Source Code: A movie that should probably have been a video game

My wife and I recently watched Source Code, starring Jake Gyllenhall (of Donnie Darko fame) and a bunch of nobodies in a story about traveling into memories. The premise is that people have some sort of "afterglow" of thought (or something like that) that stays for eight minutes after they die. The Source Code program taps into that and sends marines in to figure out why the person died.
The movie focuses on one mission: a Metra train heading into Chicago exploded, and Jake needs to find out why. The movie starts out very repetitive: he finds himself on a train, talking to a woman. After eight minutes, the train explodes, he dies and then it starts over. He tries multiple people and multiple strategies, and eventually figures out who bombs the train. The biggest problem is that it kind of feels like watching someone play a videogame. Watching other people play games is boring. If it were actually a videogame, then it might be kind of fun to talk to the people, starts fights with no consequences and solve the mystery. Also, there could have been more levels than just the train level.
What I didn't get, however, was how the source code machine actually worked. They said it put him into a simulation of people's memories, and that it wasn't a time machine. Assuming that is the case, then he would only be an observer. It's not a time machine, so he can't alter anything. He would have to observe the same things as the body he was projected into saw, and that's it. For example, at one point, he gets off the train, goes into the station and picks a fight with someone in a bathroom. The dead person he's in had no way of knowing that person was in that bathroom, because he stayed on the train. At that point, how do we know that the things he's seeing really happened and aren't just his brain making things up, kind of like a dream? It doesn't really make sense to me, so I went to IMDB to try and find out, and this is what I found:

It could be clarified that each particular *instance* of a consciousness can only exist in one reality at at time, but the Source Code device can project a particular instance of a consciousness from one reality to a parallel one--causing multiple instances of that consciousness in the destination parallel universe, as happens in the movie.

At the end of the movie, reality B contains *two* instances of Coulter's consciousness--a new instance of Coulter's consciousness, projected into Fentress' body from parallel universe "reality A" by the Source Code device, and reality B's original instance of Coulter's consciousness, in his ruined body in the Source Code chamber. In reality B, the train bomb never detonates and the dirty nuke is seized before it becomes a threat, so its original instance of Coulter's consciousness in his body the Source Code chamber is never called into action, and remains ready for a sequel.

So basically, he changes things in alternate universes, and saves all the people in the alternate universe. The author of that rather lengthy explanation of the movie doesn't cite where in the movie any of that is explained, so I didn't think it's explicitly stated in the movie.
Without that explanation, the movie doesn't really make sense. With it, it just seems like a live action video game that would have been much more fun to play. The ending doesn't really leave anything open to a sequel, which is good because this movie wasn't that great.

Why Taking to the Ships is a Happy Ending

During this class, we have mentioned that the book can be applied to real life. My school year this year is similar to Frodo’s journey throughout the book. Frodo’s journey is obviously more taxing physically and emotionally than mine, but there are similarities.
This is my second year at UMD, and it is and will continue to be my most difficult year. The lowest amount of credits I will have this year is 17, with a maximum of 19 over the last few weeks. I am also working two jobs this semester, so clearly I have a lot of hard work to do most of the time. Frodo, on the other hand, had to travel over 1,000 km to destroy a Ring that became increasingly heavier. He had to walk the entire way there, and he ran out of food on several occasions. The whole experience leaves him exhausted and scarred. Frodo cannot resume a normal life after such a journey, and that is why he takes to the ships with Gandalf.
The taking to the ships is a happy ending because Frodo, Gandalf and Bilbo pass into the afterlife without actually dying. They go to Valinor, the Undying Lands, to life forever with the elves. Although I won’t die or go into the afterlife, I will go to my home in the Twin Cities to be with my family for the summer, and after an exhausting school year I will be able to rest and be with the people I love again. That sounds like a very happy ending to me.
The Lord of the Rings can be applied to my life. Frodo’s journey is similar to my second year of college at UMD, in that it is difficult, but I have a happy ending to look forward to.

The Scouring of the Shire

The Scouring of the Shire signifies a form of death and rebirth for the hobbits. At the beginning of the books, the hobbits are timid and would probably not fight against Saruman, but after their adventure, they are battle-hardened and ready to fight for their home. It also signifies the death of the old world and the birth of the new world when Sam opens his box and new growth sprouts everywhere.
Tolkien described hobbits in The Hobbit as creatures that never go on adventures (except for the occasional Took), and when Gandalf and Bilbo are talking in the beginning of The Hobbit, Bilbo called them “mad adventures,” and said that Gandalf “Used to upset things badly…once upon a time.” Most hobbits also like to eat most of the day, and seem lazy, although they will work hard on their gardens. They aren’t the kind of folks that would go and fight. Sam, Frodo, Merry and Pippin’s adventures in the greater world change them. They learn how to fight for the places and hobbits they love, and how to defend their territory. It should be no surprise to the reader that they can fight Saruman and his “shirrifs” so easily.
After Saruman’s death, the Shire has been ruined for the most part. Sam, however, has his box full of magic elven dust. The hobbits rebuild the shire, and then on a windy day, Sam distributes his dust. The Shire regrows to even better than it was. This is symbolic of the changes in the rest of the world. The land of Mordor is no longer a dark wasteland (it is actually a light wasteland), and Gondor no longer needs to fight against it constantly. The Shire was destroyed, but then was purged of all the evil in it. Then the world was rebuilt to a better form than it was in, and the Shire was no exception.
The Scouring of the Shire also presents one of the many morals of this story. The moral is that trying to get revenge will fail. Saruman purposely ruined the Shire because he claimed the Hobbits ruined his home (Isengard). Saruman tried to get his revenge on all of the hobbits, but the whole campaign ends with his death. In this chapter, Saruman represents a new kind of evil: vengeance. The hobbits defeat vengeance and rebuild their home.
The scouring of the Shire has significance in many ways. It shows how many changes can occur in hobbits in a year’s time, as well as displaying a small scale version of the death of evil and the rebirth of the world without it. It also shows one of the many morals in the story, which is don’t be vengeful. Overall, this is a very important chapter in the book and should not have been left out of the movie, even though it would have added another half hour to an already three hour movie.

The Importance of Denethor

In The Lord of the Rings, Denethor is the Steward of Gondor, a nation of Men in the south of Middle Earth. He is Steward, not King, because his line is standing in for the true kings of Gondor, which is Aragorn’s lineage. Denethor is an important character because he gathers intelligence for the forces of good. He also helps show that Aragorn is the true king of Gondor, and shows what a character that gives into despair is like.
While leading Gondor as its Steward, Denethor chanced across a Palantir, and looked into it frequently. He used it because he believed he would be able to gather the enemy’s strategy and learn their tactics. He does gather intelligence, but what he sees causes him to lose hope: Mordor had amassed a giant army capable of destroying Gondor. Denethor loses hope in his armies, and failed to conquer the Palantir and ends up despairing. Denethor also helps show that the race of Men is weak and unable to cope with powerful forces like Sauron and the Ring. Aragorn proved he is the true King of Gondor when he looked into the Palantir and mastered it. Someone other than the king would not have the blood of Numenor in their veins and would not be powerful enough to master the Palantir. By mastering the Palantir, Aragorn proves that he is the rightful king and the heir of Isildur, the last king of Gondor.
Denethor also shows the reader what a despairing character looks like. Many bad things happen to Denethor and Gondor during the Lord of the Rings, such as both of his sons’ deaths (although Faramir hadn’t actually died, Denethor just thought he did), and his kingdom being invaded by a seemingly indestructible army bent on destroying his kingdom. Because of this, Denethor despairs and burns himself and tries to burn Faramir alive. None of the other characters show despair quite the way Denethor does, All of them are ready to face the dangers of Middle Earth and beat evil. They are all hesitant, because fighting the forces of evil in Middle Earth is a daunting task, but they are willing and they don’t despair.
Frodo and Sam coped with their trek through Mordor with more success than Denethor had with the Palantir. Throughout the rest of the books, all of the characters are courageous in the face of evil. Frodo and Sam go to Mordor without questioning whether it is the right thing to do or whether or not it is worth risking their lives. Merry swore fealty to Theoden and fought in the battle of Pelennor Fields because he wanted to defend everything he held dear from Sauron. Denethor was unable to cope with the vast armies that invaded his kingdom, and ended up despairing.
As the Steward of Gondor Denethor is an important character because he gathers information for the forces of good, helps show that Aragorn is the true king of Gondor, and reflects upon a character who gives into despair.

Shelob Is Not the Most Appalling Monster Imaginable

Many people (myself included) might usually think of a gigantic spider as a disgusting monster that should be fought and destroyed. The truth is that Shelob isn’t a monster. Shelob and her ancestor, Ungoliant, were both used as tools by evil people, but are not evil themselves. She merely needs to eat and hunt like any other animal. The reason Frodo and Sam fought Shelob is because Gollum, the real monster in this case, led them to her.
Shelob is much like her ancestor, Ungoliant. Ungoliant and Shelob are both creatures that are able to change their shape, and settled with being spiders. Ungoliant’s idea of a feast was light and good objects. Melkor used this for his evil purposes when he had Ungoliant swallow Laurelin and Telperion, the Trees of Valinor. In this case, Melkor is more evil than Ungoliant because he wanted the Trees of Valinor destroyed, and Ungoliant wanted to eat. Even if Ungoliant hadn’t existed, Melkor would still have found some way of destroying the Trees of Valinor. If she had been left alone, Ungoliant would not have gone out of her way to go and eat the Trees of Valinor. She wanted to be left alone. In the Silmarillion, it says that she left Melkor's service to be her own master.
Gollum is an appalling monster in book four. During that book, he gained Frodo’s trust by leading them through the Dead Marshes and North Ithilien, but then betrays their trust by leading them through Cirith Ungol. Gollum led them to Shelob’s insatiable hunger, intending them to be killed and allowing him to retrieve the Ring. It is clear from this part of the book that Gollum doesn’t care about helping Frodo and Sam, and that he hasn’t changed. Gollum is full of selfish malice towards the Ring bearer, and would do anything to get the Ring back. Ungoliant and Shelob acted unaware of the impact their actions would have on Middle Earth. There was no malice or evil intent in either of them.
Although the giant spiders are meant to be horrible monsters imaginable, they are not the worst creatures in Tolkien’s writings. The real monsters of the Silmarillion and the Two Towers are Melkor and Gollum respectively. They showed complete selfishness and malice towards all of Middle Earth, whereas Ungoliant and Shelob were nothing but tools to work the evils of Melkor and Gollum.

Evil Manifested in the Lord of the Rings

J.R.R. Tolkien had many ways of portraying evil in the Lord of the Rings. Evil is mainly manifested primarily in Sauron, Saruman and Wormtongue. These three antagonists are not exactly the same brand of evil, however. Sauron’s evil is the will to dominate and control all life in the world, while Saruman and Wormtongue's evil are the forces of corruption.
Sauron is a totalitarian leader who wants nothing less than total control of all of Middle Earth. He created the Rings of Power to control all of the races of Middle Earth. He is successful with the race of Men, the nine kings he gave Rings to become the ring wraiths and serve Sauron mercilessly. Like all totalitarian leaders, Sauron has a weakness, and in Lord of the Rings, his weakness is obviously the Ring itself. Sauron foolishly put all of his power in what Tom Bombadil would call a trinket, and its destruction ultimately is Sauron’s destruction. Another aspect of Sauron’s evil is his intentions. When Hitler and Mussolini first came to power, their countries were war torn and in need of a good leader to repair the damage from World War I. Eventually, their quests for greatness got out of control and caused World War II. Mordor is a desolate wasteland, however Sauron has no intention of revitalizing the economy or making it a better place. He wants to control Middle Earth simply for the sake of controlling Middle Earth and to enslave all life and force it to serve him.
Saruman and Wormtongue are a different brand of evil. Saruman was once a good wizard like Gandalf. They were in the same order together with several other wizards. Using a pair of Palantir, Sauron corrupts Saruman by showing him that it is hopeless to resist him and his armies, and Saruman joined Sauron’s side. Sauron then uses Saruman as a tool to destroy Rohan. First Saruman has Wormtongue corrupt King Theoden, and then they attack Rohan at Helm’s Deep. If Saruman hadn’t given in to madness and joined Sauron, the battle for Middle Earth would have been easier for the race of men, since they would not have to fight Saruman. Saruman and Wormtongue represent the forces of corruption both as corruptors and people who are corrupted. Saruman is corrupted by Sauron, and then Saruman corrupts Wormtongue and makes him try to destroy Rohan. Wormtongue works to corrupt Rohan by giving King Theoden bad counsel with a voice enchanted by Saruman.
Although Sauron, Saruman and Wormtongue are all evil characters in the Lord of the Rings, they are all evil in a different way. Sauron is evil in that he wants to rule the world and everyone in it, whereas Saruman and Wormtongue were once good people who have been corrupted by evil and become antagonists.

The Importance of Tom Bombadil

I'm starting a brief Wednesday series featuring the papers I wrote for ENGL 3195: The Lord of the Rings at UMD. These six papers were the basis for my entire grade in the class. Keep in mind that when I wrote them, I hadn't read the books for a few years. I really wanted to read them again, but it meant reading 70 pages a night while taking 19 credits.

In 2001, Peter Jackson made a film of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and one bothersome omission was Tom Bombadil. Tom Bombadil is an important character in the Fellowship of the Ring because he shows the hobbits that even in the gloomiest of places help can be found. Tom Bombadil also arms the hobbits and begins their journey.
In chapter six of the Fellowship of the Ring, the four hobbits wander through the dark and gloomy Old Forest. They stop to rest on an old looking willow tree, and it starts to consume the hobbits. Frodo desperately yells for help, and a bearded man who was passing by and hears their calls and saves them. Throughout the rest of the Lord of the Rings, help always seems to come in the gloomiest places. Take the Prancing Pony in the Fellowship of the Ring for example: it is a dark and gloomy bar full of scary looking people, and inside they find “Strider,” or Aragorn, who guides them to Rivendell and on part of their journey to Mordor. In the Two Towers, Frodo and Sam are found walking in a dark forest by Ithilien when they encounter Faramir. Faramir was unaffected by the temptations of the Ring, and let them continue on their journey with more supplies and rations. Like Aragorn and Faramir, Tom Bombadil is just the first of several helpers along the dark and gloomy journey.
Another reason Tom Bombadil is important is he is the first character to arm the hobbits. Essentially, their journey begins when they are armed and leave the barrow downs. After that, they are no longer helpless and can fight to defend themselves. The Hobbits no longer need to run away from danger, since they can confront it with the weapons Tom gave them, and creating a lasting influence on them throughout the books.
Tom Bombadil is an essential character because of the help he provides the hobbits. He rescues them from the dangers of the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs and then arms them so they can protect themselves. In their quest to destroy the Ring and defeat the forces of Mordor, Tom plays a small but significant role through his lasting contribution.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

I just finished reading 1984 by George Orwell the other day, and let me tell you, it is the perfect book for someone disillusioned by the partisan politics that are rampant today. Nevermind that it is an allegory for the direction in which the Communist Party in the Soviet Union was headed in the 1930's, because that is not the context in which I read the book. A few days after I finished it, Mark Dayton was sworn in as the first Democratic governor of the state of Minnesota in almost 20 years. Don't get me wrong-I don't mind at all that he is a Democrat, what I do mind is that his motivation, and what motivates all our elected officials seems to be favor in their party, rather than favor with their constituents. If you take the telescreens in 1984 to be analogous to modern journalists who follow politicians every move, then politicians are not free to think their own thoughts because THE PARTY will know about it. Pro-life Democrats are heavily criticized by other Democrats because they don't follow party lines. Anti-death penalty Republicans are chastised for being soft on crime. When a politician goes against the will of The Party, they are in a sense taken to the Ministry of Love and tortured until they agree with the party, or they are just never allowed to run for office via never receiving a party endorsement. Evidence of this is on talk radio. Sometimes I listen to conservative talk radio (for some laughs) and I've heard Rush Limbaugh say that compromise should not be an option and anyone who compromises is not a true Republican. He paints President Obama in the same light that Emmanuel Goldstein is painted in Orwell's book: as the ultimate enemy of the state. Other evidence of politicians being slaves to their party is Mark Dayton and president Obama*. Dayton wrote an editorial for the Star Tribune (that I'm having a really hard time finding now) where he outlined his plans as governor: tax the rich, feed the poor, maintain womens right to choose etc. blah blah blah. There was not an original idea in the whole thing. He just recycled the platform of the Democratic party and called it his campaign. Obama made himself look like a giant tool by coming to MN, endorsing Dayton and saying it was important that Democrats take back the governors mansion here. I was very disappointed with Obama because of that. Not because of a million other things I could choose from to be disappointed with him about, but because he made himself a tool for his party.
This is how bad partisan politics in the United States has become. Every politician, even president Obama, wants to satisfy their party so badly, that I wonder who is even in power. The terrifying conclusion that I came to is that we are a country of two kings who are at war with each other. The war they wage is for control of the government our founding fathers set up 230some years ago. The problem is that the two main parties have such a stranglehold on the general public. They use fear tactics and repetitive mantras (no new taxes! tax the rich!) to get the crowd mentality to take over. Some lyrics by Tool really sum it up: "Choices always were a problem for you/what you need is someone strong to guide you. Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow, what you need is someone strong to guide you." (Opiate, from their Opiate EP). I know I sound crazy, and that's why I try to keep my mouth shut about these things and just vote for goofy third party candidates. I proudly wasted my vote on Tom Horner in 2010. I would do that again.
As for the book 1984 by George Orwell, I enjoyed it a lot. Look what I took from it. What I most enjoyed was the level of detail in the book. It was very vividly described. Winston's fall from rebel to party loyalist was a little quick, but it still felt natural, and I'm sure in his place I would probably have done the same thing. I hadn't even finished reading this when I recommended it to people.


*I know I harp on Obama a lot, he's not a bad guy, and I even feel kind of bad for him. He came into office with so many good ideas and promises, and he hasn't been able to do a thing because of the oil spill and the wars and recessions. Between him and McCain in '08, I would have been satisfied with either, between Dayton and Emmer in '10, I fear an apocalypse either way.

the Bicentennial Man

Recently, I watched The Bicentennial Man starring Robin Williams. It is based on an Isaac Asimov short story by the same name that I have not read (yet). It was an enjoyable movie about a robot that serves the same family for four generations.
It was kind of a romantic comedy/sci fi, and wouldn't normally be my kind of movie, except that I enjoyed it because of how they held on to the themes from Isaac Asimov's stories about robots. In his robot stories, he blurs the lines between humanity and robot and asks "what makes us human?" The movie does the same thing. Throughout, the robot transforms from a big, blocky machine to basically being human. It becomes a human not just on the outside via face-upgrades and skin, but also on the inside and mentally/emotionally. In it's childhood, the robot needs to be taught how to behave, how to respond to different greetings. One funny scene near the beginning is when Andrew (the robot) learns how to say "good night." His owner says "good night" to him, and he responds by agreeing and saying that the night is good. His owner then says that he just responds with "good night." The turning point in Andrew's life is when he is bored in the basement (robots don't need sleep, so what is he supposed to do all night?) and decides to start repairing all the broken junk they have down there. His owner notices his initiative and starts nurturing him (probably at the expense of raising his daughters). Andrew takes to woodcarving, and starts selling "hand" made clocks. He gets rich doing that, and then questions of who "owns" his money arise. Should the robot get the money? What does a robot need money for? Eventually they decide that Andrew should have his own bank account. Later on, he uses his money to try and buy his freedom. His reasoning is that people have given their lives for freedom for thousands of years, and he sees it as something worth giving up everything he has. He is granted his freedom for free by his very generous owner and moves out. What I like about the movie is that all of his more mental/emotional developments are complimented by exterior developments as well. After he gets his bank account, he decides to spend his money on facial upgrades that would better show his emotions.
Overall this is a very excellent movie that I would recommend to anyone who likes sci fi, but specifically anyone who enjoys Isaac Asimov's stories about robots, since it is the perfect adaptation of them.

was 2010 really necessary?

I of course mean the book/movie, not the year. Debating whether or not a year was really necessary is kind of pointless since you can't stop it from coming or going. I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, and honestly that's because I'm afraid to start reading it, based on my previous experiences reading Arthur C. Clarke.
As a movie, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is enjoyable. It was exciting, and fun to watch, even if John Lithgows character was really whiny and annoying. The reason I ask whether or not it was "necessary" is it's merit in continuing the story started in 2001: A Space Odyssey. 2001 was a conceptual film about human evolution, and ends with the next step in human evolution (after humans). To continue that story means it would have to continue following human evolution after that, into abstract forms that aren't relateable and don't make sense since they would have to be energy beings or something. It would be a really boring movie, and not the same kind of boring that 2001 was. Rather than continuing down that path, the storytellers (Clarke and Peter Hyams) decided to try and explain why HAL tried to kill everyone in 2001, and explain what the monoliths are. It's a noble endeavor, however it takes away from the mystery of 2001. I liked 2001 because it was whatever you wanted it to be. You could interpret the ending in a lot of different ways, and it could mean something different to everyone. When Clarke and Hyams decided to explain what happened, they took all the mystery out of it, and I think they took the fun out of it too. To answer the original question "was 2010 necessary?" I say no, it wasn't. I enjoyed it, but it was not a necessary continuation of the story that began in 2001.

New years resolutions

I'm going to start writing for the blog again. I'll still publish posts on Friday mornings at 11AM. I'm going to try and get Michelle to write for it consistently, too.