Can Video Games be Art?

Can Video Games be Art?

This is a question asked by gamers everywhere. It is a question answered by none gamers as no way now go back to the basement. Let’s face it however, these people are pretty ignorant so let’s take a look into the argument with intelligence and logic.

 

I’ll start with that all so common argument, video games cannot be art because art has no purpose. A painting is simply there to be looked at while a video game is there to be played. True, however this definition of art seems rather restrictive and surely the purpose of art is to have no restrictions and to allow an artist to create their own vision without shackles. The definition of art in fact is as follows: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

 

The first part talks of an application of human creative skill and imagination. I’ve never created a video game but it’s obvious that it takes skill and imagination to create. Video games are often compared the films, however I find this comparison to be unfair. I’m not going to try to argue one is harder to create than another, that’s not fair but both have unique challenges to overcome. A video game can look great, sound great and have an enthralling story but if the gameplay is poor then it isn’t a good video game. The interactive element is the key element in a video game and if a game plays badly then its good story and visuals are wasted and may as well have been a film. The opposite side to this argument is a film has to keep your attention without any interactivity, games can fall back on good gameplay to keep you interested. Name the most well-known video game franchise. I’d say Mario which has little to no story for the most part, it’s about the gameplay. A movie meanwhile has to be interesting on its own without player interaction.

 

Producing works for Beauty or emotional power. If you play games then it seems highly likely a game has impacted you emotionally at some point. When people mention art and games the one that springs to my mind is Shadow of the Colossus. That game made me think, it was artistic to me and it was an emotional experience. It made you question yourself every time you killed a Colossus and yet when you fight them you’re taken over by a wash of determination as the music builds up and you begin that feeling of an epic struggle. Seems pretty artistic to me.

 

I could keep mentioning the definition but earlier I mentioned art being un-restricted. What is artistic varies from person to person. Personally I found Shadow of the Colossus an emotional and impactful experience and many other games delivered on a similar scale. My favorite game ever made, Professor Layton and the Lost future not only had a beautiful visual style, it had extremely likeable and relatable characters with interesting arcs, it had a gameplay style of puzzles that challenged you on an intellectual level and a story that kept me hooked from beginning to end and almost bought a tear to my eye at the end. That to me cannot be described as anything other than art.

 

Art is in the eye in the eye of the beholder, if someone tried to convince me that Professor Layton and the Lost Future isn’t art by some dumb technicality I’d tell them they’re pretentious and idiotic. I went to a modern art gallery in London a couple of years ago, I nearly gnawed my arms off out of sheer boredom. At one point there was a grey canvas. A GREY CANVAS, and if I’d talked to a lot of the people in that place they’d say my video game isn’t art at all. Art is a different thing to each person so to answer the question that started all this, can video games be art? Yes they can, to claim they’re not is to claim you’re idea of art is the only one that is correct.

 

Thanks for reading, share your own opinion and if you enjoyed like the Facebook page.

 

 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

 

Why Do so Many People Hate Call of Duty?

Why Do so Many People Hate Call of Duty?

When you think of the most successful video game franchises what springs to mind. I’d be very surprised is Call of Duty wasn’t up there somewhere. The strange thing about this franchise is it seems to have just as many people who hate it as it does who actually buy them. People blame Call of Duty for stagnating the game industry and promoting a lack of innovation. They say it has one hell of an annoying fan base full of angry 12 year olds and it’s the worst thing ever made ever. I’m going to discuss this today.

 

I’ll start by saying this, I don’t like Call of Duty. It’s not really my thing, military shooters are not one of my preferred genres especially considering I prefer to play by myself and leave multiplayer alone. I will happily admit that parts of them are enjoyable, the co-op missions in Modern Warfare 2 were fun to play with friends and some of the Zombie modes were fun for a while to play with those two friends. I find the premises to the stories hilarious for how ridiculous they are and it’s pretence at realism is kind of endearing, like a small child pretending to be an old man. However, I do not own a COD game, I probably never will and I don’t like them a whole lot. I do not HATE them however like many do.

 

Many gamers point at them as the big casual game that suckers in all the casuals and is making developers want to dumb down their games into Call of Duty clones. The casual gamer argument is an odd one, yes I get that for some gaming is a genuinely hobby and some just play occasionally in their spare time and there is a difference between that. Gamer Entitlement is a dumb issue, acting like people who aren’t as hard core as you shouldn’t be allowed to play games is really dumb, if you think hard core players should be the only people allowed to games then you are quite clearly pretty dumb.

 

The thing is I’m pretty sure people like this are a minority so I’ll discuss the second point. The stream of games who try to be Call of Duty is very annoying, we all know of the franchises that once had a unique premise but the developers try to turn them into Call of Duty because it sells lots of copies. The thing is though, Call of Duty isn’t to blame for this, COD set its ground work to sell well and form its fan base. Other companies should take the blame for trying to copy Call of Duty, not Call of Duty itself.

 

The fan base full of angry 12 year olds is definitely worth mentioning. Yes they’re annoying but also very easily ignored and more importantly are really funny. I have a friend who once convinced an entire match of random people that if they could copy his actions on the map exactly they would unlock a hidden emblem. He lead them on a ridiculous little tour and at one point was walking along a thin pipe. One angry 12 year old fell off the pipe and they all started panicking for me and my friend to enjoy laughing at their idiocy and they cried about having no hidden emblem. Yes they’re annoying but at least you can laugh at them.

 

Most importantly I think in the argument for the hate of Call of Duty is how they basically bring out the same game every year. The type of game it’s equated to is the like of FIFA and Maden, bro games that just release some updated team rosters and refined gameplay each year. The thing is I’m a football fan and FIFA is a great game for me. I imagine if you like that sort of thing Call of Duty is the same. There’s no denying that Call of Duty works incredibly well, the controls are good, the graphics look good, as a FPS it works extremely well. If you want a multiplayer FPS then really I can see why you’d buy it every year.

 

All these points are all well and good but there’s one more reason I don’t hate Call of Duty … lads of other people do and a strange part of my strange and warped mind likes that I disagree. Whatever you think on gaming’s biggest franchise leave a comment, like the Facebook page and enjoy playing what you like. I’m going to stop typing now, all this COD talk is boring me, I’m going for a game on Battlefield.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462 
 

Are Disney Films Sexist?

Are Disney Films Sexist?

 

Disney has released many timeless films over the years, classics that we’ll still be watching in a hundred years’ time. They usually have the hero’s prevail and give a good message but one issue has always been lingering over these films, that argument of sexism. While some people would just say that it’s just a kids film and it shouldn’t be taken so seriously many, myself included would argue that kids look to role models and good examples should be prevalent to a growing child. Not only that but media already indulges stereotypes too much, surely it’d be a good thing for adults also to have characters they can relate too. Today I’m going to look into this issue.

 

Firstly what films do things wrong? Sleeping Beauty stands out in my head as the typical Princess. She gets rescued by a prince and has no real personality, she’s just there because she has to be. Not exactly an interesting character to put things likely. Many early princess stories from Disney get hit with similar criticism, Snow White and Cinderella are often said to be poor role models. I however am not so sure.

 

Snow White while does end with the falling in love happily ever after thing does have some very admirable qualities. She acts as a motherly figure to the dwarves, she takes care of them and is often working as a Mother. Is this really a sexist character, a kind person who is always working away to take care of her loved ones? Cinderella is similar, she’s working non-stop while on screen and treated awfully but after working hard is rewarded with her own happily ever after. Then again I would assume it’s the falling in love with the prince that’s the sexist bit. However I think that saying this is a poor role model to children is not looking at the full picture. Firstly these stories were written a long time ago when this sort of thing was more acceptable, more importantly however I would argue it’s understandable that someone in the position of one of these characters would want something like that.

 

Walt Dinsey’s favourite fairy tale was Cinderella because she works hard for a long time and then is rewarded with everything she ever wanted. I think that’s a good message to have, working hard brings good outcomes. Is it also worth noting that the princess falling in love in a few glances is an argument that goes both ways, it happens to the prince too. I’ve never really saw this as a sexist event in a film, rather an exaggeration of what real people really want. What is the purpose of a fairy tale? To tell a story to make us feel good and let us enter the world of the story in our imaginations? Is it sexist to say that going to a place in our imagination where you are loved and rewarded is a bad thing? A child imagination is an incredible thing, these don’t make them think a man will do everything for them, rather it helps them imagine and believe in good.

 

These are old films, newer films have really made an effort to make the female characters more real and interesting. The Princess and the Frog is a fine example, the male and female leads in that films are portrayed as equals in ability despite their different classes and upbringings and they work better together than apart. Neither were bland stereotypes, both were interesting characters with flaws and goals. I never found Belle that interesting because she was a little too prefect but I didn’t have that problem with the Princess and the Frog. Frozen goes one step further by having Anna and Elsa’s relationship having such focus as well as making the typical prince the villain and forming a romantic relationship over time. Both these films are trying to have good role models for kids without sacrificing character to do so and while I like the Princess and the Frog a lot more than Frozen both have good intentions in their morals and messages.

 

One film I do take issue with in this discussion is the little mermaid. Ariel in that films spends loads of time whining and expecting to get everything she wants and unlike Cinderella or Snow White she never has to work. She never grows as a character either, Ariel wants the prince so Ariel gets him and forget consequences for all her selfish actions. This I think is a lot more sexist than many of the films people take issue with.

 

I could mention more examples but I think all this boils down to what you consider sexist in what are designed to be family films. The happily ever after ending is used to make people feel good and pleased for the characters, not to degrade women. The important thing I think is what people take away from the experience, not necessarily everything that happened. People recall that Cinderella married the Prince, not worked hard to get to that point in the first place. What’s important to remember is how many people enjoy these films and characters for being interesting and fun. A lot of these female characters have their flaws or obstacle to overcome in situations we will never be in but they’re more interesting for this. Giving your female character flaws doesn’t make you sexist, it makes the character more interesting and relatable to people.

 

If you’re sat there thinking I’m just one of those ignorant males then you know what, maybe you’re right, I don’t know what other people are offended by but personally I don’t see much issue with sexism in Disney. Take that for what it is but I would like to hear the other side of the argument if you disagree. Thanks for reading and don’t forget to like the Facebook page linked below.

 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462?ref=bookmarks

Is there Life after Death?

Is there Life after Death?

It is likely that you have both asked this question and been asked it yourself during your life. There are so many different ideas and beliefs on the subject but are we just looking for reasons not to fear death? I hope to put a few discussion points forwards here.

 

Let’s start with the very well-known belief of Heaven and Hell.  Some people believe that when we die we go to a place that exists as a type of spiritual realm. It is seen to be as a reward for being either righteous or faithful to a given deity and being eternally happy in a wondrous place. The opposite is Hell, a place of eternal damnation and a punishment for your sinfulness.

 

Another common religious belief is reincarnation. It is believed by some that our soul or spirit will leave our body and enter another physical body. Reincarnation takes the actions of our previous life into account. Better known as Karma, our current life is believed to be consequence to our actions in a previous life. This gives very good incentive to be a good person in this life if you believe in reincarnation.

 

Like with most religious idea’s science has tried to prove or disprove whatever they have to say. The afterlife is a conundrum that has puzzled science probably for as long as science has existed. There are many scientific theories about what happens after we die, one I find particularly interesting is how we enter an almost dream like state, with plenty more evidence attempting to disprove the religious ideas but as with many ideas, nothing can be proved. It’s equally as possible after all that after we die we have no feeling or sense and everything is gone, it’s not like we can ask someone who has passed on what happens when we die. The point of this post isn’t to theorise however, it’s too discuss.

 

Death is a strange and let’s face it, terrifying concept to try to understand. Think of what I said above, imagine that all that awaits us when we die is an empty void, nothing but emptiness. Close your eyes, shut them tight. You can still hear, still feel. Imagine having none of that feeling at all, there’s just nothing. It could very well be what awaits us when we die. Death is such a difficult thing to comprehend, honestly it makes me personally feel cold and almost empty just thinking about it. Nothing ever again, not even the smallest ray of light is a terrifying concept and I don’t care who you are, it scares you. The afterlife, in whatever way you may believe is clearly a better alternative.

 

I should point out I in no way mean to bash any religion or say any person is wrong in their beliefs of the afterlife or their faith in general. However I would argue that it is more than likely that some people have fabricated their beliefs out of a fear of death. No one wants to believe that after everything we go through in life in a split second it all ends. Is this why we look for an answer to the question of life after death? Because we’re afraid. Its common knowledge that people are afraid of the unknown, what’s more of an unknown than what happens after we die. More than that it’s something we will all experience eventually.

 

So do you believe in your idea of the afterlife because you fear death? You know what, it doesn’t matter. If you believe in Heaven or reincarnation or anything else for that matter it doesn’t really matter what actually happens after we die. Your beliefs are yours and if they are strong beliefs that you genuinely believe in then they are to be respected. If you read through this whole thing and shook your head when I talked about the emptiness then good for you. No one will ever be able to prove what happens when we die and you cannot be wrong about something that no one will ever know. Perhaps more importantly though you lived your life believing in yourself and your ideals. I don’t think there’s a better way to live.

 

There is something else to this discussion however. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fearing death, just don’t use that fear to dread death, rather to enjoy life.

Was Giovanni Really the Villain - All is Revealed

Was Giovanni Really the Villain – All is Revealed

Pokémon is not a franchise known for its complex story arcs and characters. However if you had to pick one character with an interesting story behind him then it would have to be Giovanni, the leader of team Rocket. He was part of that famous twist where he turned out to be the Viridian City gym leader and was the big bad from the first ever Pokémon games, or at least that’s what we thought. There are a lot of Pokémon fan theories from Gengar being Clefairy’s shadow to the great Pokémon war (Which I did about myself, check the January posts on this blog). But shameless self-promotion aside one theory people have speculated about is Giovanni being a good guy all along. Of course in the anime he was definitely a villain but the games could be a completely different story. It is speculated everything he did was to stop the violent Mewtwo from unleashing havoc on the Kanto region. Today I find out the truth behind Giovanni’s intentions.

 

I thought the best place to start would be a little back story behind Giovanni. Unfortunately very little is known about this mysterious man. We do not even know his age in fact, all we do know is he’s the Viridian City gym leader as well as leader of the notorious team Rocket. We know he has a son, Sliver the rival trainer in generation 2 and he is unique in that he is the boss of the only villainous team who’s overall plan does not involve a legendary Pokémon. In fact what even is his overall plan, his actions seem random and unrelated.

 

I thought it best to analyse each team Rocket evil action. We first see team Rocket in Mount Moon trying to steal some fossils. I’m not really sure what to say about this one. You could argue they just wanted the fossils like you and the scientists did I guess but there’s not really much to say about it. After this they steal the tm for dig. This does seem like a petty little crime but there could be more to it. Claiming Giovanni is a good guy all boils down to him wanting to stop Mewtwo. While the tm for dig doesn’t seem like something worth stealing for a ground type gym leader of all people we should remember Mewtwo lives deep in a cave, a place you may have to dig through to get to. This could be pushing things but it’s important to remember both these events do not involve Giovanni directly. It is perfectly possible that lower level members could’ve made these orders. The next few actions are what really start posing questions.

 

Most of what Giovanni does involves Silph Co. He tries to steal the Master Ball and the SIlph Scope. The theory goes that the Silph Scope is to catch a ghost type Pokémon to fight the psychic type Mewtwo and the Master Ball is to catch him. They also take Mr. Fuji, a supposed nice old man. This theory is nice but it does have flaws. None of this makes Giovanni a good guy, none of this is even proven to be related to Mewtwo. He also does sell Pokémon in his casino too. Maybe we should look into Mewtwo.

 

Mewtow as we all know is a clone of Mew. It is also well known that he was created in the Pokémon Mansion on Cinnabar Island. According to the journals in the Mansion scientists performed horrific gene splicing experiments which drove Mewtwo to great rage. According to the Pokédex he’s vicious, has a savage heart and only ever thinks of winning his battles.

 

While Mewtwo is a clone, Mew actually gave birth to Mewtwo. This is strange as Pokémon lay eggs. Mewtwo becomes so enraged he escapes, burns down Pokémon Mansion and presumably kills most of the scientists. It is pretty much confirmed that Mr. Fuji was part of the team that created Mewtwo along with the Cinnabar Gym Leader Blaine. Blaine still wears a lab coat to act as a reminder to his days as a scientist and in the fame checker a portrait of Blaine and Mr. Fuji is mentioned. In Pokémon Emerald there is an event in a place called Faraway Island where you find Mew. In the Japanese version there is a name smudged on a sign that says … ji. Subtle yeah but it does confirm Mewtwo’s origin however. Being engineered to be the ultimate in battle he left for Cerulean cave, a place full of high level Pokémon.

 

Mr. Fuji seems to be crucial in what happened and it is speculated he went to Lavender Town to look after abandoned Pokémon to cope with his own guilt. Lavender Town is also a long way from Cinnabar Island. Despite all this he obviously knows a lot more about Mewtwo than most do and this would surely make sense to Team Rocket’s interest in him. Giovanni is a gym leader, he could’ve heard things from Blaine and it does make sense.

 

I feel like I should dispel the selling Pokémon in the casino pure evil. In real life we sell animals as pets and you can win things like fish, especially considering this game came out nearly twenty years ago. I don’t think there’s much wrong with it, especially for the time period. I should mention it is never mentioned that team Rocket steal Pokémon in the games. This is a good explanation for team Rocket grunts possessing a very small variety of Pokémon, if they were stealing where’s the variety and why steal so many Koffing. The Anime is different but that’s an adaptation, it doesn’t follow the games as cannon and let’s face it the anime isn’t the smartest show you’ll ever watch.

 

My biggest issue with this theory is normally people like to paint Giovanni as the white knight and Red as the villain. Things aren’t this simple, Red isn’t a villain he’s a kid on a journey stopping what he thinks is an evil team. Giovanni is a complex character and not necessarily a villain. This doesn’t mean he’s a complete hero however. Giovanni’s intentions do appear to be less than noble but it is certainly possible he is trying to do the right thing.

 

If Giovanni’s overall goal doesn’t involve Mewtwo then there are certainly a lot of coincidence in play here. If it does involve Mewtwo the question is why he wants to capture Mewtwo. If he has heard of Mewtwo’s power from Blaine then it does certainly seem possible at least he would want to stop him going on a rampage, especially considering the state of Pokémon mansion. However Giovanni wanting to use Mewtwo for his own gain could me more likely, like he did in the anime. According to Pokemon the Origins there are still good intentions in there, he does disband team Rocket just so Red will take the badge after experiencing the thrill of battle once again.

 

Here’s the thing, Giovanni is a smart man. He is already a powerful man, he is a successful businessman, a gym leader and head of a powerful criminal organisation. I said all is revealed in the title, I think it’s safe to say the ultimate goal of team Rocket involved Mewtwo. After all if there’s one thing we’ve learnt playing Pokémon it’s that all villains have their goals tied to Legends. Unfortunately after looking over everything this is all I can reveal. What was Giovanni’s intentions with the 150^th Pokémon? Maybe one day we’ll find out.

A Five Nights at Freddy's Recollection

A Five Nights at Freddy’s Recollection

All things that are popular are popular for a reason. Batman is popular because he’s awesome, Twilight is popular because lonely and desperate housewives want to feel fulfilled and 50 Shades of Grey is popular is popular because there is no justice in the world. What about Five Nights at Freddy’s. It has three games now and the third is certainly dividing opinion. Now more than ever opinion seems to be split on the franchise so what better time to talk about it?

So for the three of you who have been living under a rock what is Five Nights at Freddy’s? Well while each game adds more mechanics and gimmicks each game features a security guard sitting completely still in an office, trying to stop yourself from being killed by animatronics that may be possessed by murdered children or stuffed with dead bodies. Yeah, not disturbing in any way. Add a heap of tense and creepy atmosphere, some deep and interesting lore and backstory and some compelling gameplay and you have a great trilogy right?

 

When the first game came out I couldn’t find anyone who disliked it. It was original, it was intense and it was downright scary. Thousands of theories were spouted from the backstory, it made many YouTubers from their over the top reactions to the jump scares. Then again, it scared a lot of people. Most horror games are scary because of what you find and the atmosphere of the location. Five Nights at Freddy’s was scary because you were completely helpless. You couldn’t run away or fight back. All you can do is close your doors and hope your power doesn’t run out. I wasn’t the jump scares that was the scariest bit, but rather the waiting for the animatronics to come and seeing them move around the building. I think this game is great.

 

The sequel was certainly interesting. Its mechanics were slightly changed up and more animatronics were added. A large slice of new info on the lore was presented to us and some weird ass death mini games entered the game. At the time it came out many thought this game was even scarier. I understand, you didn’t have doors anymore, you had to wear a Freddy mask and watch them stand in front of you and glare with their messed up faces. Strangely however, I wouldn’t say it’s scarier per say. The jump scares were more surprising and the mini games were a good addition but the atmosphere wasn’t as thick and it felt a lot less Claustrophobic. It was still really good though and the franchise was still just as popular.

 

The third game was released and things got more interesting. This is where opinion started to split amongst the crowd. The game had sort of a 50/50 split with people having savage arguments in YouTube comment sections. The game was a bit different, there was one animatronic, there was a ventilation system you had to keep on top of and you had to lure the creature away. The death mini games were back in the form of compulsory mini games at the end of each night with hidden mini games to explain the lore and get the alternate ending. Personally I didn’t think this one was as good. I seemed like it was being a bit pretentious with its ridiculous hard to find mini games (The tiles in the office … really) and it was nowhere near as scary. It was still decent though and not worthy of huge amounts of hate like it has been. So why is there so much hatred?

 

Maybe because it’s popular? On the internet people love things that are fairly unknown, it makes it really cool. People tend to dislike popular stuff. It’s not hipster anymore. But there has to be more … there is.

 

People complain it’s not scary anymore. Well duh. Things get less scary the more you experience them. The game isn’t as shocking the longer it goes on, that’s normal. Even the most terrifying things ever created will eventually get scary. Maybe saying having a cutesy animal animatronic jump out at you wasn’t even scary in the first place. It was the build-up and the tension. This was especially apparent in the first game. Every time you put the camera down you could get attacked. They moved, you anxiously waited for them to move before your power runs out. Foxy was genius, the slow and tense atmosphere would become quick and hectic as you scrambled to close the door before it gets down the corridor. The game was great and remained tense even when it got less scary because you wanted to make it to 6 AM. The second was similar in how scary and tense it was and while the third was disappointing and felt like it was there to serve the lore it was at least enjoyable and a nice way to tie up the series.

 

Let’s talk about the lore a little more. I find it hard to believe this was ever supposed to be a trilogy. I imagine it was meant to be a scary one off game with a vague but interesting story. The game was expanded and more sequels were added and the lore was increased but I have always thought the story telling was very clever. It gives enough to theorise but not enough to 100% prove anything and equally never just giving it away. It is very clever as the creator knows at this point an out and out answer would never be able to live up to the hype and expectation you have in your head. In reality any theory could be correct and Scott Cawthon may not even have an entire backstory mapped out. It leaves it to us to fill it in and it makes a highly interesting plot.

 

I think the biggest reason Five Nights at Freddy’s has lost its popularity is because after the success of the first one everyone over hyped the sequels. Hype is a terrible thing for a game, a game will almost never live up to its hype and our opinion will be tainted before we even play it. Maybe we expect a bit too much. These are fun and tense games, is it too much to expect them to go down in gaming history as some of the great horror games like a Silent Hill 2. Will we still be talking about them in about 5 years’ time? Probably not. Were they a good experience when we played them and for a long while afterwards as we pondered on the identity of the purple man or the significance of Golden Freddy? Absolutely yes. So let’s enjoy them while they last and enjoy that lovely feeling of nostalgia when we stumble across them somewhere years later and always remember to watch pirates cove and wind up your music box. Or maybe just get a job where you’re probably not going to die, that’d work too.

Introverts and Extroverts

Introverts and Extroverts

I was sitting with a large group of people, having a discussion about something I can’t remember when someone talked about someone they dislike and said “They’re such an introvert”. Confused, I asked what was wrong with that to which they just shrugged it off. It got me thinking, what is bad about being an introvert or are they just misunderstood?

 

What actually are introverts and extroverts? The first thing google says is an introverts are shy, reticent people. This is the general consensus but it is not true at all. In fact being shy has nothing to do with being an introvert, it is very possible to be a sociable, self-confident introvert. An introvert is someone who energized by being alone and concerned with their inner world rather than external things. An extrovert meanwhile is someone who is energized by being around people.

 

We all need our time to relax and re charge. If you’re an extrovert then chances are in your spare time you try to meet up with people a lot and spend all your time with other people if possible. But is it so hard to believe some people need their time alone to recharge? It doesn’t make them unsociable, it means they relax in different ways and just because you may enjoy your alone time, it does not mean you don’t enjoy spending time with people. It just means after time with people you need some time alone, this is the definition of introvert. In fact 60% of the worlds gifted population (Look it up) is made up of introverts. You could easily be an introvert without even knowing it.

 

It is common for an introvert to sometimes want to spend some time alone, even away from people they are comfortable with. As I said earlier an introvert will like to spend time sieving through their own thoughts and reflecting on past experiences and thoughts. Even if they have great social skills, this time alone can be key to an introvert feeling secure and content. It’s similar to an extrovert needing time with people to socialise and talk about anything that comes to mind. Neither is a bad thing, it’s just different aspects of their personality.

 

Introverts can often enjoy talking with people just as much as extroverts, it’s likely to be the desired topic of conversation that is different. An extrovert will often enjoy or be happy with talking about anything. This can be from deep discussion to general small talk about anything that comes to mind. It is also more likely to be in a large group. An introvert will likely prefer the deep in depth discussion about ideals, ideas and concepts, not just random small talk. An introvert is more likely to think before speaking. They can thus be wittier but then again can add less in a big group. It can be more reserved but thoughtful. This mirrors the kind of thoughts during the alone time.

 

Everything I have said so far does not negatively capture being an introvert in any way. It also does not say anything bad about being an extrovert, it’s is simply a different trait in a person. I also don’t want to generalise people into these two categories, in fact introvert and extrovert are the two extreme levels of a scale, everyone has a bit of both in them, just usually more of one than the other. So why does introvert have such negative connotations?

 

Maybe it’s because introverts are rarer. They take up about 25% of the population while people with more extrovert like qualities are more common. It is easy to be wary of what’s different, equally old presumptions and stereotypes can be difficult to forget. However I think there’s more to it than this.

 

People think introvert just means shy. Shyness is the product of nerves and anxiety, while introvert just defines how you can be re-energized. Maybe people do just misunderstand what an introvert is and don’t realise people they like or even themselves have these qualities. Going off alone to re-energize doesn’t make you un sociable or depressed, if anything an extrovert who has to spend a lot of time alone is far more likely to be depressed. I think they key is to embrace either set of qualities and just like with many things accept the people who are different. Being an introvert myself, while I dislike hearing people bad mouth people like me I am incredibly glad I know a large number of extroverts. They have qualities I lack and I’d like to think I have qualities they lack and if nothing else I’d be very bored if we were all the same and everyone was as great as me.

The Facade of the Real You

The Façade of the Real You

Last time on random psychology / philosophy / society thing blog post I talked about the Real you. Who you really are? Well this time I’m going to expand on this with how maybe we sometimes don’t want people to see the real you. That we perhaps like to wear a metaphorical mask that hides it away. Why does this façade exist, what are we afraid of?

 

We want to be liked and accepted is the simple answer. This makes a lot of sense. Being alone is something everyone on earth fears at some point. Especially when going somewhere new we all want to make new friends and be accepted. The last thing we want is to be an outcast. Seems simple right? Sadly no. Hiding away the real you is a temporary fix, but it can also be exhausting. To make real friends and be truly comfortable is to be accepted for who you are. Letting out the real you is necessary in order to be happy, nothing is fun about constantly having to keep up the pretence of who you are.

 

You know ‘those people’. Those people who follow everyone else and just say and do what’s popular. The sheep type people who follow the crowd. It’s too be popular of course, but does it work? Kind of, maybe. Okay, they always have a large group of acquaintances and know a lot of people. However people tend to bitch about them behind their back. They don’t make those close friendships that other people do. You know those unpopular people who you say are strange or weird. It stands to reason they have an admittedly small number but very close friends. Which would you prefer?

 

Now I’m not saying this applies in every situation, far from it.  The point is thinking to yourself which you would prefer. I think about my own situation and I could ask my friends but all three of them are busy at the moments so I’m not really sure. It’s easy to say be yourself and you’ll be fine but we all know that isn’t true.

 

It’s almost tragic at times, being yourself can be a terrible thing for your social life. They may be stereotypes but they do exist. It’s fact that certain types of people and certain activities are far more common and popular. That’s not bad against those people, it can just be difficult for other types of people. Hence the façade of who we really are comes in to mask over the personality traits that won’t fit in. How would most people react if you asked about their favourite yu-gi-oh card or favourite piece of classical opera? There’s nothing wrong with these things at all, they’re just not popular. But to fit into the trends you may have to pretend to be a fan of popular music or something less nerdy than yu-gi-oh like Magic the Gathering. It can be a difficult line to tread.

 

So what’s the solution? Is it good to mask your personality in the pursuit of acceptance? I’m not ignorant enough to say you should just be yourself and you’ll find ‘your people’. However I am ignorant enough to say that you should try. After all, it is better to have tried to find your own way than live life as a sheep. Or as per usual when I write these things, you may think I’m full of crap. That would be understandable. Either way have a think, you may enlighten yourself a little and join me for the next psychology / philosophy / society thing blog post thing next week which will hopefully be on Monday. I think it’s a good one.

My Thoughts on Jeremy Clarkson's Suspension

My Thoughts on Jeremy Clarkson’s Suspension

Let’s face it, this was almost certainly going to happen at some point. Jeremy Clarkson always has and always been a controversial figure. He is very much a marmite figure, you either love or hate his antics. Honestly I laughed when I first hear this news because it was so typical of Mr. Clarkson. All this from the presenter of what started out in his words as a pokey motoring show, Jeremy Clarkson is very much a household name. Finally all the controversy has caught up with him. Here’s my spin on it.

Clarkson and the producer he apparently punched

 

I’ll start of by saying I am a fan of Top Gear and Jeremy Clarkson, I think he’s really funny. However I will be as objective as possible for this discussion and for what it’s worth I can perfectly understand why people hate him. However Jeremy Clarkson quite clearly does not take himself seriously, at least on television. He is very sarcastic and he is very much a laugh at everything kind of person. He does walk a tightrope a times but personally I don’t think he’s ever crossed a line. A lot of his controversial moments are taken way out of context. Some previous examples include his N word incident, when he said strikers should be shot on The One Show and the recent trouble in Argentina.

 

The easiest to dispel is his appearance on The One Show. Yes he said strikers in the public sector should be shot. Go online and it will talk about how awful it is. He started off by saying how fantastic all the strikes were because London was empty. He followed this up by saying he has to balance it up because it’s the BBC so they should all be shot in front of their families. He was obviously being sarcastic in his comments, he doesn’t actually think public sector workers should be shot. He has his own views and made them clear. I watched this at the time and I thought it was pretty funny. He was joking in his exaggeration, but people were offended so he apologised.

 

The N word. I hate this word, it’s a disgusting and degrading term and a reminder of the monstrosity that is racism. I may be a fan of Clarkson but if he had been racist then I would have been appalled. When I was first alerted to this incident I was but then I saw the clip. He does not say that word. The rhyme is very common, I remember hearing and using it all the time when I was younger although the way I was taught it had the N word replaced with Tigger from Whinnie the Pooh. Clarkson starts the rhyme but mumbles through the middle and does not use that word. He makes strange humming noises as filler but he does not use that word. The original rhyme uses that awful word but Clarkson, so I think the controversy here is ridiculous. I don’t see how you could take offense in someone humming in place of using a racist word, that would be like being offended at the beeping sound used to censor a swear word.

 

Finally Argentina. I remember watching the Christmas episodes and being utterly shocked at what I was seeing. I knew there was still some tension out there but I didn’t realise it was to that degree. The attacks were savage and it’s a miracle that no one was seriously hurt, or worse. The question is did Clarkson have anything behind that number plate. I doubt it. He has always apologised for his controversial moments, even if he didn’t believe he was wrong. He maintains his innocence here and I don’t see any reason to accuse him of lying, there’s no proof. Plus it’s not like he alone was responsible for that car. The show’s producers and cameramen and fellow hosts had seen it and didn’t bat an eyelid. The BBC surely would’ve stopped him if he had gone to the trouble to get a personalised number plate to offend Argentina. I think it was an honest mistake.

 

Of course there are plenty of things I haven’t mentioned from him saying the BBC is obsessed with hiring Black Muslim lesbians to his ordeal with Mexico but I still don’t think he has overstepped the line. Jeremy Clarkson speaks his mind, but he does not intend for any of us to take him seriously. It’s easy to remember people poke a lot of fun at him, as well as him at himself. His humour is not for everyone but I don’t think he is trying to offend anyone.

 

So what about his most recent incident. All the BBC have said is because of a fracas with a producer. For those of you (Such as myself) who don’t know what Fracas means, it is a noisy disturbance or quarrel. However he has also been said to have punched producer. Not much has been said. What confuses me is he was apparently on his last chance after the N word incident according to the BBC. If he really did punch a producer then why haven’t they sacked him? They have come out saying no one man is bigger than the club. If it’s that serious then according to their own words he should have been sacked. However he is only suspended.

 

Maybe they need to investigate further, although I can’t see how much needs to be looked into for someone punching someone else. Fellow Top Gear presenter James May was spoken to Outside his house and he said it’s not that serious. Obviously he won’t say too much as he doesn’t want to get himself or his mate into trouble but surely there is some truth in this. Otherwise he would’ve said he didn’t know anything.

 

Top Gear makes the BBC a colossal amount of money. The show is popular worldwide and in its current format would not work without Clarkson. He is arguably the most important presenter on the show, he is certainly the face of the show. Whenever there’s an advertisement he’s in the centre. Plus they would lose a large number of fans if he wasn’t present. If they want Top Gear to continue being a success they cannot afford to sack him.

 

This will likely be a temporary thing. It is a shame that the Top Gear is not on this Sunday or if I’, no mistaken the week after but I imagine it’ll be back soon. A lot of people have come out in support of Clarkson and I can’t see the BBC cutting him loose. It would not be a smart move to sack him, for the BBC or the fans of Top Gear. What we all need to remember is Jeremy Clarkson is a massive idiot, but that’s part of his TV persona. We all know someone who acts like a bit of a tool, doesn’t make them a bad person. I enjoy him on TV but I don’t take him seriously at all. Yes he walks a fine line sometimes but let’s face it, what he does would be a lot more boring if he didn’t. So don’t over react, instead enjoy him if you like him, ignore him if you don’t and hopefully soon back on BBC 2 during Sunday nights will be the greatest car show … IN THE WORLD!

 

The Real You

The Real You

We are all told multiple times throughout our lives that we should be ourselves. After all we are all beautiful on the inside right? Right? Here’s the question, what exactly it, the real you.



The Real You?

 Shouldn’t this be an easy question to answer? We know ourselves better than anyone else surely. However being ourselves is not as easy as it may at first seem. Perhaps you should simply act on instinct. But if this is true then you’re ignoring your thoughts, something most of us would not do. This isn’t the real you. Do what you feel is right? What does that even mean? Right and wrong don’t exist after all, it’s a matter of opinion. So follow your opinions. They change, people change. We develop our opinions from what we experience and our surroundings, not from just being us.

 

Each person is kind of like a canvass, a blank piece of paper waiting to be painted. In this analogy the artist uses our own past experiences to paint the picture that is our personality. The real you. However people will discuss self-identity and how they are searching for themselves. While we would like to say we are who we want to be, we all know we always want more for ourselves. It’s what drives us forwards at all.

 

It’s normal that we all want to be better. It’s also normal to do what we think is right. However the right path is rarely the easiest path. If it’s right to be ourselves, then it would certainly imply that it is difficult. There’s obviously more to it however. Sometimes we choose not to do ‘the right’ thing. Does that mean we are bad people?

 

There’s a film called Unbreakable by everyone’s favourite director M. Night Shyamalan. While having a lot of his usual boring twaddle, it does pose an interesting point on the idea of good and evil and destiny. It makes the possibility seem quite terrifying. Yes I doubt this is what Shyamalan was going for but to me at least it did pose the question of what would you do if you were destined to be the bad guy, the villain. This translates here as if we are looking to be who we are, is it possible that the real us is an awful person. Maybe a selfish, greedy person is who we really are. Can we change that?



Yes we can. In reality the real you isn’t really important. It’s our actions that affect those around us. It’s our actions that shape our future. Taking action when it’s difficult, even when it may be impossible is good if you think it is right. What am I saying here? Am I just going around in circles?

 

What I’m saying is you can try searching for the real you. You can spend your whole life searching, going through many experiences and meeting many people. You’ll find nothing. I don’t think it is anything so spiritual or philosophical. Perhaps human beings are lucky in a way. We have the choice and the responsibility, to define the real us ourselves with what we do and who we are in our lives. Or maybe I’m just full of crap. What do you think?

Frozen - Film Review

Frozen - Film Review

Hey Matt you should watch Frozen, many people said to me. It’s really good and it has a great message for young girls. So I watched Frozen and what was the main thing I took away from the experience. Don’t listen to people, they will only end up telling you to watch films like this one and you’ll end up majorly disappointed.

 

The film is about two sisters, Elsa and Anna. After the death of her parents Elsa is due to be coroneted as queen but she has a random assortment of ice powers that would throw the whole kingdom in jeopardy. Anna must save the kingdom and Elsa from her own powers and prevent an eternal winter.

 

The films main protagonist is a young girl named Anna. She’s a vibrant and innocent young girl full of life and energy. She is also painfully naïve and at times stupid. Yes she’s been deprived of social interaction by the world’s worst parents (although one must question why she doesn’t go out occasionally). But she still wants to marry a guy she met during that same day, she’s easily manipulated and let’s face it, she not very capable of doing anything on her own. I understand she was extremely sheltered but this made her un-relatable. I get these are her flaws but even with these she seems a bit too jolly and innocent in what is a pretty dire situation. I have to say also she is not a good role model. She is swept of her feet by a handsome and charming prince in about 5 minutes, just because other characters point out how dumb this is it doesn’t take away from the fact she wanted to marry someone she met a few hours ago.

 

Elsa is far more interesting. She is conflicted and understandably so about her powers but also not wanting to live a life of solitude. Furthermore she is pretty intense when she decides to let it go (see what I did there) and let all her powers take control and dispel all her despairs and fears of hurting people. What makes her more interesting is that she is obviously flawed. This doesn’t make her a weak damsel in distress, instead it puts her questionable actions in context and makes her more interesting as a result.  However her character weaken ironically when Anna turns up in her ice castle. She goes straight back the broken character while I would’ve liked to have seen her remain more cold and distant, at least at first. It would’ve made it far more rewarding when she does the right thing and understand the infinite power of love (no really) at the end.

 

I hate the snowman, he’s annoying and not funny and thus I refuse to use his name. I get that he’s comic relief, but that’s not an excuse for his annoyance. He doesn’t even attempt to make jokes, I think the running gag is his head falls off. It’s just not funny. Other than that he makes random statements and I wish he hadn’t been in the film at all.

 

Now the villain so spoilers I guess but to be fair it’s pretty damn obvious. Prince Hans seems like a typical prince but as soon as another male is introduced you know he will become the villain. He has pretty much no personality at all outside of being a typical charming prince and then power hungry ruler. What else is there to say, he is pretty boring.

 

The actual love interest, Kristoff is really strange. What kept bugging me is he shares carrots with his reindeer who he seems to like just a bit too much. Also why does Kristoff talk for Sven in a goofy voices? Animals can often talk in Disney films, why not just make the reindeer talk, it would’ve made a lot more sense. He’s kind of a loner, except he has a huge family of random troll people and a reindeer. But Anna opens his mind up to friendship and love or something? I don’t know, there wasn’t a lot to him. Again he was just a typical good guy who does the right thing in the end.

 

I think you can see where I’m going with this. There are no original thoughts in this film. I can’t believe people thought it was so unique. Elsa was quite interesting but other than that we have a bunvh of paper cut out of the stereotypical Disney character. The bumbling but ‘loveable hero’ the comic relief, the bland love interest and a power hungry villain. The only difference is the act of true love is from siblings, not two characters who are involved romantically.

 

The film follows a formula that has been done a million times. Maybe the film was too hyped to me but it was very average. Most of the characters are pretty bland and the plot isn’t that interesting. The twist about the villain is obvious and the ending is as cheesy as any other Disney film. I know it’s primarily for kids, but the best Disney films can be enjoyed by people of all ages.

 

I suppose I should comment on the quality of the songs. Honestly they’re all fine. I’m not a musical person at all and I’m not exactly a big lover of musicals but here the songs are perfectly functional. They get across what they want to and they I suppose and none of them offended my ears at all. I won’t exactly be singing them myself but for me they were at least passable, which is all I really want from Disney songs. So well done Frozen, a part of your movie is completely adequate.

 

The first song frozen heart has some burly men singing about ice. It sets up the not so subtle foreshadowing of the frozen heart metaphor and reveals itself to be like every film involving ice ever. It also brings up the point of if they export ice why are they disappointed that everything is frozen?

 

Next is do you want to build a snowman, a real tear jerker … apparently. Okay while not as emotional as everyone told me it was I agree it was a powerful scene. This was the only part of the film I actually sympathised with Anna as it highlights how lonely she is in the castle all by herself, particularly after her parents die. Elsa too corners sympathy as she is also lonely but also lives in fear of herself and her power.

 

Next up is called for the first time in forever and it consists of lots and lots of boring filler. Anna goes from wanting to spend time with her sister to wanting to find romance and I think there’s a line about her being gassy in there somewhere. Elsa meanwhile stands around all fearful at having to pick up a couple of expensive looking objects.

 

Next song is standard love song # 232 which is called love is an open door. Anna and Prince Hans sing a boring and annoying love song. There’s not really a lot else to say.

I cannot be the only one who though of this when
I saw Elsa's giant snowman monster thing

 

Next is that all famous let it go section and admit it’s actually pretty good. While I’m not really a fan of the song, the whole scene with Elsa letting go of all her restraint and freeing herself works very well. Her powers, while strange and unexplained (Making a dress?) do look very good and how she erects an ice castle could symbolise her letting out all her frustrations and fears. I admit this part was very impressive and memorable.

 

I barely want to talk about the other two songs. In summer and fixer upper. Oh dear. Talk about annoying filler. I think they’re supposed to be funny but I found them awkward and honestly quite tragic at times. These songs were annoying.

 

Finally the message. This is kind of a mixed bag for me. I like that it addresses love at first sight being too good to be true and the importance of family. I like that it highlights the absurdity of marrying someone you met that day and buried very deeply is a message about letting out your feelings and being yourself. However by most these will be overlooked for people to shout about female empowerment. The issue is most male characters in this film are painted as un-trustworthy and selfish. I like a strong female character, but equally I like them to be strong without having to be so unsubtle about feminism. What people don’t seem to get is that strong female characters work because they’re strong, not because they’re strong females. Equally having flawed and even weak female characters is fine too. Films will get a lot better when characters are defined by their personalities, not their gender. Not everyone is strong a righteous, this should be reflected in characters. We should not focus on trying to shove feminism down the viewer’s throat but instead produce relatable characters we can all understand regardless of gender. I feel they pulled this off with Elsa but not with any other characters.

 

So overall what did I think of Frozen? A resounding meh. It was by no means the worst film in the world. After watching it I can understand why people like it when looking at face value. For most it’s a fun little adventure with a heart-warming sibling relationship and a positive outlook on love and family. On top of this he songs are at least passable and the animation does look great. Maybe Elsa is too strong but in comparison the other characters do not stand up. It is her story but we spend far more time with Anna who by comparison is pretty one dimensional. Maybe we’re not supposed to look this deeply but the fact of the matter is that some of us do and the film does not hold up anywhere near as well as some of Disney’s other films. On top of this the plot was too simple and basic, the ending was corny, the supporting characters were uninteresting and the film lacked the comedy it was trying to produce. I was finding myself feeling quite bored at times, in particular about half way through. It did pick up slightly towards the beginning and end but this was not enough to salvage it. It wasn’t too bad but I wouldn’t recommend or watch it again. It’s kind of like a small scoop of ice cream on a really large wafer cone. Some of it as in Elsa and the animation are really good but you have to get through a lot of averageness to get there.