film: Fantiastic Four: Rise of the silver surfer

Jerman's Rating: 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Defcon 2 (very light) for the obnoxious military. Appropriate for ages 6 to 8 and up.

Its sad that after seeing the first Fantastic Four film many people aren't going to want to watch the sequel. Really- its worth it. While the first was rather shallow and rather weak sauce. This sequel steps it up a lot. Still a little bit shallow but so so much better.

The Silver Surfer is a lesser known comic book guy. Here's a quick background that you should know before seeing the film. There is this god-like entity called Galactus, he is huge, like size of a planet huge. What you need to know about him is that he eats planets, or destroys them. Kind of an anti-god. The SilverSurfer is his servant, the SilverSurfer prepares worlds for their destruction. Besides that I don't know too much more about the comic series, except that it gets pretty complicated and that its really good.

The central theme in this sequel is choice. If I make a choice to become a doctor, then the choice of going to school isn't really a choice, its not up to me. If however I find out that school is evil, I actually do have a choice after all. This theme is developed very well, its not low-class at all. The only reason it only got 2 steps forward is because thats about all there was.

The negative themes I felt were generally very weak. There was some taking orders, and human rights, and media coverage, and spending some money. Pretty inconsequential. There were other good themes that weren't developed very well, like starting families, living normal lives, and fulfilling a life-mission ("doin what you're supposed to be doin") and some teamwork thrown in there.
There isn't too much else I can say about this film. I'd still recommend you see it, especially if you like other super-hero movies. Its not up to Spiderman or X-men par, but its decent for theater viewing.

film: Pan's Labyrinth (Laberinto del fauno)

Jerman's Rating: 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. Defcon 5(Disturbing) for the violence of an evil man. This is a movie for adults, not under 18, if you're under 16 you should definitely not watch it. As for who would most appreciate it- I don't really know.

When I saw this film it was subtitled, which made me like it more, but after seeing it, hearing that all my friends liked it, I didn't care for it much, it was very intense, too intense for me. But I'll try not to be biased at all and talk about the themes presented by Pan's Labyrinth.

It has one theme which is very close to Finding Neverland's- one of imagination, and creating worlds to live inside or to retreat to. Pan was set right after a civil war and when the fascists are in charge, its a world that everyone would have wanted to escape from, it was horrible. Ofelia has magical adventures that take place right next to the war thats happening around her. Her adventures are dangerous, just like real world dangers, so don't expect Bridge to Terabithia kind of imagination, its a different flavor. Bedtime stories are so much more important than just made-up-stories.

It took me a while to be able to think about this film better, and when I could I realized it had a lot more to offer. I remember reading about the director a few months ago and he had this Latin phrase that meant "In our choices lies our fate." He said the film was based on that concept. It really was. We chisel out our fate by the choices we make, and the hinges swing very wide. Our choices don't just affect our fate, our fate is created by our choices. If you watch the film then you will see this in operation. Its done very well. This film has a duality that some other films have- it can be watched as Ofelia - to whom it is a fairy tale-ish story filled with wonderful and horrible things, but a happy ending. Or it can be watched as Carmen or Mercedes to whom it is a very different story but has the same parallels- facing dangers and choosing what's right, and sticking to what your heart and character demands of you to do. This duality is probably my favorite aspect of this film, each way you watch it adds to the meaning of the other ways to watch it.

I have to make a note about the violence in the film, and it will (and should) deter many people from watching the film. It is shot and edited in such a way that makes it gross, much more gross than it actually is (by gross I don't mean blood'n'guts, I mean its ugly and evil and demented). The main bad guy is a rather stereotyped Fascist ruler with an iron fist, love of violence, and kind of deranged. Its really easy to hate the guy.

There is also something to be said about the preservation of innocence. I think I'm becoming to regard it more and more. This film definitely hits that home too. There is a fair amount of religious undertones and metaphors to look for and are beautiful in their own way.
I don't think I am able to recommend that people see this film. It is just so disturbing, I'm not sure how important the disturbing things are to the rest of everything, but the film maker put them there for a reason. Still, there is beauty in the film, and if you want to find it, then you can watch it. Again- I'm not exactly sure what 'target audience' would love this film the most.

Video Game integration with the Classroom

This was the subject of a big technical research report I did for English. I was fairly unbiased when I began the research, and I've learned a lot, coming to some very surprising conclusions.

In order to correctly understand this post you have to pretend you are two people. One of you has to be an educator, and everything you read here has to be read as a teacher. The other of you has to be a video game player who understands what I'm talking about- the second person isn't as important, as I'll use language that you can all understand.

Video Game history
Video games have really only become mainstream since the 1980s. Its only been in the last 4-5 years when we have gotten a lot of studies looking into video games. Video games have a pretty broad definition- there are arcade games, simulation games and other games. Arcade games are like tetris, super mario, etc. These aren't considered to be 'good games' as far as cognitive processes are involved. Simulation games are like flight simulators, or discovery games- there is usually a lack of structure in these games, and no projection of identities, I'm not looking at these games either. The 'other' catagory is subdivided into simulations, RPGs, Adventure, and shoot'em'ups. Simulations can be like Civilization, or the Sims. RPGs are Zelda and final fantasy. Adventure are similar to RPGs but there is more of a focus on solving puzzles. And shoot'em'ups like Halo, Half-life, etc. Additionally, I need to say that I'm talking kind of abstractly about video games. I'm never talking about a game in particular, or saying that all video games meet what I say about them, instead I'm talking about how video games could potentially be.

How people learn
The National Research Council did this big book in 1999 looking at how people learn. It has been used heavily in developing curriculum for schools. Here is a list of some things that have to be met in order for effective learning to take place.

• active dynamic process rather than a passive product of experiences


• better when motivated intrinsically rather than extrinsically


• it is experienced within its context


• accompanied by metacognitive processes


• builds on existing knowledge

I should also make a note here about Bloom's Taxonomy. The lower three levels are about memorizing, being able to restate in your own words, and being able to use an idea or facts. The higher levels are about being able to build, design, create, or make wise decisions. The lower three levels are easy to teach and to test, but aren't motivating or enjoyable. The higher three levels are motivating and are enjoyable. I could have made a new graphic for that pyramid thing, but I went a-google-ing and found this really awful picture that I use here on purpose. See how on the side it says "high school" for the bottom two, undergrad for the middle two and grad school for the top two? That is so so terrible. For learning to be good it has to be all over that pyramid, it can't stay in one spot.

Video Games
I have a few more things to say about video games before delving into cognitive stuff. One of the big ways video games differ from other games (arcade and simulation) is an assumed identity. You play as a warlord, political candidate, CEO, or a sleuth, etc. Your character has personality traits that may or may not be the same as your own, this interaction of your personality with the character's personality make a projected identity which helps out a lot while learning. There is this guy called James Gee that wrote a book about this. Much of what I'm writing is derived from his book. He has a whole chapter about identity interaction in video games.

We will look at how video games (potentially, we aren't talking about ever single one out there) fit each of the things talked about by the National Research Council and with Bloom's Taxonomy.

Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is doing something because you just love it, hobbies fall into this category. If you do something because you are getting credit or money for it then its motivated extrinsically. There is a very complex way these two interact (certain extrinsic rewards/punishments can destroy intrinsic motivation).

Video games don't seem to have a problem with this. The video game industry is $7 billion a year (in 2004), which is bigger than the film industry. The player has to spend about 30 bucks on the game which costs 40+ (usually) hours to beat, and people keep on buying them. There seems to be a lot of intrinsic motivation at play here. Why else would people be playing so much? You don't hear very often "I'll take or to the zoo once you finish this level." or "I'll take you out for ice cream once you beat that game."

Active Dynamic Process
This is pretty closely tied to motivation. when one happens the other is concurrently present. When a child is in the backyard and has a stick and is doing something with the stick and the leaves, you'd probably think that child is playing. He probably thinks he is playing. He's actually learning (how things fall, how things break, how they tear, what water or dampness do things, which things stain your hands, which things make different kinds of sounds)- all very actively and dynamically. When the learner doesn't realize learning is going on, its a lot funner and sticks a lot better. Players aren't usually aware of the things they learn in video games (I'll get to that in a bit), even though learning is taking place.

In his first chapter James Gee talks about how video games were "difficult and life-enhancing." This is how all learning is supposed to be, both frustrating, and fun. While video games are becoming more difficult and more time consuming (remember the industry is getting better and making more money), schools solve their problems by making things shorter and easier. Schools seem to be doing more of what doesn't work. Video games are become more active and dynamic.

Experienced within Context
Video games and the schooling system are polar opposites here too. Every subject matter that someone could study can be called a language with its own vocabulary, rules, connotations, and function. Everything from basketball to physics to film production is such a language, James Gee calls it a semiotic domain. In school, students traditionally learn math in its own context, that is, abstractly. Biology is studied as an abstract science, not as a scientist or a doctor would use biology. Things are studied in school outside their semiotic domain. (one or two "appication" problems at the end of the chapter don't cut it- the difference is that concepts are learned inside the context, not applied later on)

There are a lot of games to use as examples here. Google Madison 2200. Its an epistemic game that has the player go through a bunch of stuff to design a downtown part of a mall. Urban planning basically. However you don't learn about employment rates, target ages, road construction etc abstractly, you learn about them while you are playing the part of a city ecologist. If you've played other games, I'm sure you can think up an analogy or two by yourself.

Metacognition
I swear- this word isn't in any of the spell checkers. Metacognition is about monitoring yourself while you do an activity- learning for example. You look back and monitor progress, emotions, enjoyment, or understanding.

The basis is that this is never guaranteed by anything. Video games aren't usually played metacognitively, but school isn't either. There has to be some external structure to encourage reflection for this to happen. This is one big hole- but its a hole everything has.

Builds on Existing Knowledge
Video games seem to do this by second nature. They have a balance between challenge and pleasure, break it up a little more and its a cycle of puzzlement, assimilation and accommodation. If it were too easy no one would play it, if it were too hard everyone would be frustrated and not play it. It all happens within something called the "zone of proximal development"- which is between what a player can do and what a player cannot do. This forces to player to not become stagnant in strategies or approaches while constantly adapting and growing.

This is a big difference between good games and bad games (loose definitions of good and bad). Games like Super Mario Bros. do force you to grow and adapt, but mostly in motor skills (pushing the 'jump' button at the right time). Good video games operate much differently than that. One guy made up a "game-object-model" that would be good for educational use. He said that good games "require learning new strategies and skills to solve ever-more complex challenges and puzzles, negotiate complex relationships, solve ethical dilemmas and require 10+ hours of game play." There is a very structured style of learning in video games -from the tutorials and "how to play" up till the end boss.

Levels of Learning
Take another look at Bloom's Taxonomy. Lets take a look at some games. Madison 2200 has the player redesign a downtown pedestrian mall. Civilization III has the player build an empire or civilization. Deus Ex has the player employ several technologies and decipher complex political and social bodies. I haven't played any of these three- thats what other people have said about them. You can see the higher levels at play here- design, build, create, making decisions, organize, compare and contrast. If you want more to read look it up here its an article about a virtual election.

Conclusions
All during my study I was astounded by the way video games work without being aware of it all. Their potential is amazing. James Gee, someone who has studied (or at least knows more that I) about cognitive science- a branch of science by itself- said that the learning that happens in video games fits well with the best theories of learning cognitive science has to offer. In English- you can't learn any better than the way video games have you learn. If that learning can be harnessed to teach what you wanted, the educational process has something to gain, a lot to gain. People have also noticed that games are getting better- including more of Bloom's taxonomy, are more motivating, have better role models and include better pedagogy.

During some questions in class I was asked if playing a bunch of Halo 2 would make him learn a lot. I said "if you play it right, then yes." That isn't the whole story. It is true that playing Halo 2 is going to teach you something, even if it is only how to play that particular game. If you add metacognition and reflection as the game is played then it is much better. But I wouldn't ever tell anyone that they would learn just by playing a game. There is a huge problem knowing if the game has good things to teach or is valuable at all. Grand Theft Auto certainly teaches people, and it does so in a very powerful way. That learning isn't something that should be taught. It is evident that learning takes place- no one can argue that. The quality and object of what is being learned needs to be examined much closer, as well as its use in the classroom, which also needs some development teams working on educational games with good game object model. So, there is a lot of work to be done.

This report has barely scratched the surface of how video games influence people's lives. I haven't gone into how gamers spend hours online in collaboration, or on forums, or in creating websites devoted to a particular game or character, or in writing 'faqs' which is a very technical document that has very specific rules about how it is to be written and what it should contain. There are many other aspects of this discussion. So- I recomend a book to you all. Its the book James Gee wrote (What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy). Every piece of research past 2003 has cited him- every single one. Its a very thorough book, and it is very well written. If you want to know more, he is kind of an authority on video games as they relate to education.

Cons
The major problems that have arisen so far are: violence, gender bias (this is a big one), the flavor of education provided, and of course the lack of metacognitive support. All four of these can either be easily fixed while the game is being created, or during implementation of the game. The only thing we need is for game designers to create games according to the game-object-model good for education.

the Skinny on Fonts

Typography, typefaces, glyphs, fonts, lettering. Its really not all that complicated, but my English professor doesn't get it, so I'll set down here some important rules about how it all should be used. link1(lots of free fonts)

The number one most important question, is always going to be, "What is it for?" Once you have a clear idea of the purpose, and how it will be used, then you can start looking at fonts. We will talk about print media first, then electronic.

Lets go through some options for print media, as you read the list think of a solid purpose and goal each would have. Resume, research paper, newspaper, wedding invitation. Each one demands to be treated a different way, each one has a voice and the selected font has to complement that voice. Just like in a movie, if you are having a mushy lovey moment, you have to have music that complements it, not a techno beat.

A few important things to remember: Fonts are to enhance the experience not take away from it. Maybe you found a really cool font that you love to death- if the font itself is too noticeable, don't use it. In film- the editing is very very important, but you aren't supposed to notice it.

As far as print goes, serifed fonts work the best- at least for big blocks of text, news papers and journals use this font. Its usually a bit easier to read (not by much though), and dark text on light background is best, although not 100% black on 100% white. That contrast will kill your eyes. Use a lighter dark or a creamier background and it is much nicer.

Now- which serif font should you use? Don't use Times New Roman. That rule is fairly simple, its the default (not anymore though) for a lot of Microsoft programs, it has a history to it (London Times started using it around 1930) and it was semi standard in newspapers. However, Times New Roman has really awkward looking serifs (proportionally). There are other serifed fonts that are much nicer.
As I said, Times is awkward. Goudy and Perpetua are very close but so much better. Calisto is nice, professional, but plesant. Centaur is a little too fancy for body text, but would be nice for headlines or headings.

One note about Wedding announcements before I move on. If you were to use a bubble text you would be saying something about yourselves, and your wedding. If I wanted to pretend I was a geek, I would use a pixel font. If I wanted to pretend I was a bad designer then I would use Papyrus. NEVER USE PAPYRUS.

OK, now onto electronic media- things you will see with a digital projector, on the web, email, pdf, tv, anything like that. Serifs can be used, but be really careful about them. Those fonts are a little more elegant and thin and have more detail which pixels can't usually show perfectly, making the font look a little distorted(you can see the distrotion on the above gif of serif fonts- thats because you are looking at a computer screen, if it was printed out, that would be a different story). SansSerif fonts are usually the ticket. Also, (I don't have any studies to cite for this, but I have noticed this) it seems light text or light objects on a dark background are easier to read, and much nicer on the eyes. This might have something to do with screens emitting the light which creates the shapes you see instead of the light being reflected, I don't know. (If you use some program a lot and you can change the skin to a darker one, see if its not easier on your eyes.)
Arial is really over used, its kind of the default. The next three are nice, there is a lot of variation though. Tempus is sans, but is a bit more fancy than you want for a lot of text, but if you wanted a title that needs to look stylized, it would be great. There was one more font I wanted to put on this gif, but I didn't have it. I'd just like to say that I am in love with Optima font. Not for a lot of text, but for headlines, it looks so great...

We are almost done. Another reason to not use Times New Roman is because it has terrible kerning. Kerning is the spaces between the letters. If you are going to make a title or a design you need to mess with all the values between the letters. Its a little tedious, but it really needs to be done as computers aren't smart enough to do it. Just look at two letters, if they are too close, move them apart, if they are too far apart, move them closer together- Do that with the whole title, its more important than you might think.

Ok, last thing- context. The most basic rule of thumb is tradition. You would never ever see a street sign with a serif font on it. You would never see a bank name written in a cursive or script font. You would never see warnings or cautions written in serif. Same with labels, cereal boxes, or most consumer packaging. Its all about convention. If you are going to write a more technical thing that is going to be shown on a website, use a sans font. If you are going to write a poem that will be in a book or magazine, use a serif font. Its not always about which has easiest legibility. It is more about what the type face's voice, and the conventions.
These fonts are: Aenigma Scrawl, PsusdoSaudi, Sketchy, Inkburrow, Adore64, and Tengwar Annatar. Here is something you can all try at home. Write down 3 adjectives for yourself. Find one font for each of those adjectives, then find one font that matches all those adjectives to write your name. Its a lot of fun. Afterward, try to remember which fonts you used, and which adjectives they were really good at. Or since you are reading this now, try to come up with a list of adjectives for all 6 of the above fonts, or pull out your movie collection, and look at the movie title fonts and see why they were chosen.

The Golden Compass looks amazing

I really need to read this book.
I really need some free time to do it.