The Dark Side of the Blog

Saying Something is Un-Australian is Un-Australian

2012-01-22T17:08:00.047+10:00

Do you like to gamble? Do you like to "have a punt"? Do you like to piss all of your money away every week? Do you like to go into debt? Do you like you children to starve, all so your local footy club can install gold-plated toilets? Well, if you don't, YOU'RE UN-AUSTRALIAN!

Yes, you knew I'd have to talk about it eventually: the pokies crap we've had to put up with since the last federal election. For those unaware, basically the government wants to curb problem gambling in Australia, and they're focusing their efforts on "pokies" (slot machines). There's a number of ways they're considering doing it, but the most likely was going to be mandatory pre-commitment, i.e., you tell the machine how much you're going to lose before you give up.

Makes sense, right? After all, nobody gambles in order to lose money, so once you've hit your limit, the machine forces you to stop, and you walk away with still enough money to buy, you know, food for your children.

So I was a a bit surprised when I saw advertisements like this suddenly pop up everywhere...

And tying it all together is the call to action, a website that just screams thoughtful and mature:

Yup, that's right folks! Apparently, if people can't lose colossal amounts of money on pokies, then society will break down! Seriously though, I can't recall ever having seen a more obnoxious series of advertisements. You don't have to have an advertising degree to tell that there are two basic messages here:

Introducing mandatory pre-commitment pokies will lower the revenue of clubs
Introducing such a scheme is against the values of Australia

First, let's look at point number one: yes, the clubs probably will lose money. But you know what? Tough. Quite simply, local sports clubs are not casinos, they are SPORTS CLUBS. They exist not to be a community hub for gambling, but to support whichever sports team they're attached to. I simply cannot accept that of all the billions of dollars clubs rake in thanks to pokies, all of it goes to subsidising food, drink and junior sport.

"But what if some of the money goes to junior sport? Isn't that worth it, then?" Quite simply, no. There's so many things wrong with money raised through gambling to support children I don't even know where to begin. Why not have, I don't know, a bake sale to raise money? A sausage sizzle? Even a raffle? (which, I know, is still gambling, but you stand to lose a lot less in a raffle than a poker machine). Isn't that more... Australian?

But onto the second point: the common theme, throughout all of these ads, is that the proposed laws are "Un-Australian". It's un-Australian to restrict people's gambling, is it? Well, I did some research here. I had a look at the Australian constitution on the Parliament House website. And the values of Australia from the Department of Immigration. Nowhere did I find a reference to pissing away money on gambling being part of Australia!

So how on Earth can the clubs reasonably claim that what the government is proposing is un-Australian? The answer is as obvious as it is depressing: because it works. The clubs somehow scrounged up billions of dollars for a gigantic advertising campaign to convince everyone the proposed laws were a bad idea (where they got the money from, I have no idea) and now, the government has backed down and said they'll be modifying the laws.

I am actually quite offended as to how well this advertising campaign worked. Why? Because most people don't even care about the damn legislation. At the time of writing, "It's Un-Australian" (the official page) on Facebook has 5 858 likes (an insignificant amount, for those of you unfamiliar with Facebook), which is just 0.03% of the population of Australia. For comparison, the page "Australia Needs An R18+ Classification On Video Games!" has a staggering 24 314 likes - almost five times the amount of "It's Un-Australian".

So, obviously, when you see something you don't like, the solution is to just say it's un-Australian. It doesn't matter if said activity is not actually part of Australia's culture, you just have to associate it with things that are part of Australia's culture (like beer, sport and clubs), and hey presto, you win! This gives me an idea...

Postscript: If you'd like a more humourous take on the pokies legislation, check out The Chaser's discussion of the issue.

Some Free Advice for the Movie Industry

2011-12-11T17:59:00.002+10:00

The movie business is in trouble. I don't think anyone would deny that with the advent of new technologies such as video games, the internet and especially digital distribution (both legitimate and illegitimate), the movie business is under greater threat than ever before. So, if your business is under threat, what do you do? Well, I may only possess one degree in business, but I'd probably talk to my consumers, see what they want, and maybe try to improve my service delivery. As I keep saying, your business exists to create and service customers, not just to make money.

But then, dear reader, I stumble across a couple of articles that discuss a new idea to get people back into cinemas - "Tweet Seats!" Basically, during a screening of a movie, you'll now be allowed to get your phone out and Tweet about what you're seeing. What a brilliant idea!

Or not. Christ, there's dumb ideas and then there's ideas like this. The movie companies clearly think that the young kids will only go into a movie theatre if they can use their smartphones, but they couldn't be more wrong. So allow me, a lone blogger who has no experience in the film industry but watches plenty of movies, to give the movie industry some free advice to stop people downloading films, and get them back into cinemas:

1. Social media is not the answer.

Carrying on from above discussion, I think we can all agree that getting stupid teenagers to Tweet their opinions about the latest Twilight film will not get people flocking back to cinemas again. Social media is a wonderful tool to market your film, if used correctly. The example that stands out to me is Paranormal Activity, a film that only achieved a wide release because the fans went online and demanded it. Encouraging people to create "awareness" of your film by Tweeting during every session may seem like a good idea on paper (hey, any publicity is good publicity, right?) but in reality it's going to make people avoid your film, since nobody over the age of sixteen likes seeing phones used in a cinema. Use some common sense, people!

2. Telling us piracy is wrong is not the answer

Piracy is wrong? Gee, now that I know that, I'll... uh... continue to watch the movie I just paid for? Look, I'm not here to debate the ethics of piracy, but movie companies need to learn that beating your chest and bellowing "IT'S ILLEGAL! STOP DOING IT!" is not going to stop people doing it. It just won't. Anyway, I can't believe I'm typing this, but movie studios, the people who are in the movie theatres aren't pirating your movies, you know. There's no point telling them you not to pirate - they're already not doing it! Nothing fills me with more joy than being told I'm a criminal just before I see a movie.

3. Thirty minutes of ads is not the answer

And speaking of ads, why is it that after I've just paid for my movie ticket, I have to sit through upwards of thirty minutes of ads before I see any of the actual movie? I realise there are a number of valid reasons why there are both trailers and advertisements before movies, but Jesus Christ guys, it's getting a bit ridiculous. It's gotten to the point where I can leave home when my movie session "starts", drive to the cinemas, park, buy my ticket, use the bathroom and I'll still have time to spare before the movie starts! Like I said, I understand that it's necessary (I like trailers, and ads for local businesses is good, targeted advertising), but it's just too much. Ten minutes of ads, fifteen tops. Not thirty.

4. Reboots and remakes are not the answer

I don't know whether it was watching J.J. Abrams Star Trek, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, the 2010 versions of The Karate Kid or Clash of the Titans, the trailers for the new Spiderman and Batman films before going home to see Hawaii Five-O and Charlie's Angels on television, but I'm beginning to think perhaps Hollywood has a dependence on old ideas. Look, movie studios, I'm not against using an old brand to launch your new movie, but if you're going to do that, you need to at least try to make your film different from the original. Otherwise, the public has every right to criticise you for lack of originality. Justifying a remake by saying "We're updating it for a modern audience" is a load of horseshit. King Kong, Psycho, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars are just as poignant today as they were when they were released decades ago. If you're going to remake an intellectual property, then at least make it a DIFFERENT film from the original. I know it's TV, but compare the original Battlestar Galactica to the 2003 remake. They're very different shows, but both retain the core premise of humans being attacked by robots. The 2003 series, though, brings in themes of terrorism, war and paranoia - this is updating it for a modern audience. Not just giving all the characters access to mobile phones and occasionally mentioning Facebook.

5. 3D is not the answer

But by far my biggest gripe with modern cinema, the reason I avoid the movies so much, is this damn 3D bullshit. Many other people have ranted at length about 3D (like respected film critic Roger Erbert, or heck, even this guy), but personally, I hate 3D because it actually takes me out of the experience rather than draws me in. When stuff leaps out of the screen, all it does is remind me I'm watching a movie and not actually inside the world the director has created. It's obvious why the movie companies are pushing 3D technology so much - because it gives them more money! 3D tickets are often double the price of an ordinary ticket, so it's the perfect solution! Er, no actually. Any "solution" to a business problem that involves doubling your prices is downright suicidal. If you're going to charge us twice the price of admission, movie companies, you need to offer us a little more that cheap plastic glasses so that the explosions are prettier.

So what is the answer?

It may be easy to say, "just make better movies", but this is a profoundly short-sighted view that doesn't take into account the larger issues I've brought up here. If movie companies want us back in cinemas, they need to cut the crap, and start treating us with a bit of decency. Each of the five points I've discussed above are things that are annoying people. Any industry that's getting concerned about their future should be listening to what their customers want and addressing their complaints, not by shoehorning more technology into the product. Good businesses build relationships with their customers, so that the customers will be loyal and want to come back.

After all, why do people pirate? Because the service is better.

Kyle Sandilands Needs to Go

2011-11-27T19:34:00.000+10:00

Dear reader, it was a little over two years ago when I first ranted about Kyle Sandilands on my old blog. Then, it was because Sandilands had insensitively interviewed a rape victim, but now, it's because he has criticised a female journalist's appearance because she criticised one of his crappy TV shows. Just like last time, Kyle is losing sponsors and network deals, and just like last time, Jackie O is defending him, because she must be one of those women who likes men who have the intelligence of your average chimpanzee.

(On the off chance someone is sitting there thinking Kyle is just a normal Aussie bloke "having a laugh", I invite you to have a look at just one of many distasteful incidents on the Kyle and Jackie-O show, courtesy of The Dark Side of the Blog's old friend Media Watch.)

Now, what offends me most about Kyle (and Jackie-O, to a lesser extent) is not so much what he said in the first place, but his justification for saying it. Behold, Kyle's air-tight defence:

"We live in a country of free speech. You're allowed to say what you want and so am I."

Or alternatively...

This is a mindset journalists in Australia, and the world even, need to get themselves out of. I've previously discussed the irresponsible conduct of talk-back hosts in relation to climate change, but these men probably justified what they were doing because we live in a free country, and they have a right to say what they want.

Well, I'm afraid it's not that simple. Nowhere near that simple. Kyle defends himself by saying that because we (the public) can say what we want, so can he, but there are friggin' limits. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. The woman who criticised Kyle had some valid points, namely that Kyle's show (A Night With The Stars) was not performing in the ratings and that it was not entertaining. And how does Kyle respond? By criticising this woman's appearance ("a fat bitter thing", a "fat slag", "90s hair", etc.). Not only is this sexist, but it's extremely immature and lazy of him. Not once, in my entire gargantuan rant against Family Guy did I personally attack Seth Macfarlane or his team of writers. Personal attacks add nothing to an argument, and are often the product of a straw man, desperate to win the argument. For example:

PERSON 1: Climate change doesn't exist.

PERSON 2: Actually, the majority of the world's scientists say it does.

PERSON 1: But I've heard of a book by some professor who says we shouldn't be worried!

PERSON 2: That professor works for an oil company, of course he's going to say that. Besides, 97 out of 100 active researchers in the field agree that the climate is changing and that we are causing it. (source, in case you're interested).

PERSON 1: Whatever. What kind of person knows this much about climate change, anyway? Only losers who still live with their parents and spend their time playing World of Warcraft.

The idea here is that if Person 1 can make Person 2 look bad, Person 2's logic must be equally as bad, and therefore Person 1 is right. It's immature, lazy and unprofessional, especially for a man who has such an influence of people's opinions (sad, yes, but true considering his job).

The problem is that if anyone criticises radio hosts or journalists for saying something unethical, they can sit smugly behind the defence of "free speech". Free speech is all well and good, but if you going to attack someone or something, you need to back up your points with actual arguments, not just cheap shots at their appearance. Living in a country with free speech does not give you permission to be immature or rude. As depressing as it is to say this, Kyle Sandilands holds a significant sway over the opinions of many people, and he has a responsibility to behave appropriately and act with maturity, not just say whatever he feels like and pretend he's a champion for free speech.

Ultimately, Kyle Sandilands needs to be held accountable for his actions. 2Day FM has a responsibility to do what is right, not what is easy. Successful long-term businesses build relationships with consumers, and you're never going to acheive this by having your flagship presenter be a man who's hated by thousands of people. Kyle may give 2Day FM ratings in the short term, but in the long term, he's going to do nothing but damage the brand of what is supposed to be a family-friendly radio station. Kyle Sandilands is yet another example of someone who uses their position in the media purely to push their own views on the public.

That, and he looks funny.

Stop Doing Coke's Advertising for Them

2011-11-05T13:16:00.000+10:00

I love Coke. Not just for the taste of the product, but for the fact that it is one of the strongest, most powerful brands in the world. I also admire Coke's brilliant marketing campaigns - often, they're some of the best in the industry.

This year, though... I find Coke's advertising campaign obnoxious. You know the one I'm talking about:

Isn't it unhygenic to share drinks anyway?

"Share a Coke with..." has been an immensely successful campaign for Coke. Everywhere you look, people are seeking out cans and bottles of Coke with their name on it. In fact, I'd wager at least one of your friends has uploaded a photo of a bottle of Coke with their name on it to Facebook or another social networking website (because, you know, there are so many alternatives to Facebook). At first I assumed I just needed to get better friends, but today I saw people queuing up at my shopping centre just to get a bottle of Coke with their name on it. Queuing!

You realise, don't you, that when you upload a photo of a bottle of Coke with your name on it you're doing exactly what Coke wants you to do? You are, basically, giving Coke free advertising? In fact, you're giving Coke something more powerful than a free advertisement; you're giving the brand an endorsement.

Alright, now excuse the marketing lesson here, but in the modern world tradition methods of advertising (TV, radio, billboard, newspaper, etc.) are becoming less and less effective at reaching consumers. Part of that is that there is a lot of new media competing for our attention (the internet, video games, tablet computers), but it's also because we're a lot more media-saavy these days. We won't become loyal to a brand just because they had some cool ads on TV, quite often we need some kind of endorsement from a friend before we place our trust in a brand.

Yeah, I know this sounds like a bit of a wank. You're probably sitting there thinking, "I buy what I want, I'm not affected by what other people say!" Well, you are - everyone is, whether they realise it or not. It's human nature to seek aproval for what we do in our lives - our jobs, our hobbies, even what drinks we buy. An endorsement from a friend is exactly what Coke is aiming for in this campaign - and they're getting it whenever you post those photos on Facebook, whether you intend to or not. They want you to do their work for them.

And you're doing it! Can someone please explain to me, what is so thrilling about seeing your name in print? Look, I'll let you in on a secret, if you buy a program called "Microsoft Word" (you may not have heard of it) and you press the buttons on your keyboard in the right order, your name can appear in print, just like that!

Thrills!

All sarcasm aside, you really need to stop doing Coke's job for them. Especially since the campaign itself is so safe, so predictable. All the names on Coke cans are nice, white, Anglo-Saxan names. Where's the can that says Share a Coke with Mohammad? It is, after all, the most popular name in the world at the time of writing.

But you know what the ultimate irony is? I started this rant against Coke with the words, "I love Coke." I've just spent a couple of hundred words discussing Coke's advertising campaign. I've given them an endorsement, of sorts.

Crap!

Why I Hate Family Guy: The Complete Collection

2011-10-13T19:58:00.000+10:00

In case you've been away for a while, I've been ranting about Family Guy a fair bit lately. You can check out the individual rants by clicking here, here and here, but it's probably best if you just click the link below to see all three rants together:

Why I Hate Family Guy: The Complete Collection

Why I Hate Family Guy: Part 3

2011-10-13T19:50:00.000+10:00

(Part 1 here and Part 2 here)

Following on from Part 2, why should it matter that the show uses cutaway gags? Whenever I criticise the overreliance on cutaway gags, I'm always shot down with "WHO CARES SEAN IT'S FUNNY LOL". But a TV show, movie or book shouldn't strive to be funny at the expense of the plot or characters. Compare the following two films, both released in the last couple of years, both claiming to be comedies:

In case it isn't obvious, one was labeled as the best comedy film in years, the other one of the worst films of all time. It's may seem like a pointless comparison, but much of the comedy in The Hangover came from the interaction and chemistry between the three main characters. Their personalities, their quirks, their reactions to the insane situations they get themselves into is what makes the film so damn funny. Disaster Movie, on the other hand, is an incoherent mess, under the mistaken impression that dropping pop-culture references all over the place is funny. None of the comedy comes from the characters, and it just isn't funny.

Now, not all comedy has to be character-based, but if you're going to have the same characters every single week, most of your comedy should come from the characters. Otherwise, why not just make a sketch show - like Monty Python did? Saying "WHO CARES IT'S FUNNY LOL" is not an excuse for a having an incoherent plot or story.

The cutaways - and many other jokes - in Family Guy also go on way too long. Having a joke that goes on and on can be okay - if used from time to time (Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes, anyone?). Let's have at a clip that Family Guy fans will always point to as being an example of the show's brilliance, the chicken fight:

As far as I'm away, they've done at least three more of these ridiculous fights, each one getting longer and more elaborate. There's also dozens of times in the show when we're subjected to long, drawn out violent fights, that seem to never end.

Good writing is short and succinct, or, as Shakespeare put it, "brevity is the soul of wit". He did not add "unless you're making a cartoon". It applies to everything, and don't tell me you're arrogant enough to claim to know better than Shakespeare. A joke has a very simple formula: Buildup. Buildup. Buildup. Punchline. Anything that does not in some way build towards the punchline can safely be removed, wouldn't you agree?

"Brevity is the soul of wit"

Sorry, I'm getting sidetracked - we've done comedy. Fans of Family Guy will often try and tell you how "controversial" and "cutting-edge" the show it, but again the opposite is true. The "offensive" jokes in Family Guy often use easy targets that are sure to get a reaction from conservative folk - jokes about religion, for example. If you think about it, Family Guy's "offensive" jokes don't offend their fanbase; instead the jokes offend the kinds of people who don't watch the show - religious folk, for example. Any real cutting-edge comedy will risk offending people who watch it; but how is a penis joke supposed to offend the average Family Guy viewer?

Compare this to a show like South Park, that really does do things that might offend their viewers. The example that stands out to me is "Go God Go", an episode that showed atheists could be just as idiotic and pigheaded as religious people. I'm willing to bet South Park has got quite a few atheist viewers, yet they went ahead and make the episode anyway. Or even a film like Borat, a film made for Americans that spends almost its entire length mocking America. This is controversial, cutting-edge comedy.

So, folks, my longest rant ever draws to a close. I realise I covered a lot, but there are four main points I want you to take away from these rants:

The show is not funny
The characters are bland
"It's funny" is not an excuse for bad writing
Being controversial means running the risk of offending your viewers too

If nothing else, remember these four points. I think I'll end this rant with a clip by none other than Seth Macfarlane himself - I find it rather ironic. The clip itself starts at the 23 second mark (there's an ad at the start). Thanks for reading!

But wait - there's more! In anticipation of all the hate mail I'm about to receive from Family Guy fanboys, I've prepared a handy FAQ!

"Jeeze man, why do you hate this show? If you didn't just watch clips on YouTube you might see some of the more subtle humour in the show."
But I have! I used to be a loyal fan of Family Guy - buying the DVDs, watching it late at night whenever it was on, and so on. But as the years dragged on, the quality kept dropping and dropping, until the show was just so terrible I couldn't watch it any more.

"If you don't like it, don't watch it."
Like I said, I don't watch it anymore. I am just sick and tired of people telling me that Family Guy is a clever show, when it is in fact one of the worst. I have written this in the hopes that others may realise the show's shortcomings.

"If you think you're so smart, why don't you launch your own TV series?"
You're completely missing the point. First of all, I never claimed I could do a better job. I freely admit that I would be a lousy director, screenwriter or producer. But the people who are responsible for Family Guy are professionals, and they have according salaries. Family Guy, in strong contrast to this blog, is a commercial product for which we pay in some fashion. We have a right to criticise it. Wouldn't you want your vacuum cleaner to be fixed if it didn't work half of the time?

"You've obviously never heard of satire. Stewie being gay, Brian being intelligent - the writers are taking established tropes and cliches and inverting them!"
I have, in fact, heard of satire. But good satire defies your expectations, or reveals amusing truths. You can say a baby being gay is clever satire, but Stewie never acts like a baby, does he? You can say a dog being the smartest member of the family is satire, but Brian never acts like a dog, does he?

"People are allowed to watch whatever they want, when they want, and they don't need you telling them they're stupid for doing so, it's just childish. I really don't understand why you're so judgmental of people having personal preferences."
Believe it or not, I believe people should be able to watch whatever they want. However, as I said above, I'm sick of people telling me that Family Guy is a clever show, when it's not.

"Arguing whether Family Guy is good or not is retarded. Some people will like it, and others won't. And both sides are correct, since appreciation is entirely subjective."
Appreciation is subjective, but quality is not. There are probably people out there who think Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie are the greatest comedy films ever, but does that make them good films? No.

"Who are you to judge? All you have is a shitty blog nobody reads."
True, but unlike Family Guy fanatics who will just say, "IT'S FUNNY LOL!", I have articulated my points with comparisons to other TV shows and discussions about what does and does not work in fiction. I may not be a TV critic (or a TV writer), but if you're a regular reader of this blog you know I watch a lot of TV, and have quite an extensive knowledge of what makes a good show.

"I am a huge animation fan, and you are giving fellow fans like me a bad name if you nitpick a great show to death. Why don't you switch off your computer and go outside! Get a life!"
How is this related to Family Guy? You are just personally attacking me, instead of sticking to the facts. You call yourself a fan, so don't tell me that you have never discussed the shortcomings or errors of Family Guy. Who do you think you are to accuse me of doing the same in a more comprehensive fashion on a permanent page?

"You're still wrong. Most people would disagree with you and say that Family Guy is brilliant."
Really? The majority isn't always right. I've laid out my points and if you can counter any of them, feel free.

"You're such a loser. Pretty much everyone else agrees that it's the one of the greatest TV shows ever."
I am far from alone in my opinion of the show. To begin with, there's a Wikipedia page all about the Criticism of Family Guy - no such page exists for The Simpsons, Futurama, South Park or Animaniacs. Or you could just click here, here, here, here or here for some more criticism by different writers.

"I don't care what you say, I still think the show's funny and I'm going to continue watching it."
Sadly, I feel this will be the most common response to this rant. If you're still not convinced, next time you watch Family Guy, have a look at the show, and see how many issues I discussed here appear in the episode. You may be surprised.

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Acknowledgements: I have to acknowledge a few other writers here, particularly Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw for his rant against Ctrl-Alt-Del, which inspired me to write this whole damn thing; Jaime J. Weinman for his rant against Family Guy, who I stole a number of points from; and Hulu.com for uploading a huge amount of Simpsons and Family Guy clips - thanks guys!

Why I Hate Family Guy: Part 2

2011-09-26T09:54:00.005+10:00

(Part 1 here and Part 3 here)

Next up, the characters. Now, I've mentioned a few times before that characters are the most important part in any piece of fiction, but why do I say this? It seems obvious, but if a show doesn't have relatable characters in it, more often than not it will wither and die. Take any reality show - what makes them popular is that they have real, relatable people in them. When we watch The Amazing Race, Masterchef or The Biggest Loser, we enjoy the shows because we can picture ourselves reacting the same way in that situation, whether it be scaling a mountain, cooking a dinner or losing weight.

The best non-reality shows do this as well - Lost can probably attribute much of its early success due to the fact it featured a plane crash, something we all can picture happening to ourselves since 9/11. The Simpsons was so hugely popular in the nineties because it featured a characters we could all relate to - Bart, the underachiever; Lisa, the unpopular nerd; Maggie, the silent and repressed voice; Marge, the stressful mother; and of course Homer, who almost every father in America could relate to.

But Peter Griffin is nothing more than an irredeemable jerk.

It's clear Peter is supposed to be an everyman, but comes off as anything but. He lies, he cheats, he steals, he's lazy, he gets into fights and he's incredibly ignorant. The ultimate irony is that Peter is anything but a family guy. I can hear you now, "BUT SEAN, HOMER SIMPSON IS LIKE THAT TOO LOL!" True, Homer may be all of these things as well, but at least Homer has some redeeming qualities. Homer loves Marge. He loves his kids. Sure, he may be rude to them from time to time, and get them into trouble, but when it comes down to it, he'll do anything to protect his family (this was pretty much the entire plot of The Simpsons Movie).

The source of Homer's charm is his complete love and loyalty to his family, even if the main way he shows it is by fixing problems he causes himself. This is hardly new - Hal in Malcolm in the Middle, Ray in Everybody Loves Raymond, Tim in Home Improvement and Phil in Modern Family all fit this trope perfectly (as well as dozens more). Peter, on the other hand, is a selfish asshole. He's rude to his wife. He hates his kids (Meg in particular). He may eventually do the right think, but only if it benefits him in some way. This is not a clever subversion of this character archetype - Peter is a jerk, and I am unable to relate to someone who is this obnoxious, this stupid, and this uncaring. Take this clip as an example:

Nothing funnier than picking on handicapped people, am I right? You know, there's a term for people who pick on those smaller than them...

Anyway, as you can see, Peter comes off as anything but a nice person. Now, I know what you're thinking, "NOT EVERYONE ON TV HAS TO BE A PARAGON OF VIRTUE SEAN LOL", and I quite agree. Greg House in House is a complete prick, but he genuinely believes that when he exposes someone's lie, makes someone realise what a failure they are, he's doing it for that person's own good. Brain from Pinky and the Brain wanted to take over the world not because he was evil, but because he believed the world would be a better place with him in charge.

The point I'm making here is that the best villains, jerks and bad guys never consider themselves villains, jerks or bad guy. Hannibal Lecter only ate uncivilised people. Nurse Ratched wanted her patients to get better. HAL just wanted to complete the mission.

Peter? He just acts like an jerk BECAUSE IT'S FUNNY LOL! (And hey, wouldn't you know it, it's not!)

Phew. Alright. Onto the other characters, though at a much faster pace:

Meg: A boring, one dimensional character. Depressingly, she started out as one of the more original characters - an unpopular, awkward teenage schoolgirl is hardly new, but in western animation it had mostly been an unpopular, awkward teenage schoolboy. Sadly, when the show returned after cancellation, the writers apparently decided it'd be funnier for her family to bully her. Yes, nothing funnier than child abuse, hmm?
Chris: Yawn. Does he do much these days, apart from act even stupider than Peter and make references to the evil monkey? Apparently not.
Lois: Another character that was, initially, somewhat original, she's turned into little more than a sex, alcohol and drug addict. She used to be a nice contrast to, say, Marge Simpson, as she was a little more open with her sexuality, which was a nice change of pace to mothers on television who used sex as a weapon. Now, the jokes aren't even subtle (or funny). She's a nymphomaniac housewife, oh ho ho ho. My thighs are now thoroughly tenderised from all the slapping.
Stewie: Again, another character who's changed. Matricidal Stewie was reasonably clever (and even relatable!) - after all, we could all identify with a child who wants to kill his parents. When you're a kid, your worst enemy is sometimes your parents. Now, the writers seem to think it's the height of cleverness to have a character sometimes say and do stereotypical "gay" things. Straight men in gay situations is a comedy staple (think Klinger in M*A*S*H), but the gay jokes about Stewie aren't subtle or clever, all they do is scream "GAY PEOPLE ARE FUNNY LOL!"
Brian: Why don't we just call this character Seth and cut out the middle man, eh? Brian/Seth's lectures on politics are so blatant it makes Captain Planet look like a thoughtful and unbiased program, where children are free to make up their own mind about oil companies.

Folks, what bothers me most about the rest of the characters is that they are so damn boring! They're one-dimensional, a collection stereotypes we've all seen before, and because of this, there is no humor to be gotten from the characters. That's why there's so many stupid cutaway gags - the writers can't make the scene interesting or funny with their current characters, so they throw together a location, an activity, a pop culture reference and then have a character say either:

"You think that's bad? Remember the time..."
"Face it Peter, you've never been very good at..."
"This is worse than the time..."

Or some variant thereof. This is not good writing. In good fiction, the drama (and the jokes) flow from the characters. But because the characters in Family Guy are so bland, the writers have to write around the characters. And that, dear reader, is not good.

Coming up in Part 3: The thrilling conclusion!

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Why I Hate Family Guy: Part 1

2011-09-13T20:36:00.013+10:00

(Part 2 here and Part 3 here)

I've bitched about Twilight. Complained about Underbelly. Analysed Stargate Universe. Torn The Cleveland Show to shreds before a single episode aired. Now, it's time for a rant that I've had brewing for a very long time: my rant against Family Guy.

Why do I hate Family Guy? It's difficult to know where to begin, but let's start by looking at this clip from season four (don't let the date fool you, it's quite typical of the show):

Incredibly, this video has over five million views on YouTube (at the time of writing). But anyway, here's another clip where the humour is derived from drug use, this time from season seven of The Simpsons:

Both shows identify the humour in the situation (that people act bizarrely and do annoying things under the influence of drugs), but while The Simpsons saved the best joke for last (the fact that Burns was so drugged up he was willing to commit murder), the Family Guy clip doesn't really have a punchline, does it? Instead, it goes for the old and tired gag of getting Peter naked. Yup, nothing funnier than a naked fat guy, right?

See folks, this is my main gripe about Family Guy - for a comedy show, it doesn't seem to know how to tell a joke. A joke should be build up your expectations, then defy them. Take any newspaper comic, for example. Look at this classic Calvin and Hobbes strip:

You see how it works? The first three panels build up the expectation (that we're in space) and the final panel reveals it's all a fantasy of Calvin's. Family Guy ignores this, it's so excited about the gag that it blurts it out right away (PETER'S ON DRUGS LOL!) , leaving a minute or so for us to sit around and watch essentially the same joke, with no punchline at the end. (For further examples of this lazy writing see here and here, as you can see, this is merely the tip of the iceberg).

Now, a punchline should be the strongest part of your gag. That's why it's called a punch-line. You deliver it and run. You do not hang around and repeat the punchline for the next minute. Essentially: leave with the audience laughing! Am I wrong in thinking this is how a joke should be structured?

Apparently so. Whenever I criticise the humour in Family Guy I'm shot down by people who yell "WHO CARES SEAN IT'S FUNNY LOL!" Now, I realise humour can be very subjective, but if you find Family Guy funny you are categorically wrong. Far too often Family Guy goes for:

Shock humour (violence, rape, vomit or other bodily fluids)
Pop-culture references (the freakin' Star Wars specials being the worst example)

Now, admittedly, there is humour to be found in shock value, but in the internet age it's getting a lot harder to shock your audience. Like it or not, people are desensitised to much of the bad stuff in the world. So what do the Family Guy writers do? Make a rape joke. A rape joke, for Christ's sake. I wouldn't have minded if it was just dark humour ("What do nine out of ten people enjoy?" "Gang rape!") because at least a joke like that is subverting my expectations. Again, there's no punchline in the gag, just: 1. Naked fat man (again, naked fat people are funny, right?). 2. Woman rapes a man. Whoa, hold on to your sides to stop them from splitting!

I'm not objecting to dark humour or shock value, just how Family Guy tries to do it. For example, if you take the joke, "What's the difference between a Ferrari and 1000 dead babies? A Ferrari's not in my garage", the Family Guy writers would probably put that on screen as, "Why do I have 1000 dead babies in my garage? BECAUSE DEAD BABIES ARE FUNNY LOL!" Then Peter would get naked for some reason.

And, of course, we have the pop-culture references. Now, I enjoy references to books, films, art, video games, politics etc. in works of fiction, but if you're going to do it, there has to be a point to it. Have a look at this clip from The Simpsons, parodying 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Now look at this clip from Family Guy, parodying Dukes of Hazzard:

I swear, I'm not even trying to come up with examples that end with the gag "Peter naked", it seems that every single Family Guy video on YouTube ends this way. But anyway, see the difference here? Much of the humour in the Simpsons clip comes from Homer eating in zero gravity, the ants talking amongst themselves and Buzz Aldrin's comment, not explicit references to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Family Guy, on the other hand, just has Stewie say, "That's more disgusting than when Peter went through that Daisy Dukes phase", then show us Peter in women's clothing (cross-dressing jokes? Seriously?). What is the humour in this joke? Is it parodying a scene in Dukes of Hazzard? A cliche of the show, a plot hole even? Nope, it's just name dropping. I haven't seen a single episode of Dukes of Hazzard, but even if I'd seen all 145 episodes plus the movie, I sincerely doubt I would have enjoyed that clip any more.

Oy vey. We're over eight hundred words and I've barely scratched the surface. Coming up in Part 2: the characters.

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Stargate Universe: Devoid of Life

2011-08-01T19:45:00.006+10:00

I don't think there's been a franchise I've seen fall so far from grace as the Stargate one. In the late nineties, Stargate SG-1 was quite simply some of the best television around. It was exciting, action-packed and it didn't take itself too seriously. To put it bluntly: the show wasn't afraid to have fun. Stargate Atlantis was, for the most part, a pretty fun show as well, though towards the end it got a bit tedious. So it was with a bit of anticipation I tuned into the very first episode of Stargate Universe, a series that promised to take the Stargate franchise into new and exciting areas. At first, I was worried the show was just going to be a Stargate version of Star Trek: Voyager, but after watching the entire show, I think it's clear that Universe was "influenced" by a number of shows:

Yes, I'm afraid rather than being a bold show that treaded new ground for the franchise, Universe simply felt like a re-hash of other popular (and better) shows. I've mentioned Star Trek: Voyager (a show with a ship stranded millions of light years from home), but the show also stole the grim and gritty atmosphere of Battlestar Galactica, the narrative structure and character dynamics of Lost and lesbians from The L Word.

Alright, they didn't steal the idea of lesbians in a show, but as awesome as it is seeing two hot girls go at each-other, it gets pretty damn tiring seeing it every week. Seriously, at every possible opportunity we saw Camile Wray (the Asian chick) and her partner having sex, kissing, having sex, hugging, having sex, talking about having sex, having sex or discussing what they were going to do when Camile got home (have hot lesbian sex). I'd expect this kind of writing from a fourteen year old, not a team of writers with over a decade of experience. I am so damn sick of writers thinking that by having your characters have sex, you've created a "mature" piece of work, when in reality the opposite is true. Universe was the first Stargate show to feature sex scenes, and they felt awkward, out of place, and purely there to keep the nerds happy.

Another problem I have is the characters. As I mentioned in my review of Underbelly: The Golden Mile , characters are the most important part of any work of fiction. But are the characters in Universe likable? Relatable, at least? No, they're a bunch of idiots and jerks. They spend almost all their time arguing or bitching about their predicament, or they act like idiots and make dumb tactical decisions. Of particular note is Robert Carlyle's character, Nicholas Rush, who is clearly supposed to be a jerk with a heart of gold, but is in reality nothing but a jerkass. He's rude, arrogant and makes just as many mistakes as the other characters, but he gets away with it because... actually, I'm not sure, he's not even that smart, Eli's usually the one to get them out of jams.

And speaking of Eli, boy was he a dumb character. For the uninitiated: he was an overweight nerd who was hand-picked for the Stargate program because he solved a puzzle in a video game (seriously). He might as well have just worn a shirt saying, "I'm a fan surrogate!" Still, even if we ignore this, his character felt like nothing more than a combination of Daniel Jackson from SG-1, Wesley Crusher from Star Trek and Hurley from Lost.

Still, there was one guy I liked, the black guy:

He was the one character with a brain, the only one who suggested the most logical course of action ("Why don't we just shoot the enemy?" "Why are we letting civilians call the shots?" "Why are you all such UTTER MORONS?"). And that is not a good thing.

Moving on, I found it quite offensive that the key premise of the show - isolation - was abandoned as early as episode two. Those damn Ancient communication stones, in my opinion, practically ruined whatever chance the show had. The show was supposed to bring new fans into the franchise, and what better way to do that than not bogging it down with all the boring politics that plagued SG-1 towards the end of its life? Not to mention, the show is all about the crew being billions of light years from home, so you'd expect it to feature, I don't know, NOTHING on Earth? Having a magic device that transports you back to Earth pretty much destroys any feelings of isolation the show might have. To use a good example, Star Trek: Voyager waited until its fourth season before they made contact with Earth, and even then it was brief. It wasn't until season seven that the ship was in regular contact with Earth.

I think, ultimately, the biggest problem with the show is it can't seem to settle on a tone. At times it goes for the grim and gritty Battlestar Galactica feel, at other times it goes for the light-hearted and fun tone of of SG-1 and Star Trek: The Next Generation. The episode "Light" was one of the show's few highlights, a truly excellent episode where the characters all faced their own deaths. On the other hand, "Time" was a seriously cool episode dealing with time travel, but both episodes felt like they belonged in different shows - one was grim 'n' gritty, the other was cool 'n' techy.

There were other little things that bothered me (like no opening theme), but I think the problems with this show are quite simple: there was no new creative team. The show, for better or worse, just felt like season 16 of the ongoing (and tired) Stargate franchise, rather than season 1 of a new and fresh show. If you have the same creative team for over a decade, ideas are going to get stale. Characters are going to fail at being real people. You'll grasp at straws to keep your show alive - maybe you'll steal ideas from other shows, maybe you'll throw in some sex to appear more "mature", but it won't work.

Despite its huge cast, Stargate Universe felt like an empty show. The fun, the excitement and the wonder of the Stargate franchise seems to have completely left the show, which is a damn shame. Perhaps one day the show can come back, but if it does, I sure hope they bring some new, fresh talent on board.

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Paying for Parking is Asking for Trouble

2011-06-24T19:48:00.009+10:00

Today, I read something in the paper that upset me greatly. Westfield Chermside, a shopping centre in Brisbane, is planning to force people who spend more than three hours in their shopping centre to pay for parking. Why are they doing this? To deter "commuter" parking - people parking in the centre, then catching the bus elsewhere. Why does this upset me greatly? Because it's a profoundly greedy and short-sighted thing for a business to do.

Now, to begin with, I have no issue with the concept of paying to park. I understand that sometimes, due to lack of space (like in the CBD), there is no other option, or else people would never leave. However, I do think a shopping centre charging people to use its carpark is overkill.

Westfield claim they are doing this for their customers, but it is the customers who will feel the pain the most. It is unfair to those people who want to take their time when they shop, or have a lot of shopping to do. What if, for example, you want go shopping, then grab a coffee afterwards to unwind? Or what if you and some friends want to see a movie and then grab dinner? I see people forgetting about the coffee, forgetting about the movie, to make sure they're not charged for parking. And this is helping businesses in the centre... how? But never mind that Westfield, you're doing this for your customers, right? To hell with these slow pokes!

Earlier this year, I did a rant on web retailers vs. traditional retailers. My basic point was that with internet retailers becoming more and more competitive on price, the only way traditional stores can compete is with excellent customer service, and by building relationships with consumers. And this is how Westfield plans to do it? By pissing people off, and forcing them to pay? Ah, but to hell with these whingers, right Westfield? You're doing this for your customers!

As I mentioned earlier, the reason Westfield says they're doing this is because they want commuters to stop parking in its centre. This confuses me, though: Why would Westfield build the best bus interchange for kilometres in any direction if they didn't want people to use it?

Maybe it was for the elusive bus stop tourism market? I mean, how can you resist views like this?

If this proposal goes ahead, all this is going to do is (a) force commuters to park in the streets surrounding the shops (lucky residents, eh?) or (b) force commuters to drive all the way to work, instead of using public transport. This will increase pollution and congestion on the roads. And hey, there will be a lot less people who grab a bite to eat in the centre between buses if commuters aren't parking there. What Westfield fails to realise is that there are many, many people out there who don't live on a bus line, let alone an express bus line. But never mind that Westfield, you're doing this for your customers, right? To hell with people too stupid to not live on a bus line!

But probably the biggest middle finger here is not to commuters, but to staff. Where are staff expected to park? They obviously spend more than three hours at a time in the centre. Westfield may say "there [will] be designated free parking areas for centre staff", but I call bullshit. I've seen the staff carparks at Westfield shopping centres - these staff areas are far away from the rest of the centre, difficult to access and dangerous at night. The staff would be probably be better off walking to work. Westfield may naively think that the staff aren't important, compared to ordinary customers, but the staff probably spend more money every day than the ordinary customers! They buy coffee, snacks, lunch, go shopping on breaks... the list goes on. Force them to pay to park, and they'll be a hell of a lot less likely to spend money on their breaks. There's an old adage that a happy worker is a productive worker - but never mind that Westfield, you're doing this for your customers, right? To hell with everyone else, and especially the staff!

Forget about these guys! They're only in the centre every day.

To me, the solution is simple. Instead of Westfield being greedy bastards and charging people to park, why don't they just BUILD MORE PARKING SPOTS?! If I had a business that was over capacity, I'd expand. Increase capacity. I certainly wouldn't charge my current users any more, and pretend it was to control demand. I've said it before: It really shits me when companies do something quite clearly just for the money and no other reason. But to hell with doing what's ethical, you're doing this for your customers, right Westfield?

Yeah, right. Pictured: The CEO of Westfield

Let me put this is in simple English: if Westfield starts charging people to park, people will shop elsewhere. Either out of protest, principle or convenience, people will shop (and work!) elsewhere. Remember: what you want (and think) as a business owner is much less important than what your customers want (and think). The reason for your business to exist is to create and service customers. Not just to make money.

If Westfield goes ahead with this plan, they may find their customers won't be theirs much longer.

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

It's Time to Stop Pretending Climate Change Doesn't Exist

2011-05-23T19:49:00.008+10:00

Let's not beat around the bush here: climate change is real, and it's caused by humans. I am sick to death of people either telling me that climate change isn't real, or that it is real, but there's no way it's being caused by humans. This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. In fact, since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. So why do people insist on claiming that climate change is a hoax? How could anyone reject such an idea, when the scientific community claims its real, and we are in danger?

Well, dear reader, once again we turn to The Dark Side of the Blog's old friend, Media Watch. Recently, they've done two articles criticising the media's handling of the climate change "debate" (I use the term loosely, because its like arguing that the sky isn't blue). The first is interesting, as it highlights how even a tiny uncertainty to commit to carbon reductions by a business can suddenly mean they no longer believe in it. The second is a bit more disturbing: the slightest bit of anti-climate change "research" is page one material.

The third, though, is far more alarming. Basically, AM talk-balk hosts such as Alan Jones, Jason Morrison and Howard Sattler seem to think it is their mission in life to disprove climate change. They bring onto the show so-called "scientists" who dispute climate change, but who ARE these nut jobs they dig up? Do they work for CSIRO (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)? No? How about The Australian Academy of Science? No? Well, surely they must at least work for the The Bureau of Meteorology? Oh, really? Well, what about NASA? The National Atmospheric Administration? Afraid not. No, what makes these "scientists" reputable is (a) they have "doctor" or "professor" in front of their names, and (b) some of them have written a book saying they're against climate change.

Wow. Now there's fair and unbiased coverage. People believe the opinions of men and women who stand to benefit, financially, if there's doubt about climate change? To put this into perspective, this would be like asking a priest whether you should attend church, or a car salesman whether you should buy a new car. To borrow a phrase Tony Abbot is fond of, it's like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. In fact, the best comparison in history is when advertisements like this were all over the place:

Blow in her face and she'll follow you anywhere - am I right fellas?

Yes, that's right, smoking. For those of you unaware, when scientists first suggested smoking might be bad for you, the cigarette companies immediately found other "scientists" to dispute these claims, because they stood to go bankrupt if everyone stopped smoking.

But this begs the question: why are Alan Jones, Jason Morrison, Howard Sattler and countless others sticking their heads in the sands and refusing to acknowledge the reality of climate change? They work in radio, not in coal mining. It's unlikely they will lose their jobs if there's any drastic changes to energy usage. The answer is as obvious as it is alarming: they (and their listeners) are afraid of change. Changing from dirty fossil fuels to clean, green energy will not be cheap, or easy - and it could require some sacrifices. But it is my personal opinion (and that of the scientific community, for that matter), that it is well worth the effort. A great man once wrote, "there is no darkness but ignorance", meaning that nobody is afraid of the dark, but many are afraid of the unknown.

Alan Jones, Jason Morrison and Howard Sattler need to stop acting like colossal pricks and grow up. Considering the audiences these men have, they shouldn't be spreading lies just because they're afraid of paying an extra $4.99 for electricity per quarter. It doesn't matter that these exploits drive up their ratings, they have a responsibility to report the truth, not what they think their listeners want to hear.

Climate change is real, and it's caused by humans. It's time to stop the spread of misinformation, and start moving forward. We have a responsibility as a developed nation to do the right thing. Australia has led the world on many then-controversial issues, such as giving women the vote and restricting the sales of guns - and we did these things not because they were easy, but because it was the right thing to do. Australia can lead the world again - we need only to stop listening to the fear mongers.

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Education is a Team Game

2011-05-10T19:37:00.015+10:00

Teachers are underpaid. No matter where you're reading this in the world, you've probably heard that from the news at some point. Along with doctor, nurses, police officers and prostitutes, teacher form a key part of any community. So you'd think, then, that I'd be congratulating the Federal Government for introducing a performance-based pay scheme for teachers. Essentially, the better students do in a teacher's class, the more money the teacher gets. It's a great idea.

In theory.

But, when you start to think about it, it makes little sense. First and foremost: where is the incentive to share? Say a teacher creates a great, fun activity sheet for the students that teaches them all about Uranus (oh, grow up). What incentive does that teacher have to share his/her resource with other teachers? If anything, he/she is being discouraged from sharing, since if the other classes are struggling without the activity, it will mean more money for the first teacher! He/she has highest-achieving class, so he/she will get the bonus!

Pictured: Your new Astronomy teacher

Another problem I see is that teachers won't help a colleague who's struggling with a difficult class. If performance-based pay is introduced, then I foresee conversations very much like this:

TEACHER 1: Hey, I'm having real trouble with John Smith, he just isn't doing any work in my classes. Didn't you have him last year? What did you do to engage him.
TEACHER 2: ...
TEACHER 1: What?
TEACHER 2: Sorry, I really need the bonus this term, I'm saving for a boat.

And what incentive would there be for a trained teacher to take on a student teacher? The thought process would probably be something like this:

TEACHER 2: Hmmm... I could take a bright, energetic soul under my wing, but they'd probably drag down the average grade in my class, and I am saving for that chandelier...

Artist's impression of your new English teacher

Let's also not forget that academic performance is not the sole indicator of success. Sure, a student may fail a class, but if the teacher has helped the student develop as a person, shouldn't we be rewarding that, too? Calculus is important, but so is learning to respect your fellow man. Of course, this kind of thing is not as easy to test for as calculus, but you see the point I'm making.

What I find most offensive about this proposal is that this is an industry where teamwork is vital to success. Imagine if doctors were paid bonuses on how many patients they saved. A person who desperately needs money could really cause some damage there. Or if the police were given bonuses for every criminal they brought in - would there be any reason to help other officers? Why would you bother to help someone else look good, when you have mortgage payments?

So what is the solution? Well, instead of giving the money to the teacher, what if the government gave it to back to the school, to spend on computers or something? I'm sure there's problems with this system too, but performance-based pay for teachers is not the solution. All it will do is make teachers collaborate less, and that will mean less varied and less interesting ways for students to learn.

After all, this is our children's future we're talking about here. We don't want to cock that up.

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

(Oh, before I get a slew of comments complaining that teachers would never be so selfish, I'm certain not all teachers would be greedy and do whatever they could for some extra money - most would still be team players - but there would certainly be a few who would abuse the system for a little extra cash)

So Over PC Gaming

2011-03-14T19:15:00.013+10:00

It probably won't come as a shock to regular readers of this blog that I play video games. I try not to discuss my gripes about gaming here because, well, there's plenty of other places that bitch about how the PS3 has no games (which is just plain wrong), the 360 is prone to failure (which it's not - not anymore, at least) and how the Wii is for girls (no argument from me). What's been bugging me lately, though, is PC gaming. What's been bugging me? This:

Remind me exactly when it became acceptable for us to have to sit through hours upon hours of installations, updates and so on, just to play PC games? I decided to boot up Portal the other day, play it for a bit, just to kill some time. Boy was that a mistake. For about five minutes I was stuck with this image:

It took forever to load. Why? Well, because I'd been foolish enough to not play any Steam games for a few months, so it had about sixty gigabytes of friggin' updates to download. Of what, I don't know, considering Portal has worked perfectly the day I installed it. I realise that Valve (the developer) has its heart is in the right place, but how about just giving me the option of downloading it?

Well, after another ten minutes (including multiple restarts of Steam) I finally got into the game, which was exactly the same. So glad for that update, Valve.

Still, updates aren't nearly as bad as installations. You better pray that when you buy a PC game you have an entire evening free to spend installing the damn thing. Not only are the installations upwards of 45 minutes, but some of them force you to register with their stupid communities (I'm looking at you, StarCraft II, Bioshock 2 and Mass Effect 2) before you can play. And hey, remember when installations used to mean little/no loading time? Not anymore! Yeah, I know games now are considerably more complex than they used to be, but considering StarCraft II takes up a whopping 12GB of space on my hard drive, I'd like the game to load my saves in BEFORE I pass out from starvation.

Is it any wonder why PC gaming is becoming less and less popular? It's because people finally have the option of (quickly!) playing the best-looking games on their home consoles. There are some people out there who lament casual games (like Bejeweled, Peggle, Plants Vs. Zombies and, heck, even Farmville) taking such a chunk out of the PC gaming market, but I say good on them! You know how long it takes me to open Peggle? Less than a minute. I haven't played StarCraft II in a while, but I bet if I launched it right now it would require another damn update. Let's see, shall we?

Oh my God. I was half-kidding.

Then I get this. What.

Even after the update is done, I'll have to type my password, sift through the menus, then spend two minutes waiting for my save to load. This is why I play Peggle, and not any of my triple-A PC games when I'm bored. Because they're ready to play in less time than it would take to go to Neptune and back.

Some of you may be inclined to tell me that they're fixing the game, making it better, which is commendable, really. My issue is that the updates take so damn long and are so damn frequent! Sure, I have to put up with updates on my PS3, but at least they're quick and rare. Is there a solution? Yes! Release a finished product! Do NOT use me as an unpaid beta tester. A wise man once wrote, "The first time we hear the word 'patch' in relation to a PS3 or XBox 360 game, we're taking the console back to the store. Filled with our shit." Amen.

A friend of mine asked me the other day why I bought Call of Duty: Black Ops for my PS3 and not my PC. My answer was simple: it was easier to play it on the PS3. Just pop in the disc, and I was away. No sitting around, just fun straight away. Honestly, apart from perhaps Portal 2 and Half Life 2: Episode Three, I'm pretty much done with PC gaming. I just don't have the patience anymore - and let's face it, it's not like it's getting better.

Fun fact: Half way through this rant, I opened StarCraft II to get a screen capture of the update screen, and you know what? Fifteen minutes later, it's still updating!

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Playing Politics is Important, Ms Gillard

2011-02-06T19:16:00.007+10:00

I was watching the ABC news tonight and there was (unsurprising) an article on the extreme weather Queensland has been facing this month. The article was about the "flood levy", proposed by the Labor Party, where everyone in Australia has to pay some money to help with the flood recovery. Mr Abbott, the opposition leader, has criticised this tax, basically saying the last thing people want is another tax. Then, in a moment that truly shocked me, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the treasurer, Wayne Swan, criticised Abbott for "playing politics in a time of crisis" (click here for an article about the issue - not the article I saw on the news, but you get the idea).

Now, I'm not really a huge fan of Abbott (or Gillard for that matter), but I think he has every right to "play politics". Why? HE'S A POLITICIAN!

As the opposition leader, isn't it more or less his job to question the current government's actions? Criticising Abbott for "playing politics" would be like criticising Gillard for being photographed when she visited flood-affected areas.

Look at her, playing politics. She makes me sick.

Not to mention, if the opposition wasn't allowed to (or, heck, even discouraged) from criticising the government during a time of crisis, then wouldn't that give the government carte blanche to do whatever they wanted? Imagine if Australia was at war, and the government decided that the best solution would be using biological weapons against the enemy. Even though it's against international law, the opposition can't criticise this move, because that would be playing politics!

Mr Abbott, you continue to criticise the government to the best of your ability. Only by seeing their flaws will any government be able to improve.

Now if you'll excuse me, after defending Tony Abbott, I suddenly feel the need for a very long shower...

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Big Retailers Wage War on Web (And They're Sure to Lose)

2011-01-09T18:23:00.010+10:00

The other day, I saw an article on A Current Affair (now there's a way to lose your audience's respect in the very first sentence...) about how a bunch of retailers are annoyed that people can buy things cheaper online. Well, there was more to it than that, but after seeing ten seconds of A Current Affair my brain had a massive hemorrhage and I woke up a few hours later in hospital. Anyway, the next day, a similar piece appeared on the ABC's 7:30 Report.

Now, it was real news.

The basic gist of the article (read it here) is that Australian retailers can't match prices with the overseas companies selling stuff online because the Australian businesses have to pay tax. Well, you know what I think? I think the retailers complaining (yes, I'm talking to you, Gerry Harvey) can suck it. Why? Well, I mentioned a few posts ago that I hate it when companies do things solely for the money, and here's yet another example of this. Do the retailers want lower taxes so they can give consumers a better deal? No. Do the retailers want lower taxes so they can put more money into serving customers? No. These retailers clearly care about one thing and one thing only: money. The overseas stores are a threat, and the local retailers are crying unfair. Well guys, I hate to break this to you, but that's the nature of capitalism. It's sink or swim.

Some of you reading this may be agreeing with the retailers, after all, to quote Russell Zimmerman of The Australian Retailers Association, "...we have to pay superannuation, payroll tax, workers' compensation, all those things... we are behind the 8-ball when we start." Yeah, those things are such a pain, eh? If I'm interpreting this correctly, Zimmerman would love for all those pesky expenses to just go away. Better yet, Zimmerman, how about slavery? I hear it's very cheap.

Alright, alright, I can still hear you saying, "Zimmerman makes a fair point! Australian businesses do have higher expenses." But is price really everything? You may be inclined to answer "yes", but price is only one seventh of the battle in winning customers. Take, for example, milk. Now, unless you're a connoisseur, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind taste test between home brand milk manufactured by the supermarket (like Woolworths or Coles) and milk manufactured by distributors (like Paul's, Dairy Farmers, etc.). You'd think with home brand milk being only 2/3 the price of the commercial stuff, Dairy Farmers and Pauls would be out of business pretty quickly. Yet they survive - why is this so?

The answer, is marketing. Dairy Farmers and Pauls have built a relationship with the consumer, so they're willing to pay a little more. Gerry Harvey and Russell Zimmerman seem to think profit is the only thing that matters, and this begs the question - how on Earth did these men get to be where they are with an attitude like that?

Harvey and Zimmerman's attitudes remind me of a cartoon I found a while ago:

(Source)

I get the feeling all of the businesses whinging have this as their mission statement, too, but this is a very stupid thing to do. Why? Well, what you want (and think) as a business owner is much less important than what your customers want (and think). The reason for your business to exist is to create and service customers. Not just to make money.

To be honest, this whole debate reminds me of when the music industry cried foul when people started downloading music illegally. Rather than embrace the technology, they tried to tell us that we were doing the wrong thing. Naturally, we ignored them and... well, we know how that story ends. I don't deny that overseas online retailers present a threat to Australian ones, but crying to the government for some tax breaks is not the solution. They need to adapt, come up with new strategies. If you're losing customers, chances are it's not just because the store across the road is selling the same stuff cheaper.

After all, it's sink or swim.

© 2011 by Sean "The Free Man"

Rain, Rain, Go Away. Just to shut these people up.

2010-12-27T21:12:00.008+10:00

Please stop spamming my news feed with this shit.

In case it isn't obvious, I live in an area of the world that is currently being soaked with rain, and some of my "friends" online have decided to share this incredible insight with the world. Look, I get it. It's been raining for a while now, but everyone knows that. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for you to share this information on Facebook/Twitter!

I want you to have a look at this picture below. You see this planet?

I hate to break it to you, but when you live on this planet, it rains from time to time. Shocking, I know.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of me complaining about people complaining, so don't bother pointing that out.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

Thirteen Things I Learned from Five Years at University

2010-11-24T19:23:00.015+10:00

(This was originally posted on my old blog as “Ten Things I Learned from Three Years at University” in December 2008. As my postgraduate degree draws to a close, I thought I might post it with a few new items...)

Thinking of heading off to university next year? Allow me to save you the trouble – what follows are the thirteen most important things I discovered while studying at university:

1. You’ll spend half of your time on public transport
As a rule, every university on the planet is either too far away from where you live or in the middle of the city. So, you better get used to sitting on overcrowded trains, buses and ferries. Here’s a picture a friend took of me on a bus the other day:

I must be the exception to the rule, because everyone else seems to love catching the public transport. Trillions and trillions of people catch the bus every day, and without fail there are always the following people:

Grandma or Grandpa, who take FOREVER to count out their change to the driver, and then take another ten years to get to their seat.
The parent with ten children, who all run around the bus like a bunch of screaming little shits
The guy who believes that his music sounds better when played at MAXIMUM VOLUME
The bogan who argues over the fare. Yes, I’m sure the bus driver really is an evil man, desperate to get that extra twenty cents so he can rule the world
The idiots who have clearly not planned their trip, and have to ask the driver where the bus stops
School children, with gigantic bags that must contain every book ever written in human history

2. Acronyms and abbreviations are everywhere
Whether you’re doing a SWOT, PEST, SIVA or IDIC analysis; or researching the 4 P’s, the 7 P’s, the Five S’s, the Four S’s or The Six I’s, you’ll have to memorise hundreds of inane abbreviations for things you’ll never need.

3. Lecturers and administrators love America
If I had a penny for every time I saw organization, optimization or internationalization in my lecture slides I would be a very, very rich man. It’s comforting to know that for my hundreds of dollars per subject, the lecturers are just going straight to the textbook’s American website and stealing the slides from there.

All of my lecturers own one of these.

4. An assignment may say 2000 words, but you’ve really got to double that.

Most assignments have a limit of 2000 words, but when you consider that the university demands several appendices, contents page, reference list and a title page for each one, you’ll find that you have to do much, much more. My final word count for one 2000 word assignment that I did was a staggering 4743 words, which is a lot of time I could have spent playing PlayStation.

5. It is impossible to get 100% on anything.
In my entire time at university, I did not once get 100% on an assignment. Even if I followed the instructions to the letter, I still never got full marks. The best I ever did was on an oral, where I got 97.5%. My tutor wrote the comment:
"Sean, you presented an exceptional presentation that could not be faulted. Your summary had a good reference list and was well-researched. Well done!"

Well, if it couldn’t be faulted, then why didn’t you give me 100%? Or at the very least, tell me what was wrong?

6. The University wants feedback, but refuses to give it.
Throughout my degree, I was constantly pestered to participate in the LEX (Learning Experience Survey), FYS (First Year Survey) or EYES (Exit Year Experience Survey - again with the acronyms...). Not to mention the constant library surveys, IT surveys...

But the ironic flip-side to this is that the tutors hardly give you any feedback on your work. The above example is the exception, most assignments consisted of about one sentence. The 4743 assignment mentioned above had the following enormous amount of feedback:

"V. Good"

He couldn’t even be bothered to write ‘very’! While I can understand laziness, that was just appalling.

7. Those stories about university chicks being loose...
All I’m saying is that they are greatly exaggerated. Not once did a girl come up to me and offer herself to me.

Not found at my uni.

8. Attendance is, if anything, discouraged.
I don’t think I’d be wrong in guessing that about 50% of people don’t turn up to lectures or tutorials. Now, call me a nerd if you wish, but I figure if you’re going to pay hundreds of dollars for a crappy plastic seat to sit in for thirteen weeks, you may as well turn up and get your money’s worth.

9. The staff know nothing about technology
Although there were a couple of exceptions, most of my tutors and lecturers were complete and utter technophobes:

Some would frequently fumble with the lecture slides, incessantly clicking whenever it froze up
Others were always surprised when files from a Macintosh computer refused to work on the PCs on campus
Occasionally, there were lecturers who refused to use PowerPoint in lectures and, in one rare case, refused to let us use PowerPoint in our oral presentations
Every single lecturer had a big cry in front of their classes when Microsoft Office 2007 was introduced. Yes, it is a little different, but, really, it’s not that hard to get used to.

As far as the staff at my university are concerned, computers are big, scary boxes.

10. Everybody wants something for nothing.
No matter where you go in your university life, you’ll frequently be assaulted by people who want your money. The obvious example is the student union, who robbed me of $200 in 2006 just so they could buy themselves a gold-plated toilet.

Then there’s the student groups who will find you and thrust pamphlets under your nose, especially if you’re on your own just trying to eat lunch (yes, this actually happened to me).

You’d think that the uni could help fund these student groups and the union, but noooooooo. Universities piss away money like you wouldn’t believe. They’re too busy spending money on plasma TVs in lobbies to remind people why they're so great, glossy pamphlets to remind people why they're so great, expensive functions to remind people why they're so great and open days to remind people why they're so great.

And then there’s the environmentalist/peace/violence against women/free the refugees people who will run up to you as you walk in/out of campus and ask if you have a minute to talk about the environment or something. They’ll shake your hand and block your exit, so you then have no choice but to listen to them crap on about deforestation or whatever else they have to bore you with. I mean, I’m no expert in marketing – wait, yes I am – but surely there are more effective means of recruiting people than just running up to them in the street?!?

11. The union is useless
Like I said, in 2006 the union robbed me of $200. But what did I get for my fees? A discount in the cafeteria? No. Free membership in the gym? No. Discounted membership in the gym? No. Free childcare? No. A discount at the guild bar? No. Well, what about cheaper textbooks? Yes! Thanks to the union, textbooks were a manageable $105 each instead of the outrageous price of $110 each. THANK GOD FOR THE UNION.

Yes, I'm aware the union is there for "student welfare", but as far as I'm concerned, if you're charging 40 000 students $200 each, you should be helping us out a little more than if a lecturer happens to sleep with one of us. For all the services I saw the union provide, it could have been done with $2 per student.

12. Graduations are expensive.
When you do finally finish, don't expect the uni to spring for your graduation. Oh, sure, it's free for you, but if you want to bring friends or family, they'll have to buy tickets. I honestly fail to see the logic here - I didn't buy these tickets through my uni, I had to use TicketMaster. Um, why? Did my uni only book half the venue or something?

And don't get me started on the cost of academic gowns. I had to pay sixty bucks for a crappy robe and hat. And that was just to rent the gown. For that price, I could have hired twenty weeklies from Blockbuster and had a much more entertaining night. To be fair, it wasn't the uni charging me for the gown, it was the union, but I sincerely doubt that if union fees were still mandatory, I'd get the gown for free - after all, I didn't get anything else for free.

Finally, you better pray you don't want to remember the night, because the photos aren't cheap either. And it's not like this is a small little uni that's barely getting by - it's the second-biggest in Queensland! My uni must be rolling in money, and it appears it all comes from graduations and not tuition.

You'd think after giving the uni tens of thousands of dollars, they'd spring for my graduation (or at least hire the ENTIRE venue, and not just the stage), but no, too busy reminding people why they're so great, I guess.

13. University is just about the ideal lifestyle, except for all those pesky classes.
I mean, really, it is. Twelve contact hours a week (and that's a full time load!). Only twenty-six weeks a year. Always getting around in thongs and shorts. Constant drinking and socialising. Getting up at eleven every day.

Man, screw full-time employment. I'm going back to uni again.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

Hey Hey, it's Time to Move On

2010-10-18T19:27:00.007+10:00

I wish I made that quote up.

Really, I do, because Hey Hey is obviously the least original thing on TV. Why do people continue to watch it? It's dull, bland and quite clearly a desperate attempt by Channel 9 to return to their glory days of the eighties and nineties.

I am willing to concede that it may have been original when it first aired in 1971 (!), but times have changed since then. Now, in 1971:

Video games were pretty much limited to Pong
The first Star Wars film was six years away
VCRs didn't exist

So it's understandable with so little to do, many people turned to television to reduce their boredom. But I have to wonder, was there nothing else on in 1971? Was there really nothing better to do than watch some hack dance around with a man in an ostrich costume? (and that always bugged me - why an ostrich? Don't we have some sort of big, flightless bird in Australia? Gosh, if only.) Yes, I'm aware Hey Hey was originally a Saturday morning children's program (seriously), but can you name five other amazing variety shows that started life as children's programs? How about one? The Wikipedia page on the show says it attracted a "cult following". Huh. Is this why Channel 10 replaced Cheez TV with Toasted TV - are Jade and Ryan getting their own variety show?

When Channel 9 aired the reunion specials, I had no problem with it. A lot of people had happy memories of that show, and I had no issue with people getting nostalgic for a couple of hours. But when Nine announced the show was coming back, I groaned. The nineties were a great time and all, but just because a show worked then does NOT mean it will work now. Need proof? Think of all the shitty remakes or reboots of TV shows from three decades ago. Nearly all of them were crap (think Bionic Woman, Knight Rider, heck, even V doesn't look like it'll last much longer). Why? Well, to put it simply, they didn't change anything! Yes, they took what made the original great, but they refused to acknowledge that things have changed since the shows first aired.

Now, think of the successful remakes/reboots/re-imaginings/re-whatevers (like Star Trek: The Next Generation, Battlestar Galactica or Doctor Who). What made these shows critically and commercially successful? They got new people on board, and changed things dramatically. I can think of no better example than J. J. Abrams Star Trek. Before this film, everyone seemed to think the franchise was tired and out of ideas. Now, with a completely new creative team behind it, the franchise is healthier than ever.

Sadly, Hey Hey opted not to change a single thing, and as a result, it's only been surviving on the nostalgia factor. Actually, it did change one thing: the day. Why, oh WHY, was it on WEDNESDAY?! One would think that a show called Hey Hey it's Saturday should only air on, oh, I don't know, the day before Sunday? It really shits me when companies do something quite clearly just for the money and no other reason, and this a prime example. Imagine if Seven moved Sunday Night to a night other than Sunday, but retained the title. People would think they'd lost their minds!

Well, as you probably know, Hey Hey is returning to its Saturday slot, where I hope it dies a quite death. It may have been a fine show for its time, but its not the seventies, eighties or nineties any more. We need to move on to fresher, more original shows. Building the future and keeping the past alive may be the same thing, but that does not mean we should exclusively live in the past, getting lost in nostalgia. Ditch this shit.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

The Beginning of the End

2010-09-14T18:53:00.005+10:00

The long-awaited eight installment in The End of the World series, The Beginning of the End, is here, free to read, at my website. Enjoy!

Sorry for the lack of rants lately, but StarCraft II sucks the time away from you like you wouldn't believe...

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

Boat People Drowning in a Sea of Fear

2010-08-09T13:23:00.015+10:00

The 2010 federal election campaign has been an interesting one, to say the least. Much more interesting than the last one, anyway, which was all Kevin '07 and Howard-and-then-after-a-little-while-Costello '07 (which didn't have quite the same ring to it, did it?). One thing that has really bothered me this election, though, is illegal immigrants, or, as both the Coalition and ALP insist on calling them, "Boat People".

The issue of illegal immigration is hardly a new topic - in the 2004 and 2007 elections, it barely registered in the media. Now, every second policy seems to be about boat people. But, Ms Gillard and Mr Abbot, do you have any idea how many illegal immigrants are arriving by boat? For the past decade - yes, even with the Rudd government - illegal immigrants arriving by boat has been less than one percent of all immigrants arriving in Australia. I've prepared this handy graph with information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Parliamentary Library that compares births, total immigration and illegal immigration (by boat). It covers from when the Howard Government took office to now:

Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Australian Social Trends, June 2010 and the Parliamentary Library - Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976

You see the tiny, tiny rise in the purple line? That is the "influx of boat people" that Gillard and Abbot want us to be so scared of that we'll vote for them. Compared to births and legal migration, it's barely a drop in the ocean (no pun intended).

I also loathe the way that both parties are screaming "Stop the boats!", when boats aren't even the main problem. Let's look at another graph, this time prepared by the Parliamentary Library:

Source: Parliamentary Library - Immigration Detention in Australia

It's a bit more complicated than the first, but you'll note that the category "Unauthorised Boat" has remained at a pretty constant level since 2002-2003. Since then, the biggest source of illegal immigrants has been "Overstayer", that is, people who entered the country legally with a visa or passport, but did not renew it. If there is a problem with illegal immigration (and there's really not), then surely we should be cracking down on these people? Then again, I suppose it's not as catchy to say "The people doing the menial jobs that nobody else wants for minimum wage HAVE TO GO!"

But what really upsets me is the fact that Abbot and Gillard are using immigrants arriving by boat simply to get elected. True, some of them may be criminals (the immigrants, that is, not the politicians. But then again...). However, there are genuine refugees in these boats as well. It may be easy to think of boat people as "invaders" and "queue jumpers", but these are real people, with real emotions. They deserve to be treated as such.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

UPDATE 10/8/10: Clearly the ABC reads my blog, as on 9/8/10, Media Watch had a segment on illegal immigrants arriving by boat, and how the media blows it out of proportion: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2977986.htm

The Centre of the Dead

2010-07-11T17:37:00.009+10:00

Just in case you weren't aware, not only do I write blog entries that nobody reads, I also write short stories that nobody reads. My sixty-fifth short story, The Centre of the Dead, is now available to read, for free, on my website. Here's a sneak preview (ie., the first scene):

3:45pm
Day 1

Larry was bleeding. Granted, it wasn’t a severe cut, but it still hurt.
"Have we learned a lesson here?” called his girlfriend, Alice, from outside.
“Yes,” Larry sighed, washing his hand under the tap in the bathroom. “When the sign says, ‘Do not feed the man-eating panthers’, it’s probably a good idea not to feed the man-eating panthers.”
“Why they have an enclosure of man-eating panthers in a shopping centre is beyond me, though,” Larry added as he exited the bathroom.
“Well, I think I read they were going to spray paint them pink to tie in with that new movie... what’s it called? The Lilac Lion? Anyway, the RSPCA stepped in and said that unless they were paid the appropriate bribe, then the panthers couldn’t be spray-painted pink. Westfield Kotara didn’t pay the bribe, so they were forced to use them as just a gimmick to get shoppers in.”
“What are you, the narrator?” asked Larry, running a hand through his red hair.
“Well you did ask...”
The two of them continued to bicker as they walked from the bathroom to the food court, where Alice nibbled on some sushi while Larry devoured a Whopper™ with Cheese™.
“I don’t know how you eat that crap,” she said as Larry let out a burp.
“It tastes good?” he said.
“Yeah, but it’s full of fat.”
“Well, the way I see it” he said, licking his fingers “is that you only live once – twice if you’re James Bond –” (Alice rolled her eyes at this) “– so why bother eating bad—”
BOOM.
“What the hell was that?” yelped someone at the next table.
Larry stood up, intending to go outside and see what the noise was, but before he could, he heard the sound of glass smashing and all the lights flickered out.
“My God...” he breathed. “An EMP...”
“Larry!”
Larry sat back down and took Alice’s hand. “I’m here! We’re going to be okay!”
“How can you know that!”
Larry didn’t answer. Instead, he flicked out his phone and tried to call the police, but, to his dismay, he saw it had been fried by the pulse as well.
“I think we should get out of here,” Alice whispered, as people began to shout and cry all around them.
Larry turned to her, and could just make out her terrified face in the darkness.
“I think you’re right,” he said, moving out of his chair. “Let’s get to the carpark right—”
But before he could finish, bloodcurdling screams began to echo in from the other end of the centre. Then, the horror truly began.

Interested? Appalled? Head over here to read the rest. If you haven't read the prior installments in the series, you may want to head over here first.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

Underbelly: Overrated

2010-06-26T22:21:00.016+10:00

Australian television is a bit of a mixed bag lately. Try as we might, Australians can't seem to create original drama that is as stunning as the stuff our cousins in the US and UK produce. I heard a lot of great things about Underbelly when it premiered in 2008, and I was intrigued by the concept. Something based on a true story, that was dark and adult. A show that featured ongoing story arcs and strong characters - at least, that's what Channel 9 and people I pretend to listen to led me to believe. I never saw the first series, or the second, but I decided to give Underbelly: The Golden Mile a go.

Now that it's over, I think it's fair to say it was a big pile of shit.

Well, okay, maybe it wasn't *quite* that bad, but hear me out. Again, I haven't seen the first two series, so I'm only commenting on the third, but The Golden Mile was some of the trashiest television I've watched in a long time. Why? Let's start with the most important part of any work of fiction: the characters.

To begin with, nearly all of the characters in Underbelly were poorly written and overtly "Aussie". If I didn't know better, I'd swear the show was written by an American. Nearly every second word is "mate" and there's so many barbecues in the show it makes us look like we don't have indoor cooking in this country. Not to mention some the dialogue was just plain idiotic, like when a visibly upset girl was comforted by her mother with the words, "I shoulda had an abortion." What.

The show also featured far too many characters. Now, I'm not saying shows with a large cast don't work - the first seasons of Lost and Heroes were very successful in the ratings, and they had a huge cast - but more often than not, you want to focus on a protagonist or group of protagonists, and then maybe have a supporting cast. For example:

The Simpsons (the main family - Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie)
24 (Jack Bauer)
House (Greg House)
Supernatural (Sam and Dean)
Doctor Who (The Doctor)
Friends (the six friends)
Scrubs (JD, and - to a lesser extent - Turk, Carla and Elliot)
Desperate Housewives (those four soulless, irritating, vapid whores)

"Aha!" I hear you say. "Underbelly did feature a protagonist - Kim!" Kim Hollingsworth certainly had her own story, but for the first two thirds of the season she was really nothing more than a pair of tits, wasn't she? You may be thinking of John Ibrahim next, and, indeed, the first episode did seem to paint him as the protagonist, but after George Freeman died, he didn't really do much until the final episode. Other episodes seemed to focus on entirely new protagonists - the blonde police officer and Doc (the guy that murdered DK). Having this many protagonists made the show frustrating to watch, as it seemed like we were following one character's story (John's), only to switch to another's (Kim's) then to another's (the blonde girl who blew the whistle) and then back again (to Kim). This is not good storytelling, people!

The rest of the characters were crap too. Not because they were poorly acted, but just because they were unlikeable. Yeah, I know the show is about crime (I'm not that stupid), but criminals rarely think of themselves as the bad guys, you know. I recently finished season 8 of 24, where Jack goes rouge and murders several Russian diplomats, and even plans to assassinate the Russian president. To a civilian, Jack would seem like a terrorist, but although the audience knows what Jack is doing is wrong, we also know why he's doing it, and we side with him. Underbelly had none of this, it was too busy flashing breasts at us to explain why characters were murderers, drug dealers or corrupt police officers. And, no, Channel 9, "they did it for the money" is not sufficient justification.

At times it seemed like the characters in Underbelly were based on this guy

And let's talk about the nudity for a moment. Now, I like seeing naked women as much as any other red-blooded male, but Underbelly has so much nudity it's ridiculous, at times even gratuitous. One scene took place on a nudist beach for no other reason than so we could see Kim's (admittedly quite nice) arse. Another featured Kim and her sister at home with their tits hanging out, waiting for pizza. Now, I'd like all the ladies reading this to consider the following question:

If you're sitting around nearly naked and someone arrives at the door, delivering food, do you:
A. ...put on a gown, accept the food and pay the man?
B. ...open the door just enough so that you can pay the man and accept the food?
C. ...invite the man into your apartment, accept the food, then dance around naked in front of him?

If you answered C, congratulations! You're hired as a writer for Channel 9! I think at least one of the writers has some talent, because the episode that featured the most nudity was ironically called "Women in Uniform." Clever.

My biggest complaint, though, is the friggin' narrator. There's nothing inherently wrong with narrators in fiction, however, they're often used as a shortcut for exposition, rather than giving insights into a character (so, JD in Scrubs is a good use of a narrator, whereas Mary Alice in Desperate Housewives is not). Underbelly uses its narrator so much I wanted to strangle the bitch by the end of the series. Two examples stood out as particularly bad:

In the second episode, Kim comes home after her first night as a prostitute. She's visibly shaken by the experience, and has a shower. It could have been one of the few decent moments of the series, but the producers ruined it by having the narrator say, "Kim had to ask herself - had she just sold her soul for the rent?" Arrgh! A director does NOT need to use a narrator, if the emotions being experienced by the characters are clear to the audience! You shouldn't need to bludgeon the audience with exposition like that!
In the penultimate episode, one character remarks, "Don't ever trust a Muslim", prompting shocked looks from the other characters around the table. I had no idea why they were upset, but then the narrator helpfully explained to the audience, "He didn't know it, but everyone else in the room was a Muslim." Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a blatant example of bad storytelling being covered up with narration. We shouldn't need to be TOLD why a remark was offensive, we should know enough about the characters so that we can interpret remarks like this as offensive. Jesus.

Underbelly's biggest gimmick - the fact that it's all based on a true story - is probably also its biggest drawback. The fact that the events of the show was spread over a decade meant that there wasn't a consistent feel to the storytelling. Characters like John Ibrahim were pushed to the sidelines for most of the series, but this is not because of the writing, but because John didn't DO anything in the first half of the nineties! Looking back at the series, I see three primary storylines that unfolded:

Kim's story, from waitress to hooker to policewoman
John's story, from nobody to a powerful force in King's Cross
The story of the Royal Commission

Again, I don't think having multiple stories going on can't work (Summer Heights High, anyone?), but Channel 9 tried to do far too much, and as a result, the show ended up feeling unbalanced. If they'd just stuck with one of the three, instead of all of them, it would have been a much tighter show, with less padding.

I think, overall, Underbelly wasn't terrible, but it wasn't very good, either. The trouble seems to be that we're so starved for decent Australian content in this country we'll treat a few chunks of dog food as a five-star steak when it comes to television (which is probably why Kath & Kim became popular). I've compared Underbelly a lot to overseas shows, but even compared to local shows like early episodes of City Homicide, all of Summer Heights High, or even the second season of The Librarians, Underbelly just ends up being nothing more than softcore pornography. Avoid.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

My Attempt at Reading Stephenie Meyer's "Twilight"

2010-06-15T20:06:00.015+10:00

Let it never be said that I dismiss things without first giving them a fair go. I watched How I Met Your Mother for three seasons before deciding it was a poorer man's Friends. Despite a lot of criticism, I went and saw Baz Luhrmann's Australia, and actually enjoyed it. I even gave Ugly Betty a go when it first came on. But there is one franchise that even I have refused to touch, and that's the gargantuan Twilight one.

Spanning four books (five, if you count the new one) and three movies (so far), Twilight has become so popular it's become uncool to like it. Well, brace yourself, dear reader, for I'm about to give it a go.

I stole my sister's copy of the book from her room, and just looking at the cover it's not a good start. She has the film tie-in edition, with Robert Pattinson on the cover. Any franchise that made this untalented hack popular must clearly be evil. Ahem, sorry. So, I get to the acknowledgements and I skim through it, and see Meyer thanks her husband, Pancho. Seriously? Pancho? I've got this image of a seedy Mexican guy, and I'm intrigued whether this character will appear in the book. Probably not, or else the book might be interesting - no! Bad Sean! I'm supposed to be keeping an open mind here!

Pictured: Stephenie Meyer's Husband

Further down the acknowledgements, Meyer thanks her editor for making the book "better than it started out." Given the extremely varied reviews I've heard, I wonder how bad the original manuscript must have been.

On the next page we have a contents page, and boy does this annoy me. Why on earth do we need a contents page in a NOVEL?! Harry Potter doesn't have any. None of my Douglas Adams, John Marsden, Matthew Reilly or Michael Crichton books have them. Heck, the Goosebumps books didn't have contents pages! What sane person picks up a book, looks at the contents and thinks, "Hmm, chapter 18, The Hunt, that sounds exciting, let's start on page 328"? In fact, the only novel in my room that features a contents page is Andy Griffith's The Day My Bum Went Psycho, but that probably says more about me than anything.

So, we start with a preface, and the narrator is talking about how they're about to be killed by the hunter. I turn the page, and we're at chapter one. Great. Another story that starts at the most dramatic moment possible, then the rest is told in flashback. I am so sick of this cliche. I've seen it in Battlestar Galactica, V, Flashforward, Star Trek, Lost (obviously), Supernatural, Batman Begins Iron Man and the video game Uncharted 2 to name a few. It's irritating and insulting (less so with Lost, since the flashbacks are a key part of the narrative) because it means executives think we'll only watch/read/play something if there's a really dramatic beginning. Look, Meyer, we have your book. You don't need to start with a dumb flashforward, we're not going to put it down. To be fair, the book was published back in 2005, when it wasn't as much of a cliche as it is now. I'll let this one slide for now, Meyer.

So. Chapter 1. 'First Sight'. Christ this is exhausting. This is the actual opening paragraph:
"My mother drove me to the airport with the windows rolled down. It was seventy-five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue. I was wearing my favorite shirt – sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture. My carry-on item was a parka."

Immediately I'm bored. You see the problem with this paragraph? It's just so... bland. Imagine if I wrote this:
"My mother drove me to the shops with the radio on. It was hot in Brisbane. The sky was blue. I was wearing my favourite green T-shirt; it was a gesture of defiance. My phone was in my pocket."

The only difference is that Meyer is a lot wordier than me, and that's not a good thing. Shakespeare once said, "Brevity is the soul of wit", and this basically means DON'T WASTE MY TIME WITH WORDY EXPOSITION! Here's my paragraph again, re-written:
"Once again, Mum had selected the worst possible radio station. There were only so many times I could hear the hits of the eighties, nineties and now before I killed someone. It was bad enough that it was a scorching day in Brisbane, let alone that I was perfectly okay to catch the bus to the shops. But no, mum insisted on driving me."

You see how much more vibrant the text is when it's not just simple exposition? There's humour, personality, backstory. And I get across essentially the same thing in roughly the same amount of words.

Gah. This is painful. Next paragraph is, if possible, even worse:
"In the Olympic Peninsula of northwest Washington State, a small town named Forks exists under a near-constant cover of clouds. It rains on this inconsequential town more than any other place in the United States of America. It was from this town and its gloomy, omnipresent shade that my mother escaped with me when I was only a few months old. It was in this town that I’d been compelled to spend a month every summer until I was fourteen. That was the year I finally put my foot down; these past three summers, my dad, Charlie, vacationed with me in California for two weeks instead."

Where do I begin? To begin with, is it really necessary that we're given the exact geographic location? A town name is fine, a state okay, but the PENINSULA? Then we're told that it rains a lot in Forks. Twice. First, we're told it's cloudy a lot, then we're told it rains a lot. Just one of these would have been enough, you know. What was I just saying about not wasting my time with wordy exposition? Oh, and let's not forget, our yet-unnamed narrator tells us that it rains "on this inconsequential town more than any other place in the United States of America." MORE wordy exposition? Meyer, you're an American author, the book was first published in the States, I'm pretty sure "United States" or just "America" would have been sufficient for your readers. You don't see me calling Australia "The Commonwealth of Australia" in my stories.

Next our narrator begins to whine about her father. Wow. A girl with daddy issues. Meyer, I take back all my criticism, you are the most original and revolutionary writer since Dickens. Apparently, our narrator recently put her foot down and forced her dad to holiday with her in California. Straight away this makes me dislike the protagonist. Why? Well, it paints an image of our hero being a whiny, spoiled teenage girl, who is not relatable at all. Except to other whiny, spoiled, teenage girls I suppose.

I can't go on, we're only 154 words in and I can already feel a vein pulsing on my temple. To summarise: Twilight has lost me on its very first page, thanks to redundant and wordy exposition, unlikeable characters and cliched plotlines/literary devices. Once again, I'd like to stress we're only 154 words in. Unbelievable.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

(Oh, and before any of you start screaming, "You do better!", feel free to read some of my work)

Extracts from Jessica Watson's Diary

2010-05-17T18:29:00.007+10:00

Isn't Jessica Watson such a hero? An insipiration to young people and girls everywhere? She clearly only did the voyage around the world to inspire people, and not just to get rich. I mean, look at her boat. Not a single sponsor on there, is there?

(except for Ella Bache, ONE, News Ltd, Panasonic...)

But I digress. I have just hacked into Jessica Watson's laptop to bring you a WORLD EXCLUSIVE - her diary while she was at sea! Don't believe those posts she put online during her voyage, this is her real diary:

DAY 1
Gee, I can't believe all these people came to see me sail off. Doesn't this country have anything better to do?

DAY 2
I really wish I'd learnt to sail before I set off. Learning it all as you go is tricky.

DAY 5
You know what's really big? The Pacific Ocean. It's MUCH bigger than Mr Wellwood described it in geography, so I don't think I'm going to catch the new season of Gossip Girl. Better get Mum to Tivo it for me.

DAY 10
Boy, I wish I'd brought some magazines. Or a boy, come to think of it.

DAY 25
I had fish for dinner tonight - again. It was icky. It really sucks if you're a sailor and you don't like that stuff.

DAY 50
Wow! Fifty days. I can't believe all this support I'm getting on my website and on Facebook and stuff! Those fools! This is so much better than sitting in Mr Wellwood's boring geography class. All I'm doing is sitting naked on a boat all day watching clips on YouTube. Wheeee!

DAY 75
So, apparently, it only takes 75 days to watch every single video ever uploaded to YouTube, at least when you've got nothing else to do. Well, at least I'm still naked.

DAY 100
So bored. Sailing is quite easy, once you remember to not to invert the boat.

DAY 125
I think my isolation is starting to affect my sanity. Yesterday I thought about donating all the money I'm going to make from this trip to charity. Yikes! I must have been going really bonkers.

DAY 150
I wonder what I'll do with all my money when I get home? Perhaps take a bath in it? I sure do miss baths.

DAY 175
You know what else I miss? Shaving my legs. I forgot to pack my razor and it looks like I'm wearing a woolly mammoth from the waist down.

DAY 190
Less than a month to go and I'll be home. I'm looking forward to being on TV all the time. That ought to make Scott finally ask me to the formal, and show Kathy who's hotter now!

DAY 200
Urgh. I just put clothes back on for the first time in months, and boy, are they itchy. I suppose I should chuck out all these beer bottles, too. And maybe I ought to disconnect the cable connected to the submarine that's been towing me all this way.

DAY 209
I suppose I should come up with something stupidly cute and quotable for the tabloids. Well, I haven't got my license yet, so how about I say that I want that. No, that's too stupid, they'd never print that...

DAY 210
I am amazed at how many people turned up to say hello. Again, doesn't this country have anything better to do? Well, it doesn't matter anyway, because what with my book deal, my sponsorships and my TV interviews, I'm now STUPENDOUSLY WEALTHY! SUCK IT, BITCHES!

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

The Harbour from Hell

2010-04-26T18:14:00.007+10:00

It's here! Part VI of The End of the World series, The Harbour from Hell is now available to read, for free, on my website (along with the previous entries in the series). Enjoy!

The series is now past the half-way point, and without wanting to sound too much like an advertisement, it's only going to get better from here. Parts I-III were all about meeting the main characters, parts IV-VI the villains, but parts VII-X will be the explosive, action-packed, adrenaline-fuelled finale to the series, and everything will be answered. There will be sacrifices. Deaths. Passion. And, of course, penis jokes. I can't wait to start.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

Newspapers: Going, going... wait, still here

2010-04-15T22:02:00.005+10:00

There's something that I heard quite a bit about during my undergraduate degree at uni, and that's the death of newspapers and "free" online news. On the 5th of April this year, Media Watch did a special episode on the issue, discussing what a bunch of news outlets are going to do (yes, I watch Media Watch. Hello, ladies).

But, really, let me put it simply: charging people for news online will never work. Ever.

To begin with, why do they need to charge you anyway? Last I checked, The Courier Mail makes its money off advertisements, not the tiny amount people pay for the paper. Why not just charge more for ads online? And, come to think of it, there's a paper that makes its money solely off advertising - heard of it?

Honestly, if News Limited can afford a free, daily, printed newspaper, how can they realistically expect us to pay for news online? Yeah, I know the quality of articles in Mx isn't exactly amazing (still better than The Courier Mail, though), but you see the point I'm making.

I also wonder why they put it online for free in the first place. Did they think we'd get hooked or something, and be so amazed by their journalistic skills that we'd donate our money? They've backed themselves into a corner here, 'cause once news.com.au starts charging, what's to stop us getting our news from abc.net.au/news or sbs.com.au/news - sites that will always, always be free?

"Journalistic standards!" I hear you cry. "The folks at the ABC/SBS are all left-wing!" (or right-wing, or they don't have enough stories about lizards on bicycles, or whatever excuse you have for not using the public broadcasters). Well, okay, say you desperately, desperately want some commercial news, will you pay for it? Will millions of people sign up and fork over millions of dollars?

No. Piracy on the internet is pretty staggering already - music being the obvious example - but the news outlets want you to pay for simple text? The easiest possible thing to distribute digitally, and they expect us to pay for it? And I guarantee you that sites like this will pop up more and more once the commercial news providers start charging (yes, I'm aware Bugmenot doesn't give passwords for pay sites, but I'm sure there are plenty out there that do. I picked a nice, legal one for my example, because I of course do not endorse piracy).

But you know what? I think newspapers aren't going anywhere soon. "Experts" are constantly predicting the death of forms of media. For example:

Radio comes out. The death of books is predicted.
Film comes out. The death of radio is predicted.
Television (and, later, VCRs) are introduced. The death of cinema is expected soon.
Computers are in every household. Television looks to be on the way out.

And we all know that books, radio, film and television are all dead... oh wait. Admittedly, radio has changed significantly from what it was in the early twentieth century, but it's still a big business area that employs thousands of people.

I really, really doubt free news on the internet spells the end of high-quality journalism. as Rupert Murdoch is so quick to claim. If anything, it might spell the end of low quality journalism. Think about it. People will easily be able to get their news from another source if their current one is crap. In Brisbane, The Courier Mail is the only daily newspaper, and it's pretty much complete garbage. But, online, I can get much better news coverage, for free, elsewhere. I could go on about the economics of it all but the simple fact is people love free stuff, and as long as we expect to get news for free, we'll get it for free.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

I'm Never Working for a Bank

2010-03-17T18:37:00.008+10:00

Against my better judgement, I went to an employer presentation at my university yesterday. The employer (we'll refer to them as McPit Bank) droned on and on about how they were looking for fresh new people to add to their existing team. Suffice to say, it was a complete waste of time. However, on reflection, I do think this bank showcased exactly what's wrong with a lot of large corporations at the moment.

Things started badly when McPit Bank asked the question, "DO YOU LIKE TO WORK IN A TEAM ENVIRONMENT?" Really, does anyone enjoy working in a team? Just from my experience, I'm yet to find anyone who actually enjoys team assignments at school, university or at work. I understand the importance of being "a team" (working together in harmony), but McPit bank gave me the impression that a "love of teamwork" (collaboration on projects) was a must. At a guess, I'd say at least 75% of people do not enjoy team work. So that's a fair chunk of the room not suitable for McPit.

Then one of the presenters commented (in response to a question they posed), "Well, they're from Queensland, it might take them a while, to answer." Translation: "We'll be focusing on applications from the superior breed that is New South Welshmen, but we may take someone from here if we're feeling charitable."

Later, the same presenter gushed about an application she received that listed, in detail, some of McPit Bank's recent transactions. She said this showed initiative and passion, but to me it's nothing but transparent toadying. Honestly, anyone can Google a company's history - and yet, this is how McPit hires?

Towards the end, one of my fellow students asked whether co-curricular activities were important. The presenter didn't say "yes" outright (she reeled off a lot of crap about being active in the community) but I got the feeling that people like me were not welcome. A friend of mine in high school once commented, when asked why he hadn't joined any clubs, "There just wasn't anything for me." If you're not into music or sport, your options are drastically limited. What if you prefer watching TV to spending all day groping other men on a grassy field? What if you'd rather spend time with friends than spending hours on end practicing an instrument only your parents care about? What if nothing out there sounds, you know, fun?

McPit Bank stated they wanted "new ideas", but ironically by the end of the presentation, I got the distinct impression that they were looking for people just like them. People that loved team work (if they exist at all), that could parrot data back at them and had spent so much time playing sport that they'd forgotten how to spell their name.

You see, this is exactly the problem with most companies these days. For all their talk about "diversity", they always end up hiring people exactly like them. Or sure, they look different...

... they tick all the boxes, don't they? This is from an actual Australian bank's website. Note the ethic on the left, the short-haired career woman on the right and, so the viewer isn't scared away, we have a typical white woman in the middle. Note that there's no white, affluent male depicted here, because this bank values itself on diversity, so they don't want people thinking it's staffed by predominately white males. This is despite the fact that the majority of workers are men. This is undeniable fact, not sexism.

Maddox once sarcastically remarked, "True diversity comes from people who look different", and it's depressing how it continues to ring true today. McPit - and pretty much all large companies - claims to want diversity, but only in looks. As far as opinions go, they only want people who think the same as them.

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

20 Reasons Why I Hate 20 to 1

2010-02-22T18:01:00.009+10:00

20 to 1 may be the worst show on television. I know that's a bold claim, but at least reality shows feature people with some talent (Australian Idol) or have people to laugh at (The Biggest Loser). 20 to 1 has absolutely no redeeming qualities. Don't believe me? Here's 20 reasons why.

1. Bert Newton
He's got a giant head, and all he does is stand there. What a waste of a TV legend.

2. Bert's stupid jokes
For pretty much every item, Bert will throw to it with a corny joke. For example, if they're listing 20 to 1 Celebrity Scandals, and Tiger Woods is on the list, Bert will say something along the lines of, "Here's a tiger, who turned into a cheetah." HA HA HA HA HA!

3. The celebrities serve no purpose
Really, what do they do? They just say, "Marvelous. Splendid. A triumph." Then sing along. Speaking of which...

4. The celebrities feel the need to sing/reenact stuff
You know that famous scene in Empire Strikes Back when Vader reveals he is Luke's father? Well, if you ever wanted to see a bunch of washed-up celebrities reenact it, 20 to 1 is your show! And every time they count down songs, the celebrities ALWAYS feel the need to give their rendition. Thanks, Channel 9. I really wanted to hear Working Class Man sung by Eddie McGuire.

5. The celebrities aren't, you know, celebrities
The people on this show aren't B-list celebrities. They're Z-list. I mean, who are Bianca Dye, Tonga Stevens, Prue MacSween, Todd Rixo and Scott Connolly? I couldn't find them on Wikipedia. And any show that keeps Nikki Webster on TV must clearly be evil.

6. The show repeats itself
I don't mean repeats in the traditional sense - oh no. To me, Great Movie One-Liners and All Time Greatest Movie Quotes are the same thing. Same goes for Celebrity Scandals and Celebrity Shocks and Shockers. Oh, and there's Sexiest Movie Scenes and Sex on the Screen. Check out this page if you don't believe me!

7. The show now calls itself "Adults Only"
Huh, yeah right. There's no swearing, no nudity, no violence and no drug use. The only thing "adult" about the new series is the fact that they count down more stuff with "sex" in the title.

8. Tony Martin used to be on it, and he's not anymore
And he was pretty much the only interesting celebrity.

9. The order is all wrong
There was one episode where they counted down "Blockbuster films". Now this is a pretty dumb countdown, but presumably they meant films that had huge ticket sales. Naturally, Titanic should be number one, since it's the highest grossing film of all time (at the time of writing). But, no, they went with The Dark Knight, because it was popular right then and there. WHO DECIDES THE ORDER? As far as I can tell, there's no voting, no statistical calculations. For all I know, Eddie McGuire pulls it all out of his arse. Another countdown was the twentiest best comedians, with Robin Williams taking the number one spot. Why? Sure, he was in Aladdin and Mrs. Doubtfire, but what other truly funny movies has he been in? Not to mention comedy is extremely subjective to begin with, so why even attempt to rank the twenty best comedians?

10. They omit obvious things in the countdown
Take, for example, 20 to 1 TV Couples. Taking the top spot is Sam and Diane from Cheers. Suspiciously absent, though, is Homer and Marge Simpson. Why might this be? Could it be because their show currently airs on a rival network?

11. It spawned a copy on Ten
Speaking of rival networks, Channel 10 stole the concept for 20 to 1 and made the terrible Spearman Experiment, which mercifully didn't rate well enough for it to return.

12. It means they're not showing repeats of Star Trek
Channel Nine owns the rights, and it's never on any more. Damn you 20 to 1!

13. They repackage old episodes
When 20 to 1 first started, it was hosted by Charles 'Bud' Tingwell. Then, when Bert took over, they re-shot Tingwell's scenes with Bert, and branded it as new! See here, and check out the column marked Re-edited.

14. Those annoying facts
During every item, they'll show a painfully obvious fact on screen, like "Star Wars spawned five more films and a huge range of merchandise" or, "20 to 1 is hosted by a pathetic has-been."

15. No interesting lists
Where's 20 to 1 Best Decapitations in Film? 20 to 1 Best First Person Shooters? 20 to 1 Biggest Penises in Porn? 20 to 1 Greatest Countdown Shows?

16. The recap at the end
Before they get to the end of the list, they feel the need to remind you of what you've just seen. It'd be like if I said, "Okay, numbers 1-15 in 20 Reasons Why I Hate 20 to 1 are..." then listed them, even though you've just read them and you're not an idiot.

17. The show spoils stuff
Admittedly, most people know the ending to The Sixth Sense, or whether Ross and Rachel end up together at the end of Friends, but there is a small number of people out there who don't. Does 20 to 1 give a spoiler warning? Of course they don't, and now I know that Jack dies at the end of Titanic. Oh... if you haven't seen Titanic, don't read that last sentence.

18. It's just a glorified clip show
Remember those sitcoms that would play clips from old episodes? And they pretended that they were "new" episodes, but they clearly weren't? That's essentially all 20 to 1 is, a show that plays on your nostalgia sprinkled with some obvious observations.

19. The show's called 20 to 1, and I can only come up with 19 reasons why I hate it
Aargh!

© 2010 by Sean "The Free Man"

The Coup de Grâce and SPACE STORY II

2010-02-08T18:26:00.005+10:00

Just in case you weren't aware, not only do I write blog entries that nobody reads, I also write short stories that nobody reads. My sixty-third and sixty-forth short stories, The Coup de Grâce and SPACE STORY II: The Wrath of Khan have just been published on my website, and you can read them right now, for free, here. Coup de Grâce is the fifth in my End of the World series, and SPACE STORY II is (obviously) a sequel to SPACE STORY. If you haven't read the earlier stories, they can also be found at here. Enjoy, and comments and/or feedback are always welcome!

If you're wondering why I don't post the short stories here, it's because I prefer the look of my website to the look of this blog when it comes to fiction. Plus, this blog is just supposed to be me ranting about "any and all things that piss me off." So, to reiterate, The Coup de Grâce and SPACE STORY II: The Wrath of Khan can be read here.

Cola Wars, I Can't Take It Anymore

2010-01-19T19:10:00.010+10:00

I don't understand Pepsi. They looked like they were comfortable being the main (well, only) competitor to Coca Cola. But lately, they seem to have lost their way. First, they changed their logo (never a good sign), then, they came up with this lame campaign in Australia:

Get it? "Hit refresh"? Oooooooh... like what you do on your computer, right? How unbelieveably COOL is Pepsi, eh? Coke's campaign about enjoying summer and being outdoors does not speak to me, the cool kid who uses technology.

What baffles me is why they didn't do a little more research and change the slogan to "Hit F5" (keyboard shortcut for refresh, in case you didn't know) and slap that on someone using a computer. Because, as we all know, people who use computers a lot are the absolute coolest...

(By the way, I'm sorry about the brevity of this post, but rest assured, there's not one, but TWO short stories on the way. Try to contain your excitement)

2009 - A Year in Review

2010-01-01T18:15:00.013+10:00

Happy bloody new year. Did you have fun last year? To most people, 2009 was a year like nearly every single one before it (but with more nudity, mostly thanks to Underbelly). But for deeply cynical people such as myself, 2009 sucked the big one. In lieu of human contact, I've decided to take a look back on the past year, and grade each facet of popular culture. And in case you're wondering, these grades are final. You may not appeal them.

Film

2009 certainly had some terrific films, like Gran Torino, Inglourious Basterds and Up, but the overwhelming majority were utter crap. Most disappointing was the sheer volume of shitty romantic comedies. Really, ladies, when will you tire of films like Bride Wars, He's Just Not That Into You, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Duplicity, The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, My Life in Ruins, The Proposal, The Ugly Truth and Did You Hear About the Morgans? If I see one more trailer for a movie that features a sexy, independent woman learning about love and life, in hilarious circumstances, I just might die.

On the flip side, there were a bunch of uninspired action films this year - Terminator Salvation, Wolverine, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen all sucked, and yet you stupid idiots all went and saw them, just because they were part of a franchise you'd heard of and the trailer featured explosions. Meanwhile, brilliant original films like Moon don't even get a wide release, since it doesn't feature tits, a childhood memory to exploit or an irritating shaky camera. And let's not forget that Star Trek (a franchise once renowned for overcoming its special effects shortcomings with brilliant storytelling) overcame its terrible storytelling with brilliant special effects.

Finally, enough with the remakes, sequels and films based on books. Is it too much to ask for some ORIGINAL ideas? Sure, we got Paranormal Activity, which was great, but we also were subjected to tripe like The Pink Panther 2 and Friday the 13th, to name a few.

Finally, when a critically-panned Twilight film breaks box-office records, you know it's been a bad year.

GRADE:
D-
(upgraded from an E due to the few good films I mentioned)

Television
What an awful year 2009 was for TV. Not only did we have returning crap like Australian Idol and Dancing with the Stars, but new reality shows like Masterchef rated stupidly well, meaning we're well and truly stuck with reality TV for the foreseeable future. Let's also not forget the ridiculous amount of cop shows out there. Jesus Christ guys, when is enough enough? This year we had:

Law & Order
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Law & Order: Criminal Intent
Law & Order: UK
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
CSI: Miami
CSI: NY
Without A Trace
Cold Case
NCIS
NCIS: Los Angeles
Criminal Minds
The Mentalist
Bones
Castle
City Homicide
The Bill

That's just Australian TV, and I'm sure I've missed a few. Ironically, I've sold far more Family Guy DVDs at my work than all of these cop shows put together. Now, I know Family Guy does suck, but there's no denying its popularity. Doesn't this indicate that the TV networks have no idea what they're doing? Putting crap cop shows on night after night while popular shows like Family Guy and Lost languish in a late night timeslot is very, very wrong.

GRADE:
E

Books
I have very little to say about the written word this year except that the biggest selling books were the Twilight novels, which are, according to Stephen King, written by an author who "can't write worth a darn.... she's not very good." My sentiments exactly.

GRADE:
C-
(at least we had a new Matthew Reilly book)

Video Games
Games fared a little better than other forms of entertainment, but still could stand to improve a lot. The biggest problem by far was the huge amount of terrible games released for the Wii that sold in stupendous numbers, despite the fact that pretty much every game released for the Wii is the same (a party game, with a theme). The Wii's big game this year was undoubtedly Wii Sports Resort, which was just another "fun collection of mini-games designed to make clever use of the Wii controller".

Ironically, in the first half of 2009, the biggest selling games for the Wii weren't released in 2009, perhaps because developers are beginning to realise what a joke the system is. You people have got to stop buying shovelware, or the Wii's never going to get any respect. In fact, just stop buying the Wii, don't you realise how stupid you look?

Meanwhile, the PS3 and 360 both did well, but with the PS3 the clear winner in terms of exclusives. What were the big exclusives this year? Well, the PS3 had Infamous, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time and Killzone 2 to name a few, while the 360 had... um...

Oh, right, Halo Wars! And Halo: ODST! And... er... that's it. Microsoft, we get that Halo is your big franchise and all, but for Christ's sake, that does mean you're allowed to publish other games.

But before all of the PS3 fanboys rejoice and throw their praise on me, don't forget that the PS3 still suffers from looooooooooooooooooooong installations of game data and is still just a Blu-ray player with a controller instead of a remote.

So, the console of choice this year goes to the PC, simply because it's not as shit as the other three.

GRADE:
C+

Christmas Shopping (Some Useful Tips)

2009-12-17T15:18:00.012+10:00

If you're a regular reader of my blog, you probably know that I work in retail. Well, this Christmas I've started a new part-time job in a much bigger shopping centre, and apparently a bigger shopping centre means bigger dickheads. I've been getting really frustrated by the complete lack of tact most people seem to have, so here's some friendly tips when you're Christmas shopping this year:

To begin with, don't block the lift or escalator. Escalators are not rides, they're walkways. Do not stand there and drool, MOVE! Just because the picture isn't moving doesn't mean you have to stay still!

Not what you're supposed to do

Now, lifts are admittedly a bit rarer than escalators in shopping centres, but PLEASE do not block the entrance to a lift with your trolley/pram/giant ass. People may want to get out! Here's a helpful diagram, because obviously people seem to have trouble with this:

Carparks are another area people seem to struggle with. I'll keep it brief. You see the signs that say "STOP" or "GIVE WAY"? Just because you're in a shopping centre and you're in a hurry doesn't mean you can ignore them.

I've also noticed that nobody who shops these days seems to own a watch. Why? Well, every day at my old job, and every day at my new job, I have to shepherd people out the front door at closing time. There's simply no excuse, I'm afraid. Our closing time is on the door, and when we do an announcement over the PA that we're shut, it's TIME TO LEAVE.

Also, don't smoke. I don't just mean in shopping centres, stop smoking altogether. That shit is nasty.

Finally, be nice to the staff. Remember that they're spending a lot more time than you in a store this Christmas, so cut them some slack if they're running late.

However, DO NOT make stupid jokes they've heard a thousand times before. or just generally be annoying. I am so sick of hearing the following phrases from customers:

"This item doesn't have a price - does that mean it's free?" Yeah, that's right. We're a frikin' charity, here.
(after the customer selects their "Savings" account on the EFTPOS) "More like spendings, eh?" You sir, are the wittiest customer I've ever served.
(after paying for a cheap item, eg. a $2 DVD) "Oh, last of the big spenders, eh?" Yes. You should go on tour with that.
"Oh, I don't know anything about computers/DVDs/video games/etc. I'm too old for that." Nobody is "too old" to learn anything new. My Grandma is eighty next year and has her own email address, an LCD TV and a DVD player. You can't blame it on your age.
"Do you price match?" This one, I don't get. If another store in the same centre is offering the same item at a lower price, why don't you just buy it from them?!

That's all for now. Remember: if you feel like shopping this Christmas season, it might be better to just stay at home and kill yourself.

© 2009 by Sean "The Free Man"

3D Films Are The Second Coming of Christ

2009-12-03T18:57:00.006+10:00

So, I went and saw Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs the other day. Stupid title, reasonably entertaining film. No WALL-E, but not bad. Anyway, the session I saw forced me to put on 3D glasses. I'd never actually been to a 3D theatrical film before, so I was interested. Surely, given that nearly every animated film released these days forces you to wear the damn things, they must enhance the film in some way? After all, you look pretty retarded once you put them on:

Strangely, though, the change wasn't that dramatic. The picture had a little more depth, but, nothing substantial. Meanwhile, at about the half way point my temple began to throb, as apparently the glasses are designed for six-year-olds, and not twenty-somethings who have gigantic brains and have a diet that mostly consists of Hungry Jack's and whatever's microwaveable.

With the picture not enhanced in any great way, I figured that they must be charging me an extra $5.50 for some other reason. It couldn't be just to make a few extra bucks, no, that would be dishonest. It couldn't have been just a gimmick, designed to sucker in kids. People aren't that stupid, right?

By the end of the movie, I'd convinced myself that the extra $5.50 me and about three hundred other people paid was going towards an important cause or charity, like resurrecting Hitler, just so we could kill him again.

Sadly, it turns out I was mistaken. As I left the theatre, Hitler remained dead, so I came to the depressing conclusion that people really are stupid enough to pay an extra $5.50 for a gimmick (of course, I should have known better).

Really, how long will 3D films be around before filmmakers realise they're pointless? No other genre has adopted it. I hardly think The Dark Knight or Gran Torino could have been improved with 3D glasses. Remember when computer-animated films were the "cool" ones (as opposed to traditionally-animated ones)? Now everyone does them. Perhaps once everyone's forced to pay an extra $5.50 to have their temples throb, we'll start to see less of the films. In the meantime, we're all going to be tripping over discarded 3D glasses because, for all the talk about companies being green, the cinema I went to didn't recycle my 3D glasses.

Either that or I stole them...

© 2009 by Sean "The Free Man"

10 Reasons Why Humanity is Doomed

2009-11-02T19:04:00.029+10:00

We’re constantly being told by the media that we’re doomed – global warming, terrorism, swine flu – you name it, we’re going to die from it. However, I’ve been thinking it over, and do we really want to save humanity? People are idiots. Humongous idiots. Need proof? Here’s ten things that I’ve seen people do that prove humanity isn’t worth saving.

1. Poker machines (“pokies”)
I’ve never understood the attraction of these devices. You put money in. You push a button. A flashy animation appears. You win or lose. Wow, simply fascinating! Never mind that the house always wins, you will be able to beat it if you play long enough. And hey, don’t worry about skillful games like poker or blackjack, games based purely on luck are the fastest way to get rich, I’m told.

2. The Global Financial Crisis
The whole situation defies logic – hundreds of companies have gone under, both in America and abroad. Now, I could understand if it were just small companies going under (ones that only just barely get by), but huge, well-establish organisations like General Motors? How the hell could they declare bankruptcy? Surely a company that’s been around since 1908 would have some money saved away for a rainy day? I know just leaving your money in the bank isn’t as effective as investing it in the share market, but I’d never put every penny I own into the share market, I’d keep at least a little in the bank in case I needed it.

3. George W. Bush Was Elected President

Twice.

4. People watch stupid TV shows.
Please, tell me why brilliant shows like this...

... struggle to last four seasons, while crap shows like this...

...last a whopping nine seasons? Can you honestly name the last two people to win American/Australian/UK/French/Swedish/Whogivesashit Idol? I know I certainly can’t. Also, for some reason, American Idol has been shown in Australia. Why? You can't vote, and it's usually several months late, so you know who's going to win. I just don't get it.

5. People buy useless shit.
Specifically, why do women feel the need to own seventeen million pairs of shoes? I can barely fit my shoes on the shoe rack at home, it's so clogged with my sister's shoes. In the UK, one in ten women spend more than £1 000 (USD$1600, AUD$1800) a year on shoes while 8% own more than 100 pairs each (Source). What they hell do they need all of those shoes for? I own two pairs of thongs, some work shoes and two pairs of casual shoes, and even I think that's too much.

6. Astrology
God, don't get me started on this one. The very idea that people think planets, stars and moons billions of kilometres away can somehow affect your day makes my blood boil.

7. The belief that the world will end in 2012
So, because some Mayan calender runs out in 2012, this means the world will end? My computer's calender only goes up to December 31st, 2099, so maybe this is when the world will end? It's the same problem we had with Y2K, people constantly want to believe the end is near. Oh, and Y2K was pretty God damn stupid as well. The clock ticks over to 1900 instead of 2000? OH JESUS MY BANK ACCOUNT WILL ZERO AND ALL OF THE AEROPLANES WILL FALL FROM THE SKY!!!!!!1!!1!!

8. Crappy magazines
I'm talking about Women's Day, New Weekly, Famous, etc. Really, does anyone actually care that a celebrity is having difficulties in their personal life? What's more, the "proof" that the marriage won't last/the girl is pregnant/the celebrity is anorexic only ever amounts to a pixelated photo and "sources", "pals", "friends", "onlookers" or "fellow diners" spilling the beans. So, Brad and Angelina are discussing their intimate sex life with a close friend, who then turns around and sells the story straight to the press? I call bullshit. Also, men's magazines are getting progressively more stupid as well. Zoo, for instance, seems to only exist on page after page of former Big Brother housemates nude or semi-nude, punctuated occasionally by the all-time best Family Guy quotes (which itself is an oxymoron, as Family Guy isn't funny).

9. Nobody knows how to spell or speak properly anymore

Can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're"? Go back to school.
Didn't realise there was a difference between "their", "they're" and "there"? Unbelievable.
Ever said, "I met this random on the weekend..."? Random WHAT?
Do you frequently say "I seen this before..."? It's time for an English refresher.
Call it a "PIN Number"? Look up what PIN stands for, idiot.
You live outside of the United States, and you spell it "Organization"? Way to plagiarise.

10. Blogs
The fact that any idiot who has access to the internet can publish their stupid, inane ramblings about things that piss them off really frustrates me. Bah. If anyone wants me I'll be in my room.

© 2009 by Sean "The Free Man"

The Birth of the Beast

2009-10-27T11:18:00.005+10:00

Just in case you weren't aware, not only do I write blog entries that nobody reads, I also write short stories that nobody reads. My sixty-second short story, The Birth of the Beast has just been published on my website, and you can read it right now, for free, here. It's the fourth in my End of the World series. If you haven't read the first three, they can be found at here. Enjoy, and comments and/or feedback are always welcome!

If you're wondering why I don't post the short stories here, it's because I prefer the look of my website to the look of this blog when it comes to fiction. Plus, this blog is just supposed to be me ranting about "any and all things that piss me off." So, to reiterate, The Birth of the Beast can be read here.

Worst. Catalogue. Ever.

2009-10-20T18:53:00.003+10:00

This is - no joke - the front page of a catalogue my work had one week.

"Big Dump Sale"? Is that really the best they could come up with?

Like Comedy? Then Don't Watch "The Cleveland Show".

2009-10-15T20:12:00.003+10:00

I hate Family Guy. I used to love the show, in its first few seasons it was hilarious and savagely satirical. But, as the show dragged on, it moved further and further away from clever satire to more "gag" humour. Not to mention that Peter slowly transformed from stupid (but relatable) working-class man to irritating jerk. I don't find anything funny about Peter farting in his daughter's face, and that's probably one of his better displays of affection.

But I digress. In case you don't know, a new show is coming to FOX in the USA soon, The Cleveland Show. Yes, you read that right. Cleveland. Now, of all the characters from Family Guy to get their own show, why Cleveland? If I had to pick one character, it'd be Quagmire. Cleveland is just a boring, generic "black guy" who could only be more stereotyped if he ended every conversation with "DAMN, THIS SHIT IS WHACK!"

But, ah, the real reason why Cleveland's getting his own show is as obvious as it is silly: it's because he's black. FOX does not have an animated show that solely features African Americans. There's plenty of live action "black-only" shows out there with real actors, but no animated ones! (Well, not to my knowledge anyway - I do live in Australia and I am very white) Thus, a niche is filled and we have a new cash cow.

But, the money will only pour in if the show is a success. I want you to have a look at the official trailer below:

As Stewie puts it, "What the hell, he's getting his own show?" My sentiments exactly. But first, let's look at the characters:

Cleveland - You know him, you love him! Uh... well, you may not love him, but you do know him. He's that black guy from Family Guy who talks about brotherhood every now and then while you wait for the next zany cutaway gag that has nothing to do with the plot.
Donna, his new wife - Whoa, it's that easy to get married? Well, anyway, she doesn't get much screen time in the ad, but her Wikipedia page says, She is shown with an extremely-large posterior that is joked about often in the series. Wow. Giant ass jokes. You gotta love 'em. And isn't it a negative stereotype that black women have large bottoms? Good to see they're portraying her in a positive light. Anyway, if I had to guess, she'll probably be the stereotypical "no-nonsense" black chick - think Margaret from Becker, Laverne from Scrubs, etc.
Donna's teenage daughter, Roberta - Again, to quote Wikipedia: Roberta has a personality like most teenage girls... she is talkative and aggressive. She gets attracted by celebrities some of the time. Jaysus Chroist. Did they put any effort into these characters? Any at all? IT'S JUST THE "POPULAR TEENAGE GIRL "STEREOTYPE, PEOPLE! Claire from My Wife and Kids was essentially the same character!
Donna's young son, Rallo - I have to admit, here is a truly original character. An intelligent young kid, spouting pop-culture references who hates his father (stepfather in this case) and behaves like an adult. Oh, the originality!
Cleveland's son, Cleveland Jr. - Rounding out the cast nicely is a generic "fat kid" stereotype (did you catch the joke in the trailer about him having breasts? Hilarious, right?!). But, this isn't what Cleveland Jr. looked like in Family Guy - he was hyperactive and skinny. Why the big change? BECAUSE FAT PEOPLE ARE FUNNY, THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!

All sarcasm aside, I have an issue with the whole premise for this show. To me, it just seems to be a black version of Family Guy. See the gag with the caveman and the dogs at the end? I'll bet you anything it's a zany cutaway gag. And why would they mess with a formula that's worked so well? Well, apart from their integrity and reputation as comedy writers, that is.

I can't go on, I'm going to watch one of my Simpsons DVDs. I may not be able to get rid of Family Guy, but if we work hard, we may be able to stop The Cleveland Show before it's merchandised and catch-phrased to death. We can only hope.

Hungry Beast? More Like Starving Idiot

2009-09-30T21:34:00.008+10:00

Tonight, I'd narrowed what I was going to do down to three options:

Hey Hey It's Saturday reunion on Channel Nine (ironically, on a Wednesday night)
Some Deep Space Nine that I downloaded (completely legally, of course...)
Or Hungry Beast on the ABC

In the end, I went with Hungry Beast, as it's the new (sexier?) title of Project Next, developed by Zapruder's Other Films, who are probably most famous for introducing us to The Chaser boys and creating The Gruen Transfer (that's the show, not the transfer itself). In case you weren't paying attention last year, Project Next was designed to find new talent in Australia and let young people have a say in the media. I had high hopes for this project, so I tuned in at 9:00pm tonight eagerly.

Thirty minutes later I felt like I should have just gone to bed.

Firstly, what the hell was Dan Ilic doing on the show? He's not hugely famous, but he did feature in both seasons of The Ronnie Johns Half Hour on Channel 10 back in 2006-2007. I thought this show was supposed to feature new talent? You know, people we haven't seen before?

But I digress. First, we have an obnoxious story where we learn that the Hungry Beast team created a fake study that said Sydney was the most gullible city in Australia. It was picked up by news outlets across the country, but in the end, Media Watch (bless them) noticed it was bullshit. Tonight on Hungry Beast we saw how they put together the stunt, followed by five minutes of them saying how clever they are and how dumb everyone else is. Their conclusion? The media doesn't fact-check it's stories thoroughly. Well, congratulations, dipshits, I could have told you that! However, I hardly think this was a fair test, the scoop, "Sydney stupider than Melbourne!" is the kind of article you'd read in Mx, not in The Australian. Sure, it appeared on news.com.au's website, but did it show up on the six o'clock news?

"WHO CARES?!?" screams the Hungry Beast. "We fooled the media, and we're awesome, BITCH!"
No, I'm afraid you completely missed the point here. If you'd done a real news story, that everyone picked up, then you certainly demonstrated the fallibility of our news system. All you managed to do was appear on a few websites and the radio, then look like a smart-arse kid to everyone when they found out the truth.

Here's a tip, kids, free of charge: don't start a new TV show with a demonstration of how up yourself you are. The Chaser, for all their immature pranks, usually made an excellent point - sneaking into APEC didn't just show the ineptitude of the guards, it also pointed out that for all this time, money and effort, a man dressed as Osama Bin Laden could get right outside George Bush's house. All Hungry Beast showed us was that people like to read silly, inconsequential news stories and believe them.

Ironically, throughout the show, Hungry Beast threw random facts at us, like "THERE WILL BE 150 MILLION CLIMATE CHANGE REFUGEES IN 2050!" and "THERE ARE 10 000 CCTVs IN SYDNEY!", which we were probably supposed to scream "OMG!" at. Although they cited their sources, I wonder whether they diligently checked their sources like they suggested Australian news outlets should.

I'm sorry if this is taking a while, so bear with me. The remainder of the show features a stupid sketch about an old lady and a cat, an interview with a war widow where we learned that the soldier liked noodles (this is prime time TV?) and a discussion on whether pandas deserve to become extinct. Essentially, Hungry Beast said that "it's survival of the fittest, BITCH! Panda's are fat, they do nothing, they should die."

Hmmm. Where have I read this before?

Yes, Maddox was talking about whales, but it's the same argument, whales/pandas don't really do anything remarkable, so they should die. Still, it's obvious what Hungry Beast was trying to do here: create controversy. Going back to The Chaser, they got a HUGE amount of press every time they did something controversial - Chris swearing on Sunrise, the APEC prank, the Eulogy Song (eventually they crossed the line with the "Make a Realistic Wish Foundation" skit), so Hungry Beast obviously is looking for people to yell, "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT PANDAS! WE NEED TO PROTECT ALL OF GODS CREATURE'S YOU DUMB KIDS!"

Then Hungry Beast will obnoxiously high five each other and say on the next episode (a) "LOL, you fell for our 'get free publicity' trick!" or (b) "Well, we can say what we want, as we represent the young generation!"

No, you do not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this show supposed to show stories that weren't being shown by the rest of the media? To pick two topics that have received little coverage: the internet filter and the banning of Left 4 Dead 2. Or, to pick something more recent, the stupid name for the new Vegemite: iSnack 2.0, which anyone under 25 will tell you is lame beyond words. Just browsing through my friend's Facebook status updates, I see this actually is a touchy matter for some people.

So, here's Hungry Beast in a nutshell: a TV show created by a marketing team for the "young" crowd by being hip and controversial, that instead ends up being a TV show that's hypocritical, pretentious and unfunny.

As I said a long, long time ago:
"...trying to be cheeky is likely to alienate more [people] than attract them. The small percentage of people who like the cheekiness are likely to hit their sixth birthday soon, and will just look at [you] as unprofessional and trying too hard to be cool."

I mean, The Chaser boys worked because they never tried to be cool, they just were. The Gruen Transfer is great because we have people with experience and credibility lending their opinions. Top Gear (the UK version) works because it has three genuinely funny bloke driving around cars and having a good time. None of them tried to be cool, they just were.

Don't watch Hungry Beast. Just... don't. I could have done a better job, and that's saying something.

UPDATE 8/10/09: I watched Hungry Beast again last night, and the second episode was just as bad as the first. I've finally figured out where this show belongs: with Behind the News in the middle of the day. The whole program feels like an attempt to get "cool" kids to watch the news - particuarly teenagers. All they'd need to do is drop the few F-bombs they had and hey presto, kids show.

Michael Atkinson needs to be left 4 dead

2009-09-22T16:23:00.006+10:00

I love Australia. Granted, I haven't lived in any other countries, but I feel that our country is certainly one of the best in the world. We've got great climate, a small population, lots of space and there's very little poverty. There is one area, though, that Australia sucks rooster at: censorship. We all know about the proposed Internet filter that the government wants to introduce, but a topic much closer to my heart is the lack of an R18+ rating for video games.

The latest victim of Australia's outdated stance on video games is Left 4 Dead 2, a zombie shooter by Valve, makers of the critically renowned Half Life series. Left 4 Dead 2 has failed to meet the standards for an MA15+ rating and has been refused classification by the Office of Film and Literature classification (OFLC), effectively banning it from sale in Australia. So, unless Valve edits the game for re-submission, we aren't going to get the game in Australia.

The lack of an 18+ (Adults Only) rating for games continues to baffle me. First off, pretty much every western country in the world has one, so why not Australia? The answer is as obvious as it is silly: our government views video games as toys for children, and not the sophisticated art form that they have become. Where did this label come from, anyway? Video games have never been exclusively marketed towards young children, and they certainly aren't now.

People against the R18+ rating like to point out, "Alright, they're not just for kids, but why can't they make games that are fun for all ages?" Well, first of all, they do. Heard of Wii Sports? But there are games out there that would completely lose impact if they were forced to become G-rated - Bioshock to give one recent example. Plus, this is a double standard anyway. Films, books and movies can have violence, nudity and swearing but games can't? Bullshit. And let's not forget that most of the violence in games is far less graphic than the violence in movies (Saw, anyone?); and that the nudity and sex in games is almost on a PG level (the infamous Hot Coffee mod for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas featured clothed characters having sex, and yet it was banned. WTF?).

Next, I want you to tell me what the following games all have in common:

The answer is twofold:

I own all of these games
All of these games received an 18+ rating in other countries, but were awarded an MA15+ rating in Australia without any modifications whatsoever (with the exception of Grand Theft Auto IV, but even then, very little was changed in the Australian version)

They way I see it, the OFLC has to stretch what could fit into an MA15+ category, or else consumers would resort to pirating or importing the games (hurting the local economy). I'm actually of the opinion that the ratings board wants an 18+ rating, but can't because of one man.

Michael Atkinson.

This man is, by far, the biggest douche in Australia. Why? Well, he's the Attorney-General for South Australia. For there to be any changes in Australia's classification system, (like introducing an R18+ rating) there has to be unanimous approval from all of the Attorney Generals. Michael Atkinson, though, seems to think that giving adults the right to play whatever they want is a stupid idea, and has voted against every single proposal for an 18+ rating.

I had hope, last year, when the ABC TV show Good Game reported that a discussion paper was going to be commissioned, to determine whether the public wanted an R18+ rating. However, as soon as Atkinson saw a study done by Bond University showing a whopping 91% of the population (gamers and non-games) want an R18+ rating, he withdrew his support for the discussion paper, stalling the issue.

What. A. Prick. You can't just dismiss something because you don't like the results! Plus, it's just undemocratic for 91% of the population to want something, but the government to say "no."

Depressingly, though, it doesn't look like Atkinson will change his mind (I suppose it's difficult when you have an IQ lower than 3). Atkinson has told the press that he gets hundreds of letters and emails a day, begging for the R18+ rating, but he remains resolute. He may think this makes him a man of integrity, but I think it makes him a stubborn old fool. If received hundreds of letters a day demanding I take down my stupid Peggle Reel, I would consider it. I would not stick my head in the sand and pretend that I'm a strong man who knows what's right for everyone.

So, how do we get an R18+ rating? I see three options:

Atkinson loses his seat in the next South Australian election (not likely, as he sits in one of the safest seats in the county - not only is he an idiot, but he's a coward)
The Labor party loses the next state election, and the Liberals appoint a new Attorney General (not likely, the Liberals down there are pretty hopeless)
Atkinson dies (it may take a while, but this will eventually happen)

Someone once asked Yahtzee, "What do you think of people who believe video games are just for kids?", and Yahtzee replied, "Well, it's generally old people who say that, and they're going to die before me."

Exactly right, Yahtzee. Atkinson will die before us, so maybe the next Attorney General will have a functioning brain.

(Also, if anyone's interested, there's a nice article on Kotaku criticising Atkinson and a great video on YouTube that discusses the R18+ rating in Australia).

Low Fat Milk? Well, Close Enough.

2009-09-21T10:10:00.007+10:00

A couple of weeks ago, I was sent to Woolworths by my boss at work to buy some milk. I was instructed to buy milk with no fat. Personally, I prefer full cream milk, but, hey, I can't help it if people want their milk to taste like water mixed with paint.

Anyway, I was standing in front of a huge shelf of milk, and picked one that was clearly marked NO FAT:
See how it says NO FAT, down at the bottom? Anyway, I bought the milk and went back upstairs. As I put it in the fridge in the tea room, I scanned the nutritional information on the bottle (they pay me by the hour, you see - the longer it takes to buy the milk the less time I'm lifting furniture). Imagine my surprise when I saw this:

Incredibly, it contains fat! Very little, mind you, but still some fat - enough to disqualify them from claiming it was NO FAT milk, in my opinion. I checked out other brands of NO FAT milk, and bizarrely, they all contain fat! I did some research and apparently under Australian law, as long as it contains less that 0.15% fat, it can be sold as NO FAT.

This is quite possibly one of the most blatant examples of companies lying to consumers I've ever seen. Essentially, the milk companies have eliminated 99.85% of the fat, and then thought, "Ah, well, that's close enough, those idiots will believe us if we tell them we got rid of it all."

It'd be like if a vegetarian restaurant said their tofu was free of meat, but if you read the fine print, you'd see it still contains some. Or if a bottled water company said their water was free of urine, but every bottle contained 0.15% human excrement. Or if the Germans said they weren't going to kill any more Jews, except for the 0.15% who they felt had it coming.

Now that I've started comparing Nazi Germany to Pura Milk, I think it's safe to say I've gone off track. Just remember, next time you want milk without fat, you're out of luck.

Welcome

2009-09-18T19:02:00.008+10:00

Hello, my name is Sean "The Free Man", and welcome to my blog. Here is where I will complain about things that piss me off, lament about my difficulties in life and occasionally review shit. My personal website is www.seanshow.bravehost.com. You can find old blog entries (probably going to be shifted here eventually) as well as fictional stories by me.

UPDATE 18/04/2010: Actually, you can't find old blog entires any more. All entries are here now.