Want to get into Movie Industry?

Tired of current job? Ever dream about working in the movie industry? Now your dream may comes true with the walls separated you and your opportunity to be a movie poster designer are all gone!!!

Resume? Education? Fine Arts degree? Do not worry about such minor details, you see people at Hollywood are simple and easy going bunch. But of course no matter how easy they are, you still need to meet these 2 requirements...(you know, it would make them look bad if this is TOO easy)

1.) Know what a photo editing program is and how to save a file.

2.) Ability to put face (any face) at the center of the poster (or at least in the central area of the poster).

Here are examples of what you should have in your portfolio...

See? Not that difficult, right? It always makes me feel good when there are new opportunities for people to get into the industry. What are you waiting for? Fire up your editing program and start practicing putting faces in the center!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
- DK for pointing out this lazy shit trend of poster designing.






Read more >>>

Susan Boyle Flew, How About You?

Seems like everyone (or most of the online people) knew or heard about Susan Boyle and the stir she caused last weekend. It moved the hearts of so many people.

I admitted her performance and the scene captured from the Brit show touched my emotion a little too, I said a little because I always believe in the hidden selves of us people, I always believe that we are all different in one way or another and we all have something special inside that we need to search and realize for ourselves, something many of us as well as the judges and most of the audiences in last Saturday's audition didn't believe in.

But according to Peter Bregman, Susan didn't pass with flying color just because she has the talent, her triumph was 35 years in the making and she also had the most important thing we all need ... The heart...



Her brief story from the article told us that apart from 35 years of singing, she also had one of the most important ingredient above all. That ingredient is (are) Heart(s). She has the love for something which she has been doing it for 35 years and also she acquired the love and believe from some important people around her and these are the reason she stands tall and keeps her head high in the position she's in right now.

Now come back to take a good look at ourselves. How many of you who after getting Susan's slap on your faces, felt motivated during that weekend and now finding your skins sinking into the same old couch (where you got motivated) stop believing in yourselves and others?


Susan Boyle is a phenomenal role model for all of us, not just because of her talent or her courage or her perseverance or her supportive friends. She is a phenomenal role model for us because she is us, in all our awkward ordinariness and amazing extraordinariness - Peter Bregman

^{(We'll see how long people are going to keep this in mind)}

It's hard to really get up there and work on your dream especially after the long day at work and other headache stuffs, but I believe if you don't start doing something when you're motivated then you will never get anything done for the rest of your sorry lives. You can start from smaller steps but at least you've got to have a slightest progress in order to keep on being motivated. And when your fire died down, you'll stop believing you're special and you'll stop believing in others also, I noticed people who lost their motivation (or never had, to begin with) always say words of discouragement, because they know themselves won't get anywhere therefore they tend to bring other people's hopes down too.

So which type are you? The Susan Boyle type or just ordinary dreaming machine type? Your future is yours to decide.

And before I go I'll leave you with something good to watch, cheers!



Read more >>>

Iraq, The Video Game: Neutral Documentary Game (and my thought about it)

Developer 'Atomic Games' and publisher 'Konami' (Yes, THAT Konami) as stated in an article from Wall Street Journal (WSJ.com), are working on a documentary-style game with the name of 'Six Days in Fallujah' Read the full article HERE. Right now I don't think we've got much to talk about the concept of this game or even the game itself because we pretty much know nothing in detail. But I have some opinions about this subject after the click...



I think this is a pretty ambitious idea to create a 'game-amentary' (the term was used by the developers of this game themselves) which lacks the commentary elements usually presented in its counterparts (films) in order to stay 'unbiased' toward a particular viewpoint about this war.

Yes, it is ideal to try to be neutral, but how can we define the 'neutrality' of this subject? Atomic Games said it took into account experiences and memos from many soldiers as well as interviews with Iraqis involved in the battle, but how can one be totally neutral when the game puts us gamers in the shoes of US Marines? How can we, who will be struggling to survive in the digital version of this reenacted conflict, learn about the pain and suffering innocent Iraqis who were caught in the conflict between US battalions and Iraqis insurgents? And last but not least, how could a piece without commentary tells you about the reactions of US soldiers after they were briefed that all Iraqi males from the age of 18 - 65 were potential threats (especially when one had Kalashnikov in his hands) or would the developer show the truth concerning Fallujah Ambush in which 4 American contractors were killed while working for Blackwater and were sent into Fallujah 'underarmed' on a food-delivery mission^*? or will they just talk about these deaths as the victims of 'insurgency'?

So what is neutrality in the context of this game?

"We're not trying to make social commentary. We're not pro-war. We're not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience,...At the end of the day, it's just a game." Anthony Crouts - VP of marketing, Konami

"In parts of the "game-amentary," as the developers of "Six Days" have called it, users are forced to make hard choices. In one opening sequence, an enemy bursts from a door without a weapon in hand. Players can decide if this character qualifies as a hostile and can act accordingly. Whether you choose to shoot the unarmed person will drastically change your experience with the game and will be heavily based on the player's own support or objections to the war. Those personal feelings are complicated by the need to survive to succeed in the game." Jamin Brophy-Warren - WSJ

Sure thing, having these kind of choice making processes would add some depth and realism to the gameplay, this doesn't sound too different from your Karma system in Fallout 3. Without commentary, would it make any difference if the player is someone who doesn't have any knowledge about the social lives of people and the environments of the place? When you had never seen the looks on faces of injured Iraqi women and children, you tend to say the same thing I always hear (or read) from a lot of people (especially Pro-War American who had no idea of what the war is all about) "Better get them before they get us!"

Personally I don't have anything against this game because we will need to see more about this game before passing any judgment on the qualities of the game itself, but it was my personally feeling toward the idea of throwing facts and the precise events taken place in Operation Fallujah (at the moment I haven't had the idea whether 'Six Days' was modeled after the event in Operation Vigilant Resolve or Operation Phantom Fury) at the players without giving out any opinion or drawing any conclusion might result into a hyper-realistic war simulation which might not be too different from any other shooting games out there.

I watch documentaries on a daily basis, and rarely did I find a documentary which gave viewers only 'facts' without creator's point of view of the subject. The point about a good documentary is that the director states his/her views while giving the viewers breathing spaces to think, to do their own research and to draw their own conclusions by themselves. Personally I think a documentary without a clear directions or thought is a little pointless.

So we'll have to wait and see which direction and what decisions the developers at Atomic Games would adopt for the subjective matters in 'Six Days in Fallujah'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* Go do some research about how private firms do their business and earn profit from the current war in Iraq. (I think we gamers can acquire knowledge beyond our HDTVs if we want and choose to do so)

Update: From this article on Joystiq, it's inspired by Phantom Fury


Read more >>>

Thoughts From Games: Fallout 3's science, Eugenics - Pt 1

If we look beyond the entertaining purpose of medias such as comics, cartoons, movies and games, sometimes we will be able to find connections between those medias and the real world. I decided to make this 'Thoughts From ...” series to talk about interesting things or ideas I found in our everyday medias.

If you're reading this without any knowledge about this game, you can read about it here or even try playing it yourself. And for people who had played it (or even better, beaten the game), did you find something deeper beneath the fun factors, nice music scores and the level of freedom this game had to offer? For me I found the concepts of science and the political agendas presented in the game were intriguingly interesting, especially the choices I had to choose at the end of the story were so difficult they made me think really hard even long after finishing the game. And the topic I chose for the opening article for 'Thought From Games' series is Eugenics.

The concept of Eugenics found in Fallout 3

The history, definition and practices of Eugenics can be found easily on the internet, but if I need to describe it right here I'd unbiasly call Eugenics “A scientific attempt to control and improve human genetic qualities”. It's a pursuit for creating the desired (if not the best) genetic traits in human through methods ranging from selective breeding to advanced genetic engineering.

Although the plot of Fallout 3 wasn't really supporting or clearly against the concept of Eugenics, it would still make persons with scientific mindset to question and (may be) start debating about the application of this concept in the real world (assuming we might face with this kind of post-apocalypse future). Before I start talking about my opinion on the subject, I need to mention that the idea of Eugenics presented itself in 2 events in the game's storyline.

First, the true objective of Vault 101: This was not just a regular nuclear bunker for the selected few (but each Vault had it's own secret objective anyway). It's objective was to preserve human at their purest form untainted by the radiation and cruelty of the Capital Wasteland, that was why this place has never been officially opened for 2 centuries unlike many other Vaults in the story.

Second, the salvation plan of President-unelect John Henry Eden: This supercomputer assumed the role of the president of Enclave which claimed they were continuing the chain of command of the past US government before the holocaust. He said he modeled himself after the past US presidents he learned about from the database left to him but I think he also learned a thing or two about the Führer of the Third Reich since he suggested the player to apply some kind of viruses into the water purifier. This would destroy all mutated life forms in the land (including human with slightest mutations) in order to preserve only the non-mutated human genes for the brighter future of mankind.

In my own understanding, the method of Eugenics used in the game Fallout 3 was quite primitive. It involved nothing advanced such as engineering for the best trait but to preserve the cleanest human genes. In the post-nuclear war context of this game, the pure human genetic information regardless of it's quality (race, health, life span) had become the desirable trait itself. But did it work in the game? and do I think this concept of Eugenics would work if mankind really has to face the same fate as portrayed in this game? I'll have to leave it for part 2 of this article.

(To be Continued...)

Read more >>>

Ignorant's view on racism made me laugh

At first I thought it was some kinda jokes, but it's still going on even now so I decided to write about it.

If you haven't heard of it already, lots of ignorant people accused Bio Hazard 5 (Resident Evil 5) of racism. And expert (Anthropologist) and actors had to come out and explained as well as denied the accusation. It was just too stupid (I mean the accusation) I didn't even have to read or watch what the defending groups had to say.

The definition of the term Racism as found on Cambridge Dictionaries Online ,

racism noun [U]
the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races.

Of course that is the traditional meaning of the term. But in my opinion, I also think that stereotyping the actions, behaviors or cultural references of some particular groups of a race and then implying those as a trademark for the whole race is also racism. For example, if you decided to create a hero who is black in a game like Fallout 3 and the only items which could replenish his health are chicken and watermelon (referencing Dave Chapelle's Killing them Softly show), while if the character you created is from other race then he/she can regain health by using any other food items. I'd not hesitate to say it's a freaking racist game.

If we take a look at Bio Hazard. You know what I felt when I first heard the announcement of episode 5 which will take place in Africa? My thought was "Damn! Wesker has gone too far this time!". I would have had similar reaction if the plot in this new episode will happen in Mainland China instead of Africa, because I would think about the number of population, the ratio between population and land space in those countries which will help spreading the infection like wildfire, it's really scary when you think about it. But not a single second I thought about it as racism, since the (mostly) black population here in this story are 'victims' of the antagonist's scheme.

You can sit there like a fatass who doesn't have a life and nitpicking every little details you could use to link this game with racism, but in my opinion if Bio Hazard (as well as it's creators) has some messages for us, I think it's closer to 'anti-globalization' (well, in a way)... and I suspect that people who brought up the issue didn't even played or learned from all the games in the series as well as the latest film "Degeneration" that Wesker, and the remnants of Umbrella Corporation had caused so much damages in another part of the world already and Africa is just their next target, that's it.

I myself had encountered some racist comments toward me before (well, me yellow :D ), I know racism is not something we should take our eyes or ears away from, but we have to look into the context to see the real intentions behind some comments or ideas which may sound like racism before we make any judgment. Only ignorant and stupid people would take every comment about color or race as racism.

Let's say if we have a game or movie which it's story is about a white cop tracing down an Asian shadow society in an Asian country (like one of my favorite movie Black Rain), would people stand up and say the movie is racist? Although some particular characters might have racism point of view, but the part where the main character needs to fight and kill Asian antagonists is definitely not racist, it wouldn't make sense if he marches down the streets of Tokyo (or Beijing) and fight black or Italian mafia, right? Same logic applies here in the African setting of Bio Hazard 5, the virus spreads in Africa so what's the problem with black zombies? Or would you prefer yellow or red zombies? It's time for people to look at the whole context rather than superficial qualities (colors, words, names) before jumping to conclusion whether something is racist or not.

Someone once told me that anyone who gets worked up just by superficial terms like colors, he is indeed racist himself and therefor he will try to prove (or more like pretend) he's not racist by attacking the person who stated the comment about colors. I did agree because for me, racism isn't about colors themselves, it's more about what was said about people who inherit those colors.


sources:
- Joystiq
- VideoGamer
- Associated Press

Read more >>>