strength by tormenting and slapping kids that are just minding their own business looking up fire-arms (I'm looking at you, Lorenzo!) to people who will actually listen to somebody elses point of view and then seconds later retcon all the information you just gave from their head and continue their frankly illogical argument as if it's more valid than an argument that turns alcoholics into artistic geniuses.
Next up: number five. It's sort of a pet peeve, but you know when you're dragging something solid like the edge of a bit of card or a fingernail across a piece of fabric like nylon or a bit of string? Yeah, that gives me shivers and makes me cringe... It's just... mean...
Number four: It's the idea that something's funny if said enough. Apparently, according to number 5, the word N*gger said repeatedly and quickly is worth a LLOL (I'll explain later). The same idea apparently applies to 'big booty b*tches' and the stammer of that little pig in Loony Toons without dialogue. And how they act like a comedy act consists of taking one word said by a person you're having a go at and saying it for an hour in a silly voice. I'm having a go at the chavs from number five, but for a different reason (so shut your face, Rhys).
Number three: whenever I'm trying to pay attention to something, like a film or the computer or even just my thought, and then some random dude comes along and is all like 'hEEEy guY! i sEe you WaNt 2 waTcH tHis FilM, so i'M GoiNG To STAnd In fROnt oF YoU aNd tALk VerY LoUdlY!!!', I fail to see how it's MY fault for their slaughter. I'm trying to pay attention, so shut up!
Number two: Mold. Buuuuuhuuhuuuuhuhuhuhuhu... Make that ANY FUNGUS! It's just horrid! Would rather the chavs making that card of rope sound repeatedly and laughing their asses off than even THINK of mold. It's EVIL! Kill the mold! Kill it with fire! Kill every spore! There's a reason I hate mushrooms. I actually used to beat them with a stick if I saw some in the garden. Just...
Never send me a Parasect on Pokemon. Never.
Number one: kind of obvious. If you ever upset Angel, expect me to treat fungus kind in comparison to you. You NEVER upset her. Got that?! I do not need to say any more.
O.K. I eagerly await the next, more positive blog. In the meantime, read Angel's Blog and Turnip's Blog. Not too active right now, but give it time.
But, I now feel the need to list the six most irritating thing in my life. If you do one of these things and I yell at you, you're probably luckier than the person who does this while I suppress my rage.
So, starting at number six is the ignorant! Like, blindingly ignorant, to the point that they lap the idea of a lovable ditz and become the arrogant know-it-all who only knows false things.
This can range from chavs in school who are under the impression that they are so 'well-'ard' that they need to prove their strength by tormenting and slapping kids that are just minding their own business looking up fire-arms (I'm looking at you, Lorenzo!) to people who will actually listen to somebody elses point of view and then seconds later retcon all the information you just gave from their head and continue their frankly illogical argument as if it's more valid than an argument that turns alcoholics into artistic geniuses.
Next up: number five. It's sort of a pet peeve, but you know when you're dragging something solid like the edge of a bit of card or a fingernail across a piece of fabric like nylon or a bit of string? Yeah, that gives me shivers and makes me cringe... It's just... mean...
Number four: It's the idea that something's funny if said enough. Apparently, according to number 5, the word N*gger said repeatedly and quickly is worth a LLOL (I'll explain later). The same idea apparently applies to 'big booty b*tches' and the stammer of that little pig in Loony Toons without dialogue. And how they act like a comedy act consists of taking one word said by a person you're having a go at and saying it for an hour in a silly voice. I'm having a go at the chavs from number five, but for a different reason (so shut your face, Rhys).
Number three: whenever I'm trying to pay attention to something, like a film or the computer or even just my thought, and then some random dude comes along and is all like 'hEEEy guY! i sEe you WaNt 2 waTcH tHis FilM, so i'M GoiNG To STAnd In fROnt oF YoU aNd tALk VerY LoUdlY!!!', I fail to see how it's MY fault for their slaughter. I'm trying to pay attention, so shut up!
Number two: Mold. Buuuuuhuuhuuuuhuhuhuhuhu... Make that ANY FUNGUS! It's just horrid! Would rather the chavs making that card of rope sound repeatedly and laughing their asses off than even THINK of mold. It's EVIL! Kill the mold! Kill it with fire! Kill every spore! There's a reason I hate mushrooms. I actually used to beat them with a stick if I saw some in the garden. Just...
Never send me a Parasect on Pokemon. Never.
Number one: kind of obvious. If you ever upset Angel, expect me to treat fungus kind in comparison to you. You NEVER upset her. Got that?! I do not need to say any more.
O.K. I eagerly await the next, more positive blog. In the meantime, read Angel's Blog and Turnip's Blog. Not too active right now, but give it time.
Friday 25 March 2011
So, this girl...
Prepare for the gushy. Are you prepared? Good.
So, just to let you know, I was inspired, and even told, to write this blog about my girlfriend who you should know as the most AMAZING GIRL THAT EVER EXISTED. If you don't, then you shall call her Angel. Her name isn't Angel, but my friend who writes a blog I am not ripping off isn't called Turnip. Just roll with it.
I met here three years two months (thank you Angel) and six days before this blog was posted at a performing school that went on during Saturdays. I was... a bit of a loner. Says something about how much of a loner I was that I am now more social and am writing a blog.
I was sitting perfectly still, thinking some thoughts I do not know if I thought since. Then, she came over to me to talk. We became friends. I think we mainly talked about doctor who. She can correct me if she likes.
She fancied me back then (don't ask me, I don't know why either) and apparently smiled during a performance when she got to look at me. She was annoyed when I didn't look back. She was more annoyed when I forgot her name after knowing her for 6 weeks. Never forgot that since...
At some point, she tricked me into going on a swimming/KFC date (we did one then the other, although both at once would be interesting...) and we learned more about each other.
A long time passed, and she was starting to think 'hey, this isn't actually going to happen, is it?'. Ironically, I had a dream about the same time where I only just caught the ending where she batted her eyes at me whilst wearing a beautiful dress. The image is fading, but the thought that followed will always sound loud and clear in my head, as it has sounded many times since and will sound many times in the future: Wow... She is beautiful.
Half a year later (January 6th 2010) we were talking. My best friend, who I don't have a title for, told her about the dream and she was trying to get me to tell her over an instant messenger which pretty much any british teen could tell you of. She used a question exchange method (oddly, the main way we get things done) which let me ask questions back, such as how she feels about me. I told her, and got to ask her out.
6 weeks later, she broke up with me and went out with my best mate from before for 3 months starting the few days following. He's gay now, and me and her kissed (for the first time, 23rd May 2010) two days after they broke up.
We all had our reasons, and a few 'readers' have done worse. Let's move on.
She is a truly amazing girl. She's amazingly caring to the point she felt guilty that she couldn't protect people in Japan. She's got beautiful brown hair with a soft curl depending on whether she straightened or not, and blue eyes like a turquoise sewing pattern linking two rings, one in the middle of the other.
Name one other person who would sit on a sofa using a combination of psychoanalysis and knowledge of Pokemon to deduce whether someone 'caught' all three starter Pokemon on Emerald. If you can, please state if they are of the opposite gender and absolutely stunning.
I could honestly live the rest of my life with that girl. Forever...
Angel, don't deny it! This is all true!
So, just to let you know, I was inspired, and even told, to write this blog about my girlfriend who you should know as the most AMAZING GIRL THAT EVER EXISTED. If you don't, then you shall call her Angel. Her name isn't Angel, but my friend who writes a blog I am not ripping off isn't called Turnip. Just roll with it.
I met here three years two months (thank you Angel) and six days before this blog was posted at a performing school that went on during Saturdays. I was... a bit of a loner. Says something about how much of a loner I was that I am now more social and am writing a blog.
I was sitting perfectly still, thinking some thoughts I do not know if I thought since. Then, she came over to me to talk. We became friends. I think we mainly talked about doctor who. She can correct me if she likes.
She fancied me back then (don't ask me, I don't know why either) and apparently smiled during a performance when she got to look at me. She was annoyed when I didn't look back. She was more annoyed when I forgot her name after knowing her for 6 weeks. Never forgot that since...
At some point, she tricked me into going on a swimming/KFC date (we did one then the other, although both at once would be interesting...) and we learned more about each other.
A long time passed, and she was starting to think 'hey, this isn't actually going to happen, is it?'. Ironically, I had a dream about the same time where I only just caught the ending where she batted her eyes at me whilst wearing a beautiful dress. The image is fading, but the thought that followed will always sound loud and clear in my head, as it has sounded many times since and will sound many times in the future: Wow... She is beautiful.
Half a year later (January 6th 2010) we were talking. My best friend, who I don't have a title for, told her about the dream and she was trying to get me to tell her over an instant messenger which pretty much any british teen could tell you of. She used a question exchange method (oddly, the main way we get things done) which let me ask questions back, such as how she feels about me. I told her, and got to ask her out.
6 weeks later, she broke up with me and went out with my best mate from before for 3 months starting the few days following. He's gay now, and me and her kissed (for the first time, 23rd May 2010) two days after they broke up.
We all had our reasons, and a few 'readers' have done worse. Let's move on.
She is a truly amazing girl. She's amazingly caring to the point she felt guilty that she couldn't protect people in Japan. She's got beautiful brown hair with a soft curl depending on whether she straightened or not, and blue eyes like a turquoise sewing pattern linking two rings, one in the middle of the other.
Name one other person who would sit on a sofa using a combination of psychoanalysis and knowledge of Pokemon to deduce whether someone 'caught' all three starter Pokemon on Emerald. If you can, please state if they are of the opposite gender and absolutely stunning.
I could honestly live the rest of my life with that girl. Forever...
Angel, don't deny it! This is all true!
Monday 14 March 2011
Pessimism, Optimism, Realism
I would just like to start by saying that I am not ripping off Musings on Life by Turnip, although you should totally check it out, he's a very clever guy. Needs more paragraphs and audience flare, but he's still very good. Where was I?
Oh right. I read on a friends Facebook page that 'Pessimism is Realism'. Doesn't that just annoy you? If you actually agree, prepare for a scathing editorial blog about how wrong you are, and why your being wrong is a very bad thing.
Ok, so the basic argument. I shall start by listing the arguments said to me to support pessimism being accurate. Happiness is essentially the ability to not rely on anything else, and still be content with your life. Not to want more, or desire money or wealth. They then noticed that this applies to monks. However, as the majority of people are not so strong willed, such as bankers and con-artists, the world is most likely to be horrid. Cynicism comes into effect here by the idea that living in this type of world will lead to a distrusting life.
First off, defining the world by a few people is prejudice. Saying 'a few people are corrupt, so all humans are' is very assumptive. Happiness can just as easily be found with people who aren't so warped by the idea of wealth that it distresses people; there are people who don't aim for nothing, but enough to get by.
I am actually reminded of something that I had to research for an RS lesson, although I have only just found use for it. Nicky Cruz had a hard life, running away from home and becoming a gangster leader. A preacher approached him and told him about god's love, and he was so shocked by the notion of someone loving unconditionally that he threatened the preacher.
He later attended a sermon with his gang to 'get some payback', but ended up giving money to the collection. The preacher asked him to bring the collection onto the stage, baffling Nicky when he passed a fire escape on his way up that could create an easy steal. The sheer thought of someone trusting him changed his life, showing that even if the rest of the world is messed up, only one good thing needs to happen to make you smile. I just noticed I'm rambling.
An argument they continued onto is that the pessimists would expect the worse event happening, and therefore either be glad they were correct or glad something better than expected happened.
Whilst this works in theory, it also falls short in continuation. For a pessimist to look at a bad thing happening, or a better thing happening, they'd notice the bad event or that they were wrong, respectively, and comment on how life for them sucks. To look at these events and notice how they're correct or something good has happened, they would have to break their pessimistic view temporarily in favor of an optimistic one.
The final point I shall mention, as I am sleepy, is that the world 'revolves around negativity'. Not my words. The notion is that all good things are only noticed by a negative contrast, while a positive contrast would be too distracting. Therefore, a concept of good and bad is based on how we actually have a negative world, so pessimism is the reality of our world.
Bull. Any two things, regardless of how good or bad they are in comparison to a metaphoric neutral, can be seen as a good or bad in contrast to each other. Example, you have a 50:50 chance of getting a solid gold bar, or a solid gold bar and a fancy hat. You recognize the second as the better as you get an additional fancy hat, even though both are an improvement on nothing. Therefore, you'd consider it good to get the extra fancy hat than just the gold bar, so the gold bar on it's own could be comparatively bad. Much as it's a good thing to have the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods is good too.
Frankly, pessimism is NOT realism. Nor is cynicism. I'm not saying optimism is, either. It is just as insane to see a turd and immediately think about how you can grow a carrot from that as it is to see an allotment and think how you could have your grave there. Realism is a completely independent thing entirely, based on the world as it is. Pessimism is thinking of the world at it's worst all the time, optimism is the reverse. Realism is a midpoint.
There's a reason the title isn't 'Pessimism, Realism' or 'Realism, Optimism'. They are named different because they are different.
This is highly philosophical and has tired my brain. Next time, I'll keep it simple and document why I hate coconuts and fungus.
Oh right. I read on a friends Facebook page that 'Pessimism is Realism'. Doesn't that just annoy you? If you actually agree, prepare for a scathing editorial blog about how wrong you are, and why your being wrong is a very bad thing.
Ok, so the basic argument. I shall start by listing the arguments said to me to support pessimism being accurate. Happiness is essentially the ability to not rely on anything else, and still be content with your life. Not to want more, or desire money or wealth. They then noticed that this applies to monks. However, as the majority of people are not so strong willed, such as bankers and con-artists, the world is most likely to be horrid. Cynicism comes into effect here by the idea that living in this type of world will lead to a distrusting life.
First off, defining the world by a few people is prejudice. Saying 'a few people are corrupt, so all humans are' is very assumptive. Happiness can just as easily be found with people who aren't so warped by the idea of wealth that it distresses people; there are people who don't aim for nothing, but enough to get by.
I am actually reminded of something that I had to research for an RS lesson, although I have only just found use for it. Nicky Cruz had a hard life, running away from home and becoming a gangster leader. A preacher approached him and told him about god's love, and he was so shocked by the notion of someone loving unconditionally that he threatened the preacher.
He later attended a sermon with his gang to 'get some payback', but ended up giving money to the collection. The preacher asked him to bring the collection onto the stage, baffling Nicky when he passed a fire escape on his way up that could create an easy steal. The sheer thought of someone trusting him changed his life, showing that even if the rest of the world is messed up, only one good thing needs to happen to make you smile. I just noticed I'm rambling.
An argument they continued onto is that the pessimists would expect the worse event happening, and therefore either be glad they were correct or glad something better than expected happened.
Whilst this works in theory, it also falls short in continuation. For a pessimist to look at a bad thing happening, or a better thing happening, they'd notice the bad event or that they were wrong, respectively, and comment on how life for them sucks. To look at these events and notice how they're correct or something good has happened, they would have to break their pessimistic view temporarily in favor of an optimistic one.
The final point I shall mention, as I am sleepy, is that the world 'revolves around negativity'. Not my words. The notion is that all good things are only noticed by a negative contrast, while a positive contrast would be too distracting. Therefore, a concept of good and bad is based on how we actually have a negative world, so pessimism is the reality of our world.
Bull. Any two things, regardless of how good or bad they are in comparison to a metaphoric neutral, can be seen as a good or bad in contrast to each other. Example, you have a 50:50 chance of getting a solid gold bar, or a solid gold bar and a fancy hat. You recognize the second as the better as you get an additional fancy hat, even though both are an improvement on nothing. Therefore, you'd consider it good to get the extra fancy hat than just the gold bar, so the gold bar on it's own could be comparatively bad. Much as it's a good thing to have the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods is good too.
Frankly, pessimism is NOT realism. Nor is cynicism. I'm not saying optimism is, either. It is just as insane to see a turd and immediately think about how you can grow a carrot from that as it is to see an allotment and think how you could have your grave there. Realism is a completely independent thing entirely, based on the world as it is. Pessimism is thinking of the world at it's worst all the time, optimism is the reverse. Realism is a midpoint.
There's a reason the title isn't 'Pessimism, Realism' or 'Realism, Optimism'. They are named different because they are different.
This is highly philosophical and has tired my brain. Next time, I'll keep it simple and document why I hate coconuts and fungus.
Wednesday 2 March 2011
The only issue with religion
If anyone ends up reading this (humerous concept, I know), I'm going to get endless streams of uneducated and illogical people arguing needless points. To dodge any direct religious disagreement, I am going to use Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings as holy books.
Here's the main issue with religion: They're not that different. Both books are based on the struggle against evil and saying you can overcome these obstacles if you stick with your friends. The meanings are practically the same, but people will leap right over the meaning when trying to argue.
Smeagle died in a volcano because he couldn't let go, and Hermione took forever to make friends because she was so stuck up. If people want to argue supremacy of one of these series, they will ignore this and only pick whatever supports their side.
Thing is, these books are there for the same reason, to keep you entertained. They don't go in the same way of doing it, but if you go through one of the books with a pen and a highlighter to make it comply entirely with the other book, you've just lost a great element of their fictional universe.
It seriously doesn't matter what you call it: Gandalf or Dumblebore, Sauron or Voldemort, Ringwraiths or Dementors, Mary and Pippin or Fred and George; they're not that different and they still do what they were meant to.
Then you have another issue: people following exactly what the books say, because it's said in one specific section, and it agrees with your philosophy.
People could say that Harry Potter is telling everyone to run into other peoples exams with fireworks, destroying signs, terrifying the teachers you don't like and then flee as fast as you can to start your own business. Sure, it's a little unorthodox, and it goes against the majority of rules pretty much everyone says, even the book it's written in, but it happened in the book and nobody batted an eyelid, so it must be ok!
That book has someone make a white stag which pulsates using only a stick. If you can do that, then go ahead and disrupt education all you like.
Then there's the immense debate and practical wars over minute details. There's some cases of people writing into JK Rowling with death threats and burning books because of Harry getting together with Ginny in book 6 while they personally ship Harry Hermione. That's going a bit far. A single relationship not happening shouldn't ruin your experiance of an amazing book which sparked your interest in the shipping in the first place. You may need to just loosen up and accept you're not completely correct about everything under the sun.
Now, I'm perfectly aware everyone will read this and think "REDICULOUS! (boggart defeated) How smart can this person be? Would people honestly go to war over Harry Potter?"
It is rediculous to go to war over a book, yes. But, for some reason, it's the perfect reason to take your own life and millions of others.
Here's the main issue with religion: They're not that different. Both books are based on the struggle against evil and saying you can overcome these obstacles if you stick with your friends. The meanings are practically the same, but people will leap right over the meaning when trying to argue.
Smeagle died in a volcano because he couldn't let go, and Hermione took forever to make friends because she was so stuck up. If people want to argue supremacy of one of these series, they will ignore this and only pick whatever supports their side.
Thing is, these books are there for the same reason, to keep you entertained. They don't go in the same way of doing it, but if you go through one of the books with a pen and a highlighter to make it comply entirely with the other book, you've just lost a great element of their fictional universe.
It seriously doesn't matter what you call it: Gandalf or Dumblebore, Sauron or Voldemort, Ringwraiths or Dementors, Mary and Pippin or Fred and George; they're not that different and they still do what they were meant to.
Then you have another issue: people following exactly what the books say, because it's said in one specific section, and it agrees with your philosophy.
People could say that Harry Potter is telling everyone to run into other peoples exams with fireworks, destroying signs, terrifying the teachers you don't like and then flee as fast as you can to start your own business. Sure, it's a little unorthodox, and it goes against the majority of rules pretty much everyone says, even the book it's written in, but it happened in the book and nobody batted an eyelid, so it must be ok!
That book has someone make a white stag which pulsates using only a stick. If you can do that, then go ahead and disrupt education all you like.
Then there's the immense debate and practical wars over minute details. There's some cases of people writing into JK Rowling with death threats and burning books because of Harry getting together with Ginny in book 6 while they personally ship Harry Hermione. That's going a bit far. A single relationship not happening shouldn't ruin your experiance of an amazing book which sparked your interest in the shipping in the first place. You may need to just loosen up and accept you're not completely correct about everything under the sun.
Now, I'm perfectly aware everyone will read this and think "REDICULOUS! (boggart defeated) How smart can this person be? Would people honestly go to war over Harry Potter?"
It is rediculous to go to war over a book, yes. But, for some reason, it's the perfect reason to take your own life and millions of others.
Thursday 24 February 2011
Different forms of this world
Now I think about it, I should have called it parallel worlds... What can you do?
It's not an easy thing to think of. We imagine the world with a difference in the past as this world except one thing has changed. But everyone knows of the butterfly effect, and how a flap of wings creates a hurricane in a distant land. Why am I the only person I know that connects the two?
Some people connect the two quite well, considering multiverse theory. Heck, I'm writing this with the family guy episode where Stewie and Brian travel across dimensions lodged firmly into my thoughts. But if you consider all the tiny changes that made somebody's day better, and consider what would be different if you did something a tiny bit different that one time.
Example, if I had hygiene. I'm more sociable, I become more arrogant, my friends in this reality dislike me, I'm a posterior-hat and live an unfulfilling life.
Just think of what one change would make. A personal thing that I find, whilst making good viewing material, a logical issue in my 3rd favourite film, Back to the Future, is Marty's conception. While he manages to hook his parents up, you just know they'd be even more in love then the previous time. Therefore, they'd want kids faster, and they'd concieve the kids at a different point in time. Beyond just changing birthdays, you can't ensure that the batch of genes that made the kids would be the same, and so the kids would be pretty different. Heck, the first kid could become so irritating, they don't want more than one, so Marty's not concieved anyway.
Sorry if I'm rambling, but seeing someone fade on a tv show makes me think 'no, if you traveled back in time, the moment anybody sees you, you just stop'.
Still, with enough theories out there, you can have any reality you want. I believe that if the universe intended me to have certain things happen to me, they'd happen in SOME way. With the hygeine thing, I think I'd still have made the vital connections that led me here, take similar choices, and be in the same situation but a lot more respected.
I'm actually quite interested in what reality would be if I was female, or a contortionist, or far less flambouyant... I'm most looking forward to the universe where frictionless motion was further researched, and they found a lasting but light source of power for it. WHERE'S MY BLEEDING HOVERBOARD?! There's probably a universe where I inspired my friend to make a blog after mine, or where I mentioned firsts in blogging, or pointed out the obvious, or used a clever font.
Eh, I'm good with this one. And the nicer hygeine one, that's good too...
It's not an easy thing to think of. We imagine the world with a difference in the past as this world except one thing has changed. But everyone knows of the butterfly effect, and how a flap of wings creates a hurricane in a distant land. Why am I the only person I know that connects the two?
Some people connect the two quite well, considering multiverse theory. Heck, I'm writing this with the family guy episode where Stewie and Brian travel across dimensions lodged firmly into my thoughts. But if you consider all the tiny changes that made somebody's day better, and consider what would be different if you did something a tiny bit different that one time.
Example, if I had hygiene. I'm more sociable, I become more arrogant, my friends in this reality dislike me, I'm a posterior-hat and live an unfulfilling life.
Just think of what one change would make. A personal thing that I find, whilst making good viewing material, a logical issue in my 3rd favourite film, Back to the Future, is Marty's conception. While he manages to hook his parents up, you just know they'd be even more in love then the previous time. Therefore, they'd want kids faster, and they'd concieve the kids at a different point in time. Beyond just changing birthdays, you can't ensure that the batch of genes that made the kids would be the same, and so the kids would be pretty different. Heck, the first kid could become so irritating, they don't want more than one, so Marty's not concieved anyway.
Sorry if I'm rambling, but seeing someone fade on a tv show makes me think 'no, if you traveled back in time, the moment anybody sees you, you just stop'.
Still, with enough theories out there, you can have any reality you want. I believe that if the universe intended me to have certain things happen to me, they'd happen in SOME way. With the hygeine thing, I think I'd still have made the vital connections that led me here, take similar choices, and be in the same situation but a lot more respected.
I'm actually quite interested in what reality would be if I was female, or a contortionist, or far less flambouyant... I'm most looking forward to the universe where frictionless motion was further researched, and they found a lasting but light source of power for it. WHERE'S MY BLEEDING HOVERBOARD?! There's probably a universe where I inspired my friend to make a blog after mine, or where I mentioned firsts in blogging, or pointed out the obvious, or used a clever font.
Eh, I'm good with this one. And the nicer hygeine one, that's good too...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)