Welterweight Champion of the World

My boyfriend and his cousin have been playing this game nonstop ever since it was released four days ago. I've yet to learn all of the mechanics and techniques of MMA but I appreciate the skill and discipline of the artform nonetheless. I'm very disappointed there is no option to create a female UFC fighter.

It goes without saying that I believe women should have the opportunity to fight on pay-per-view; whether bloggers politely rationalize that "people don't want to see women get their faces smashed in" or bluntly remark that "women need get back in the kitchen," it is still sexist. Women-dominated industries like fitness, cosmetics, fashion, and even cooking in the kitchen have welcomed men to express themselves at the highest potential. It hardly seems fair that men (or, I loath saying this, "society") cannot award women that same opportunity that is so inherently our natural right. The greatest enemy for the average man is the critical eye of his own gender, while women fighting for right to live their lives unrestricted, unchained, and unbarred are opposed by the entire world.

Salvation/Destruction

Everybody, everywhere has already established that "Terminator: Salvation" is a summer blockbuster flop; I just want to go delve a little deeper into its failings but also highlight the good points that (ironically) salvage the movie from itself.

I have appreciated Christian Bale in his roles ever since "Swing Kids" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream," but this is casting gone wrong. Despite the story revolving around Sam Worthington, Bale fails to convey the appropriate passion for the Resistance prepared for him by Edward Furlong and Nick Stahl, subsequently succumbing to the title conveyed upon Arnold Schwarznegger - just the action star. Featuring prominent actors in secondary roles (Helena Bonham Carter and Common) doesn't help either, as they inevitably draw attention away from the main characters.


The ultimate mistake McG makes is the failed cohesiveness of classic duality: action/story. If you're going to tackle a trilogy whose predecessors have action sequences that go beyond technology of its era, you need to create fight scenes that uphold that same expectation. The thrill of the Terminator series is the struggle to defeat one seemingly indestructible machine; here, McG creates hundreds that explode in as short a time as 15 seconds. (The much-hyped Ducati Hypermotard terminator is destroyed by running into an abandoned van.) The movie is indeed filmed as "gritty," but the end result is a realistic interpretation of fantasy. Moreover, "Terminator: Salvation" needs a fresh coat of paint - yes, Marcus Wright is the new human/machine prototype characteristic of each Terminator installment, but the T-800's lack any new features that would distinguish 1984 from 2009.

And the story itself seems forced upon audiences. Instead of taking movie-goers for a thrill ride, "Terminator: Salvation" makes people sit for two hours as McG shows them the origins of Kyle Reese without giving any of the characters' stories depth whatsoever. The mystery associated with each person goes unexplained in an unsatisfactory way - Marcus Wright's past lacks luster while Kyle Reese's history is nonexistent; Blair Williams' role is over-exaggerated and Kate Brewster's pregnancy is never remarked upon; and John Conner's imminent "false prophet" status goes over the heads of newcomers, as his innate knowledge and unnatural evasion of the enemy machines is unfounded. This is the consequence of concentrating too much on multiple characters.

Sam Worthington's performance is the only thing that gives the film its own salvation. Marcus Wright's soul comes from a genuine want/need for retribution - a "second chance" as he puts it - and the movie-made purpose for his existence is to underscore the apparent capacity as well as ironic duality of human compassion/machine calculation.

"Terminator: Salvation" was doomed from the start. I applaud McG for attempting to bring the story full-circle, but dealing with time travel while connecting the dots is a tricky lady. Hardly anything is explained: we still don't know how the machines target Sarah Connor, which still leaves us asking how Anton Yelchin goes back in time; it seems improbable (and nonsensical) for the machines to backtrack from a successful, emotional human prototype with the ability to infiltrate to an unmistakeably machine T-700 that stands out in the crowd; and, according to Christian Bale, the "war against the machines" is not yet over - so why are audiences promised salvation? The only solution I can think of would be the microchip wavelength revealed too quickly in the plotline; if this can control the machines, the mystery of the much-implied sequel has already been destroyed.

The Measure of a Man (or Movie)

If this starts to sound like a movie review, that's probably what it is. Brace yourselves :)

Though I am not old enough to have watched the original Star Trek series featuring a chiseled, youthful William Shatner, I have enough passion for the clever academics and adventures of its subsequent sequels. Raised on the legacy of Captain Jean-Luc Picard on "Star Trek: The Next Generation," the grandeur of Captain Janeway of "Star Trek: Voyager, and the classic chemistry between Odo and Quark on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine"), I was overwhelmed that J.J. Abram's "Star Trek" does not steer away the physicism, humorism, and riddle-ism that made the television series so indulging.

The most pressing criticism Trekkies have for this film is the action. I say, this is ironic. For a series whose mythology is based on the advancement of technology and the exploration of the final frontier, I see no objection as to why J.J. Abrams would not add the element of physicality. The wonders of CGI has given the modern-day cinematic experience the tools to explore every and any realm of the imagination we want; if Gene Roddenberry had such liberty four decades ago, I believe he would have done the same. Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman even go so far as to point this out in the movie, depicted in the scene where Old Spock goes back in time and gives Scotty the formula for warp-speed teleportation. The series will always be physics-based, but to deny that "Star Trek" is also an adventure filled with real characters with real emotions going through real space travel would be to deny the ultimate quest of science.

Action, in itself, is not a meaningless device. Action is derived from behavior; behavior originates from habit - thus, the action in "Star Trek" should not be interpreted as drawing audiences away from the academic intellect of the series, but rather physically pushing the characters to their greatest potential (as well as detriments). The characters drive the story; J.J. Abrams gives Kirk, Spock, Bones, and the rest of the crew room to express themselves in a natural, instinctual, "human" way, thus granting audiences access to greater understanding of each character's depth - thus, shedding more light (as well as questions) about Enterprise. 

My last point is fairly obvious, as it is applicable to even myself. Good movies serve more than just entertainment purposes - they send messages. In the midst of economic crisis and the wake of terrorism, it is important to have hope; Star Trek embodies two. First, hope in ourselves - in our capabilities, in our knowledge, in our strength to know our weaknesses. And second, hope in others - that divisions like race and ideals are irrelevant so long as we believe in solidarity, that new beginnings can come from old endings, and that space - as well as the extent of our humanity - is, in fact, the final frontier.

Pink Polish

Welcome to my first entry! I'd like to take this opportunity to make a disclaimer: I NEED A SUMMER JOB; PLEASE HIRE ME.

Not so much a disclaimer but a desperate plea for any entry-level job at a hotel/restaurant. I'm an intra-university transfer student with aspirations to major in hospitality administration and minor in sociology; the program requires all its applicants to complete 400 hours of field experience. Not so eloquently, I need a job (or internship) immediately.

Where was I going with this entry?

My inspiration was the new "MAC: Hello Kitty" line of beauty products (my old roommate, Chea Lu, is obsessed with Hello Kitty), but thoughts fail me. Besides the basic application of eyeliner and mascara, makeup is foreign to me. I know what it does to women (especially in terms of skin damage) as well as how it makes women feel more confident in themselves and their own craft, but I have no pressing connection to it. I use it during dance performances for practical, theatrical purposes, but to spend hundreds on it religiously would be centering myself around a commodity that washes away with water and a touch of soap. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I will always argue that the most beautiful women are those who do not need it, and only use it to enhance their beauty - not define it.

This is definitely not my first blog at its best; I promise to organize my thoughts better in the future.