I recently read an article on the internet outlining someone's theory for the new Batman film, Dark Knight Rises, basically saying that Christopher Nolan is going to kill off Bruce Wayne and that a random character introduced in another movie will take up the role as Batman (http://www.cracked.com/blog/advanced-batman-theory-why-nolan-will-kill-bruce-wayne/). I like this theory, but there's a few things that stood out for me.
Firstly, the author spends a few paragraphs talking about some of Christopher Nolan's other films, and attempts to tie them into the "Dark Knight" trilogy of Batman films. I think that this is a bit of a stretch, to be honest. The author was clutching at straws and trying to increase the word count. I can understand the point they're trying to make, but it's a bit like saying that all of Tim Burton's films are hinting at plot points at one of his future films. I think that it's a moot point that the director just so happened to make another series of films that talk about making an audience expect one thing, just to deliver the opposite to them.
What I also want to talk about with the author is how he explains what he thinks the role of Bane will be in the movies. In the comics, Bane broke Batman's back, leaving Bruce Wayne paralyzed and the role of Batman (temporarily) filled by Azrael. Bruce got better, though, and retakes the Batman cowl.
The author has said that this won't happen in the film, simply because the film isn't trying to recreate the comics. I couldn't agree more on this, but the author hints at Bane actually killing Batman. I can't picture this happening. For some reason, I can't picture the main character being killed off by a villian that not many people will really know. The obvious choice would have been Joker, but, alas, Heath Ledger isn't around anymore, and it was stated in Dark Knight Returns that Joker had no intention of killing Batman.
So, this brings us to another interesting point. Let's assume that Batman does indeed die in Dark Knight Rises and that the role of Batman is taken up by someone else. Christopher Nolan has stated that he won't put a Robin into his films. This is where the seemingly random character comes in. With no Robin to take up the cowl, it falls to someone else to fill the post. If this happens, it will annoy a lot of comic fans. In the comics, Batman was first Bruce Wayne, then following the events of Final Crisis Bruce Wayne was believed to be dead, the role of Batman was taken up by Dick Grayson- at the time known as Nightwing, but more famously known as Robin while Bruce was Batman. The natural progression of Batman is that the cowl gets passed onto Robin- a sort of master/student dynamic.
Batman needs a Robin, simply because Robin is the second in command. Anything happens to Batman, Robin steps up and takes his place. As Christopher Nolan isn't including a Robin in the movies, I think it's unlikely that you'll see a new Batman. The character the author of the linked article states that the character he thinks will take up the role of Batman after Bruce Wayne is someone called John Blake. Coincidently, when Dick Grayson takes up the role of Batman the Robin is Tim Drake (a very similar sounding name). What we could see is instead of John Blake becoming Batman, he might form his own idendity. I highly doubt it will be Nightwing. That's Dick Grayson's role. When Bruce Wayne is revealed not to be dead, he retakes the role of Batman, Dick goes back to being Nightwing, and we're back where we left off.
That is, however, it's revealed that Bruce has a son, Damian- the mother is Talia aAl Ghul, the daughter of Ra's al Ghul. Damian became the new Robin when Tim Drake decided to branch out and become his own crime fighter, under the name Red Robin. I'm going to call it- in Dark Knight Rises Bruce Wayne does indeed die, and John Blake decides to take his place, but not as Batman. I think he's going to replace Bruce, but under the "Red Robin" guise. I think that John will think that you can't replace Batman with a click of your fingers and a flash of lightning, so he comes up with his own crime fighting vigilante.
And thus, the movie version of Red Robin was born. I know that Red Robin isn't that well known a character from the comics, but neither was Mad Hatter, and he was recently featured in the Arkham City video game. What's to say that another relative obscure character won't be featured in the upcoming film(s)?
That's my take on where the celluloid Batman is going. I may be right, I may not be. We'll just have to wait and see.
While I've still got your attention, why not hit me up on Twitter @Gary_Xean? You know, for shits and giggles.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Shakin' up the system
I got a plan. A cunning plan. A plan that I feel needs to be introduced into this country as soon as possible (obviously). I want to start a revolution- a social revolution, if you will. I want to shake up the schooling and work system in this country.
Now, I feel that a bit of background information's needed for this post. I ply my trade within the confines of the retail sector. It's not a job I hate (most of the time), but it's not a job I love. The biggest downside is that I have to interact with people on a daily basis. I know, I know, I knew about that before I started the job, but I never realised how irritating it can get sometimes. When you get people who quite clearly can't be bothered to do anything for themselves, that's when the job gets annoying. When you get people who are, shall we say, not the brightest tool on the shelf, and you realise that you may as well be talking to the nearest wall, that's when the job gets mildly frustrating. When you get people who treat you like something you stepped in, that's when the job gets downright hateful. This is the reason I want to shake up the school system- these problems all come down to a lack of respect- a lack of respect for the staff and a lack of respect for their working environment.
So, how do we solve this problem? Well, it's actually very simple. We need to find a way for people to learn respect for the retailers who work hard every day to keep their customers happy. Obviously not all customers can leave a store happy. Some of these people will let you know that they're not happy, and demdand that you do something, citing phrases like "the customer is always right" and "retail law" and other buzzwords they've heard on watchdog shows on television. The fact of the matter is this: the customer is not always right. In fact, the customer is very rarely right. This is one of the things we need to teach people. By breaking down this barrier of ignorance you open up the opportunity for understanding and learning.
Probably the most effective way for people to learn about an industry is to actually work in it. At the moment, the British schooling system has a work experience program, where children who are 15/16 will go out for two weeks and work for a company. This system is, frankly, useless. Two weeks isn't long enough for a person of that age to fully understand and comprehend what's happening within a business. Plus, you get children who want to work in, for example, a care home, but instead get told that the placement's full so they have to go work for their local shop. Because they don't want to be there, they won't make any effort to do the job. I know this, I've seen it firsthand. As such, we need to get rid of the work experience program in it's current form.
Instead, we put in a totally radical system. When children leave school, they have to do six month's work. But not just any work, they have to do six month's retail work. Believe it or not, retail work is more than just stacking shelves. It's an extremely complex industry, and there's a hell of a lot more happening behind the scenes than most people realise. Speaking on a personal level, I have to liase with five different outside companies, which I wasn't expecting when I first started the job. I think people would be amazed what actually goes into the running of a shop.
Now, you obviously need to give these people an incentive for doing the job, otherwise they won't turn up to it. The most obvious one is to pay them for it. At the time of writing, the minimum wage for school leavers under the age of 18 is £3.68 per hour. If you get them working 30 hours a week, that roughly equates to the same amount of time they would spend in school, and gives them a weekly pay of £110.40 per week, depending if the individual employers wish to pay them more or not. An additional point on this is that it's not really fair for the employers to be forced to pay school leavers this much, so the government will supplement half of it- £55.20 comes from a government grant, and the rest comes out of the employers pocket. When these children get older and start to pay tax, they'll effectively pay this money back and pass it on to the next generation of school leavers. This would actually mean you get a permanent circulation of currency- when someones's 15/16 they don't think about saving up their cash, they think about how they can go out with their friends, spend it and enjoy it. Look at that, I'm also putting forward a solution to help the economic crisis without even trying.
Money can't be the only incentive for people that age. This is where I think the Americans have the right idea by having a permanent record for people. I think this is a system that we need in this country. Not only can you put people's school grades onto it, you can also put if they completed their six months retail service or not. If they did, then great. If not, then they effectively "fail" school. To put it another way, it becomes part of the curriculum. Granted, there's no exam for it, there's no grade for it. If they turned up to their placement every day and put honest-to-god effort in, then that works in their favour. If they turned up every day but didn't bother to do anything, then that goes against them. If they don't turn up at all, they don't get paid and it goes on their record, thus rendering them unreliable and, in turn, unemployable. If you don't do your placement, then you only apply for the bare minimum of benefits, so it encourages you to actually turn up and the do the job even more. By making the downside as bad as possible, you're practically ensuring the fact that people will turn up and be bothered to do the job.
There are no doubt holes in this theory. I like to think that I've thought this through pretty damn well, but if there is anything, I encourage you to point it out to me so I can refine it.
Well, that's my theory. My main idea is for people to see when happens in retail and thus they gain a respect for the job and the people, and that the respect will be spread across the generations. Thank you for reading this far, and give me yo' opinions.
Now, I feel that a bit of background information's needed for this post. I ply my trade within the confines of the retail sector. It's not a job I hate (most of the time), but it's not a job I love. The biggest downside is that I have to interact with people on a daily basis. I know, I know, I knew about that before I started the job, but I never realised how irritating it can get sometimes. When you get people who quite clearly can't be bothered to do anything for themselves, that's when the job gets annoying. When you get people who are, shall we say, not the brightest tool on the shelf, and you realise that you may as well be talking to the nearest wall, that's when the job gets mildly frustrating. When you get people who treat you like something you stepped in, that's when the job gets downright hateful. This is the reason I want to shake up the school system- these problems all come down to a lack of respect- a lack of respect for the staff and a lack of respect for their working environment.
So, how do we solve this problem? Well, it's actually very simple. We need to find a way for people to learn respect for the retailers who work hard every day to keep their customers happy. Obviously not all customers can leave a store happy. Some of these people will let you know that they're not happy, and demdand that you do something, citing phrases like "the customer is always right" and "retail law" and other buzzwords they've heard on watchdog shows on television. The fact of the matter is this: the customer is not always right. In fact, the customer is very rarely right. This is one of the things we need to teach people. By breaking down this barrier of ignorance you open up the opportunity for understanding and learning.
Probably the most effective way for people to learn about an industry is to actually work in it. At the moment, the British schooling system has a work experience program, where children who are 15/16 will go out for two weeks and work for a company. This system is, frankly, useless. Two weeks isn't long enough for a person of that age to fully understand and comprehend what's happening within a business. Plus, you get children who want to work in, for example, a care home, but instead get told that the placement's full so they have to go work for their local shop. Because they don't want to be there, they won't make any effort to do the job. I know this, I've seen it firsthand. As such, we need to get rid of the work experience program in it's current form.
Instead, we put in a totally radical system. When children leave school, they have to do six month's work. But not just any work, they have to do six month's retail work. Believe it or not, retail work is more than just stacking shelves. It's an extremely complex industry, and there's a hell of a lot more happening behind the scenes than most people realise. Speaking on a personal level, I have to liase with five different outside companies, which I wasn't expecting when I first started the job. I think people would be amazed what actually goes into the running of a shop.
Now, you obviously need to give these people an incentive for doing the job, otherwise they won't turn up to it. The most obvious one is to pay them for it. At the time of writing, the minimum wage for school leavers under the age of 18 is £3.68 per hour. If you get them working 30 hours a week, that roughly equates to the same amount of time they would spend in school, and gives them a weekly pay of £110.40 per week, depending if the individual employers wish to pay them more or not. An additional point on this is that it's not really fair for the employers to be forced to pay school leavers this much, so the government will supplement half of it- £55.20 comes from a government grant, and the rest comes out of the employers pocket. When these children get older and start to pay tax, they'll effectively pay this money back and pass it on to the next generation of school leavers. This would actually mean you get a permanent circulation of currency- when someones's 15/16 they don't think about saving up their cash, they think about how they can go out with their friends, spend it and enjoy it. Look at that, I'm also putting forward a solution to help the economic crisis without even trying.
Money can't be the only incentive for people that age. This is where I think the Americans have the right idea by having a permanent record for people. I think this is a system that we need in this country. Not only can you put people's school grades onto it, you can also put if they completed their six months retail service or not. If they did, then great. If not, then they effectively "fail" school. To put it another way, it becomes part of the curriculum. Granted, there's no exam for it, there's no grade for it. If they turned up to their placement every day and put honest-to-god effort in, then that works in their favour. If they turned up every day but didn't bother to do anything, then that goes against them. If they don't turn up at all, they don't get paid and it goes on their record, thus rendering them unreliable and, in turn, unemployable. If you don't do your placement, then you only apply for the bare minimum of benefits, so it encourages you to actually turn up and the do the job even more. By making the downside as bad as possible, you're practically ensuring the fact that people will turn up and be bothered to do the job.
There are no doubt holes in this theory. I like to think that I've thought this through pretty damn well, but if there is anything, I encourage you to point it out to me so I can refine it.
Well, that's my theory. My main idea is for people to see when happens in retail and thus they gain a respect for the job and the people, and that the respect will be spread across the generations. Thank you for reading this far, and give me yo' opinions.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Why is Internet Explorer considered bad?
In my many travels on the Interwebnet, I stumble across many different comparisons- Opinion A is different to Opinion B, Product A is cheaper than Product B, Language A is easier to learn than Language B, and so on and so forth. One thing that I stumbled across today was the subject of Internet browsers. This is a subject that I've touched upon before, but this time, I found myself drawn to it for a very simple reason.
Everyone hates Internet Explorer.
I decided to go to Google and ask the question "Why is Internet Explorer considered bad?" and Google found no results. Same with Bing. Both search engines gave me other options, though, and I decided to read through some of them. From what I can tell, people don't like IE (Internet Explorer) because it doesn't display websites the same as other browsers such as Opera and Firefox, and that there's security risks invloved with using it.
This is bullshit. I don't see the big deal here. Okay, so web developers need to find workarounds for their pages to be displayed identically with all browsers. I hate to tell you this, Mr. Web Developer, but that is your job. You are the one that is paid to make a webpage that will be displayed identically on every browser being used. If you need to make a workaround for your precious page to be displayed on one browser, then you have to do it. That is why you call yourself a web developer, because you are making Internet pages that everyone can view. You're not making webpages for people only using, for example, Safari can view. If you were, then you would be a Safari Web Developer. But you're not. Deal with it.
As for those security issues attatched to IE? In case you people didn't notice, it's not about your web browser that puts you at risk, okay? It's the very fact that you're connected to the Internet in the first place that puts you at risk. If someone wants to gain access to your personal files, they'll do it via your web connection. Hackers don't give a damn what browser you're using. If there's a way for them to get onto your computer and steal your information, then they'll damn well do it. These security issues won't mean diddly squat if you've got decent, up-to-date anti-virus and firewall software. Hey presto, it's instantly harder to gain access to your machine.
I decided to have a look at the stats for this blog prior/during the writing of this post, and I discovered that the top three browsers that are used to view this blog are Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera. The combined percentages of Opera and Firefox users is 33% while the percentage of IE users is 54%. Yes, you read that correctly. The majority of my readers use IE while the people who use Firefox and Opera combined is just over half that number. There are currently 21% more people using IE than Firefox and Opera combined, and I think that tells you something.
And because I'm feeling incredibly kind, I'm going to spell that out for you all elitist snobs out there.
There's nothing wrong with Internet Explorer.
Everyone hates Internet Explorer.
I decided to go to Google and ask the question "Why is Internet Explorer considered bad?" and Google found no results. Same with Bing. Both search engines gave me other options, though, and I decided to read through some of them. From what I can tell, people don't like IE (Internet Explorer) because it doesn't display websites the same as other browsers such as Opera and Firefox, and that there's security risks invloved with using it.
This is bullshit. I don't see the big deal here. Okay, so web developers need to find workarounds for their pages to be displayed identically with all browsers. I hate to tell you this, Mr. Web Developer, but that is your job. You are the one that is paid to make a webpage that will be displayed identically on every browser being used. If you need to make a workaround for your precious page to be displayed on one browser, then you have to do it. That is why you call yourself a web developer, because you are making Internet pages that everyone can view. You're not making webpages for people only using, for example, Safari can view. If you were, then you would be a Safari Web Developer. But you're not. Deal with it.
As for those security issues attatched to IE? In case you people didn't notice, it's not about your web browser that puts you at risk, okay? It's the very fact that you're connected to the Internet in the first place that puts you at risk. If someone wants to gain access to your personal files, they'll do it via your web connection. Hackers don't give a damn what browser you're using. If there's a way for them to get onto your computer and steal your information, then they'll damn well do it. These security issues won't mean diddly squat if you've got decent, up-to-date anti-virus and firewall software. Hey presto, it's instantly harder to gain access to your machine.
I decided to have a look at the stats for this blog prior/during the writing of this post, and I discovered that the top three browsers that are used to view this blog are Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera. The combined percentages of Opera and Firefox users is 33% while the percentage of IE users is 54%. Yes, you read that correctly. The majority of my readers use IE while the people who use Firefox and Opera combined is just over half that number. There are currently 21% more people using IE than Firefox and Opera combined, and I think that tells you something.
And because I'm feeling incredibly kind, I'm going to spell that out for you all elitist snobs out there.
There's nothing wrong with Internet Explorer.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Humanity lost it's way
If you've been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the (UK) news recently, then it's highly likely that you've seen the story that's dominated the headlines these last few days: "Riots in London" is what sums it all up. The UK, a country that prides itself on it's civility and high standard of living, has descended into looting, rioting and general mayhem and destruction.
The video only shows a small amount of what was happening, yet at the same time, it sums it up a lot. It basically comes down to one thing- destruction for the sake of destruction.
It all started in the Tottenham area of London, where people were peacefully protesting over the death of a man in possession of a firearm after the police shot him, apparently without warning. I wasn't there, so I can't comment on if that's true or not, but somehow, the protest turned violent. The violence spread across London, people were giving reasons such as "[It's the] recession. We're bored and we've got no money." One person even claimed they were doing it to "get my taxes back." Idiocy doesn't even begin to cover it.
For a while, the mindlessness threatened to overrun the entire country, but people seemed to come to their senses, and it all slowly died away. Despite what you saw in the video, the police response was very minimal- it was almost as if they were scared to get involved. This lead to people talking about getting the army to diffuse the troublemakers, but there's an extremely good example against this course of action- did somebody say Northern Ireland?
Yes, there were riots in Northern Ireland, and the army were brought in to subdue the situation. The resulting standoff lasted 30 years.
So, what happens now? The violence has seemingly stopped, but I know for a fact that some retail outlets are still employing an extremely high level of caution, and with good reason- it only takes one or two people to start it up again, especially in the aftermath. The scenes are still fresh in people's minds, and if they've got the intelligence of a cheese sandwich (which, let's face it, most of the people rioting and looting do), then they'll want to imitate what they've seen on the magical picture box. And, thus, the mayhem will begin again.
There are many words that can be used to describe these people, but most of them can't be used in polite company. I'll leave it up to each individual to decide how extreme they want to take the descriptions, but I think that by my "cheese sandwich" remark it's an easy assumption that my own feelings are far from neutral on this one.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
O Hai Dar
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it. "Oh Gary, it's been three months, when are you updating?" I don't hear you cry. But it has actually been about three months since my last update, and after reading my last post I thought to myself "Hey, it's been three months, let's go with that little throwaway gag I made".
So, what to tell? To be honest with you, there hasn't really been a lot of stuff that's changed for me. The last two or three weeks have had things happen that made me think about my life in general, and it also made me realise that I really know how to hold a grudge. I mean, seriously know how to hold a grudge. I'm talking the kind of grudge that you'd go to war over, the kind of grudge that you'd burn women and rape houses over. Or should that be the other way around...?
Anyway, I guess half the reason for my lack of updating is the fact that I never really have anything to say on this thing. I'm not overly opinionated, I don't live a fancy lifestyle or anything, and I generally stay out of trouble. The most exciting thing is my birthday in a few weeks- hitting the ripe old age of 26- and I don't know what I want to do to celebrate another year closer to the grave. Well, I know what I'd like to do, but if I say it then there's a slight chance that I'd end up doing time at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
So, I guess this is all from me for now. I'm not even going to bother saying that I'll update more often, as every time I say it I never do it. Maybe some reverse psychology will do the trick or something....
So, what to tell? To be honest with you, there hasn't really been a lot of stuff that's changed for me. The last two or three weeks have had things happen that made me think about my life in general, and it also made me realise that I really know how to hold a grudge. I mean, seriously know how to hold a grudge. I'm talking the kind of grudge that you'd go to war over, the kind of grudge that you'd burn women and rape houses over. Or should that be the other way around...?
Anyway, I guess half the reason for my lack of updating is the fact that I never really have anything to say on this thing. I'm not overly opinionated, I don't live a fancy lifestyle or anything, and I generally stay out of trouble. The most exciting thing is my birthday in a few weeks- hitting the ripe old age of 26- and I don't know what I want to do to celebrate another year closer to the grave. Well, I know what I'd like to do, but if I say it then there's a slight chance that I'd end up doing time at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
So, I guess this is all from me for now. I'm not even going to bother saying that I'll update more often, as every time I say it I never do it. Maybe some reverse psychology will do the trick or something....
Friday, 1 April 2011
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies
Yeah, I kind of screwed up the whole updating thing, didn't I? Still, not to worry! I'm sure the Internet won't combust if I don't update my blog every six months or so, but I'm not taking that risk, dammit!
So, what's been in the news since I last updated? Well, you know, the usual- members of the royal family announcing wedding plans, floods in Australia, earthquakes in Japan, pretty ordinary stuff when you think about it. I mean, I can't think of the last time a week went by without a royal wedding being announced, or a country being ravaged by a natural disaster, or even a tyrannical leader being the target of a civil war.
Okay, that was a lie.
Let's face it, there's been a lot of doom and gloom recently. Something that I've been following is the civil war in Lybia, simply because we, Great Britain, got involved with the hostilities and I couldn't work out why for the life of me why we did. My point of view was that if the Lybians wanted to blow themselves up, then leave them to get on with it. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't marching down the streets of London with a giant placard and shouting "Bring Our Boys home!" to anyone that would listen. Hell, I didn't even mention it on my Twitter account, , so you know that there wasn't really a lot that I had to say on the matter (I have, however, been ripping the shit out of Olly Murs).
So, in other personal news, I got back from a two week trip to fabulous Las Vegas about a month ago, and I'm still getting all the photos we took put into albums. I think there was about 200 photos, although that number could be terribly wrong. I'm not going to count them now, I can't be bothered. I would tell you what we done out there, but as we all know, what happens in Vegas...
Seriously, though, once I get my backside in gear there's going to be a Vegas report. I'm not going to go into every little minute detail, simply because no-one really wants to know, I'd bet, and because it would take too much damn time, and heaven knows I don't have time to do that shit, especially as I've got stuff in the pipeline, plans that I want to actually follow up on and more trips to make.
Speaking of trips, me and the lovely girl are going into London for a couple of days- 17th and 18th April, to be precise. We're staying in a nice hotel near Oxford street, then we're going to see the show Stomp, which I really want to see again. If you're a fan of Blue Man Group and Shaolin Monk drumming exhibitions, then you'll love Stomp. I'm sure there's going to be some more about that later on. We're also planning on going to New York in October-ish, but we're not 100% certain on the dates yet. Again, I'm sure there'll be more on that as and when I get the info.
So that's about it from me for my three-monthly update. I say this every time, but I'm going to try and update this little bastich a bit more often from now on, so until then, track me on Twitter if you really want to, or you can hunt me down on Facebook if you're feeling really stalker-ish (yes, stalker-ish is a word now), or you can just keep checking back periodically if you so desire. Until then, little blog, I shall be seeing you peeps later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)