Can You Crack It?

So apparently this "Can you crack it?" website is kind of a big deal. Rumour has it that if you can break the code on the site, you will be recruited into Third Echelon, where you will serve as back up to Sam Fisher, helping him to hack into advanced systems on a real-time basis. That or it proves you're autistic. Whatever the true nature of the site, however, it seems to have gained the attention of the internet, myself included. And not being one to pass up on a challenge, I decided that I would give it a go. Oh no, not cracking their code - that would be ridiculous. Have you seen that thing?

No, I decided that I would create a code, and upload it here to see if anyone else could break it. Now, i know that the majority of my siteviews come from people searching for that picture of Blade chasing Edward Cullen from Twilight, and that the majority of people who drop in here don't actually bother to read anything. Kind of how most people probably don't listen to the lyrics of the song Hip to Be Square. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, but it's also a personal statement about the band itself. HEY PAUL!

Try starting a Doubles thread now you stupid fucking bastard!




I am also aware that the few of you who do actually pay attention to anything I say probably won't be all that interested in wasting hours trying to break a stupid code for no reward other than the satisfaction you will get knowing you have outsmarted some internet blogger who isn't even smart enough to know a sentence should not begin with the word "and". And I sympathize. But just on the off-chance there is anyone out there who would like to put their code-breaking skills to the test, I give you my code:

If anyone does actually want to give it a go, feel free to either email me the answer, or just leave it as a comment below. I will reveal the answer, as well as how to reach it, on December 11th, the same day the "Can you crack it?" contest comes to an end (guaranteed the answer will be all over 4chan before it does, mind you). I hope at least someone out there will be interested in killing some time working on this, but if not, fuck it. It was fun making it. And now just so I get some page views: Olivia Wilde in a Bikini.

You know that's how I roll, baby.





Voice





Update 14/12/2011: Yeeeeaaah, I couldn't be bothered to go through how to solve this in the end, so I'll just leave it up as one of those great mysteries. If anyone can crack it, let me know and I'll give you a pair of 3D glasses in return (The awesome ones with the green and red lenses, not the crappy modern ones). Peace.

Tom Hardy's Training Routine for The Dark Knight Rises

I make this post out of a sense of duty to my readers. I know how many people scour the web looking for the workouts of celebrities, and follow whatever advice they find to the letter. Unfortunately for them, this advice is always, ALWAYS bullshit, and they end up seeing absolutely no gains, and giving up after a month or so of wasted time. I had a friend once who wanted to look like Ryan Reynolds in Blade: Trinity, so looked up “his” routine online, to find that it suggested starting your workout every day with 200 sit-ups, and then moved on to 3 sets of 20 for dumbbell curls and other similarly ridiculous suggestions. Likewise, whilst on /fit/ a couple of months back, someone posted a link to a site claiming to have Chris Evans’ routine for ‘Captain America’ – and once again, it was little more than a joke. These routines are created by trolls, to try and get out of shape people to waste their time chasing a dream which they will never reach if they follow that advice.

You didn't really think you could reach 4% Bodyfat by eating MacDonalds and doing 200 Sit-ups a day, did you?





But that all changes right here, right now.

So, to kick things off – what’s the most obvious feature when looking at Tom Hardy? What muscles does he have that really define him?

 

That’s right – his back.

So, taking this as a starting point – how would one go about getting a back like Tom Hardy’s?

Aziz Shavershian (The Zyzz) was quoted as saying to simplyshredded.com that his favourite exercise was the Deadlift, giving the reason that “This exercise will transform you body if done every week, correctly. Go hard and have fun with them. Notice how you rarely see people deadlift heavy at the gym? Do you also notice how all these people have average physiques? Put 2 and 2 together.”

Pictured: The Zyzz

Clearly, the guy knows what he’s talking about (though, he did also advocate never doing cardio, and we all know how that worked out for him). Not only this – but you can clearly see from the quote, he specifically says that deadlifting HEAVY is the way to go. So, none of this 12 reps for 5 sets crap you do on the leg press or tricep pushdowns – we’re talking about heavy as shit, and very few reps.

Pictured - me Deadlifting 200kg without even bothering to change into my lifting gear (note the crotch bulge)





Obviously, you need to throw in warm-up sets with that – you don’t just instantly go heavy, but here are some ideas for routines:

THE 5x5

Drawing heavily on programs like SS or SL, this is the simplest routine for deadlifting, and great for beginners. Warm-up with whatever weight you’re comfortable with. Say you feel you can Deadlift 120kg for 5 sets of 5, or thereabouts. Warm up with a set of 10-15 at 60kg, maybe another at 80kg, and then maybe drop to a set of 8-10 at 100kg, before progressing on to your 5x5. This mini-pyramid will prepare your muscles for the lift by warming them up correctly, and will also allow you to get used to the weights before you take your max. Alternatively, if you enjoy this build-up to your max, you could always try:

PYRAMID SETS

Say you Deadlift 180kg as a 1RM, this routine might work nicely for you:

1 x 20 @ 60kg

1 x 15 @ 80kg

1 x 12 @ 100kg
1 x 8 @ 120kg

1 x 6 @ 140kg

3 x 3 @ 160kg

This would be your build-up to your max set, you could then drop it down and work on lower weights for more repetitions again, essentially working your way back down the pyramid. Or, you could max out, and then go on to do your assistance exercises, such as Overhand Dead-hang chins, lateral raises, hyperextensions, and so on.

SINGLES

This is my personal favourite – and the routine I am on currently. The philosophy is that you pull single reps up as fast as you can, and keep good form throughout. So, for example, you do 2 warm-up sets of 10 at 60 and 80kg, then put on 100kg and do just one rep, pulling as hard and as fast as you can. You then put on 110kg, and do the same, and increase it by a 10kg increment each set until you reach your max, at say 200kg. If you do this routine twice in a week, try and alternate the way you’re pulling. So, for example, add 10kg a session 1 day a week, and aim to finish on a PR (perhaps adding 12.5kg to your final weight, just to improve on your previous best), and the other session go up in 5kg increments, and finish at a lower weight. So, for example, you may deadlift with 10kg increments on Sunday and finish at 200kg, but on Thursday go up in 5kg increments and max out at 185kg. This will not get your back as pumped as doing a routine with high repetitions, but it will certainly make you stronger – and this will allow you to load more weight on your assistance exercises to give you more of a pump. It also massively decreases your likelihood of injury, because you are only doing one rep, so will not strain yourself trying to go beyond your max. I would recommend using an overhand grip with no straps for as long as possible as well, in order to help build your forearms at the same time. Say, use an overhand grip to 170/175, then switch to an over-under grip or put straps on for the last few (if you have a strong grip, stay overhand the whole way).

FORM

Another way to hit your back harder is to essentially have poor form on the deadlift. This may seem like a ridiculous suggestion, but it actually works. By poor form, I don’t mean hitching the bar up, bending your arms trying to yank it as it gets above your knees – I mean starting with your chest and arse more or less in a line, and then locking out your legs quickly, so you are essentially doing a stiff legged deadlift. Alternatively, you could of course just do stiff-legged deadlifts after you’ve finished doing your conventional ones to avoid looking like this retard:

But it all depends on how much time you have to spare. The main point I will bring up for deadlifting form is that you should rest the bar on the floor for at least a second between reps to avoid "bouncing". bouncing reps isn't going to help your strength, and will just lead to you injuring yourself. Obviously, if you intend to follow the singles routine, you can ignore this, but for any other routine - make sure the bar has stopped on the floor before you start to lift again, and make sure you lock out fully at the top!

So that’s the main part of the back done. But, of course, you’ve all noticed by now what’s really impressive about Hardy’s physique:

His traps. There are many ways to work the traps, from shrugs to standing on the calf press machine and pushing it up with your traps rather than your calves, to even buying one of these:

Don't search for Head Harness on Google images with Safe Search off if you're at work - you get 19 BDSM / Gimp mask images, and this guy.




But remember, deadlifting will help improve them, so only do these exercises as assistance after your deadlifts. There is fuck all point in completely exhausting your traps every day of the week, and then deadlifting like shit. Whilst John Broz advocates squatting every single day to see the best gains, bear in mind that this is a guy who has trained for years and is on the juice – for a beginner, training every day is just pointless, in the same way that a 5-day split will essentially be pointless, because compound exercises will work better for you. Throw in a Squat session after one of your deadlift days, and a bench session after the other, and take the rest of the week off, and you’ll be riding high, my friends. Pick suitable assistance for each: Dips and Overhead press on Bench days, for example, and just do what works best.

 As long as it isn't Dat Dere Frog Tech...

Also, remember that diet is key – don’t just eat shit constantly, try and get the right amount of protein and calories in your diet. I’m guessing most of the people interested in following this will be bulking, so remember to eat a surplus of calories, with a high quantity of good protein. Chicken Breasts and Whey are awesome, but you can eat KFC as long as you factor it into your meal plan properly. There is some suggestion you should eat lots of small meals rather than a few big ones to help your metabolism, but as far as I know this may just be bro science. It probably is worth doing just so you never feel hungry and binge on crap, but whether it has any decent effects other than that, who can say?

Picture stolen unashamedly from leangains.com - check them out for some decent workout advice.






If you follow this advice, you’ll be breaking Batman’s back sooner than you think. But just remember one thing: Tom Hardy has one further training aid to help him put on that kind of muscle:

 
Except his will say 400mg/ml on it.






That’s right. Now, I know what you’re thinking – Hollywood stars aren’t allowed to take roids, because the insurance wouldn’t cover it if they died from steroid related problems. But the truth is, that only extends to steroids such as Trenbolone , which are not approved for human use. Testosterone, on the other hand, is taken by almost every star wishing to bulk up, as is anavar, anadrole, and probably Deca and various other steroids. Don’t believe Hardy’s on the Juice – take a look at these roid pimples on his back and think again:

Think Bale isn’t on the juice? Even factoring in muscle memory, it’s impossible to go from 115lbs to 190 in 6 months without a little assistance. Now, I don’t hold this against any of them – they’re actors, they do what they need to for the parts they play. But just remember, no matter how good your routine is, it’s gonna take you a hell of a lot longer to get into that kind of shape without the assistance these guys get.

Imma look like Wesley Snipes in no time!

So, now you’re all feeling pretty down, I thought I’d cheer you up with some awesome Bodyweight exercises, as used by Hardy to bulk up for Bronson. Enjoy:

Just watch your rotator cuffs doing those rolling press-ups, ok? I haven't been able to bench press for about 6 weeks, and only managed my first OHP session since injuring it a few days ago.






Voice




I hope this has been of some help. For more advice, Check out leangains (link above) or maybe even drop in on >>>/fit/ and check out the sticky. I leave the next step to you.









P.S. - Fuck Blogger's new layout - this page looks like shit and it took me 3 times longer to make than it should have. I hate when sites try and "improve" things. If it ain't broke, don't fucking fix it! And certainly don't fucking ruin it! This site may be moving as a result - stay tuned for further info...

The Truth About Batman: The Dark Knight Rises

So, everyone seems to be looking forward to the release of 'Batman: The Dark Knight Rises' next year. After the awesomeness of Inception, and the fact that Tom Hardy will be playing Bane, I can hardly blame them. However, as of now, The Dark Knight Rises is officially old news. Why, you ask? Because whilst on IMDB just moments ago, I came across this:

That's right - before Nolan's Batman trilogy has even finished, there are already plans for a remake in the works. Hell, they already have a writer on board and everything.

The fuck? I mean, I know Batman's a popular character and everything, and I know that reboots are the "in" thing at the moment, what with a Spiderman reboot and another Superman Reboot on the way (by the same writer as the Batman reboot, incidentally), but Jesus - you could at least wait for Nolan's last Batman film to be released before you decide you need to reboot the franchise...

.

No word yet on who will be directing, or who will star in the new Batman, or even which villains it will include - but to be honest, the whole idea seems pretty insane to me. I mean, come on, Batman Begins wasn't that long ago - how frequently are we gonna reboot these franchises?

Batman will have officially seen more reboots than "The Punisher" by 2015. That is, unless there's another Punisher film in the works as well...

Voice

Coming soon: Tom Hardy's training routine for The Dark Knight Rises - stay tuned.

Nirvana for Christmas #1 Campaign

My Brother works for William Hill, the betting company, and informs me that they're giving out even odds on Nirvana securing the #1 spot this Christmas, thanks to a facebook campaign to see them take the spot over Justin Bieber, and this year's X-Factor winner. In response, I just feel there is one question I should probably ask...


DO ANY OF YOU RETARDS EVEN FUCKING LIKE NIRVANA?


It's an honest question - Nirvana was never about becoming popular, or making money, and they sure as hell wouldn't be proud to make it to the Christmas #1 spot. In fact, this campaign seems to stand for everything the band despised. And just to top it all off, you know which song the campaign is calling for people to buy?





That's right, Smells Like Teen Spirit. If you're a regular, you'll recall my rantings against the song back in February last year. If you're not a regular, allow me to recant a couple of facts that every casual nirvana fan knows:


Nirvana's first album, Bleach, was not overly successful. For Nevermind, they decided to go in a slightly different direction, with a proper producer and decent mixing. Smells Like Teen Spirit itself was written as Kurt's version of a Pixie's song, with strong overtones of Boston's "More Than a Feeling" thrown in to boot. Kurt wrote it as a popular song - essentially, he wrote the song as a joke, to reflect on the direction the new album was taking. Smells Like Teen Spirit was an example of the extreme he was worried they were being pushed towards with their new sound and rising popularity, and wrote the song, in essence, as an act of rebellion. In effect, 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' was for 'Nevermind' what 'The Real Slim Shady' was for 'The Marshal Mathers LP'. It was an overly pop-sounding and catchy track, designed to make fun of the genre, and the group's steady path towards it. Nirvana was a raw grunge band, and found themselves falling into the mainstream world of pop music, so fought back with a parody of what they thought of pop. Cobain is known to have despised being made to play the song at live shows, because he hated the fact that Nirvana was being remembered as 'The Band who made that catchy track, Smells Like Teen Spirit'. Though, presumably not as much as David Bowie hated having kids come up to him and say how much they loved the fact he did a cover of a Nirvana song...



Pictured: The Exact look Bowie gave to anyone who said this. Don't even ask what happened to the people who complimented Dylan on his cover of a Guns 'N' Roses song...


So, essentially, encouraging people to buy 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' this Christmas is the biggest "Fuck You" we could give to Kurt Cobain's corpse, short of Courtney Love making a movie of his life with Rob Schneider in the lead role...



Rape Me, my friend...


Nirvana is not the type of band who would want a number 1, nor were they the type of group who would want to win some stupid race like this. But even if they were, they sure as shit wouldn't want 'Smells Like teen Spirit' to be the song everyone bought. Now, I have no idea what Dave Grohl's opinion on the song was, but i know that both Cobain and Novoselic hated it. Why not pick a Nirvana song the group were actually proud of? My vote would be on 'Heart-Shaped Box', but since it's not an overly catchy song, why not 'Come As You Are'? or 'Lithium'? All famous, instantly recognisable songs, but also songs the band actually liked and were proud of. And why stop at Nirvana? Since the band wouldn't have wanted to make it Christmas #1 anyway, why not buy another track from and early 90s grunge band? Hell, why not:






Better yet, why even pick a grunge band? Why not pick a song from an era where getting to the top of the charts wasn't considered a bad thing? Why shit in the faces of great musicians, when others would consider seeing their song reach #1 a great triumph? You know what I think we need to all need to buy to try and get to Christmas #1 this year?



See, it's funny because Kris Novoselic is Croatian...



Voice



Whilst we're on the subject, just a slight redaction I wish to make. upon viewing A Serbian Film for a second time, i realize that, what I had thought was meant to be a twist, and believed to be overly-predictable, was in fact always supposed to be obvious, and was not predictable, but inevitable. I had gone into A Serbian Film expecting a Horror Film along the lines of Saw, and so picked up on the similarities without judging the film on its own merrit. For this, I apologize. The movie is actually better than I gave it credit for, and now I'm worried I'll have to rewatch buffy the Vampire Slayer in case that's actually decent in some way I hadn't noticed before.


Actually, fuck that. that movie was shit.

Occupy Wall Street (from the perspective of a man whose never been to "climate camp" and doesn't eat organic beans)

So, I've been gone a long time, and I'm not entirely sure if I'm really coming back. I've been working my arse off the past few months, doing shifts any hours of the day (and night), hitting up to 75 hour weeks on occassion. But now I find myself unemployed once again, so may well restart the site if I can be bothered, and if I feel I can take the time off my Masters.


What I wanted to discuss today is the Occupy Wall Street protests, which have been a big news item for the past few weeks. With /pol/ (back? it's not really /new/) in existence, I've been able to see what others have been saying about OWS with a bit more ease over the last few days, and have also caught up on all the anti-Jewish ravings that get posted constantly on that board.



Despite the fact that 4chan was founded by a Jew, and is run by the team depicted here, who are roughly 50% Jewish, and 16.7% Arabic.



I've mostly been lurking (as you all know, I'm a /fit/izen at heart, so most of my posting is focused there), and leaving the occasional comment when I thought it was appropriate (for example, when I thought I might get quads). This evening, however, someone posted a link which would have forced me to lose badly had I been in a "you rage you lose" thread. I've only skim-read the linked article, but felt compelled to comment on it - and not just somewhere that deletes posts every few hours.


Here's a link to the article. Have a read for yourselves: http://feministing.com/2011/10/04/guest-post-my-hope-for-occupy-wall-street/


Now, as I've said, I haven't read the article in detail myself, because I was so busy raging hard at a couple of the statements made near the beginning of the post. The exact text I want to comment on, is the following two paragraphs:

Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.

“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking.

Now, whilst I could easy write an essay on the ways in which men are oppressed more than women in modern society here, I won't. Not because I don't want to, but because I have a far more important point to make.


So far, the OWS protests have been entirely about protesting "the 1%". The greedy upper-classes, who use capitalism to oppress the vast majority of the populace. We have seen prices skyrocket, with no noticable increase in wages for the average working individual, whilst huge corporations are turning record profits. Not only this, but these same companies are then refusing to pay even the small taxes the world's Governments impose upon them, with apparently no remedy available for the people who need that money to come back into the system - to pay for healthcare and education. It is a sorry state of affairs, and certainly worth protesting against. However, I can see these protests breaking down because of things like the "progressive stack". And here's why:


These tactics are making it so the protests are no longer about class - they are dragging in other issues. It seems a lot of people find this hard to believe, but much of the populace does not identify itself as being only "liberal" or "conservative", "republican" or "democrat".

For many people, there are instances where they believe a liberal standpoint is more appropriate, and others where a conservative stance is better. For example - yesterday it was announced that the Government was planning to increase sentences for teenagers caught in possession of knives, and my thoughts were "about fucking time". And yet, I am in favour of increasing the taxes on the rich, and the better-off. In favour of increasing the minimum wage, and benefits, and bursaries for small businesses. I am strongly in favour of all the social policies the "99%" are fighting for - I'm happy to see the earnings disparity in our society greatly decreased. In short, I am massivley in favour of socialism as far as the economy goes. And yet, it seems a lot of people are unable to grasp the concept that an individual could be very left-leaning on Economic strategy, but very right-leaning on crime. And that's a problem.


People like me will inevitably be alienated when what should be an economic protest turns into a "pro-liberalism"/"pro-democrat" protest. By bringing in issues like feminism and race, these people are going to be losing support for the cause they are actually fighting. I sit here a disadvantaged male in a world which seems to want to fuck me any way it can, and I am strongly opposed to the idea of women being given any more privilege over men than they already have. In my last year of university, I was living with 2 black guys, and my 2 best friends were both Chinese. Clearly, I am not a racist (well, against blacks or Cantonese people at least - I can't prove I don't hate Spics with a burning passion...) - and yet the idea of telling white men who may have very valid points that they should not express those because other races need to have their say first seems ridiculous to me.


Imagine it from the other side, if you're a liberal. Imagine a campaign from the right where they're arguing about an issue that affects you too, and that you might be considering joining. Now imagine that, along with this issue, they're also arguing that abortion be made illegal, and that automatic weapons should be legalized for self-defence. Suddenly, you don't want to join their protest, because you don't want to back those two other points, and feel that by joining the people protesting the main objective, you would be getting lumped in with those supporting the other two. They have just successfully alienated you. And it's the same here - you are alienating economic socialists who feel that men are oppressed in our society. You are becoming the stereotypical liberal campaigners. Feminism, Climate Change, Organic Beans - bringing these things into your protest will inevitably harm it. Because it makes you into a stereotype. Something the media, or the right, can point at and laugh. It doesn't matter if it's rational or not - that's just the way the world is.


Just think of how you see the Tea Party, and realize that if you press all of your issues as hard as they press theirs, you look to non-liberals as the Tea Party look to non-Republicans: ridiculous. This is a legitimate campaign, and worth fighting for - why sink it by adding issues that supporters won't relate to? If you're campaigning against military intervention in the middle East, why bring gay rights into it as well? What would you say to someone who was arguing something you were in favour of, but was also shouting that paedophiles need to be castrated? Or all the immigrants deported? You'd tell them to fuck right off with their protest - so why can you not see that pushing feminism and affirmative action into an economic debate will not help one bit?


I really hope people take my advice, and just argue one issue at a time, so we can actually get enough support going for this movement to change something. But I highly doubt it. Which is a shame, because I can see exactly where this protest is headed if it becomes a simple matter of "Left vs Right" over "Wrong vs Right".



Right down the fucking shitter...



Voice




P.S. Check my Sextets, bitches.

A Serbian Film Review

There has been quite a bit of controversy over Srdjan Spasojevic's debut movie, Srpski Film (a.k.a "A Serbian Film"), with people lining up on either side of that age-old wall: One side say it's sick and should be banned, whilst the other side say it's art, and has value, or at least that the creators should be free to show their vision to the world without being censored by governments.

I suppose both sides have a point, really - I remember hearing about Antichrist soon after watching Ted Bundy's final interview and thinking "wow, this is exactly the sort of film Bundy was talking about when describing what turned him into a serial killer - maybe it should be banned". But, at the same time, I only got the see the uncut version of "The Matrix" for the very first time a couple of weeks ago, because despite the fact I watched it on video when it first came out, and then on DVD after everyone upgraded, the uncut version has never been released in the UK on any format - all because it includes a few extra headbutts, which the Government don't want people seeing, for fear they'll decide it is a perfectly acceptable fighting technique (I notice Fellowship of the Ring still got a 'PG' rating despite containing a headbutt, though...).

So, both sides have a point. In the case of A Serbian Film, the pro-censorship lobby are screaming about how depraved and twisted the film is, and ranting about how it should be banned for the good of the world, and how the sickos who watch it should all be imprisoned; whilt the anti-censorship lobby are shouting about how great works of art should not be stifled, and that we don't need a nanny state to protect us, because only we ourselves know what affects us and what doesn't. However, in the course of this heated debate, with both sides attempting to shout the other down, and prove their moral superiority, both sides seem to have missed the real issue here...


The Film really isn't all that good.


Now, I'm sure you might say that I'm the one missing the point, because the argument about censorship shouldn't be restricted to only "good" films, and should cover even the lowest of the low - but seriously, I felt like I was watching a different film to the one everyone has been talking about. Admittedly I did watch the BBFC 18 release of the film, and not the uncut version, but having been online and looked up exactly what was cut out of the runtime, I feel I can safely say that I know enough to make an informed opinion on this movie, and it is neither art that should not be censored by the fascists in Government, but nor is it a sick and repulsive gore-fest that will cause people to become serial killers. It is nothing more than your standard post-saw shock horror, with a bunch of cocks thrown in to piss off conservatives.


Now, I'm not going to sit here and say the film didn't have any redeeming features, but nor am I going to play up its supposed message to make it into something it isn't. This movie isn't a masterpiece exploring what it's really like for Serbians, growing up in a country with no real identity, no real sense of individuality, and being oppressed by those higher-up every day of your lives. Nor is it a critique of Serbia's Government censorship of years passed, a Government which censored even the tamest of vampire stories for fear of what it would do to the public consciousness, yet happily broadcast the heads of its own populace being placed on spikes by Mudjehadeen soldiers fighting in the Yugoslav conflict of the 90s, in order to stir up public anger and hate of Muslims. This film reflects none of these things. How can I be so sure that I didn't just miss the point of the entire story? Because this movie plays exactly the fucking same way as a SAW movie, that's why.

Think I'm kidding? Not only does the film have layers of time confusion, skipping ahead of events, then coming back to scenes of gore when the aftermath is stumbled upon later (as with every SAW film), but it also has the same basic plotline as SAWs 3, 4 & 6, with an individual being forced to harm others against his will, just in the hopes he can survive, and it all finally culminates in a big twist reveal.

Now, I know what you're thinking - you're thinking I just twisted events in my head and over-simplified things to make it just seem like "SAW 4 - BUT WITH PORN", but the truth is the connection between this film and SAW is just as strong as that shared by 'Avatar' and 'Pochohontas' (or 'The Last Samurai', or 'Dances with Wolves', or any one of a thousand other stories...) - it's not definitely based on the other movie, but God is it reminiscent of it.

Hell, even the way the violent scenes are shot is strangely reminiscent of the SAW films, cutting between images on monitors, and jumping into the events, then coming back out again. There aren't the same jump cuts employed by the producers of SAW, but if there were I would swear I had simply accidentally bought a Serbian version of SAW 7 (but with more cocks).

The level of violence, too, is almost exactly on a par with the SAW films - in fact, most of it is even less graphic, despite what pro-censorship fanatics are screaming in the papers and on internet message boards. The fact is, aside from the sex, things are fairly tame by most modern horror standards, and the only real concern is that mixing sex and gore makes a different, more dangerous beast entirely. There are maybe 3 murders throughout the course of the whole film which involve anything sexual - every other killing could appear just as easily in the next Bourne film and no-one would bat an eye (except they might be wondering why Bourne was naked whilst shooting the enemy's henchmen). And of those sexual killings, one was almost entirely cut by the BBFC, so does not have any impact on the viewer whatsoever (that would be the killing I mentioned in my discussion on 'The King's Speech'), and one is so comedic I actually have to go into it in more detail in the next paragraph, so just bear with me. In fact, the only real brutal sexual killing which occurs is in a scene where, doped up to the eyeballs on speed, viagra and bull testosterone, our protagonist Milos rapes a woman who is chained to a bed, before hacking off her head with a machete which is handed to him by one of the snuff film's camera men. Violent? Yes - and yet, were you to show him rape her, then decapitate her in a seperate scene, there wouldn't be so much outrage, so why is there so much anger when the two are put together? Not only this, but the story has already start to become so unbelievable at this point that it just washes over you, and you feel no horror at all. In fact, the only moment which really made me wince was when we saw a quick flash in Milos's memory when it appears he cut across his penis with a knife, and we then see him piss blood into the toilet bowl - but it is later revealed that this did not actually happen, and he merely held the knife to his penis, threatening the director he would cut it off if they did not shut the movie down. Even the notorious "Baby rape scene", whilst a horrifically disgusting concept which creates some revolting images in one's mind upon even hearing the suggestion, is poorly shot, with effects so poor you find yourself thinking "shit, they should have got the guy from The Thing in to do this shit (though, that's hardly an insult. If you said "man, they should have gotten the guy who did the CGI on Two Face in The Dark Knight to come and do this" then it would be truly insulting, but you get my drift, right?) - yes, it's a horrible thing to put in a movie, but it's so poorly done your only real reaction is "why put this in the film at all?"

In fact, there were two seperate points in the film where I actually laughed at the absurdity of events, because although the movie claims to be a dark and painful look at what it feels like to have all power taken away from you, it is pretty dumb in some places. The first of these is when Milos is watching the camera footage back, and sees one of the guards rape him whilst he was unconscious. Whilst this scene is supposed to show Milos's complete loss of power, and humiliation, it is just plain funny, because Srdjan Todorovic does not appear to react at all to the footage, which means the tone of the scene has to be inferred from the tone of the video itself, which is shot in a highly comedic manner. In fact, Todorovic is so wooden throughout most of this performance, I'm certain they simply threw a chair in the room in a couple of scenes. No, I kid, but seriously, I'm about 99% certain he was only hired for the film because he has an enormous penis, since they make such a point of showing it off every 5 seconds.

That's another interesting thing about this film. A lot of the porn films designed for Broadcast or regular store release don't show erect penises, and you generally have to move into the murky recesses of the internet to find anything involving boners and cumshots, and yet somehow a film passing itself off as a serious movie which is in no way supposed to be a porno shows the main character's erect penis almost constantly. Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't get any sexual enjoyment out of watching this whatsoever, so from that perspective, one can argue it is not designed to be porn. However, I would argue that it's just because I'm not a sick fuck (despite what certain articles on this Blog may indicate), and that for some people this film probably is sexually arousing, and the gratuitous boner shots help reassure them that it's ok to jerk off to it (because jerking of to Gore without porn would just be weird, right?). If it does indeed turn out that Mr Nice was only rated 18 because we see David Thewlis's limp dong in it, then this film should by all rights be incinerated, because it certainly goes beyond the call of duty on the penis front - hell, I think Peter North would be proud of this film. Ok, enough dongs now, this is starting to sound weird, like I've got some kind of dong fetish and just can't get them off my mind, so I'll just mention one more thing about cocks, and then we're through. Done. Finished. Finito. Massive Dong. Fuck.


Anyway, the second scene that really made me laugh at the absurdity of it all was the scene near the end where Milos straight-up murders a dude by shoving his dong in the guy's eye-socket. Yeah, this is clearly high-class art with an important message behind it...



Now, I'm not saying that the movie was all bad - the direction seems fairly competent throughout, and the early scenes of the film, coupled with the anticipation of what you know will happen makes the beginning genuinely heart-wrenching. It's just too bad they couldn't keep the pace up throughout the film.

You'll notice I said "what you know will happen" - I don't mean that as in "because you've read all about it online already", I mean it as in "because it's so fucking predictable". There's supposed to be this big reveal at the end where Milo finds out what the movie's all about, and finds out who the masked man that killed his friend is - and it's so predictable I swear it could have been the ending to an episode of Lie to Me. But with more dongs. Shit.


I once said about the SAW films that the reason they were watchable was not the gore, which only a few freaks really watch them for, but for the evolution of the story, and the anticipation of what the twist at the end which ties everything together will be. Hell, you could say the same thing about Nolan's films (if you're functionally retarded, which since you're taking advice on movies from me, I suspect you probably are) - but this was just sooooo predictable that you didn't even have to think about it for a second. And it's not that all my years of watching Inspector Morse and Lewis have made me into a 1337 Television Detective who can work out any ending from minimal clues - it is just plain boring and predictable.


The very, very end twist, too, I found annoying - not because it was predictable, but because it didn't make any sense. It seems to imply that the whole thing was a set-up, and that Milos was destined, from the beginning, to (SPOILER) kill the director then murder his own family and kill himself to escape the horror. To which I have to respond "so... the bad guy was taking masterplanning instructions from the Joker, was he?" - what a retarded plan that would have been if it really was all meant to have been set up. I just can't even go into the levels of stupidity, I'm sorry. I'm too tired to even explain how that was worse than the endings of Memento and The Prestige combined (a lot of Nolan hate tonight for some reason, and I don't really know why, he hasn't done anything to upset me lately, he's just good for making comparisons...)


Hell, I would say the only truly redeeming feature this movie has is the incredible score, which is unbelievably fitting throughout the film, and really helps to raise the tension and horror. The direction is fine, the cinematography is great, and the acting is fairly reasonable for the most part - however, a poor script, which seems almost entirely based around a "need to shock", and a very poor ending means this film is disappointing. It's probably worth a watch, just to make up your own mind on all the fuss, and it's not truly attrocious - I don't feel like I wasted hours of my life on it, or even that I wasted the £5.99 I spent on it, but I do feel that it really fails to live up to all the hype surrounding it, and figure you'd probably have a better night if you just watched SAW instead.



Rating



**


2 Stars




Not awful, but nothing special. Don't believe the hype, as the N.W.A would say (or was that the DOC?). To be honest, I wish I could give this film a great review, seing as it features quotes from websites on the DVD box to try and sell itself, but to be honest, I just can't. Tune in later, and hopefully I'll find some films I can give the dreaded 1 star rating soon!




Voice




Just as a side-note, whoever did the translations on this film was fucking atrocious - like the bit where Vukmir's talking about Milos locking some woman in an oven and making her blow him, or something? Was that something which was meant to have happened, which is why Vukmir was so interested in Milos, or was it some kind of metaphor or parable or some shit, or what? I have no idea - and a couple of times the subtitles were confusing as hell, appearing at the wrong points in conversations, etc.

Deckard is Not a Replicant. Deal With It.

Yesterday, a friend and I were seeing if we could name actors who have never died in a movie, and when he suggested Harrison Ford, I was stumped. I couldn't think of a movie Harrison Ford had died in, but was sure he must have. So, we took to the internet, and discovered a thread discussing the exact same thing. Naturally, one of the first posts on there said "Yes, he died in What Lies Beneath" (duh), but this wasn't what caught my eye. Instead, what caught my interest was a later post, stating "He was technically never alive in Blade Runner", obviously referring to the suggestion that Deckard was a replicant.

I've heard this suggestion on multiple occasions, and whilst it makes sense that there is a certain degree of ambiguity about Deckard's nature (the film was based on a Philip K. Dick novel, after all), it seems that many people take the idea that Deckard is a replicant as being an absolute truth, as though there is no question about it. And I don't see how they could have come to this conclusion, because looking at the facts:

Deckard starts the film apparently retired. He is roped in by the police to hunt down the four escaped replicants who have come to Earth. There is clearly a suggestion that Deckard has been a Blade Runner for quite some time, and has since been in retirement for quite a while as well. Now, the obvious point to make here is that, if Deckard had a limited lifespan, as most replicants do, then he would not have been able to have been working for long enough to become the best, and then go into retirement for a significantly long period for it to be a shock when they bring him back in. But, I know what your response to that will be "Deckard has had false memories implanted, making him believe he was a Blade Runner before, when in fact he only comes into existence around the point where the movie starts, as a specifically designed Blade Runner replicant". Whilst this argument does make sense; after all, we know Rachael had false memories implanted to make her believe she was human, this still ignores the obvious.

Firstly, the cops all act as though they know Deckard, and speak to him as though they are old friends, and yet, if he was a replicant, they wouldn't have known him. Not only this, but when they discuss his past, they would have to be familiar with the backstory that had been given to the replicant Deckard in order to make their statements fit in with what Deckard remembered. This means that either the cops would have had to have been told Deckard was a replicant, and told the exact details of the false memories he was given, and told to act as though they knew him, and everything in the memories had really happened to him as well, which is a long shot, or; Deckard is a replicant based on a real Blade Runner named Deckard, whose memories were implanted into the replicant version of him, whose colleagues are unable to distinguish from the original. Now, this argument does make sense, but not in the context of the rest of the film. And here's why:

If Deckard's memories of being a Blade Runner prior to the start of the film are fake, that means they were deliberately implanted in his memory. The reason for this is simple: Deckard was designed to hunt other replicants; that is his only purpose. But then, why is he so weak when compared to the other replicants? Think about it; Deckard only kills one of the four escaped replicants without a ridiculous stroke of luck:

Leon - had the drop on Deckard, and would have killed him if Rachael hadn't turned up at that exact second.

Pris - Could easily have broken Deckard's neck, but chose to release him and taunt him rather than just kill him. Not only this, but Deckart only managed to kill her because he got to his gun - he would have stood no chance hand-to-hand, nor if she had really wanted him dead.

Roy - Deckard never killed him. In fact, he had Deckard in a position where he could have killed him with ease, but saved his life instead, before succumbing to the built-in defect designed to keep replicants in check.


In fact, the only replicant that Decker manages to kill by himself without them allowing him to do so is the stripper who he shoots as she tries to evade capture. And even she manages to knock him flying, and get quite a way; and she isn't even designed as a combat replicant - she was designed as an advanced sex toy for off-world soldiers.


So, if Deckard is the most advanced replicant in the world, and was made specifically for the purpose of hunting down and retiring other replicants - why the hell wouldn't he be as strong as even the weakest of the replicants he is hunting? Sure, they wanted to make him appear as human as possible, so that even he would think he was human - but why make him so much weaker than those he is hunting? If Deckard is a replicant, he has to have been designed to be a Bladerunner; there's no other explaination for his memories (without him being human). So why the hell isn't he strong enough to take on the replicants he is hunting? As I said, every one of the replicants in the film is more powerful than him, and he only seems to beat them by chance, so if he is supposed to be a replicant, that is some awful scripting. Besides, what evidence is there that he even is a replicant?

There is the theory that Rutger Hauer saves Deckard at the end because he is a replicant, but this is utter crap. As evidenced by Hauer's last statements before death. Roy Batty tells Deckard of all the wonderful things he has seen, which will die with him when he goes. There are only two reasons for this. Either:

(1) he saves Deckard simply because he wants to be remembered; he can't believe that when he dies, all the incredible things he has witnessed will die with him, and no-one else will understand the things he saw. But by saving Deckard, he saves his own existence in Deckard's memory, and therefore his experiences live on that little bit longer.


(2) he wants to teach Deckard the value of his own long lifespan. Deckard is a tormented Alcoholic with nothing to live for, and yet when it comes to his final moments, hanging from the edge of a building, he still wants to live. When Roy tells him of all the beauty he has seen in his short life span, he is showing Deckard what he can do with his far longer, human, lifespan, and is trying to teach him to value that which he takes for granted, but which Roy would kill for.


And Guess what? Both these theories kind of revolve around Deckard NOT being a replicant.




I know both these theories are strongly contended, but it really is that simple, guys. Deckard isn't a replicant, Batty doesn't save him because he is a replicant - he's just a regular guy, saved by a replicant who doesn't want to leave this Earth without at least leaving some impact upon it.


Now, of course, I haven't seen the original version of the film; I've only seen the Director's Cut, and the "Final Cut" of the film. Yet, I think the evidence shows that Deckard has to be human. Yes, there is supposed to be a small element of ambiguity, but on the balance of probabilities, Deckard has to be human; either that or the writer was too dumb to notice the massive plotholes he had created and the film is actually nowhere near as good as I give it credit for being. Either way, as far as I'm concerned, the suggestion that "Harrison Ford wasn't technically alive in Blade Runner", is utter Bullshit.




Voice

The Superior Wiki is Dead. Long Live the Superior Wiki!

Hmmm... A bit rich coming from "Motifake", don't you think???



Last week, millions of internet users mourned the passing of possibly the greatest site of our time, Encyclopedia Dramatica. Whilst Oldfags fill /b/ with stories of how ED never existed, and was simply a prank played on Newfags to make them believe that every significant story and meme to come out of 4Chan and other such sites could be found in one place, those of us who were familiar with the site found ourselves being linked to their new page, "Oh, Internet", and said but one thing:


How will you ever find out about the origins of this meme without ED?!?!



As a Blogger who frequently lets his Docx slip, posts photos of himself online, has an opinion on everything, and can't handle even the slightest of criticism, you would think that I would be terrified of ED, and the mountains of trolls who visited the site and were more than willing to ruin the lives of countless Bloggers and LiveJournal users simply for teh lulz of it. But whilst I admit that there was a scary side to the underworld of the internet, I still fear that the loss of Encyclopedia Dramatica may be the biggest loss the internet has, or ever will face. And here's why:

Encyclopedia Dramatica was the archive. It took everything great which ever happened on /b/, or the other boards no-one ever visits, and documented it in Wiki form. Whilst I could technically be called an Oldfag to the 4Chan boards, having known of their existence before most of its current users had grown out of dressing as Spiderman on Weekends, I still suffer from the insane problem that I am not a lurker. I drop in on the board on occasion to see what's going on, and to catch up on lulz, but that's it. And so, I have missed almost every historic event to occur on the boards, simply because I spend so little time on there. Jessi Slaughter? Missed it. Tara Gilesbie? Missed it. Chris Chan? Missed it on /b/, caught some of the lulz on *shudder* YouTube. And so on, way back to the beginning - I never caught a significant event on /b/. We'll see what happens with this Qu'ran burning thing from last night, but since the moron actually burnt a copy of "Approaching the Qu'ran", as opposed to the Qu'ran itself, I highly doubt we'll ever hear about it again, unless people are still laughing at how dumb the guy is...



"That Book is Evil, and the work of Satan!" - oh, who am I kidding? It would sound just as dumb putting that caption on a picture of the actual Qu'ran...


And that's what was so great about ED - it captured all of these moments, and stored them in lulzy fashion, so we could cherish them forever, even those that we missed because we were too busy actually doing things with our lives. Why Lurk Moar when you can simply hit up a wiki that tells you everything you need to know about what you've missed between odd sessions on /b/?



[image file: Chicks_with_Dicks_Pictures_From_/b/ has been removed due to a terms of service violation - Blogger.com Staff]



Another great thing about ED was the brutal honesty contained within. The site was run on a shock-for-shock's-sake basis, and tried to put in as many offensive comments as possible. And yet, when you looked at any serious discussion they had on there, the offensive views were always well balanced. For example, whilst many people would have found the articles on Cho Seung offensive, owing to their marvelling at his achieving a high-score, and a 32-1 KDT ratio (fucking camper), it does highlight the point of an underlying encouragement of violence in our society, in much the same way as Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers did with its potrayal of the evils of the media. Under the lulz, there were serious points being made. The same thing happened with the article on "The Jews did 9/11" - they took a ridiculous theory purported by a number of conspiracy nuts, and simply ran it as being the truth, including crude photoshops of a Rabbi using his Laser-eyes to blow up the World Trade Centre. Sure, the article was written in a ridiculously anti-semitic manner, but it was satirising the way that some redneck Americans genuinely do blame the Jews for the Twin Towers attack, and by taking it to such an extreme, showed the ridiculousness of the idea.



Although, now that I see the photographic evidence...



Not only this, but if you looked at even basic articles, such as discussions on certain websites, you could always rely on the views being fair and balanced. For example, the site praised The Spoony Experiment as having once been a good website, but bedgrudged his fan-films made with the team from That Guy With the Glasses, and his constant over-use of Doctor Insano, a character funny the first time, but massively over used. It also dissed him for being too happy with the banhammer. All of this was true, and it painted a really accurate representation of the site; which whilst insulting, still acknowledged what was good about it, and constructively criticised the problems within it. Of course, it was filled with comments on how fat Spoony's girlfriend is, and how his family was responsible for 9/11 (being Jews), but it was actually a very fair review at heart, simply dressed up to seem more offensive than it really was.


Ok, maybe they didn't dress up Everything...


As an instructional website, too, Encyclopedia Dramatica flourished. It had excellent guides on how to deal with conditions such as "Unwarranted Self-Importance", "I have Aspergers Syndrome", "I Have a 140 IQ" and "Girl on the Internet Syndrome"...



A typical GOTIS sufferer...



On top of this, it also contained guides on what to say to people posting pathetic status's on Facebook in order to get the most lulzy responses, and even had an article on the most hilarious ways to commit suicide, in case you wished to become an hero, rather than just a regular, boring suicide. These guides were all consistently hilarious, and it's sad to think that we may never see them again.



Though, I won't miss the spoilers, that's for sure... oops...


Encyclopedia Dramatica also stood for Truth, and Justice. It was the webiste the internet deserved. It just apparently isn't the website the internet needs right now. No matter how many lawlsuits they were threatened with, the leadership of ED stood firm, refusing to give in in all but the most exceptional of cases. They may have folded to Madeleine McCann's parents' lawyer when it came to their article on how Madeleine was clearly murdered by her mother, but they stood tall against many, many other individuals intent on killing the lulz, and for that, I salute them. Not only this, but even when the website's Overlord, Girlvinyl, was threatened by a group of trolls for posting a rather unpleasant article on how they all lived in their mothers' basements and fapped to Chris Hansen, she still refused to removed the page, despite having her docx leaked, and receiving multiple phonecalls from people saying they were coming to rape her. Now that's some vaguely-heroic shit. Shame, then, that she threw it all away to move to a site so tame as "Oh Internet" - which is basically "Know your Meme" mk. II.

The way they tackled real-world news as well as internet trends also made Encyclopedia Dramatica a valuable resource for tracking down information. For example, there was a lot of talk on this kid "Casey Heynes" last month, but his video was blocked on YouTube to anyone who wasn't logged in (and, as I have explained before, I'm not able to log in to my YouTube any more). But who needs YouTube when a source as comprehensive as Encyclopedia Dramatica was available? Encyclopedia Dramatica frequently contained more details on events than Wikipedia, even if half of them were simply made up. They were so comprehensive that they managed to shame Wikipedia staff into updating their Pokemon pages to include a section on "I Herd U Liek Mudkipz", among other things, and I learnt a lot more about the Japanese Tsunami from ED than I did from Rupert Murdoch (even if half of it was Fallout 3 jokes...)






Possibly the thing I will miss most about Encyclopedia Dramatica, though, is the hilarity of the site. I would frequently read Cracked as my lunchtime comedy, then switch over to ED for my late night lulz. You could go on just about any article, and there would be plenty of laughs to be had. It may well have all been user-submitted material, and therefore patchy and inconsistent, but the editors sure as hell did a good job keeping it as funny as they possibly could. I look at this site "Oh Internet", the toned-down replacement for ED, and can't help but feel they're selling out to try and appeal to a wider audience. After all that shit they gave to sites like Memebase and Know Your Meme, you would like to have thought Encyclopedia Dramatica would stick to its principles, and remain one of the most dark, shocking sites on the internet. Instead, it has just become another place where all the kids who think dressing up as "Rage Face Guy" and "Forever Alone" and taking pictures of yourself in class is cool will hang out, and will eventually die a slow and un-lulzy, as it fades into the unfunny background of mainstream memes. I tried to parody this attitude last year with my articles on "going viral", and "creating a meme" - the idea of trying to force something to be popular, and therefore making it incredibly pathetic, and I can't help but feel the creators of "Oh Internet", henceforth know as "The Murderers of Encyclopedia Dramatica", have betrayed their own values. And for that, I feel genuinely disappointed. In fact, the only good thing I can see coming out of this situation is that the title for "Most Offensive Webiste on Earth" is now up for grabs, and assuming actual Nazis and Hatemongers don't qualify for the title, I may have a fairly good shot at it.



Is there an award for Blog containing the lamest puns?



I can't help but feel that the day ED died may well have been the day the lulz died, and whilst it may increase traffic for the Cheezburger Network, or Unencyclopedia, it is a sad day for the rest of mankind. Now cracks a noble heart. Goodnight, sweet Wiki.
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...



YEEEEEEAAAAH!!!!


Get it? No? Fair enough, I didn't think anyone familiar with Shakespeare would watch CSI, or vice-versa...





Voice



There's apparently a BBC guy on /b/ right now trying to put together info for a news section to be broadcast on Saturday 23rd at 11.30 - I would call him a troll, but the guy's a Namefag. Shit creeps me out...