22 posts tagged “culture”

28weekslater

A couple friends of ours won some tickets to a pre-release screening of 28 Weeks Later tonight and were kind enough to invite us along. Here's a mini-review of the film containing absolutely 0 spoilers because I detest spoilers unless I'm specifically looking for them. Besides, this is one of those movies that I believe just really shouldn't be spoiled. Now, on with the review:

It was astounding. If you were a fan of the first film, I would say you're highly likely to love this one as well. I was honestly worried before seeing it as I heard FOX had put a lot more money behind it this time around, but those worries were quickly squashed. It was even filmed the same way, with a very raw, real aesthetic that makes you feel like you're in the middle of things instead of watching over-processed actors. It also maintained the very human aspect - it was about the horrible things these people had to go through and how it affected them; the god-awful decisions people have to make and the wretched things we do to each other in situations like the outbreak of a vicious virus.

The infected, of course, are also treated the same way; it wouldn't be '28 [Something] Later' if they diverted from that unique aspect of the film that made the first so interesting. They're still crazed but not zombies; desperately running like rabid, hungry animals instead of stumbling around like dimwits. It is both horrifying and ferociously engaging.

As with most of these films there are the occasional moments when the suspension of disbelief is really suspended, but given the context I found them fairly easy to overlook. People do strange things in extreme situations like this, and I walked out of the movie feeling both mortified and impressed. It's a tough movie to watch, but totally worth it.

If I had any kind of rating system set up, I'd give 28 Weeks Later a 4 out of 5 stars / thumbs / severed limbs. While I wouldn't quite say it's a must-see in a movie theater since it isn't really a special effects-packed extravaganza of CG compositing, it's definitely a 'big' experience that I think will do better on a big cinema screen. Go see it.

Originally published at 1FPS | David Chartier. You can comment here or there.

Circumventing DRM (Digital Rights Management) is against the law. I'm not saying whether I'm for or against this fact - I'm just putting it out there for context. As the law stands right now, and as I understand it, taking measures to work around, break or otherwise defeat DRM is illegal. There are of course technical details involved and ways to bend these rules, but those aren't at the heart of what I want to write about. I'm simply stating that, generally speaking, we live in a society that governs itself by laws, and we've agreed to abide by this system.

Obviously, this doesn't make a lot of people happy. Maybe they're pirating content and DRM pisses them off. Maybe they want to copy that DVD movie they just bought to iTunes or their PVR - an entirely legitimate desire, in my opinion - or maybe they're simply idealists who believe that locking down freely distributable digital content is a violation of, well, one ideal or another.

Regardless of where the majority of opponents to DRM are coming from, a boatload of digg's users revolted against the service last night and this morning for removing posts that contained a 16-digit code that helps to crack the DRM on HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs. Users went nuts, calling out digg for 'bowing down to the man' and bitching that their right to free speech was being violated.

I'm not here, at least for now, to debate those issues since they both run very, very deep and we likely wouldn't get much done. This topic amongst geeks and nerds runs about as deep in the vein as religion or politics, and each of us can get as stubborn on our stance as the next guy.

I am here, however, to present a different option for effecting change in this world of digital content and 21st century technology: put your ideas where your rebellion is. Most people who I see posting this code in a unified "F-U" to digg or the man also typically rant about how bad DRM is for the industry and how, in their opinion, it isn't actually effective in protecting content. Again, I'm not here to agree with or argue against any of those points: I want everyone who is opposed to DRM to start offering some options on how to fix the problem and then start doing something about it. Organize a protest, call your senator, get on the news, kick up some dirt - but start using all this technology at our disposal to help things move forward. Is this a cultural problem? Do you hate DRM or these companies because you feel they charge far too high of a markup on their products? How can we help improve our situation? Who's offices can we start emailing and calling? What TV news networks, radio stations and magazines will listen to our cause and give us time in the spotlight?

Free speech and the rest of our laws weren't conceived simply to allow us the perceived right to post DVD crack codes on our blogs and bitch about what we feel is wrong. They were created to give us the power to combine our efforts as a society and effect change; to help make the U.S. and the rest of the world a better place.

So put your ideas where your rebellion is. Be a part of the change that helps move things forward.

Some Twitter friends and I had an interesting discussion today about Nirvana and Kurt Cobain, and I wanted to offer a bit meatier of an explanation of my stance on the band here on my personal blog, as Twitter's 140-character limit is a bit too minimal for a discussion like this. As a side note: I apologize to any annoyed followers of my Twitter feed, but the law had to be laid down, and it appeared that I had to be the one to do it.

The crux of my immense distaste for Nirvana hinges on Kurt Cobain, the inarguable driving force of the what made the band such a sensation. Some tried to argue that Nirvana was great because without them, we might not have had Foo Fighters. While I agree that Foo Fighters are by and large a far better band, one band does not make another great. I certainly am grateful that Nirvana got big and gave Dave Grohl his shot, but this gift doesn't change my stance.

Others argue that I need to look at Nirvana for their *music*, but to that I say: a band is about more than the mere melodies they produce. A lot more. Bands worth half their weight have beliefs, philosophies and sometimes even very public stances they take on one issue or another. The grunge period during which Nirvana flourished was certainly a time of taking stances, and this fact brings me to the primary reason why I believe Kurt and Nirvana did more harm to music than good.

I believe Kurt didn't stand for much more than useless self-loathing. While the songs he wrote were decent from a pure musical standpoint, perhaps even good, the lyrics that he wrote and the interviews that he gave betrayed not much more than a sense of "oh whoa is me, the world is so cruel, I'm gonna write a song and cry about it." That, to me, isn't much to base a band or music on.

Some of the discussion participants on Twitter argued that plenty of other great bands and musicians, such as Nine Inch Nails and John Lennon, had a similar whiny stance. Not so. While Trent Reznor's lyrics contain a lot of anger and, at times, sadness, the man has more musical knowledge and talent in one finger than Kurt had in his body. Trent explores music, technology and social issues all at far greater depths than Nirvana ever did, and John Lennon used his musical powers for good, singing about change and trying to get human beings to act like human beings again.

From this perspective, Kurt is the kid crying in the corner because he scraped his knee or isn't as good at kickball as the other boys, while similar so-called 'whiners' like Trent and Lennon are busting their asses out on the field, playing and working harder to do their best.

BuzzMachine » No twinkie badges here

These pledges are all the more dangerous because big-media people think they are ethical and we’re not because they have pledges and we don’t. Let’s not fall in that trap. You have to make ethical judgments every day with every thing you do and no pledge is going to help you do that. Your mother either did that job — or didn’t.

I think Jeff more or less does a great job of calling bullshit on the silly concept of a ‘blogger code of ethics,’ but I disagree on the anonymous commenting issue. I don’t know much about whether it’s possible to achieve any kind of accuracy when tracking down a vicious and anonymous comment, but forcing people to enter some kind of credentials - bogus 60-second Yahoo! address or otherwise - is a useful hurdle that I don’t believe should be tossed aside so easily. Yes the internet and blogosphere are great because it levels the playing field and gives nearly everyone a voice, but that voice still needs to easily be tied to a person (again, fake ID or not). In the real world, someone can’t join a conversation without sitting down at a coffee table, peeking their head around a cubicle or raising their hand. Even if that person has a fake ID and tell us his name is John Doe, we still have words and a voice that we can attach to a face, which means that person, even at a basic level, has to think about what they’re saying and the consequences of saying it. 100% anonymity on the web is cute and all, but it removes that vested interest when tossing one’s $0.02 onto the table, and I’m not so sure that elimination is such a good idea.

If something is worth saying, it’s worth tying at least some kind of identity to it. Even if a person goes to all the trouble to use a fake username with bogus ID credentials that can only be revealed by law and only take us so far (if anywhere) when tracking them down, adding a layer of credibility to the conversation won’t hurt anyone. It can, however, help cut down on the signal to noise ratio, and really - isn’t that the best we can hope for?

[via Daring Fireball]