Super 8 Does Not Deserve the Hype

Note: If you're looking for an interpretation, you won't find one here.  This movie is really pretty straightforward and you shouldn't have any trouble following the storyline if you watch it.  The below contains a review and small analysis of the movie.

Review:
Yesterday, I caught myself watching the highly acclaimed "Super 8" directed by J.J. Abrams and co-produced by Steven Spielberg.  It hit number one at the box office over the weekend, so I was excited for a thrilling movie.  I wasn't looking for anything deep, like "Black Swan."  I expected a movie that would keep me entertained.  Unfortunately, it looked like a movie crafted by a very young Michael Bay, with lots of guns and pretty explosions.

The movie follows a cute gang of middle-schoolers looking to shoot a short film for the Super 8 contest.  During one of their late-night shootings, they witness a train derailment and all chaos ensues.  They continue to shoot the film even though the small town of Lillian is quickly being destroyed.  There is a monster, the Air Force, and cute love story entangled together in this movie.

All of that being said, the movie wasn't terrible.  The grudge I have with it is that the title is rather misleading and unimportant.  But before I get to that, the good stuff is worth mentioning.

In some ways, this movie was a hit because it was so personal.  The movie takes place in the late seventies/early eighties, so the audience is clearly for the middle-aged.  "Super 8" refers to the type of film camera used during that time period, and the Super 8 Film Festival was a competition for indie movie directors at the time.  J.J. Abrams entered in this competition himself when he was younger, and it was his entry which caught Spielberg's attention in the earlier days.

As for the movie itself, the cast of fresh actors is remarkably good, and for the budget of around $50 million, this is certainly a good flick.

Now for the bad stuff...

The first issue I have with the movie is the title.  In an interview, it was stated that,

"The fact that the title is not a known thing is probably a sign that we're used to being pre-sold. I'm hoping that people see it, like it, and the title becomes what the title is. Certainly films like 'District 9' and 'Inception' had titles that didn't quite make sense but once they became known, people went, 'Oh yeah.'"

 The difference between "Super 8" and the two films he mentions is that "District 9" was about District 9, and "Inception" was about inception.  "Super 8" is NOT about the film.  In fact, the whole notion of the film reel with the rest of the movie seems completely out of place.  The only connection between the two is the accidental recording of the monster during the train crash.  Although it's important, it plays a small role in the movie since the reel is kept hidden for most of the movie.  And once it's presented to the Deputy, it's never seen again.

Seeing as the title really had nothing to do with the core of the movie, it almost makes it seem like there were two separate stories here.  The Super 8 film was definitely a look into Abrams' life, but it almost seems like the rest of the movie is more important.  It is the monster which brings together more elements of life and society, friendship and trust.

This movie would be especially confusing for viewers if they didn't know what a Super 8 was.  Holistically, the movie was quite watchable, but certain elements of the film handicap it, and the attention it's getting isn't really worthy of the quality.  Nevertheless, do watch it, but don't expect anything eye popping.

Analysis:
The movie had its moments, and there were nice elements that made it deeper.

1. The movie has a sense of "E.T." (which, interestingly enough, was directed by Spielberg).  "Super 8" contains a monster which people inherently assume is bad.
2. The concept of self-fulfilling prophecy is seen clearly in this movie.  Because humans inherently assume the monster to be destructive, they harm it.  In turn, the monster fights back, thus creating the notion of violence.
3. The movie says a word about innocence.  The monster is constantly "collecting" people until he meets Joe.  They converse, and all of a sudden, there is a shift in attitude.  Among the chaos, it is the pure heart that overcomes the destruction.
4. This next one is a bit tricky.  There is a parallel between the movie "Super 8" and the mini film the kids are creating.  Charles, the child director, adds in a love story between the detective and his wife in order to make his film more interesting.  It seems like Alice was the "wife" in Charles' movie, but in real life.  Alice falls in love with Joe, the hero of the disjointed movie.  It seems like this relationship is the only one that has a beginning and continuation in the entire movie.
5. It was mentioned in an interview that the allusion to the Hunchback of Notre Dame was an intentional look onto the story of "Super 8."  The monster in this movie is comparable to the Hunchback in that people are afraid of what they do not know.
6. The last scene with the water tower imploding is a cliché ending.  Many movies end with a rainy nighttime to show a change in characters.  This movie was no different.  The water rained over the kids, their parents, and the Air Force.  It was remarkably powerful, because it suggested that the world is really a pretty big society.  Lillian may be relatively unrelated to the Air Force, but guess what, they were all fighting for the same cause.  The water brought peace to the town, and it welded the people together.

If you want to read up on the interviews, they're here:

http://www.flicksandbits.com/2011/06/09/j-j-abrams-interview-for-super-8/12485/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110609/film_nm/us_jjabrams

Final Rating: B+

Thanks for reading,

cyoubx

Here's An Interpretation of Black Swan's Nina.

Hey all,

Here's a slopshodder interpretation of the movie Black Swan.  There's so much going through my brain right now that I'm having trouble comprehending this movie.  Thus, below is an array of thoughts I need to lay out on the computer screen.  I'm assuming you've seen the movie and won't be hurt as I discuss pieces from the whole movie.  I'm not going to give a plot summary because it's not that important.  I'm literally going to just discuss the psychotic nature of Nina.

So, first a diagnosis to further this interpretation/psychoanalysis of Nina.

I've read on some interpretations that Nina is purely psychotic, and not schizophrenic.  I disagree.  Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder, so it makes sense that Nina could be schizophrenic.  She exhibits all of the common symptoms of the disorder, including social withdrawal, delusions, bizarre behavior, and loss of contact with reality.

Her mother is definitely a contributing factor towards Nina's condition - Nina's mother is almost undoubtedly sexually abusive towards her, and it's fairly apparent that this started a long time ago when Nina was still young.  Nina's room is decorated with stuffed animals, and has pink decor.  Furthermore, the mother constantly suggests Nina to take her clothes off...to check the scratching, of course (ahem).

There is also something eerie about the scene where Nina "feels" herself only to later find out her mother is sleeping on a chair beside her.  The scene is brief but creepy.  I can't help but think that the mother was not sleeping at all, merely pretending to sleep as to spy on her daughter.

Now that the precedence for the mother and Nina's condition is set, I will proceed to the more compelling portion of this interpretation - who's real?  Who's just imagination?

I'm going to assert that the mother is fake.  Why?  Because there are unsettling things about the character that can't be explained.  The most obvious is when Lily comes over; the mother quickly closes the door without asking who it is.  However, there are other subtle hints.  When Nina closes the door on her mother's hand, the fingers are almost invariably injured.  This is shown on Nina when she wakes up the next morning with mittens over her hands.  Also, Nina wakes up later than usual to find that her mother did not wake her up.  Why?  Well, Nina did take hallucinogens the night before, and perhaps that altered her delusions.  There is another subtle hint.  Nina's mother's room is extremely sketchy.  It's never clear if those drawings on the wall are of Nina or someone else.  Thus, I make the claim that those paintings are actually of Nina's mother drawn by Nina herself.  It creates a sense that maybe her mother is still with her.  They're also not positive images, possibly suggesting the fact that they had a rough relationship in the past.  Finally, we never find out why Nina's mother is crying - is it because of her failure as a ballerina or something more?

Lily is for sure real.  The fact that the other characters interact with her is a testament of that.  The scene where Lily and Nina have sexual relations is actually key in my opinion.  There was definitely a change in that part of the movie.  Lily is very clearly a character foil for Nina.  They are polar opposites.  Lily is what Nina wants to become.  In the scene where they have sex, it's unclear whether or not it actually happened, but it shows something nevertheless.  At one point in the scene, Lily's face transforms into that of Nina's.  This is a clear representation of what is going through Nina's mind.  Nina has tried to masturbate twice before, and perhaps the third time really is the charm.  The fact that Nina imagined her own face on Lily is a testament of how Nina strongly feels like she needs to accomplish Thomas' "homework."  From that point onward, it becomes unclear whether or not the Lily's in the scenes are real or fake.  The fact that this transformation takes place explains why Nina didn't really stab Lily in the changing room, but really just injured herself.

This interpretation isn't really that compelling, but it helps me get some stuff down in writing.  I hope you enjoyed it, anyway.

Thanks for reading,
cyoubx

Facebook Finally Did Something Right!

Hey all,

I was sending a Facebook message to one of my friends when I noticed that the system had changed.

Facebook now allows users to create a Facebook email thus making sending messages a much more enjoyable experience.

Not only is the user interface cleaner, and more contemporary, the additional feature is pretty nifty as well.  You are now able to attach files to send in your messages, although the size limit of these files is unknown to me at the time of this post.  Either way, sending text files in and of itself will be better since the native Facebook message system was unable to convey "tabs" at the beginning of paragraphs.

Facebook is notorious for its miscellaneous changes which aren't really that helpful.  But I'm happy that they finally did something useful, not just something aesthetic.

Thanks for reading,
cyoubx

It's the Cuber, Not the Cube

What more can I say?  Well, a lot.

Based on the frequent forum posts on speedsolving.com, I can attest to the fact that there is this huge hype about new cubes.

In the past months, or year, if you will, we as cubers have gotten a plethora of new cubes.  Now, this encompasses all types of cubes, including the 4x4, but I'm less concerned about the hype of those.  Why?  Because there are clear flaws in ALL 4x4s.  Lock-ups, pops, etc.  3x3s on the other hand are way too overrated.  Here's why:

1. If you average anything over 20 seconds, you need to work on your own style, not on your budget for cubes.  New cubes will not make you faster.  Practicing will.
2. Pick a preference and go with it.  I understand if you are a hobbyist who collects all puzzles.  I also understand if you make consumer reviews.  I don't understand overconsumption if you are just an average cuber, like me.  Why do you NEED to get EVERY SINGLE CUBE AVAILABLE?!  You don't.  Stick with what you have and practice.  Now, granted, some cubes fit some cubers better than others.  However, if you're buying 52 cubes a year, you should realized by now what your preference is.  If you like smooth, go with the GuHong, if you like clicky, go with Alpha.  You don't need both.
3. New cubes does not equate to better cubes.  What makes a LunHui better than a GuHong?  Unpoppable?  My anus.  All cubes pop.  Plus, cubes can't have it all.  The LunHui suffers from less speed.  If you prefer speed to minor pops, go with the GuHong; it rarely pops anyway.
4. Stop obsessing over corner cutting.  If you rely on 45 degree corner cuts, you need better turning.  Period.
5. Stop obsessing over reverse corner cutting.  If you need anything more than what a tightly tensioned GuHong can do, you should feel ashamed of yourself.
6. Stop obsessing over speed.  This is a persistent issue.  People say Eastsheens suck because they don't cut corners.  I disagree; I say they suck because they can't turn properly.  Why would anyone want a frictionless cube?  That's absolutely ridiculous.  If you can't turn a GuHong effortlessly, work on that.  If you think fast is good, think again.  If you average 30 seconds, it's not speed you need.
7. Finally, stop obsessing over Lubix.  Lubix is a great product, but it's not the solution to every cube.  Sure, it works on 3x3's.  However, I highly doubt it's better than silicone spray for 5x5s and other big cubes.  Again, stick with what you have.   

Don't buy new cubes - just practice.

Thanks for reading,
cyoubx

Here Are 50 Simple Pleasures In Life For a High School Student

Good job, Sherlock.  This is indeed not what I usually write about.

Here are fifty things you know you find enjoyable, you just may or may not admit to them.  These are the things students don't pay enough attention to. :)

1. Watching others fall.
2. Watching others fail.
3. Seeing others do worse than you on tests.
4. Hoping others do worse than you on tests.
5. Hearing unfortunate events, laughing at them thinking they are jokes, then finding out that they are not.
6. Defecation.
7. Eating.
8. Getting high (presumably...).
9. Jaywalking.
10. Having friends.
11. Seeing someone without friends.
12. Laughing.
13. Laughing at someone.
14. Urination.
15. Urination after a prolonged urge to hold it in.
16. Getting an A if you're Asian.
17. Getting a B if you're not.
18. Getting a C if you're...[insert ethnicity you believe to stereotypically get this grade].
19. Being liked by a teacher.
20. Being the teacher's pet (don't deny this one, you know you like it :P)
21. Sleeping for more than 3 hours if you're studious.
22. Sleeping for more than 3 hours if you partied the night before.
23. No homework.
24. No tests the next day.
25. The last day of school.
26. Taking ten minutes to "get a drink of water."
27. Passing notes to people.
28. Seeing the teacher give the wrong notes.
29. Watching a teacher have a breakdown because he/she did not prepare the lecture well enough.
30. Watching a student question a teacher's notes.
31. Watching the teacher have no response.
32. In-class video!!
33. With no worksheet!!!
34. Substitute who tries to give a lecture on something never seen before.
35. Learning more from said sub than the actual teacher.
36. Watching student get mocked by teacher.
37. Field trip!!
38. Senior skip day!!
39. Getting late to class but acting like you weren't.
40. Blurting out answers.
41. Doing easy math in Calculus class.
42. Outsmarting the Psych teacher.
43. Getting better lab results than your Chem teacher (never happened for me, but I sure would like it to.)
44. Spinning pens in English.
45. Trying to spin pens in English.
46. Throwing racial slurs at people of your own race in front of people of another race.  Their faces are priceless.
47. Handing in a rough draft and getting a better score than someone who worked their butt off.
48. Discussing Harry Potter or Twilight in English.
49. Swearing because you feel more powerful.
50. Being a rectum.

Thanks for reading,

cyoubx

New Rubik's Cube World Record!! And Other Cubing Affairs

This title is the superset of what appears in 10% of all forum posts on Speedsolving.  Recently, many world records have been broken on the Rubik's cube, including Feliks' new WR single.  Although, these new records are great, there are myriad of illegitimate posts about new world records in the future.  People are concerned about what the limit is.  Below are my thoughts about world records and other cubing stuff.

1. People can muster 20 tps.  20 is God's Number.  So if people can solve optimally and turn at record pace (which is bound to change), 1 second can be achieved.  Of course, this is unrealistic due to inspection, lock-ups, and the fact that 20 tps is insane.  However, 10 tps can be comfortably achieved, and so 2 seconds would be the new number.  Furthermore, getting God's Number on a solve is nearly impossible.  It's safe to say that even in the future, 30 moves will be necessary.  Thus, the future world record/limit is, in my opinion, 3 seconds.  And actually, this makes sense.  There have been 4 second solves recorded; with new methods and better turning, who's to say 3 seconds isn't possible?
2. Why does it matter?  Let it be well known that no more than a handful of people will ever achieve this status.  20 tps is insane.  Most people would be happy with 12.  A maximum turn speed for a solve would be 7 at best.  If you can turn at maximum speed for an entire solve, you might get 4 seconds, and we all know that's not going to happen.  Cubing is difficult, and there's no use thinking about limits if you're still trailing the world record by 20 seconds.
3. CUBES ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.  This is something I see on the forums all the time.  There is some abstract notion that a better cube will improve your time.  If you go from a dollar store cube to a LunHui, fine, you win.  But, honestly, if you have a GuHong, and you're averaging 30 seconds, there are other things besides your cube you should worry about.  Remember this, historic world records were set with "crappy cubes."  If you can't beat that with a GuHong, you need practice, not a better cube.
4. Lubrication (har har).  No one can really help you with this because no one really knows.  There are a few main lubricants - Silicone spray, lubix, shock oil, and Maru lube.  All of these work.  So why can't people help you?  It depends on how you apply it.  If you're using one drop of Maru lube on a 5x5, you can't expect great results.  You just have to sort of experiment by yourself.

No, this was not a structured blog, but you'll live.  In summary - concentrate on your own technique.  Time is better spent practicing than obsessing over nonexistent world records.

Thanks for reading,

cyoubx

Schools Are For Children

"Children are our future."  Really?

There's nothing wrong with that pithy quote.  It's the way that our education system uses it that frustrates me.  It seems to me that there is only one way for a society to grow.  And that's with innovation.  This video on divergent thinking is a good starting point:

From that video alone, it's easy to see how our current education system forces students to think inside the box.  It's also pathetic how standardized tests are becoming the criterion for individual performance.  Even though I do quite well on standardized tests, it nevertheless bothers me how people can rely on those for complete information about a child's performance.

It seems to me like our education system is based off of the assumption that education is stagnant.  The way our students our taught today are really the same as the way it was taught the last generation.  However, the rest of the world is dynamic, and schools aren't paying enough attention to this.

Technology is in the pockets of most students these days, particularly in high school, and I don't necessarily agree with the arbitrary regulation of use of technology in classes.  In fact, many of the rules in school are transcendent powers from an arbitrary authority figure - the teacher.

School rules and classroom rules are imposed by dictatorial adults.  Of course many rules make sense, but some just don't matter...not in high school, anyway.

When schools emphasize cognitive development in high schoolers, do they really mean it?  Often, as a student, I feel like teachers don't really care how a child performs.  At the end of the day, it's just their job.  Now, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, however, it's definitely not going to improve a student's cognitive ability.  Thus, if a school plans to improve overall performance, shouldn't they limit how rules are set?

Authorities still follow Piaget's guidelines for cognitive development.  This is fine so long as they also incorporate the outside world.  Sadly, this is not the case.  Teachers and other staff members are frozen in their own generation, where blackboards and chalk were all that were needed.  Furthermore, their values are stuck in the past as well.

I can make the claim that schools are like tiny governments.  There is usually some sort of constitution which dictates the do nots for students.  The categorical imperative would say that this is fine.  But I think this only works if we follow the assumption that schools are actually benefiting students.  

For a teacher, a cellphone is a distraction.  For students, there is a psychological drive to use technology.  So when rules say "no cellphones," this is a major infraction on students' liberties.  Thus, students are warranted to expect an equally grand benefit, primarily in education.  But this where it all falls apart.  There is no measure for benefits.  No one can say if a class is beneficial.  Schools try to counter this by giving exams.  But are students being tested on their cognitive ability?  Or are they just being prepared for a test written by a middle-aged, white, middle-class man?

It seems like if we really care about how our students perform we should try to benefit them and not the teachers.  Let's be frank here.  Not all teachers teach.  Many just sit there and read out of a book and receive a paycheck.  So when schools write policies, they should be written for teachers as well, not just students.

Since the categorical imperative clearly does not work at the high school level, why not use utilitarianism?  Students and teachers alike don't necessarily enjoy the policies.  So, maybe we should change them.  Make them so that learning is beneficial to more constituents of a school.  Currently, when schools make policies, they are made with the intent of making extra money.  Better grades on tests imply more funds.  But if we truly care about our future in children, why not foster our children?  Why not encourage what they can do, not what they are limited by?  

In the U.S. we have tools needed for success, but we're not using them.  We're overly concerned about how teachers feel, when essentially, schools are for children.  We, as a society, need to change this.  If the teacher to student ratio is 1:30, does it even make sense to base policies off of teachers' desires?

Change is possible, but we should have the mindset that schools should benefit children, not provide for teachers.

Thanks for reading,

cyoubx