For those that know me, or are getting to, you know I watch just about any movie. My criteria for film watching consisting of one thing: whether or not I can stay awake through it. Admittedly sometimes this is not entirely the movie’s fault. I don’t care about actors, directors, producers, and sometimes not even storyline, these things will not bring me to, or shy me away from a movie.
This last weekend, among others, I watched “Dear John”. While it is classified as a romantic drama, I watched it as a military movie. The theme is real: soldier falls in love, goes away for duty, has nothing to devote himself to besides the woman and his job, and is betrayed by the woman. Unfortunately an all too common occurrence in today’s military.
As for accuracy, unlike most military movies this company did a pretty good job, whoever they were. Only one uniform inconsistency: he’s wearing his rank on upside down for an entire scene, but at least it is for the entire scene, if it was only partial then I would be even more disappointed because it would mean someone caught it and they decided not to reshoot anyway, or worse, someone didn’t notice on a second shooting. The second is just a little thing that even avid military aficionados might notice, being his uniform was entirely too clean for being part of ongoing operations in Afghanistan.
It has a real story, is accurate and relates to the world today, so I highly recommend it. It’s about more than just boy meets girl, has layered emotion, and in the end everything turns out in a realistic fashion instead of a Hollywood fantasy. I hope to see more emotionally realistic movies like this one coming out as years go on, and I say kudos to whoever did release this one.
So, in short, if you’re a fan of the book, or the previous release by the same author “The Notebook”, see “Dear John” because I think it will make you feel. After, all isn’t that what art is really about to convey emotion? This movie will do just that.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Book Review: The Heritage Trilogy
I’m going to do something a little different and review an entire trilogy this time. This is one of my favorite book series even though I know the author intended it mostly as backstory for his further series’. The Heritage Trilogy by Ian Douglas, consisting of Semper Mars, Luna Marine, and Europa Strike.
The series centers around one mid-grade Marine officer, and his daughter, and their perceptions and actions during the very possible militarization of space. It takes into account world reaction, changes in military procedures, and very possible discoveries from potential manned missions to mars. It also wraps all that science fiction in a nice little package of current science face and believability. It doesn’t betray a world of future years, but the world of tomorrow, as in literally tomorrow, as in Wednesday.
The first book talks about the Marine Corps battle with obscurity (a very real battle whose opponents are a hostile congress and the Army) and a manned mission to Mars, all the while alluding to a world opinion that doesn’t speak to kindly of the United States (not unlike the real world). As the stories progress the Marine Corps proves its adaptability and capability to conduct non-standard missions in non-standard environments while trying to be proven incapable or irrelevant by the Army, not unlike the Pacific Theatre during World War II.
This pans out in the next two books with the Marine Corps assuming the predominant combatant role in space, while also showing some heavy character development in the Marine and his daughter. The entire trilogy takes place over the span of several years, and, to my eyes anyhow, you see some very realistic changes take place due to the previous books.
In short, it is a gritty, realistic view of what may very likely be just around the corner. It’s not the Space Rangers using their laser blasters on the evil alien Grubi on planet Zephron- 26, it’s the US Marines defending US interests from UN aggressors on the planet Mars. If you’re looking for something fantastical look elsewhere, but if you’re looking for something just plain fantastic I highly recommend the trilogy.
The series centers around one mid-grade Marine officer, and his daughter, and their perceptions and actions during the very possible militarization of space. It takes into account world reaction, changes in military procedures, and very possible discoveries from potential manned missions to mars. It also wraps all that science fiction in a nice little package of current science face and believability. It doesn’t betray a world of future years, but the world of tomorrow, as in literally tomorrow, as in Wednesday.
The first book talks about the Marine Corps battle with obscurity (a very real battle whose opponents are a hostile congress and the Army) and a manned mission to Mars, all the while alluding to a world opinion that doesn’t speak to kindly of the United States (not unlike the real world). As the stories progress the Marine Corps proves its adaptability and capability to conduct non-standard missions in non-standard environments while trying to be proven incapable or irrelevant by the Army, not unlike the Pacific Theatre during World War II.
This pans out in the next two books with the Marine Corps assuming the predominant combatant role in space, while also showing some heavy character development in the Marine and his daughter. The entire trilogy takes place over the span of several years, and, to my eyes anyhow, you see some very realistic changes take place due to the previous books.
In short, it is a gritty, realistic view of what may very likely be just around the corner. It’s not the Space Rangers using their laser blasters on the evil alien Grubi on planet Zephron- 26, it’s the US Marines defending US interests from UN aggressors on the planet Mars. If you’re looking for something fantastical look elsewhere, but if you’re looking for something just plain fantastic I highly recommend the trilogy.
Book Review: Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks
Written by Ethan Gilsdorf comes a tale that should be near and dear to many of my reader’s hearts: roleplaying. It’s subtitled: “An Epic Quest for Reality Among Roleplayers, Online Gamers, and Other Dwellers of Imaginary Realms” and this seems a very poignant topic in today’s world. He covers a lot of ground, not just on roleplaying, but on the treatment of roleplayers, as well as what we do to ourselves.
The author first relates to us the story of his youth, and how he himself became involved in Dungeons and Dragons in his childhood, why he left it, and why he returned. It’s a story of a man discovering himself and casting off the shackles of society and discovering who he truly is as much as an accurate view into the subculture of gaming.
He first tracks down and studies Tolkien whom many attribute with at least creating the setting for modern fantasy worlds. Not only is this untrue (Gygax, the father of D&D and Many other games preferred other authors) but Tolkien spoke out against the creation of games designed from his world as much as he derided fans for becoming too involved in the fictional world he had created. He didn’t just believe it to be wrong, feared the power that such a game would give a person over another.
The book moves on to his personal rediscovery of tabletop games, both roleplaying and wargaming. It covers his surprise at the changes to his own beloved D&D becoming more akin this experiences with online games. “Remember when there was playing involved in roleplaying” he says in reference to the current trend of powergaming and creating characters for statistics instead of fun. He searches and finds more people like himself, who prefer the game to the rules, although he does find comfort in “old-school” AD&D which is describes as already stat heavy.
He goes on to cover LARPing and the SCA finding participants who vary in their describing their hobby from “just as involved as reading a book” (I personally disagree) to “D&D on crack” (much more accurate) . He discovers they are just as involved in their rules as the modern roleplayer, in some cases more so. But he respects them even if he can’t come to find his roleplaying center with them.
He then delves into the seductive belly of online games, which he never once describes as roleplaying games (he and I agree on this point). He talks to two people, one who’s life and medical career were destroyed by online gaming, and one who’s only means of contacting the outside world is through her gaming. In neither case a pretty picture.
Being a former online gaming recluse and addict myself and worried about my friends who do still spend entirely too much time in online worlds that don’t even offer the kind of niche socialization tabletop gaming provides, this books poke bounds to me. As to what it empowered me to do, I am continuing to seek local like-minded individuals who miss the “playing” part of role-playing games, and want to focus more on the problem-solving and critical thinking rather than solving everything through violence concept that MMOs have helped turn our tabletop games into.
In short, it is a witty, powerful book that I believe should be read by every gamer, former-gamer, and those who claim to love gamers too. It’s the story of a journey of a modern day man who, by virtue of the movie remake of his favorite author’s books, is reminded of who he really is and sets off to rediscover that person despite the loss of love and status in his own life. And the victory he find in camaraderie and knowing he is not alone.
The author first relates to us the story of his youth, and how he himself became involved in Dungeons and Dragons in his childhood, why he left it, and why he returned. It’s a story of a man discovering himself and casting off the shackles of society and discovering who he truly is as much as an accurate view into the subculture of gaming.
He first tracks down and studies Tolkien whom many attribute with at least creating the setting for modern fantasy worlds. Not only is this untrue (Gygax, the father of D&D and Many other games preferred other authors) but Tolkien spoke out against the creation of games designed from his world as much as he derided fans for becoming too involved in the fictional world he had created. He didn’t just believe it to be wrong, feared the power that such a game would give a person over another.
The book moves on to his personal rediscovery of tabletop games, both roleplaying and wargaming. It covers his surprise at the changes to his own beloved D&D becoming more akin this experiences with online games. “Remember when there was playing involved in roleplaying” he says in reference to the current trend of powergaming and creating characters for statistics instead of fun. He searches and finds more people like himself, who prefer the game to the rules, although he does find comfort in “old-school” AD&D which is describes as already stat heavy.
He goes on to cover LARPing and the SCA finding participants who vary in their describing their hobby from “just as involved as reading a book” (I personally disagree) to “D&D on crack” (much more accurate) . He discovers they are just as involved in their rules as the modern roleplayer, in some cases more so. But he respects them even if he can’t come to find his roleplaying center with them.
He then delves into the seductive belly of online games, which he never once describes as roleplaying games (he and I agree on this point). He talks to two people, one who’s life and medical career were destroyed by online gaming, and one who’s only means of contacting the outside world is through her gaming. In neither case a pretty picture.
Being a former online gaming recluse and addict myself and worried about my friends who do still spend entirely too much time in online worlds that don’t even offer the kind of niche socialization tabletop gaming provides, this books poke bounds to me. As to what it empowered me to do, I am continuing to seek local like-minded individuals who miss the “playing” part of role-playing games, and want to focus more on the problem-solving and critical thinking rather than solving everything through violence concept that MMOs have helped turn our tabletop games into.
In short, it is a witty, powerful book that I believe should be read by every gamer, former-gamer, and those who claim to love gamers too. It’s the story of a journey of a modern day man who, by virtue of the movie remake of his favorite author’s books, is reminded of who he really is and sets off to rediscover that person despite the loss of love and status in his own life. And the victory he find in camaraderie and knowing he is not alone.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Television Review: Deadliest Warrior
Since so far I've only interviewed movies, and things I liked I decided to almost go with the opposite here (although I guess that would really mean a book review, but I have a whole plate full of those to work on over the weekend). So we're going to go with what has turned out to be one of the most popular series of last season, and I'm going to ask why, point out some horrible flaws (as well as some good points), and give my overall impression.
Deadliest Warrior is a show where a small team of specialists take two opposing warriors from history that never had a chance to fight one another and compare them, supposedly deciding who would win in a real battle. The fact that the specialists are a medical doctor with experience in trauma service (i.e. he was an ER doctor), a martial arts specialist and biometric technician, and least, but not least, a computer programmer lend some credibility to the task at hand. Each episode also has two specialists representing each side, normally termed a "weapons specialist" and a "combat specialist" respectively.
Last weekend, due to the series premier this last Tuesday, I was afforded the opportunity to watch a great many hours of this show in a row, and I did see some progression (which I'll talk about later) but overall the theme seemed the same. The show does not, in fact, match warrior, but instead their weapons and armor. This creates an artificial result and unfortunately due to the current faith in the media I fear that a great majority of viewers consider these results not only to be accurate but encompassing.
Of course my first complaint is that the fights are one on one, this simply happens to rarely in the real world for me to believe an accurate measure of a warrior can be made individually, after all one of the first principles we learn in the military is that team work is what completes a mission, not individual skills. This is remedied in later episodes, although their reasoning is the use of firearms and the negation of kills due to "lucky shots", but we still see groups fighting one another which is more in conjunction with the warrior ethos.
Next we'll focus on the aforementioned focus on equipment. While definitely assisting in the killing power of a warrior it is not definitive of it. Unfortunately this show relies completely on the effects of certain weapons on mostly unarmored bodies (although to their credit, the use of ballistics gel and pig carcases gives accurate depictions). Even when armor comes into play it is only used for demonstration against one of the weapons leaving a completely unbalanced representation of combat even if weapons and armor were to solely be considered. That and watching the computer programmer say how amazed he is every episode due to the damage caused by a weapon is awfully repetitious and annoying.
My biggest complaint, though, is the complete lack of consideration for the things that have effected warriors throughout history. Physiology, psychology, and availability. Although occasionally these things are mentioned it is specifically left out of the computer program they utilize to determine the victor in these various combats. I will reference one particular episode that I know the results would have been heavily different would they even be considered as determining factors.
The Pirate versus Knight episode, while I am not completely anti-pirate, does accurate display the lack of realism from the show. Considering Physiology knights were not just soldiers, but nobility, or at the very least freemen, thus had access to better food and lodgings, rarely suffering from disease while pirates were simple seamen turned bad, and like all seamen had a tendency to live off of restricted rations and often were sick due to their food or environment, even when not sick the effects of a previous illness could be measured. Psychology, knights already thought themselves superior by virtue of breeding, and that actually is measurable on the field of battle (I could site the example of the Marines versus soldiers, but that would incite a whole other argument), as well as specific training and conditioning with their weapons, while oppositely pirates were simply recruited from sailors, being common men, most times with no military training, and they utilized their weapons only skills learned from their own survival, the argument being that a truly successful army advances through the use of its veterans teaching its recruits, this did not happen on pirate vessels where new recruits were immediately put to use working the ship and whose first training session was the next boarding of a ship. Last, but not least, is availability. While every European nation had some form of Knight and Privateer (or pirate) knights were actually much more common in number, and thus more likely to have superior numerical forces in battle.
Thus I have to argue that in true combat, whether individual or group, if measured properly would result in the knight's victory, not the pirates. This is not always the case, in some instances I believe that the victory would still be as represented by weapon effects alone, but should still be considered inaccurate due to these factors. I only hope this new second season begins to focus less on weaponry and more on the weaponry, or otherwise becomes renamed "Deadliest Weapons" or even Deadliest Warrior's Weapons" but I doubt it.
I do not believe it to be a bad show, simply inaccurate. And if we boycotted inaccurate shows, well heck, I wouldn't even be able to watch my beloved NCIS. I simply become frustrated when accuracy is so easy to achieve and simply ignored for speed or simplicity, and I believe that is the case with the Deadliest Warrior.
Deadliest Warrior is a show where a small team of specialists take two opposing warriors from history that never had a chance to fight one another and compare them, supposedly deciding who would win in a real battle. The fact that the specialists are a medical doctor with experience in trauma service (i.e. he was an ER doctor), a martial arts specialist and biometric technician, and least, but not least, a computer programmer lend some credibility to the task at hand. Each episode also has two specialists representing each side, normally termed a "weapons specialist" and a "combat specialist" respectively.
Last weekend, due to the series premier this last Tuesday, I was afforded the opportunity to watch a great many hours of this show in a row, and I did see some progression (which I'll talk about later) but overall the theme seemed the same. The show does not, in fact, match warrior, but instead their weapons and armor. This creates an artificial result and unfortunately due to the current faith in the media I fear that a great majority of viewers consider these results not only to be accurate but encompassing.
Of course my first complaint is that the fights are one on one, this simply happens to rarely in the real world for me to believe an accurate measure of a warrior can be made individually, after all one of the first principles we learn in the military is that team work is what completes a mission, not individual skills. This is remedied in later episodes, although their reasoning is the use of firearms and the negation of kills due to "lucky shots", but we still see groups fighting one another which is more in conjunction with the warrior ethos.
Next we'll focus on the aforementioned focus on equipment. While definitely assisting in the killing power of a warrior it is not definitive of it. Unfortunately this show relies completely on the effects of certain weapons on mostly unarmored bodies (although to their credit, the use of ballistics gel and pig carcases gives accurate depictions). Even when armor comes into play it is only used for demonstration against one of the weapons leaving a completely unbalanced representation of combat even if weapons and armor were to solely be considered. That and watching the computer programmer say how amazed he is every episode due to the damage caused by a weapon is awfully repetitious and annoying.
My biggest complaint, though, is the complete lack of consideration for the things that have effected warriors throughout history. Physiology, psychology, and availability. Although occasionally these things are mentioned it is specifically left out of the computer program they utilize to determine the victor in these various combats. I will reference one particular episode that I know the results would have been heavily different would they even be considered as determining factors.
The Pirate versus Knight episode, while I am not completely anti-pirate, does accurate display the lack of realism from the show. Considering Physiology knights were not just soldiers, but nobility, or at the very least freemen, thus had access to better food and lodgings, rarely suffering from disease while pirates were simple seamen turned bad, and like all seamen had a tendency to live off of restricted rations and often were sick due to their food or environment, even when not sick the effects of a previous illness could be measured. Psychology, knights already thought themselves superior by virtue of breeding, and that actually is measurable on the field of battle (I could site the example of the Marines versus soldiers, but that would incite a whole other argument), as well as specific training and conditioning with their weapons, while oppositely pirates were simply recruited from sailors, being common men, most times with no military training, and they utilized their weapons only skills learned from their own survival, the argument being that a truly successful army advances through the use of its veterans teaching its recruits, this did not happen on pirate vessels where new recruits were immediately put to use working the ship and whose first training session was the next boarding of a ship. Last, but not least, is availability. While every European nation had some form of Knight and Privateer (or pirate) knights were actually much more common in number, and thus more likely to have superior numerical forces in battle.
Thus I have to argue that in true combat, whether individual or group, if measured properly would result in the knight's victory, not the pirates. This is not always the case, in some instances I believe that the victory would still be as represented by weapon effects alone, but should still be considered inaccurate due to these factors. I only hope this new second season begins to focus less on weaponry and more on the weaponry, or otherwise becomes renamed "Deadliest Weapons" or even Deadliest Warrior's Weapons" but I doubt it.
I do not believe it to be a bad show, simply inaccurate. And if we boycotted inaccurate shows, well heck, I wouldn't even be able to watch my beloved NCIS. I simply become frustrated when accuracy is so easy to achieve and simply ignored for speed or simplicity, and I believe that is the case with the Deadliest Warrior.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Opinion Piece: Pro Life versus Pro Choice?
Pro Choice and Pro Life are not opposing concepts. The misunderstanding of the primary intention of the two groups has created needless conflict and even death. While this is perpetuated purposefully by some groups it is often not for the purpose of the advancement of the actual ideals of the group and has instead become a rallying cry for partisan politics.
Pro Choice is not pro abortion; it is exactly what its name implies, for the ability to make a choice. First and foremost it has become a Democratic ideal, however one does not have to believe that abortion is right to believe that the government should not have a say in what we do to our bodies. The irony is that Republicans believe in smaller government and are against government control, however on this issue they seem to be the opposite. We already have laws on murder, if you believe that abortion is murder then fight for the recognition of fetuses as alive, not for laws against abortion. Legislation against abortion is a slippery slope granting the government the right to declare what is right and wrong for us to do with our bodies, while narrow-focused thinkers may believe this will apply only to abortion it could very well lead to the outlawing of certain medical procedures and even piercings and tattoos.
Pro Life is not anti choice; it is for the recognition of life beginning at conception. While this factions name could be clearer it does inspire a bit of equality as opposed to “Pro Life at Conception” would; as well as being less of a mouthful. It has become a primarily Republican ideal even though I don’t think most Pro Lifers has thought through the potential consequences of their beliefs as detailed above. The irony here is that most people opposed to the Pro Life stance are anti death penalty, while a majority of Pro Lifers tend to be for it, leading to the impression that Pro Choicers believe the guilty shouldn't be punished while the innocent should by virtue of not being born yet, or being unwanted. This is not the case in any regard, but simply miscommunication of intent between the two groups and a refusal to listen to actual rationale between them.
The Pro Choice/ Pro Life conflict is not just a partisan divide, but it seems so. Both our major political parties adamantly subscribe to one side or the other making the decision to be one or the other almost akin to party membership. It has becoming a cry for votes and a label of defamation in states of the opposite persuasion. Often candidates come close to outright saying that voting Democrat is a vote for killing babies (as was evidenced in the 2008 Presidential elections), while voting Republican is a vote to give up the decision to control your own body.
I often say that I am Pro Choice, but anti-abortion, or Pro Life, but anti government control. This means I am Pro Life and Pro Choice, and as a declared, and tested, centrist I have absolutely no problem with this. I believe that if both sides, or at least more of the members of both sides, were to stop and think about what they’re saying and the rhetoric told to them by the respective parties supporting one side or the other we would come to the consensus that both objectives are not opposed. That may be a little too much faith in humanity, and for those that know me you may think it uncharacteristic of me, but I believe it to be true.
Pro Choice is not pro abortion; it is exactly what its name implies, for the ability to make a choice. First and foremost it has become a Democratic ideal, however one does not have to believe that abortion is right to believe that the government should not have a say in what we do to our bodies. The irony is that Republicans believe in smaller government and are against government control, however on this issue they seem to be the opposite. We already have laws on murder, if you believe that abortion is murder then fight for the recognition of fetuses as alive, not for laws against abortion. Legislation against abortion is a slippery slope granting the government the right to declare what is right and wrong for us to do with our bodies, while narrow-focused thinkers may believe this will apply only to abortion it could very well lead to the outlawing of certain medical procedures and even piercings and tattoos.
Pro Life is not anti choice; it is for the recognition of life beginning at conception. While this factions name could be clearer it does inspire a bit of equality as opposed to “Pro Life at Conception” would; as well as being less of a mouthful. It has become a primarily Republican ideal even though I don’t think most Pro Lifers has thought through the potential consequences of their beliefs as detailed above. The irony here is that most people opposed to the Pro Life stance are anti death penalty, while a majority of Pro Lifers tend to be for it, leading to the impression that Pro Choicers believe the guilty shouldn't be punished while the innocent should by virtue of not being born yet, or being unwanted. This is not the case in any regard, but simply miscommunication of intent between the two groups and a refusal to listen to actual rationale between them.
The Pro Choice/ Pro Life conflict is not just a partisan divide, but it seems so. Both our major political parties adamantly subscribe to one side or the other making the decision to be one or the other almost akin to party membership. It has becoming a cry for votes and a label of defamation in states of the opposite persuasion. Often candidates come close to outright saying that voting Democrat is a vote for killing babies (as was evidenced in the 2008 Presidential elections), while voting Republican is a vote to give up the decision to control your own body.
I often say that I am Pro Choice, but anti-abortion, or Pro Life, but anti government control. This means I am Pro Life and Pro Choice, and as a declared, and tested, centrist I have absolutely no problem with this. I believe that if both sides, or at least more of the members of both sides, were to stop and think about what they’re saying and the rhetoric told to them by the respective parties supporting one side or the other we would come to the consensus that both objectives are not opposed. That may be a little too much faith in humanity, and for those that know me you may think it uncharacteristic of me, but I believe it to be true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)