Recently I was reading National Geographic and its lengthy issue on space. Of particular interest to me was the colonization of Mars and the approximately thousand year long terraforming process which got me thinking (again) about the future of mankind among the stars.
I have been an avid reader of science fiction since I was young from books like Star Hatchling or the young adult Star Wars novels like the Galaxy of Fear series. I graduated on to reading the works of Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein and wonderful novels like Dune, Starship Troopers, or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I loved the series and I was eventually reading the Halo novels which were very well done. Since then I've always had heady visions of space colonization and space battles.
Most recently I've been reading the Honor Harrington series which has really captured my interest. The series is extremely technical giving immense details on the technical data of the science behind the universe, and almost as importantly, the immense distances involved in travel among the stars and the vast distances that occupy even a single star system.
It has been immensely helpful for the opening stages of my own science fiction novel. Especially for some pivotal scenes involving space pirates thus far.
Establishing a proper timeline for the story has been a bit trickier, especially because of my thoughts on interstellar travel. Faster than light travel is something that we currently don't possess so making a viable means either relies on technobabble jargon or by extrapolating on currently shaky sciences. Since mankind has yet to travel well beyond earths orbit (in any manned capacity that is) I have come down to using more vague terms for my own science fiction such as 'hyper space' and 'jump drives' to describe the process.
The way I see it to have a decent history for an interstellar star nation one needs to have at least three centuries of colonization, which if you want to set it in something like the year 2600 or so requires mankind to have some decent terraforming technology and an adequete FTL technolgy else you have to rely on generational ships and an increase in earth-like planets (which while not impossible, it is still highly unlikely to have them concentrated in any nice dense array without a little push from the human race in my opinion). Mind you the previous thought is best regulated to 'hard' science fiction, while mine is going to be on the softer side, I am trying to make it as semi-realistic of possible to help with the suspension of disbelief.
You see in my science fiction (the Service to the State series as the name is thus far) I have developed a fairly intricate backstory for the nation of the Commonwealth, its worlds having been settled five hundred years before the current story line and then clawing their way to independence in order to form their own nation. The galaxy shattering events which lead to their independence (various wars and revolutions) all require FTL in a reliable shape so that they can carry out interplanetary war on a realistic scale. It needs to be both relatively easy to aquire and maintain, but difficult enough that it has some drawbacks and disadvantages to keep it from being a sort of easy way out for ships in a jam. I have no real grasp of the advanced sciences required though so I have to avoid the 'info-dumps' of the Honor Harrington series and rely more on characters, events, and conflict rather than the interesting hard sciences to keep people reading!
The problems with mapping a decent timeline this presents are large. Due to many realisations of both scale, and realism I have revised my initial timeline at least three times now. I'm sure I'll be forced to do this more in the future as I attempt to make the story as 'hard' as I can. Thus far though, both the story and the timeline are progressing well. I hope to have a rough draft for the entire story in place by the end of the year.
Friday, 10 August 2012
Monday, 6 August 2012
Brought to you by Satan
Now before I post this article I suppose I should clear this up that I personally am a Christian who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins and along with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost will lead me to eternal salvation.
In light of my beliefs I am usually surprised by both the virtrol and the stupidity of people when it comes to understanding my faith (or any other peoples belief for that matter) in regards to both theology, practices, and what constitutes the sacred. In my time I've dealt with those who are of the militant atheist stripe in both real life and on the internet (I'm thankful to say that I remain friends with the atheists in my life despite some lively debates on the subject). I usually come across the regular anti-religious pomp and bigotry on the internet and I'm never really surprised by it. The ignorant who like to flout their 'knowledge' of the subject of Christianity really astound me, especially those who claim to have been Christians before turning to atheism. In my many conversations with them I rarely found them to have an even basic grasp of the Gospel or even the words of Jesus Himself! So I always have to question their so called 'knowledge'.
But recently on Facebook I found this little goody that made me laugh.
I'll give readers a moment to browse the flow chart. For those of you who have pondered the question before absorb it. For those of you who have seen this question multiple times and always had faith laugh with me now as I go on to explain the folly found within.
The flowchart (posted by a user with the name satan, hence our title) proclaims itself 'the quick and easy guide to God' and is anything but! Instead it asks some relatively simple questions after the statement of fact evil exists. I'll say to readers right now, yes evil does exist. Whether the corrupt politician lining his pockets with ill begotten money, the pimp abusing women as sex slaves, or the terrorist preparing to detonate himself to blow up a bus full of school children evil in the human heart surrounds us as a part of the human condition.
The chart then proceeds with a number of questions such as 'Can God prevent evil?" or 'Does God know about all the evil?" and with each 'no' answer one is directed to the conclusion that God is either not all powerful, knowing, or loving. Mind you of course that each time no is answered that is in direct contradiction to the Scripture, and since one must use the Scripture to get to know God and His divine nature it is fairly obvious that the no answers are really baits early on until we get to the final assertion 'Could God have created the universe without these?' in which case the logic goes that if he could we have two answers as to why He didn't create the universe without evil because a) free will or b) He wished to test us.
Now the chart responds that if a) Could God have created the universe with free will but without evil? Now here I have to step in because when we go from here the reasoning gets rather cloudy. Let me ask this, if all that is good and just stems from the Lord and he gave us the free will to chose otherwise what is logically all that is the opposite of what He loves? That would be what you call evil correct? Of course it would for "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." (James 1:17). That which is just is pleasing to the Lord. Everything else such as perversion, theft, and debauchery is a sin. So if God created the universe without evil then he would created it full of everything pure and holy and mankind would either not be in it, or unthinking robots who had no choice but to praise God and would rob Him of the very beings He created to inhabit his Garden. Now is seems even the chart recognizes this problem so it comes at us with choice b for what I suppose the creator figures is his coup-de-grace.
Choice b) is that God wished to test us and have faith in times of need to see who is worthy of salvation. Now the answer always to the idea of being tested is 'if God is all knowing He would know what we would do if we were tested and therefore would have no need to test us' this has two problems. One it commits the infinitely hilarious fallacy of saying that 'God must' or 'God would' as though the writing of the author and his opinions have any real reflection on how the creator of the universe is going to behave. The second problem is that it tries to undermine that God is all knowing by saying He would know how we would react when we are tested and therefore have no need to test us. Now those of you who understand why we have faith in Christianity should already be shaking your heads and saying how foolish this is, those who are scratching their heads and saying 'this makes perfect sense' allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
God is all knowing and 'the very hairs on your head are numbered' as God knows all about all of us and all about each of our actions. When we sin it is plain to God what we have done, yet he forgives us in his infinite glory and wisdom. However, despite the fact that God is all knowing and all powerful He gives us the choice in how we are to react before Him or accept his forgiveness and He knows what to send against us and whether we can muster to the challenge or not. This we must do on faith. Take for example Job, whom God allowed to be tested beyond the reasonable limits of any man in order to prove that he was a good and faithful man. Satan took away his sons and daughters, his lands, his health and his dignity, but Job stood by his God knowing that even though he would suffer he would be rewarded in the next life. Again the choice lies in human hands as to whether they will accept His forgiveness just as the choice as to whether we would sin in the beggining lay in Adam and Eve's hands, despite knowing we had the option of choosing evil God allowed us to go ahead and do as we willed. Like Job he tests us to show us that no matter what is sent against us He will be there in the end and that we should accept Him regardless of what comes. As to knowing how we would react, this assigns a sort of human logic to God that by knowing the outcome he wouldn't do it again putting this silly notion that God must function according to the authors will rather than His own mysterious ways.
Now as a note in regard to the great tempter himself we have Satan whome all evil and rebellion stems from. Satan is a fallen angel who was regarded high in God's court and deciding that he was the most beautiful and powerful that he deserved to be God's equal. He was cast out with all his followers. Now he goes around tempting people and attempting to turn them away from God in an act of petty spite, while he knows his days are numbered and that in the end he will lose to the Most High. The chart says that 'An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, God could and would destroy Satan, sigh, that silly notion again. As the Bible says, Satan will be destroyed and sent forth into the lake of eternal fire. There is simply a time for that and it is coming. In the meantime Satan will continue a campaign of petty spite to try and overthrow God by destroying we who are precious to Him. In the end Satan will fall and the world will be saved.
Now I know full well that those of you who do not wish to believe will certainly not after I have trashed this sore chart and its assumptions. Then again those who do believe will be reafirmed in your faith and sing his praises with me. Then of course there are those of you who have had a seed planted in you and are on the road to accepting Him. Maybe I have put you one step closer to having faith in Him, perhaps I haven't. He alone knows these things. We on the other hand must have faith in Him, as after all if these things were certain and we knew the infinite nature of God what we do would not be called faith now would it?
In light of my beliefs I am usually surprised by both the virtrol and the stupidity of people when it comes to understanding my faith (or any other peoples belief for that matter) in regards to both theology, practices, and what constitutes the sacred. In my time I've dealt with those who are of the militant atheist stripe in both real life and on the internet (I'm thankful to say that I remain friends with the atheists in my life despite some lively debates on the subject). I usually come across the regular anti-religious pomp and bigotry on the internet and I'm never really surprised by it. The ignorant who like to flout their 'knowledge' of the subject of Christianity really astound me, especially those who claim to have been Christians before turning to atheism. In my many conversations with them I rarely found them to have an even basic grasp of the Gospel or even the words of Jesus Himself! So I always have to question their so called 'knowledge'.
But recently on Facebook I found this little goody that made me laugh.
I'll give readers a moment to browse the flow chart. For those of you who have pondered the question before absorb it. For those of you who have seen this question multiple times and always had faith laugh with me now as I go on to explain the folly found within.
The flowchart (posted by a user with the name satan, hence our title) proclaims itself 'the quick and easy guide to God' and is anything but! Instead it asks some relatively simple questions after the statement of fact evil exists. I'll say to readers right now, yes evil does exist. Whether the corrupt politician lining his pockets with ill begotten money, the pimp abusing women as sex slaves, or the terrorist preparing to detonate himself to blow up a bus full of school children evil in the human heart surrounds us as a part of the human condition.
The chart then proceeds with a number of questions such as 'Can God prevent evil?" or 'Does God know about all the evil?" and with each 'no' answer one is directed to the conclusion that God is either not all powerful, knowing, or loving. Mind you of course that each time no is answered that is in direct contradiction to the Scripture, and since one must use the Scripture to get to know God and His divine nature it is fairly obvious that the no answers are really baits early on until we get to the final assertion 'Could God have created the universe without these?' in which case the logic goes that if he could we have two answers as to why He didn't create the universe without evil because a) free will or b) He wished to test us.
Now the chart responds that if a) Could God have created the universe with free will but without evil? Now here I have to step in because when we go from here the reasoning gets rather cloudy. Let me ask this, if all that is good and just stems from the Lord and he gave us the free will to chose otherwise what is logically all that is the opposite of what He loves? That would be what you call evil correct? Of course it would for "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." (James 1:17). That which is just is pleasing to the Lord. Everything else such as perversion, theft, and debauchery is a sin. So if God created the universe without evil then he would created it full of everything pure and holy and mankind would either not be in it, or unthinking robots who had no choice but to praise God and would rob Him of the very beings He created to inhabit his Garden. Now is seems even the chart recognizes this problem so it comes at us with choice b for what I suppose the creator figures is his coup-de-grace.
Choice b) is that God wished to test us and have faith in times of need to see who is worthy of salvation. Now the answer always to the idea of being tested is 'if God is all knowing He would know what we would do if we were tested and therefore would have no need to test us' this has two problems. One it commits the infinitely hilarious fallacy of saying that 'God must' or 'God would' as though the writing of the author and his opinions have any real reflection on how the creator of the universe is going to behave. The second problem is that it tries to undermine that God is all knowing by saying He would know how we would react when we are tested and therefore have no need to test us. Now those of you who understand why we have faith in Christianity should already be shaking your heads and saying how foolish this is, those who are scratching their heads and saying 'this makes perfect sense' allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
God is all knowing and 'the very hairs on your head are numbered' as God knows all about all of us and all about each of our actions. When we sin it is plain to God what we have done, yet he forgives us in his infinite glory and wisdom. However, despite the fact that God is all knowing and all powerful He gives us the choice in how we are to react before Him or accept his forgiveness and He knows what to send against us and whether we can muster to the challenge or not. This we must do on faith. Take for example Job, whom God allowed to be tested beyond the reasonable limits of any man in order to prove that he was a good and faithful man. Satan took away his sons and daughters, his lands, his health and his dignity, but Job stood by his God knowing that even though he would suffer he would be rewarded in the next life. Again the choice lies in human hands as to whether they will accept His forgiveness just as the choice as to whether we would sin in the beggining lay in Adam and Eve's hands, despite knowing we had the option of choosing evil God allowed us to go ahead and do as we willed. Like Job he tests us to show us that no matter what is sent against us He will be there in the end and that we should accept Him regardless of what comes. As to knowing how we would react, this assigns a sort of human logic to God that by knowing the outcome he wouldn't do it again putting this silly notion that God must function according to the authors will rather than His own mysterious ways.
Now as a note in regard to the great tempter himself we have Satan whome all evil and rebellion stems from. Satan is a fallen angel who was regarded high in God's court and deciding that he was the most beautiful and powerful that he deserved to be God's equal. He was cast out with all his followers. Now he goes around tempting people and attempting to turn them away from God in an act of petty spite, while he knows his days are numbered and that in the end he will lose to the Most High. The chart says that 'An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, God could and would destroy Satan, sigh, that silly notion again. As the Bible says, Satan will be destroyed and sent forth into the lake of eternal fire. There is simply a time for that and it is coming. In the meantime Satan will continue a campaign of petty spite to try and overthrow God by destroying we who are precious to Him. In the end Satan will fall and the world will be saved.
Now I know full well that those of you who do not wish to believe will certainly not after I have trashed this sore chart and its assumptions. Then again those who do believe will be reafirmed in your faith and sing his praises with me. Then of course there are those of you who have had a seed planted in you and are on the road to accepting Him. Maybe I have put you one step closer to having faith in Him, perhaps I haven't. He alone knows these things. We on the other hand must have faith in Him, as after all if these things were certain and we knew the infinite nature of God what we do would not be called faith now would it?
Saturday, 28 July 2012
Stopping a Massacre
So inevitably since the Colorado shootings at the latest Batman movie we have been seeing an explosion in arguments about gun control or less restriction on gun control and what have you. Either way idiots from both sides of the playing field have been going head to head claiming their way is the best and they can prevent gun crime. I personally live in a nation where we do have restricted gun access and as recent news has shown the official restrictions on guns do not prevent them from illegally falling into people`s hand nor from people using those guns to kill other people by one iota. I`ve always said that if people want to find a way to kill one another they would whether they had guns or not. Sad to say though that here in Canada or even in gun restrictive Europe, history has shown time and time again that no matter how much you restrict guns, some mad individual will still be able to find one and kill people.
Now on the opposite side of the fence we have the argument from those advocating no gun control are those who say that one man with a gun could have prevented that massacre in the movie theatre. Yes that's right folks, somehow one man with a gun was going to successfully engage an armored target in a dark movie theatre and save lives!
Now disregarding the obvious madness of engaging in a gunfight in a crowded movie theatre let's just review a few things shall we? One is that I am personally an advocate of the average citizens right to bear arms (baring military hardware however) and to defend himself using said firearm. I also have no qualms about having to sign a form with my guns registration and serial number and handing that form over to a government database. If you sincerely have a problem with law enforcement knowing you own a gun I highly doubt you should be trusted with one.
Back to the madness of the theatre business though. I suppose if we ignore the circumstances surrounding the incident one can actually argue that the basic premise (an armed citizen can prevent a massacre) does have some truth to it. Mind you this is something of a very small chance.
To use the theatre massacre as an example, the target was throwing smoke bombs, wearing body armor, could fire indiscriminately, and had surprise on his side, let's just say the chances of a gun user actively hitting and stopping this guy without incuring collateral damage of his own are dramatically slim. But how about if the man had been in a crowded shopping mall with better light and visibility? Well again statistically the chances are extremely small this wouldn't incur just as much collateral damage as a shoot out in a theatre. Can the average person be expected to take a good shot under stressful circumstances surrounded by blood fear and chaos? Not really. That is why we have trained professionals afterall.
Contrary to the ravings of rabid gun supporters the average person is not the most reliable gunfighter. And contrary to anti-gun nuts it means that the average person (even those that practice regularly) is not extremely reliable at shooting past a certain range.
Now I certainly agree with the gun crowd that an armed society (especially one in the West where we are not desperate) is one that is more likely to have a lower crime rate (in relation to violent or random crime at least) but what most of those people forget is that while this weeds out the less confident and more cowardly criminals from occasional acts of bravado, it does leave us with the more dangerous, hardened criminals who are more likely to ambush and kill someone rather than simply attempt to mug them. A stellar trade off? Not really. There are of course a myriad of factors which makes the statement 'An armed society is a peaceful society' quite untrue.
However, an unarmed society is one which is certainly more dangerous to live in. No means of self-defense is inevitably worse than having to deal with the occasional dangerous criminal and leaving ones self at the mercy of petty thugs.
But does this have any bearing on preventing a massacre? In reality no. There is very little one can do to prevent an indivudual from simply buying (legally or otherwise) a weapon and then turning it on his fellow man. No legislation, police force, government, or individual is capable of stopping a man from walking into a theatre and opening fire if he is determined to. The fact that both sides of the debate jump to meaningless conclusions about laws and regulations is really quite stupid. The real focus must be the tragedy and how we can help the victims.
There are a plethora of better ideas for trying to stop potential mass murderers like the ones listed here which have much more substance than the simple 'ban all guns' or 'everyone should carry one' that gets thrown around like so much monkey feces.
We must all remember that right now the most important thing is to pray for those wounded and the families of those who have lost loved ones. Because really if we can't do that, then the whole debate is moot anyways.
Now on the opposite side of the fence we have the argument from those advocating no gun control are those who say that one man with a gun could have prevented that massacre in the movie theatre. Yes that's right folks, somehow one man with a gun was going to successfully engage an armored target in a dark movie theatre and save lives!
Now disregarding the obvious madness of engaging in a gunfight in a crowded movie theatre let's just review a few things shall we? One is that I am personally an advocate of the average citizens right to bear arms (baring military hardware however) and to defend himself using said firearm. I also have no qualms about having to sign a form with my guns registration and serial number and handing that form over to a government database. If you sincerely have a problem with law enforcement knowing you own a gun I highly doubt you should be trusted with one.
Back to the madness of the theatre business though. I suppose if we ignore the circumstances surrounding the incident one can actually argue that the basic premise (an armed citizen can prevent a massacre) does have some truth to it. Mind you this is something of a very small chance.
To use the theatre massacre as an example, the target was throwing smoke bombs, wearing body armor, could fire indiscriminately, and had surprise on his side, let's just say the chances of a gun user actively hitting and stopping this guy without incuring collateral damage of his own are dramatically slim. But how about if the man had been in a crowded shopping mall with better light and visibility? Well again statistically the chances are extremely small this wouldn't incur just as much collateral damage as a shoot out in a theatre. Can the average person be expected to take a good shot under stressful circumstances surrounded by blood fear and chaos? Not really. That is why we have trained professionals afterall.
Contrary to the ravings of rabid gun supporters the average person is not the most reliable gunfighter. And contrary to anti-gun nuts it means that the average person (even those that practice regularly) is not extremely reliable at shooting past a certain range.
Now I certainly agree with the gun crowd that an armed society (especially one in the West where we are not desperate) is one that is more likely to have a lower crime rate (in relation to violent or random crime at least) but what most of those people forget is that while this weeds out the less confident and more cowardly criminals from occasional acts of bravado, it does leave us with the more dangerous, hardened criminals who are more likely to ambush and kill someone rather than simply attempt to mug them. A stellar trade off? Not really. There are of course a myriad of factors which makes the statement 'An armed society is a peaceful society' quite untrue.
However, an unarmed society is one which is certainly more dangerous to live in. No means of self-defense is inevitably worse than having to deal with the occasional dangerous criminal and leaving ones self at the mercy of petty thugs.
But does this have any bearing on preventing a massacre? In reality no. There is very little one can do to prevent an indivudual from simply buying (legally or otherwise) a weapon and then turning it on his fellow man. No legislation, police force, government, or individual is capable of stopping a man from walking into a theatre and opening fire if he is determined to. The fact that both sides of the debate jump to meaningless conclusions about laws and regulations is really quite stupid. The real focus must be the tragedy and how we can help the victims.
There are a plethora of better ideas for trying to stop potential mass murderers like the ones listed here which have much more substance than the simple 'ban all guns' or 'everyone should carry one' that gets thrown around like so much monkey feces.
We must all remember that right now the most important thing is to pray for those wounded and the families of those who have lost loved ones. Because really if we can't do that, then the whole debate is moot anyways.
Thursday, 26 July 2012
Paintball and the Stormrunners
Well readers it is summer once again and I am back to doing the 'sport' which I love most, or perhaps hobby would describe it better, and that is paintball. Paintball the one sport where you can hunt your fellow man for fun. I have been an avid paintballer for three years now (well three summers would be more accurate) and I have thoroughly enjoyed the sport. I started this amazing endeavour back in 2009 and have loved every minute that I have spent sweating and running on the paintball field. I'm even part of an amazing team! Check us out on Facebook!
So my dear readers today I would like to share some of my experiences and ideas of what makes a game fun and how you and your friends can make a good team and form together to both have a good time and shoot your friends without consequence (because come on what more incentive do you need?)!
So as stated I started out paintballing a few years back. My friends and I were all eager videogame players or real army enthusiasts. There were some of us going into the military or police work, and others who simply loved the Call of Duty series too much. Either way the idea of firing at one another in real life was too much of a good thing to pass up, so we all got together and went out to a little field a short drive from where I live and we had at it! Needless to say after a long, hot day of shooting at one another, cursing our rental guns, and incurring a significant number of bruises thanks to improving aim, we were were hooked. Afterwards we just had to go back again and play another game!
Thus was I to become a (part time) slave to paintball and all its attendant fun. I warn my readers right away, it is not a cheap hobby nor is it one that is for those who don't like a) pain b) being shot at in any way, or c) being cramped in an uncomfortable position for long periods or running pell mell. Now with that slight disclaimer out of the way I shall go on.
I love paintball for a number of reasons. Having a team, and a team of good friends to boot, is one reason among many. Our team started out as a random collection of friends frequenting some fairly inexpensive fields on weekends. Now we have our own Facebook page and merchandise (be sure to check out that link!!). They are all good friends or aquaintances who I talk to and get along with well. And in a shoot out it is no small thing to know you have friends who can back you up! So if one simply wanted an excuse to get together with friends or an event to meet up with friends that you don't see often (as is the case with me) then paintball really is an excellent event to go to! I enjoy bth playing with, and against my friends. We take it with varying degrees of seriousness. Some of us are hardcore into it while others feel it is a wonderful escape from the stress of things. I personally love it and take it as a challenge to be had and feel that it is a great way to unwind.
One key to having a good team is knowing you can rely on your team mates when you are playing with them (and sometimes against them as the case may be). They are the people you want at your back and they are the ones who will be watching out for you and giving you pointers when you need them. This can be people you have met infrequently or life long friends. But it is important that one know their team.
Some people say that everyone on a team needs standardized weapons. Some say its for the professional touch. I say we aren't a squad of soldiers so unless you all have the same weapons for a team gimmick of sorts it's best to go with what you like rather than what everyone else has. I for instance have a simple Tipman 98. A simple gun it was my first and I have grown very fond of it and it has never let me down when I've needed it. I do think that it is about time I upgrade to a better gun in the near future but for now I intend to play on with this particular gun for a while.
I also think I should add one more thing to finish off the article. When you are playing REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE RULES! For instance don't wipe paint off if you are hit, don't chrono your gun above the regulation level, and don't shoot people who surrender. Not only is it just dumb it invites retaliation if someone remembers. That and makes the game not fun, but a competition of who can be the biggest bastard. My friends and I always follow the rules and we have much better games for it. Remember, rules are there for safety and ensure you have a good time. Don't break them!
So until next time readers, I encourage you to get out and try new things and if you want to beat on your friends, don't do it with fists! Do it with balls!
So my dear readers today I would like to share some of my experiences and ideas of what makes a game fun and how you and your friends can make a good team and form together to both have a good time and shoot your friends without consequence (because come on what more incentive do you need?)!
So as stated I started out paintballing a few years back. My friends and I were all eager videogame players or real army enthusiasts. There were some of us going into the military or police work, and others who simply loved the Call of Duty series too much. Either way the idea of firing at one another in real life was too much of a good thing to pass up, so we all got together and went out to a little field a short drive from where I live and we had at it! Needless to say after a long, hot day of shooting at one another, cursing our rental guns, and incurring a significant number of bruises thanks to improving aim, we were were hooked. Afterwards we just had to go back again and play another game!
Thus was I to become a (part time) slave to paintball and all its attendant fun. I warn my readers right away, it is not a cheap hobby nor is it one that is for those who don't like a) pain b) being shot at in any way, or c) being cramped in an uncomfortable position for long periods or running pell mell. Now with that slight disclaimer out of the way I shall go on.
I love paintball for a number of reasons. Having a team, and a team of good friends to boot, is one reason among many. Our team started out as a random collection of friends frequenting some fairly inexpensive fields on weekends. Now we have our own Facebook page and merchandise (be sure to check out that link!!). They are all good friends or aquaintances who I talk to and get along with well. And in a shoot out it is no small thing to know you have friends who can back you up! So if one simply wanted an excuse to get together with friends or an event to meet up with friends that you don't see often (as is the case with me) then paintball really is an excellent event to go to! I enjoy bth playing with, and against my friends. We take it with varying degrees of seriousness. Some of us are hardcore into it while others feel it is a wonderful escape from the stress of things. I personally love it and take it as a challenge to be had and feel that it is a great way to unwind.
One key to having a good team is knowing you can rely on your team mates when you are playing with them (and sometimes against them as the case may be). They are the people you want at your back and they are the ones who will be watching out for you and giving you pointers when you need them. This can be people you have met infrequently or life long friends. But it is important that one know their team.
Some people say that everyone on a team needs standardized weapons. Some say its for the professional touch. I say we aren't a squad of soldiers so unless you all have the same weapons for a team gimmick of sorts it's best to go with what you like rather than what everyone else has. I for instance have a simple Tipman 98. A simple gun it was my first and I have grown very fond of it and it has never let me down when I've needed it. I do think that it is about time I upgrade to a better gun in the near future but for now I intend to play on with this particular gun for a while.
I also think I should add one more thing to finish off the article. When you are playing REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE RULES! For instance don't wipe paint off if you are hit, don't chrono your gun above the regulation level, and don't shoot people who surrender. Not only is it just dumb it invites retaliation if someone remembers. That and makes the game not fun, but a competition of who can be the biggest bastard. My friends and I always follow the rules and we have much better games for it. Remember, rules are there for safety and ensure you have a good time. Don't break them!
So until next time readers, I encourage you to get out and try new things and if you want to beat on your friends, don't do it with fists! Do it with balls!
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Well dear readers, after a long absence I have returned to post on my blog once again. Today I bring to you something so self-explanitory it hardly needs introduction. I review Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. This new film has been taking both the internet and theatres by storm. Partly because of its very interesting concept (I mean who doesn't want to see the Great Emancipator slaughter vampires?) and due to the book it is based on.
Now I personally have not yet read the book, though I have read others of its now famous series such as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Queen Victoria: Demon Hunter. Each has proved to be an amusing social commentary on the time as well as a wonderful parody of the classic writing style that is so well done it is impossible to not want to throw yourself at these original classics and start reading them! So not only is it quite amusing but it is quite educational. Though none of these great books has yet made it to the big screen.
Until now at least.
I saw this movie the other night while out on a date and allow me to say I had no argument in the choice of film that night!
Now for a quick overview of the film. Young Lincoln discovers his mother has been killed by a man and many years later goes to murder him only to discover he is a supernatural vampire. He is rescued by a man named Henry and brought to his house allowing him to heal. The film then follows the historical career of Abraham Lincoln while exploring the unknown world of his night job, fighting vampires!
The Good:
Well as a movie I will of course be reviewing it in my usual fashion, and I really must say there is much good to be said about it.
The acting is phenominally done and the actors do well when mixing the rather silly premise with the semi-serious tone of the film. The two actors playing Lincoln were fabulous and did a grand job of portraying both the young awkward and brutally honest Lincoln and the gruff, older and professional Lincoln. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a wonderful job portraying Mary Todd, Lincolns wife to be, and Dominic Cooper is wonderful as Henry Sturges in all his forms.
The visual effects (with one notable exception) were fabulous and the well done features of the vampires were grand and somewhat scary when first used. I loved the way it was done making them seem both human yet monstrous. The action scenes are well coreographed and the stunts are amazing. Then you have the sinister vampire feeding habits which are simply done yet make a splash (of blood) on screen.
The movie has good pacing and is well balanced between its actions scenes and the moments of emotional drama which go well and help to balance the silly feel of the film while keeping the audeince on the edge of its seat with the well done story.
One thing which I must praise about the film is the lack of shaky cam. The actions scenes were clean, crisp, and flowed smoothly and were visually pleasing. I could easily follow the action and every stroke and kick that Lincoln made was clear and amazing to see as he cut a swathe through the vampire hordes. As I've said before, not enough films abandom shaky cam for these pleasing fights and allow us to actually see the action going on.
As an aside the sound track is amazing and really helps grab the audience and keep them enthralled in the film.
The Bad:
As previously mentioned there is one poorly done and over the top scene. This scene is where Lincoln confronts his mothers killer again and the climactic duel takes place in the middle of a stampede of horses. The visuals here are cloudy, poorly done, and spectacularly fake. To me there was no reason to include this in the movie as it was over the top even by this films standards. There was plenty of potential for different scenes, not something that belongs in a wacky spaghetti western! It was a sloppy scene and I felt myself cringing when the vampire flings a horse right at old Abe.
Now the film was only one hour and forty-five minutes, not bad for length. It could have been just slightly longer. I mean we are trying to tell a biography after all. That was a shame we couldn't see more of the film.
There were also the cheesy one liners, which were rather ridiculous at moments but for this type of campy movie were woth it.
The Verdict:
I really don't have much negative to say about this film. If you want a good campy and blood soaked action film to take your mind off things, this is one to watch. A good summer block buster I highly reccoment it to anyone who likes a) Lincoln, and b) real, non Twighlight vampires.
3.5 stars out of 5!
Now I personally have not yet read the book, though I have read others of its now famous series such as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Queen Victoria: Demon Hunter. Each has proved to be an amusing social commentary on the time as well as a wonderful parody of the classic writing style that is so well done it is impossible to not want to throw yourself at these original classics and start reading them! So not only is it quite amusing but it is quite educational. Though none of these great books has yet made it to the big screen.
Until now at least.
I saw this movie the other night while out on a date and allow me to say I had no argument in the choice of film that night!
Now for a quick overview of the film. Young Lincoln discovers his mother has been killed by a man and many years later goes to murder him only to discover he is a supernatural vampire. He is rescued by a man named Henry and brought to his house allowing him to heal. The film then follows the historical career of Abraham Lincoln while exploring the unknown world of his night job, fighting vampires!
The Good:
Well as a movie I will of course be reviewing it in my usual fashion, and I really must say there is much good to be said about it.
The acting is phenominally done and the actors do well when mixing the rather silly premise with the semi-serious tone of the film. The two actors playing Lincoln were fabulous and did a grand job of portraying both the young awkward and brutally honest Lincoln and the gruff, older and professional Lincoln. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a wonderful job portraying Mary Todd, Lincolns wife to be, and Dominic Cooper is wonderful as Henry Sturges in all his forms.
The visual effects (with one notable exception) were fabulous and the well done features of the vampires were grand and somewhat scary when first used. I loved the way it was done making them seem both human yet monstrous. The action scenes are well coreographed and the stunts are amazing. Then you have the sinister vampire feeding habits which are simply done yet make a splash (of blood) on screen.
The movie has good pacing and is well balanced between its actions scenes and the moments of emotional drama which go well and help to balance the silly feel of the film while keeping the audeince on the edge of its seat with the well done story.
One thing which I must praise about the film is the lack of shaky cam. The actions scenes were clean, crisp, and flowed smoothly and were visually pleasing. I could easily follow the action and every stroke and kick that Lincoln made was clear and amazing to see as he cut a swathe through the vampire hordes. As I've said before, not enough films abandom shaky cam for these pleasing fights and allow us to actually see the action going on.
As an aside the sound track is amazing and really helps grab the audience and keep them enthralled in the film.
The Bad:
As previously mentioned there is one poorly done and over the top scene. This scene is where Lincoln confronts his mothers killer again and the climactic duel takes place in the middle of a stampede of horses. The visuals here are cloudy, poorly done, and spectacularly fake. To me there was no reason to include this in the movie as it was over the top even by this films standards. There was plenty of potential for different scenes, not something that belongs in a wacky spaghetti western! It was a sloppy scene and I felt myself cringing when the vampire flings a horse right at old Abe.
Now the film was only one hour and forty-five minutes, not bad for length. It could have been just slightly longer. I mean we are trying to tell a biography after all. That was a shame we couldn't see more of the film.
There were also the cheesy one liners, which were rather ridiculous at moments but for this type of campy movie were woth it.
The Verdict:
I really don't have much negative to say about this film. If you want a good campy and blood soaked action film to take your mind off things, this is one to watch. A good summer block buster I highly reccoment it to anyone who likes a) Lincoln, and b) real, non Twighlight vampires.
3.5 stars out of 5!
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Remembering D-Day
Though published late today I would ask readers to remember that on this day in 1944 many of our fathers and grandfathers undertook the Great Crusade to crush the Nazi menace in Europe and end the threat of facism posed to the free world. I wish to honor their sacrifice and pray for those who fought and died in that conflict on both sides. May we never forget the sacrifice and valor of our forefathers and the awesome actions they undertook to ensure our freedom.
May their sacrifice not have been in vain.
May their sacrifice not have been in vain.
Movie Review: Snow White and the Huntsman
Having seen (and highly anticipated) Snow White and the Huntsman I'm pleased to say it has not dispointed. The film was an excellent dark spin on the classic tale of Snow White with many original and very interesting twists on the typical fairy tale setting. Certainly it is darker than most and has a very gritty and bleak feel to the world it portrays. Though I like many others had some reservations about the casting choices and the way it was being presented it did live up to, and in some cases exceed, expectations.
So now my readers, we shall without adeau continue on with the magnificent tale of Snow White and the Huntsman.
I aim to be only slighlty spoilery with the review (because really how many variations can you do on Snow White?) but will leave the most interesting twists out. The story of course begins with a queen who sees blood on snow and decides she wants a daughter like that, and behold she is born! Then we see the queen get sick and the kingdom is usurped by the kings new Queen, an evil sorceress who locks Snow White in a tower and proceeds to rule poorly while trying to maintain the illusion of eternal beauty. From there we continue to the film as of course the Huntsman is produced to do the dirty deed the Queen needs.
The Good:
The film is not overly long and has decent pacing, I appreciated the time it took to properly introduce the story and give us a feel for the characters. Seeing a slight evolution of Snow from child to young prisoner was very interesting and allowed an excellent contrast between the different times in the film.
The dialogue was also well done and each character had a distinct way of speaking and in fact kept their personalities afloat well through dialogue and we got a good feel for what they were like. A number of personal stories and flashbacks establish the history and events in the past and even give the villain of the film some major depth and made her almost sympathetic!
I loved the story as it was basic enough but with a good number of twists to keep it interesting. There was also one scene which if it wasn't a homage to Princess Moninoke I'll eat my hat! The setting was fabulous and the visual details were spectacular, whether they were doing a close up of a very fetching Kristen Stewart in mail, or the terrifyingly trippy Dark Forest the scenes were beautifully filmed and the CGI amazingly rendered. Some effects were simply breath taking and totally immersed you in the world you were seeing.
I found the acting to be anything but wanting. Kristen Stewart surprised me with her ability and everytime she smiled or even grinned on screen it seemed to light up. The titular Huntsman with his gruff neo-Scottish accent was downright awesome with his dark and broody mood swings and violent outbursts. They made him an excellent contrast to Snow's fearful mood or even in her smiley moods.
Charlize Theron plays the evil sorceress Ravenna and does a stellar job as the main villain. She seems crazy with age and is excessively brutal in her quest for eternal beauty. To me she seems like a childless evil Cersei Lannister not just in looks but in her actions and her belief in her 'right' to rule and control. She was a wonderful villain and has certainly proved herself to be a wonderful actress once again.
And of course the battlescenes were fantastic! I won't spoil anything on that just so my readers can appreciate the full effect of them ;)
The Bad:
On one hand readers this is something I doubted I would ever say. Since Twighlight all I hoped for Kristen Stewart would shut up. In this movie I didn't think she talked enough! Her character was fabulous, she had some good pieces of dialogue (much of which could have easily been expanded) and was an interesting and well rounded character. I think her role was downplayed too much in favor of parading Chris Hemsworth around in front of the camera. She also seemed upstage by Theron as she was recieving about as much screen time as Stewart!
That said I think the film really needed to decide whose story it was. The Dwarves were obviously supporting characters, but the Huntsman was played up, then played down or took away from time we might have had to better develop Stewarts character! By contrasting the personalities of Ravenna and Snow White I think we could have had a much more stable plot and a fabulous dynamic between villain and hero.
Some of the dialogue does fall sadly flat which irked me. The writing which was fairly excellent fell flat at a few inopportune moments.
Verdict:
Other than a few minor hang-ups the movie is top notch and worth seeing. 7.5 out of 10 stars!
So now my readers, we shall without adeau continue on with the magnificent tale of Snow White and the Huntsman.
I aim to be only slighlty spoilery with the review (because really how many variations can you do on Snow White?) but will leave the most interesting twists out. The story of course begins with a queen who sees blood on snow and decides she wants a daughter like that, and behold she is born! Then we see the queen get sick and the kingdom is usurped by the kings new Queen, an evil sorceress who locks Snow White in a tower and proceeds to rule poorly while trying to maintain the illusion of eternal beauty. From there we continue to the film as of course the Huntsman is produced to do the dirty deed the Queen needs.
The Good:
The film is not overly long and has decent pacing, I appreciated the time it took to properly introduce the story and give us a feel for the characters. Seeing a slight evolution of Snow from child to young prisoner was very interesting and allowed an excellent contrast between the different times in the film.
The dialogue was also well done and each character had a distinct way of speaking and in fact kept their personalities afloat well through dialogue and we got a good feel for what they were like. A number of personal stories and flashbacks establish the history and events in the past and even give the villain of the film some major depth and made her almost sympathetic!
I loved the story as it was basic enough but with a good number of twists to keep it interesting. There was also one scene which if it wasn't a homage to Princess Moninoke I'll eat my hat! The setting was fabulous and the visual details were spectacular, whether they were doing a close up of a very fetching Kristen Stewart in mail, or the terrifyingly trippy Dark Forest the scenes were beautifully filmed and the CGI amazingly rendered. Some effects were simply breath taking and totally immersed you in the world you were seeing.
I found the acting to be anything but wanting. Kristen Stewart surprised me with her ability and everytime she smiled or even grinned on screen it seemed to light up. The titular Huntsman with his gruff neo-Scottish accent was downright awesome with his dark and broody mood swings and violent outbursts. They made him an excellent contrast to Snow's fearful mood or even in her smiley moods.
Charlize Theron plays the evil sorceress Ravenna and does a stellar job as the main villain. She seems crazy with age and is excessively brutal in her quest for eternal beauty. To me she seems like a childless evil Cersei Lannister not just in looks but in her actions and her belief in her 'right' to rule and control. She was a wonderful villain and has certainly proved herself to be a wonderful actress once again.
And of course the battlescenes were fantastic! I won't spoil anything on that just so my readers can appreciate the full effect of them ;)
The Bad:
On one hand readers this is something I doubted I would ever say. Since Twighlight all I hoped for Kristen Stewart would shut up. In this movie I didn't think she talked enough! Her character was fabulous, she had some good pieces of dialogue (much of which could have easily been expanded) and was an interesting and well rounded character. I think her role was downplayed too much in favor of parading Chris Hemsworth around in front of the camera. She also seemed upstage by Theron as she was recieving about as much screen time as Stewart!
That said I think the film really needed to decide whose story it was. The Dwarves were obviously supporting characters, but the Huntsman was played up, then played down or took away from time we might have had to better develop Stewarts character! By contrasting the personalities of Ravenna and Snow White I think we could have had a much more stable plot and a fabulous dynamic between villain and hero.
Some of the dialogue does fall sadly flat which irked me. The writing which was fairly excellent fell flat at a few inopportune moments.
Verdict:
Other than a few minor hang-ups the movie is top notch and worth seeing. 7.5 out of 10 stars!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)