Friday 29 February 2008

Iron Man Trailer

So we get an extra day this month, this being a leap year and all. To celebrate we get a new Iron Man Trailer to watch. Woooo!

First, let us get the pessimism out of the way. Superhero movies have consistently let me down. Take X3, amazing trailer with a disappointing final product. Last summer let me down. Look at Spiderman 3, amazing potential with a disappointing final product. There are so many ways in which this could go wrong. The first Act could suck, for almost all origin stories do. The Final act could suck, because almost all final fights are, ironically, anticlimactic. The middle could suck, due to a vagueness of baddies and motive. The direction could suck, the acting could suck, the special effects could suck. This could fail in so many ways.

Now for the hope. The idea of Iron man is awesome. The most important feature of a superhero is their heroics. Think what you will of Superman, if I was in a situation where I was about to die, I believe that he could, and would, save me. A certain level of ability needs to be reached. The second most important feature is fragility. A hero needs to have problems, some moral choice or reason behind their actions. This is why Spiderman 2 was so brilliant, it was about Peter Parker. Robert Downey Junior can pull this off. If he can be unstoppable and troubled, then this film should be brilliant.

Secondly - have you seen how awesome that suit looks! It flies! I believe it flies! It has rockets that come out of his forearms! If they can pull this off, then it will be amazing!

This is a great trailer. I want to see this film, and it is coming very soon - May 2nd. I. Cannot. Wait.

Sunday 24 February 2008

Injured Eduardo

Eduardo Da Silva, the Croatian International, has undergone surgery for a double compound fracture of his leg. The horrific injury came about as a result of a tackle during the Birmingham v Arsenal game, and it looks as if the Arsenal Striker will not play again this season, and may possibly be out for much longer.

This is however, only the start of this blog entry, as my real focus comes about due to the television coverage of the incident. The game was a lunchtime kickoff on Sky Sports, who refrained form showing the tackle that caused the injury. Match of the Day would later show it during the late evening broadcast, but would cut it from the repeat on Sunday morning. This injury was horrific, but was it really bad enough to not be shown on television?

Broadcasters are instructed not to show certain things. One of the clearest examples concerns streakers, who are not shown as they are seeking publicity, and the hope is that not showing them will give them less incentive to streak. Also, it is before the watershed, and there may be some complaints from sensitive viewers. This is an understandable policy.

However, this injury was not an unconnected event, this is a part of the game. This tackle led to a red card, and without seeing the incident it is difficult to judge whether this was deserved or not. The injury was a part of the match, and an unfortunate event nonetheless, there is a feeling that it should be shown. The arguments against this, the gruesome nature of the injury, and the privacy that some may feel the player deserves, are very much rational points.

My feelings are muddled. Should we be shown this, gruesome, terrible injury on daytime television? And if not, is it wrong to want to see what happened?

Thursday 21 February 2008

Berlin Trip

Fear not, I have returned! Well, I returned on monday, but I have only just recovered. I had a great time, even if it was freezingly cold this time of year. Berlin is a magnificent city; the streets are massive, which is amazing when compared with london. All of the people are friendly, especially when you need help after getting lost in the suburbs. I got to see lots of Nazi stuff, and lots of Cold War stuff, which are both very frightening because of the efficiency of everything. Great city, great trip.

Wednesday 13 February 2008

Alltalk vs Teamspeak

The Alltalk debate is one that I have been mulling over for the past few weeks. It all comes about as a result of the Javaserver, the place where I play the majority of my Team Fortress 2 games. In the old days there was the PCGamer server, which would always be slow to update, and often crash for days at a time, disappearing after every update. I loved it. It was the first time I had found a server to play on where I started to recognise the people, in that specific online-gaming way, who played it with me. It was great. It had teamspeak. Then time progressed things along, and the Javaserver was born. Most of the people moved from PCG to Javasever, and I was content. But something was very different, and it was unnerving. It was Alltalk.

The idea behind Alltalk is written in the name. If you use a microphone, and talk, then all on the server will hear you. With Teamspeak, only your team will hear you. This massively affects the words you say. With Teamspeak, glorious tactics emerge. With Alltalk, banter with the enemy enlivens the game. I still can’t decide which is better.

There is a downside to Alltalk, it can get quite loud. Some people insist on screaming at every kill and at every death. I don’t like loud; it’s just the way I am. There is also a downside to Teamspeak, it can be very isolated. You are divided from half of the players, which is not so good at creating such a friendly atmosphere.

Is there a compromise? I don’t see how. Having both Teamspeak and Alltalk would lead to much hilarious confusion, as people shout their tactics to the enemy. Is it even possible, to have both enabled at once? Can I assign two buttons in TF2? Should I have researched this before I started writing?

These are the things that I think about on public transport. One fact emerges form all this however: TF2 rules, and I hope all TF2-ers never leave.

Tuesday 12 February 2008

Umbrellas - Round 2

Just found the perfect argument concerning umbrellas, so i'm gonna to link it here.

It is one of the older entries in John Walker's blog, which I discovered by accident.
http://botherer.cream.org/?p=209

"The moment the tiniest droplet of rain is titrated from a cloud, up swoosh these ridiculously huge, and hugely dangerous weapons, endangering anyone who has managed the self-awareness to recognise that they are waterproof. Dodging the genuinely harmful metal spikes that begin spinning down all sides of the streets is like something from a Tomb Raider game, except without the medpacks and calming slaughter of endangered species. If someone were weilding anything else of that size and lethality, they would be immediately arrested."

Sunday 3 February 2008

Cloverfield

This is a blog entry about Cloverfield. I saw this film on the opening Saturday, in a freezing cold cinema, with painful seats, because roadworks had made me and my friends too late to watch it at the good cinema. It took us all afternoon to get to the good cinema, in traffic, and back to where we started, to then go to a cinema which I hate. Luckily, this film is even more immersing and convincing is even more convincing if you are in pain, need the toilet and can not fell your fingertips.

The film - I have never seen anything like it. Literally, in all the films I have watched, I have never walked out of a cinema feeling like this film made me feel. The characters suck. Really, they are just silly. But that is important to the film. They need to be average, because then you believe that this could be happening to ordinary people. If they were extraordinary, then the film would not be as good as it is. The first quarter-hour needs to be boring as hell, because it sets up these people. This film understands that it works better if these people are normal. Sadly they soon go off to do their own thing... but still without becoming the super-people from most other monster films. Sadly, I would be hard-pressed to remember the names of almost any of the characters, even though this, I feel, may have been deliberate.

I must also say how superb the camera work is. It looks amateur, but provides just enough of the action, while keeping the just enough hidden. The amount of planning that must have gone into it is amazing. Mostly this is all done as panning shot, with the camera wandering around the scenes, held by one of the characters. A special note must go to the effects, which are also tremendous, they blend seamlessly as good effects should.

This film is short, and this is a good thing; it suits the style. However, it does take a good twenty-minutes to get going, and this can leave the ending feeling a bit abrupt.

There is another problem, and that is the balance between answers and questions. Personally, I believe that the monster should never be clearly seen. Yet, some people will be very annoyed at the way the monster is never explained. The dialog on the whole is rather dull, but it is not a talking film. The excellent cinematography creates emotions in the audience that are unlike any film I have ever seen before.

Go and see it - This is well worth the entrance fee, even if it is different to the blockbusters we are so often treated to by Hollywood.