Here's a link to the final fight scene from one of my favorite movie trilogies, The Matrix.
:
The Matrix's theme can be described in just a few words: A constant fight for control, and reality.
This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest and most epic fight scenes to exist in modern cinema. Also, I feel it's one of the best fight scenes to close out a story. Here is the absolute end of these two characters, and their fight here sums up the entire conflict for the series: The battle for control. One of the things I really like about this scene is the virtual line drawn between the protagonist Neo and his antagonist Smith. There is a straight line drawn directly between the two and nothing at all every breaks or comes between this line. The two are always staring each other down, as they have been for the entirety of the Trilogy. It's just yet to break out into as cataclysmic of a conflict as it has here.
I also like the shape of this fight, if that's not too abstract of an idea. The fight is very spherical, and I think this was purposefully done by the Wachowski brothers. The "sphericalness" of this confrontation is a direct reference to the sphericalness of the overall confrontation. As stated by the Architect in The Matrix: Reloaded, this isn't the first time the One has come about as an anomaly. This has happened several times before, though it was only THIS Neo that chose the path deviating from the other "Chosen Ones." The sphericalness of this fight shows the recursion factor of the Matrix, further exemplified near the end by the "Deja Vu" cat "Deja-Vuing" as the Matrix reset itself. In my opinion, it's brilliant. The shape may not be all so easily seen, by the Brothers sort of drop the idea a couple of times as Neo and Smith joust towards one another and result in a spherical explosion of force.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
The Strongest Of Them All
Here is a link to David Rendall's Freak Factor: Discovering Uniqueness by Flaunting Weakness: http://changethis.com/manifesto/45.02.FreakFactor/pdf/45.02.FreakFactor.pdf
In this article David Rendall suggests that there really isn't a such thing as a weakness, and that apparent weaknesses are merely clues to a much larger picture, only the larger picture is more of a collage of our strengths. He provides his readers with nine suggestions to paint a path to turning your weakness into the realization of your strengths. He starts with "What's your problem," then continues to "What's my problem," "Flawless: There's nothing wrong with you," "Forget it, don't try to fix your weakness," "Foundation: build on your strengths," "Focus: you can't do both," "Fit: find the right spot," "Freak: the power of uniqueness," and "Freak factory: putting your quirks to work." To begin, I don't agree with this method personal improvement. I feel if a person is to improve themselves in any given field, then they need to confront their observed weaknesses, assess whether or not they are a hindrance, then change accordingly. Simply viewing your percieved weaknesses as a strength yet to be discovered may end up being more harmful than helpful. For example, if a person percieves Procrastination as simply a strength in disguise, they'll never work on improving that issue. As a matter of fact, if I understand this article correctly, they will work on bettering procrastination? But in a negative way?
His first suggestion was to realize "What's your problem." It seems rather redunant with his second suggetion "What's my problem," so let's tackle both at the same time. It's in these states that a person is to, obviously, take stock in their problems and issues, or what is actually holding them back. It seems that Rendall expects a person to take criticism positively, which is always a good lesson to teach, but to take it without question from everyone. Being a pretty heavily criticized person myself, I can't say I agree with taken criticism blindly from everywhere, as not everyone will drop criticism on your head with the intent of helping you to become a better person, and I feel it's this criticism a person should seek and apply to their lives. Otherwise, people will often just simply criticise to lower a person's self-esteem, or to be outright mean, things I can definitely vouch for. But, this does not mean that a person should try to sift through a stream of criticism for the ones that seem to be genuine as opposed to one that's not so sincere, as a person will often see kinder comments as sincere and the more biting comments as insincere and unnecessary. This, of course, is not often true, and often times can be seen absolutely opposite. As in, more biting comments are often those that are more sincere than others, and are often only so biting because of just how true they are to a person.
Suggestion number four from Mr. Rendall is titled "Forget About It: Don't Try to Fix Your Weaknesses." This section was the most painful for me to read, as I'm wondering if as a creative people we're finding more and more ways to simply be lazy. I'm going to break this section down into four parts and four criticisms just as he did.
1. Here, Rendall states we shouldn't fix our weaknesses because it is a slow process. It is difficult to make progress in our areas of weakness. To this I say... so what? We're supposed to avoid doing something because it takes a lot of time and is a slow process? Oh, because everything in Media can be done overnight. No way! A person should be able to push themselves despite time commitments.
2. It is painful. We don't enjoy working on our weakness. Again, so what? Because it's unenjoyable it should be ignored? I don't believe we've evolved into a hedonistic culture wherein things seen as unenjoyable are morally wrong. Again, we should be able to work on things that we see as being unenjoyable, especially if they are impedeing our growth.
3. It distracts us from activities where we could make significant progress and find fulfillment. Significant progress and find fulfillment, like improving our weaknesses?
4. It doesn’t actually work. Even if we remediate a weakness, it still doesn’t become a valuable
strength. I would argue that being able to look inwards, honestly evaluate oneself, and change accordingly is quite effective.
It seems like I don't agree with Mr. Rendall at all. And this assumption would be quite accurate. I don't like his blase approach to self-improvement; it seems to me he feels like everyone should be as they are and not really look for a way to improve, but instead make excuses for why they should stay just the way they are. This hedonistic approach to self-betterment is bsest exemplified in his next suggestion, "Build On Your Strengths."
1. 1st, Mr. Rendall decides a person should only build on their strengths becuse it feels good, and is enjoyable and energizing to work on your strengths. I don't feel a person should only work on something if they feel it's enjoyable. Life is full of moments in which people really don't want to do, but only because of the responsibility that comes with being an adult.
2. You have the greatest potential in your areas of strength. These are your natural gifts and provide you with your best chances for success. This one does stand pretty true. Things are much easier in a person's specialized area. But that doesn't mean they should ignore their weaknesses and only work on these strengths. Especially when many of the weaknesses can impede on the strengths.
3. Lastly, Mr. Rendall states that your strengths make up for your weaknesses. Well-developed strengths often make your weaknesses irrelevant. Again, I don't see this as being entirely irrelevant. But as stated in section 2 this does not mean that a weakness can not impede on a strength, or possible hinder growth or progress. This sounds like it wants a person to ignore their weakness after acknowledging it.
Throughout my career as a game designer and, moreover a creative thinker, I've been told that I have many many many many weaknesses and faults, ranging from my mode of thinking to methodology in general. Personally, from what I've gathered, that I do honestly have numerous weaknesses. Atop this mountain of weaknesses lie things such as procrastination, stubborness, and a lack of ability to adapt to certain situations. I've also found that I can be rather a pushover when it comes to others ideas, no matter how good or bad I think it is. However I've never adapted Mr. Rendall's model of dealing with weakness. I've tried to steel myself and my resolve, tried to be a bit more punctual with assignments and projects, to be a bit more open to ideas and to change, to be a bit more flexible.
And it's through these weaknesses and working to reshape them that I've found quite a few strengths in my repertoire. I used to find it difficult to adapt to situations, but now I've become the "Idea Guy," the person who will think of any reason for anything in any situation to work. I've let my imagination grow boundlessly, there's nothing I couldn't think up. I've also become a very hard worker by working on my procrastination. It's only by trying to improve my weaknesses that I've found such powerful strengths. If I didn't try to fix these problems, such as my stubborness or my procrastination, then they would only become obstacles becoming larger and more difficult to overcome.
In this article David Rendall suggests that there really isn't a such thing as a weakness, and that apparent weaknesses are merely clues to a much larger picture, only the larger picture is more of a collage of our strengths. He provides his readers with nine suggestions to paint a path to turning your weakness into the realization of your strengths. He starts with "What's your problem," then continues to "What's my problem," "Flawless: There's nothing wrong with you," "Forget it, don't try to fix your weakness," "Foundation: build on your strengths," "Focus: you can't do both," "Fit: find the right spot," "Freak: the power of uniqueness," and "Freak factory: putting your quirks to work." To begin, I don't agree with this method personal improvement. I feel if a person is to improve themselves in any given field, then they need to confront their observed weaknesses, assess whether or not they are a hindrance, then change accordingly. Simply viewing your percieved weaknesses as a strength yet to be discovered may end up being more harmful than helpful. For example, if a person percieves Procrastination as simply a strength in disguise, they'll never work on improving that issue. As a matter of fact, if I understand this article correctly, they will work on bettering procrastination? But in a negative way?
His first suggestion was to realize "What's your problem." It seems rather redunant with his second suggetion "What's my problem," so let's tackle both at the same time. It's in these states that a person is to, obviously, take stock in their problems and issues, or what is actually holding them back. It seems that Rendall expects a person to take criticism positively, which is always a good lesson to teach, but to take it without question from everyone. Being a pretty heavily criticized person myself, I can't say I agree with taken criticism blindly from everywhere, as not everyone will drop criticism on your head with the intent of helping you to become a better person, and I feel it's this criticism a person should seek and apply to their lives. Otherwise, people will often just simply criticise to lower a person's self-esteem, or to be outright mean, things I can definitely vouch for. But, this does not mean that a person should try to sift through a stream of criticism for the ones that seem to be genuine as opposed to one that's not so sincere, as a person will often see kinder comments as sincere and the more biting comments as insincere and unnecessary. This, of course, is not often true, and often times can be seen absolutely opposite. As in, more biting comments are often those that are more sincere than others, and are often only so biting because of just how true they are to a person.
Suggestion number four from Mr. Rendall is titled "Forget About It: Don't Try to Fix Your Weaknesses." This section was the most painful for me to read, as I'm wondering if as a creative people we're finding more and more ways to simply be lazy. I'm going to break this section down into four parts and four criticisms just as he did.
1. Here, Rendall states we shouldn't fix our weaknesses because it is a slow process. It is difficult to make progress in our areas of weakness. To this I say... so what? We're supposed to avoid doing something because it takes a lot of time and is a slow process? Oh, because everything in Media can be done overnight. No way! A person should be able to push themselves despite time commitments.
2. It is painful. We don't enjoy working on our weakness. Again, so what? Because it's unenjoyable it should be ignored? I don't believe we've evolved into a hedonistic culture wherein things seen as unenjoyable are morally wrong. Again, we should be able to work on things that we see as being unenjoyable, especially if they are impedeing our growth.
3. It distracts us from activities where we could make significant progress and find fulfillment. Significant progress and find fulfillment, like improving our weaknesses?
4. It doesn’t actually work. Even if we remediate a weakness, it still doesn’t become a valuable
strength. I would argue that being able to look inwards, honestly evaluate oneself, and change accordingly is quite effective.
It seems like I don't agree with Mr. Rendall at all. And this assumption would be quite accurate. I don't like his blase approach to self-improvement; it seems to me he feels like everyone should be as they are and not really look for a way to improve, but instead make excuses for why they should stay just the way they are. This hedonistic approach to self-betterment is bsest exemplified in his next suggestion, "Build On Your Strengths."
1. 1st, Mr. Rendall decides a person should only build on their strengths becuse it feels good, and is enjoyable and energizing to work on your strengths. I don't feel a person should only work on something if they feel it's enjoyable. Life is full of moments in which people really don't want to do, but only because of the responsibility that comes with being an adult.
2. You have the greatest potential in your areas of strength. These are your natural gifts and provide you with your best chances for success. This one does stand pretty true. Things are much easier in a person's specialized area. But that doesn't mean they should ignore their weaknesses and only work on these strengths. Especially when many of the weaknesses can impede on the strengths.
3. Lastly, Mr. Rendall states that your strengths make up for your weaknesses. Well-developed strengths often make your weaknesses irrelevant. Again, I don't see this as being entirely irrelevant. But as stated in section 2 this does not mean that a weakness can not impede on a strength, or possible hinder growth or progress. This sounds like it wants a person to ignore their weakness after acknowledging it.
Throughout my career as a game designer and, moreover a creative thinker, I've been told that I have many many many many weaknesses and faults, ranging from my mode of thinking to methodology in general. Personally, from what I've gathered, that I do honestly have numerous weaknesses. Atop this mountain of weaknesses lie things such as procrastination, stubborness, and a lack of ability to adapt to certain situations. I've also found that I can be rather a pushover when it comes to others ideas, no matter how good or bad I think it is. However I've never adapted Mr. Rendall's model of dealing with weakness. I've tried to steel myself and my resolve, tried to be a bit more punctual with assignments and projects, to be a bit more open to ideas and to change, to be a bit more flexible.
And it's through these weaknesses and working to reshape them that I've found quite a few strengths in my repertoire. I used to find it difficult to adapt to situations, but now I've become the "Idea Guy," the person who will think of any reason for anything in any situation to work. I've let my imagination grow boundlessly, there's nothing I couldn't think up. I've also become a very hard worker by working on my procrastination. It's only by trying to improve my weaknesses that I've found such powerful strengths. If I didn't try to fix these problems, such as my stubborness or my procrastination, then they would only become obstacles becoming larger and more difficult to overcome.
So Do We Think?
Here is a link to Seth Godin's "Brainwashed:" http://changethis.com/manifesto/66.01.Brainwashed/pdf/66.01.Brainwashed.pdf
Within this, Seth Godin describes several layers to reinventing yourself. One of these layers, acknowledging the lizard, states that in the back of our brains lies a "prehistoric lizard brain stem." It is this that prevents us from being as artistic and creative as we possibly can be, because the brain stem is what makes us afraid of being rejected, laughed at, ridiculed for what we are doing or what we have done. So, what Godin suggests is that we confront this fear, and we do what it is that needs to be done in spite of it. Another layer, which he calls "Ship" refers back to acknowledging the lizard. "Ship" asks a person to be a "shipper," or a person who ships. A person who gets things done, who is able to deliver, who is willing to deliver with the threat of ridicule. The layer that ties it all together, acording to Godin, is the ability to "Learn". To "Learn" is pretty self-explanitory: Don't take the other layers for granted and learn from your experiences.
Overall, our blogs do pretty well to exemplify Godin's model of reinventing oneself. With these blogs, we're sort of forced to acknowledge, yet ignore the lizard, to learn from what it is that we're doing, what it is that we're thinking, and also to ship and deliver. It's sort of getting us ready for our eventual first steps into the media industry. It helps us to better find our niche, and to refine our skills in each area. Also, putting it into a blog on the Internet gives us a pretty nice set point of reference as we more grow into our major. It gives us a place to look back to to see how we've grown or to reference if we need inspiration or aid on something in the future. All in all, it's a pretty good idea.
But, this is not to say this method is not without problems. If a person already has an idea of what it is that goes into the various means of Media production might find this a bit redundant or even unnecessary. I did personally find some of the assignments to be a bit unnecessary, and as more of an "Application" assignment as opposed to a learning and growth situatuion, which does not promote growth as a student, much less a media student. I didn't particularly find myself challenged, or pushed, or with a slight bit of discomfort which I feel should come with a student's assignments to promote growth, at least not with the assigment itself but more its deadline or word count requirement, such as having to write 400-500 words evaluating the assignments of this quarter.
But then I find myself at another impassible junction. If not these blogs, then what? What could take the place of this weekly assignment to better promote growth? Perhaps, I submit, we could be given a choice of roughly 30 or 40 blog topics at the beginning of the quarter, covering all sorts of creative media topics; from game design to storyboarding to animation even. After providing these topics, require students to complete three of these blogs of their choice by each three or four week benchmark until they've turned in ten or so. Yes, students are going to turn in 10 blogs that to them are the easiest they can slink by with, but that's the point. Most students are going to turn in the blogs that speak easily to them, and it will lead them more into their desired field of production. I feel this manner of assessment and application would better lead to growth and expansion of the mind.
Within this, Seth Godin describes several layers to reinventing yourself. One of these layers, acknowledging the lizard, states that in the back of our brains lies a "prehistoric lizard brain stem." It is this that prevents us from being as artistic and creative as we possibly can be, because the brain stem is what makes us afraid of being rejected, laughed at, ridiculed for what we are doing or what we have done. So, what Godin suggests is that we confront this fear, and we do what it is that needs to be done in spite of it. Another layer, which he calls "Ship" refers back to acknowledging the lizard. "Ship" asks a person to be a "shipper," or a person who ships. A person who gets things done, who is able to deliver, who is willing to deliver with the threat of ridicule. The layer that ties it all together, acording to Godin, is the ability to "Learn". To "Learn" is pretty self-explanitory: Don't take the other layers for granted and learn from your experiences.
Overall, our blogs do pretty well to exemplify Godin's model of reinventing oneself. With these blogs, we're sort of forced to acknowledge, yet ignore the lizard, to learn from what it is that we're doing, what it is that we're thinking, and also to ship and deliver. It's sort of getting us ready for our eventual first steps into the media industry. It helps us to better find our niche, and to refine our skills in each area. Also, putting it into a blog on the Internet gives us a pretty nice set point of reference as we more grow into our major. It gives us a place to look back to to see how we've grown or to reference if we need inspiration or aid on something in the future. All in all, it's a pretty good idea.
But, this is not to say this method is not without problems. If a person already has an idea of what it is that goes into the various means of Media production might find this a bit redundant or even unnecessary. I did personally find some of the assignments to be a bit unnecessary, and as more of an "Application" assignment as opposed to a learning and growth situatuion, which does not promote growth as a student, much less a media student. I didn't particularly find myself challenged, or pushed, or with a slight bit of discomfort which I feel should come with a student's assignments to promote growth, at least not with the assigment itself but more its deadline or word count requirement, such as having to write 400-500 words evaluating the assignments of this quarter.
But then I find myself at another impassible junction. If not these blogs, then what? What could take the place of this weekly assignment to better promote growth? Perhaps, I submit, we could be given a choice of roughly 30 or 40 blog topics at the beginning of the quarter, covering all sorts of creative media topics; from game design to storyboarding to animation even. After providing these topics, require students to complete three of these blogs of their choice by each three or four week benchmark until they've turned in ten or so. Yes, students are going to turn in 10 blogs that to them are the easiest they can slink by with, but that's the point. Most students are going to turn in the blogs that speak easily to them, and it will lead them more into their desired field of production. I feel this manner of assessment and application would better lead to growth and expansion of the mind.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
A Dragon and his Hoard
So for my character design I decided as follows:
So i suppose this picture is kinda cheating, as I do want my character to be a bipedal dragon named Nerai the Red-Marked. Why he is Red-Marked will be explained later. However, there is symbolism in this, in that dragons are often said to be fierce, powerful, majestic creatures, which is how I envisioned this character. But, I decided to make him anthromorphic and not much larger than a normal human so that readers/watchers/players don't feel disconnected from him. I feel as though trying to understand the inner thoughts and feelings of a large, fire-breating reptile might be a bit easier if he wasn't quite as big.
Now for color scheme! I wanted to use purple with bits of red and blue. The purple I planned to use to sort of show a bit of cool calmness, but the red to resemble the fits of passion he may experience, and the blue to show the exact opposite, his moments of clarity and serenity. The character I've envisioned is sort of trichotomous in this way, in that he sort of has 3 different personalities, none of which he can control. So, with an analagous color scheme in this fashion I feel it could be pulled off pretty well. The red would be shown in two marks that descend from the corners of his eyes and two that rise upwards from the inner corners of his eyes. Therefore, Red-Marked.
Partially in Shadow, patially in light. However, it would not always be exactly 50/50 as it is in the photo. This style of lighting would be used to show the dichotomy within his soul with the desire to do right, but the nagging need to do wrong as well. Of course, both terms are relative to the person using them, so that never helps either. In the ideal situation of this character being in some form of media, it'd be best to see him this way either when he's dealing with his antagonist or about to make a crucial decision.
Now as for the Antagonist, Mael, who represents all of the dark and evil within the protagonist's soul personified and is secretly merely an extension of the protagonist's subconscious, would also be an anthropormorphic dragon, however he'd be much more muscular, and look much more intimidating. This approach is sort of to subvert the long standing tradition of evil and bad being a seductive force and this time being a much more intimidating, threatening force, so as more to provoke the protagonist through fear rather than seduction. Also, to be this large an intimidating would be a stark contrast to the protagonist, who essentially wants to be good.
Color Scheme: Green. This mostly goes unsaid for the greater part of antagonists, and though I hate to be cliched, here I really believe it fits. Green is used in so many ways, as in to give permission to someone, for a person to be inexperienced, symbolizes life and growth, to symbolize envy or jealousy, green doesn't really have much of a definite characteristic, but has many different meanings. So, as Mael is essentially Nerai's undeveloped conscious trying to ursurp control, he can be made into anything that is desired, yes mostly things that are evil, but most of what is desired.
For lighting, I would like for Mael to be seen mostly as shadow, but not entirely. The way I see the appearance of shadow, is that it's the impression something makes on a space, or the object preventing light from reaching a destination. Both of these things describe Mael almost to a "T," as the character attempting to corrupt Nerai and fill him with metaphorical darkness and shadow as opposed to uplifting light. But, to keep him from being seen simply as an impression, ideally at least a small part of him will be seen so that he stays a very real and existing character.
Finding your Aroo!
Here's a link to How to find your Howl by Johnathan Flaum.
In this presentation Johnathan Flaum discusses the path to finding one's creative voice, and describes this process parallel to a telling of Robert Frost's How the Red Wolf Found his Howl. This story follows Mumon, an endangered Red Wolf who was taken into captivity to save his species, but then released into the wild at a later time as an experiment. Everything seems to be going okay, except that neither Mumon nor the others in his pack can howl. Through what can only be described as a rather interesting vision quest, Mumon and his pack find their howls. Johnathan Flaum uses this as a way to describe how an average person is trapped in a box, who's walls are defined by their monotonous life style, and in order to escape this a person has to find a way out of the box, and only then will they find their unique voice.
For my favorite quote, we turn our heads back to 1999, with a little movie called "The Matrix:"
Morpheous: I've seen an agent punch through a concrete wall. Men have emptied entire clips at them and hit nothing but air. Yet their strength and their speed are still based in a world that is built on rules. Because of that, they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be.
Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
Morpheous: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
This is one of the movies I nearly know like the back of my hand, though I've always been a fan of media that sort of attempts to break down the walls of reality; I suppose one would call them psychological thrillers? This quote is one that I actually use quite often even in my everyday life, misquoted more often than I'd care to mention. This quote says so much about my goal as a game designer; to break the world from its string of monotonous first person shooters and herald in a new age of gaming. I often feel as many other designers do when we have a creative idea that those we pitch the idea to tend to reject on the grounds that it's not the next Call of Duty or Halo, and would much rather have this as an alternative. But, being able to think outside of the box and see forth into the future of gaming as it progresses at the moment and adapting to it's demands without sacrificing personal creativity for profit. Too often have I been told to "Look at Black Ops and do your gameplay like that" or "Gears of War has the best campaign ever, that's how you have to do yours!" And while these games do have their pros and cons, they aren't the game I wish to design. I feel like this quote defines a world of rules and low bar expectations and the Mentor's sage advice to rise above this and make the thing that you know will shake foundations and resonate through history, though being reprimanded by your target demographic. As Morpheous said; "I'm saying that when you're ready, you won't have to." However I don't think that this quote simply tells the story of the Little Game Designer That Could. But this quote, in my opinion, is sort of indicative of a sort of creative Nirvana, in which finding thoughts and ideas comes much more naturally and without quite as much trouble as someone who is new to the craft. A person who's learned what does and does not work when it applies to their job and their target demographic, and can easily draw from that knowledge to make something absolutely astounding. It's by this model that I'd like to take my place as one of the great game designers who are remembered through history. I feel like this also defines just how much more work I need to go through to become who it is I seek to be. Defeating Agents is no task one simply sneezes at, and the same can be said for game design, or Media production in general honestly. But even then, it goes beyond that. It's difficult to draw from the imagination onto a medium that people will like, and as it is my desire to tell the most magnificent story ever told, the pressure seems doubly on. But, as Morpheous said; "When the time comes, you won't have to." Truly inspirational words for one in a predicament as one looking to find their place in the industry of media.
In this presentation Johnathan Flaum discusses the path to finding one's creative voice, and describes this process parallel to a telling of Robert Frost's How the Red Wolf Found his Howl. This story follows Mumon, an endangered Red Wolf who was taken into captivity to save his species, but then released into the wild at a later time as an experiment. Everything seems to be going okay, except that neither Mumon nor the others in his pack can howl. Through what can only be described as a rather interesting vision quest, Mumon and his pack find their howls. Johnathan Flaum uses this as a way to describe how an average person is trapped in a box, who's walls are defined by their monotonous life style, and in order to escape this a person has to find a way out of the box, and only then will they find their unique voice.
For my favorite quote, we turn our heads back to 1999, with a little movie called "The Matrix:"
Morpheous: I've seen an agent punch through a concrete wall. Men have emptied entire clips at them and hit nothing but air. Yet their strength and their speed are still based in a world that is built on rules. Because of that, they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be.
Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
Morpheous: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
This is one of the movies I nearly know like the back of my hand, though I've always been a fan of media that sort of attempts to break down the walls of reality; I suppose one would call them psychological thrillers? This quote is one that I actually use quite often even in my everyday life, misquoted more often than I'd care to mention. This quote says so much about my goal as a game designer; to break the world from its string of monotonous first person shooters and herald in a new age of gaming. I often feel as many other designers do when we have a creative idea that those we pitch the idea to tend to reject on the grounds that it's not the next Call of Duty or Halo, and would much rather have this as an alternative. But, being able to think outside of the box and see forth into the future of gaming as it progresses at the moment and adapting to it's demands without sacrificing personal creativity for profit. Too often have I been told to "Look at Black Ops and do your gameplay like that" or "Gears of War has the best campaign ever, that's how you have to do yours!" And while these games do have their pros and cons, they aren't the game I wish to design. I feel like this quote defines a world of rules and low bar expectations and the Mentor's sage advice to rise above this and make the thing that you know will shake foundations and resonate through history, though being reprimanded by your target demographic. As Morpheous said; "I'm saying that when you're ready, you won't have to." However I don't think that this quote simply tells the story of the Little Game Designer That Could. But this quote, in my opinion, is sort of indicative of a sort of creative Nirvana, in which finding thoughts and ideas comes much more naturally and without quite as much trouble as someone who is new to the craft. A person who's learned what does and does not work when it applies to their job and their target demographic, and can easily draw from that knowledge to make something absolutely astounding. It's by this model that I'd like to take my place as one of the great game designers who are remembered through history. I feel like this also defines just how much more work I need to go through to become who it is I seek to be. Defeating Agents is no task one simply sneezes at, and the same can be said for game design, or Media production in general honestly. But even then, it goes beyond that. It's difficult to draw from the imagination onto a medium that people will like, and as it is my desire to tell the most magnificent story ever told, the pressure seems doubly on. But, as Morpheous said; "When the time comes, you won't have to." Truly inspirational words for one in a predicament as one looking to find their place in the industry of media.
I'm Getting Dizzy
Inception: Rotating Hotel Scene
This happens to be one of my favorite scenes from this movie, and on of my favorite fight scenes of all time, trailing behind the T-Rex vs. Velociraptors in Jurassic Park, and Woody vs. Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story simply for nostalgia and humor. Something that always bugged me about this, and the entire movie in general I suppose, was the background music. The track titled "Dream is Collapsing" appears a lot in this movie, and that wouldn't be a problem if not for the fact that it's the song warning the characters that they were about to wake up slowed down by a lot. So then, one must wonder if this is a diagetic or non-diagetic sound; as in if the characters can actually hear it or if it is simply a part of the soundtrack. I also liked how the things that were happening outside the dream influenced what was happening within. As in, if the dreamer hears a bump, then those in the dreamer's world hear a bump but at a much deeper pitch, and much more drawn out. I feel that this is both Literal, as to show how the outside world affects that of the inside, but it's also Semantic, and shows the distance those that are sleeping are from being awake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)