Binary Opposition

Binary opposition :- opposites! easy right?

wrong!

however here are a few examples to get you going

GIRL - BOY
BLACK - WHITE
LIFE - DEATH
HAPPY - SAD
GOOD - EVIL

there you go, binary opposites.

So in most media we have these things, for instance in an action film we often have good and evil fighting it out.

in a romance, we have happiness and sadness, pre-empted obviously by love and no love.

So binary opposition is important in narratives to help the audience understand the plot or characters or the setting or anything really. Its basically another device used to help the audience decode the message, like intertextuality or semiotics.

So then the difference between the two opposites helps us understand the characters in a film for instance, if a character is bad then, and we introduce another character its the differences between the two that allow us to distinguish the latter as good.

the theory was penned by levi-strauss and barthes, two geezers that came up ALOT in my media A level.

and basically in laymens terms its a model to show that understanding one thing allows us to understand its opposite.

so then an example ive recently seen is (500) Days Of Summer




its calls itself "not a love film" but essentially it is.

Boy (tom) meets girl (summer)falls in love, they get together, things are good till she dumps him, she finds someone else, he is lonely, at the end he meets a new girl (autumn)

its a bit more complex than that, but im not gonna sit here and type out the entire plot.

Anyway then, the binary opposites in this are

LOVE - LONELINESS
GIRL - BOY
HAPPINESS - SADNESS
GOOD - EVIL

they are all pretty self explanatory, happiness and sadness are dependant on love and loneliness, and the girl is supposedly evil for dumping him, and the film follows him, so we empathise and see it from his point of view..

anyway these oppositions help us understand the narrative and the characters, but what happens if the film maker messes around with them..

in (500) days of summer, although feeling empathy for tom in some scenes we do see things from summers point of view, this confuses the audience and makes the film on a whole alot deeper experience, allowing for more of an emotional response from the viewer.

This kind of technique is put to really good use in certain films, take the villain in Terminator 2 a cold ruthless bad guy, we are terrified of him, because he is just that bad.. simply bad. And this works really well, however when compared to the dark knight, a film in which in some scenes the roles are reversed and we almost see batman becoming the bad guy and the joker becoming the good guy in some cases. The audience begins to doubt themselves, and in my opinion this is more frightening.





Nolan does this again with the good and bad in Inception, we see the main character throughout the film, slowly becoming more scary as we discover nasty secrets about his past, and the villain we see become more frail and actually we feel quite sorry for him by the end. Its a strange technique but it works really well and adds alot more depth to the film.

Not to mention the potential to plant twists and the such, if you can get the audience to think the understand a character using binary opposites, then suddenly shatter that understand, it leaves a pretty shocking twist.

Most recently the twist using this exact same technique at the end of Predators worked well I think..



I wont spoil it, but basically at the end one of the human characters goes ape shit, and it turns out to be a bad guy, then a predator actually helps the good human escape the planet.. shit I just ruined it!

BUT what a role reversal, a complete switch in binary opposites, mental!!

although I will admit, it was pretty cringe worthy in this film when they were all banging on about how they actually were bad in their real lives, yet they were the good guys in the film, basically using binary opposition alone to make a character complex doesnt work, needs a bit more than that! ho har!

(I didnt understand what I meant in that last paragraph either, its just rambling though, so forget it!)

anyway. So binary opposition, is a very useful tool indeed, and indeed we couldnt live without it much like semiotics and intertextuality.

Animation and Cartoons!

I've never really been a fan of cartoons, ive never really seen the appeal, I just can't connect with the characters as well as say a real human actor.

But they do have an ability to transport the viewer to fantastical places and some animation has been truly beautiful.

So then?

Cartoons.

Well it all started decades ago, and I can see why they had such appeal, before most special effects and visual effects came about they were the only way to realise some of the more outlandish stories. I mean today I feel animation in the traditional sense has become slightly redundant due to more sophisticated visual effects. Nevertheless though animation has its place well rooted in history.

Fantasmagorie is what you could say 'cartoon', it was made in 1908 by Emile Chol and was at the time ground breaking, it features a clown going through several changes morphing into different objects and shapes. It has recently been remade, and I think this mordern version doesn't really give the charm of the old version justice.

There are several types of animation:

Rotoscoping is used by physical drawing over the live action captures, to create epics such as the original animated lord of the rings.

Full animation, wherby the entire media is created using animation, like the Lion King for instance, it is highly detailed!

Stop Motion a favourite of mine, used in creating things such as wallace and grommit and scenes in jason and the argonauts. It is done capturing an image of a still model, moving it slightly, capturing another image, moving it again, and so on so forth until a sequence is created.

Limited animation, things like fairly odd parents, and spongebob. It uses less detail than full animation.

Cutout animation. 2D cutouts are used to create animated scenes, such as South Park

Live action/animation: Live action is mixed with animation, such as osmosis jones.


And the list goes on..

So obviously there are tonnes and tonnes of different methods of animation, each with their own effects. And there is no doubt it is a popular form of media, on every kids network ever and even some adult networks we see cartoons. Its cheaper, you can really go all out and everything is possible.

Cartoons can be put to lots of uses too, because of semiotics we can connect with characters in cartoons (i know i said i cant, but most people can) we understand spongebob and bart simpson as characters. And we fall in love with them, which is why shows like The Simpsons are known and loved the world over. Cartoons are a form of escapism from real life.



Because of our connection with them, they are used in all sorts of different mediums, instructional videos, propaganda, parody and even dare I say it porn!

It is everywhere. Its cheaper, more stylised and there is no ceiling with what you can do, no wonder its such a loved medium then..

But recently we've seen a rise in media such as this..




Feature length animated epics, like Wall-e and the incredibles.

Done by studios such as Pixar.

We see them more and more and they are generating more revenue than ever before..

obviously they are cheaper than creating the same thing in live action, and because of their bright colours and stylised look appeal to the kids, and with intertextual references and in jokes for the adults, there is something for the whole family.

And these mordern animations are becoming more and more realistic looking, pseudoreal, created from realistic looking tissues but forming something not real. Despite being a negative in the field of visual and special effects, it is put to good use here, because as we learnt with final fantasy spirts within, realistic is sometimes strange looking.

With animation there is no ceiling and you can achieve almost anything, its not limited as much by technology, and i suspect as it becomes more and more popular we'll see it intergrated more and more into all ranges of media.

SCIENCE FICTION MOTHER F**KERS :)

I love this genre, love love love love love it!

Oooh ra!

I don't any genre has a wider spectrum, I mean we get action, romance, aliens, adventure, horror, noir, apocalypse.. the list is endless all under one banner, fantastic.

and as a special effects practitioner there is no greater genre to show my skillz!

unfortunately, i'm not exactly sure what I should write in this blog, as there is no real argument or much to explain, so i figure i'll just run through some of my favourite sci fi films, why I like them and why I think special effects-wise they are brilliant, and i'll throw in a brief sci fi history too!

sound good?

It better.


This is from www.wikipedia.com

" Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting.[1][2][3] It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[4] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[5] The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality, but the majority of science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief provided by potential scientific explanations to various fictional elements.
These may include:
A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record
A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens[6]
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]"

So basically when watching sci fi, one must suspend their beliefs and allow their imagination to take over, it takes the watcher and puts them in places they have never been, amazing places in the future, and dealing with beings from distant planets.

But how'd it all start?

well media such as "20 000 Leagues Under The Sea" helped start the genre, with things like H G Wells "War Of The World" reinforcing it. Obviously there were instances as far back as the Aztecs who looked up at the starts, but with the dawn of cinema sci fi became popularised. There are lots of differing opinions on its exact start point, some people argue the middle ages, others argue during the scientific revolution. But in my opinion the first truly science fiction film, or at least how we see "sci-fi" today was..

Metropolis (1927)

by Fritz Lang



Metropolis as well as exploring the themes of capitalism and dystopia, was a ground breaking feature in the special effects department!

the city scape was sprawling art deco metropolis (hence the name)achieved using model effects. The film also pioneered effects such as the Schüfftan process an effect whereby actors are placed inside miniatures using mirrors!

This film has inspired countless others, and indeed my favourite part of it is the city, it inspired so many other city's in sci fi films, some of which will be on this list!

"Star Wars" (the original saga)

By George Lucas



Firstly look at that poster, how amazing and epic is that!

I love Star Wars with all my heart, even the new ones have a place in it.

'A New Hope' is the first film I ever remember seeing, on video, back in the 90s, I even remember the box and where I sat in the living room, I think that film is primarily responsible for my love of films and indeed my place on this course. Sorry for gushing, but I can't explain how much I love Star Wars. I even named this blog after one of my favourite scenes from episode 4.

anyway, Star Wars was the first real space opera, an epic trilogy tackling so many themes, romance, war, discovery, it had everything. And it helped influence so many films to this day, everyone has seen it, and if they haven't they deserve to be shot.

The cultural impact of Star Wars has been massive and continues to grow.

As well as being a fantastic example of film making, script writing, it is also a special effects banaza! the model effects used in Star Wars still hold up today, and the films themselves helped pioneer using models in films.

The character design also is stunning, I mean has any film ever delivered so many beautiful and original characters? Darth Vader is an exceptional example of this, his look alone is terrifying, let alone the sound of that respirator!

In my opinion, STAR WARS IS SCI FI.


Blade Runner (1982)

By Ridley Scott



This one is an interesting one, Blade Runner is beautiful and undeniably fantastic.

I would say a masterpiece only rivalled by something like Star Wars.

However the films are visually and thematically very different, and BR wasn't a success like Star Wars was when it was released. Its only recently become so well loved.

And prehaps that is not only due to a fantastic emotional story, but due to the timeless special effects.

In a previous post, I showed you the model of the city scape. That is in my opinion one of the most haunting and visually impressive images of all time!

Blsde Runner not only set up a deep and realistic film noir city, it really hammered it home, the city is as much a character in the film as Deckard himself.

BR helped bring things such as motion control to the helm of special effects and they put it to fantastic use, the flying shots are really truly brilliant.

Not to mention again, the incredible model effects and matt paintings,

And lets be honest, they did a pretty good job at predicting the future so far didint they, also those video billboard from the film we see all over the place these days.

(btw, did anyone else notice the dystopian elements shared between metropolis and br, cause i did!)

Aliens (1986)

By James Cameron





Yes Aliens, not Alien.

I preferred the sequel, I think it is a really good example of one of the first all out action Sci Fi films, as well as a horror. The story is fast paced and exciting, the action is brilliant, the effects are incredible and the atmosphere is electric.

The most striking thing about aliens though in my opinion is the character design of the aliens and the marines. Oh and the guns.

The man himself, Giger. Designed the xenomorph and he did a fantastic job, half serpent half man, half something I dont even know, and yes thats three halves.

Not to mention the look of the marines and their weapons, based on real troops but throwing them forwards hundreds of years, making them look like mean warriors out on a mission to destroy. And yet kind of expendable all at the same time!


The Matrix (1999)

By the Wachowski Brothers




Another brilliant sci fi action film, and a film which juxtaposes the normality of everyday life with the post apocalyptic future.

As well as being very impressive and an epic thrill ride, it helped popularised bullet time, which has since been used countlessly, for just that reason I think it deserves a mention.

Oh and the premise is pretty cool too, and the way the world works!

Star Trek (2009)

J J Abrams



You probably hate me for putting this version of Star Trek in, but I love it.

It is a rip roaring story and is so visually stunning.

The vis effects in this movie are amazing, everything is down to a tee, the ships move in the way you would expect, the planets look real, the lense flares add to the drama and helps break the fourth wall and put you in the action.

Lighting is something I think is very important when creating any effect, and I think honestly they have got it perfect here!

not to mention the very impressive world it is set in.

and finally...


Inception (2010)

By Christopher Nolan



Inception is my favourite film of all time and I think it is absolutely fantastic, not only is it a very cool film, with a really awesome premise, every facet of it comes together perfectly to make it in my eyes one of the best films of all time.

There is so much to this film and I could go on forever, there are so many different grades to it, but Im gonna stick to the sci fi aspect.

Visually it is un beaten, the effects are really quite perfect, and I can think of only one instance where this isnt true. (As they step from a horizontal street, to a vertical one) Clever effects are what I think they should be called, totally realistic yet being impossible and its like a painting by escher coming to life infront of you.

Also I think its broken alot of boundaries, i think it will for sci fi, what Star Wars did! I really can't explain how good this film is, just go and watch it if youve not seen it.


So thats it, my favourite sci fi films, I hope im not penalised because alot of them are examples Danny and Bill used, I just genuinely love them.

Oh and as a little bonus.

We've been talking alot about realism on this blog, and I just wanted to give a quick mention to I-Robot and Minority report for having the most in depth and realistic cities since Blade Runner. The verisimilitude is stunning and the depth is incredible, like Ive said before, with no prior knowledge, you could think these cities were real places, its really the little things that make them feel realistic..

this scene I think sums it up perfectly..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEUWySeoxC4


OKAY i couldnt find the right scene, the one where he is in the kitchen, but that one there will have to do.

Realism Deux

Well realism is a brooooooooooad topic!

There is so much to say..

anyway, on my course special effects, the strive is to create the most realistic effect possible, whether that be a pyrotechnic, weather effect or even model.

Take Blade Runner or instance..



The shot above is one of the opening shots, showing the sprawling city Blade Runner takes place in, its beautiful and highly realistic.

Yet its a model..

Wow.

So obviously they have done their job well, because without the jaded view of the audience (knowing there is no city like that and therefore it cant be real)the shot does look highly realistic, and its fantastic. We wouldn't know looking at that picture with no prior knowledge that it wasn't a real place.

So this is good! but then again an effect like this..



is disturbing and disgusting. I don't even know what it is!

It is also fantastic, and a brilliant job.

However something strange happened in our lecture, people complained about this scene being showed, firstly and foremost I would like to say the people that complained should find a new fucking line of work, its pathetic and showing this scene was totally justified.

However, this proved people were disturbed by seeing these images, The Thing has an 18 age certificate, so obviously young frail minds shouldnt be seeing it, but what happens if they do, is it possible for people in my industry and indeed others to create something so realistic it is grotesque and shouldnt be seen?

Well then, this is an interesting debate.



Look at this thing then!?

I THINK THIS IS GROTESQUE.

look at it?! its horrible, yet it is sold around the world so little children can play 'mum and dads'

I'm not sure if its satisfying some human need to nurture something, however is it a bad message to be giving to our children? should they be playing with these dolls, wanting to become mothers at such a young age? it gets you thinking

side note: the line this baby doll comes from is called, 'so truly real'

mental.

Now in some ways this debate runs parallel with the whole 'how much violence in the media is right' debate.

I mean, having a really realistic video game where you kill someone in a realistic way, and give it to a kid? well that cant be a good thing can it. Thats them desensitised to killing, maybe they will even get a taste for it. Which is worrying.

So then we have this double sided weapon..

Realistic Violence

being wheeled out on supermarket shelves,




so this is defiantly worrying, I mean, to the incorruptible brains of the adults it may not be, BUT THINK OF THE KIDS.

and i'm kind of a hypocrite here because if someone told me I couldn't play COD because it might make me a killer, I would tell them to "fuck off and dont be stupid"
but I guess in a world of 6 billion there would be someone who could be influenced by these realistic shoot 'em ups!

and then do just that..

so once again we reach this barrier, realism is a good thing to certain extents, flight simulators for instance, I mean this feels a bit tacked on at the end, but I watched Apollo 13 the other night, and not only is the realistic nature of the film insightful its also exciting.





So realism is I say again good! back in the olden days if DaVinci had done unrealistic anatomical drawings to avoid being called a witch by the state, hundreds of people would have died, maybe thousands and modern medicine would be different.

but there is no forgetting events like Columbine, and it leaves me thinking, if 'Doom' something very unrealistic and semi violent could 'cause' some kids to shoot up a high school. Then what could an ultra realistic and ultra ultra violent video game like 'Grand Theft Auto 4' do?

Violence In Cinema!

As a modern audience WE LOVE VIOLENCE, we see it everywhere films, books, tv, comics, video games, even board games!

But how far is too far?

Well, the first really violent films appeared in the 1900s, films like 'The Great Train Robbery' helped bring killing to the big screen, but the way it was done then was lets say slightly romanticised compared to the gritty and visceral violence we seen on todays screen. In some cases its even laughable in comparison!

So steadily since then violence in films has been getting more dirty, more realistic and more brutal, right up to now where we see entire legions of men decapitated and massacred right in front of our eyes!

Take the film, bourne identity for example, pretty recent, I think it contains the most visceral, 'realistic' fight scene of any film ive ever seen..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhp7liywOrQ&feature=related

and you can see how much people love this kind of stuff, the name of that video is "Best Fight Scene Ever" < kind of worrying.

and that fight scene wasnt even that bad.

Whilst doing my research I came across countless videos of people reenacting fight scenes and compiling their favourite violent scenes, and even compiling their favourite real life fights?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUlQD4P2ZAI

It's mental, people really get off on this stuff. We all love a good scrap.

So its no surprise violent films and games etc have been blamed for the state of youth today. And its something that gets on my tits, because I love violent video games and movies and stuff, and I hate it when people blame them for some kids going AWAL with a baseball bat at their local off license.

...but honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they were to blame.

See from my own personal experience, I can tell you hundreds of guns and their uses, I know how to kill someone in a couple of moves and I'm so desensitised to violence nothing in cinema shocks me anymore. The real world is a different matter, but we'll get onto that later.

What im trying to say is if ive never fired a gun, but I know how to use one and indeed know the different models and types because ive seen them in video games or films then surely most males my age do, and its not gonna be long before someone with serious issues uses this knowledge for bad things. Its happened before.

The Columbine shootings in america have gone down as one of the worst massacres of all time, two nut jobs (to be quite frank) went on a killing spree and murdered 12 students, injuring another 21. In the diaries of the killers they confessed to loving the video games Doom and Wolfnstine 3D and the film Natural Born Killers.

Obviously then this kick started the raging argument about video games and movies teaching violence to youth, censorship became more of a force and video games such as "Manhunt 2"

So violence in the media has become a massive topic in modern times, censors now censor more than ever, but films still keep pushing the boundries, take "A Serbian"
film for instance which features violent depictions of rape, murder and necrophilia, that came out fairly recently and caused a bit of a media storm, it was heavily censored.

But then there is the argument of free speech, is it right to cut these scenes out of films to protect the public, or are we becoming to much of a nanny state. Indeed sites like "Wikileaks" which reveal monstrosity after monstrosity caused by American troops in Afghanistan show us REAL violence everyday in an effort to show us the truth. So is censoring films and games stilling someones efforts to make us aware of the very real violence out in the real world?

In my opinion, there will always be two sides to this story, free speech and the ability to express yourself is important, but exhibiting gratuitous violence that has no point other than to shock is not needed. I think the censors need to find a middle ground, maybe make it harder for under 18s to acquire 18 rated films, that sort of things.

Is violent media responsible for events such as columbine?

No.

I dont think so, not souly, I think there has to be something wrong with you in the first place to do that sorta thing, I love Doom, Halo and COD and whatever, and I dont feel the need to shot someone in real life. Because video games arent real. Real life is, and killing is naughty in real life. But it makes you think, if people that could do these things are getting hold of this violent media and playing it, with a warped version of whats reality and what isnt, well that cant be good...

R R R R R R R R R R R R REALISM, ho har!

At a glance you might think this rather large image of this rather "beautiful" lady is real. Well more fool you its not! its someone from that film everyone barks on about when talking about realism, Final Fantasy The Spirits Within, or something (dont quote me).

Anyway having only seen the film once, I did indeed gawp at how amazingly 'realistic' it was. As you can tell the characters are very lifelike down to a hair, however thats all very well and good when its only a photo.

But when it turns into a walking talking person it becomes slightly harder to imitate life, see for yourself..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnE64DbnUzY

The way the characters move isnt fluid enough and neither are the emotions on their faces. Its kinda weird and not very nice to watch, I mean I think personally if you are gonna try and make something look 'realistic' go the whole way and make every possible facet of it perfect. And to make something truly realistic there is alot to consider. However I think with FFSW they fell into more pseudorealism (yes ive been researching)

Technology, especially back then, would never be up to creating something photorealistic, so I think FFSW has a more pseudoreal look, which obviously they wernt going for.

And its because of this, not quite getting it right, final fantasy looks bloody strange.

(Pseudorealism btw, is presenting something unrealistic as real, obviously this is bad in vis effects because if you can tell its not real, they have failed)

With this in mind then how comes a show like "The Simpsons" is more effective than FFSW, and I think its because they went the opposite way, rather than trying to create something totally realistic they created something not realistic and presented it as real, which worked alot better than trying to almost trick the audience.

coupled with semiotics then, if we can take the basic signs and signifiers which allow the audience to decode and understand something, like a face for instance, and then bond it with something unrealistic, throw in other things such as a voice, realistic movements, no matter how unrealistic we get something which is believable, for instance..




And on the technical side, this image from Avatar, is almost photorealistic, so then aswell as the other ingredients, technology is important and rendering more detailed and 'realistic' effects is important also.

Realism then is a confusing topic, sometimes its better something is unrealistic like "The Simpsons" so it doesn't weird out the audience, but sometimes its better to be totally realistic with visual effects... hmmmmm

But its not only recently have we been striving for realistic perfection





Artists for centuries have been aspiring for realism, obviously when the camera came about they went in other directions, but before then it was impossible to capture an image perfectly, but they did go for the photorealistic approach, and this image above by Oswald Achenbach I think does it really well, I mean look at that sky, its fantastic, lighting is a massive issue, and I think Oswald has done himself proud.



So we've been striving for realism for a while now, maybe something to do with our never ceasing desire for perfection, whole art movements have been based around it.

But as we've seen its not hard to create a still image thats realistic, but we come back to the same old story of when something moves, or shows more than one emotion, it is hard to create a realistic imitation. But we still try, and like I say as technology improves so does our ability to create realistic stuff!

But where does realism go to far?

Well now this is a big debate.

TO BE CONTINUED....

SSS: Sponges, Signs and Stuff

This is Spongebob Squarepants.

He lives in Bikini Bottom.

But we understand him..

because of semiotics. :)

(We also understand that emoticon I just posted, because of semiotics too)

If you saw that yellow monstrosity walking down the road in real life you would be horrified, it would scare you, because we could not comprehend what we were seeing, however because it has.. because HE has a face, we can identify it and understand what it is. Really its just a few lines drawn on a yellow block, here's one I did myself earlier..



I call him "Down On His Luck Bob"

and I genuinely feel sorry for him, even though he is something I knocked up on paint 5 mins ago.

Anyway what I'm trying to say, amongst all this procrastination (my mate Wilfred keeps talking to me on Facebook as well!)

Is that because of semiotics we understand those to arbitrary images above. Certain signifiers on these images help us understand what they are. The face, with mouth eyes and nose we recognise, and further more the way they are used, the mouth on Spongebob connotes happiness, the mouth on Down On His Luck Bob connotes sadness.

Put it like this, the signifier helps us understand the concept behind the drawing.

On spongebob:

Signifiers: Happy eyes and mouth, sponge like skin and shape, shirt and tie, goofy teeth
Signified: Happy go lucky, friendly sponge, dresses well but isnt all there


On Down On His Luck Bob:

Signifiers: Sad sunken eyes, sad eyebrows, pointy nose, sad mouth, five o'clock shadow and grimy shirt

Signified: Sad, lonely sponge, down on his luck, very tired, possibly alcoholic

So these are good examples of semantics. And they come in handy in everyday life all the time, road signs, door signs are all great examples.





Semantics are my favourite part of semiotics, its the easiest to understand.

Pragmatics on the other hand is not, basically it talks about how context contributes to meaning.

I could say the sentence " Paul had a long run"

but without knowing the context it would have many meanings, and no real meaning.

Therefore pragmatics touches alot on communication, and I guess context is a type of noise, distorting the message between the transmitter and the receiver.

Basically understanding context is important in understanding stuff, its the hardest part when learning communication, some experts say!

Intertextuality and Bloody Walking Corpses.

After trawling through hours and hours of research to try and compile a good essay on intertextuality I realised I had too many words and had to cut large chunks out, chunks which actually I quite like about intertextuality. So without further ado im going to hijack the next 5 mins of your life and indeed, blog about intertextuality (again)..

ZOMBIES.

Zombies are indeed intertextual (I think) Indeed our modern perception of them is, see we all know what zombies are and how they are behave, we know what to expect when we hear the word zombie. A drolling shambling decomposing husk limping around, feeding endlessly on helpless survivors trying to fight off their inevitable doom.

and when we think of zombie films we think of several things.

1. Zombies (stereotypical)
2. Survivors
3. The end of the world
4. weapons (most likely bashing weapons and/or guns)
5. Screaming
6. Blood and gore
7. and some sort of safety point (house,mall,underground facility)

See these things are all intertextual, they are repeated over and over again.

Films and TV shows such as

-Dawn Of The Dead (Old and new)
-28 days later
-Resident Evil
-Land Of The Dead
-The Walking Dead
- Dead Set

etc etc etc ETC.

all have these intertextual tissues in them. Indeed they even span into other medias such as video games with media such as Dead Rising (where the lovely image above is from) House Of The Dead, and of course Resident Evil.

So anyway, in summary, zombies and the zombie genre are highly intertextual, much like how Dracula informed our mordern perception of zombies, most of the zombie media we see today was infact inspired by one man.

Enter Mr George A Romero..

Night Of The Living Dead indeed is quite responsible for shaping the zombies and zombie genre, we know and love today. It laid down the foundations for all that intertextuality we see over and over again in the huge bank of zombie media out there. Indeed George A Romero is guilty of using his own material over and over again, but we'll let him off.