Quotes, part 2

There are quotes that are good, quotes that are bad, quotes that feel personal, quotes that feel universal, quotes that pluck one's chords and quotes that seem needless. But there are, in our modern world, a lot of quotes: popular culture and all it's tropes make an endless source of material. Today, I intend to share a few quotes with you, for varying reasons. This first one, as a world view. Also, there's a lot of artsy photographs I've taken during the summer, so there'll be a few of those too.

The appropriate reaction to reality is to go insane.
- Philip K. Dick

We live in a crazy, senseless world. There are senseless people that do senseless things, stuff that simply happens for no reason at all. Entropy is a fact, not fiction, and there's no point in fighting it. In the words of many an aspiring musical poet (rappers, usually), ride the wave.

This wonderful piece was done by Evan Robertson. He's done a set of these, with a piece of art attached to each quote. I found this one to speak the loudest, to me.

The modern need for quotes has made a market for people with a penchant for quotes. When everything is put down somewhere, the ability to put down something meaningful starts to mean a lot. Not all aspirants succeed, of course: most don't. There are those, however, that manage to make something with words. One of such people is Paul Graham, a lisp programmer turned investor and essayist. A man of many words, but he has his bright moments. 

Dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas. It is no coincidence that technically inept business types are known as "suits."

- Paul Graham

 

Nerds don't just happen to dress informally. They do it too consistently. Consciously or not, they dress informally as a prophylactic measure against stupidity.

- Paul Graham

 

 Those two speak for themselves about clothing and it's means and meaning, so I'll pull this to a close with a couple of pictures. 

 

Before that, however, a few words yet. This is, as most will know, the last day of August. I promised, back about four months ago, that there would be 40 posts from this summer here come the end of summer. Now, September rolls in tomorrow, and this is the 40th post. I've enjoyed rambling about things: writing clarifies thoughts. There are ventures that were left halfway, others that I pulled through with, and some things I promised I'd write about and still haven't. Thus, I'll try to keep on writing through the winter to come. I hope some of this is worth a read, since most of this has been worth writing. Now, here's those pictures, and have a nice autumn.

 

 

Hahmoja

Jokaisen silmissä hieman erilaisia, nähtynä läheltä tai kaukaa, selvästi tai kuin huurretun lasin läpi, nimittäin fiktiivisiä hahmoja.

Elokuvat jättävät hahmoihin vain rajallisesti tulkinnanvapautta. Hahmon ulkonäkö on elokuvissa enemmän tai vähemmän määritelty, ja näyttelijän (ja ohjaajan) tulkinnat vaikuttavat paljolti siihen, miten hahmo tulee näyttäytymään elokuvaa katsoville. Kirjoissa harvoin hahmoja kuvaillaan niin tarkasti, että näin tarkka kuva muodostuisi - lasten- ja nuortenkirjallisuudessa toki enemmän. Tämä on tietysti yleistys, johon vaikuttaa kirjailijan tendenssi, kirjallisuuden laji ja se konventiot ja varmaankin kaikki kuun asennosta lähtien. Minulle kirjalliset hahmot ovat kuitenkin jättäneet aina enemmän vapautta lähestyä hahmoa.

Ymmärrän, että monet kirjat, erityisesti kun genrenä on ollut fantasia, haluavat näyttää päähahmon tai -hahmoja kannessa. Minusta, jos hahmoa ei ole kuvattu melkoisen tarkasti, tämä on tungettelevaa. En minä halua nähdä, mikä jonkun yleensä melko keskinkertaisen taiteilijan näkemys on siitä persoonasta, jonka matkaan minä aion lyöttäytyä seuraavaksi muutamaksi sadaksi sivuksi. Kuin uhmaiän pahimmassa alhossa oleva lapsi, kapinoin kuitenkin tätä vastana: minä tahdon muodostaa kuvani tuosta hahmosta itse!

Moni kirjoittaja toki kuvaa hahmonsa tarkasti, jopa niin yksityiskohtaisen tarkasti, että tulkinnanvaraa jää vain vähän. Itse vaikutun lähes kaikista taiteen muodoista helposti, mutta usein tempaudun erityisesti sellaisten hahmojen matkaan, jotka luodaan vähäeleisesti. Mitä vähemmän rivejä kirjailija käyttää hahmonsa sinänsä toisarvoisten ominaisuuksien kuvailuun, sitä enemmän tilaa hänellä on näyttää, millainen hänen hahmonsa todella on, miten tämä toimii, millaisia valintoja tämä tekee tilanteissa, joihin hänet asetetaan.

Minulle minimin kautta hahmojen luonti toimii. Kun oma mielikuvitukseni täyttää aukot, joita teksti jättää, hahmo muodostuu minulle helpommin läheiseksi kuin puusta veistetty pahvileikkaus, johon on mahdotonta enää lisätä mitään sellaista, joka kirjoittajalle ei jo ollut tullut mieleen. Kuvittelen vain harvoin, miltä hahmo näyttää, mutta jonkinlainen hahmon muotoinen kuva päässäni muodostuu. Tähän sitten lisään, tarinan edetessä, piirteitä, jotka hahmosta ilmenevät, ja kuvani täyttyy. En muista koskaan tietoisesti kehitelleeni jonkun muun hahmoon jotain lisää, mutta mielikuvitukseni pyrkii kyllä täyttämään ne aukot, joita tarina jättää.

On vaikea sanoa, mistä hyvä hahmo koostuu. Jotkin mielestäni hyvät hahmot ovat protagonisteja, toiset antagonisteja, jotkut käytännössä statisteja. Jokin syy tällaisen minusta hyvän hahmon muodostumiselle kuitenkin on, ja kun löydän hahmon josta pidän, yleensä todella pidän tästä hahmosta. Muutamia esimerkkejä omista lempihahmoistani keksin välittömästi: Robin Hobbin Näkijän Taru -trilogian tallimestari Burrick, Dan Simmonsin Hyperionien Fedmahn Kassad ja viimeisimpänä Steven Eriksonin Malazan Book of the Fallenin Itkovian, Shield Anvil of Fener.

Kun löydämme todellisen hyvän hahmon, joka on hyvin kirjoitettu ja tuntuu aidolta, kiinnymme tähän hahmoon. Lähdemme matkalle hänen mukaansa, hänen tarinaansa. Seisomme hänen rinnallaan ylä- ja alamäissä, taistelun kentällä ja katharsiksen hetkellä. Kun tarina seuraa muita hahmoja, haluaisimme jo tietää, miten meidän sankarillemme käy. Jos sankarimme voittaa, juhlimme hänen kanssaan, jos hän häviää, mekin tunnemme tuon tappion. Jos hän kuolee, me itkemme hänen kumppaniensa mukana.

Minulle kirjallisesti tämän vuoden vaikuttavin hetki on ollut jo mainitsemani Eriksonin Malazan Book of the Fallenin kolmannen kirjan lopussa. (Jos jollakulla muuten on aikaa ja mielenkiintoa lukea kymmisen tuhatta sivua, joihin sisältyy myös muutama isku vasten lukijan kasvoja, suosittelen sarjan lukemista.) Olen oikeasti, todella kiintynyt jo mainittuun hahmoon, Itkovianiin. Itkovian tuntui aidolta hahmolta, joka teki asioita aidoista syistä. Loppuratkaisua keneltäkään pilaamatta Itkovianin kirjan viimeinen valinta ja sen seuraukset olivat minulle luultavasti vuosiin vaikuttavin kirjasta lukemani tapahtuma.

Hyvät, meille tärkeät hahmot jättävät meihin jäljen, joka pysyy pitkään. Fiktion isoimpia aarteita ovatkin nämä persoonat, jotka, olematta välttämättä koskaan oikeita, tekevät meihin tällä tavalla vaikutuksen.

More of the pictures!

And since the previous post was a bit wintry, here's something with a bit more "summer" attitude. And yes, I'm still practically addicted to light photography. Hobbies, eh?

Pictures

It's been a long while since I've done one of these, so here goes. I'll be doing another one the coming week, too. Now, I know it's only early autumn, but as Eddard Stark so aptly put it, winter is coming. So here's some winter moods from last year.

Now, I realised that I've never put up the most classic "blogger from Jyväskylä" picture, which is a sort of a town promo picture with one of the two characteristic bridges of Jyväskylä showing. So here's one: my gift to the promotion of our beautiful town. (I'd like to point out that even though the bridges are cool, the town has quite a lot of other, beautiful stuff as well. We're a bit too stuck next to the lake with the promotion material.)

Now, it's been a long week, so I'm off to bed. I'll have more time to do some thought sinks here next week, I hope. Be back then, for now, enjoy the last of the summer and the first breaths of autumn. Enjoy the morning fogs and the evening hazes: they'll be gone too fast.

That thing belongs in a museum

I've been talking about movies here a lot this past summer. There's at least a partial reason behind this: summer, for me, is a time of movies. As I have much spare time during the summer months, and many of the big Hollywood blockbusters roll out during the summer season, my summers have often been devoted to movies, both the new and the old that I have missed. As I have a penchant for talking about what's on my mind specifically at the moment I start talking, or in this case, writing, it should come as no surprise that movies crop up a lot during the summer. Anyway, we'll be talking about movies today. Again.

I went to watch the Expendables 2 on monday, kind of on a whim. For those of you wandering if you should watch it: it's better than the first one, but it's nothing new. Then again, if you thought it would be, a reality check might be in order. It's sometimes gruesome, sometimes stupid and sometimes funny, and it piggybacks off nostalgia very heavily. If you loved the 90's action flicks and/or the action hero mentality of that time, the movie is clearly meant for you. If you didn't but want to see a little boys' grown up flick, it's probably meant for you anyway. Let's go into a few specifics.

Anyone who's seen a commercial, trailer or anything of the sort for the movie should know by now that the movie is practically more of what the first Expendables was but with a bigger budget and more of the 90's action stars rolled in. The movie isn't soulless, not like the new Spiderman, but it's not high culture either. It's meant to be a blockbuster that rakes in the 20- and 30-somethings that loved the action scene when they were kids, but with a touch of more modern style to bring in the younger audiences as well. It succeeds okay in all of this, with none of the parts truly shining.

To me, the most interesting (if not the best) part of the movie was Chuck Norris telling a Chuck Norris joke: the amount of meta put into that was somewhat huge. Overall, the movie's biggest running gag is making fun about all the tropes that the 80's and 90's gave to the action scene and the jokes run really thick in places. Most of them aren't that good, but their biggest point is, I think, being easy. I don't think I missed one.

As I said, the the movie relies heavily on nostalgia and the action hero machismo. The movie even prods fun at it's own nostalgia drive, with one of the last lines of the movie being "That thing belongs in a museum" by Sylvester Stallone, replied with "Don't we all?". Overall I like the take on nostalgia that the movie takes: nothing too serious, nothing too deep, and poking fun at itself for doing it all the while. I'll get back to nostalgia on a later date, so let's see about the machismo part.

Machismo is usually a word used contemptuously: it's a bad thing to be macho or to like things macho. And still, action movies like this one rake in viewers in their thousands, wanting to see guys punch the lights out of each other. These action flicks, the scifi and fantasy from the 1950's onwards (especially the pulp) and the tropes from thereon have always leaned on the juvenile male empowerment fantasy: the comic book industry has made basically all of its money on this and only this until the 1990's, and still makes most of it's money on this today. We might get back to that, but that's a can of worms I don't want to open today.

Machismo, as despised as it may seem to be, sells. I'm using the word on purpose here, by the way, even though it doesn't cover much more than maybe half of what I'm actually talking about. Personally, I often love the scenes where one or a few guys take on overwhelming odds in an outstanding display of bravery and skill. Heroic last stands, lone heroes plunging into an unwinnable fray, personal sacrifices for the greater good... this list is much longer, but you get the jist.

I don't much like the character cults that rise around these kinds of things, nor do I usually like the angsty, broody heroes that get tossed into these situations. To me, it's about a choice: you see the odds, you know the tally is against you, and you do it anyway. One of the coolest moments in video games, for me, in the last few years? Gabriel Angelos, Commander of the Blood Ravens, charging alone against former Chapter Master turned Demon Lord Azariah Kyras, with one last comment to the Chapter Librarian: "Commend my service to the Emperor, Librarian. I go now, to redeem our Chapter."

Somehow, the Space Marines (and, sometimes, the Imperial Guard) of the Warhammer 40 000 universe embody the traits I prefer in this sort of machismo: they wage an unwinnable war against uncountable foes and yet they don't quit: indeed, they fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground given.

This is why games and books and movies are awesome: there are no heroic last stands to be had in our world, there is no one higher cause to fight for that surpasses all others, and thus it is left to fiction to give us those fleeting moments of utter certainty. Fiction shows us things that are not, and by showing them gives us a sense of what might be entitled in that. Fiction shows us certainty that is not present in our everyday world, fiction shows us heroes with a righteous cause that cannot be disputed. This, to me, is why machismo sells.

Of course, fiction also mirrors us the ambivalency of choices, the uncertainty of life and the fact that there are no right choices, no ultimate battle between good and evil, black and white, but only questionable shades of grey. But that is, indeed, a story for another time.

If you don't claim your humanity you will become a statistic

Some readers might recognize the title as a quote, whereas to some the style of the message might simply feel familiar. It's an outtake from a longer text quote, here for your viewing in full:

WARNING. If you are reading this then this warning is for you. Every word you read of this useless fine print is another second off your life. Don't you have other things to do? Is your life so empty you honestly can't think of a better way to spend these moments? Or are you so impressed with authority that you give respect and credence to all who claim it? Do you read everything you're supposed to read? Do you think everything you're supposed to think? Buy what you're told you should want? Get out of your apartment. Meet a member of the opposite sex. Stop the excessive shopping and masturbation. Quit your job. Start a fight. Prove you're alive. If you don't claim your humanity you will become a statistic. You have been warned ...... Tyler.

The name at the end, for most people of my generation or around it, will ring a bell. This quote appears at the beginning of the Fight Club DVD, as a form of mockery for the corporate label warnings usually found on DVDs. Now, I know it's not very hip to say you like the Fight Club nowadays, since it has become such a huge cult item, an idea in and of itself, that simply voicing that you like it is considered, in today's cultural rush for uniqueness and originality, crass. While the movie has been analyzed piece by piece with such scrutinous detail that there is in reality nothing that I could add, I'd like to bring it out to the table for a minute anyway.

I like Fight Club. I'm not even hipster enough to claim that I liked it "before it was cool". Hell, I didn't even see it the year it came out, but only two years later, in 2001. Most people claim that cult classics are getting too much credit without ever stopping to wonder why. Fight Club, for me, is a movie that drastically changed my world views. It did not make me an anarchist, it did not make me burn down buildings, beat up people or blow up a whole banking district. Actually, I have to make a derailed argument here, but it's only a short one, so bear with me.

Intermission

I watch a lot of movies, I play a lot of games, I spend a lot of time on the internet. The movie theater Batman shooting that happened only a short while ago is still on the public wall, and with the Norway police report out at the start of this week, there's been a lot of talk about how we could prevent stuff like the horrible, horrible scenes of Norway and Colorado. Here's my two cents: we can't. I'm sorry, but that's the short of it. For a bit longer explanation, here goes. The big three things I mentioned at the start of this paragraph do a lot to define me as a person: they are my cultural backround. A lot of the stuff I watch and play is violent, some of it excessively so. Now comes the important part, so listen up: these things do not make me into a cold-blooded, crazy killer. I will not go on a killing rampage due to any of the things I've just mentioned. Get that? Good.

We live in a chaotic, uncontrollable world. That's scary, and I get that. People want control over their lives, and events like these take that away, which makes us feel insecure, and that's not a nice place to be. But entropy is a part of what life is: we can't control all the parts, we simply need to go with it. And unless we want to live in a world where there is no free will (and I'm not even going to go into the amount of violent problems something like that might cause), there is no way we can prevent all of these kinds of events. Some, we can, and those that we can we should. But there have always been people who have gone stir crazy, and for some you just couldn't tell until they snapped. Biggest difference now is that it's easier to go crazy with a bigger volume of destruction. The world is not a perfect place, and it can't be fully controlled.

/Intermission

So, Fight Club. While I don't agree with everything (or, actually much of) what is done in the movie, I appreciate it for what it's trying (and, atleast for me, partially succeeding) to do. The whole point of movies is to depict things that would be atleast partially impossible for the average viewer: to show them something from beyond their own little bubble of a world. And Fight Club is a wake-up call. Here's what I think it's trying to say.

Wake up, people! Your life is here and now, and if you don't do anything with it, it's done. The movie goes to an extreme: in today's bland, toned down world, the only way to feel alive is to start a fight: to punch the lights out of a guy, and get yours punched out too. I learn something new every time I watch Fight Club (which I do about once every two-three years), and my view of the movie has changed between each watching: as I change, my perception of the movie changes. But it is still good, and the message is still valid. Life is now, and you don't have save points. Get out there, do something that matters.

(Edit: Read that last sentence in a Christopher Walken voice, in your head. So much better.)

Music Matters

Now, this post could either be about matters that somehow affect or are affected by music, or about how music matters. Because I'm explaining the crappy pun I made in the title, some of you may have already guessed where I'm going with this: I'll be talking about both. A word of warning, this will be a collection of musings and as such, might be a bit hard to follow.

Music alters mood, and mood alters what kind of music you want to hear. This isn't really news, it's, as Terry Pratchett put it so well in his Discworld book The Times, Olds. But it's kind of hard to actually give people news nowadays, and the most I hope for most of the time is a sort of a new view of the olds.

There's been a lot of research into what the music we listen to tells about us, and some definitive answers have been given. A lot more interesting research, however, has been done in the fields of how we perceive music. For example, the research put into how we automatically label the major scale as happy and minor scale as sad is really, really interesting. As far as I'm aware, they still don't know, but the facts so far are that the perception is rather universal, discounting the people neural disabilities concerning music. Oh, and people seem to have a hardwired scale of music in their brain, this being specifically the pentatonic scale. Don't believe me? You don't have to, you can believe Bobby McFerrin:

The pentatonic scale, unlike the heptatonic (from which the major and minor scales derive) uses five notes per octave and is common all around the world. It seems to be a sort of a prototype musical scale that everyone has somewhere around the lizard brain, or something. They don't really know, or if they do, they haven't explained it so that I would understand it. But you have to admit, it's really cool. Here's to hoping they don't stop researching stuff like this.

I mentioned that music alters mood and vice versa, but I've noticed a bit of a different personal note on this as well. It might be more common, but since I don't know I won't be making assumptions. My musical taste fine tunes by the change of the seasons. Some basing for this might be in order, so: I listen to almost everything, from dance music to electronic hard core trance, hard rock to ballads, heavy to instrumental classic. I don't have a definitive music taste, and I'm actually slipping further away from anything specifically definitive more and more as time passes by. But there's something I have noticed about my musical tastes: it changes slightly with the seasons.

When summer starts rolling into autumn, with the darkening August nights, in come the moody, filled-with-feeling ballad types of music, the likes of the kind of stuff you'd hear in a Modern Western when there's a montage where the hero travels days and weeks alone, through whatever wasteland or forested mountains is the imagery of the day. Maybe a bit upbeat, maybe with a touch of energy, but kind of lonesome and moody. Lonesome ballads shifting through the fabric of songs, the balance getting darker and moodier the further into the darkening autumn we go.

When spring really arrives, I feel the urge to listen to energetic music, the kind that makes you dance and jump and run, with nothing between you and all of the open world: stuff that really gets you pumped.

This isn't to say that I listen to only this kind of stuff in a given season: actually, even changes in weather and what I've been doing fine tune my playlist. I have a song for biking fast in the rain, honestly. For some reason it just rolls around in my head whenever it's raining and I'm going somewhere, on a bike, fast. That song is this one:

More into music, I want to maybe introduce you to three artists, all of whom I first met through soundtracks. My advice, to all of you: listen to soundtracks. It's an awesome way to find new artists, if Spotify isn't really your thing. There's soundtrack veterans like Hans Zimmer and Harry Gregson-Williams, who are veritable legends of the trade, but especially indie games and some new movies and games are awesome places to find new artists. Onwards, to the three I wish for you to meet.

First off, Eddie Vedder. This man's voice is like ear chocolate. He's the person behind the soundtrack of the movie Into the Wild (which you should watch as well. It's a bit different, but in a good way). Out of that movie, this is my favorite song. Eddie Vedder - Society.

Next up, Woodkid. He's a bit of a budding artist, having done one short ep and two singles so far. Him, I found through Assassin's Creed: Revelations trailer. He uses a bit different set of instruments for his songs, and this one personally I think rocks socks off kittens with claw issues. For this specific song, the video rocks as well. May I present  Woodkid - Run Boy Run.

Last, but not least, the man behind the game Bastion, which I think I've been saying good things about here before. Well, if I have, it deserves a second mention: Bastion is a storytelling and gameplay integration masterpiece, with a story and characters you learn to love throughout the story. If you don't have it, get it. If possible, get it with the soundtrack. The man behind the soundtrack, by the way, is Darren Korb. The soundtrack is a well-themed combination piece that holds as a whole while at the same time variating enough to make each song feel different. It's good on it's own, and it's awesome in Bastion. The theme song of one of the characters, however, is one of the most touching things I've listened to in years. Darren Korb - Mother, I'm Here.

This concludes today's post, so I'll just leave you with a parting thought. Listen to music, lots and lots of music. Listen to new music, because you can never know what you might like. Music is awesome. Music matters.

Spiritual Quest, the End

As the math geeks who read this blog will know, I have, with the fourth step and movie, reached the end of my four step and movie spiritual quest of skipping along the happy paths of nostalgia to take a look at the pop culture powerhouse that was the 90's Batman movies.

As some critical readers may have noticed, I was, in all my steps, overly critical. This was by means. I set out to dethrone the false ideas and misconceptions we hold about the past, mostly in my own limited little brain, but set out I did. This final step on my journey is meant to gather up what I learned, so it doesn't need to be gleaned from my ramblings throughout the week. Unless you like that sort of thing, I've heard critical criticism (sounds kind of stupid, doesn't it - see what I did here?) is all the rage right now, and I've heard I'm easy to laugh at.

The quest began here. Actually, it began two days prior to there, when a friend of mine got a total knee-jerk reaction to Batman & Robin. An otherwise enlightened, intelligent individual got totally worked up about a movie, because it was supposedly so bloody awful that it was painful to watch. My friend couldn't reason this any further, it was just awful, period. I've seen this on the internet a lot, and it clashes with my personal memory of the movie. Sure, it's not groundbreaking, it's not even very good, but it's not G.I. Joe bad. (Okay, that's unfair, because nothing, except maybe Dragonball: Evolution is that bad. Don't watch them, just trust me on this. Or do, but don't blame me.)

This set me to thinking: the first two movies were really confusing to me as a kid, and I remember being afraid of the second one. The third one, I remember kind of liking and the fourth one, to me, was a bit bland but still ok. So, I set out to find out what was going on. I watched each of the movies in rapid succession (it took me a bit over four days to watch them all), made notes of each one and rambled about all of them here. My spiritual quest, thus, had a total of four steps. 1. 2. 3. 4. To summarize: (This will contain spoilers, as do the steps. If you don't want spoilers about the movies, don't read these.)



I can see how the first movie would be groundbreaking: back in the turn of the decade, starting off the 90's, it surely was. Thanks to that movie, we probably have the Avengers today (and definitely have the Dark Knight -franchise because of it). It also launched Tim Burton's career, and you can easily see where his imagery comes from. As a movie, it's a confusing jumble of stuff that doesn't really get explained or tied together. Here's a picture to pull it all together.

The Joker, the money, the brain numbing idiocy of it all.

Not that big a deal, right? Wrong. This is a picture of the Joker, giving out money. Fun fun fun! No. This is a picture of a guy who's killed people on national tv and is on every police wanted list (or atleast should be) giving out money while half the population of Gotham is there because hey, it's not like he's a killer. The real swinger of this party: there are no cops in sight, even though he announced he'd be there a day early, again on national tv. No wonder there are so many criminals in Gotham, if the Gotham's finest are this fine. This kind of sums the movie up: it's really, really, really stupid, to such extent that it's kind of insulting. Other than that, if you like gothic imagery, it's okay.

Next in line, Batman Returns. These are kids' movies, remember? Keep that in mind, and look at the main bad guy in the movie for a second.

I would've had creepier pictures, but the whole eating raw fish thing kind of underlines my point. This is the Burton aesthetic people cry out for so often: oh, if only more movies were like this. This is a children's movie, and this is really fucking creepy. This guy caused nightmares, and then there's the part where Selina Kyle gets eaten by cats and returns as a, uh, zombie, I guess? Even if this were an adult's movie, this would be sort if disgusting and a bit more than a bit creepy. Oh, yeah, the Penguin wants to kill all the firstborn sons of Gotham that are, you know, kids. This is a kid's movie. Now, have you gotten the jist of this, as in that it's really creepy? Good, then you're prepared for the rocket pack penguins.

You got it right. Rocket. Pack. Penguins.

The movie is so inconsintently jumping from being scary to being funny that it seems like it's done by a bipolar man. And it really doesn't make much more sense than the first movie: there's a token motivation for the Penguin, but other than that, the bad guys are bad, Batman is good, punching ensues. Visually and theme-vise, it's a Tim Burton selfwank. In my opinion, it's maybe the worst movie out of the bunch.

Batman Forever. There are more pictures in the Step 3 post, but to summarize: horribly, horribly Schumacher. Suddenly, there's, instead of gothic, neon lights everywhere (and a touch of gothic, because Burton's still on the production team). There is, however, real character development and a plot that, at least kind of, makes sense. It's a kid's movie, though, and this time it actually shows. It's kind of juvenile, but in a way you can laugh at even as an adult. Two-Face isn't that good, especially since the A-list actors as bad guys thing is really kind of stupid and holding the series back as a whole, but. Oh, yeah, and the amount of vaguely veiled sex appeal that is Nicole Kidman and Drew Barrymore in this movie is a bit confusing, since it's a kid's movie, but maybe they needed an early onset of puberty for a generation or something.

Out of the bunch, Batman Forever was the best movie to me. It's a lot more consistent, it makes a lot more sense, and while the neon disco that the movie is is kind of awkward, it's better than the wet-yourself-in-horror-if-you're-younger-than-ten that's Batman Returns. Sometimes, it's really horrible (especially in the aesthetics department) but that, I guess, is life. How horrible, you ask? How's this?

Last but not least, Batman & Robin. I think this movie suffers from three problems in the public mind, as it isn't as bad as people claim it to be. Then again, nothing much ever is, but dissing something on the net is all the rage. But, the problems. The Big One: the kids who loved the first Batman films as, well, kids, were in their teens or early adulthood when B&R finally hit the theatres. By this point, they were fans, and seeing as Batman Forever kind of went for a bit more adult-ey direction, they probably figured they'd be getting more of the same, in a better package. Too bad Warner Bros wanted all the Batman movies to be kid's movies, to pump out a new toy line with them that would print them money. Yes, it was all about money. So, teens that had, at last, the internet at their fingertips, went into a movie expecting a sort of an adult take of Batman, and got the vaguely homoerotic running gag that is B&R. The infuriated teens, unable to understand or appreciate the joke, took out their rage in this newfound medium that let them rage so that everyone could see it. Extrapolate and add about ten years, and there's a whole cultural sect grown into the belief that Batman & Robin is the deed of the devil himself.

Reason number two: Joel Schumacher is openly gay. He was openly gay back then, and for a while before that. This was already common knowledge back then. All of you who were young back in the 1990's, quick, what was the biggest insult of the late part of the decade, atleast among boys? Did you answer "gay" or a variant thereof? Spot on, jolly chap! In the late 1990's teen culture, it was definitely not cool to be gay, be associated with anything gay, or anything even remotely close to thereof. And then there's this gay director, making a movie that begins with body shots of two men in skintight rubber armors, all the way to codpieces and buttshots and continues with a few (there's actually pretty few of them, really) kind of maybe homoerotic insinuations in there.

Buttshots.

You'll notice I've used the term knee-jerk reaction with B&R a lot. This one got the biggest. "This movie is maybe gay, I must hate it. This conversation is over or you're a faggot." Of course, you couldn't really say shit like this out loud, not even back then, so you ended up with "it's just complete shit, okay" type of arguments.

Did you notice the part about a joke in the first reason? That's the third reason. The movie is one big joke. I think over half of Freezes lines are crappy ice-related one liners, and the movie prods fun at the comics, the other movies, the Bat franchise, the old Adam West tv show Batman... Remember this?

Yup, it's the Bat credit card.

Now look at it, really look at it for a moment. Notice the expiration date? It's a joke. Also, I suppose everyone is familiar with the Adam West show Bat shark repellant by now. If not, here you go. Overall, the Batsuit's utility belt could and would hold anything in that show. This is a joke about that. Robin, actually, like five seconds earlier, says: "It's a utility belt, not a money belt." Schumacher actually was a Batman fan and even read the comics (this making him unique among Batman directors). He's poking fun at all the goofy aspects that have riddled Batman throughout the ages, and every one was too busy being pissed to notice. I noticed, and some of the jokes actually made me laugh. Well done, Joel.

Overall, B&R isn't that good of a movie. As I go through in Step 4, the rubber Bane and cheeky, badly typecasted Freeze don't really make good bad guys, and Thurman's Poison Ivy is kind of inconsistent. However, none of the other movies is actually too good either. As far as movies go plotwise, Batman & Robin beats the two first movies, although Forever does win in that category.

There are a few other things that trouble the whole quartet: the plots are pretty thin at best, motivations are often nonexistent, and the world's greatest detective doesn't really do any detective work. There's a bit in the last two movies, but all the detective stuff in Batman Returns is done by Alfred.

There's two characters that stay the same throughout the four movies: Michael Gough's Alfred is the most consistent character by far in the series (and I actually love the way he does Alfred). The second character to stay the same is Commissioner Gordon, played by Pat Hingle, although he is mostly consistently incompetent. Talk about a steep learning curve.

Overall, nostalgia has been proven somewhat wrong on this subject. I kind of liked the movies as a kid, but watching them now I can see how the part "kid" might have been paramount there. Okay movies, definitely part of popular culture history, have not aged very well. As a series, maybe two, two and a half stars out of five. A definite two without Forever, and even with that a bit on the hinges. Kind of worth a watch, if it's the summer, you're stuck indoors and there's nothing much to do.

Spiritual Quest, Step 4

It's more like Batman on Ice: the Comedy Musical. If the heteronormative sensibilities of the late 1990's aren't holding you down, though, the movie doesn't seem that bad. Okay, so it's even more slapstick quality bad than Batman Forever, but if you're out for a Batman themed B-grade comedy, you're in the right theater.

Thus far, the worst thing about the movie: A-list bad guy actor typecasting. Okay, so it is an Arnold type of a movie, but it still doesn't make Arnold a very good pick for it, in my opinion. And why is Poison Ivy done exactly like Catwoman? Super sexy villain, super awkward before that?

Two consistent characters (by actor) throughout the series. Guess who? Alfred and Comissioner Gordon.

Wait, Barbara isn't Gordon's daughter, but Alfred's niece? With the Animated Series having kicked off, I can see how this movie would rise some Batfan hackles. Batman: the Animated Series gave the Batverse a Mr. Freeze that was worth his salt, with a real backstory and character depth (yea, the addition of Nora, his wife, to his concept, is a new thing). And then there's this movie, with Arnold's Freeze which, let's face it, isn't exactly Golden Globe winning material, the mixup of Barbara's backround for movie drama purposes and the rather ridiculously horrible Bane: no wonder fans were pissed. As for everyone else, well, I guess the somewhat homoerotic shots of the Bat codpiece could stir up teenage boys in the wrong kind of way. Bane atleast looks somewhat like Bane, whereas Freeze looks like... this.

Okay, so the biker thing is a kind of a what the hell -moment, but if you look at it as a movie, it's there to give character depth. As a Batman movie, B&R plays a "bit" odd: the bad guy's done with halfway in, and we end up watching a sort of a teenager drama. Then, about three quarters in, it turns into a superhero movie again. It's not very consistent, but moviewise, it's not that bad. It's especially not as bad as everyone's intent on making it out to be. It's not a spectacurarly good movie, but it's paced pretty well, you can follow it basically better than both of the Burton movies, and while it's not as good as Forever, it's a movie that I can watch without cringing (most of the time).

So, the movie is kind of stupid. In a pretty stupid way. But it's the Batman movie that gets all the bad rap, while the other three (mostly the first two) get nostalgic idolation. They're just as bad. Okay, you don't like neon lights. Personal preference. So, you really like gothic imagery. Personal preference. You think Nicholson's Joker is the best bad guy ever? Personal. Preference. You don't like the kind of cheesy special effects or the soundtrack? Those are actually, for the time, pretty damn well done, so shut it. So you don't like Arnold as Mr. Freeze, the rubber Bane or the rather humorous take? Okay, those I can accept, they are a corny kind of bad. My point? None of these make the movie that bad. Okay, the fight scenes are pretty bad, even for a Batman movie, and there's stuff like what looks to be the musical scene:

This year, it's Batman on Ice.

Given, it's not a spectacular movie, and if it rubs you the wrong way, it's actually not very good at all, but it is not objectively crappy. It's not great, it's at best a pretty basic level of good, and it's worst part is the last 20 minutes of it, unless you like campy action scenes and quasi science with Batgimmicks. But there's no reason at all for all the rap it gets. The biggest reason for the kneejerks was probably that the kids who loved the early Batman movies had grown into their late teens or early adulthood and wanted the movie to be something like that reflected them (and let's face it, the Dawson's Creek level of "romance" there doesn't quite cut it), while the movie is still a kid's movie. Or it might be the early public rise of the internet era and hey, it's Joel Schumacher, we're supposed to hate him, right? But I'll get back to all, that later on. In the meanwhile, I give Batman & Robin a thumbs up for a campy movie night.

Prove me wrong, if you can.

Spiritual Quest, Step 3

Batman Forever. Well...

It's clearly meant to be humorous, a sort of a slapstick comedy. It actually is, from time to time. But seriously, Mr. Schumacher, what's up with the neon lights? There's neon everywhere, I was surprised the Batsuit wasn't lit from underneath by an unearthly glow. Everything else sure was. With some of the Burton goth imagery still there, it's a bit of a clash, to say the least.

This movie has not aged as well as one might think. The aesthetics are a bit too glaringly 90's. (Did I mention the neon lights? Guess what, it's not just lights, it's colours too.)

The Nicole Kidman love interest is... interesting. I've never seen anyone with that deep-running rubber fetish and superspeed sex drive. Out of the love interests so far, she is the best, mostly because she plays the part pretty well, if you discount what I just said. Overall, the human interaction is better in this one.

Okay, I made a bit of a fuss about the two earlier movies not making sense: this one isn't that much better. We're thrown straight into the action with Two-Face (by the by, I enjoyed him being the old, dualistically obsessed comic book version). Last time we saw Harvey Dent was in the first movie, played by Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams, who took the role in the first movie specifically to get to play Two-Face). And now it's Two-Face, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Confused? So am I. But inside the movie, this one makes the most sense out of the bunch. It still doesn't explain much anything, but there's an actual, followable plot, character development (!) and overall, you're not going "WTF" half the time. It's still not too good, though.



Word's can't really do justice to what the movie actually is, not as a whole, so I took some pictures. Oh. My. God.

I think I mentioned neon lights. I can kind of get the wall tags, but the batons?

This is one of the less horrible Riddler outfits in the movie. Less. Horrible.

This is Batman's rape face. Beware.

Overall, Batman Forever is thus far the movie I've enjoyed the most out of the lot. It's a comedy, it knows it, and it actually made me laugh a few times. This doesn't make it a good movie, note, but it is a sort of camp laugh-it-out. It's not very sensible, the Two-Face/Riddler pair is pretty stupid (although at times well acted, Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones are both skilled actors) and the visual... *ahem*... "aesthetics" are, to say the least, outdated. Words won't do it justice, one way or the other.

Spiritual Quest, Step 2

So, I watched, surprise surprise, the Batman Returns from 1992. I also did some thinking on the Batman (see Step One) and figured I'd treat it as a children's movie, because:

#1. It was probably meant that way, since it's based on a comic, and comics back then were a thing for kids.

#2: It's made by the Warner Bros, backed with a toy line and all, which kind of makes it feel like it was indeed meant for kids.

#3: it makes at least some sense that way, and isn't as insulting to the watcher.

However, after watching the second Batman with this in mind, what the hats is going on? Clearly, the second Batman is more Burton than the first, the imagery being just a lot more him. But seriously, this is some really, really scary shit for a kid's movie. The Penguin is creepy even for a grown-up! It kind of tells you something that WB had a huge backlash about this movie being too dark and gloomy for kids: they even used the comic book model of the Penguin for their promotion toy line instead of the movie model, because yeesh. The black bile spewing, rot-toothed monster  that looks a tad like he's dead is scary.



Actually, as my room mate pointed out, the movie isn't so much meant to be for kids or adults as it is meant to be for Tim Burton. The whole movie is a two-hour long imagery self-wank with way too many thinly sketched plots and subplots, all (still) missing any real motivation. There's a lot of stuff in there that's just plain stupid, and most of the stuff that is not is kind of sad... It looks nice, the Burton version of Gotham is cool. But that's about the merits of it. Here are a few more specified issues I had with it.

What happened to Miss Vale, practically the driving force behind the first movie? Are we just supposed ignore all that happened in the first movie, unless it was the putting up of the Batlight. (Actually, there's a conversation between Bruce and Selina when he's trying to hit on her that tells us it didn't work... O-kay, so this is typical in movies. It just kind of undermines even the little character development and depth that they managed to pump into Batman in the first movie. Now he's just a douche who gapes at all the ladies and likes to beat up bad guys. Seriously, this is the character depth the Burton movies manage on the world's greatest detective.)

Oh, and on the subject of the Batlight, I guess no one will ever think that the Batman might be the guy with the wall-mounted version outside his goddamn study. I get that it makes better imagery, but they actually show the bloody lamp on the Wayne manor wall.

I get that Selina's supposed to be the sultry, irresistable sex piece, but she really isn't, so why is everyone treating her like she is? Was just so out on the whole sexuality thing back in the nineties that I didn't notice it was like this all the time, or does this feel stupid to someone else too? And why's the Catwoman's only method of moving distances backflipping? Are they actually making Selina a complex character, with a split persona or something?

Who retardized Selina Kyle? She's one of the biggest independent women characters in the comics ever and this version is just... sad. I kind of get that they're making a bipolarisation between Selina Kyle, the bland, grey secretary and Catwoman, the crazy-ass alter ego, but it doesn't really work. Also, the zombified Kyle is again one of those things that will cause nightmares to little kids. (Then there's the Penguin devouring the raw fish and biting a guy's nose off, but that's a whole different story there.) Selina actually has the most character development out of everybody in the movie, but it's not very consistent. They are actually developing her in two different directions (Catwoman and Selina Kyle) but seem to forget that somewhere down the road and end up with a combi mashup that doesn't really work for either character on the ending half of the movie.


Overall, Batman Returns feels like something Tim Burton did for Tim Burton and as a movie it isn't very good. The pacing isn't so much building suspense since there are no surprises in the movie, and so they've tried to patch that with a pacing between scary and gruesome and comical and stupid. This really doesn't work, it just makes the movie even more jarringly odd. Oh yea, and a police car pileup.

I'll give the movie one major thumbs up, though: Christopher Walken does a very, very good bad guy and the silver hair suits him fine indeed. The man is a genius indeed. As for the movie, the Penguin's plot is something to make kids not want to let parents leave home without them, ever. And all of a sudden, he has an army of attack penguins? It's a good thing Batman can counter all that with his BatSewerSled. (I admit, I laughed at the V2 penguin mobs.) And the penguin wake is a nice touch.

Overall, too convoluted for it's own - or anything or -one elses - good. I totally see how this would have coused a humongous public backlash. Later, we'll see how I fare with Joel Schumacher's brainchildren.

Spiritual Quest, Step 1

Okay, I've watched the 1989 Tim Burton Batman now: I've been a bit busy with school and driven down with an after-Assembly flu so my watching speed's kind of low. Anyway... First impressions on a movie that I remembered from my childhood. (I made notes, so I'm mostly going to summarize or just copy/paste those here)

Okay, Tim Burton is a visionary, but honestly, the man has one vision and one vision only. This is his ground zero, and having seen a lot of Burton films, they all use the same style of imagery and the same points of view, tricks and gimmicks. The man seems a bit of a one trick pony. And he has a thing about mirrors.

Okay, the beginning where it's the Waynes except it isn't is kind of cunning, but in retrospect it kind of sets the tone for the movie: most of the stuff there doesn't make sense unless you already know all of it from the comics. Tim Burton isn't big on the comics, but his film sure leans on them heavily.

What's up with this movie anyway? What's the driving point? We've got Batman, and some criminals, and some cops, and none of them really get along, but why, what's everyone's driving force, what's going on here? Was exposition just something they didn't do in the 80's? Atleast every evil guy is so blatantly evil that everyone knows it, every opportunistic guy is so evidently... well, you get the gist.

Michael Gough as Alfred rocks. Actually, all the Alfreds throughout the Batman movies have been awesome, why is that? Anyway, love.

I'm an hour into the movie and it still hasn't told me why it exists. No one seems to have a real motivation (except maybe Knox and Vale, who seem to want a pulitzer price). Okay, so I know what Batman's motivation is but it's not because the movie tells it to me. There's no character depth in Batman/Wayne, he's like a cardboard cutout if you haven't read the comics. It's kind of hard to care about why anyone's doing anything in this movie, especially when the movie seems to be bent on not telling you anyway.

Nicholson is good at doing crazy, and makes a rather good Joker. Too bad he started the typecasting of big names as bad guys that didn't really do the 90's action movie genre any favors. Speaking of crazy and Joker, I get that he's crazy, but the movie totally forgets to mention why. You could argue it's because his psyche gets fractured along with his body, but in the flashbacks he's clearly crazy already back then. The movie doesn't explain anything! And while I understand that he's crazy, why is he crazy in all the ways imaginable, and why does his way of being crazy change every three minutes or so? Is consistency just too mainstream for this movie? The movie hints at the richer, more complex backstory but doesn't go anywhere near it before the halfway point of the movie.

Hah, so Batman can ask a girl how much she weights. The girl will still lie, given, but hah. The insinuated batrape after Batman saves Vale from the Joker is kind of creepy. Why is that part there? Is this an adult or a kid movie? Love the early 90's aesthetic of the Joker, his jokes and his crew.

(At this part I'm getting to the ending quarter of the movie and let's just say the nostalgia's worn off. Be prepared for a rant.)

Ah, here it is. The Joker killed Wayne's folks. Surprise! Why is this the plot twist? Was this actually the only motivation they could come up with to give a reason for Batman to do what he's doing? Wouldn't Batman be motivated to beat him otherwise?

Is the combat a joke on purpose or not? Is this a kid's movie, an adult's movie or something in between? Is this a comedy or not?

Apparently, nobody remembered to tell people that Joker's a stone-cold crazy-ass killer, because everyone loves him. Or then everyone wants money more than they want to live. Then again, if Knox is the best Gotham has to offer on the news front, it's not a surprise no one's heard the Joker's crazy. But why isn't the Gotham's Finest there, they should know he's in the "mass murderer" ballpark? Oh, yeah, but that would spoil the exposition and ensuing boss fight.

Why isn't anyone listening to what the Joker says? Why is Knox's car airproof? Why is this whole movie one huge plot hole? Why does the Batwing have scissors in the front? Why is everyone still there grabbing the money, when the Joker is clearly out to kill people? Even more importantly, why is everyone running away the moment someone fires a gun? Didn't anyone notice the killer gas? I think my brain is actively trying to kill itself because I'm watching something this stupid.

The Batman doesn't kill anybody, but he shoots missiles and machine guns at the Joker and his crew? Ok, the Joker's pistol is a joke (durr hurr hurr) but honestly, is this trying to be a kid's movie or an adult's movie? It's kind of hard to tell. Batman wears bulletproof body armor, his car has electrified armor to protect it from being robbed, and his aeroplane can't take one hit from a pistol? Okay, so it's the Joker's Not-At-All-Making-A-Compensating-Joke-Here pistol, but still.

Why does the Gotham church have a) 20-ish floors to halfway up the belltower or b) a crooked depth perception field? Why are the police there now? No wonder Gotham is the crime central of the world, since the police around there aren't worth the cheesy leather uniforms they're wearing. Okay, so the church is built straight upwards, okay. Works for the imagery, I guess. Why's there a Joker ninja up there again? Did he just happen to be passing by on the 40th floor of the church? Okay, there's a whole bunch of those guys, what the...

I get the damsel in distress imagery, but Vale is seriously the most useless lady lead ever. So Tim Burton's Batman has no qualms with killing people, okay. That kind of takes one of the biggest character points he ever had out of the picture. Ah, the most classic ever "hit on the bad guy so he doesn't notice the good guy" scheme. I guess the cliche was only in the making back then?

Punch Joker through a wall, pull him back, punch him through another one... The Joker, world's best rooftop ninja. Batman, the world's most gullible detective. The Joker has helicopters, Gotham's Finest don't? Batman actually goes after the Joker with murderous intent. That's all kinds of crooked. And there the man goes, all the 40-something floors down. And the only time the Bat-toys almost fail is at the end, because you need, uh... more suspense? Why is commissioner Gordon such a tool? Ah, the Batlight special effect. Do it with style, eh?

So, the first one is over. Not half as much nostalgia in actually watching this as there was in simply remembering it. It was kind of camp, but mostly confusing. It also seems a standalone, with a full love story beginning and rolling through the movie, including the special lady that finds out who Batman is and accepts him even after that. It's hard to take the movie seriously, when I'm getting the constant feeling that it's not really taking itself seriously. I'm feeling a bit convoluted after this one, we'll see how things roll out with the remaining three.

Spiritual quest

The title and the content might not feel connected to some, so I will try to explain as best I can while we go through this.

I am taking what I have dubbed as a spiritual quest. Most of you will have heard of the four Batman movies done around the 1990's: Batman (1989), Batman Returns (1992), Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997). Atleast some of you will have experienced a sort of a nausea with the last movie uttered.

These movies.

While Batman and Batman Returns hold titles as the movies that skyrocketed director Tim Burton into the top tiers of Hollywood, Batman and Robin holds the title of one of the worst movies ever, with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 12% and and imdb score of 3,6. It is often titled to be, by the opinion of the majority of my generation, the worst movie of the 90's.

I have chosen to watch these four movies for a few reasons. One, I think the nostalgia surrounding these movies is warping my generation's view on reality. Nostalgia isn't always bad, but it causes bad stuff too, like every Tarantino movie being lauded as good when, honestly, they're often just glorified, post-glam gore without much of a backdrop. Before the rain of offal that this kind of a statement will cause hits the fan, hear me out. I'm not saying Tarantino is a bad movie director, but I am saying he's kind of done the same kill-all flick about ten times now. And most of those movies, when we get down to it, aren't that brilliant.

Now, reason two for watching these is to see if they're actually worth all the rose-tinted glasses looks we've been giving them the last twenty-ish years. As some will probably know, I spend a lot of my time on the internet, what with being a nerd (I'll get around to talking about this word sometime). Some of the stuff said there sticks, and Bob "MovieBob" Chipman made some points about these movies a while ago that I felt I should check into personally. Because point in case, see reason one: nostalgia can be bad.

Reason three, and some might do the Dracula-hiss on this one, is that I actually want to see Batman and Robin again, mostly to see if it is as bad as everyone says. When you mention the movie, you usually get an almost immediate reaction of "That movie was so shit, uggh." without any real reasons as to why it sucked. I don't remember it as being astoundingly bad when it came out. I remember it being definitely not good, but that's not the same thing. And as far as I can tell, none of these movies are actually that good.

Which brings me to reason four: are we just lauding these movies because they're Batman movies and everyone loves Batman? These movies launched the superhero movie genre and Tim Burton's career, yeah, but are they actually that good? They made a lot of money, but so did the new Spiderman movie, and the Twilight series.

My spiritual journey into the heart of these questions will begin and take place over the following weekend. Stay tuned for enlightenment, or perhaps a nervous breakdown. Same Bat-time, on the same Bat-channel! (The Adam West series rocked my summers when I was a kid. Yea, it might have been goofy, but so was MacGyver, and he was awesome too!)

Creative Commons and tabletop roleplaying

Most people know a bit about CC (Creative Commons) licences by now. Basically, it's a licence that lets you put stuff that's made by you on the net for others to use and/or distribute forward as long as they give credit to you. They can't take money for it, and credit goes were credit's due. Of course this won't stop people that are bent on stealing your stuff stealing your stuff, but since it's there for free anyway it'll be a bit hard for them to make a profit out of it. I suppose they could sell it to gullible people if they feel like it.

Anyway, tabletop roleplaying games have seen a quite major progression point with the appearance of the CC licences. Roleplayers are often number crunchers and rules lawyers (often in a good way, both of these, don't get me wrong) and like to change system that they feel doesn't work or take a thing or two from a system they like and create their own on top. Now, if it's a blatant ripoff where you change just a few rules, you can post about what you did on an rpg forum and that's that, you have a house rule to your favorite system. But if you actually create your own system with backstory and rules and all the other doo-hickeys, it's kind of a shame that it never leaves your living room.

This all changed drastically with the CC licence. Now, if you want people to try out your rule system but don't want to make them pay for it (i.e. you're not selling but you'd like people to know about all the effort and time you put into it), you slap a CC on the thing and upload it to the net. Now, anyone can play your game if they feel like it. Sure, it might not be as finished and playtested as a D&D rulebook, then again it and all the paraphernalia doesn't cost you hundreds of euros. This is good. This is better than good, this is great! There's always been creative people who just haven't had a good way of putting their work out there. Guess why the licence has the name it has, anyway... But now, with the CC, people have an option to do that.

For CC licenced roleplaying systems that I like, try OneSeven Design games. The games are a bit different from your basic tabletop rpg's with focus on storytelling and interaction, not the rules. Oh, and if you don't feel like a challenge, don't start with Ghost/Echo, it's a bit on the odd side. Now, a good friend of mine, Kari Hoffren, was thinking about publishing his quasi-Japanese samurai rpg, Bushi, on the net soonish, and I hope he does. I'll get a link up when he does, because it's a really fun and cinematic system. It might have some balance issues but that's what players are for.

Here, as a finish, is a picture owned by OneSeven Design Studios. It's beautiful concept art for their beautiful game, Lady Blackbird.

Quote/Unquote

The two most important days of your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.
- Mark Twain

Quoting rose first and foremost with the emergence of the newspaper industry. It rose to prominence, however, alongside the world wide web. Gathering quote databases within the net became easy to handle and even more easy to find. So, what're the problems with quoting, and why do we do it?

Misquotation, with intent or without, is a real problem when quoting. The picture I have above is an excellent example of an intended misquote. Quotes often require some understanding of the social context they've been given in, and perhaps the most problematic thing about quotes is that they're often taken out of context, blown out of proportion and misused for something else entirely. I use the term misuse rather liberally: it is, after all, a question of perception what is misuse and what is not.

Quoting is an easy way to say something that is (or atleast seems like) thoughtful and interesting without much personal effort. Just find something pretty close to what you wanted to say said by someone else and quote. Overuse of quotes, however, especially ones that are often used or famous for some reason or another can lead to the quotee seeming rather foolish: if all your discourse is made out of quotes, you don't come out as too interesting or original, mostly just dull. Rapt and apt use of quotes, however, can make you seem witty, well-educated and smart: it's a precision sport.

The Mark Twain quote at the beginning of this post is, in my opinion, an extremely well put view on life. I guess I'm still waiting on day two, but I agree with the point. Mark Twain is often misquoted, though, with dozens of quotes attributed to him that had nothing whatsoever to do with the man. Most people won't notice stuff like this, since Twain is remembered as a witty, quotable fellow. Those that notice, though, will probably think it a bit foolish and, if done in excess, a bit more than a bit foolish.

With quotes, one should probably not quoth the raven, but some caution might be worth exercising before throwing someone else's words in the ring.

Kiitävi aika

Oletteko koskaan huomanneet, miten lyhyt yksi päivä oikeasti on? Tänään minäkin ajattelin tehdä vaikka mitä: robosodan ehdin käydä katsomassa, mutta kuvat jäivät kahlaamatta läpi, sillä suurin osa ajasta meni edestakaisin sahatessa ja muussa "turhassa". Päädyinpä jopa televisioon. Aikaa tuntui olevan vähän kaikkeen liian vähän.

"Älä jätä huomiseen, mitä voit tehdä tänään." Tälle "viisaudelle" on annettu joskus aikanaan aisaparikin: "Älä tee huomenna, mitä voit tehdä ylihuomenna." Kannan siis itsekin korteni kekoon ja luon aiheesta riippumattoman synteesin: tee tänään ne asiat, jotka teet tänään. Tekemättä jääneiden pohtiminen tai tulevien tekemisten loputon suunnittelu johtaa pelkästään siihen, ettei mikään tule lopulta tehdyksi. Loputon mälvääminen johtaa itsen jääväämiseen kaikesta: jos joku ajatus tuntuu juuri tällä hetkellä hyvältä, siihen pitää tarttua ja pohtia seurauksia myöhemmin.

Kompojen laatu on ollut komposta toiseen vaihteleva, mutta muutamia todella hyviä entryjä on tullut nähtyä. Käykää itse vilkaisemassa, jos siltä tuntuu: http://archive.assembly.org/ Suosittelen myöhemmin parhaimmistoa.

Kuvia tulee toivottavasti vielä myöhemmin lisää (mm. BatMUDin cosplay-kilpailu oli todella kovatasoinen ja myös Robosodasta sain toivottavasti muutaman hyvän otoksen), mutta tässä on vähän lisää tunnelmia Hartwallilta.

Viikonloppuna nähtiin mm. Rovion megascreen, jossa (melkein) kaikki partyjen koneet yhdistettiin yhdeksi isoksi "näytöksi". Tästäkin varmasti löytyy jossain vaiheessa video.

Myös Günther kävi heittämässä yhden Touch Men pituisen keikan perjantai-iltana.

Amiga!

Assemblyt ovat nyt pyörineet palttiarallaa 40 tuntia siitä kun ovet aukesivat, tai partyjen avajaisista jonkin verran yli 30 tuntia. Tämän ajan pitäisi tietysti olla jo 31 tuntia, mutta mikään täällä ei ole koskaan aikataulussa. Päätin kuitenkin käyttää koneella istutun ajan hyväksi ja käydä hieman tässä muutaman vuoden aikana ottamiani kuvia läpi, koska sitä ei oikein tunnu muuten saavan aikaiseksi. Ikävä kyllä täällä on aina aika paljon kuvattavaa: tässä siis muutama maistiainen, huomenna tarjolla on varmaankin useamman postauksen verran lisää.

Muutamaa minuuttia ennen melko useampaa minuuttia myöhästyneitä avajaisia tekniikka päätti kokeilla paljonko savua lavalle saa aikaiseksi.

Floorilla on pimeää.

Poets of the Fall kävi heittämässä torstai-iltana melkoisen makean setin.

P.S. Otsikko tulee siitä, että demoskene alkoi Amigalla, ja kuten kaikki todelliset demopapat tietävät, kunnon kompoentryt tehdään Amigalla eikä millään PC:llä, nehän ovat ihan leluja. Jonkin verran on siitäkin tultu.