Just finished firefly

The new Firefly show.  What, we can dream

Right, I’m going to be distracted from my original goal because I just finished an excellent TV show that I wish to review here.  I mean of course, Firefly.  Now, I’m not a big fan of science fiction, especially that of the space variety, it always feels too ridiculous inevitable.  Star Wars is the exception, but that isn’t really science fiction, its more fantasy. So this is a rare case, because it makes a story that I think is actually convincing.  And even ignoring that, it is an excellent show.  Now, I have mixed views on Joss Wheden.  On one hand, it took me a while to get into Buffy, clunky plots, fridge logic, and I feel his shows are a bit too angsty at times.  On the other hand, I did really get into Buffy around Season Three and have stayed with it.  And Dr. Horrible was brilliant.  I think Joss is a horrible editor in most chases and often needs a better story writer (his best work comes when he gets the editing down pat, like in Buffy the ep with the Gentlemen or the musical, or a certain even in Season Five that had no background music).  But he is a brilliant when it comes to realistic and clever dialogue, very good at making realistically rounded characters who well rounded and human, thus avoiding a group of main characters who never show any stress.  So I like Whedon, and I have to admit he is one of the most creative directors we have left in terms of fantasy TV, but I’ve always found fault with him.  And yet, and I know this is so cliché at this point, I think Firefly was a work of sheer brilliance.  And it is canceled after only 14 episodes, a real slap in the face to me.  Now this article will be short, because…everybody loves Firefly, its like reviewing portal, there is a limit to how much you can say about it because it is almost universally held in such high esteem.

            Basically for those that don’t know, the earth eventually was used up in terms of natural resource, but by then we had invented space travel.  And more importantly, we had invented a method of turning other planets into livable places, terreforming (why we didn’t do this to earth I can’t say).  Some time prior to this, the US and China combined into a singular government that took over the world, and led the space domination.  However, for a while, the massive amount of planets and moons became too large for people to manage, and while the larger and more advanced planets within the “core” were all Part of the “Alliance”, IE the US/Chinese government, the worlds that were farther away tried to become more independent.  There is a civil war that seems a bit like the American Civil War, a power between Federal and Local Government.  Or at least, how the South would want to have the Civil war, as in reality it was mostly about slavery and profit before anything else, my ancestor’s romanticism aside.  Anyways, so there is a big civil war, and the Alliance win due to better training and technology.  A few of the main characters were independents “Brown Coats” who fled after the war and go on to try to make a living.  Even through the Alliance won, there is a great deal of resentment, and the out part of the realm are still very uncivilized and like the American West, where you have a bunch of people are trying to survive and make a living in a chaotic society this is steadily becoming more ordered, IE the entire point of the show.  And the show isn’t going for the romantic ideal of the wild west, IE brave cowboys fighting off evil bandits, for being poor, Evil thieving Mexicans for having a different skin color, and evil Native Americans for having the audacity of trying to protect there own land.  The show instead goes for the gritty concept of the west that while there is a few idealists; most people are trying to get by.  You have robbers and mercenaries of the worst kind, working along side smugglers and traders, all having to deal with the powerful eyes of the Alliance who are trying to maintain some control over the region.  The world is chaotic, hard, and gritty, where men of all walks are life are forced to mix, and while life is hard but there is a chance for anybody to get ahead if they aren’t killed.  At the far edges of space are creatures called the “Reaver”, the only debatable non-humans in the show, which are apparently humans gone mad at the edges of space, and are brutal monsters with no sense of compassion?  Basically, they rap people to death, eat them, and wear their skins, and “If we are really, really, really lucky, they ill do that in that order”.  And while I know totally evil races without any sympathy or decency are a bit of a cliché, they are still effectively done as something that is truly terrifying.  My only complaint is some of the implications, as these is very parallel to the American wild west and Civil War, where in real life the scary savages were Native Americans, and the rebels, while brave, were really fighting for slavery (the whole States Rights things boils down to right to free labor).  But I really don’t mind in the context of the show, it isn’t a direct historical parallel, he is telling a different story.

            Yeah, I know what your thinking “EE, that isn’t a paragraph, that is two freaking pages.  Why do you hate the English Language like that?”  And let me just say, the show is that good that it deserves that grammatically incorrect giant paragraph of doom.  But ignoring the badass premise, I like the story on its own merits non-the less.  The characters are well thought out and are far from perfect. In quick order

Mal, the captain is a generally good guy, he does absurdly stupid things to help people.  An ex independent, he is tying to get by.  But he does not does not hesitate to dirty his hands for his own survival.   The most over quoted example (deservedly so) is when a captured enemy swears revenge after being offered clemency and Mal promptly kills him and make the same deal with his second in command.  Now, I’m not saying that I like character that are more “Bad” because it’s all cool and smexy, or that I think Mal’s more ruthless actions are justifiable, but I like the concept of more realistic characters.  For the record, in the TV show, I think I would peg him as LN.

Zoe- The second in command, Zoe is both a good character in her own right, IE, the snarky and efficient straight man to the more eccentric Mal, but I also applaud that the way her character was cast.  Now, I know that I in theory I shouldn’t have to do this, but I liked the fact that she is a strong female character.  Basically, with Zoe, her role (other than wife obviously) is one normally written for a man, IE the main fighter/loyal second in command who does the most direct fighting and keeps the rest of the crew in check.  But they have a women (and African American at that) play that role without changing it, other than her relationship with her husband.  But she is a legitimate women warrior without that patronizing “Faux Action Girl” problem (for those of you who don’t do TV Tropes, its when a girl is suppose to be a badass but doesn’t actually do anything, IE Eragon).  Yes I know that’s kind of patronizing, but in the wonder world of Television, we need more characters like that.  Alignment, TN. 

Wash-The pilot, and Zoë’s husband.  I like how he is very much the snarky non action guy and just acts snarky mostly, except in his piloting but…. ok, let me make this clear, Wash is awesome, and there is no way I can possible explain this, just watch it.  Alignment CN

Jayne- Basically the extra muscle and best fighter, Jayne is a realistic way for the show to have a selfish, slimy, evil bastard without destroying the flow.  He works with them cause he makes money, and cause they give him a place to sleep, but if hardly trustworthy, if a very good fighter.  Brutal, tough, and unabashedly evil, he is very much a part of the crew even through at his heart he…is a selfish bastard.  I really liked the idea of his character, because in real life, people in more morally grey regions (IE, the American West) have to work with people like Jayne, who can be hard to keep in check. 

Inera- Basically a Geisha (I don’t know the Chinese equivalent sadly).  IE, technically a prostitute, but opposed to the west where we tend to treat them with contempt, they are what you might call ‘High class’ prostitutes, who entertains her clients in every possible way.  So she sings, she dances; she can quote poetry or discuss complex matters.  In essence, she isn’t hired to sleep with men so much as entertain them, and as of such are very high class.  And in Chinese society there are somewhat considered socially, which creates a really interesting parallel as she is considered the most high class person in the cast, leading to some very interesting interactions.  Again, another very strong female character, who has a role beyond "the girl who is in the group"  AL=LN

Shepherd Book- Basically, a wandering priest who is traveling with the group (which I think is a really cool element).  Book is basically this weird man with a really mysterious background that is actually never explained (sadly we never will due to the cancellation of the series), IE a real preacher who acts as a moral guardian, but has a somewhat disturbing knowledge of fire arms and how to kill people.  And personally he is my favorite character, what can I say, he is just by far the coolest, just in the way the actor portrays him, he has this great fatherly air about him, with a sinister undertone.  Now that has been done before, but normally with priests is a sexual or fanatic one, but instead that of a killer, which actually more interesting.  My personal theory is that he was a ruthless military man, but changed his morality, but it could mean anything.  And, through I might have just forgotten, he hasn’t done anything evil on the show, so I think LG

Kaylee- the ships mechanic, and basically the super perky member of the cast.  Ok, there is no way I can describe her without sounding like a cliché, so I’ll just say her interactions with the other characters makes it worth it.  AL TN

Simon- The ships doctor, who is wanted by the Alliance for stealing his sister from one of there labs (see below).  Simon I think was the weakest character. In the pilot, he is actually a bit of a badass.  When Mal threatens to sell him out, there is a struggle and Kaylee is shot (Simon was not related), but Simon says he will only help her if he gets to be protected from the Alliance, and stare Mal down.  Now I’m not saying that allowing a girl to bleed to death is cool, but I liked that despite playing the role as the intellectual elite from the east (or the center), but he isn’t a socially awkward nerd as they are normally shown as, but a very steely person.  However in following episodes, he pretty much is a socially awkward nerd.  Maybe if he had more time he could develop, but while he never bothered in any way, it hurt him as a character.  So I kind of lost interest, but there is a whole romantic subplot that isn’t horrible, and there is a much more interesting wanted criminal subplot

River- Simon’s little sister, a super genius who is experimented upon by the Alliance (it is never quite made clear why, but again, canceled show), and has thus gone insane, even after being rescued by her brother.  She doesn’t really get enough screen time, which isn’t Wheden’s fault, but it is hard to grasp her character very well.  That being said, she plays the part of an insane genius very well. While she has that somewhat curtsy “broken girl” aspect, there is a very sinister undertone of “holy shit she is freaking scary”, at one point knifing Jayne seemingly spontaneously, as well as the sense of “She is a genius, but disturbed”.  Of course, TN

Anyways, what makes this show work, is that their interactions. It is one of the most well written shows I’ve ever seen in terms enjoying watching people talk, its up with “I Claudius” just in terms of really well done dialogue.  The characters work as one mesh, and as a group produce so much.  Just watch it, even if it is only 14 episodes If you want to, you can watch the movie, which is still good, if not as good as the show.  Other cool show elements are this.  Joss apparently made this show saying, “in the future, nothing has changed, no problems have been fixed, all of the problems of today”.  Which makes it feel like a realistic science fiction, I like that it seems disturbingly reminiscent of the present, I like that there are no robots or aliens, I like that the government is not an evil empire but a mixed package.  I like that there is no real magic in the story (which makes the end of the final ep AMAZING), and I like that in space there is no sound.  I like that the heroes can’t fight off the Reavers, and in fact run away from every encounter with them.  I like that laser guns are a rare treat, and most guns are just hyper advanced normal guns, I like that they pulled of the mix of the west and Science fiction.  In short, this show is in my top ten live action shows of all time.  EVER.  Watch it as soon as you can.

As for a new show, I think Joss has given up.  After the movie, there isn’t much more he can do, while he might be able to get the show running, I think most of the actors and people have moved on, and it is just impossible to pick it up from where it was.  But that being said, there is still hope.  The whole premise of the series is so good that he could make another show set in this universe and just go with it from there, which while distinctly different, could still capture the awesome qualities about the show. Anyways, everybody should watch it, preferable on Netflix, and enjoy the show

 

From

EE 

I am a filthy liar

Yeah, you guess who won this one


Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood

Right, well I originally planned to watch the FMA show and finish the show and comic before actually making any actual option about the OVA. However, as I said, I’m a filthy liar, so no I’m going to get back to reviewing the FMA brotherhood thing now, having watched the first episode. Now let me get some things out of the way. I thought that FMA was the singular best manga I’ve ever read, through Berserk and Vinland Saga and Historia make a close second. It is also possibly the best Anime I’ve ever seen. Now in case you haven’t heard yet, the Anime basically takes a totally different spin the end, basically taking the basic characters and making a totally different plot about half way through. And honestly, I like that. I don’t like needless change, but I like it when people take a different twist upon things and show a new perspective, its very innovative. The anime was great because while the system, world and characters were the same, the events and storyline were different, making the experience extremely innovative. So the new anime I heard is basically going to be one that actually follows the story and has a massive animation boast.

Now I’m not a big person who cares about animation, I rather liked the old one, but in terms of content I have to admit this was a good change, keeping the original design and enhancing it. This one was subbed, which I normally prefer, but FMA was one of the few animes I preferred dubbed (except Al’s voice…shudder), so I’m a little bias here. But that being said, there really isn’t much else more to say about it. For starters, it isn’t accessible to people who haven’t read the manga or seen the show, it kinda assumes that you already know what is happening. Now that fine, I assumed it was being made for people who had seen the anime but not read the manga, but then it ruins it be treating the audience in a really patronizing manner, reducing the characters to rather minimal building blocks, or just the stock images of their former selves. You see, the first ep isn’t really an episode so much as a filler OVA, you have just a series of FMA clichés going on and on, Ed hates being called short, Al is mistaken for him, Mustang gets soaked through and becomes useless, Hawkeye is exasperated, Kimblee is a psycho, Armstrong is a manly manly man, and the Fuhrer is a Crouching Nice Guy, Hidden Badass (which is rather impressive considering his title). It just felt like a series of the same old stuff being used over and over again. Even the villain was essentially Bald from the train scene (The non bald guy with one eye and a literal arm cannon) with better ideals and ice powers, and the ep ended with Lust and Gluttony being mysterious and in the shadows. The ep didn’t add anything to the series, and even worst, didn’t tell you anything about the new series. I mean, if it is based after the manga, it should show us that, this ep could have easily happened in either series. And it didn’t really feel like anything impressive. Yeah, I’m being petty, it wasn’t bad just didn’t do anything, it is like a filler. The only real thing I thought it did bad were the fight scenes, which just have become a little too absurd. In the Manga, and to a lesser extent in the anime, guns are still scary as hell, but here they seem morel like an afterthought (also if this guy can transform Ice, why not destroy the water pipes across the city?). Anyways, in the end, it didn’t really make me feel like the series is coming back. I’m still going to be looking into it, but this ep seemed to be more focused on showing off its fancy new animation budget rather than what made the series good, namely the writing and characters. To be fair through, the Fuhrer was badass in the end.

From,

EE

P.S. if it isn’t too much trouble, could people link this blog? I’ve been working to get more viewers

Intent vs. Action

                              Guess what makes up the paving to this place?  Yeah, you've heard it before 

                                               

            Right, I realize that I was always known for alignment articles, and I really should expand upon it.  So lets talk about yet another most controversial D&D issues, especially when it comes to the paladin, so lets talk about Intention vs. Action.  Right, so in D&D, you can become evil by committing evil actions, and as per normal, I think it is important to reiterate some basic concepts.  Now a good person who commits an evil action doesn’t instantly become evil (not even a paladin, they just become mechanically useless…I mean more useless), but a single evil action won’t make you smite worthy, because everyone can occasionally slip up (other than paladins of course).  It is when you make a habit of it that you start getting in trouble.  For example, while this is an evil action, and I in no way justify or propagate it, if a good character seeing a child murdering drop his weapons and put his hands in the air kills him anyways, he won’t instantly become evil (through he would lost his paladin powers if a paladin), but he would if he did it to the next guy as if he hadn’t learned a lesson. The tricky issue can come up with paladins when it comes to weather they should fall or not for a single action, specifically actions vs. intentions.  Is an action ok under certain with the intentions behind it are good, or is the action itself evil regardless. 

            Now, in the world of D&D absolute, the concept of evil actions justified by good intentions doesn’t pull it, the utilitarian idea of murdering one innocent man to save five doesn’t work because the very of murder is inherently unjust.  Torturing a man for information, no matter whom it might save does not justify the brutality and cruelty of the action itself (not to mention useless, as torture is an ineffective information gathering method).  So a character with the best of intentions can get himself turned evil if he commits evil actions.  Which makes sense, I mean very few people consider themselves evil, or commit deeds just for its own sake, and those that do within the D&D world are mostly non humans (like demons or devils).  I mean, look at real life, there have been people who are unarguably evil (I will not evoke godwin, I will not evoke Godwin), but none of them really did their evil actions just for the eviluz.  Stalin killed something like 23 million people with his purges, and while he was a corrupt sociopath, I am pretty sure he thought he was doing what was best for the Soviet Union…kinda.  Andrew Jackson was a great hero and a brave man, but also a genocidal racist when it came to Native Americans (being of Cherokee decent, I am still embittered by the Trail of Tears), and even Napoleon, who was more decent than most of the people he was fighting against (I’m looking at you Austria and Russia), was still an evil bastard, but had a legitimate point about fighting for his country (or his ego, but you see what I mean).  The Khan was infamously ruthless, but he also went for the “ends justifies the means”.  So by the standards of the D&D ideal of morality, most evil people are those who use the idea of ends justifies the means, the importance of good is that you don’t allow the temptation for evil methods to sully there dedication to good.  So to be a good guy, you not only must have good intentions but also not commit evil.  But then we get a double standard, one that is deliberate. 

            While good guys can’t resort to evil actions, regardless of there intentions, evil people can commit as many good actions as they want without losing there evil powers as long as they have evil intention.  This makes sense actually; you could have a politician who does good things for his people entirely for his own personal profit, or maybe a person who just gets high off the esteem and attention of being a good community helper.  Or you could have a good helpful person who just happens to a sociopath, but doesn’t have the opportunity or motivation to do evil actions.  Also, while a good person can do 100 good things and be brought down by a single evil action (like rape), an evil person can commit as many good actions as he wants and will not suddenly turn good.  The captain of the guard of the fantastical town of Higurashi (no references to the disturbing but awesome show…. nope) is a loyal dedicated man who spends his own free time helping around town and reporting the local schoolhouse. However, he has occasionally abused prisoners in order to gain information.  He doesn’t regret this, so he is Lawful Evil, despite his dedication to the community.  This also applies to old evil actions never repented for.  An old veteran in this town works volunteer as an assistant for a charity, and occasionally helps work at the schoolhouse.  He has never committed a single evil action for the last twenty years. However, during the war, there were a few incidents where he murdered prisoners of war, in vengeance for his fallen comrades, as well as standing idle when the legions mage burn down an enemy town that included civilians.  He became evil during the war, and while he has done much good since then, he has never repented for his actions, nor felt that he had truly done wrong (through he does still feel guilty).  Compare the local town’s doctor, who was also involved in the same war, but realized the bad things he did and choose instead to try to do good works to make up for his prior evil actions.   For evil people committing good acts, it’s all about intentions, while it is the opposite for good people committing evil actions.  Also this goes for committing good actions for evil purposes, like rescuing some children so you can use them as hostages later. 

However the issue gets a little trickier with neutral actions. Some actions are good or evil in themselves.  Rape for example, is always evil, as is torture and murder, while protecting mortal life is always good (note mortal life, things like demons don’t count) or easing others’ hardships is always good.  But some actions are more variable, and relies entirely upon the details.  For example, killing is technically neutral if it is used for a just cause, like killing bandits trying to destroy a village, but becomes evil is used incorrectly, like killing somebody who surrendered.  A more appropriate example is stealing.  Now I’m not quite sure how it is defined in the Book of Exalted deeds, but generally speaking it is considered evil unless justified.  For example, stealing for personal profit, or just interest is evil, as it doesn’t belong to you (the concept of ownership might vary a bit, ought to double check that).  But taking something from somebody to serve a greater cause can be justified it seems, like stealing the keys from a guard to save the slaves below, or taking an artifact from the evil overlord.  Things get a little dangerous through when it gets to people who aren’t activity committing evil, like stealing the book needed to translate the villains plans from an otherwise neutral collectors private library, or taking back a cultural artifact that has been in a museum for the public for 150 years.  So stealing is one of those actions that is generally neutral itself, (as long as you don’t do it for personal profit alone, and even that is justified if you doing good things in the area, like looking evil people’s bodies), but its intention and what you do while stealing that matter. 

Finally, we have the last thorny issue with intention, ignorance.  Can a paladin truly fall for an action that he didn’t know would be evil? For example, if the paladin used poison (yes I know that rule is silly, just go with it) but didn’t know that was evil, does he fall?  I’d say yes, that he isn’t excused entirely by ignorance, the action I still evil.  If he had tortured somebody and didn’t know that torture was evil, it would still be an evil deed.  So that is an easy one, but what about insanity?  Can you hold a man who is paranoid responsible when he kills the ones who are “out to get him” if he honestly things he is justified?  Or a schizophrenic for resorting to brutality based upon the evidence he sees (delusions).  I still say that is evil, because there insanity just obscures there ideals, they are still doing evil things.  So while the legal definition of insanity is “can’t understand the consequences of there actions” or something to that effect, I think in terms of weather the serial killer who just can’t help himself, and or the mentally sick man who kills his friends to make the voices stop are still evil, just in need of help.  The exception exist for insane people who are so mad they are essentially animalistic, basically humans with an intelligence below three, like actual animals, who can’t understand morality in its basic form.  Finally, there is the question of intention towards the action itself, IE accidents.  A paladin sees a group of monsters coming towards him and kills them, only to discover that through some illusions he killed innocents.  Or a paladin walks into a room and opens the door, unknowingly causing a trap to go off killing the slaves below.  Does he fall?  I say no, because he wasn’t aware of the consequences of his actions, its like if they are mind controlled and forced to do evil.  The paladin, once finding out the truth, will obviously feel bad and should try to make up for it, (otherwise he might fall simply for being apathetic), but shouldn’t be held responsible for a mistake.  Same goes for something like a combat mistake, if a paladin shoots an arrow at an enemy and kills a comrade by mistake (if it really was a mistake), he shouldn’t fall.  This is a bit of a fine line, because what if he uses a weapon he knows causes massive damage in an area where innocents are?  But you get the idea. 

In short, intention matters, but is ultimately inferior to action. 

From
EE

Hero

Here i am, ready to get owned....as usual......sign, FML
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

This film is directed by Zhang Yimou, who also did “House of Flying Dagger” and “Curse of the Golden Flower”, so if you know anything about this man, it’s going to be full of absurdly good-looking people wearing extremely bright and elaborate clothing randomly trying to kill each other in absurdly exaggerated fight scenes that resemble dances more than actual fights, and Hero is no different. The story takes place in Ancient China during the Warring States period, which for those who don’t know, was basically a three hundred year period where China was in a massive state of Civil war, with every single minor kingdom in China starting fighting it out. Think Dark Age Europe, but more culturally advanced. After a few hundred years of this, the land was divided into seven kingdoms that started to slowly dominate the political landscape, until one of them, Qin, dominated the other six, and unified all of Northern China, with the largest Chinese unification to date, led by the Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi, who was, speaking frankly, a bit of a psychopath, infamous for torturing and murdering about a million people (back in the BCE era, that means a lot) and burning books, before eventually killing himself via mercury poisoning trying to find the cure for death. Important in that he brought about some of the major unification efforts in China, including the start of the Great Wall, and the end of the warring state’s period, but was also a paranoid panic that liked to purge people…Stalin but with a god complex if you will.

The film takes place in the final years of the war, as Qin is slowly and methodically dominating the surrounding kingdoms, who have collectively sent three assassins to take him out, Broken Sword, Flying Snow, and Long Sky, all of who are mega badass martial artists. The movie starts when a random sheriff, called Nameless, comes to the Emperor claiming to have killed all three of the assassins. He is summoned to the palace to tell the story of his success to the Emperor, and is allowed to come within Ten Feet of the Emperor (who apparently doesn’t allow any other than his bodyguard within 100 feet of him.) Nameless tells, in flash back form, how he took out each assassin one by one, by pitting them against each other, full with a series of elaborate fight scenes. The plot thickens when the Emperor, realizes that the Nameless is telling a bunch of lies, and only killed the assassins in order to get close to him so he can kill him. A second series of flashbacks reveal, Rashimon, which reveal that the other assassins in fact allowed themselves to be killed so that Nameless might get up to the Emperor, who is acting very smug for a guy next to a dangerous assassin. Then there is the massive story twist in which Nameless reveals that yes, he is an assassin, but only two of the assassins went against him, the eldest, Broken Sword, in fact attempted to stop him, saying that the Emperor in fact is better for the nation, because he united China under one rule. The emperor then revels that in fact he is working for the good of the Chinese people as a whole, and is allowing himself to be shown as a man who sacrifices his time and potential friendships for the good of the nation. The final set of flashbacks are then shown, revealing the assassins’ bickering among themselves, with Broken Sword finally being murdered, so the assassins can move through with there plan, but only after writing the word’s “Our Land” very dramatically in the dirt martial arts style, and empathizing the importance of a strong unified China. Then the Emperor pulls that old “if you want to kill me do so now” trick and the hero, realizing the importance of China being under control of a dictator with a god complex, and doesn’t kill him but attempts to leave the palace. The palace archers surround him and there is an admittedly cool scene of hoards of court servants chanting to the Emperor about how he must be killed for the good of the nation, and to make an example to the people, and the King regretfully orders Nameless’ execution (Nameless’ is a really awkward phrase), and China goes on to be come united under Qin and they all live happily ever after with a book burning psychopath at there head, I mean the just and self sacrificing ruler….yeah.

As you might have noticed this film suffers from more than at little bit of moral dissidence, but is in no way a reference or support of communist china…nope, no similarity what so ever to a film that is justifying a cruel and ruthless dictatorship’s actions for the good of the people in ancient china, while glossing over the massive real life corruption that plagued said dictatorships administration. The fact that the People’s Republic of china agreed to fund his films for the rest of his life (IE, how “Curse of the Golden Flower” could ever hope to be made) is just a coincidence…yeah. Basically, the whole film is communist propaganda, with lots of fight scenes and a heavy handed typical Communist message hammered home in the end. Now lets talk facts, yes Emperor Qin unified China, started construction on the Great Wall, and kept the nation stable, but he was also a paranoid psychopath who infamously destroyed most learning in the nation and killing over a million people. I mean, this guy is just Joseph Stalin, yeah he kept things unified but he essentially ruined the Soviet Union and was a total dictatorial psychopath. Dictatorship doesn’t work for a very good reason, nobody is ever able to know best on everything, not even Napoleon. Now as far as obvious communist propaganda goes, it isn’t that bad, I’ve seen a LOT worst, and while it is doesn’t have the quality of say, “Battleship Potemkin”, it is not nearly as heavy handed as say, “Alexander Nevsky”, through I prefer Ivan the Terrible when it comes to my communist propaganda.

Now to judging it as far as a movie, it is impressive, but nothing spectacular. The characters are flat, through never to the point of being revolting, it is certainly a hindrance. The costumes and weapons are impressive, but nothing stunning (through “Curse of the Golden Flower” will shock you), but lets focus it its role as a film. As a Wuxia film it is at first impressive, the spear sword battle in the beginning is really impressive, but as the movie drags on, they are pressured to make each fight top the other one, until it gets absurd. Crazy fight in a tea house with all types of water and time effects, fair enough. A crazy fight in the forests with lots of leaves and what not, ok fine. But two guys cutting down hoards of arrows, at that point I’m just unimpressed. And as the film goes on, they see fit to throw the fight scenes in more and more, until almost every conversation ends with one of them drawing a weapon and attacking the other.

As for the fights themselves, here is where we get to one of the essential problems with Wuxia films, they never do very well in building suspense. The first fight is elaborate, but as time goes by, the ever increasingly absurd fights become formulaic, and honestly, get boring. With all of these fights, which are essentially elaborate dances, the sense of anything really shocking happening in these fights is essentially zero, and so it gets to the point of just watching people jump around for 5 mins before one of them finally dies. This isn’t even impressive like a real dance would be because you know they are using special effects. And at some points it gets profoundly stupid. Why the hell would the Qin army send a hundred thousand men to take down a single library, or use up that many arrows. Arrows are expensive, and those men could most likely be needed elsewhere. And contrary to what the films says, always using the maximum force possible doesn’t work, because you need to preserve resources. And if two guys can destroy an entire arrow storm, what the hell is the point of hiring so many men? Hell, if two warriors can defeat three thousand troops, why bother assassinating the King? Just destroy his army, with three badass assassins willing to lose their lives, they could destroy a whole army, which should do enough on its own. In the end, this film is little more than a series of elaborate fights broken up with communist propaganda.

from

EE

My career as a rap artist

Basically this is for my science class, we have to do a presentation on a finding Nemo animal, and I got the fish Bubbles. Yeah, my class is just that crappy. So, thinking outside the box as i typically did, I did a rap for it, to the tune of gansta's paradise

As I watching Finding Nemo where the fish are tame

I see Mr. Bubbles, and realize he is quite insane

Could a fish like that actually live in the Ocean?

So I went to the web and put a search into motion

It’s popular in tanks, and it really deserves it

It grows to be 6 inches, through 8 ain’t unheard of

The reefs are where it’s swimming, where it’s hiding

Cause it has never really been that good at fighting

It comes out to eat seaweed but it can be made to bolt

To hide from predators if it’s not a dolt, fool

It’s the kinda tang the other Surgeon fish want to be like

Swimming around the tank, eating shrimp in the sweet life

They mostly spend there lives, swimming in a fish’s paradise

The tank is where they often are born in die, is a fish’s paradise

Little work or sacrifice in there fish’s paradise

They are bought for there bright colors, in the fish’s paradise

They feed on algae for vitamins, some times plankton

It doesn’t hut for food; it isn’t made to eat meat

So it has to stay low in the food chain

They bright colors make it hard to be seen

It’s an alga eating food that little more on its mind

It needs constant feeding to stay alive

It’s a calm, even headed, fish tank swimmer

It can get along fine except with those if its nature, DUH

It needs high oxygen water to make its heart beat away

And the water must be salty, what can I say

They normally live to be five years, but they can live to be 7 or more

It’s the way you raise them don’t you know

Tell me why are they,

So popular?

They are pretty and nice

And don’t get in fights

They mostly spend there lives, swimming in a fish’s paradise

The tank is where they often are born in die, but it is a fish’s paradise

Little work or sacrifice in there fish’s paradise

They are bought for there bright colors, in the fish’s paradise

Pellets and the Seaweed

Serve as protein and veggie matter

It needs a varied diet

And to be fed every few hours

They breed through group spawning

But you can’t breed them

They won’t get on in the fish tank

Those fishy just ain’t….. (Long pause)

Reproducing

They need lots of space, at least 60 gallons

And lots of live rock

To make them algae

Its needs the space

It needs the

Just don’t put it in a tank with reefs fool

They mostly spend there lives, swimming in a fish’s paradise

The tank is where they often are born in die, but it is a fish’s paradise

Little work or sacrifice in there fish’s paradise

They are bought for there bright colors, in the fish’s paradise

Tell me why are they,

So popular?

They are pretty and nice

And don’t get in fights

from,

EE

Paladin Article

Hail Jesus...I mean Goodness, i mean...shit 

It late due to editing and the Infamous SATs.....but here it is 

Well I’ve been building up towards this moment for a while, in fact this is one of the main reasons I started the blog, is to talk about the most controversial class, the paladin.  More than any other issue in the dark, dank, pizza filled world of RPG, this one class brought about more controversy and arguments, which is horribly ironic because it is an issue that really isn’t that shaded.  The paladin as written needs more detail certainly, but it certainly is aimed with a singular idea in mind.  And consequently, this is my all time favorite class. And now I get to tackle that conversional firecracker.
Now the paladin is kind of revealed in the RPG world, in a rather shockingly manner considering it is still one of the main archetypes in D&D, even in the current edition.  A lot of hate is thrown against the class, and if it wasn’t for the constant tweaking of the wizard/cleric/druid/other over powered classes (horary 3rd edition) I think that this would be the most constantly edited class out there.  In terms of portrayal, a lot of stories, books, and web comics (and no, I’m not talking about Order of the Stick, I’ll touch that later) show the paladins either as well intentioned morons, absurdly uptight goody two shoes who literally can’t break a single law, or show any real emotion, or as radical zealots who are more interested in purging things that are different from them rather than actually upholding there own ideals.  And to an extent, I think a lot of this comes from resentment to either organized religions or just extremism, as the Paladin tends to serve as a straw man for both.    
Right, so first up, what is the Paladin? What does it stand for?  Now the paladin was made out of the idea of a true “good” warrior, one who is the real knight in shining armor, gentlemen knight, loyal protector of the innocent and a defender of justice type of guy (again I am talking about the editions that matter).  Wow, run on sentence there.  Anyways, the knight in shining armor is an archetype that is sort of omnipresent in western culture, because no matter how many times people subvert, mock, or dismiss it, it still seems to be the most common fantasy image of knights (never mind that real knight were really glorified bullies but hey).  Damn, I need to stop these run on sentences.  But there is sort of a romantic in the noble knights who are still appealing even to this day, just as with the “Absurdly loyal devoted Samurai” ideal that still exists even through most Samurai were loyal only to a point.  There is something almost enthralling with a knight who actually fulfills his duty, since we are so used to knights (warriors) betraying or screwing up there orders.  So the paladin class is drawn from the archetypical ideal of the knight in shining armor, borrowing concepts from various sources, such as the Knights of the Round Table.     
Now, for some reason, when ever arguments of the paladin class come up, some people always insist upon bringing up how the sources of inspiration of the paladins don’t match the current code.  For example, in trying to prove a paladin should be able to act more brutally than he does, people might reference King Author, who was far from a perfect knight, or Lancelot, who also couldn’t reach his goal (dam nit Galahad).  Now never mind they were intentionally flawed characters, the paladin shouldn’t be held to the historical roots so much as draw inspiration from the idea, for example the Knights of the Round table are all Christian, which is not a requirement for paladins who don’t even have to be religious.  So, I just want to stress that the class doesn't have to be true  to its  traditional roots because  it has evolved beyond that to be   based more upon the concept of goodness rather than any one specific interpretation.
So if the paladin isn’t a cut and paste of any one particular religious belief , what is it then?  The idea of a paladin is that they are people who are trying to fight for and uphold well, I mean the literal alignment of good, IE the metaphysical concept.  Paladins, or at least ones who can maintain their  powers, are in fact striving to be as good as a humanly possibly.  Because the thing is, they have to be truly good in a literal sense.   They can’t get away with “Ends justifies the means” or “occasional slips in morality”, they need to never waver in face of evil.  So in essence, this means that
A) All paladins are required to be moral absolutists
B) All paladins who maintain their  power is required to be good people.  IE, they are the real deal, to an extent when it comes to trying  their  best to honoring there code and beliefs.
In both of these we see the seeds of the paladin’s greatness, but more importantly, the problems.  Even more than alignment, I think that the hatred toward the paladins is far more undeserved, as the class is well written, but it touches upon so many arguments with morality, that even after Book of Exalted Deeds, WoTC doesn’t really want to assert themselves on the issue…because if Wizards does anything, it’s avoiding confrontation.  The paladin is a good character because they embody an alignment ideal, one that forces them to always stand up for justice no matter what the pressures, and to always try to maintain  own sense of right and wrong.  On the flip side, you have the fact that they are, well, moral absolutist, which is hard to put up with under any circumstances, especially if you are morally opposed to the deals of good that is being used as an example.  This is doubly true when the people are opposed to the alignment system as an ideal, or wish it would be relative as opposed to absolute, which makes sense really, because if you dislike the idea of any absolute ideal of right and wrong within a game, nothing will irritate you more that a character who’s every action hinges on a strict code of right and wrong, which would be even more annoying if you knew that  code is pretty much how a really good person would act, and that’s not even considering the loopholes in the alignment system.  Wow, these run on sentences are getting out of hand, is there something about the class that makes you want to rant?  But really, people get angry at the paladin because it is everything that the alignment system is supposes to represent, and as the poster child for D&D’s definition of Lawful Good, it makes a good target for resentment.  This follows a basic format of one person asking a question or setting an example of a situation concerning a paladin’s falling, and weather it is justified, and then everybody comes it to comment on the example in question; either to attack or defend the entire system.  For this article, I pretty much just want to explain what the paladin is supposed to represent, and how it is perceived.  
Now as I mentioned before, I am personally a fan of absolute alignment, going with the idea of good and evil is not the same as right and wrong so I’m a strong supporter of the paladin, but I do understand the controversy.  At the risk of getting another run on sentence going, let me briefly explain how the paladin really works.  Basically, the paladin is serving an alignment, Lawful Good, and must strive to exemplify that ideal.  And here is the big issue with the paladin; the paladin code.  
Basically, all paladins have a code of honor, which contains a few ideals that all paladins’ must abide by.  The code has a few original conventions, you must fight honorably and what not, but the biggest issue is that the Paladin must follow the ideals of Lawful Good to the extreme.  Now by extreme, I don’t mean they should go into the whole “Blind zealot” “Ends justifies the means” sort of thing, more extreme as in the “Never waver, never show weakness” idea.  Basically, while a normal Lawful Good character, like a LG fighter, can occasionally do evil things, they just can’t make a habit of it.  For example, if a frustrated fighter is found fighting a local bandit, who has killed his family, and the bandit, sorely wounded, drops to his knees and begs for mercy, and the fighter cuts off his head.  This is an evil act, but it won’t bump the fighter to evil, or even neutral, because it was a single evil act in an otherwise good career.  Now it is a black mark on his record, and if he keeps up the habit, he will slip into evil pretty quickly, but if he goes on without doing something like that again, he will keep his alignment, nobody is perfect, because alignment is how you generally act.  However, a paladin may never slip, with one  single evil act they lose there powers.  Now they won’t lose there alignment, unless they were kind of on the brink anyways, but they will certainly lose powers.  The only way they can get them back is through the Atonement spell, which apart from the normal requirements of spells (high level clerics, exp, and materials) also requires two important ideas, first that the paladin admits what he did was wrong, and then partakes in a quest to redeem himself.  So in essence, the paladin is given a code that has no room for mistakes.
And this is kinda what bothers people, the idea of an absolute code, or more so, an absolute code mixed in with the idea of “absolute righteousness”.  Because people start to mix  personal morality in the objective D&D morality.  For example a common alignment question is “My paladin has captured a terrorist who plans to destroy a portion of the city with an evil device, and he won’t talk.  Is it ok for me to torture him for information”?  Now ignoring the fact that torture is a really ineffectual integration method that more often than not gets you misinformation and ruins your target for life as a person (f*ck you 24), it is also clearly evil in D&D for good reasons, but a lot of people argue that it is ok under the circumstances, to torture because that one evil act  saves innocent lives.. Now this isn’t true within the D&D morality, and that kind of thinking actually makes you evil, but as I said before, good and evil does not equal right and wrong, so people can still believe torture is justifiable and not be total monsters (See also the massive amount of real life people who used torture).  But because the paladins are suppose to be the ideal good; people tend to be particularly touchy about these issues.  Building off this issue is the idea that the Paladin’s code and total inability to ever commit evil directly hinders them in  ability to function.  You will see again and again people will try to prove the ineffective nature of paladins by finding some sort of increasingly implausible situation where they are effectively forced to commit evil actions because no other choice is available, though most of these are fallacies   The other major beef with paladins is that  the one strike and your out policy  is too challenging  for new people, and as it is one of the basic classes, people always seem to be rather shocked at how high of a standard they are held up to.  But  it does make sense in context; if you’re trying to be the paragon of the metaphysical elements of Law and Goodness, then not being allowed to commit an evil act is somewhat self explanatory, and it isn’t like you can’t get through a game without having to commit an evil act, unless your DM is  a sadist.  Ok, another common complaint against paladins is  that they are underpowered and not particularly useful from a mechanical perspective, which is…well actually pretty accurate, the paladin isn’t that useful in D&D if you don’t homebrew someway, though not nearly as bad as say, the monk. 

            Now ideally I could just leave now and not have to write any more but this is way too much of a hot button  issue to just leave it here.  So let’s go into another misunderstood concept, what the paladin isn’t.  The  paladin really only has one sort of specific role, though it is a broad full of room for exploration, but they are a narrowly aimed concept.  Now a lot of people like to play the paladins as warrior priests, much like the real life Knights Templar or Knights Teutonic if you want to go German, IE serving a god directly.  In this sense, they have a more relative code because  god decides what is or isn’t evil, but the problem is paladins aren’t actually that religious via core book, in fact under religion it says that paladins tend to not worship gods at all, as they are instead dedicated to the concept of good itself.  So instead of  powers being  granted based on the whims of a powerful immoral being they are granted based on a  rule above the gods.  So while a paladin can serve a god, his code comes before the gods will.  Besides, warriors who fight for the church are kind of your standard cleric actually, a dude in armor who hits people with large objects to preserve his faith.  The second major confusion comes with Paladins and the added classes Knight/Crusaders (they are separate, but for this they fill the same purpose), both .

            Paladins are often shown in fiction as radical fanatics and religious extremists whenever some fantasy author wants to make a point against Christianity, and this position is somewhat blurred .  While Paladins can be fanatics, as well as arrogant jerks (being good doesn’t mean being nice), they actually can’t commit an evil deed, so they only come off as pissed off rather than actual evil fanatics, unless they are absurdly stupid, which gets dull after a while.  People keep trying to assign paladin’s to roles they don’t actually fulfill, ergo that is why other classes were made to take up the slack.  For example, the idea of a man who fights for any cause using any means necessary as long as he has some sort of code that he adheres to.  The problem here is of course, that the code could be anything and be flexible, but I think that is part of the appeal, in that they can be idealists, moderates, or fanatics of the same cause.  The other roles that paladins are often forced into are the guardians of law before goodness, and that is a role that goes to the Knight class, who are more defenders/upholders of mortal laws.  So in essence, D&D has 4 classes that always seem to overlap, and the paladin is given positions it doesn’t have.  So, to recap

1)    A holy knight fighting for his god, who’s powers depend upon his ability to please his deity (varies in terms of difficulty depending on how much of a nut his god is)=cleric

2)    A warrior who fights for a cause or ideal  that is not dictated by him alone, however is open to interpretation (like ending slavery or protecting the innocent) is a Crusader

3)    A warrior who serves a specific nation or person, or possibly a cause (like protecting his nation or a crusade) is a knight

4)    A person who fights specifically for the Lawful Good alignment is a paladin

5)    A man who fights for money is known as a mercenary

6)    A man who fights for money and the experience of killing things is called an adventurer 

Got it now?  It’s important in the details. 

      Now before you ask why I didn’t talk about Miko, she will be coming, in a different article.  

Now in conclusion, the paladin is appealing because there is an inherent sense of drama involved in there code and there dedication to good, as well as an appealing concept with the whole "Absolute dedication to Good" ideal, which can really make the idea of playing one of the these daring, deeply dedicated dutifully determined, devotedly dedicated, divinely dogmatic defenders of...goodness, appeal, because there is a real friction in maintaining the paladin powers.  Ok, not only a massive runoff sentence, but an absurd attack upon the rules of grammar I'm leaving now.

from

EE