Warning: Reading this may cause harm to innocents.

...So why the heck are you reading it?

(warning, the following post contains spoilers of the movie "Untraceable")
I'm assuming it was because you were curious, or just blew it off as a creative title (which it really isn't, but the intention was to get your attention.) However, the idea is, people really don't seem to get it. "It" being the internet, and the profound effect it has on how we - we as people, we as a nation, we as a race of sentient beings - behave.

Yes, I'm a little behind on the curve to be writing about this movie now, but just today, I finally saw "Untraceable" with Diane Lane. (If you're wondering why I waited so long, it's because there's a theater in my area that charges any where from $0.50 to $1.00 to watch a movie, when they show it long after it's been released.) In case you didn't see it, the movie follows the efforts of Agent Marsh of the Cyber Crimes division of the FBI, and her partners as they work to stop the actions of the mastermind/killer behind the website "www.killwithme.com," a site that streams live the videos of his victims deaths. Snuff? Yes. Typical? Not quite - the murders are all set up in such a way that if no one watched, nothing would happen. However, the more people who visit the site - thus boosting the numbers on the hit counter - the quicker the death mechanism goes off. The people of the internet - as revealed in the movie, actually just the people of the US - literally become the killers themselves as every hit to the site causes the deaths of the victims.

The theme of the internet being a method of death has been explored in past movies already, either as having no way out without solving some sort of puzzle under a time limit (fear.com, pulse) or being a method of meeting the killer through a chat room or luring them in some other way, like a predator meeting a victim (the movie Hard Candy), but it continues to find new ways to scare us. The internet, with its easy anonymity and utter vastness, can easily evoke fear: especially in those who have little to no idea of how it actually works, making it seem literally like magic with information and resources pop up on your screen.

But I digress.

The point I was trying to make was that people of all ages, from the very young to the very old, tend to abuse the ability to access the internet because of how easy it is to interact and effect others without ever having to show your face or say what your real name is. During this day and age, it functions under a very "wild west" sort of law system. "Inappropriate" or malicious posts - viruses, malware, etc - are held loosely in check by a system of private site admins, viewer votes and PC protection software. As a result, the internet is able to run rampant with the things we as humans seem to demand the most - sex and violence, and very often, a mix of the two.

The movie Untraceable received only a %15 approval rating at the popular review site www.rottentomatoes.com, and was reviewed as being only "run of the mill" when it came to thrills, shock, and horror tactics - a sad truth that people today are so used to such a thing being entertainment, as many scenes depicted graphic gore and death. However, was it realistic? I'd have to say so.
While I can't attest to how many super-hackers there are out there capable of taking on the FBI head on with nothing more than a few towers and gadgets in their basement, being a self-proclaimed troll in my own younger years, I definitely say that yes, the depiction of viewer response was highly realistic.
A forum window, available besides each depiction of torture, allowed viewers of the site to discuss the deaths and what was happening - while you did have the "YOU'RE KILLING HIM!!!!" protest posts, you did have such posts as "HAHA he needs better sunscreen" (death by heat lamps) or "what didn't he kill her" and "I tuned in for this?" comments revealing disappointment when the killer showed footage of Marsh's daughter, but didn't harm her. While these were all just part of a script, they were spot on when it came to the sorts of responses shock videos tend to receive.

Untraceable was a movie about - in the simplest terms - viral videos. Videos about killings, rape, violence and disturbing sex acts spread at an amazing rate among people who seem to be so amazed by the footage that they simply must show all their friends. The footage of Saddam's execution, caught by a video phone at the scene, was online and on youtube within minutes, and from there, to the news worldwide. Goatse, tubgirl, and most recently - two girls one cup - (shock images and videos) get picked up and spread like an epidemic, purely through email and word-of-mouth. There really isn't any purpose to them except to cause a reaction, and you don't gain anything from seeing them. No one, at least not that you'd know it, is hurt by their being viewed. But even if they were, people would click the links and tune in. The official fakeout promotional website for Untraceable offers an interesting bit of information on this - if you follow the link above and follow the buttons provided, you'll find that %89 of people still clicked "yes" that they would like to enter the website, even when warned that entering may cause harm to someone. It's possible that many people decided that it was simply a promotional website, but other websites - www.killwithus.com, for instance - thoughtfully provide real-time counters that show that, even as privately run websites that depict torture (fake, but real looking nonetheless) directly linked the viewer, they will still get an astounding number of views.
Forums that provide sickening images - animal and human torture, death, abuse - show that many people, with no apparent risk of being tracked down and forced to defend their comments, will praise these things as highly entertaining, joke about them, and post their own images to add to the stew that makes up the garbage of the internet.

I mentioned that I was troll myself at one point - in some ways, I still am - but I no longer actively search these sorts of things out any more. I just don't find them entertaining in the way I used to. But that being said, while I could link you to all sorts of horrifying things used as entertainment on the internet found during my surfing, I'll instead leave you with this:
No matter how bad things get, not matter how disgusting the content, no matter how sickening the imagery - whose choice is it to view it? It's not forced on anyone, and there wouldn't be so much of it if it wasn't in demand. Think on that.



...Well! After so much depressing ranting, here's something following a lighter track of mind - some kittens frolicking! Make sure to watch to the end. It's worth it.

Yeah, so I killed like 3 people, but I also died about 20 times.

(Photo courtesy of http://www.bobafettm.com/eryndor/page_joining/joining.htm, Dagorhir players from the 1980's - check out those weapons XD)

A little confused by the title? Assuming I must be talking about some bizarre game?

Damn straight.

For those of you who have never heard of LARPing (Live Action Role Playing), it's time you learned.
In the late 70's, a group of friends in Maryland got together, dressed up, made some foam weaponry, and proceeded to beat the crap out of each other. Why? Because it's an amazing way to kill time, as well as each other (or at least pretend to, of course).
While it is a full contact sport (yes, it is a sport), there are strict safety regulations and a large set of rules regarding weaponry and how you may strike your opponent. Weapons, garb (the costumes) and of course, the number of people involved, have all evolved and changed. There are hundreds of thousands of players world-wide.

I just recently got involved, though I'd known about related activities for years and wanted to try it for some time now - and now I'm hooked. For those of you who think it's dorky or lame, I'd like you to consider that while many Dagorhirrim (as players are called) are teenager-early 20's age range and are indeed interested in "geek" activities such as D&D, Renaissance Fairs and the like, many are also ex-military, practitioners of martial arts, actors and other interesting characters. You are, if you have no battle experience whatsoever, likely to get your ass kicked several times at your first practice... but those there will also take the time to show you what you're doing wrong. Not only will you learn something about fighting with a sword (and come on, who doesn't want to do that?) but you'll also meet some really unique people, have a good time, and experience something something solid and energetic however imaginary the idea may be.
You create a persona, you put on their clothes, you pick up a weapon, and you charge onto the field of battle - perhaps to watch a movie and eat pizza later at your guild leader's house.
It's a fantastic mix of history, fantasy and original creation, with warrior types ranging from Pirates, to elves, to orcs, to Romans to Samurai, with a wide array of techniques and fighting styles, costumes, languages and tight-woven groups of comrades and an open-arms approach to welcoming new players.
Interested but don't know if there's a chapter in your area? Google Dagorhir or visit the official national website here, and check out whether or not there's a recognized chapter or unit that you can hook up with. Don't want to play, but still interested? That's fine too - this is some really fun stuff to watch. Sympathizers - people who like to be involved but not actually fight - are also welcome to become part of the story line and join in in events such as Ragnarok, the annual upcoming gathering of 1000+ Dagorhirrim in Ohio to battle it out, camp out and hang out. No unit or chapter in your area? Don't fear! Contact the High Council (emails available at the website) about starting one up yourself. It's easier than it might sound, and a good deal of fun as well.

To give you an idea of how fun this can be, here's a short 5 min and some "documentary" on Dag. Sums it up pretty well. And oh - yeah. Watch for the guy that falls down at the very beginning. >:D
Enjoy


And a rather spiffy (if a bit un-energetic) student commercial for Dag.

Oh the h|_|m4n17y

Ever said anything astoundingly stupid online, or read something amazingly idiotic said by a friend online? Were these quotes the result of a typo, or due to ignorance of some sort? Did these quotes make you seem unintentionally homosexual, involved in an act of incest/bestiality/self humiliation?
Whatever the quote, you were probably glad later that it was just an in-joke to share with the friends who were party to that chat, correct? It's not as though anyone else out there would know about the horrifyingly n008ish thing that you'd said.

Well, that is, unless your friends knew about Bash. Bash.org is a website which does nothing but compile such hilarious quotes, which can be viewed at random, by the latest accepted, or by the top 100-200 by rating from readers.

A sample from the website:

death09>my girlfriend broke up with me and sent me pix of her and her new boyfriend in bed
ktp753>ouch.
death09>yeah.i sent them to her dad

Be warned though, the website may be NSFW as many quotes make it onto the website because they are funny due to sexual/rascist humor, and many contain swearing. Understandably (at least I feel) because most of these quotes were submitted by people talking in mIRC, Instant Messengers, or in MMO's, and many of the submitters were speakers of the 1337.

So, if you consider yourself versed in the language of the nerd, or just enjoy the often unintentional stupidity of others, kill some time reading over at www.bash.org .

*note

You can copy and paste quotes from conversations directly into a "submit" form they have there. If it's stupid or hilarious enough, it may make it onto the site for others to enjoy. Hurrah!

Billy's Balloon

How could I have forgotten to post this!

I apologize, seriously. I meant to post about this when it was first introduced to me, some two weeks back, but I kept forgetting.

In any case, I'm talking about Don Hertzfeldt. Don Hertzfeldt is an animator who, even if you've never heard of him, you've probably seen a reference to his work. For instance, the pop-tart commercials: that's not his work, but it's closely based on his style. In fact, Don has never once made a commercial that actually aired on TV, though he has received world-wide acclaim for his animations and experimental methods.

"World-wide?" You must be thinking, "Then why haven't I ever heard of him?"
Probably because Don believes that commercials are "lies," has a distaste for corporations, and seems to have a genuine appreciation for art and animation purely as a medium through which to express one's self. And what does he express?

Only some of the most twisted, surreal and at times extremely dark humor I have ever been witness to, as well as a talent to touch on emotions and themes we've all experienced and can identify with. Don uses simplistic black and white figures (for instance, Billy, as seen here) and a few accent colors, as well as easy to read facial features to make "stick figures" express more emotion in a shorter space of time than most professionals do in their first tries. Oh, did I mention? Don taught himself how to animate. That's right.

In the world of Hertzfeldt's imagination, balloons viciously attack small children, eyes explode, and sometimes people's legs grow regardless of their body. I highly recommend looking this guy up, and watching a few of his cartoons. Should you have any interest, here's his website, where you can read his journal, buy his stuff, etc., and here are some of my personal favorites, as seen on youtube. Enjoy!

Billy's Balloon


Rejected


Welcome to the show

Excreta and The Eye

For the past two days, I've been suffering a horrible bout of what I really do hope is just a strain of the flu. Short of mind-searing imagery, I'll describe none of what my body has been expelling via projectile force and instead whine about the headaches, the shivering, the constant chest pain, the dizziness, etc. etc.

My body hasn't rebelled against me like this in years, and I really am quite upset, but as my temperature has finally returned to normal and seems to have leveled off, I hope that this will all be over by tomorrow.

If you've read this far, don't fear! This entry actually isn't all about my illness. I'm actually updating to talk about something I did while ill: my recent viewing of the original "The Eye."
Yes, for those of you that didn't know, "The Eye" is just one more of what seem to be a tidy package of horror remakes coming out of Asia (The Ring (1 and 2), The Grudge (1 and 2), Pulse, One Missed Call, etc). Now, I've had the privilege of watching most of the originals and comparing them to the American remakes, and I'm going to be honest - while the way we in America seem to destroy the story-lines of these movies always makes me feel a little bad, the production values and effects are pretty much always better. (I'm going to ramble a little and say, yeah, I know - our country as an audience are criticized for having weak imaginations concerning what we see on screen, visual dependency and a huge need for plot explanations at every turn, and therefore our effects "need" to be better to make a good movie (I don't believe this is always the case, but the general populace would seem to disagree with me, what with its love of explosions and all). ) In this rare situation though, I passed up on seeing a horror flick - that is, "The Eye" (2008), featuring Jessica Alba. I mostly discounted it because the story seemed so... well, used. Patient receives donor organs, starts doing/seeing odd things via cellular-memory, finds out donor was someone weird, blah blah blah - I can't tell you how many short films and stories out of the '80's and '90's I'd seen or read based on this plot. And it being an American remake, especially one whose previews seemed to promise a lot of jump-scares and action, it just didn't seem worth the cost of a ticket, not to mention the fact that it received absolutely horrible reviews from most critics, both acclaimed and blogger alike.

(For those of you who couldn't figure out the entire movie based on the previews, the movie is about a blind girl who acquires vision through a cornea transplant (I'm a little confused as to how in the world that would work, as the cornea has very little to do with the actual process of seeing, at least to my knowledge - in both movies it seems more like they transplanted the area directly around the pupil, or the iris), only to find that her new vision also allows her to see the spirits of the dead, as well as glimpses of the future, or oncoming tragedies.)

However, when a copy of "Gin Wai (or "Jian Gui")," (2002) that is, the original "The Eye" from Hong Kong, crossed into my hands for a short amount of time (free of cost) I couldn't resist watching it. What a delight! There really were no jump-scares to speak of, but the overall mood was lightly disturbing and highly intriguing. I found myself not so much attached to the main character, as to the ghosts she was seeing (an interesting twist which I'm almost positive was intentional). The artistic direction was also surprisingly strong - color schemes were subtle but constant for each scene and helped direct the mood, and I was forced into a sort of "nearsightedness" by a constant, nearly maddening blurring of the background that wore away as time progressed and, logically, Mun (the name of the main character in the HK original) adjusted to her new vision. While I'm sure I'll be greatly disappointed when I do finally watch the remake, I'm definitely going to rent or purchase it at first opportunity sheerly to see if it is one of the elusive examples of a direct translation of the original but with better effects. Why? Because of the previews! They were, from what I saw while watching the original, nearly frame for frame exactly the same thing.

Below are some of the images I was able to snatch off line based off comparisons I saw in the movie and what was available. I even managed to find some direct video comparisons on YouTube, so enjoy!


(ooh, spooky dead lady at the hospital, she's all blurry!)

(Let's touch the spooky blurry dead lady! Seriously, who reaches out to touch a complete stranger, much less one who is moaning "I'm freezing" in a raspy, death-rattle-ish way, at least leaning forward like that?)

(I don't know what Jessica Alba is doing, but Mun (Angelica Lee) was playing for a Blind Society type thing in her community)

(Feet! The horror!)

(The face that goes with the feet! Oddly, in the original, the old man wasn't bloody, his face was just sort of caved in.)

(Kid jumping out the window. Hmm...)

I really did want to post a comparison shot of this, but couldn't find it - aside from the amazing amount of glass, this exact shot showed up in the original, except with Angelica Lee instead of Jessica Alba (in that version, there were only a few pieces instead of a virtual storm of shrapnel). I just had to post this shot anyway because it really was so very close...

And the videos (make sure to turn up your volume!)

The "Creepy Guy": Myth or reality?

Depending on the gender of the person being asked, the answer is almost always a variation on "There are definitely creepy guys out there" (female) or "Women are all just way too uptight" (male - and perhaps a victim of the "creepy guy" label).

Why the difference in views?

One could easily argue the perpetuation of gender stereotypes which finds its way on and off again into media, classroom debates and workplace "sexual harassment" seminars nationwide. The idea something along the lines of "when a guy sleeps with a lot of women, he's a stud - but when a women sleeps with a lot of guys, she's a slut," type thing, which in this situation becomes "when a girl stares and flirts openly with a guy upon meeting him, she's easy - when a guy does it, he's creepy." But does this really cover everything? If it's just a stereotype, why is it that so many people can call up at least one instance of this happening to them? That one person who suddenly came on too quickly - guy or girl - with comments along the lines of "we should totally hook up, do you mind if I get your phone number?" within moments of meeting you, and quite possibly after you made it clear that you weren't interested.
Perhaps it's the result of another stereotype, one which most people automatically assume but don't actually think to themselves - vulnerability. For most men, in any situation - at a party, with friends, at the bar - when a girl comes up and starts flirting with them, there is no sense of danger (unless she happens to be a body builder, that is). The general assumption there is that if he turns her away, he doesn't have to worry about her following him to his car and assaulting him, following him home, etc. Even if she did, so what? What physical danger does a girl present?
While on the female end of this, even if a guy is relatively the same size, the moment most girls are confronted by a flattering, forward guy, motives come into question. A startlingly low number of women are happy with their bodies (should you choose to look it up) and therefore see any sudden flood of positive comments on their bodies or appearances as insincere, and probably an attempt towards an easy lay, etc. And, the vulnerability stereotype here being that a girl is less able to defend herself than a guy, worries concerning how to handle the situation and turn a guy away instantly arise.
Does that mean that when a girl mentally declares a guy "creepy" that she's just defending herself?
Not necessarily.
While nearly every woman out there seems to have something they'd like to change about themselves (dyeing their hair, getting contacts because glasses seem too "bookish," etc), there are always those that quickly get labeled a "bitch" or "ditzy" for being confident or arrogant about their looks. Presumably, these girls being more physically desirable, would get more attention from so called "creepy guys" and have to deal with them more often - but the men, "creepy" or not, who get turned away by these women, are probably understandably upset and label them back in the aforementioned ways.

So what makes a man creepy? A quick search spits back these results:
-Too much too fast
-Staring
-being emotional, touchy-feely or "too personal" before getting to know a girl
etc
However, when one is trying to get into a relationship, isn't that what happens? You do everything you can to get to know a person, and share yourself with them - you want to see them, and you want to tell them everything. So is the creepy guy label the result of a one-sided genuine attempt at forming a relationship?

The undeniable truth is, there are men out there just looking for an easy lay, but there are just as many guys looking for a real relationship who approach a certain girl the wrong way. Not to mention the constant propagation of the idea that all girls grow up with, that all men are just out to get in their pants.

My final thoughts? (Not that you really care)

It's unfortunate that the creepy-guy label exists. There are more important things to worry about. So a girl gave you a weird look and turned you away - chalk it up to experience. So a guy gave you the jitters and made you nervous - don't talk to him. Some people are even proud to be considered creepy.
There are major government cover-ups, corrupt politicians and media, drug-abuse, disease, homelessness, war and - oh no! - work or school on Monday, at least for some of the wanderers reading this. You're worried about the word creepy?

Seriously now. But, after all that, some real humor, regarding creepy guys.

You will go crazy.

A couple of years back, a friend introduced me to the website www.bash.org - a great way to kill time, by the way. In case you don't actually feel like checking out the site, it's basically a compilation of quotes gleaned from conversations people have had over any net-based communication. These quotes are generally funny because they seem to be real, and reference unexpected, often ridiculous and sometimes nearly brilliant experiences or thoughts.

There was one quote among these that stuck with me over the years, bothering me time-to-time when it came to mind:

#443655 +(1626)- [X]

Let's say you have an ax. The kind that you could use, in a pinch, to hack a man's head off...
And let's say that very situation comes up and for some very solid reasons you behead a man.
On the follow-through, though, the handle of the ax snaps in half in a spray of splinters.
So the next day you take it to the ax store down the block and get a new handle, fabricating a story for the guy behind the counter and explaining away the reddish dark stains as barbeque sauce.
Now, that next spring you find in your garage a creature that looks like a cross-bred badger and anaconda. A badgerconda.
And so you grab your trusty ax and chop off one of the beast's heads, but in the process the blade of the ax strikes the concrete floor and shatters.
This means another trip to McMillan & Son's Ax Mart. As soon as you get home with your newly-headed ax, though, you meet the reanimated body of the guy you beheaded last year.
He's also got a new head attached and it's wearing that unique expression of "you're the man who killed me last Spring" resentment that one so rarely encounters in everyday life.
You brandish your ax. He takes a long look at the weapon with his squishy, rotting eyes and in a gargly voice he screams, "that's the same ax that slayed me!"
...Is he right?

I have no idea if I should have heard of this sooner - friends who heard me quote this rather unusual riddle too them seemed to have no idea either. Yet, a quick look with your favorite search engine reveals that this, and similarly worded riddles, have been used in forums for ages. It never occurred to me to look it up before now. The reason for my sudden interest in its origins?

Today while checking the latest page of a favorite web-comic about a Doctor who is also a ninja (www.drmcninja.com), I saw a link at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure what drew me to click it, which given what it led to may be a little concerning, but I discovered the e-book (now apparently also in print, and I plan to buy a copy) "John Dies at The End."

I'm only 16 pages into it at this moment, and I am completely addicted. I have had to take a break to keep my eyes from melting, and my brain from trying to climb out the back of my head to take a breather. But I digress- that strange, nonsense riddle is actually part of the opening to said book (what I have posted above is actually a very shortened version of the full riddle) and pure idiot-babble that it may seem to be at first, it now makes complete sense to me.

The first page of this e-book warns that you will go crazy trying to figure that riddle out - and I had my moment of hesitation, being the paranoid that I am. But now I've started, and I'm going to push through this sucker to the end. Said sucker is a high-speed, often almost stream-of-though novel (which I almost wish was presented as non-fiction to really mess with people) about a man named Dave Wong (not his real name - Wong just happens to be the most common surname on the planet) and his friend John whom, as the titles suggests, is probably going to be dead by the end of the story. Psychics, spirits, ankle-deep pools of feces, talking dogs, people that aren't there, cell-phone bratwursts and monsters emerging from puddles of urine with chin-strap wigs, insinuations as to the aliens, demons, angels and the end of the world - and like I said, I'm only on page 16.

I have never been for stories that do nothing but intrigue - as an audience or a reader, you expect some give, some time to breathe and figure things out, but this story just keeps pushing and pushing and handing you very little. Just enough, in fact, to keep you from giving up altogether. Over 50,000 people have read this e-book to the end, and as a banner on the site proudly proclaims, 97% of people who bought the book on Amazon.com gave it a 5 star rating. I'm sure I'll do the same.

My recommendation? Risk the insanity and read "John Dies at The End."

http://www.johndiesattheend.com/