Elysium is not a bad film.
It has many of the elements that made me really enjoy District 9 (Neill Blomkamp's earlier sci-fi outing). There is the credible near future warfare, the critical social commentary and the lack of aversion from gory or disturbing scenes.
However, it somehow doesn't mesh quite as well as District 9 did. Matt Damon puts in a workmanlike performance but fails to bring the energy or humour to the protagonist's role that Sharlto Copley provided. Copley himself shows his range as a psychotic, Katana-wielding mercenary but the cast generally feels a little lacklustre.
Further the political angle becomes less effective as it becomes more abstracted from real world politics. Elysium imagines a future where the rich-poor divide is enshrined by the evacuation of the elite to an orbital where they live idyllically with the service of robotic soldiers and near perfect medical technology. It is an interesting set up but doesn't feel as fresh or original as District 9's controversial take on Apartheid.
Mix this with a few plot holes (why doesn't the orbital have any defences beyond agents with rocket launchers on Earth?) and superficialities (I'd like to have heard more about life for the super rich - all we see is an ongoing English garden party and some unconvincing political machinations) and it becomes a film that you want to like but which doesn't quite live up to its promise.
Saturday, 24 August 2013
No really, Don't Starve!
So after some initial scepticism I've made the dive and got into this gothic survivalism game.
I'm extremely glad I did. It's one of those indie games that is perfect in conception and execution with, apparently, solid ongoing support from the developers.
You start as a gentleman scientist with the enviable ability to grow a luxuriant beard (creepiness factor escalated rapidly when I discovered that you could shave and use your beard for fuel) in an initially baffling but extremely vibrant wasteland populated by anthropomorphic pigs and deadly predators.
After a few hours play, I've reached the point where survival has become routine. The game has a steep learning curve but easy player death means that you learn of necessity. My first two deaths related to timing the construction of an evening fire. First I made it too early and forgot to feed it. Next I tried to hold off until the last moment and was caught unsuspecting by sunset. The humiliating losses showed that the game would do me no favours and ensured that I quickly got the hang of fire management.
Anyway it is definitely a game that benefits exploration rather than simply being told about. I need to get back to my game - I'm currently bemoaning placing my science camp so far from the rabbit field as a treeman chases me and frustrates my attempts to hunt.
I'm extremely glad I did. It's one of those indie games that is perfect in conception and execution with, apparently, solid ongoing support from the developers.
You start as a gentleman scientist with the enviable ability to grow a luxuriant beard (creepiness factor escalated rapidly when I discovered that you could shave and use your beard for fuel) in an initially baffling but extremely vibrant wasteland populated by anthropomorphic pigs and deadly predators.
After a few hours play, I've reached the point where survival has become routine. The game has a steep learning curve but easy player death means that you learn of necessity. My first two deaths related to timing the construction of an evening fire. First I made it too early and forgot to feed it. Next I tried to hold off until the last moment and was caught unsuspecting by sunset. The humiliating losses showed that the game would do me no favours and ensured that I quickly got the hang of fire management.
Anyway it is definitely a game that benefits exploration rather than simply being told about. I need to get back to my game - I'm currently bemoaning placing my science camp so far from the rabbit field as a treeman chases me and frustrates my attempts to hunt.
Monday, 19 August 2013
Bypassing an unpleasant controversy
So I've wasted hours of my life in pointless argument. People who know me may be less than surprised by this. I usually rather enjoy arguing, even at cross purposes, after a few drinks to bring all involved to the optimum level of incoherence and stubborn intransigence.
However, the argument of bike vs car is an especially unpleasant one that tends to bring out the most tribal and selfish attributes of both sides. As with most 'lifestyle' arguments it quickly devolves into a sprawling mess of interrelated issues. Ethics, environmentalism, safety, legality and anecdote intertwine as temperatures rise and everybody involved tries to justify their heart-felt beliefs and habits. It usually ends with hurt feelings all round along with a general nasty atmosphere.
So I was relieved to stumble across a tactic that bypasses all of these poorly understood and applied issues and reduces the debate to a single question. Probably I'm being as intolerant as everyone else but it is a question that is addressed to car drivers and will probably strongly appeal to cyclists and other road users.
The question is '... would you prefer X more cars instead'. Allowing for selective perception we can conservatively estimate that for every one cyclist/bus/motorbike that annoys a motorist there are four that they simply don't clock or have no problems with.
Annoyed by the extra six seconds it takes you to pass a cyclist on a steep upwards stretch? Instead you could add another four cars to your traffic jam,
Inconvenienced by a bus rudely pulling out in front of you or taking a while to safely reach a bus stop? The alternative might be fifty more cars - enough to clog any main road.
The brilliant thing is that it doesn't work the other way round. Most bus passengers, cyclists and motorbike riders would be glad to see more people adopt their favoured mode of transport. For the former it could only bring ticket prices down (possible after a transition stage while the infrastructure began to benefit from increased revenue). For cyclists and motorbikes it would just lower the chance of accident or death. I don't think anyone would mourn the decreased emissions.
However, the argument of bike vs car is an especially unpleasant one that tends to bring out the most tribal and selfish attributes of both sides. As with most 'lifestyle' arguments it quickly devolves into a sprawling mess of interrelated issues. Ethics, environmentalism, safety, legality and anecdote intertwine as temperatures rise and everybody involved tries to justify their heart-felt beliefs and habits. It usually ends with hurt feelings all round along with a general nasty atmosphere.
So I was relieved to stumble across a tactic that bypasses all of these poorly understood and applied issues and reduces the debate to a single question. Probably I'm being as intolerant as everyone else but it is a question that is addressed to car drivers and will probably strongly appeal to cyclists and other road users.
The question is '... would you prefer X more cars instead'. Allowing for selective perception we can conservatively estimate that for every one cyclist/bus/motorbike that annoys a motorist there are four that they simply don't clock or have no problems with.
Annoyed by the extra six seconds it takes you to pass a cyclist on a steep upwards stretch? Instead you could add another four cars to your traffic jam,
Inconvenienced by a bus rudely pulling out in front of you or taking a while to safely reach a bus stop? The alternative might be fifty more cars - enough to clog any main road.
The brilliant thing is that it doesn't work the other way round. Most bus passengers, cyclists and motorbike riders would be glad to see more people adopt their favoured mode of transport. For the former it could only bring ticket prices down (possible after a transition stage while the infrastructure began to benefit from increased revenue). For cyclists and motorbikes it would just lower the chance of accident or death. I don't think anyone would mourn the decreased emissions.
Friday, 2 August 2013
Checks and balances
So Snowden's revelations continue to show what the American intelligence services are getting up to in their strenuous efforts to protect us from all those pesky terrorists.
I especially like the NSA's response to the Guardian in response to the latest information about XKeyscore, a program that allows them to browse huge databases of online activity. Reassuringly the NSA stated:
"Allegations of widespread, unchecked analyst access to NSA collection data are simply not true. Access to XKeyscore, as well as all of NSA's analytic tools, is limited to only those personnel who require access for their assigned tasks … In addition, there are multiple technical, manual and supervisory checks and balances within the system to prevent deliberate misuse from occurring."
The first and second sentences may well be true, although in the wake of the Wikileaks scandal and Snowden's inconvenient honesty the Americans should perhaps be learning that even those they trust with their powerful gadgets and technological toys may have their own thoughts and agendas.
However, the last claim really made me seethe and froth at the mouth. So they had checks and balances in the system that they didn't even reveal to the people that they supposedly protect and serve? We have our own set of checks and balances in the form of representative democracy. Covert operations that breach rights to privacy are clear attempts to circumvent such democratic responsibility and the perpetrators shouldn't try to tell us that they know better when they are caught out.
I especially like the NSA's response to the Guardian in response to the latest information about XKeyscore, a program that allows them to browse huge databases of online activity. Reassuringly the NSA stated:
"Allegations of widespread, unchecked analyst access to NSA collection data are simply not true. Access to XKeyscore, as well as all of NSA's analytic tools, is limited to only those personnel who require access for their assigned tasks … In addition, there are multiple technical, manual and supervisory checks and balances within the system to prevent deliberate misuse from occurring."
The first and second sentences may well be true, although in the wake of the Wikileaks scandal and Snowden's inconvenient honesty the Americans should perhaps be learning that even those they trust with their powerful gadgets and technological toys may have their own thoughts and agendas.
However, the last claim really made me seethe and froth at the mouth. So they had checks and balances in the system that they didn't even reveal to the people that they supposedly protect and serve? We have our own set of checks and balances in the form of representative democracy. Covert operations that breach rights to privacy are clear attempts to circumvent such democratic responsibility and the perpetrators shouldn't try to tell us that they know better when they are caught out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)